AB 747 (Eggman) 2/25/15 Page 1 of 2

SENATE COMMITTEE ONGOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

SenatorRobert M. Hertzberg, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: / AB747 / Hearing Date: / 7/8/15
Author: / Eggman / Tax Levy: / No
Version: / 2/25/15 / Fiscal: / No
Consultant: / Favorini-Csorba

PLANNING AND LAND USE: SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

Prohibits a city or county in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley from approving a discretionary permit that would result in certain types of construction without making findings related to flood protection.

Background and Existing Law

The Planning and Zoning Law requires every county and city to adopt a general plan that sets out planned uses for all of the area covered by the plan. Cities’ and counties’ major land use decisions—including development permitting—must be consistent with their general plans. In this way, the general plan is a blueprint for future development.

In 2007, the Governor signed a package of five bills designed to increase protection from damaging flood waters. Those bills included 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. One bill in the package, SB 5 (Machado, 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. Subsequent legislation required the general plan to include identification of flood hazard zones and areas of undetermined flood risk.

Once a city or county completes the update to its general plan and amendment to the zoning ordinance, the law states that a city or county “within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley shall not approve 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 within a flood hazard zone” unless the city or county findings that the project has the required level of flood protection for its location. There is some disagreement over the correct interpretation of this provision. The Department of Water Resources considers this legislation to prohibit any discretionary permit, while others argue that it only applies to permits for new residences.

Some local government officials want to clarify what permits can be issued without making findings regarding flood protection.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 747 requires a city or county to make the specified flood protection findings before approving “a discretionary permit, or other discretionary entitlement to those permits, or entitlements that would result in the construction of a new building, or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building,” as well as for ministerial permits that would result in the construction of a new residence.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. AB 747 resolves a long-running disagreement over the interpretation of what projects may be permitted without the city or county making findings about the level of flood protection. These findings can be costly to make and may not always be possible without costly investments in flood protection infrastructure. As a result, the lack of clarity in the current law has prevented some local governments from permitting structures, such as cell phone towers, that neither increase flood risk nor put additional lives in danger. AB 747 provides certainty to those governments by clarifying that the findings are only required for discretionary permits or entitlements that result in construction of a new building or a new residence, or construction that would allow an increase in occupancy at an existing building. This requirement preserves SB 5’s goal of reducing flood risk by promoting prudent land use permitting, while also allowing necessary structures to be constructed without the expense of making flood protection findings.

2. Related legislation. AB 2108 (Eggman, 2014) would have made a number of changes to the statutes relating to flood management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, including a prohibition on discretionary permits that allow a 50% increase in allowed occupancy without the required flood findings, as well as other broader changes. AB 2108 was never heard by a policy committee in the Senate.

AB 125 (Eggman, 2014) was significantly 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 Unfinished Business File.

3.Incoming! The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee approved AB 747 by a vote of 9-0 on June 23, 2015.

4. Special legislation. The California Constitution prohibits special legislation when a general law can apply (Article IV, §16). AB 747 contains findings and declarations explaining the need for legislation that applies only to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Local Government Committee: 9-0

Assembly Floor:78-0

Support and Opposition

(7/2/15)

Support: County of San Joaquin; City of Stockton; California State Association of Counties.

Opposition: Unknown.

-- END--