BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 291
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   May 13, 2009

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                Kevin De Leon, Chair

                    AB 291 (Saldana) - As Amended:  May 11, 2009 

          Policy Committee:                              Natural  
          ResourcesVote:6-3

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:              No

           SUMMARY  

          This bill restricts the Coastal Commission from acting on a  
          coastal development permit (CDP) for development on a property  
          that has an unresolved violation of the Coastal Act.   
          Specifically, this bill:

          1)Prohibits the commission from acting upon an application for a  
            CDP for a property that has an open enforcement action for a  
            violation of the Coastal Act until the enforcement action is  
            resolved, as determined by the commission's executive  
            director.

          2)Allows the commission to act upon a CDP for such a property if  
            the commission's executive director determines the CDP  
            application includes provisions that would fully resolve the  
            enforcement action, once realized, or that the violation is so  
            minor that the property owner can easily resolve the violation  
            voluntarily. 
           
          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  








                                                                  AB 291
                                                                  Page  2

            dollars annually, resulting from avoided enforcement  
            proceedings.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Rationale.   The author contends this bill will 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  








                                                                  AB 291
                                                                  Page  3

            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  
            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.  

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081