Prop 4 Climate Bond Public Comment Period Responses

| Parks and Water Bond Act of 2018 (Proposition 68) | Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program |

California Department of Parks and Recreation- Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS)
Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) - Round 5
Prop 4 Climate Bond Public Comment Chart
Public Comment Period: May 26 - June 26, 2026

Public Hearing Comments listed by comment number and location found within the updated application guide. Responses to comments are provided in the far-right column. Personal identifying information was removed from comments.

#	Guide Location	Pg.	Aggregated Comment	Response
1.	General Comment		Would we get a list of the written comments with the responses?	All Public Hearing comments and responses will be available and posted on the SPP website following the public hearing comment period. www.parks.ca.gov/spp
2.	General Comment		Do you have examples of funded park projects through this program which have occurred in rural areas?	Refer to the Parks for All California website, a project gallery of funded Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program rural and urban projects is available at https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/projects/.
3.	I. Program Overview; Legacy	1	Does at least 10% of the funding need to be dedicated to renovations? Is that capping what we can apply for if we’re improving an existing park?	Proposition 4 (2024 Bond Act) requires at least ten percent (10%) of the total amount available per round to fund renovations of existing parks for increased use and access, including, but not limited to, individuals with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec.12101 et seq.). An estimated $18,850,000 of the available funds will be required to fund renovation projects. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Legacy.
4.	I. Program Overview; Legacy	1,17	The City appreciates the inclusion of a funding set aside for renovation projects. However, the Draft Application Guide would benefit from additional clarification regarding how renovation projects will compete relative to new park development projects. Specifically, the City requests additional information regarding the amount of funding reserved for renovation projects, whether renovation and new park applications will compete within separate funding categories, and how renovation projects will be evaluated during the selection process.	Response: No Change. Proposition 4 (2024 Bond Act) requires at least ten percent (10%) of the total amount available per round to fund renovations of existing parks for increased use and access, including, but not limited to, individuals with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec.12101 et seq.). As such a minimum of $18,850,000. will fund renovation projects. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Legacy. Project Selection Criteria #4 - Type of Project scoring rubric to clarify the competitiveness of renovation projects to new park projects. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 - Project Selection Criteria.
5.	I. Program Overview; Intent	1	Underserved is not in the definition in the SPP guidelines, so it would be helpful to know how SPP's mission relates to the guidelines and the inclusion of definitions like vulnerable populations.	Response: Change. The term underserved was updated to critically underserved communities throughout the application guide to match Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program legislation. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions for All Words and Terms in Small Caps.
6.	I. Program Overview; Intent	1	Will there be a separate grant program or guidelines released for the funding allocated under section 94020 of Chapter 8 of Prop 4?	Yes, refer to the Office of Grant and Local Services (OGALS) website. This future funding opportunity will become available in 2027. Prospective applicants are encouraged to sign up for the OGALS listserv and visit the California State Library Grant Portal. http://www.grants.ca.gov
7.	I. Program Overview; Intent	1	Please consider adding the following language to the guidelines: “For projects involving structured outdoor education, overnight accommodations, or destination-based recreation serving underserved populations, proximity may include demonstrated programmatic access through transportation services or formal partnerships with schools, nonprofits, tribes, or community organizations.”	Response: No Change. The intent of the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) is to fund the acquisition and development of parks and recreation areas and facilities in critically underserved communities. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Intent.
8.	I. Program Overview; Intent and II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria	1	The City appreciates the inclusion of funding opportunities for park rehabilitation and modernization. However, the Draft Application Guide indicates that projects focused primarily on support amenities and infrastructure improvements may be less competitive than projects that create new recreational features. For small rural communities such, modernization of existing facilities is often the highest priority and represents the most effective way to improve recreation access. The City recommends that the Department continue to prioritize investments that address accessibility improvements and aging infrastructure in disadvantaged and rural communities. For communities, public pools serve important public health and safety functions and should be recognized as critical community infrastructure. The City encourages the Department to ensure that rehabilitation projects remain competitive and to provide greater transparency regarding how renovation projects will be evaluated relative to new park development projects. Additional transparency regarding how renovation projects will compete relative to new park development projects would strengthen the application process. Specifically, the City requests clarification regarding how much funding will be reserved for renovation projects, whether renovation and new development projects will compete within the same funding pool, and how rehabilitation projects will be evaluated during project selection.	Response: No Change. Proposition 4 (2024 Bond Act) requires at least ten percent (10%) of the total amount available per round to fund renovations of existing parks for increased use and access, including, but not limited to, individuals with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec.12101 et seq.). As such a minimum of $18,850,000. will fund renovation projects. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Legacy. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #4 - Type of Project includes a scoring rubric to clarify renovation projects relative to new park projects.
9.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Applicants	1	We respectfully urge California State Parks to prioritize funding for the Malibu Creek State Park Equestrian Campground and take this important step toward providing equitable access and recreational opportunities for the equestrian community. Doing so would transform equestrians from one of the most underserved groups of State Park visitors into a welcomed and well-supported community, while fulfilling a long-standing promise and expanding recreational opportunities for thousands of horseback riders.	Response: No Change. California state agencies, including California State Parks and their park locations, are not eligible to be considered as applicants for Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant funds. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Eligible Applicants. Proposition 4 (2024 Bond Act) states in Public Resources Code (Section 94010) funds are “…for the creation, expansion, and renovation of safe neighborhood parks in park-poor neighborhoods in accordance with the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008’s competitive grant program described in Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 5640) of Division 5. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Eligible Applicants. Per PRC subsection 5643 includes the following eligible applicants eligible cities, counties, joint powers authorities, districts, and nonprofit organizations for the acquisition or development, or both, of property for parks and recreation areas and facilities.
10.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Applicants	1	It’s not clear if federally recognized tribes can apply as lead applicants. Please clarify.	Tribes may be considered as a member of Joint Powers Authority if one member of the Joint Powers Authority is either an eligible District, City, or County. Proposition 4 (2024 Bond Act) states in Public Resources Code (Section 94010) funds are “…for the creation, expansion, and renovation of safe neighborhood parks in park-poor neighborhoods in accordance with the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008’s competitive grant program described in Chapter 3.3 (commencing with Section 5640) of Division 5. PRC subsection 5643 includes the following eligible applicants: cities, counties, joint powers authorities, districts, and nonprofit organizations for the acquisition or development, or both, of property for parks and recreation areas and facilities. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Eligible Applicants.
11.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	I appreciate the change to renovation over expansion.	Thank you for your comment.
12.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	Are there examples of other projects?	Refer to the Parks for All California website. This website has a project gallery of funded Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program projects. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/projects/.
13.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	Can you clarify among the three Community Fact Finder selection criteria, you need just one of the three to be eligible?	Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects. The project site half-mile radius has either: A ration of less than three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents; OR A median household income that is less than 80% of the California median household income; OR Project within proximity to a climate vulnerability
14.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	I really appreciate the change to renovation projects receiving more points than a new park. There are a lot of disadvantaged communities who need to add features to their park or have parks that have very little in them and this will give those communities an opportunity to be able to renovate existing parks.	Clarification: New parks still earn more points than renovating a park. However, with Round 5 of the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program, renovating a park now earns more points than expanding a park. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #4 - Type of Project.
15.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	If the city has a parcel and is looking to create a green space recreation area, can funds go towards that?	Yes, a green space recreation area may be considered an eligible project for grant funds. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects and Section II. Application Package. Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria; Project Selection Criteria #4 - Type of Project.
16.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	If a project is an acquisition, you must create or renovate at least one recreational feature, correct?	Projects involving acquisition of land must be: Combined with development of a new recreation feature; OR Already have a recreation feature for public use at close of escrow. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Acquisition.
17.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	The draft guidelines evaluate community needs based primarily on conditions within a half-mile radius of the project site. For projects located adjacent to regional transit infrastructure, applicants should have the opportunity to demonstrate benefits to a broader population served by transit. Parks located within walking distance of rail stations, major bus hubs, and other regional transit connections can provide recreational, health, and climate-resilience benefits to underserved communities that extend well beyond the immediate half-mile radius. Consider adding scoring consideration for projects that are directly connected to regional public transportation networks serving disadvantaged communities, youth, older adults, and households without access to private vehicles.	Response: No Change. Applicants may describe project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #1, 2 or 3. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) -Project Benefits.
18.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	We are currently in process of starting a park. We're still working on getting the deed and we haven't decided if we're going to expand the park or create a new park adjacent to it. As of now, that is not reflecting in the FactFinder. I'm assuming it's because it hasn't been processed, but is this something for us to take into consideration when applying? This might affect the three acres per 1,000 people.	Response: No Change. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #4 - Type of Project to review the scoring rubric if a project will create a new park, renovate existing park, or expand a park. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 -Community Factfinder (CFF) Report and Certification Form. Applicants can review directions on reporting discrepancies to scorp@parks.ca.gov. Refer to the Community FactFinder (CFF) Handbook available on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website, www.parks.ca.gov/spp, under Technical Assistance Resources – Community FactFinder Resources. The CFF Handbook is designed to ensure an accurate CFF Report for a project site. Applicants should report any discrepancies in their CFF Report by sending an email toscorp@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the CFF Report attached.
19.	I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects	2	Grant Program staff has reviewed the draft guidelines and have the following two comments to submit for consideration: Income Eligibility Requirement: The draft guidelines require that a project area demonstrate a median household income below 80% of the statewide median household income. Based on the proposed scoring criteria, applicants from higher-cost regions, may be disadvantaged, as they may be ineligible to receive up to 13 points associated with this criteria. We recommend that the guidelines allow for additional measures of economic disadvantage to be considered when evaluating project eligibility and scoring. These measures could include but are not limited to: disadvantaged community indicators identified through CalEnviroScreen, levels of rent burden or severe rent burden, housing cost burdens among seniors and fixed-income residents, and local homelessness rates. Incorporating these factors would provide a more comprehensive assessment of community need and help ensure that funding is directed to areas facing significant economic challenges, regardless of regional income variations. Park Acre Requirement: The draft guidelines require project areas to demonstrate a ratio of fewer than three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. We understand that the program’s intent is to support the development of new parks and recreational opportunities in underserved communities throughout California. However, in some locations, particularly along waterways, lands may be identified as park acreage even though they have not been developed as parks, trails, or publicly accessible open space. While these areas may appear as parkland in mapping tools and datasets, they are often closed, fenced, or otherwise inaccessible to the public. We have observed that the Community Fact Finder report includes some of these inaccessible lands in its calculation of park acreage, which may contribute toward meeting the three-acre-per-1,000-residents threshold. As a result, the reported park acreage may overstate the actual park and recreational resources available to residents. We recommend providing applicants with an opportunity to clarify these circumstances within the application when they are relevant to a proposed project. Specifically, applicants should be able to identify and document instances where park acreage reflected in the Community Fact Finder does not function as publicly accessible parkland. This would help ensure that eligibility determinations accurately reflect the availability of recreational resources within the project area and better align with the program’s goal of serving communities with limited access to parks and open space.	Comment 1 Response: No Change. Applicants may describe community challenges not covered in Project Selection Criteria #1-9 in Project Selection Criteria #10. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) – Challenge(s). Applicants may describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #2 - Significant Poverty. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) – Project Benefits. Comment 2 Response: No Change. Applicants may describe community challenges not covered in Project Selection Criteria #1-9 in Project Selection Criteria #10. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) – Challenge(s). Applicants may describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #2 - Significant Poverty. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) -Project Benefits. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 -Community Factfinder (CFF) Report and Certification Form. Applicants can review directions on reporting discrepancies to scorp@parks.ca.gov. Applicants should report any discrepancies in their CFF Report by sending an email to scorp@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the CFF Report attached. Refer to the CFF Handbook available on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website www.parks.ca.gov/spp, under Technical Assistance Resources – Community FactFinder Resources. The Handbook is designed to ensure an accurate CFF Report for a project site.
