BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1965
Page 1
( Without Reference to File )
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1965 (Pan)
As Amended August 29, 2012
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 17, 2012) |SENATE: |34-0 |(August 31, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |9-0 |(August 31, 2012) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
SUMMARY : Revises provisions contained in SB 1278 (Wolk), related
to planning and zoning for flood protection in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Valley.
The Senate amendments chapter out specified provisions of SB 1278
(Wolk), thereby making the following changes to that bill:
1)Delete language specifying that an urban level of flood
protection only applies to a "leveed riverine system."
2)Delete provisions stating that the review and approval of
floodplain maps by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) shall
be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
3)Declare that the provisions of this bill shall become operative
only if SB 1278 is enacted and takes effect on or before January
1, 2013, and this bill is enacted after SB 1278.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill allowed a designee to attend
meetings of the California State University Board of Trustees and
act on behalf of an ex officio board member.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
AB 1965
Page 2
Committee's analysis of SB 1278 (Wolk), the following costs are
associated with SB 1278:
1)Costs in the millions of dollars to the DWR to develop the
detailed maps required in this bill (General Fund (GF), special
fund, bond funds).
2)Unknown cost pressures, likely in the millions of dollars,
beginning in 2013-14 through 2015-16, for financial assistance to
cities and counties to update their General Plans pursuant to the
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.
COMMENTS : SB 1278 (Wolk) of this current legislative session,
passed the Legislature and was sent to Governor Brown for his
signature on August 23, 2012. SB 1278 requires DWR to issue flood
maps and local governments to update their general plans to
determine whether areas have met urban levels of flood protection
before they can be developed.
DWR recently requested (after SB 1278 was sent to the Governor)
that the author make several changes to SB 1278. Rather than pull
SB 1278 back from the Governor's desk for purposes of further
amendment, the author opted instead to find an unrelated vehicle to
amend DWR's requested changes into, and to make the clean-up bill
effective after SB 1278, should the Governor sign that bill. The
net effect is that the changes in this bill would layer on top of
SB 1278, thereby resolving DWR's concerns.
This bill contains two sections that were also included in SB 1278.
The first section contains a definition of "urban level of flood
protection" that deletes several words, thereby deleting language
from SB 1278 that specifies that an urban level of flood protection
only applies to a leveed riverine system. The second section of
overlap between the two bills deletes provisions stating that the
review and approval of floodplain maps by DWR shall be exempt from
CEQA and CESA.
Support arguments: This bill contains technical clean-up at the
request of DWR in order to delete certain provisions out of SB 1278
(Wolk) that were problematic for DWR. Without these changes, SB
1278 awaits an uncertain future on the Governor's desk.
Opposition arguments: Rather than substantially amend a bill to
include DWR's requested deletions, the more prudent route may be to
pull back SB 1278 for further amendment. Alternatively, the
AB 1965
Page 3
Legislature may wish to consider whether a letter to the journal by
the author of SB 1278 committing to clean-up legislation next year
to address DWR's concerns may have sufficed, instead of sending two
separate bills to the Governor.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0005902