|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Time Set # 46.
|
| Board of Supervisors |
|
|
|
|
| Subject |
| Hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of a Zoning Code Amendment to revise the Flood Protection Ordinance, Chapter 4 of Title 8, of the Yolo County Code, and adopt resolution certifying compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed revisions will impact development on properties in the unincorporated areas that are located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas which are identified in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Zones A, AO, AE, or AH. (No general fund impact) (Echiburu/Doolittle) |
| Recommended Action |
- Hold a public hearing on the proposed revisions to the Flood Protection Ordinance (Chapter 4 of Title 8, of the Yolo County Code) (Attachment A) and hear comments from the public;
- Direct staff as to any further revisions to the ordinance;
- Adopt a resolution certifying compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act by relying on the previous Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2030 Yolo Countywide General Plan (Attachment B); and
- Adopt the ordinance amending the Yolo County Code to update the Flood Protection Ordinance (Attachment C).
|
| Strategic Plan Goal(s) |
Safe Communities
Sustainable Environment
Flourishing Agriculture |
| Reason for Recommended Action/Background |
These proposed revisions to the Flood Protection Ordinance are based on recommendations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to meet the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and are required for property owners and tenants to remain eligible for a NFIP flood insurance; for Yolo County to be eligible for federal disaster assistance funds; and for our community to maintain a 10% discount on NFIP flood insurance policies through the Community Rating System (CRS). Maintaining flood insurance is a requirement for all home loans from federally insured or regulated lenders.
The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this item on March 6, 2018, after which the proposed amendment was continued to the meeting of April 24, May 22, and June 5, 2018. The continuances were requested to allow additional time to meet with members of the public before final action to consider adoption of the proposed changes.
BACKGROUND
This Zoning Code Amendment would revise several sections of the Flood Protection Ordinance, Chapter 4 of Title 8, of the Yolo County Code, to address recommendations by FEMA to ensure compliance with the minimum requirements of the NFIP. The revisions would affect development on all properties in the unincorporated areas of Yolo County that are located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA).
Yolo County received very good news from FEMA on April 1, 2017 that the results of the NFIP CRS field verification determined that Yolo County will retain its current rating as a CRS Class 8 community (Attachment E). The floodplain management activities implemented by the County will continue to qualify flood insurance policy holders in the County for a 10 percent discount on premiums for NFIP policies issued or renewed in the SFHA. In order to maintain this discount, Yolo County must meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP.
The currently adopted Yolo County Flood Protection Ordinance requires, among other things, that the lowest floor, including basement, for all new structures or substantial improvements within the SFHA to be elevated such that the lowest floor is at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The BFE is defined as the elevation shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that indicates the water surface resulting from a flood that has a 1 percent chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year.
The proposed revisions to the Flood Protection Ordinance are shown in Attachment A in legislative font (strikeouts and underlines). Most of the proposed language is from the California Model Floodplain Management Ordinance for Non-coastal Communities, published by the Department of Water Resources in December 2006. Additional language was gleaned from the Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance, which was reviewed and accepted by FEMA in 2014, and served as a good template.
In general, conformance with the California Model Floodplain Management Ordinance for Non-coastal Communities generated numerous small changes that have very little impact on our regulatory requirements. However, the more significant proposed changes include:
- Delete the "Minor Variance" definition and process. Projects that formerly used the minor variance process must use the existing regular variance definition and process that is also modified to be consistent with the latest FEMA recommendations;
- Modify the definition of “Development” to ensure all development that is required by the NFIP to be reviewed will require a permit. Additionally, certain common agricultural activities were excluded from this definition to ensure that typical farming procedures that do not impact flood risk are not impacted;
- Modify the definition of “Structure” to clarify that buildings without rigid walls are not “structures”; and
- Addition of provisions to allow small accessory structures, such as for the parking of no more than 2 cars, or sheds less than 150 square feet and $1,500 in value, to be constructed below the BFE using flood openings and flood damage-resistant materials.
Additionally, because all buildings in the SFHA require inspection of anchoring, materials, utilities and elevations, the "ag exempt" permit process cannot be used for structures in the SFHA, including areas designated as Zone A, AO, AE, or AH on the FIRM. This includes much of the eastern portion of the county and other areas throughout the county, such as the communities of Clarksburg, Knights Landing, Madison, and Yolo (Attachment D shows the locations of the 100-year flood plain). These structures are still able to be constructed using the standard building permit process.
The proposed Flood Protection Ordinance amendments have been extensively reviewed by the public and FEMA staff over the last year and numerous revisions have occurred. The Planning Commission held two public hearings on March 9 and April 13, 2017. Following the first hearing, the Commission requested that some specific sections of the proposed ordinance be re-evaluated to determine if they should be applied in Yolo County. On March 22, 2017, staff met with representatives of the State and Yolo County Farm Bureau who also requested that specific new regulations that may not be required by FEMA to apply in Yolo County be removed from the ordinance. In response, the Floodplain Administrator recommended the deletion or revision of some sections of the proposed ordinance. On April 13, 2017, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the revised Flood Ordinance.
More recently, the Community Services staff met with the Clarksburg Citizens Advisory Committee on April 27, 2018. The group requested additional changes to the ordinance to consider several changes, including one to allow ag storage buildings up to 5,000 square feet to be considered “accessory structures” to allow construction below the base flood elevation without a variance. The requests were forwarded to FEMA staff, who stated that this change would not meet the minimum requirements of the NFIP. A change that was considered consistent with the NFIP is the removal of previously proposed (but never adopted) language that would have limited all variances to non-habitable structures. |
| Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies) |
| The Office of the County Counsel has reviewed the ordinance. Some of the citizens’ advisory committees and the Farm Bureau have also reviewed the ordinance. The Farm Bureau and individual farmers from the Clarksburg area submitted questions and comments over the year, which have been considered by the Scott Doolittle, Plan Check Engineer in his capacity with delegated duties of the Floodplain Administrator and in collaboration with FEMA during the revision process described above. |
|
| Fiscal Impact |
|
|
| Source of Funds for this Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|