20.	I. Program Overview; Recreation Features	3	Please include camping, campgrounds, overnight recreation, and other rural appropriate outdoor amenities. These facilities serve as functional parks in many rural areas and meet the same program goals of increasing access to nature, recreation, and health benefits for underserved communities.	Response: Change. The list of recreation feature examples was updated for clarity. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Recreation Features.
21.	I. Program Overview; Grant Amount per Application	4	If we request $8.5 million, is it possible that we would be granted less?	If awarded, Grantees would receive their requested amount. The Office of Grants and Local Services does not reduce requests or award partial grant requests. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Grant Amount Per Application.
22.	I. Program Overview; Grant Amount per Application	1	What is that a minimum or a ceiling amount/percentage?	The maximum grant request per application is $8,500,000 and the minimum grant request per application is $200,000. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Grant Amount per Application.
23.	I. Program Overview; Match	4	Can this grant be used as match funds on an existing project with grant funding; such as Land and Water Conservation Fund, Outdoor Recreation and Legacy Program, etc.?	The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Program grants allow the use of SPP funds as a match. Refer to existing project's funding guidelines for match eligibility. Match is not required for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program. Refer to Section I. Program Overview - Match
24.	I. Program Overview; Match	4	The City appreciates that the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program continues to prioritize investments in underserved communities and supports the continuation of the program's no-match requirement. The City encourages the Department to maintain this feature in the final guidelines. For communities balancing substantial infrastructure needs with competing budget priorities, the ability to leverage state funding, the absence of a local match requirement remains one of the program's most effective tools for advancing equitable park investments.	Thank you for your comment.
25.	I. Program Overview; Match	4	Do you get extra points if you get a match? For disadvantaged communities, is there a match requirement?	The Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program remains a no-match required competitive grant program. A match would not provide additional application points for consideration. Refer to Section I. Program Overview
26.	I. Program Overview; One Park= One Application	4	For this program, are we allowed to submit an application that lists more than one park? Do we have to select one park or can we renovate multiple parks at one time?	Each park requires its own separate application. Only one application requesting up to $8.5 million may be submitted per park. An applicant may submit multiple applications for different parks. There is no cap to the number of grants applicants may be awarded. Refer to Section I. Program Overview: One Park = One Application and Multiple Parks = Multiple Applications. One application per park provides an opportunity for an applicant to hear directly from the residents about their unique challenges and present-day needs during the community-based planning process. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 -Community-Based Planning.
27.	I. Program Overview; One Park= One Application	4	The City encourages the Department to evaluate opportunities to reduce administrative burdens associated with the one-park, one-application requirement. Allowing geographically connected park improvements or related projects to be bundled into a single application could improve efficiency and reduce administrative costs while still advancing program goals.	Response: No Change. One application per park provides an opportunity for an applicant to hear directly from the residents about their unique challenges and present-day needs during the community-based planning process. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 -Community-Based Planning. Each park requires its own separate application. Refer to Section I. Program Overview: One Park = One Application and Multiple Parks = Multiple Applications. Only one application requesting up to $8.5 million may be submitted per park. An applicant may submit multiple applications for different parks. There is no cap to the number of grants applicants may be awarded.
28.	I. Program Overview; Application Process	5	Are there any completed applications from previous rounds that we could view as a guideline of what a good example of an application looks like?	Refer to the Parks for All California website. Applicants can view awarded Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program projects at https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/projects Refer to Appendices; Application Workshops. Applicants can attend technical assistance workshops and contact their assigned Competitive Review Project Officer for assistance with organizing their application packet.
29.	I. Program Overview; Application Process	5	I encourage consideration for the unique challenges faced by small volunteer-run nonprofits and underserved rural communities. Many rural communities rely on multi-use community centers and volunteer organizations that do not have professional grant writers or large administrative staff. Simplifying the application process and ensuring rural communities can realistically compete for funding would be greatly appreciated. I also encourage consideration for projects that support senior wellness, community gathering spaces, accessibility, walking areas, and recreation opportunities in small mountain communities.	Response: No Change. In previous rounds, rural areas and low-income areas were competitive and received grants. Applicants may describe the community challenges. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) -Challenge(s). Applicants can describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #2 - Significant Poverty. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) -Project Benefits and the Program Overview - Recreation Features and Major Support Amenities.
30.	I. Program Overview; Application Process	5	Is there a schedule in the program guide that informs us when we can apply and how much time we have to apply? Timing is everything because California Environmental Quality Act takes a long time.	The application timeline and application submission dates will be announced following the public comment period. Interested parties can sign up for the Office of Grants and Local Services listserv on the SPP website to receive notifications on application period, workshops, deadline, etc. Refer to the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) website, www.parks.ca.gov/spp. CEQA is only required if awarded a grant.
31.	I. Program Overview; Application Process	5	The Office of Grants and Local Services require a 20% grant retention. Most of our public works’ projects require a 5% retention for the final payment after all inspections are complete and the project is signed off as completed. Is there a way to have a lower retention percentage as these smaller communities have lower cash flows.	Response: No Change. The Grant Administration Guide details the grant administration process and required retention amount prior to final inspection. If a grant is awarded and circumstances arise that create hardship, Grantees are strongly encouraged to work with their assigned Project Officer to discuss available options based on the unique circumstances. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process and Timeline.
32.	I. Program Overview; Application Process	5	The City requests clarification regarding the program's 30-year operations and maintenance requirement, including how future facility replacement, modernization, or redesign efforts would be treated during the compliance period.	Response: No Change. The Grant Administration Guide details the grant administration process and required 30-year operation and maintenance requirement. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Grant administration Process and Timeline.
33.	I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process	6	Based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), I know there was a new policy that was passed recently. We would file the CEQA with the county, but based on the new requirement, we need to file with the State Clearinghouse for CEQA as well?	If awarded, the Grantee, as the Lead Agency, is responsible for complying with all applicable CEQA requirements, including determining whether the project qualifies for the exemption under Public Resources Code § 21080.57 or requires additional environmental review. The Prop 4 Competitive Grant Administration Guide provides information on filing the applicable CEQA documentation with the County and State Clearinghouse. Refer to Section I, Program Overview – Grant Administration Process and Performance Period, and Section IV, Appendices – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
34.	I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process	6	Grant performance period ends June 30 of which year?	The grant performance period for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program is July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2031.
35.	I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process	6	If the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is exempt from parks with the new law, I believe you would only have to pay a minimal filing fee at the county level for the CEQA Exemption filing?	If awarded grant funding, the Grantee, as the Lead Agency, is responsible for complying with all applicable CEQA requirements. Effective July 1, 2025, Public Resources Code §21080.57 established a CEQA exemption for eligible public park and nonmotorized recreational trail projects funded under the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024 (Proposition 4). The Grantee is responsible for determining whether the project qualifies for the exemption or whether additional environmental review is required, as applicable. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process and Performance Period. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA related costs may be considered as an eligible pre-construction cost. Refer to Section III. Project Costs; Eligible Costs.
36.	I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process	6	Our town received a grant for a sports complex, and unforeseen circumstances occurred when new soil conditions were discovered. This delayed the project and shortened the amount of time we had to complete it. If we are awarded another grant and something like this happens again, requiring additional time to resolve and potentially extending beyond the grant period, what happens then?	Awarded applicants would work with their assigned Grant Administration Project Officer regarding the project completion timelines during the Grant Performance Period. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process and Performance Period.
37.	I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process	6	We no longer need California Environmental Quality Act Exemption prior to applying?	Correct. If awarded, the Grantee, as the Lead Agency, is responsible for complying with CEQA. Effective July 1, 2025, Public Resources Code §21080.57 established a CEQA exemption for eligible public park and non-motorized recreational trail projects funded under the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024 (Proposition 4). The Grantee is responsible for determining whether the project qualifies for the exemption or whether additional environmental review is required, as applicable. Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Grant Administration Process and Performance Period.
38.	II. Application Package	8	Can you point me to the application form on the website?	Application forms and technical assistance resources will be available during the application window on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website; www.parks.ca.gov/spp.
39.	II. Application Package	8	The public comment deadline is not the application deadline, correct?	The public comment deadline is not the application deadline. The application timeline and application deadline will be announced via the Office of Grants and Local Services listserv and Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website; www.parks.ca.gov/spp.
40.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	Our request is that the Community FactFinder be corrected so that plain, undeveloped open space and non-park federal or Los Angeles Department of Water and Power/Bureau of Land Management/United States Forest Service acreage are no longer counted as parkland at all. This single fix would resolve the main eligibility problem our communities face. If updating the FactFinder tool is not possible, then we ask for a clear explanation of why undeveloped land is treated as parkland, and for a fair, consistent, and workable process for correcting these acreage numbers when the surrounding land has no park amenities or developed recreation facilities of any kind.	Response: No Change. Applicants can report parks discrepancies by sending an email to SCORP@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the project site's Community FactFinder Report attached. Refer to the Community FactFinder Handbook on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Community FactFinder Resources: www.parks.ca.gov/spp. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #2 - Significant Poverty, 2(B) ranks the number of people in poverty and #2(A) gives priority to areas with lower median household incomes. Rural areas may rank higher in #2(A) than urban areas. If an authorized trail exists within the publicly owned land, the land will be counted. For example, if the purpose and function of a property is for the public to experience nature through a trail, the publicly protected viewshed enhances the recreational experience. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) -Challenge(s). Applicants can describe community challenges not included in Project Selection Criteria #1-9. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) -Project Benefits. Applicants can describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #1 - Critical Lack of Park Space, Project Selection Criteria #2 - Significant poverty, and Project Selection Criteria #3 - Climate Vulnerable Populations.
41.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	As of today, if you go on our map, there's going to be park spaces that are in proximity to the proposed project site. However, the City is set to lose 100 acres or about 57% of our park space in October to a federal infrastructure project and we want to ensure the FactFinder map, or any sort of park assessment, can reflect that so that our eligibility is properly verified and accurately represented. Is there somewhere that we can report that could be reflected in the maps so that our eligibility is properly verified, and our data is accurately represented?	Refer to the Community FactFinder Handbook on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Community FactFinder Resources: www.parks.ca.gov/spp. Applicants can report parks discrepancies by sending an email to SCORP@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the project site's Community FactFinder Report attached. The Office of Grants and Local Services will develop a statewide list representing the park space per 1,000 residents of all applications in ranking order, from lowest to highest. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #1 - Critical Lack of Park Space.
42.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	We're a very small rural town in Northern California, surrounded by a lot of state and federal land that is categorized as parks. Although some of the land is utilized for camping or lake use, state and federal land brings down our scoring in that area. Is there any consideration?	Response: No Change. If an authorized trail, campground, or lake for recreation exists within the publicly owned land, the land will be counted. The purpose and function of the property is for the public to experience nature. In previous rounds, low-income rural areas were competitive and received grants. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #2 - Significant Poverty, 2(B) ranks the number of people in poverty and #2(A) gives priority to areas with lower median household incomes. Rural areas may rank higher in #2(A) than urban areas. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) -Project Benefits. Applicants describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Criteria #1, 2, and 3. In previous rounds, rural areas were highly competitive and received grants. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) -Challenge(s). Applicants may describe the community challenges. In previous rounds, rural areas were highly competitive and received grants. Refer to the Community FactFinder Handbook on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Community FactFinder Resources;www.parks.ca.gov/spp. Applicants can report any discrepancies by emailing SCORP@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the Community FactFinder Report attached.
43.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	We appreciate the use of a combination of park acreage per 1,000 residents, Median Household Income (MHI), and Climate Vulnerability within ½ mile to assess community need. This multi-factor approach ensures that communities facing distinct but equally acute forms of disadvantaged are recognized throughout the program.	Thank you for your comment.
