BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 747
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Brian Maienschein, Chair
AB 747
(Eggman) - As Introduced February 25, 2015
SUBJECT: Planning and land use: Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.
SUMMARY: Clarifies, for purposes of a project that is located
within a flood hazard zone in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley,
what types of permits can be issued by a city or county without
that city or county making a specified finding about flood
protection. Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows, for purposes of a project that is located within a
flood hazard zone in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, a city
or county to issue permits for construction that will not
result in an increase in allowed occupancy or result in the
construction of a new building, without making specified
findings about flood protection required by current law.
2)Finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a
general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of
Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution
because of the unique land use planning considerations
relative to flood hazard zones in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Valley.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 747
Page 2
1)Prohibits each city and county within the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit or other
discretionary entitlement, or a ministerial permit that would
result in the construction of a new residence, for a project
that is located with a flood hazard zone unless the city or
county finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, one
of the following:
a) The facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control or
other flood management facilities protect the project to
the urban level of flood protection in urban and urbanizing
areas or the national Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) standard of flood protection in nonurbanized areas;
b) The city or county has imposed conditions on the permit
or discretionary entitlement that will protect the project
to the urban level of flood protection in urban and
urbanizing areas or the national FEMA standard of flood
protection in nonurbanized areas;
c) The local flood management agency has made adequate
progress on the construction of a flood protection system
which will result in flood protection equal to or greater
than the urban level of flood protection in urban or
urbanizing areas of the national FEMA standard of flood
protection in nonubanized areas for property located within
a flood hazard zone, intended to be protected by the
system. For urban and urbanizing areas protected by
project levees, the urban level of flood protection shall
be achieved by 2025; or,
d) The property in an undetermined risk area has met the
urban level of flood protection based on substantial
evidence in the record.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
AB 747
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1)Background. 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
Control Project, Sacramento River, and San Joaquin River
watersheds. SB 5 (Machado), Chapter 364, Statutes of 2007,
required DWR and the Central Valley Flood Protection 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 Central Valley Flood Protection 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 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
AB 747
Page 4
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 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)Bill Summary. This bill allows, for purposes of a project
that is located within a flood hazard zone in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, a city or county to issue
permits for construction that will not result in an increase
in allowed occupancy or not result in the construction of a
new building, without making specified findings about flood
protection as required by current law.
This bill is sponsored by the County of San Joaquin and the
City of Stockton.
3)Author's Statement. According to the author, "In 2007, the
Governor signed a package
of five bills intended to increase protection from damaging
flood waters. Included in those bills, were a number of
requirements for local governments in the Sacramento-San
AB 747
Page 5
Joaquin Valley to improve local land use and other planning
decisions by strengthening the link between land use and flood
management.
"Included in the package of bills was SB 5 (Machado), Chapter
364, Statutes of 2007, that requires cities and counties to
amend their general plans to incorporate data from the Central
Valley Flood Protection Board Flood Plan and then to update
their zoning ordinances to be consistent with the revised
general plan. Additionally, the law requires that once the
general plan and zoning ordinances have been updated, the
local government is prohibited, starting in 2016, from
allowing development on property within a flood hazard zone
unless the property is determined to have 200-year flood
protection. The law also captures permits for construction and
remodel that does not result in an increase in allowed
occupancy, which may include the construction of cell towers,
the reconstruction of structurally unsound buildings/rooms,
and other permit-required work. AB 747 revises flood hazard
planning and development requirements for communities in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to allow cities and communities
within the area to issue permits for construction that does
not result in an increase in allowable occupancy."
4)Prior Legislation. AB 2108 (Eggman) of 2014 would have made a
number of changes to the statutes relating to flood management
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, including a somewhat
different approach to the issue that this bill is addressing,
and included other broader changes. AB 2108 was never heard
by a policy committee in the Senate.
AB 125 (Eggman) of 2014 was gutted and amended in the Senate
on August 22, 2014, to include language that is substantially
similar to AB 747. Amendments to AB 125 on August 30, 2014,
added in a new section relating to the Department of Water
Resources and the Urban Flood Risk Reduction Program. That
bill passed the Senate, but died on the Assembly Floor due to
timing.
AB 747
Page 6
5)Arguments in Support. The County of San Joaquin argues that
"Many projects typically subject to discretionary permits,
such as installations of drive-through windows in fast food
restaurants and the construction of cell phone towers, have no
impact on flood risk. Making findings of 200-year flood
protection is extremely costly and time consuming, and does
nothing to enhance public safety in the case of these types of
project. AB 747 corrects this by amending the trigger for
requiring 200-year findings with discretionary permits to
those which would result in the construction of a new
building, or an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing
building."
6)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
County of San Joaquin [CO-SPONSOR]
City of Stockton [CO-SPONSOR]
California State Association of Counties
Opposition
AB 747
Page 7
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958