As of January 1, 2010 the California State Legislature is currently in the second year of a two year session. The following bills have been identified as priority bills by CSPF. For information about these bills or CSPF's legislative agenda, contact our Sacramento office at 916-442-2119.
Click on the bill number to access the Bill Information page at www.Leginfo.ca.gov where you can access bill text and a complete history of the bill. You can also "subscribe" to a bill and get email updates whenever the status of the bill changes.
(Huffman) |
Nonprofit Authority for State Park Operating Agreements |
|
Summary: |
AB 42 would authorize the Department of Parks and Rec (DPR) to enter into an operating agreement for the development, improvement, restoration, care, maintenance, administration, or operation of a unit or units of the state park system with qualified nonprofit organizations that exists to provide visitor services in state parks, facilitate public access to park resources, improve park facilities, or provide interpretive and educational services. AB 42 is modeled on existing Public Resources Code 5080.36, which allows DPR to enter into an operating agreement with a qualified nonprofit for the operation of one specific state park. This bill provides broader authority to DPR to enter into operating agreements for multiple state parks, without the requirement that each individual operating agreement be subject to specific legislative approval. AB 42 simply provides another tool to maintain the legacy of our state park system and keep our parks open for all Californians. |
|
Position: |
Support |
|
(Wolk & Kehoe) |
No Net Loss of State Park Lands |
|
Summary: |
SB 580 requires that lands specifically acquired for the purpose of a state park cannot be used for non-park purposes unless replacement lands of equivalent value are provided. The bill puts clear criteria in front of the State Park and Recreation Commission when they make decisions regarding non-park uses of state park lands. Under SB 580, state park lands cannot be used for non-park purposes unless there is no practical alternative to using those lands and replacement lands are provided, or a combination of replacement lands and monetary compensation is provided, to make the investment in state parks whole. SB 580 sets a high bar for protecting state parks from projects or proposals that threaten parks. Putting these protections in place gives the Commission a clear tool to assert their authority to help protect our state parks and clearly sets out that any effort to impact state park lands must result in “no net loss” of state park lands and access for Californians |
|
Position: |
Support |
|
(Hancock & Gordon) |
Prevailing Wage Exemption for Volunteers |
|
Summary: |
Existing law contains an exemption from prevailing wage requirements for volunteers performing public works projects on public lands. Those provisions are effective only until January 1, 2012, and as of that date are repealed. SB 644 and AB 587 would extend the repeal of this provision to January 1, 2017. California’s state park system is woefully underfunded. If volunteers on public work projects in state parks were required to be paid the prevailing wage, it will only exacerbate a financial situation that is already untenable and would essentially remove much-needed volunteers. |
|
Position: |
Support |
|
(Carter) |
Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park |
|
Summary: |
AB 1077 would establish a 2.5-mile “buffer” around Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park that would prohibit development that is incompatible with the historical or recreational significance of the park. Colonel Allensworth SHP is more than 940 acres and commemorates the founding of the town of Allenswrith, the only California town to be founded, financed and governed by African Americans. The park, which includes a restored schoolhouse and library, a 20-until campground and picnic facilities for day use, provides a retelling of the experience of African Americans in California during the early 1900s. In 2007, state park advocates supported a previous bill (AB 576) to protect Colonel Allensworth SHP form a then-pending proposal to build a mega-dairy adjacent to the state park. The issue was ultimately settled by the state and the dairy farmer, but there is not a policy in place that definitively protects this park – or the 277 others in the state park system for that matter – from future incompatible development projects. |
|
Position: |
Support |
|
(Jeffries) |
California Citrus State Historic Park Operating Agreement |
|
Summary: |
AB 64 requires the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into an operating agreement with the City of Riverside for the development and operation of California Citrus State Historic Park. Such an operating agreement may allow for effective alternate management of the park, while allowing the state to redirect resources to other parks without such partnerships. However, language in the bill is inconsistent with current law establishing the authority of DPR to permissively enter into operating agreements for other state parks and is inconsistent with AB 42. |
|
Position: |
Amendment needed to provide permissive authority to the Department to enter into such an agreement. |
|
