BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 976|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 976
Author: Atkins (D), et al.
Amended: 8/14/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 6-2, 6/25/13
AYES: Pavley, Evans, Jackson, Lara, Monning, Wolk
NOES: Cannella, Fuller
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hueso
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-2, 7/2/13
AYES: Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
NOES: Walters, Anderson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Evans
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-32, 5/30/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Coastal resources: California Coastal Act of 1976:
enforcement: penalties
SOURCE : Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
DIGEST : This bill authorizes, until January 1, 2019, 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).
CONTINUED
AB 976
Page
2
ANALYSIS :
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 (account) of the Coastal Conservancy Fund
(Fund) and used to carrying out the Coastal Act, when
appropriated by the Legislature.
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% of the amount that a court can impose for the same
violation.
2.Requires, in determining the amount of civil liability, the
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 the Commission, if a person fails to pay an
administrative civil penalty imposed by the Commission, to
record a lien on the person's property in the amount of the
CONTINUED
AB 976
Page
3
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.Prohibits the assessment of administrative penalties if the
property owner corrects the violations, as specified.
7.Requires the Commission to prepare and submit a report to the
Legislature by January 15, 2018, that includes all of the
following:
A. The number of new violations reported annually to the
Commission from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017.
B. The number of violations resolved from January 1, 2014,
to December 31, 2017.
C. The number of administrative penalties issued pursuant
this bill, the dollar amount of the penalties, and a
description of the violations from January 1, 2014, to
December 31, 2017.
8.Sunsets the bill's provisions on January 1, 2019, unless a
later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2019,
deletes or extends that date.
Background
The Commission was created by voter initiative and permanently
established by the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code (PRC)
Sections 30000 - 30900). It seeks to protect the state's
natural and scenic resources along the California coast and has
vested regulatory authority for specified development activities
in the designated coastal zone. The Commission's core program
activities include issuing and enforcing permits for coastal
development.
The Coastal Act requires a person undertaking development in the
coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit in
accordance with prescribed procedures. The Commission has no
CONTINUED
AB 976
Page
4
administrative civil penalty authority and refers cases to the
Attorney General's office to be filed. Existing law (PRC
Sec.30820 et seq), authorizes the superior court to impose civil
liabilities between $500 and $30,000 for violations of the
Coastal Act. Additional penalties between $1,000 and $15,000
per day may be imposed for each day in which the violation
persists for intentional and knowing violations, plus exemplary
damages, if appropriate. Funds derived from penalties
associated with a violation of the Coastal Act are deposited in
the account of the Fund where, on appropriation by the
Legislature, they are used to support the California Coastal
Conservancy and for purposes of carrying out the Coastal Act.
From data provided by the Commission, revenues to the account
from enforcement of the Commission's authority from 1985 - 2008
averaged approximately $134,000 per year.
The recent semi-annual July - December 2012 report of the
Commission's enforcement program showed there was a backlog of
approximately 1,800 cases (still true as of April 2013). This
is an increase in the backlog of approximately 500 cases since
2009. The report states that 34 cases are pending at the
Attorney General's Office. Separate information provided by the
Commission indicates that the majority of these cases are
cross-complaints when a Commission order was challenged in
court.
