BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 203
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 17, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 203 (Stone) - As Amended: March 11, 2013
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits the California Coastal Commission
(commission) from acting on coastal development permit (CDP)
applications for properties subject to unresolved violations of
the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) until the
violation is resolved (as determined by the executive director).
This bill provides the following exceptions to the prohibition:
1)The commission may act upon an application for a CDP if the
executive director determines the application includes a
provision that will fully resolve the violation.
2)The commission may deem an application complete and file it if
the violation is minor and may be easily resolved through
voluntary actions.
3)The prohibition does not apply to local government actions on
local coastal programs or public works plans;
4)The prohibition does not apply to a new application for a new
development in a harbor, port, or marina is owned by someone
other than the party to the violation.
This bill provides that any unresolved dispute between the
executive director and an applicant may be resolved by the
commission at a publicly noticed hearing.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)According to commission staff, potential annual special fund
savings in the range of $50,000 to $100,000, from avoided
AB 203
Page 2
enforcement proceedings.
2)Minor GF costs, likely in the tens of thousands of dollars
annually, associated with resolution of unresolved disputes
between the executive director and property owners.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The commission currently has a backlog of over 1,800
open violation cases. This bill allows the commission to
resolve an existing violation in the context of a permit
application for new development. The commission estimates
this bill will help resolve approximately 10% of the
violations.
2) Background. The Coastal Act established the commission to
protect the coast's natural and scenic resources and to
regulate development along the coastal zone.
Under the Coastal Act, all development in the coastal zone
requires a permit unless statutorily exempt. The permitting
process allows the commission and local governments to review
proposed projects to ensure they will not have impacts
inconsistent with the environmental protection policies of the
Coastal Act and local coastal plans.
In order to develop property in the coastal zone, a CDP must
be obtained. The commission determines if the development is
consistent with the Coastal Act and state and local coastal
plans.
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 local costal plans.
An order may be issued only after failure to respond to verbal
and written notice.
The commission generally uses restoration orders to bring
about removal of unpermitted development and/or restoration of
damaged coastal resources. The commission may only issue a
restoration order after a noticed public hearing.
AB 203
Page 3
The executive director of the commission can also issue cease
and desist orders when someone has undertaken, or is
threatening may undertake, development without a CDP or
inconsistent with a CDP. The executive director orders stay
in effect for 90 days and are followed by public hearings and
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 1,800 pending enforcement cases. 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 : Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081