BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
226 (Ruskin)
Hearing Date: 08/27/2009 Amended: 07/23/2009
Consultant: Brendan McCarthy Policy Vote: NR&W 7-4, Jud 3-2
AB 226 (Ruskin)
Page 2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: This bill imposes a minimum penalty and increases
the maximum penalty for violations of the Coastal Act. The bill
allows the Coastal Commission to impose administrative civil
penalties for violations of the Coastal Act. The bill also ends
the current practice of transferring penalty revenues to the
Coastal Conservancy and instead allows those revenues to be used
by the Coastal Commission for enforcement activities.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
Coastal Commission Minor savings General
enforcement costs
Attorney General Minor savings General
enforcement costs
Coastal Commission Increased revenues, up to $1,000 per
yearSpecial *
revenues
Coastal Conservancy Reduced revenues, up to $500 per
yearSpecial **
revenues
* Coastal Act Services Fund.
** State Coastal Conservancy Fund.
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: Suspense file.
Under current law, the California Coastal Commission
(Commission) is responsible for implementing the Coastal Act of
1976, which was created by a voter initiative. The Coastal Act
governs issues such as development along the state's coastal
zone. Under current law, if the Commission wishes to pursue an
enforcement action against a property owner for an alleged
violation of the Coastal Act, the Commission must work with the
Attorney General's office to file suit in superior court. The
Commission itself does not have the authority to issue
AB 226 (Ruskin)
Page 2
administrative fines or penalties. Existing law allows a court
to impose a penalty up to $30,000 for violations of the Coastal
Act or violations of the conditions of a permit granted under
the Coastal Act. Additional penalties from $1,000 per day to
$15,000 per day may be levied for intentional violations of the
Coastal Act or a permit under the Coastal Act.
Under current law, revenues generated from violations of the
Coastal Act are deposited in the Violation Remediation Account
of the Coastal Conservancy Fund. These revenues are available
for appropriation to the Coastal Conservancy for coastal
protection activities. In recent years, penalty revenues
deposited in the fund have ranged from $150,000 to $500,000 per
year.
This bill authorizes the Coastal Commission to impose
administrative civil penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 for
violations of the Coastal Act or a permit granted under the
Coastal Act. Such penalties could be imposed only by a majority
vote of the commissioners at a public hearing. The bill sets out
the criteria for determining the level of liability by the
Commission. The bill also specifies that a person will not be
liable for both administrative penalties imposed by the
Commission and civil penalties imposed by a court. The bill
provides that if a person fails to pay an administrative civil
penalty or fails to comply with a restoration or cease and
desist order, the Commission may engage in judicial proceedings
to enforce these actions. The bill gives the Commission
authority to record a lien on a property when the property owner
has failed to pay a fine.
The bill states legislative intent that minor violations of the
Coastal Act should not lead to penalties.
The bill eliminates the transfer of penalty revenues to the
Coastal Conservancy. Rather, penalty revenues generated by the
Coastal Commission will be available, upon appropriation of the
Legislature, to the Coastal Commission to enforce the Coastal
Act.
Because the bill will allow the Coastal Commission to impose
fines administratively, the bill will provide minor cost savings
to the Commission and the Attorney General's office by
streamlining the enforcement process. The amount of enforcement
activity varies from year to year and there may still be a need
AB 226 (Ruskin)
Page 2
for the Commission to pursue unpaid fines or other violations
through the courts, so the amount of savings is unknown.
The bill imposes a minimum penalty and increases the maximum
penalty for violations of the Coastal Act; therefore there will
likely be additional penalty revenues. The amount of any
additional revenue is unknown.
Because the bill ends the current practice of transferring
penalty revenue from the Coastal Commission to the Coastal
Conservancy, the Coastal Conservancy will experience reduced
revenues in the low hundreds of thousands annually, while the
Commission will see an equivalent increase in revenues.
AB 291 (Saldana) prohibits the Coastal Commission from approving
coastal development permits if there is an outstanding violation
of the Coastal Act on the property. That bill is on third
reading.