44.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	For Project Selection Criteria #1 (Critical Lack of Park space) and/or #3 (Climate Vulnerable Populations) Proposition 4, Chapter 8, Section 94020(b), specifically allocates funding for park-poor communities experiencing a significant loss of parks, open space, or recreation space resulting from climate-related infrastructure projects. While the draft guidelines incorporate general climate vulnerability considerations and this climate vulnerability" category, they do not appear to include any explicit scoring criteria, priority category, or implementation mechanism addressing the loss of parkland and recreational resources caused by climate resilience infrastructure projects. How does the Department intend to implement this voter-approved provision within the Statewide Park Program, and would the Department consider adding a dedicated scoring criterion or funding priority to ensure communities experiencing documented park loss receive the consideration intended by Proposition 4?	Response: No Change. Project Selection Criteria #3 Points rubric provides scoring based on the number of high-ranking Climate Vulnerabilities (extreme heat, wildfire, sea level rise, drought and flood) identified in the Community FactFinder Report within proximity of the project location. Refer to Project Selection Criteria #3 – Climate Vulnerable Populations. Project Selection Criteria #8 Points rubric provides scoring on the number of sustainable techniques that will address climate change that were discussed during the community-based planning meetings. Refer to Project Selection Criteria #8 – Environmental Design.
45.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	We respectfully recommend that California State Parks revise the methodology to count only lands that provide meaningful public recreational access and utility. Public ownership alone should not qualify land as functional park acreage.	Response: No Change. Public ownership alone does not qualify land as functional park acreage. Land that is counted as park acreage by the Community FactFinder contains all 3 combined elements. 1) The property includes a portion of outdoor open space. 2) The property is open for authorized public recreational use with formal recreation development such as a trail, etc., 3. The property is owned by a local, state, or federal public agency. Refer to the Community FactFinder Handbook on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Community FactFinder Resources: www.parks.ca.gov/spp. Applicants can report parks discrepancies by sending an email to SCORP@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the project site's Community FactFinder Report attached.
46.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	We raise a concern regarding the relative point weighting of Project Selection Criteria #1 – Critical Lack of Park Space (15 points) compared to Project Selection Criteria #5 – Community-Based Planning (18 points). Communities with the greatest park deficits are often under-resourced and may have limited capacity to conduct the level of engagement described in Criteria #5. Ultimately, a community lacking parks needs parks, regardless of its capacity to mobilize residents for meetings, and the current weighting may inadvertently disadvantage the most underserved communities this program is designed to reach.	Response: No Change. Community-based planning is a core component of SPP and is specifically identified in the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008. Public Resources Code 5641(b) declares that the program will encourage community participation in the development of new parks and recreation areas to promote community responsibility, pride, and neighborhood vitality. Accordingly, the scoring reflects both the need for new park space and meaningful community involvement in determining how that need should be addressed. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-Based Planning adds new climate vulnerability elements from the Proposition 4 Climate Bond that need to be discussed in community meetings. Refer to the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization website under Technical Assistance Resources – Document – www.parks.ca.gov/spp. Applicants can use the Designing Parks Using Community-Based Planning: Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program document for assistance with planning meetings. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #7 - Partnerships or Committed Funding. Partners may assist with community planning, contribute volunteer hours or supply material support.
47.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	The park space per population criteria should not be the sole factor in determining the critical lack of park space as it disfavors disadvantaged, rural communities that have green spaces with little to no amenities. Instead, State Parks should consider park amenities when determining the critical lack of park space.	Response: No Change. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) -Challenge(s) asks applicants to describe community challenges not included in Project Selection Criteria #1-9. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) - Project Benefits asks applicants to describe the project benefits not captured by Project Selection Criteria #1-9. In previous rounds, rural areas were competitive and received grants.
48.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #1- Critical Lack of Park Space	13	I advocate that in rural areas, students count because our population is so small right around the park. Very few people live in the ½-mile radius. Students and their families are the primary park users. People live in the more dispersed areas.	Response: No Change. In previous rounds, rural areas were competitive and received grants. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) - Challenge(s) asks applicants to describe community challenges not included in Project Selection Criteria #1-9. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) - Project Benefits asks applicants to describe the project benefits not captured by Project Selection Criteria #1-9.
49.	II. Application Package Project Selection Criteria #2- Significant Poverty	14	Revise the poverty population ranking criteria to measure proportion, not raw number, of people living in poverty and update guidelines for consistency.	Response: No Change. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) - Challenge(s) asks applicants to describe community challenges not included in Project Selection Criteria #1-9. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) - Project Benefits asks applicants to describe the project benefits not captured by Project Selection Criteria #1-9. In previous rounds, rural areas were competitive and received grants.
50.	II. Application Package Project Selection Criteria #2- Significant Poverty	14	At the bottom of page 13, both low income and high climate vulnerability appear to basically exclude our entire City from applying.	Refer to Section I. Program Overview; Eligible Projects. The project site half-mile radius has either: A ratio of less than three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents; OR A median household income that is less than 80% of the California median household income; OR Project within proximity to a climate vulnerability
51.	II. Application Package Project Selection Criteria #2- Significant Poverty	14	How does OGALS intend to ensure smaller rural jurisdictions remain competitive against larger urban communities when scoring categories such as poverty, population density, and park deficiency may inherently favor more populated areas?	Response: No Change. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #2 - Significant Poverty, 2(B) ranks the number of people in poverty and #2(A) gives priority to areas with lower median household incomes. Rural areas may rank higher in #2(A) than urban areas. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) - Challenge(s) asks applicants to describe community challenges not included in Project Selection Criteria #1-9. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) - Project Benefits asks applicants to describe the project benefits not captured by Project Selection Criteria #1-9. In previous rounds, rural areas were highly competitive and received grants.
52.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #3- Climate Vulnerable Populations	16	Many rural communities experience climate-related challenges differently than urban communities. Can OGALS clarify whether factors such as extreme heat, limited tree canopy and shaded recreation areas, wildfire smoke impacts, agricultural environmental conditions, and a lack of cooling public infrastructure will be considered when evaluating climate vulnerability and project benefits? If not, would OGALS consider expanding the guidance to better recognize climate resilience needs in rural California communities?	Response #1: No Change. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) - Challenge(s) asks applicants to describe community challenges not included in Project Selection Criteria #1-9. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(B) - Project Benefits asks applicants to describe the project benefits not captured by Project Selection Criteria #1-9. In previous rounds, rural areas were highly competitive and received grants. Response #2: Change. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Words and Terms Appearing in Small Caps. The definition for climate vulnerability has been updated.
53.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #3- Climate Vulnerable Populations	16	The City respectfully requests additional clarification and guidance regarding qualifying climate vulnerability categories, geographic proximity requirements, screening methodologies, and available mapping tools. Clarification regarding whether urban heat islands, flood-prone areas, wildfire-risk areas, disadvantaged communities, and other climate-related conditions qualify under this pathway would improve transparency. Greater transparency will help applicants determine eligibility and develop projects that effectively address climate-related challenges before investing substantial local resources in project development. The City recommends that the Department provide clear criteria, examples, and mapping tools that identify qualifying climate vulnerability indicators and explain how climate vulnerabilities and proximity to climate vulnerabilities will be assessed to help applicants better determine eligibility and competitiveness before committing substantial local resources in project development. Providing publicly available maps, screening tools, and objective criteria would improve transparency and allow communities to develop projects that directly address identified climate-related risks.	Response #1: Change. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Words and Terms Appearing in Small Caps. The definition of climate vulnerability has been updated. Climate Vulnerabilities identified in the Community FactFinder Report include extreme heat, wildfire, sea level rise, drought, and flood. Refer to the Community FactFinder Report - Vulnerability Community Platform (VCP) Climate Change Layers for a summary of the layers, links to the methods report and the VCP website, and the VCP data sources for each CV: https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/methods/#climate_layers. Response #2: Change. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. The Community Fact Finder Report language was removed from Project Selection Criteria #8 - Environmental Design to better align with Project Selection Criteria #5(C) - Community-Based Planning, Goal 3. Solution examples are now provided for climate vulnerabilities, with a goal to provide more opportunities for applicants to find sustainable techniques related to their community. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-Based Planning asks applicants how they discussed climate change and climate vulnerability strategies with residents. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #8(A) - Environmental Design asks applicants to describe how each sustainable technique will address climate change discussed during community-based planning meetings.
54.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #3- Climate Vulnerable Populations	16	The City supports the continued use of objective tools such as the Community FactFinder to identify communities with limited park access and significant socioeconomic need. However, the Draft Application Guide introduces a new Climate Vulnerability eligibility pathway without providing sufficient guidance regarding how climate vulnerabilities will be identified, measured, or evaluated. Given the importance of climate adaptation investments, the City reiterates its request for additional guidance regarding climate vulnerability eligibility and evaluation criteria. Clear and transparent standards will help ensure that communities can effectively utilize this new component of the program.	Response: Change The guide has been revised to provide additional guidance on identifying and addressing climate vulnerabilities. The definition of Climate Vulnerability in Section IV, Appendices – Words and Terms Appearing in Small Caps has been updated, and examples of climate vulnerabilities and potential solutions have been added to help applicants identify conditions relevant to their communities. Refer to Section II, Application Package – Project Selection Criteria #5, Community-Based Planning, which asks applicants to discuss climate vulnerabilities and potential solutions with residents. Project Selection Criteria #8, Environmental Design, then evaluates how the proposed sustainable techniques address the climate vulnerabilities identified through the community-based planning process. The Community FactFinder Report language was removed to align with Project Selection Criteria #5(C) – Community-Based Planning, Goal 3. Solution examples are now provided for climate vulnerabilities, with a goal to provide more opportunities for applicants to find sustainable techniques related to their community.
55.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #3- Climate Vulnerable Populations	16	Regarding the climate vulnerability criteria, the more you meet the more points you receive? I would like to get an understanding of how it all works.	Projects that have three or more high-ranking Climate Vulnerabilities will score the highest. Climate Vulnerabilities identified in the Community FactFinder Report include extreme heat, wildfire, sea level rise, drought, and flood. Refer to the Community FactFinder Report - Vulnerability Community Platform (VCP) Climate Change Layers for a summary of the layers, links to the methods report and the VCP website, and the VCP data sources for each CV: https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/methods/#climate_layers. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #3 - Climate Vulnerable Populations provides a scoring rubric.
56.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #3- Climate Vulnerable Populations	16	The U.S. drought monitor websites use different maps that currently show in the toolkits. Our county has extreme temperatures and drought circumstances, so will the toolkit be updated until it becomes available?	Response: No Change. No changes to the CFF are expected prior to the application deadline. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 -Community FactFinder and Certification Form.
57.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #3- Climate Vulnerable Populations	16	Under Climate Vulnerability could insect infestation, such as bark beetles, be added to this section?	Response: Change. The definition of climate vulnerability has been updated. Refer to Section IV. Appendices - Words and Terms Appearing in Small Caps. Climate Vulnerabilities identified in Project Selection Criteria #3- Climate Vulnerable Populations and the Community FactFinder Report include extreme heat, wildfire, sea level rise, drought, and flood. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) – Challenge(s) asks applicants to describe community challenges regarding climate change such as the bark beetle.
58.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #4- Type of Project	17	The City is concerned that the draft application guide may place greater emphasis on creating new recreational amenities than on addressing critical infrastructure deficiencies. For communities such as a city, investments in shade infrastructure, safety improvements, accessibility upgrades, rehabilitation, and modernization are often necessary before expanded recreation opportunities can be fully realized. The City encourages the Department to ensure that infrastructure-focused projects remain competitive and are recognized as essential investments that directly support recreation access, public health, and community resilience. The City requests additional transparency regarding how renovation projects will compete relative to new park development projects. Specifically, the Department should clarify how funding will be allocated between renovation and new park projects and whether separate evaluation criteria will apply. For many disadvantaged communities, rehabilitation of existing facilities may provide greater community benefit than development of entirely new facilities.	Response: No Change. Refer to Section I., Program Overview; Intent and Legacy. Public Resources Code, Division 50, Chapter 3.3, the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008 [5640 - 5654], subsection 5646 allows the Department to assign a higher priority to applications that will acquire or develop a new park. Refer to Section I, Program Overview; Legacy. Proposition 4 (Climate Bond) requires at least ten percent (10%) of the total amount available per round to fund renovations of existing parks for increased use and access, including, but not limited to, individuals with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec.12101 et seq.). An estimated $18,850,000 will be required to fund renovation projects. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #4 -Type of Project scoring rubric of available points by type of project.
