California 2019-2020 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1650

Introduced
2/22/19  
Introduced
2/22/19  
Refer
4/4/19  
Refer
4/4/19  
Report Pass
5/21/19  
Engrossed
5/24/19  
Engrossed
5/24/19  
Refer
5/24/19  
Refer
5/24/19  
Refer
6/12/19  
Refer
6/12/19  
Report Pass
6/17/19  
Refer
6/17/19  
Report Pass
6/25/19  
Report Pass
6/25/19  
Refer
6/25/19  

Caption

Capitol Park.

Impact

The bill's enactment would enhance regulatory oversight concerning how Capitol Park is developed and maintained. By mandating that the Joint Rules Committee oversee these developments, AB1650 aims to ensure that any changes are carefully considered and align with the park's historical context and purpose. This approach facilitates orderly planning and promotes a meaningful experience for visitors to the Capitol, which could have implications for future public events and governmental activities conducted in and around the park.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1650, introduced by Assembly Member Cooley, aims to formalize the process for approving any developments or physical changes within Capitol Park, which is an integral part of California's legislative and historic infrastructure. The bill requires that all planned developments, improvements, or modifications be approved by the Joint Rules Committee, regardless of whether a master plan for Capitol Park has been established. This stipulation underscores the importance of maintaining the historical integrity and utility of this public space, which is frequently used for public engagement and government functions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 1650 appears largely positive among supporters who view it as essential for the preservation of California's legislative heritage. Proponents argue that ensuring legislative approval for developments within Capitol Park will help maintain the park's historical character and accessibility for public use. However, potential criticisms might highlight concerns over the bureaucratic process and whether such a requirement could slow down necessary improvements in the park.

Contention

While the bill is seen as a necessary step for historic preservation, there may be points of contention related to the efficiency of the approval process. Some critics may argue that requiring Joint Rules Committee approval for all changes could lead to delays in much-needed improvements, particularly if the committee is overwhelmed with other legislative responsibilities. This situation raises questions about balancing the need for proper oversight with the legislative urgency to facilitate timely updates to public infrastructure.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB1063

California State Auditor: audit of the Legislature.

CA AB1361

University of California: branch campus of a school of medicine in the County of Kern: feasibility study.

CA AB2517

Health care coverage.

CA AB579

Apprenticeship: fire protection: firefighter preapprenticeship program.

CA AB775

Contribution requirements: recurring contributions.

CA AB957

Tribal gaming: compact ratification.

CA AB619

California Conservation Corps: training programs: formerly incarcerated individuals: reporting.

CA AB234

California FAIR Plan Association governing committee.