BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 747
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
747 (Eggman)
As Introduced February 25, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
|----------------+------+----------------------+---------------------|
|Local |9-0 |Maienschein, | |
|Government | |Gonzalez, Alejo, | |
| | |Chiu, Cooley, Gordon, | |
| | |Holden, Linder, | |
| | |Waldron | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
AB 747
Page 2
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:
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 nonurbanized 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,
AB 747
Page 3
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
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 the Department of Water Resources 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.
AB 747
Page 4
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. SB 1278 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 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
AB 747
Page 5
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 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 substantially amended in the Senate
on August 22, 2014, to include language that is substantially
AB 747
Page 6
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 Unfinished Business
File.
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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0000161