59.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #4- Type of Project	18	Is there a higher priority for new parks over renovations or expansion?	Yes. Public Resources Code, Division 50, Chapter 3.3, the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008 [5640 - 5654], subsection 5646 allows the Department to assign a higher priority to applications that will acquire or develop a new park. Refer to Section I., Program Overview; Intent and Legacy. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #4 -Type of Project. The scoring rubric shows available points by type of project.
60.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	The Community-Based Planning Section stated that “Meetings conducted prior to November 5, 2024, may be included for historical context but will not count toward Round 5 requirements.” The City carried out extensive community-based planning and engagement prior to November 5, 2024; these events took place closer to 2021 and included community feedback/input that helped shape the current conceptual design of the park project. The City recognizes that recent planning efforts are necessary to explore changes in how the project aligns with latest community needs. However, the City is wondering if the program will consider awarding points for the efforts done prior to November 5, 2024? There is precedent for this request as, in 2022, applicants could receive points for planning efforts carried out within the previous four years.	Response: No Change. Points are only earned if community-based planning meetings are held after November 5, 2024. The 2024 Proposition 4 Climate Bond adds new climate vulnerability elements that need to be discussed during the community meetings to earn points. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-Based Planning. Additional meetings occurring during previous rounds of SPP may be listed for historical content, but they will not earn points. If a project concept is driven by a previous plan, applicants must demonstrate the needs of the community are still being met by following Project Selection Criteria #5(C) - Goals #1-3. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria, Project Selection Criteria #5(A) - Community-Based Planning Meetings, and Project Selection Criteria #5(C) - Community-Based Planning - Goals #1, 2, and 3. Refer to the Statewide Park Program Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide
61.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	Can you put criteria on what a public community meeting would entail within the application?	Response: No Change. Community-Based Planning Meeting discussions include, but are not limited to, park design, amenities, location, climate vulnerabilities and climate change. Responses in the application include descriptions of the meeting discussions, dates, times, etc. Refer to the Statewide Park Program Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide Refer to Section II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-based Planning.
62.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	Has consideration been given to agencies with shelf-ready projects, where all required community meetings took place prior to 2024? Under the current criteria, our agencies are expected to conduct new public meetings to solicit input, even if substantial community engagement has already occurred and the project is ready to proceed, in order to gain the maximum number of points for that criteria.	Response: No Change Points are only earned if community-based planning meetings are held after November 5, 2024. The 2024 Proposition 4 Climate Bond adds new climate vulnerability elements that need to be discussed during the community meetings to earn points. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-Based Planning. Additional meetings occurring during previous rounds of SPP may be listed for historical content, but they will not earn points. If a project concept is driven by a previous plan, applicants must demonstrate the needs of the community are still being met by following Project Selection Criteria #5(C) - Goals #1-3. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria, Project Selection Criteria #5(A) - Community-Based Planning Meetings, and Project Selection Criteria #5(C) - Community-Based Planning - Goals #1, 2, and 3. Refer to the Statewide Park Program Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide.
63.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	The guide mentions for in-person meetings, most people attending must be present, not online. If five meetings are conducted, three out of the five should have the majority of attendees in person not online, correct?	Response: No Change. The majority of participating residents in the Community Based Planning Meetings must attend in-person. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 (A, B, and C). Refer to the Statewide Park Program Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide
64.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	What is defined as a convenient distance without private transportation to attend a community-based planning meeting?	Response: No Change. The criteria states that meeting locations and times were convenient for residents with various schedules lacking private transportation. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-based Planning. Refer to Appendices – Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance; Project Selection Criteria #5(A) - Community-Based Planning where examples of what cost-effective and convenient meeting locations are provided. Refer to the Statewide Park Program Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide
65.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	Sometimes sports leagues provide input that is characterized as "community input." However, this tends to exclude park uses that are more serendipitous, such as pickup games, frisbee throwing, walking pets, or playing tag, etc. How will the process ensure well rounded community input and not single-issue input such as from single-sports league?	Response: No Change. The purpose of having meetings is to promote a group dynamic, with participants building upon the ideas of one another. Engaging and interactive group discussions can lead to a more in-depth understanding of what the residents need. Refer to the Statewide Park Program Websiteunder Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-Based Planning and Project Selection Criteria #5(B) scoring rubric for Community Representation.
66.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	While reviewing the draft guide for selection criteria #5 community-based planning, I was summing up the point values of the criteria sub-components and came up with a total of 12 points. The draft guide on page 11 states the max point value as 18. Is there something missing in the Criteria #5 point value breakdown?	Response: Change. Additional language was added for clarity. Eligible points for Criteria #5 (A, B and C) total 18 points available. Criteria #5(A) = up to 4 Criteria #5(B) Meeting Methods = up to 3 Criteria #5(B) Community Representation = up to 1 Criteria #5(C), Goal 1 = up to 4 Criteria #5(C), Goal 2 = up to 2 Criteria #5(C), Goal 3 = up to 4 Total = 18 Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-Based Planning.
67.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	Would OGALS consider flexibility for rural communities with smaller populations where participation opportunities may occur through existing community events, schools, fairs, or recreational programs rather than standalone meetings?	Response: No Change Holding meetings where residents are already present such as community festivals and other events that attract residents is allowable but may not provide the group dynamics needed to build upon ideas specific to the community in proximity to the project site’s needs. The purpose of having meetings is to promote group dynamics, with participants building upon the ideas of one another. Engaging and interactive group discussions can lead to a more in-depth understanding of what the residents need. Refer to the Statewide Park Program Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-Based Planning.
68.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	The City recommends that applicants be allowed greater flexibility in demonstrating community engagement. Existing community surveys, Parks and Recreation Master Plans, public meetings, stakeholder engagement efforts, and previous planning activities should be eligible to satisfy a portion of outreach requirements when they reflect current community priorities. This flexibility would maintain meaningful public participation while reducing barriers for smaller jurisdictions with limited resources seeking to compete for funding while reducing administrative burdens and duplication of effort.	The Proposition 4 (2024 Bond Act) adds new climate vulnerability elements that need to be discussed in community meetings. Applicants are expected to discuss plans with residents following Project Selection Criteria #5(C), Goals #1-3. Points are only earned if meetings are held after November 5, 2024, for up to a total credit for five community-based planning meetings. Additional meetings occurring during previous rounds of the SPP may be listed for historical content, but they will not earn points. Refer to the SPP Websiteunder Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-Based Planning and Project Selection Criteria #5(A) - Community-Based Planning Meetings. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #7 - Partnerships and Committed funding. Partners may assist with community planning, contribute volunteer hours or supply material support.
69.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5- Community-based Planning	19	Given that the County has already completed and paid for construction-level design documents, we are seeking clarification on the following: If new community meetings result in resident ideas that are consistent with or confirm the existing design — or that suggest refinements that do not require significant redesign — does incorporating those ideas through a design narrative, updated scope description, or minor addenda to existing documents satisfy the "feasible ideas" requirement under Criteria #5(C)? Or does OGALS require formal amendments to engineering and construction documents? If residents at new meetings identify ideas that materially conflict with the completed design, is the County expected to revise construction documents to incorporate those ideas in order to be competitive? Or may it document the ideas, explain which are feasible within the existing design scope, and note those that are not feasible due to cost or engineering constraints? Does OGALS have examples from prior rounds of applicants who presented previously designed projects to current residents and successfully satisfied Criteria #5(C) without full design revision? Any guidance or precedent examples would be very helpful.	Response #1: An applicant only needs to reflect any updates to the design per the new community-based planning meetings (Project Selection Criteria #5(C)). Historical documentation or formal amendments of previous plans are not required in the application package. Refer to Section II. Applicant Package; Checklist Item #10 – Concept Level Site Plan. Response #2: Applicants that include implementation of the residents’ preferences for features, location, etc. during the Community-Based Planning meetings will earn more points than applicants that only include an opportunity for residents to share/discuss their preferences. Refer to Application Package - Project Selection Criteria #5 – Community-Based Planning, Project Selection Criteria #5(A), 5(B), and 5(C) Goal 1-3. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #7 - Partnerships and Committed Funding - Partners may assist with community planning, contribute volunteer hours or supply material support. Response #3 Yes. Refer to Awarded Projects – Parks for All Californians website at https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/projects/
70.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #5 Community-based Planning	19	The City has a couple parcels that they're looking at transforming into more green spaces. Could I get help to generate a mockup of what that could look like? Just for ideas, is there somebody that does that or something that we use?	Response: No Change. Applicants can use community feedback to plan projects during the Community-based planning meetings. The purpose of the meetings is to promote group dynamics, with participants building upon the ideas of one another. Engaging and interactive group discussions can lead to a more in-depth understanding of what the residents need. Refer to the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide Technical Assistance is also provided in the Appendices for all Project Selection Criteria. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #5 - Community-based Planning. Refer to Checklist Item #10 – Concept Level Site Plan in the guide for more information on what is to be included in the plan and what it could look like. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #7 - Partnerships and Committed Funding. Partners may assist with community planning, contribute volunteer hours or supply material support.
71.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #6- Employment or Volunteer Opportunities	24	We have a school located within 1/2 mile radius of the park development site and I've noticed that there's kind of conflicting information about whether students in schools can count as residents in the community-based planning guide, it indicates that students within proximity of the park should be included even though residents is defined as people living within proximity of the park, so I am wondering whether this particular criteria #6, whether students who are given employment or volunteer opportunities can be counted?	Response: No Change Students may be considered as volunteers or to lead community-based planning meetings. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #6 - Employment. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions. Residents are defined as the population living within a half mile of the project site including youth, families, adults, tribes and older adults.
72.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #8- Environ-mental Design	27	California's Climate Bond presents a unique opportunity to create parks that are cooler, healthier, more biodiverse, and more resilient for future generations. I urge the Office to ensure that grant guidelines reflect these goals by: • Prioritizing natural and nature-based surfacing materials for playgrounds and athletic fields; • Prohibiting the use of artificial turf and petroleum-based rubber surfacing materials funded through Climate Bond grants; • Encouraging the use of drought-tolerant California native vegetation to reduce heat, enhance biodiversity, and improve community well-being; and • Ensuring that investments intended to address climate change do not inadvertently create new heat islands or sources of plastic pollution.	Response: No Change Applications that implement methods to address climate vulnerabilities and community needs will be the most competitive. Proposition 4 supports investments that address climate impacts and improve the resilience of California communities, and environmental considerations are incorporated into the project selection criteria. Neither Proposition 4 nor the Statewide Park Program in PRC 5645 prohibits the use of artificial turf or poured-in-place rubber. However, environmental considerations are addressed through Project Selection Criterion #8 – Environmental Design, which provides applicants an opportunity to describe how the proposed project will address climate vulnerabilities and meet their community’s unique needs through environmentally responsive project design and features. Applicants are responsible for proposing project designs that meet their community’s recreational needs and all applicable program requirements. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #8 - Environmental Design. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10-Challenges. Applicants can discuss community challenges not included in Project Selection Criteria #1-9.
73.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #8- Environ-mental Design	27	For areas where the primary climate vulnerability is sea level rise, requiring each of the four sections to be tied to climate vulnerability may shut some applicants out because some of the sections may not relate to sea level rise. This could put those applicants at a disadvantage and result in not receiving points. Climate vulnerabilities are important to incorporate into the program, but tying them to each section could negatively impact applicants whose climate vulnerabilities do not align with all four sections.	Response #1: Change. Examples for climate vulnerabilities solutions have been provided for applicants to find sustainable techniques related to their community. Refer to Section IV. Appendices - Words and Terms Appearing in Small Caps. The definition of climate vulnerability has been updated. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #8 - Environmental Design. The Community Fact Finder Report language was removed to align with Project Selection Criteria #5(C), Goal #3.