In its analysis of the fiscal year 2008/09 Budget, the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) noted that the existing
process for the Commission to issue a fine or penalty was
cumbersome and resulted in few fines and penalties due to the
high cost of pursuing enforcement through the courts. The LAO
recommended, in view of the fact that numerous agencies have
administrative civil penalty authority, that the Commission be
given that authority as well. This recommendation was dropped
from the eventual budget bill. Since the recommendation was
made, two bills - AB 226 (Ruskin, 2009) and SB 588 (Evans, 2011)
- have sought to provide administrative civil penalty authority
to the Commission. Both failed.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/14/13)
CONTINUED
AB 976
Page
5
Planning and Conservation League (co-source)
Sierra Club California (co-source)
Azul
Black Surfers Collective
California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Protection Network
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Native Plant Society
Coastwalk California
Committee for Green Foothills
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Protection Information Center
Environmental Water Caucus
Friends of Del Norte
Green California
Greenspace
Heal the Bay
League for Coastal Protection
National Parks Conservation Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
North County Watch
Northcoast Environmental Center
Ocean Conservancy
PawPAC
Planning and Conservation League
Save the Park
Surfrider Foundation
Terra Foundation
The Wildlands Conservancy
WILDCOAST
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/14/13)
Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Apartment Association
California Aquaculture Association
California Association of Realtors
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Cattlemen's Association
CONTINUED
AB 976
Page
6
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Railroad Industry
California Sea Urchin Commission
California Travel Association
California Wetfish Producers Association
Employers Council of Mendocino County
Mendocino County Cattlemen's Association
Nisei Farmers League
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Orange County Business Council
Southwest California Legislative Council
Ventura County Cattlemen's Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western States Petroleum Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, this bill
"allows the Commission the ability to enforce against
intentional violations of the Coastal Act. AB 976 accomplishes
this goal by granting the Commission the ability to
administratively impose fines upon serious and intentional
violators of the Coastal Act."
"Coastal Act violations threaten beach access, wildlife and
fragile coastal ecosystems. Currently, the Commission must take
violators who refuse to comply with orders to court through an
action of the Attorney General. The Commission has only taken
four violators to court in the last ten years, and the current
backlog of over 1,800 unresolved violations continues to grow as
recalcitrant offenders know that the Commission lacks the tools
to compel compliance."
"The current rate of violations is accruing faster than the
Commission can resolve them, leading to a growing and
unsustainable backlog of cases. California only has one
coastline, and damage to the coast can't always be undone - so
it is critically important that the Legislature act now to
protect California's coast."
CONTINUED
AB 976
Page
7
The Environmental Defense Fund adds "The deterrent component of
any regulatory scheme is important, particular for environmental
laws where restoration of violations often is difficult or
impossible. Penalties are a critical component of environmental
statutes and are the primary tool for persuading would-be
violators to comply with the law. Lack of administrative
penalty authority has been a longstanding deficiency in the
Commission's enforcement program, which diminishes the
Commission's ability to obtain swift voluntary resolution of
outstanding violations."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Orange County Board of
Supervisors states "the bill would create an unacceptable
dynamic whereby the Commission would be incentivized to impose
fine and penalties, at the expense of due process and rights for
the accused, rather than pursuing those fines and penalties
through the judicial branch where that function properly
belongs."
A coalition letter from numerous opponents states, "It is
difficult to believe that there are ongoing, egregious
violations that the Commission has failed to pursue, or lacks
the authority to pursue. The Commission has not demonstrated
this to be true, and to the contrary, has demonstrated extreme
vigilance in citing violations resulting in correction action."
"AB 976 creates a 'bounty hunter' mentality among Commission
staff, would strip alleged violators of due process afforded by
the courts, provide the Commission sweeping civil penalty
authority more appropriately reserved for the courts, and
provides a slippery slope to use administrative civil penalties
to augment the Commission operating budget."
The Ventura County Cattlemen's Association, in comments echoed
by others, cited concerns about the potential for inadvertent
violations of the Coastal Act by routine agricultural operations
in the coastal zone.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-32, 5/30/13
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bonilla,
Bonta, Bradford, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chesbro,
Dickinson, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal,
Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, V. Manuel
CONTINUED
AB 976
Page
8
P�rez, Quirk, Rendon, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski,
Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Brown, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle,
Daly, Donnelly, Eggman, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Gray, Grove,
Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor,
Melendez, Morrell, Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk-Silva, Salas, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bocanegra, Buchanan, Cooley, Garcia, Holden,
Vacancy
RM:ej 8/14/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED