Laserfiche WebLink
9B <br /> �riood Profec#ias� Proposai Update Page 12 <br /> 7here are a number of flood control proposa(s winding their way through the(egislative process <br /> this year. Although the finai detai�s are still being worked out,the League of California Cities is <br /> leaning towards supparting a package af bills that includes SS 5(Machado)/AB 5(Waik)(note <br /> that SB 5 and AB 5 will be amended over Labor pay weekend to have identical language),SS 17 <br /> (Florez)and AB 162(Wo1k). <br /> If this package o#bills is signed into iaw,it v�nuid allow continued development of flood prone <br /> areas while also requiring flood management agencies to achieve 200-year flood protec#ion for <br /> those areas. <br /> As af late August,the language+n SB 5/AS 5 would only apply to cities with flood hazard areas of <br /> greater than three foot depth in a 200-year flood scenario. This means#haf in a 200-year flood <br /> tfie water leveis would reach tF�ree-foo#depth. <br /> Ciiies the League nas identified in these flood hazard areas are�acramento, West Sacramen#a, <br /> Yuba Cify, iVlarysville,Stockton and Lathrop. 1'i�e League has been working with these cities to <br /> make sest�e the language of the bili wil!wo�k for those cities. In addition,none of the biils assign <br /> Gability to cities in case there fs a failure of#he state system o#flood control. <br /> sac�groun�vri�ic�o�i Fro�ecfiori <br /> Over the iast several years, members of the E.egislature have been pushing legisiation to require <br /> flood management agencies(inciuding cities)fo upgrade their flood profecfion surrounding <br /> existing devefopments and mi#igating deveiopmerrt on parcels of land where there is not <br /> adequate protection. <br /> This efFort is a response to Hurricane Katrina and a desire to protzct people wha live or wifl five in <br /> these fload prone areas. The�eague has invested a significant amount of time developing flood <br /> control policy and wnrking on the best(angc�age to altow aties who are affected by the flood <br /> control proposals. <br /> California Attorney Genera!Settles C�QA Lawsuat with San �ernardino Cau�fy <br /> Califomia Attomey General Edmund G. Brovm announced a settlement with San Bernardino <br /> Coun#y on Aug. 21, in regard ta a fawsuif the aftorney generaf filed contesting the county's new <br /> general pJan under the California EnvironmenfaC Protection Act(CEQA). <br /> The lawsuit cor�tended that the general plan,which estabEishes guidelines for Eand use <br /> development in the county#hrough 2030, did not have sufficient anatysis on the developmenYs <br /> impact on ciimate change and►nechanisms for mitigation. <br /> The settlemer�t inctudes a greenhouse gas reductian plan for the caunty wMich identifie5 emission <br /> sources and establishes emission reduction targets.With the agreement, San Bernardino starts a <br /> 30-manth process to engage the public in reducing emissions relafed to land use decisions and <br /> county govemment operations. <br /> The plan mandates that the county must conduct an inventory of knnwn emission sources as well <br /> as those which can be reasonably discovered. The county is also responsible for identifying its <br /> emissions levels from the year 1990 and today,and must estimate what the leve[s wiEl be in 2020. <br /> AB 32(N�liez),which passed last year, sets emission recfuction targets for the state of 25 <br /> percent to 1890 fevels by the year 2D20. <br /> City offieials should review the settlement for more inforrrtatian on the local emission reduction <br /> mechanisms. The settlement can be found on the attorney general's Web site at w�nivd�,a�ca.c�,.o�r. <br /> Search for the#erm"San Bernardino County"in the upper right hand corner. <br /> 4 <br />