74.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #8- Environ-mental Design	27	Project Selection Criteria #8(A) asks applicants to describe how each of four sustainable techniques—Stormwater, Water Efficiency, Recycled Materials, and Landscaping—will address the climate vulnerabilities identified in their Community FactFinder Report. We observe a conceptual disconnect in this framing: a community's primary climate vulnerability may be extreme heat, and the most effective park responses to that vulnerability—shade structures, misters, splash pads—do not fit neatly within the four predetermined sustainable techniques. Requiring applicants to draw this connection for each technique may result in responses that feel contrived and do not accurately reflect project intent. We recommend that OGALS consider separating the scoring metrics for addressing community climate vulnerabilities from those for incorporating general sustainability features, allowing applicants to respond more authentically to each.	Response #1: Change. The Community FactFinder Report language was removed to align with Project Selection Criteria #5(C), Goal #3. Examples for climate vulnerabilities solutions have been provided for applicants to find sustainable techniques related to their community. In addition, the definition of climate vulnerability has been updated. Refer to Section IV. Appendices - Words and Terms Appearing in Small Caps. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #8 - Environmental Design.
75.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #8- Environ-mental Design	27	Project Selection Criteria #8 – Environmental Design asks applicants to describe how their project will incorporate sustainable techniques, but the Application Guide does not define “sustainability” as a term. Without a shared definition, what qualifies as “sustainable” may be interpreted differently by applicants and reviewers, leading to inconsistent scoring outcomes. We recommend that OGALS provide a working definition of sustainability within the guide to ensure applicants and reviewers share a common baseline.	Response: Change. While a specific definition of “sustainability” was not added, Project Selection Criterion #8 – Environmental Design was updated to provide examples of solutions that address climate vulnerabilities. These examples are intended to help applicants identify sustainable techniques that are appropriate for their project and their community’s unique climate vulnerabilities and needs. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #8
76.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #8- Environ-mental Design	28	Project Selection Criteria #8 offers two pathways: applicants may respond to both 8(A) and 8(B)earning up to four and three points respectively—or respond to 8(C) alone, which awards up to seven points for projects that will achieve SITES certified landscaping or LEED certified building construction, combined with stormwater capture or cleansing. While we appreciate the flexibility of this structure, we are concerned that most SPP applicants are in early stages of project design at the time of application, and SITES or LEED certification can only be confirmed much further along in the project lifecycle. Committing to certification at the application stage may set applicants up for compliance issues during grant administration, and we encourage OGALS to consider whether a lower point value for 8(C) would better reflect its practical feasibility.	Response: Change. Project Selection Criteria #8 - Environmental Design was updated to include additional questions and resources for applicants considering LEED or SITES certification pathway. The additional information addresses the certification goal and strategy, implementation plan, project team and project commitment to help applicants evaluate the feasibility of pursuing certification during the early stages of project development. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria.
77.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #10- Challenges, Project Benefits and Readiness	32	The project selection criteria narrative template currently indicates no page limit. We recommend establishing a page or character limit per question to help applicants calibrate their responses and avoid overwhelming reviewers. We also ask that OGALS clarify whether responses will be entered directly into Submittable or submitted as attachments, so applicants are not surprised by additional instructions upon accessing the portal.	Response: No Change. OGALS does not establish page or character limits for the Project Selection Criteria responses because applicants should have sufficient flexibility to describe their project and community based on their unique circumstances. Applicants will not encounter additional Project Selection Criteria questions or instructions in Submittable beyond those provided in the Application Guide and Technical Assistance Resources. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10 - Challenges. Applicants are provided limited guidance because they should have the opportunity to tell their community story. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #8 - Applicant Capacity. Applicants are provided guidance for structuring their responses. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5C -Budget Narrative. Applicants are provided limited guidance because each project is unique. Some projects will require more information than others, depending on scope of work. Refer to Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website - Technical Assistance Resources. The Project Selection Criteria Response Template is available to assist applicants with entering answers into the online application portal.
78.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #10- Challenges, Project Benefits and Readiness	32	This used to be the grant which could be used for any new park in a location that did not have any prior park or to finish a park that was started long ago. We are concerned that there is no funding mechanism to build a park in a part of town that is not low income. Due to new building related to Senate Bill (SB) 23, areas that were once part of low-income census tracts no longer qualify. Is there a percent of funding set aside for those tracts that no longer qualify?	Response: Change. The intent of the Statewide Park Program is to create new parks and new recreation opportunities in critically underserved communities throughout California. In Rounds 1–4, critically underserved communities were identified based on median household income within a ½-mile radius and park acres per 1,000 residents. Round 5 continues to consider these factors and adds climate vulnerability as an additional consideration. There is no separate percentage of funding set aside for communities or census tracts that previously met the program’s eligibility criteria but no longer qualify based on current data. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #10 - Challenges. In Criteria #10A, applicants may describe the community challenges. In Criteria #10B, applicants describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #1, #2, and #3.
79.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #10- Challenges, Project Benefits and Readiness	32	What about areas with high daytime population but low overall population?	In Criteria #10(B), applicants describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #1, 2, and 3. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #10 - Challenges. In Criteria #10(A), applicants may describe the community challenges.
80.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #10- Challenges, Project Benefits and Readiness	32	Recommend that the Department provide additional guidance regarding Project Selection Criteria #10 related to project readiness. A readiness scoring rubric would improve transparency regarding how factors such as environmental review, design completion, permitting status, site control, and implementation schedules affect project competitiveness.	Response: No Change. Project Selection Criteria #10(C) does not have a scoring rubric as OGALS will consider information provided throughout the entire application to assess project readiness, including whether project completion within the contract performance period appears achievable. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #10 – Challenge(s), Project Benefits and Readiness. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) and 10(B) provides an opportunity for the Applicant to detail their community's unique challenges and the Applicant's ability to support the project benefit for the community during the contract performance period. Project Selection Criteria #10(A) and (B) have scoring rubrics. For Criteria #10(C), OGALS will evaluate project readiness based on the application as a whole, rather than through a separate scoring rubric.
81.	II. Application Package; Project Selection Criteria #10- Challenges, Project Benefits and Readiness	32	The current methodology appears to rely primarily on resident population data when evaluating park needs. Population-based metrics do not adequately capture the recreation demand experienced by gateway communities that serve major regional and national destinations.The current scoring methodology does not appear to recognize regional benefits. The Department is encouraged to continue evaluating access using measures that account for safety, connectivity, and practical accessibility rather than relying solely on proximity and acreage calculations. Several populations continue to experience unmet recreational needs, including youth, seniors, individuals with disabilities, immigrant families, and Spanish-speaking residents.	Response: No Change. In Criteria #10(A), applicants may describe the community challenges. In Criteria #10(B), applicants describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #1, 2, and 3. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10 – Challenge(s), Project Benefits and Readiness.
82.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3- Community FactFinder Report	34	The map does not have complete information for all of California, it would be helpful if applicants could submit additional demographic information to support their proposal and show the communities they serve. For example, in our small town, the legend indicates "no data" for the underserved community metric on the map.	Applicants should report any discrepancies with the CFF Report by sending an email to SCORP@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the CFF Report attached. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 -Community FactFinder (CFF) Report and Certification Form. Refer to the CFF Handbook on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Community Factfinder Resources.
83.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3- Community FactFinder Report	34	For Project Selection Criteria #1, applicants are asked to use the Community FactFinder report to provide information regarding the critical lack of park space within a half-mile radius of the project site. How does one account for school-adjacent park or open space areas that may appear in Community FactFinder as available park space, but are no longer publicly accessible due to school fencing, access restrictions, or recent school safety measures? In many communities, school properties or school-adjacent open spaces were historically used informally by the public for recreation. However, with increased school safety requirements and fencing of school campuses, these areas may no longer function as accessible public park space. If Community FactFinder continues to count enclosed or restricted school property as park/open space, it may inaccurately reduce the calculated park need for the surrounding community. Can the Department clarify whether applicants may explain or document these access limitations as part of the “critical lack of park space” response, and whether restricted-access school properties can be excluded or adjusted when evaluating the true amount of publicly accessible park space within proximity of the project site?	Response #1: Change. The definition of “park” has been revised to: “School property is considered a park when there a joint-use agreement and park signage indicating the general public is welcome to use a designated outdoor area, such as a schoolyard, for recreation during appropriate hours such as after-school, weekends, and summer.” The revised definition clarifies when school property is considered a park and should be counted by the Community FactFinder for the purposes of Project Selection Criteria #1 - Critical Lack of Park Space. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definition for All Words and Terms Appearing in Small Caps. Response #2: No Change. Applicants should report any discrepancies with the CFF Report by sending an email to SCORP@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the CFF Report attached. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 -Community FactFinder (CFF) Report and Certification Form. Refer to the Community FactFinder Handbook on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Community FactFinder Resources. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria #10 – Challenge(s), Project Benefits and Readiness. In Criteria #10(A), applicants may describe the community challenges. In Criteria #10(B), applicants describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #1, 2, and 3.
84.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3- Community FactFinder Report	34	Is the Community FactFinder going to be updated constantly?	No. The Community FactFinder (CFF) data used for median household income and climate vulnerability will remain consistent and will not be updated during the Round 5 application process. If an applicant identifies a discrepancy with park data shown in the CFF, the applicant should report it to SCORP@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the CFF Report attached for review. Updates may be made to park data when a discrepancy is identified and verified. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 - Community FactFinder (CFF) Report and Certification Form.
85.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3- Community FactFinder Report	34	There is a tool for us to discuss the climate vulnerabilities - how would we figure out what those vulnerabilities are? Where can I find the Community FactFinder report?	Applicants can check if their project is eligible with the CFF available under Community FactFinder Resources at http://www.parks.ca.gov/sppRefer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 Community FactFinder (CFF) Report and Certification Form.
86.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3- Community FactFinder Report	34	We own a property where we would like to build a park, however it is just at the edge of the City and the FactFinder tool is not representative of the city’s overall median household income, acres of parks per population, and disadvantaged communities within the city. Can this be included in the narrative and taken into consideration or will we automatically score lower points due to location?	Median household income, park acres per 1,000 residents, and climate vulnerability are evaluated based on the geographic area established for the proposed park site, rather than conditions throughout the city as a whole. Median household income is based on the MHI within a ½-mile radius of the proposed park. Project Selection Criteria #1–3 consider these characteristics, and applications will be evaluated in comparison with other applications submitted statewide. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 - Community FactFinder (CFF) Report and Certification Form. Applicants should report any discrepancies with the CFF Report by sending an email to SCORP@parks.ca.gov with a summary of the issue and the CFF Report attached. Applicants also have an opportunity to provide additional context that may not be reflected in the CFF data. Refer to Section II, Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria; Criteria #10 – Challenge(s), Project Benefits, and Readiness. Under Criteria #10(A), applicants may describe the community’s unique challenges. Under Criteria #10(B), applicants may describe project benefits that are not captured by the data in Criteria #1, #2, and #3.
87.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3- Community FactFinder Report	34	My client’s property was formerly a public golf course but has been out of operation and vacant for a number of years. The CFF appears to use the acreage of the former golf course as part of the park density calculation which I believe is incorrect for determining park density. The former golf course covers 15.3 acres but is non-operational and publicly inaccessible. I believe this should be corrected in the CFF database as it would result in a park density of less than 3.00 acres per 1000 people. Secondly, placing the pin on the site produces a result of MHI exceeding 80% of the Statewide MHI. However, the site is inaccessible from areas to the west of the Chino Valley Freeway and couldn’t reasonably serve the community there. Is it possible for a case to be made in the draft guide for placing the pin at a location that still fully contains the project site within the half-mile radius so that it represents the communities it can reasonably serve?	Response: No Change. Applicants may report any discrepancies identified in the CFF Report to SCORP@parks.ca.gov for review and may also use Project Selection Criteria #10 to describe community challenges and project benefits that are not fully captured by the CFF data. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 - Community FactFinder (CFF) Report and Certification Form. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Items #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Response #2: No Change. Yes. Applicants may place the pin anywhere within the project site. In Criteria #10(A), applicants may describe the community challenges. In Criteria #10(B), applicants describe the project benefits not captured by the data obtained in Project Selection Criteria #1, 2, and 3. Refer to Project Selection Criteria #10 – Challenge(s), Project Benefits and Readiness.
