BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2108
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2108 (Eggman)
As Amended May 13, 2014
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 8-0 WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 13-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, Alejo, |Ayes:|Rendon, Allen, Bocanegra, |
| |Bradford, Gordon, Wagner, | |Dahle, Fong, Frazier, |
| |Mullin, Waldron | |Beth Gaines, Gatto, |
| | | |Gomez, Gonzalez, |
| | | |Patterson, Rodriguez, |
| | | |Yamada |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |
| |Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | |
| |Holden, Jones, Linder, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | |
| |Weber | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes a number of changes to the statutes relating to
flood management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Flood Board) to
determine, in its sole discretion, that preconstruction planning
or design activities of a flood protection system by the local
flood management agency are sufficient to constitute adequate
progress.
2)Requires a determination by the Flood Board pursuant to 1) above,
to expire 18 months after it is made unless either of the
following occurs:
a) The flood protection system has progressed to construction;
AB 2108
Page 2
or,
b) The local flood management agency submits a report to the
Flood Board, in the form and manner prescribed by the Flood
Board, showing that adequate progress continues to be made.
Specifies that if the Floor Board determines, in its sole
discretion, that adequate progress is continuing, this
subsequent determination shall expire 18 months after it is
made.
3)Adds to the definition of "adequate progress" that critical
features of the flood protection system are being planned or
designed and a determination of the Flood Board, if any, pursuant
to 1) and 2) above, has not expired.
4)Allows a discretionary permit to be issued if it will not result
in more than a 50% increase in building occupancy.
5)Revises language related to a flood management agency making
adequate progress toward a flood protection system, as specified,
with respect to the prohibition in existing law of approving new
development (specifically for development agreements, development
permits, and tentative maps) in a flood hazard zone, unless the
city or county makes certain findings.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1)Increased annual costs to the board in the $300,000 to $600,000
range.
2)According to the Department of Water Resources, there are 85
cities and 33 counties involved with flood control within the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. This estimate assumes the board
would receive at least 10 requests for determination of adequate
progress per year.
COMMENTS :
1)Background and previous legislation. The State Plan of Flood
Control is a document of existing state and federal flood control
works, protection systems, lands, programs, plans, conditions,
modes of operations, and maintenance of the Sacramento River Flood
AB 2108
Page 3
Control Project, Sacramento River, and San Joaquin River
watersheds. SB 5 (Machado), Chapter 364, Statutes of 2007,
required DWR and the Flood Board to prepare and adopt a Central
Valley Flood Protection Plan by 2012, and established certain
flood protection requirements for certain local land-use decisions
consistent with the Central Valley Protection Plan.
Under SB 5, each city and county within the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Valley was required to amend its general plan within two years of
the Flood Board's adopting the Flood Plan. A city or county
within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley must amend its zoning
ordinance to make it consistent with its general plan within 36
months of the Flood Board's adopting the Flood Plan. Once a city
or county completes the update to its general plan and amendment
to the zoning ordinance, it is prohibited from entering into a
development agreement for property located within a flood hazard
zone, unless a city or county makes specific findings.
SB 1278 (Wolk), Chapter 553, Statutes of 2012, revised flood
hazard planning and development requirements for those cities and
counties located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. SB 1278
required each city and county to amend its general plan, within
24 months of July 2, 2013, with additional information about the
locations of flood hazard zones, locations of undetermined risk
areas, as the bill defines, and other locations, as specified.
This bill also required each city and county to amend zoning
ordinances to be consistent with the amended general plan, no more
than 12 months from the amendment
of the general plan.
Additionally, SB 1278 added a new exception to the existing
prohibition that a legislative body of a city or county within the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley cannot enter into a development
agreement for property that is located within a flood hazard zone,
unless the city or county finds, based on substantial evidence in
the record, that the property in an undetermined risk area has met
the urban level of flood protection based on substantial evidence
in the record.
AB 1259 (Olsen), Chapter 246, Statutes of 2013, enacted conforming
changes as a follow-up to SB 1278 (Wolk), Chapter 553, Statutes of
2012, and AB 1965 (Pan), Chapter 554, Statutes of 2012. AB 1259
added, to the section of law dealing with discretionary and
ministerial permits, a provision that allows the city or county to
AB 2108
Page 4
approve a development agreement if a finding can be made, based on
substantial evidence in the record, that the property in an
undetermined risk area has met the urban level of flood
protection.
2)Purpose of this bill. This bill makes a number of changes to the
statutes related to development in a flood hazard zone in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. The bill authorizes the Flood
Board, in its sole discretion, to determine that preconstruction
planning or design activities of a flood protection system by the
local flood management agency are sufficient to constitute
adequate progress, and would end this determination 18 months
after it is made unless the flood protection system has progressed
to construction or the local flood management agency submits a
report to the Flood Board showing that adequate progress continues
to be made, at which point the Flood Board could make a subsequent
determination that adequate progress is continuing, and grant
another 18-month extension. This bill also revises the definition
of adequate progress, and allows permits for new unoccupied
structures and remodels of existing structures, as long as
occupancy of those existing structures is not increased by more
than 50%. Lastly, the bill revises language related to a flood
management agency making adequate progress toward a flood
protection system, as specified, with respect to the prohibition
in existing law of approving new development (specifically for
development agreements, development permits, and tentative maps)
in a flood hazard zone, unless the city or county makes certain
findings.
This bill is author-sponsored.
3)Author's statement. According to the author, "Under SB 5
(Machado), Chapter 364, Statutes of 2007, Sacramento-San Joaquin
Valley cities and counties are prohibited from entering into any
development agreement, approve any discretionary permits,
discretionary entitlements or ministerial permits or approve any
tentative maps or parcel maps after June 2, 2016, for any flood
hazard zone unless the adequacy of flood protection specific to
that area has been demonstrated. That adequate standard is
so-called "200-year" flood protection, meaning that it must
provide protection against a level of flood that has a .5% chance
of occurring in any given year.
"The standards are proving cost prohibitive to developers, and the
AB 2108
Page 5
affected communities are not capable of financing sufficient flood
protection infrastructure on their own. Further, most if not all
of the affected communities depend on developer impact fees to
fund flood protection improvements, but developers will find it
more attractive and viable to move their development projects to
less-developed greenfield areas. These communities are also
subject to 100-year (1% chance in any given year) flood protection
standards, and have their own additional requirements. The de
facto moratorium that will occur is economically devastating to
these communities, and undermines their smart growth and
sustainability policies, as well as other significant state policy
goals in the areas of development and transportation and
greenhouse gas emissions reduction. AB 2108 attempts to continue
progress toward achieving the needed flood protection for those
urban communities, by the state mandate of 2025, while at the same
time easing barriers to infill development consistent with
sustainable city planning."
4)Arguments in support. Supporters note that this bill ensures that
an unnecessary building moratorium does not stop smart development
as well as the funding stream necessary to meet long-term flood
protection goals.
5)Arguments in opposition. None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0003768