AB 644 authorizes the Natural Resources Agency to work with a qualifying nonprofit to plan, construct, and maintain a Holocaust memorial at Exposition Park (the Sixth District Agricultural Association / Office of Exposition Park Management). The nonprofit must be a 501(c)(3) organization that represents Holocaust victims and survivors; the bill permits a noncompetitive grant to that nonprofit if funding and authority exist in the Budget Act.
The statute sets out a chain of approvals and operational responsibilities: the agency and the Department of General Services review designs for maintenance, safety, ADA compliance, and CEQA; the nonprofit prepares construction plans and a long-term maintenance/security agreement; and construction is subject to right-of-entry terms, inspection, insurance, and bonding. Implementation is contingent on a legislative appropriation, leaving funding and long‑term stewardship questions unresolved until money is provided.
At a Glance
What It Does
Permits the Natural Resources Agency to enter a noncompetitive grant with a qualified 501(c)(3) to create a Holocaust memorial at Exposition Park and authorizes that nonprofit, in consultation with the agency, Legislature, and Department of General Services, to plan, construct, and maintain the memorial under specified oversight.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Office of Exposition Park Management (Sixth District Agricultural Association), the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of General Services, any nonprofit 501(c)(3) representing Holocaust victims and survivors, contractors hired by that nonprofit, and visitors to Exposition Park.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a template for privately raised memorials on state land with formal state review but limited procurement competition. It clarifies compliance and permitting steps while making implementation dependent on future budget appropriations—important for planners, funders, and park managers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 644 sets up a public-private pathway to site a Holocaust memorial within Exposition Park. The bill restricts the nonprofit lead to organizations that are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) and that explicitly represent Holocaust victims and survivors.
That nonprofit works with the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of General Services (DGS), and the Office of Exposition Park Management to carry the project from planning through construction and into ongoing upkeep.
The statute gives the agency authority to provide a noncompetitive grant to the nonprofit, but only “consistent with funding and authority provided in the annual Budget Act.” Practically, that means the memorial can move forward only if the Legislature provides money. The nonprofit prepares design and construction materials and selects a contractor, while state entities perform substantive reviews—checking durability and maintenance implications, ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, conducting or approving CEQA documents, and reviewing final construction documents.Implementation mechanics include a right-of-entry permit and an agreement for long-term maintenance and security.
The right-of-entry must specify the work area, construction plans, the chosen contractor, insurance and bonding, provisions for damage to state property, and inspection requirements. The agency and DGS retain inspection authority during construction and periodic maintenance responsibility afterward under their general duties.The bill also records legislative intent about siting and educational purpose: the memorial should be placed conspicuously with space for visitors and designed to promote learning about the Holocaust and contemporary antisemitism.
The Office of Exposition Park Management must consult with the Legislature if tensions arise between memorial design and the park’s operating policies, leaving a political consultation role rather than a strictly technical arbitration mechanism.Finally, the statute repeats that nothing in the section becomes effective until the Legislature appropriates funds in the Budget Act or another statute. That condition leaves the timing and fiscal responsibility for both construction and long-term maintenance tied to future legislative choices rather than fixed in the bill itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Natural Resources Agency may enter a noncompetitive grant with a qualifying 501(c)(3) nonprofit, but only “consistent with funding and authority provided in the annual Budget Act.”, The nonprofit lead must represent victims and survivors of the Holocaust and is empowered to plan, select a contractor, and prepare construction documents subject to state review.
The agency and the Department of General Services must review preliminary designs for maintenance concerns, confirm ADA compliance, review or approve CEQA documents, and inspect construction.
A right-of-entry permit must be prepared that lists the final work area, construction plans, the contractor, insurance and bonding, provisions for damage to state property, and inspection requirements.
The section is explicitly implementable only upon a legislative appropriation in the Budget Act or another statute, so no spending or construction obligation arises without that appropriation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — who’s who
This subsection defines key actors: the Natural Resources Agency as “agency,” the Department of General Services as “department,” and Exposition Park as the Sixth District Agricultural Association / Office of Exposition Park Management. It also narrowly defines the eligible nonprofit as a 501(c)(3) that represents Holocaust victims and survivors. The definition block limits who can lead the project and anchors the site to a specific state-managed entity, which matters for jurisdictional control, procurement rules, and operational oversight.