88.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #4- Authorizing Resolution Form	37	If we're submitting multiple projects, does the policy for the Authorizing Resolution allow more than one project to be included in the same resolution or is one resolution required per project? Could we submit one resolution with a list of the projects attached?	Response: Change. Yes. Clarity has been provided that applicants may list multiple application submissions on the same Authorizing Resolution. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #4 - Authorizing Resolution Form.
89.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #4- Authorizing Resolution Form	37	Would it be possible to have the Authorizing Resolution Form become part of the award not part of the application. A draft version can be part of the application. This is an expensive lengthy process for an unawarded grant.	Response: No Change. The Authorizing Resolution Form is required as part of the application because it demonstrates the Applicant’s Governing Body’s awareness of and commitment to the proposed project, confirms the Applicant has the funding necessary to complete the project if awarded, and designates the Authorized Representative who may act on behalf of the Governing Body throughout the application and project. The Authorizing Resolution serves three purposes: Demonstrates that the applicant’s Governing Body is aware of and understands all the terms of the contract. Provides confirmation that the applicant has the funding to complete the proposed project if the grant is awarded. Designates a position title, rather than an individual’s name, to represent the Governing Body on all matters regarding the application and project. This designated position is referred to as the Authorized Representative. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #4 – the Authorizing Resolution Form. Costs related to submission of an Authorization Resolution Form may be considered an eligible pre-construction cost. Refer to Section III. Project Costs.
90.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5B- Indirect Cost Rate Instructions	43	Does the indirect cost rate apply to all project costs, or only certain costs?	Response: No Change. Indirect costs are optional and are defined in the Appendices. Applicants may contact a Competitive Project Officer for additional technical assistance. Applicants may also contact their agency's finance office for additional support. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5.B - Indirect Cost Rate Instructions.
91.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5B- Indirect Cost Rate Instructions	43	Is there some kind of clarification that could be put within this document or website to learn more about indirect costs for the more rural communities not working on larger projects that tend to be more involved.	Response: No Change. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5.B - Indirect Cost Rate Instructions. Indirect costs are optional and are defined in the Appendices. Applicants may contact a Competitive Project Officer for additional technical assistance. Applicants may also contact their agency's finance office for additional support.
92.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5B- Indirect Cost Rate Instructions	43	If we are using an indirect rate and receive a new rate that supersedes the previous one, are we able to change to the new rate, or are we required to continue using the original rate?	Indirect costs are optional and are defined in the Appendices. Applicants may contact a Competitive Project Officer for additional technical assistance. Applicants may contact their agency's finance office for additional support. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5.B - Indirect Cost Rate Instructions.
93.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5B- Indirect Cost Rate Instructions	43	When the 15% de minimis indirect cost rate is selected, will the form apply the rate automatically to all budget line items? Indirect costs are only applicable to certain direct cost categories; therefore, some budget lines should not automatically receive the 15% calculation.	The Grant Scope/Cost Estimate Form includes instructions for applying the selected indirect cost rate to applicable cost categories. Applicants have the ability to select “N/A” for cost categories where the indirect cost rate does not apply; therefore, the 15% de minimis rate will not automatically be applied to all budget line items. Applicants may contact a Competitive Project Officer for additional technical assistance. Applicants may also contact their agency's finance office for additional support. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5.B - Indirect Cost Rate Instructions.
94.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5B- Indirect Cost Rate Instructions	43	With the new Indirect Cost Rate Form, can staff time for work directly related to project the project like design oversight be included as a project cost?	Project design and oversight are eligible. Costs of the salaries and wages must be calculated according to the Grantee’s wage and salary scales, and may include fringe benefit costs such as vacation, health insurance, pension contributions and workers’ compensation. Fringe benefit costs must be prorated based on actual time spent on the project. Do not include indirect costs, overhead, or cost allocation in the calculation. If a Grantee has established an Indirect Cost Rate for this project, the rate will be applied at time of reimbursement. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist List Item #5.B - Indirect Cost Rate Instructions. Refer to Section III. Project Costs
95.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #6- Funding Sources	47	Under B, other funding sources, if I've already secured funding, but it's not enough funding, is it okay to then apply for funding? I've already received money from the state to start this project and now it's not enough.	Applicants may apply for SPP funding for a project that has other funding sources, including previously secured grant funds, as long as the same project costs are not funded by more than one source. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #6 – Funding Sources Form. Committed funds may include existing grant funds, cash in hand, or a binding agreement that commits additional funds to the project. Future fundraising plans are not considered committed funds. All committed funds must be secured by the application deadline.
96.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #6- Funding Sources	47	The Authorizing Resolution states that the applicant has the funding to complete the proposed project if the grant is awarded. How is that funding identified, and what funding sources can be used?	Awarded applicants would document State of California/ Proposition 4 (2024 Bond Act) as the funding source for SPP, along with any other funding sources that will contribute to the completion of the project scope. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #6 - Funding Sources Form.
97.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #6- Funding Sources	47	Page 46 seems not relevant if there is no match for this grant.	Response: No Change. The Funding Sources Form is a universal form utilized by Office of Grants and Local Services for all programs including those which may include a match. For SPP, there is no match requirement, and applicants may confirm that no other funding sources are contributing to the project by listing SPP as the only funding source. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #6 - Funding Sources Form.
98.	II. Application Package; Project Timeline Form	48	Beginning around page 48, page numbering appears to be off by one page compared to her downloaded version. Suggested reviewing the document formatting and pagination.	Response: Change. The Application guide was updated to correct page numbers.
99.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #8- Applicant Capacity	53	Smaller jurisdictions may not have extensive recent experience delivering large-scale park capital projects despite being capable of successfully delivering smaller, well-scoped projects. The City recommends clarifying that applicant capacity may also be demonstrated through: consultant or contract support, regional/shared staffing models, phased implementation approaches, and appropriately scaled project scopes.	Response: No Change. Guidance will be added to the SPP Frequently Asked Questions for Round 5. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item # 8 - Applicant Capacity. Applicants may describe how they successfully completed prior construction projects, including projects where consultants, contractors, or other partners assisted with project delivery. Applicants may also describe how they plan to use consultants, contractors, partnerships, or other resources to provide the capacity necessary to successfully complete the proposed project.
100.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #8 - Applicant Capacity	53	Revise the Applicant Capacity requirement to allow rural and small applicants to demonstrate capacity through a professional project management contract.	Response: No Change. Guidance will be added to the SPP Frequently Asked Questions for Round 5. Other construction projects completed by the applicant including but not limited to public works development projects or school construction may be considered as related experience for applicant capacity. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item # 8 - Applicant Capacity.
101.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #9- Project Site Status: Owned, Acquisition, Lease and Turn-Key Agreements	54	I represent an unincorporated community in Northern California, and the county has acquired a piece of land in our community. Can the county take ownership of the property and apply for funding to develop a turnkey park?	Yes. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #9; Project Site Status. Counties are considered an eligible applicant and may construct a project and upon project completion, and with approval by the State, transfer the project and contract obligations to the landowner. The landowner must be an eligible applicant.
102.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #9- Project Site Status: Owned, Acquisition, Lease and Turn-Key Agreements	54	The County requests clarification that a holdover lease, a formal letter of support or intent from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, or other written documentation confirming continued land use will be accepted as valid proof of site control. Confirm LADWP qualifies as a public utility landowner under Site Control Status #3. Please clarify whether long-standing “holdover” leases or written LADWP agreements would be acceptable for SPP purposes. Provide a clear explanation of what legal instrument could replace a 30-year deed restriction on leased land. Examples could include a long-term letter of commitment from LADWP or an operating agreement.	Response: No Change Public utilities may be considered as a public utility landowner under Site Control Status #3. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #9 - Project Site Status. Holdover leases are not allowed as they can be ended at any point. Grantees must have site control for the development of the project as well as the operation and maintenance of the project site during the 30-year contract period. Clear direction can be found in the Lease Agreements and Turn-Key Agreements Handbook. The Lease Agreement Form Checklist provides the required items for the agreement between the applicant and landowner.
103.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #9- Project Site Status: Owned, Acquisition, Lease and Turn-Key Agreements	54	Please confirm whether federal Special Use Permits or Recreation and Public Purpose Act leases will qualify under Site Control Status #3. These federal instruments are the only realistic, long-term site-control mechanisms available to rural counties like ours with vast acreage of federal lands. If DPR believes these cannot be accepted as-is, we respectfully ask for guidance on any alternative path that would allow a rural community surrounded by federal land to participate in SPP.	Response: No Change. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Project Site Status. The Lease Agreement Form Checklist provides the required items for the agreement between the applicant and landowner. The applicant can contact their Competitive Project Officer to discuss any potential projects and lease agreements.
104.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #9- Project Site Status: Owned, Acquisition, Lease and Turn-Key Agreements	54	We have a piece of City-owned property that currently that is not considered a park. Since the City already owns the property, would we need to complete the deed restriction requirements? We also have an existing City-owned park that we would like to improve. Would the same requirements apply to that property as well?	If the project is awarded, and the Grantee may acquire or already own the project land in fee simple, a deed restriction must be recorded on the title of the property before the Office of Grants and Local Services will approve any grant payments except an advance into escrow and pre-acquisition costs. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #9 - Project Site Status
105.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #13 - Nonprofit Application Requirement	61	If a city is applying, would the nonprofit requirements be relevant? We coordinate with nonprofits for outreach, but the applicant would be the city.	No. Only nonprofit applicants need to complete this section. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #13 -Nonprofit Application Requirements.
106.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #13 - Nonprofit Application Requirement	61	If my nonprofit is based in Nevada but my plans are to procure historical property for an art institute, will I qualify?	Nonprofits must have an approved tax-exempt status from both state and federal governments to do business in California. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #13 - Nonprofit Application Requirements and the 2026 Nonprofit Guidance Information Booklet available on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Documents; www.parks.ca.gov/spp.
107.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #13- Nonprofit Application Requirement	61	It would be helpful to provide more details for nonprofits and rural communities that may not have sufficient funds to cover project costs while awaiting grant reimbursement, including information on potential financing or alternative funding options.	Response: No Change. Refer to the Grant Administration Guide found on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Grant Administration regarding payment requests for awarded projects. www.parks.ca.gov/spp.
108.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14- Conservation Corps Consultation Process	63	The Corps do not provide a budget later in the project, until we are ready to bring them aboard, which can make it difficult to include Corps costs in the application budget. Can applicants include an estimated cost for anticipated Conservation Corps work based on the proposed scope or prior experience if a final Corps budget is not yet available?	If the project is deemed feasible by either of the certified Conservation Corps, the applicant will receive a budget and a detailed project work plan. The applicant may be requested to provide additional project and budget details. All written communications with the Conservation Corps should be included with the application as supporting documentation. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation.
109.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14- Conservation Corps Consultation Process	63	Can we put a budget together for the Corps as we have had a similar issue, but we had a line item for the Corps in it?	Conservation Corps costs should be included within the applicable recreation feature, major support amenity, or other project cost that the Corps will assist with, rather than identified as a separate line item for Conservation Corps. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation. If the project is deemed feasible by either of the certified Conservation Corps, the applicant will receive a budget and a detailed project work plan. The applicant may be requested to provide additional project and budget details.
110.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation Process	63	Can you list the CCC selection criteria?	Response: No change. There are two certified Conservation Corps the applicant can use to earn points; California Conservation Corps (CCC) and California Association of Local Conservation Corps (CALCC). Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14; Conservation Corps Consultation.
111.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation Process	63	Make sure that your technical assistance date is more than 30 days before the Corps deadline as that is a good reminder to send your letter.	Response: No Change. Thank you for the helpful reminder. OGALS agrees, and the guidelines include this recommendation in the instructions for the Conservation Corps consultation process. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 – Conservation Corps. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection #1-10 Guidance – Project Selection Criteria #6 (Employment or Volunteer Opportunities on page 24 – Conservation Corps Consultation Process.
