Agenda

Back to Calendar Return

LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Meeting Date:	02/24/2014
Submitted For:	LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Department:	County Administrator
Referral No.:	2014-04
Referral Name:	SB 920 (Galgiani): Planning and Zoning: Flood Protection
Presenter:	L. DeLaney	Contact:	L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097

Information

Referral History:

Water related bills are often referred to Legislation Committee. Supervisor Mitchoff requested this bill be added to the agenda.

Referral Update:

SB 920:

Author:

Galgiani (D)

Title:

Planning and Zoning: Flood Protection

Introduced:

01/28/2014

Disposition:

Pending

Location:

Senate Governance and Finance Committee

Summary:

Amends the Planning and Zoning Law that defines adequate progress as meaning that, among other conditions being met, the total project scope, schedule, and cost of the completed flood protection system have been developed to meet the appropriate standard of protection. Revises the definition of adequate progress to include the critical features of the flood protection system being planned and designed or under construction and the completion of a levee safety plan.

Status:

02/06/2014

To SENATE Committee on GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE.

SB 920, as introduced, Galgiani. Planning and zoning: flood protection. The Planning and Zoning Law prohibits the legislative body of a city or county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, after specified general plan amendments have been made, and corresponding zoning ordinances adopted, from taking specified actions regarding property located within a flood hazard zone unless the city or county makes specified findings including, among other requirements, that the local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will result in a specified level of flood protection in urban or urbanizing areas or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood protection in nonurbanized areas, as specified.

That law defines adequate progress as meaning that, among other conditions being met, the total project scope, schedule, and cost of the completed flood protection system have been developed to meet the appropriate standard of protection and critical features of the flood protection system are under construction. This bill would revise the definition of adequate progress to include the critical features of the flood protection system being planned and designed or under construction and the completion of a levee safety plan for those flood protection systems that are a part of the State Plan of Flood Control. This bill would also require a local flood management agency's annual report to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board on the efforts in working toward completion of the flood protection system to describe the agency's compliance with specified conditions. By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

San Joaquin County is sponsoring and supporting this bill. Contra Costa County staff is presently reviewing the bill and will provide a recommendation to the Committee for its consideration at its February 24, 2014 meeting

Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):

Comments for consideration from Flood Control District consultant: "The state made a policy change requiring 200 year level of protection for urban and urbanizing areas within the area of the Sacramento River/San Joaquin River drainage. Any time a policy change is made, there needs to be a reasonable period of time during a transition to implement the change. The question here is what is the appropriate transition period. From a "what's best for society" perspective, it is not prudent to add homes to an unprotected floodplain. However, according to San Joaquin County's project financing plan, development fees are needed to pay the local match for a federally or state funded flood control project. So, there are cities that do not have 200 year level of protection and will not unless these projects are built. It's a chicken and egg situation because they need development to pay for the protection, yet the development will be unprotected until the developer fees are collected.

The problem is that it may be difficult to get federal funding appropriated for a levee improvement project, and if the state is funding the project, those funds would come from bond proceeds, which may or may not be available. It takes many years to get federal appropriations for project, and once the appropriation is made, many more years to get Army Corps of Engineers' approval. Likewise, it can take many years to work through the state system for state funding.

There is protection in the process, however. In this case, they strengthened the process by requiring a report to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board each year on the status of their flood protection system. However, there is no teeth to enforce the policy if the goals and objectives are not achieved in a reasonable time. For example, if development is approved year after year with no advancements in a flood protection project, there is no recourse to stop further development. If the process was strengthened to include some enforcement to stop development in the future, then there would be protection in the process.

It may not be reasonable to put together a flood protection project in the San Joaquin Valley without more time and funding flexibility. A framework that allows additional time and funding flexibility is reasonable but probably should have some enforcement authority to contain the situation if things do not work out."

Attachments
SB 920 Bill Text