BILL ANALYSIS AB 291 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair AB 291 (Saldana) - As Introduced: April 22, 2009 Policy Committee: Natural ResourcesVote:6-3 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill restricts a person's ability to apply for a coastal development permit (CDP) from the Coastal Commission. Specifically, this bill would: 1)Prohibit a person who is subject to Coastal Commission enforcement action from submitting an application for a CDP until the enforcement action is resolved, as determined by the commission's executive director. 2)Allow such a person to apply for a CDP if the commission's executive director determines the CDP application includes provisions that would fully resolve the enforcement action, once realized. 3)Provides that any unresolved dispute between the executive director and an applicant regarding the implementation of this section may be resolved by the commission at a noticed hearing. FISCAL EFFECT 1)Minor General Fund costs, likely in the tens of thousands of dollars annually, associated with resolution of unresolved disputes between the executive director and property owners. 2)Potential savings, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, resulting from avoided enforcement proceedings. COMMENTS AB 291 Page 2 1)Rationale. The author contends this bill would help the commission address its backlog of enforcement cases. According to the author, the commission currently has a backlog of 1,300 enforcement cases, mainly the result of understaffing and other resource limitations. The author intends this bill to provide individuals subject to unresolved commission enforcement actions with an incentive-the ability to apply for CDPs-to resolve those cases. 2)Background. The State Coastal Act of 1976 permanently established the Coastal Commission, following its initial creation by a voter initiative in 1972. The act seeks to protect the state's natural and scenic resources along California's coast. It also delineates a "coastal zone" running the length of California's coast, extending seaward to the state's territorial limit of three miles, and extending inland a varying width from 1,000 yards to several miles. The commission's primary responsibility is to implement the act's provisions, including regulation of development in the coastal zone. It is also the state's planning and management agency for the coastal zone. The commission's jurisdiction does not include the San Francisco Bay Area, where development is regulated by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Under the Coastal Act All development in the coastal zone not exempt in statute requires a permit. That permitting process allows the Coastal Commission and local governments review proposed projects to ensure that they will not have impacts inconsistent with the environmental protection policies of the Coastal Act and of the plans created by local governments to implement the Coastal Act, known as "Local Coastal Programs" (LCPs). The commission has several enforcement options to address violations of the Coastal Act. The commission generally uses cease and desist orders to halt ongoing violations, to order removal of unpermitted development, and to obtain compliance with requirements of the Coastal Act or LCPs. The commission generally uses restoration orders to bring about removal of unpermitted development and/or restoration of damaged coastal resources. The executive director of the commission can also issue cease and desist orders when someone has undertaken, or AB 291 Page 3 is threatening to undertake, development without a CDP or inconsistent with a CDP. These executive director orders stay in effect for 90 days and are followed by commission-issued orders if needed. 3)Supporters, including conservation and environmental organizations, note that, at current staffing and resource levels, it would take the commission over 100 years to address its backlog of 1,300 pending enforcement cases. This bill, supporters claim, would provide applicants the incentive to quickly resolve violations and the harm to the coastal zone those violations represent. In turn, applicants would be less likely subject to penalties and expensive enforcement proceeding associated with unresolved enforcement actions. Supporters note that most municipal governments and many state agencies have similar authority to require resolution of a violation prior to consideration for a permit, license or other approval. 4)A coalition of opponents -including some municipal governments and industry groups-has raised concerns that the bill does not contain sufficient due process provisions. They therefore claim that the bill would unfairly penalize an applicant based on the mere assertion by staff of a Coastal Act violation. In addition, some opponents are concerned that the bill's prohibition apply to a person with a pending enforcement action, rather than to a parcel with pending enforcement actions. Thus, these opponents contend that the bill, as currently written, could unfairly allow the commission to prevent a person from applying for development of a property in San Diego because of pending enforcement action against a property in Crescent City owned by the same person. Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081