112.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation Process	63	The way this section is worded; it appears that applicants need to consult with both Conservation Corps. Should it be worded as “or” rather than “and”?	Response: No Change. Applicants will submit one Corps Consultation Review Document request form and will be contacted by both Conservation Corps on whether the project is feasible or not feasible. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14; Conservation Corp Consultation.
113.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation Process	63	Will the Corps provide a budget for what they determine is feasible, with the costs spelled out based on our project scope?	Yes. If the project is deemed feasible by either of the certified Conservation Corps, the applicant will receive a budget and a detailed project work plan. The applicant may be requested to provide additional project and budget details. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation.
114.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation Process	63	Once an email request is submitted to the Conservation Corps, will we receive an email confirmation that it was received and that they will be responding within a certain number of days?	Yes. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14; Conservation Corps Consultation. The CCC's will respond within 14 business days.
115.	II. Application Package; Checklist Item #14 - Conservation Corps Consultation Process	63	The draft guidelines note that a consultation may be requested following the Technical Assistance links on the program website – I don’t see a link to a CCC there – rather links to the program officers by county. Will the CCC links become live when the official program opens?	Yes. Once the program officially launches, the links on the program webpage will be active. Conservation Corps links can be found on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Conservation Corps. www.parks.ca.gov/spp
116.	III. Project Costs	65	If we have to pay for an appraisal ahead of time, will that be reimbursed if we get the grant?	Yes. Appraisals are an eligible cost and can be reimbursed if the grant is awarded (Grant Performance Period is 07/01/2025 – 06/30/2031). Refer to Section III. Project Costs; Eligible Costs – Acquisition Costs.
117.	III. Project Costs	65	We're coordinating the development of a 50-acre park and are looking at acquiring two properties. To determine fair market value, we would need to pay for the appraisal upfront. If the appraisal is our only cost incurred before the grant is awarded, would that cost be eligible for reimbursement if we receive funding? Once funded, could escrow and title insurance costs also be included? What written documentation or information would we need to obtain from the property seller?	For applicants proposing an acquisition to become the landowner, refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #9 – Project Site Status: Owned, Acquisition, Lease and Turn-Key Agreements. Status #2 and Section III. Project Costs; Eligible Costs – Acquisition Costs.
118.	III. Project Costs	66	If we incur eligible costs during the grant preparation process and the project is awarded funding, can those costs be reimbursed by the grant?	The Grant Performance Period is July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2031. Refer to Section III. Project Costs; Eligible Costs. If awarded, select grant administration costs (excluding grant writing costs) may be eligible beginning at the appropriation date.
119.	III. Project Costs	66	Would we need to pay for the CEQA costs upfront, and could those costs be reimbursed by the grant?	CEQA costs are eligible between (July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2031). Refer to Section III. Project Costs; Eligible Costs – Development Costs. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) related costs may be considered as an eligible pre-construction cost.
120.	III. Project Costs	66	For community-based planning meetings, if we incurred costs to conduct the meetings as part of preparing the grant application, could we put in those costs in the budget and get reimbursed if awarded the grant?	Yes. Community-based planning costs are eligible between the Grant Performance Period (July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2031). Refer to Section III. Project Costs – Development Costs. Community-based planning related costs may be considered as an eligible pre-construction cost.
121.	III. Project Costs	66	If indirect costs are 15%, that would only allow 10% for the other costs. That might hurt smaller projects.	Checklist Item #5.B – Indirect Cost Rate Instruction states that there are multiple accepted ways to calculate indirect costs. Applicants may select one indirect cost rate for the life of the grant performance period. Applying an indirect cost rate is optional. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #5.A, 5.B, 5.C – Grant Scope/Cost Estimate Form, Indirect Cost Rate Form & Budget Narrative.
122.	IV. Appendices - Technical Assistance Resources	69	Are the workshops going to be in person?	Yes. The Office of Grants and Local Services will conduct both virtual and in-person workshops throughout the state for Round 5. A list of available technical assistance workshops can be found on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website during the application period. http://www.parks.ca.gov/spp
123.	IV. Appendices - Technical Assistance Resources	69	I was unable to find the project selection criteria response template on your website.	The Project Selection Criteria Response Template can be found on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Documents. www.parks.ca.gov/spp
124.	IV. Appendices – Project Selection Criteria Guidance; Project Selection Criteria #5	73	What is defined as a convenient distance for community-based planning meetings?	Meetings that are further than a half-mile from the project site may be questioned for their convenience considering residents who live in proximity. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance, Project Selection Criteria #5(A) – Community-Based Planning.
125.	IV. Appendices – Project Selection Criteria Guidance; Project Selection Criteria #5	73	Do we have to be the host of the meeting, or can we sit in during a community meeting and then post this as something on the agenda to discuss?	Community-based planning meetings can be facilitated by a partner organization. Refer to the Statewide Park Program Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance - Project Selection Criteria #5(A) – Community-Based Planning. The purpose of having meetings is to promote a group dynamic, with participants building upon the ideas of one another. Engaging and interactive group discussions can lead to a more in-depth understanding of what the residents need.
126.	IV. Appendices – Project Selection Criteria Guidance; Project Selection Criteria #5	73	For community-based planning meetings, are we allowed to use Zoom to reach those that are farther away within our county? We have a very wide area to cover.	In-person meetings that also have video conference capability, for additional residents to attend, are allowed. To qualify as an in-person meeting, the majority of participating residents must attend the meeting in-person. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance - Project Selection Criteria #5(A).
127.	IV. Appendices – Project Selection Criteria Guidance; Project Selection Criteria #5	73	Can surveys be used to gather input from a community that is geographically spread out and multilingual?	A survey may be used during the process as a tool, but by itself, a survey will not qualify as a meeting. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance - Project Selection Criteria #5(A) and Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance - Project Selection Criteria #5(A) for a list of meeting location ideas. Refer to the Statewide Park Program Website under Technical Assistance Resource – Document where the Designing Parks Using Community Based Planning – Methods from California’s Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) document. https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/planning_guide
128.	IV. Appendices – Project Selection Criteria Guidance; Project Selection Criteria #5, Goal 3	75	As part of the criteria, applicants are asked to explain how their project will help reduce climate vulnerability. Could you provide an example of what that looks like because it is not clear in the guidelines.	Response: Change. Examples were added for designing park elements that address climate vulnerability. Additional examples can be found on the SPP website www.parks.ca.gov/spp. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance - Project Selection Criteria #5(C), Goal 3.
129.	IV. Appendices – Project Selection Guidance; Project Selection Criteria #5, Goal 3	75	Provide expanded guidance and technical assistance on how projects can address climate vulnerability.	Response: Change. Examples were added for designing park elements that address climate vulnerability. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria Guidance - Project Selection Criteria #5(A), Goal 3. Additional examples can be found on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Technical Assistance Websites – Helpful Links – Criteria #5(C) – Community-Based Planning. www.parks.ca.gov/spp.
130.	IV. Appendices – Project Selection Criteria Guidance; Project Selection Criteria #5, Goal 3	75	Recommend tying the environmental design to all of the identified climate vulnerabilities; adding examples of how to demonstrate that sustainable techniques will address climate vulnerabilities and define climate vulnerabilities.	Response: No Change. Examples are provided of designing park elements that address climate vulnerability. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance - Project Selection Criteria #5(C), Goal 3. Additional examples can be found on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Technical Assistance Websites – Helpful Links – Criteria #5(C) – Community-Based Planning. www.parks.ca.gov/spp.
131.	IV. Appendices – Project Selection Criteria Guidacne; Project Selection Criteria #5, Goal 3	75	The City encourages the Department to recognize that investments in accessibility improvements, lighting, shade structures, restroom modernization, safety upgrades, and rehabilitation of aging facilities directly support recreation outcomes and should remain highly competitive within the program.	Response: No Change. Rehabilitation and modernization of existing park facilities can directly support recreation access and outcomes. Projects may include accessibility improvements, lighting, shade structures, restroom modernization, safety upgrades, and rehabilitation of aging facilities when they are consistent with program requirements and support the proposed project’s recreation goals. Projects are evaluated based on how well they address the Project Selection Criteria as a whole. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Project Selection Criteria #1-10 Guidance - Project Selection Criteria #5(C), Goal 3. Examples are provided for designing park elements that address climate vulnerability, park safety and beautification. Additional examples can be found on the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program website under Technical Assistance Resources – Technical Assistance Websites – Helpful Links – Criteria #5(C) – Community-Based Planning. www.parks.ca.gov/spp.
132.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	89	Please further explain climate vulnerability. Can you maybe describe a little bit of what those climate vulnerabilities are? Differentiate between a climate vulnerable community and climate vulnerability and relate vulnerable populations to scoring criteria or remove definition. In the definition section, there is definition for “vulnerable populations” and a definition for “climate vulnerability,” but there is not a “climate vulnerable populations” definition. I recommend adding it.	Response: Change. The definition for climate vulnerability has been updated. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions for All Words and Terms in Small Caps
133.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	89	How often do we update climate vulnerabilities? Things can change month by month.	Response: No Change. No changes to the CFF are expected prior to the application deadline. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #3 - Community FactFinder (CFF) and Certification Form. Refer to Section II. Application Package; Checklist Item #2 – Project Selection Criteria. Project Selection Criteria # 10(A) - Challenges. Applicants may describe community challenges of climate concerns such month-by-month fluctuations. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions for All Words and Terms in Small Caps.
134.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	89	The definition on page 86 says community with climate vulnerability. My understanding is that it means communities that are at a disproportionately heightened risk of increased sensitivity to extreme heat, wildfires, sea level rise, drought, and flood within the proposed project site. You also refer to a tool as well to determine that, correct?	Response: Change. The definition for climate vulnerability has been updated. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions for All Words and Terms in Small Caps. The Community FactFinder Tool will indicate climate vulnerabilities in the community within proximity of the project site. Refer to the Parks for All Californians Statewide Parks Program Community FactFinder: https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/communities/
135.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	91	I'm not sure whether we meet the definition of a park. We are a sanitary district and we manage a 20-acre wetland area on our property and that wetland area has certain recreational features that are listed here. We are open and accessible to the public and we do have visitors from the public, but I don't know if we would fit the exact traditional definition of a park. We have an outdoor classroom, which is one of the recreational features that's listed here, that's used by about 1,000 students in the area, and we were looking to potentially do some renovations there. Would an area like that count under the park definition?	Response: No Change. To be eligible to apply as a “District,” the applicant must meet one of the district types identified in the definition, as established by SPP legislation. The proposed project site must also meet the definition of a “Park.” Applicants should refer to both definitions to determine whether the applicant and proposed project site meet SPP eligibility requirements. Refer to Public Resource Code 5642.
136.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	91	During the workshop, a question was raised about whether California District Agricultural Associations (DAAs) would qualify as eligible applicants under the current Draft Application Guide. My understanding is that because District Agriculture Associations are not specifically included within the definition of an eligible "District," they would not currently qualify for the program. As the operator of the Ventura County Fairgrounds & Event Center, the 31st District Agricultural Association has a strong interest in this program. We are a publicly owned community asset with significant opportunities to expand recreation, public access, open space, and climate-resilience improvements that align closely with the goals of Proposition 4. However, as currently drafted, we appear to be excluded solely based on the eligibility definition. Attached please find the 31st DAA's formal public comment requesting that OGALS reconsider the eligibility language and either: Expressly include California District Agricultural Associations as eligible public entities; or Clarify administratively that DAAs qualify as eligible DISTRICT applicants under PRC §5642 for purposes of the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program. We are not seeking any preference in scoring or funding. We ask only for the opportunity to compete alongside other public entities based on the merits of our projects and the needs of the communities we serve. Because this issue also involves the legal status and governance of District Agricultural Associations as public entities created under California law, I have copied representatives of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, including the Chief Counsel, in the hope that we may work collaboratively to clarify this issue for the benefit of all California fairgrounds.	Response: No Change. SPP Round 5 eligibility is established by the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008, Public Resources Code Sections 5640–5654. Public Resources Code Section 5642 defines the types of “Districts” that are eligible to apply for SPP funding. Adding District Agricultural Associations (DAAs) as an eligible District would require a legislative amendment to Public Resources Code Section 5642.
