BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 976
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 976 (Atkins)
As Amended May 28, 2013
Majority vote
NATURAL RESOURCES 6-3 JUDICIARY 6-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Chesbro, Garcia, |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Chau, |
| |Muratsuchi, Skinner, | |Dickinson, Garcia, |
| |Stone, Williams | |Muratsuchi, Stone |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Grove, Bigelow, Patterson |Nays:|Wagner, Maienschein |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | |
| |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, | | |
| |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Authorizes the Coastal Commission (Commission), by
majority vote and at a duly noticed public hearing, to impose an
administrative civil penalty on a person who intentionally and
knowingly violates the California Coastal Act (Coastal Act).
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes the Commission, by majority vote and at a duly
noticed public hearing, to impose an administrative civil
penalty on a person who intentionally and knowingly violates
the Coastal Act. The penalty may be in an amount not to
exceed 75 percent of the amount that a court can impose for
the same violation.
2)Requires, in determining the amount of civil liability, the
AB 976
Page 2
Commission to take into account mitigating factors as
specified.
3)Prohibits a person from being subject to both administrative
civil liability imposed by the Commission and monetary civil
liability imposed by the superior court for the same act or
failure to act.
4)Authorizes, if a person fails to pay an administrative civil
penalty imposed by the Commission, the Commission to record a
lien on the person's property in the amount of the penalty
assessed by the Commission.
5)States that it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that
unintentional, minor violations of the Coastal Act that only
cause de minimis harm will not lead to the imposition of civil
penalties if the violator has acted expeditiously to correct
the violation.
6)Sunsets the bill's provisions on January 1, 2017.
EXISTING LAW : Pursuant to the Coastal Act:
1)Requires any person seeking to perform any development in the
coastal zone to first obtain a coastal development permit
(CDP).
2)Authorizes a superior court to impose civil penalties between
$500 and $30,000 on any person in violation of the Coastal
Act. If a person intentionally and knowingly violates the
Coastal Act, additional civil penalties between $1,000 and
$15,000 may be imposed for each day in which the violation
persists.
3)Requires any funds derived from penalties associated with a
violation of the Coastal Act to be deposited in the Violation
Remediation Account of the Coastal Conservancy Fund and used
to carrying out the Coastal Act, when appropriated by the
Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Potential penalty revenues to the State Coastal Conservancy,
in the range of $500,000 to $2,000,000 a year.
AB 976
Page 3
2)Minor savings, to the Commission in avoided staffing and other
expenses related to pursuing Coastal Act violations in court.
3)Potential minor savings to the Attorney General's Office from
representing the Commission before court.
COMMENTS :
Should the Commission have administrative penalty authority ? As
stated by Commission staff, penalties are a critical component
of all environmental statutes and are the primary means to
persuade would-be violators to comply with the law. The
deterrent component of any regulatory scheme is important,
particularly for environmental laws. A credible threat of
penalties to prevent violations in the first place can greatly
increase the ability of an environmental agency to obtain
voluntary compliance, and greatly increase its ability to
protect the environment.
While the Commission has the authority to seek civil penalties
in court, staff claims that it is infrequently done, citing the
very slow, expensive, and resource-intensive process.
Even the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has chimed in on the
issue. In its 2008-09 and 2011-12 budget analysis, the LAO
recommended that the Commission be granted administrative civil
penalty authority. The LAO highlighted the cumbersome process
that "results in few fines and penalties issued by the
commission due to the high cost of pursuing enforcement through
the courts."
This bill's proposal and the LAO's recommendations are not novel
concepts. Several environmental state agencies have been able
to evade costly litigation through their administrative penalty
authority. For example, agencies such as the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the State Water
Resources Control Board (and regional boards), State Lands
Commission, Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Energy
Commission, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery, and regional air districts all have
administrative civil penalty authority, at least for certain
issue. BCDC's authority to regulate development along San
Francisco Bay serves as the best analog to the work of the
AB 976
Page 4
Commission. Using its civil penalty authority, BCDC has been
successful at discouraging and resolving the vast majority of
violations without resorting to expensive and time consuming
litigation. Supporters of this bill argue that that "the
state's coastal resources are no less important or worthy of
protection" than the resources that these other agencies
protect.
This bill is tailored to address intentional violations . The
scope of this bill is limited to people who intentionally and
knowingly violate the Coastal Act. The Commission cannot use
this bill to penalize unintentional violations that cause de
minimis harm if the violator has acted expeditiously to correct
the violation.
Previous legislation . This bill is similar to AB 226 (Ruskin)
of 2009 and SB 588 (Evans) of 2011. AB 226 passed the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee and the Assembly Floor, but was
substantially amended on the Senate Floor. SB 588 passed the
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee; however, no
subsequent legislative action was taken on the bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0000824