Grant authority and nonprofit-led planning
The agency may enter a noncompetitive grant with the eligible nonprofit, but that authority is explicitly tied to Budget Act funding. The nonprofit, working with the agency, Legislature, and DGS, may plan, construct, and maintain the memorial. This creates a hybrid model: the private nonprofit drives project delivery while the state retains approval checkpoints. The bill stops short of outlining selection criteria for the nonprofit, leaving the identity and process for choosing the group outside the statute.
Legislative intent on siting and educational purpose
The Legislature states it intends the memorial to be placed conspicuously with adequate visitor space and that the design should consider how to promote learning about the Holocaust and contemporary antisemitism. While nonbinding, this language signals evaluative criteria for approving designs and gives proponents an articulated purpose to justify siting and interpretive elements during review.
Agency and DGS review, compliance, and inspection duties
This section lists specific state responsibilities: review preliminary designs for maintenance issues, ensure ADA compliance and address safety concerns, review and approve CEQA documents, review final construction documents for legal compliance, prepare a right-of-entry permit, inspect contractor work, and regularly maintain the memorial per agency duties. Practically, DGS and the agency serve as gatekeepers for legal, accessibility, and environmental compliance even though the nonprofit manages design and procurement.
Nonprofit obligations: permits and long-term maintenance agreement
The nonprofit must prepare the right-of-entry permit (mirroring several elements the agency also prepares) and an agreement setting out long-term maintenance and security. Requiring a maintenance/security agreement aims to address post-construction stewardship, but the bill does not prescribe funding sources or performance standards for that long-term maintenance, leaving implementation details to the approving agencies and the nonprofit's agreements.
Appropriation requirement
The bill conditions implementation on legislative appropriation in the Budget Act or another statute. This clause prevents the agency from committing state funds or beginning construction absent a discrete funding decision by the Legislature. It also means the memorial’s schedule and the availability of any state grant depend on future budget negotiations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Culture across all five countries.
Explore Culture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Holocaust survivor and victim-advocacy nonprofits — Gain statutory authority to lead memorial design and construction on state land and eligibility for a noncompetitive state grant if appropriated.
- Park visitors, educators, and researchers — Will obtain a publicly sited memorial designed to facilitate learning about the Holocaust and contemporary antisemitism, enhancing the cultural and educational offerings at Exposition Park.
- Exposition Park and community stakeholders — Receive a planned memorial that is meant to be conspicuously sited and reviewed for maintenance and safety, potentially increasing visitation and civic engagement.
Who Bears the Cost
- The nonprofit lead organization — Responsible for preparing construction documents, selecting contractors, and arranging insurance and bonding; it must also secure or otherwise commit to long-term maintenance and security arrangements.
- Natural Resources Agency and Department of General Services — Must allocate staff time and resources to review designs, conduct CEQA oversight, inspect construction, and fulfill ongoing maintenance duties, tasks that may require budgeted staff or operating funds.
- Contractors and vendors hired by the nonprofit — Face state-level insurance, bonding, and inspection requirements imposed through the right-of-entry permit, which can raise project costs and compliance burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is trade-off between accelerating a privately driven memorial on public land and preserving public oversight, accountability, and fiscal control: the bill gives a nonprofit authority to lead planning and hire contractors (which can speed delivery and marshal private funds) while reservation of regulatory review, inspection, and eventual maintenance by state agencies preserves public safeguards—but creates ambiguity about liability, cost allocation, and transparency.
The bill creates a lean framework for delivering a memorial but leaves several operational and fiscal questions open. Tying grant authority and project start to Budget Act appropriations means the memorial’s timeline and the availability of any state contribution are uncertain until the Legislature acts.
The nonprofit is empowered to select contractors and prepare construction documents, yet the state keeps the compliance and inspection reins—this split can create friction over quality, liability, and who pays for fixes discovered during state reviews.
The statute duplicates some duties (both the agency and the nonprofit are asked to prepare right-of-entry permit elements) and relies on consultation with the Legislature to resolve conflicts between memorial design and park operating policies rather than prescribing a clear arbitration process. CEQA and ADA compliance are explicitly required, which is appropriate but can trigger lengthy reviews or retrofits that increase costs.
Finally, the bill does not specify criteria for choosing the nonprofit lead, nor does it set standards or dedicated funding for long-term maintenance, so stewardship depends on negotiated agreements that could place ongoing costs on state budgets or leave the memorial underfunded.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.