137.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	91	On behalf of the California Emergency Response and Resiliency: Venues and Fairs (CERRVF), I am writing to submit a formal public comment on the Statewide Park Program Round 5 Draft Application Guide. CERRVF represents California's network of District Agricultural Associations and the fairgrounds they operate. We are writing to ask OGALS to take one specific action in the final Round 5 Guide: add District Agricultural Associations to the list of eligible DISTRICT entities under Public Resources Code (PRC) §5642, either by adding an eighth subdivision parallel to the existing seven, or by an administrative clarification confirming that DAAs qualify as eligible applicants. The reason is straightforward: DAAs are exactly the type of public entities Proposition 4 was intended to serve and excluding them leaves a substantial network of existing public lands out of a grant program built precisely to invest in those lands and the communities surrounding them. DAAs deliver the priorities Proposition 4 was written to fund Proposition 4, the 2024 Climate Bond, directs investment toward climate resilience, public recreation, park equity, nature-based solutions, community health, and climate-vulnerable communities. California's fairgrounds already deliver these benefits today. Fairgrounds across the state operate as public recreation venues, host year-round community programming, anchor regional emergency response, and serve communities the State has identified as severely disadvantaged and climate vulnerable. They are not assets the State needs to build up, they are assets the State already owns and the public already uses. The climate-resilience role is particularly direct. Under Government Code §8589, the Office of Emergency Services is permitted the use of all state and local fair properties as conditions require. In practice, that means California's fairgrounds function as cooling centers, emergency shelters, wildfire evacuation centers, flood-response staging areas, and disaster recovery sites roles that are complementary to parks and recreation and that further the goals of Proposition 4. Round 5 investment in fairground-based recreation and greening infrastructure builds on a public-purpose foundation that already exists. Existing Public Land First California's District Agricultural Associations represent one of the State's largest networks of publicly controlled lands dedicated to community benefit. Of the 54 statutory DAAs, approximately 90% operate on state-owned land, and the network collectively serves more than 35 million Californians each year. Unlike many SPP applicants, DAAs: Already possess site control; Already provide public access; Already maintain core infrastructure, including utilities, parking, restrooms, and open space; Already serve disadvantaged communities; and Already function as emergency and climate-resilience assets. Permitting DAA participation in SPP allows California to maximize public investment by expanding recreation opportunities on existing public lands, rather than requiring the acquisition of new sites. The State avoids land acquisition cost, relocation cost, eminent domain proceedings, and the multi-year timelines those processes entail. This is a fiscal responsibility argument as much as a park equity argument: public dollars go further when they build on public land the State already controls. Ventura County Fairgrounds — a concrete example - operated by the 31st DAA, illustrates how an existing public asset can advance Proposition 4 goals immediately. The site sits adjacent to Surfers Point on the Ventura coast, provides public coastal access, is surrounded by ongoing climate-resilience investment, and already supports year-round recreational use. A Round 5 investment at Ventura in new park space, community gathering areas, shade and heat-resilience infrastructure, or coastal recreation features could be implemented on a publicly owned site that already serves the surrounding community, without the State acquiring a single new acre of land. Ventura is one example among many. The same logic applies across the DAA network. The Draft Round 5 Guide's Eligible Applicants list names cities, counties, districts, joint powers authorities, and 501(c)(3) nonprofits. The seven-prong DISTRICT definition then defines which districts qualify, "as defined in SPP legislation." DAAs are not named in either place, and they do not fit cleanly into any of the seven existing prongs. Subdivision (5), Community Services Districts under Government Code §61000 et seq., is the closest read, but it does not actually work on the statute. DAAs are public agencies of the State of California, established under Food and Agricultural Code §§3801 et seq. and supervised by CDFA. They are state political subdivisions rather than local, are governed by gubernatorially appointed boards rather than locally elected ones and are subject to CDFA oversight rather than LAFCO. Reading DAAs into the CSD subdivision requires ignoring all those structural distinctions, and we do not believe OGALS should be put in the position of making that determination on a case-by-case basis. The mechanism for adding a non-traditional special district to §5642 already exists. Subdivision (4) adds the Malaga County Water District by name — a water district whose enabling statute (Water Code §31133) is silent on parks — and Malaga used that eligibility to receive a $220,000 Roberti-Z'berg-Harris grant in 2002 for park and playground improvements. Adding a categorical eighth subdivision for DAAs follows the same pattern the Legislature has used before. CERRVF respectfully requests that OGALS include the following clarification in the final Round 5 Application Guide: District Agricultural Associations established pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code §§3801 et seq. and operating publicly owned or publicly controlled fairgrounds, recreation facilities, community gathering spaces, or climate-resilience infrastructure shall be considered eligible DISTRICT applicants under the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program. This language ties eligibility to the existing public-purpose use of the land, which is the policy basis Proposition 4 itself rests on. It does not request scoring preference. Any DAA applicant would compete on the standard Round 5 rubric: Critical Lack of Park Space, Significant Poverty, Climate-Vulnerable Populations, Community-Based Planning, and the other criteria on equal terms with every other applicant. If a legislative amendment is required to make this change durable, CERRVF is ready to support that effort through routine clean-up legislation in the next session. In the meantime, an administrative clarification in the final Round 5 Guide would open the door to this round of competition without leaving the State's existing public fairground lands on the sidelines. Thank you for your consideration of this comment, and for the work OGALS has put into the Round 5 program design. CERRVF and the DAA community are available to meet with OGALS staff at your convenience to discuss this further.	Response: No Change. SPP Round 5 eligibility is established by the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008, Public Resources Code Sections 5640–5654. Public Resources Code Section 5642 defines the types of “Districts” that are eligible to apply for SPP funding. Adding District Agricultural Associations (DAAs) as an eligible District would require a legislative amendment to Public Resources Code Section 5642.
138.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	91	The comment sets out the statutory basis for adding District Agricultural Associations to the list of eligible DISTRICT entities under PRC §5642 — either through a named or categorical eighth subdivision parallel to the existing seven, or through administrative clarification under the existing language. The three specific procedural asks are set out at the close of the letter, with the Malaga County Water District precedent included as the closest analog already on the books. Because the eligibility question implicates the legal status of DAAs as public entities created under California law, I have copied the CDFA Legal Office on this submission alongside Deputy Secretary Flores at the Division of Fairs and Expositions, in the hope that the two departments may work collaboratively to clarify the issue for the benefit of the broader DAA network.	Response: No Change. SPP Round 5 eligibility is established by the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008, Public Resources Code Sections 5640–5654. Public Resources Code Section 5642 defines the types of “Districts” that are eligible to apply for SPP funding. Adding District Agricultural Associations (DAAs) as an eligible District would require a legislative amendment to Public Resources Code Section 5642.
139.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	91	Request that the final Round 5 Application Guide add District Agricultural Associations to the list of eligible DISTRICT entities under PRC §5642, so that DAAs can apply in Round 5 and in future rounds without having to navigate a gray area each time. The reason this matters is land. California has 53 state-affiliated District Agricultural Associations holding hundreds of thousands of acres of publicly-owned land, much of it in the SDAC and disadvantaged communities Round 5 was designed to serve. DAAs already have the site control, the land tenure, and the long-term operational presence the program requires of an applicant. The only obstacle today is whether they qualify as an eligible entity under §5642. The Draft Round 5 Guide's Eligible Applicants list names cities, counties, districts, joint powers authorities, and 501(c)(3) nonprofits. The seven-prong DISTRICT definition then defines which districts qualify, "as defined in SPP legislation." DAAs are not named in either place, and they do not fit cleanly into any of the seven prongs. Subdivision (5), Community Services Districts under Gov. Code §61000 et seq., is the closest read, but it does not actually work on the statute. DAAs are public agencies of the State of California, established under Food & Ag Code §§3801 et seq. and supervised by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. They are state political subdivisions rather than local, are governed by gubernatorially-appointed boards rather than locally elected ones, and are subject to CDFA oversight rather than LAFCO. Reading DAAs into the CSD subdivision requires ignoring all of those distinctions, and I do not think OGALS should be put in the position of doing that on a case-by-case basis. The mechanism for adding a non-traditional special district to §5642 already exists. Subdivision (4) adds the Malaga County Water District by name, and Malaga used that eligibility to take a $220,000 RZH grant in 2002 for park and playground improvements. Adding a named or categorical eighth subdivision for DAAs would follow the same pattern the Legislature has used before, and would let the State put publicly-owned DAA land to work for the communities surrounding it — this round, and in every round after. Several DAAs are actively scoping Round 5 projects, and based on initial interest across the network I expect more to come forward once the eligibility question is settled. Any DAA applicant would compete on the standard Round 5 rubric with no scoring preference requested. The specific ask is that OGALS add DAAs to §5642 in the final Round 5 Guide — either by naming the entity type in an eighth subdivision parallel to the existing seven, or by an administrative clarification that DAAs qualify under the existing language.	Response: No Change. SPP Round 5 eligibility is established by the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008, Public Resources Code Sections 5640–5654. Public Resources Code Section 5642 defines the types of “Districts” that are eligible to apply for SPP funding. Adding District Agricultural Associations (DAAs) as an eligible District would require a legislative amendment to Public Resources Code Section 5642.
140.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	92	If a park has expanded 3 or 4 times beyond the original, is it still considered an expansion or a new park project? It will create a park on property that was not open to the public as a public park prior to the application. It seems unfair to the applicants that are essentially creating a new park.	Response: No Change. A project that adds acreage to an existing park is considered an expansion rather than a new park. The definition of Expand/Expansion states the project will add park space acreage to an existing adjacent park. The expansion property must not have previously been park space or part of the adjacent park before the current round's application due date. Additional challenges, such as limited available acreage for parks, applicants would like to call attention to and that are not captured by the Community FactFinder, may be described in the response to Project Selection Criteria #10. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions for All Words and Terms in Small Caps.
141.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	92	Expand the definition of "New park" to include projects that at least double the acreage of and add significant recreation features to an existing park.	Response: No Change. A project that adds acreage to an existing park is considered an expansion rather than a new park. A community with no existing park has a greater park deficiency than a community that already has access to a park. The definition of Expand/Expansion states the project will add park space acreage to an existing adjacent park. The expansion property must not have previously been park space or part of the adjacent park before the current round's application due date. Additional challenges, such as limited available acreage for parks, that applicants would like to call attention to and that are not captured by the Community FactFinder, may be described in the response to Project Selection Criteria #10. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions for All Words and Terms in Small Caps.
142.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	93	Will the median income threshold be raised? Inflation has made the previous levels somewhat outdated for representing where people are living in poverty.	The Median Household Income was raised since Round 4. The median income threshold for the current round will be posted at www.parks.ca.gov/spp.
143.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	95	Change the definition of residents to include students attending school within a half mile of the project site and modify the Community Factfinder too accordingly.	Response: No Change. Residents are defined as the population living within a half-mile of the project site including youth, families, adults, tribes and older adults. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions for All Words and Terms in Small Caps. Project Selection Criteria #10 is designed for applicants to describe the community’s challenges beyond those identified through the Community FactFinder data. Additional challenges, such as student data that applicants would like to call attention to and are not captured by the Community FactFinder, may be described in the response to Project Selection Criteria #10.
144.	IV. Appendices - Definitions for all words and Terms in Small Caps	95	Can you define Turn-Key project?	A Turn-Key project is defined as a proposal by the applicant to complete the project, and then transfer the grant contract obligations, only if approved by the Office of Grants and Local Services, to an eligible agency for long term operation and maintenance. Refer to Section IV. Appendices; Definitions for All Words and Terms in Small Caps.