BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 514
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Brian Maienschein, Chair
AB 514
(Williams) - As Amended April 21, 2015
SUBJECT: Ordinances: violations: fines.
SUMMARY: Increases fine amounts counties may impose for
violations of specified ordinances. Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows counties to impose increased fines for a violation,
determined to be an infraction,
of any of the following ordinances:
a) A local building and safety ordinance;
b) A brush removal ordinance;
c) A grading ordinance;
d) A film permit ordinance;
AB 514
Page 2
e) A zoning ordinance; or,
f) An ordinance that regulates the drilling, operation,
maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal
wells.
2)Provides that the increased fines are to be established by
ordinance and are subject to all
of the following requirements:
a) The amount of the fine for the first violation does not
exceed the amount of the permit fee required by the
ordinance multiplied by 10 or five thousand dollars
($5,000), whichever is less. In the absence of a permit
fee, the amount of the fine shall not exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000);
b) The amount of the fine for a second violation of the
same ordinance within five years of the first violation is
greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000), but does not
exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). In the absence of a
permit fee, the amount of the fine shall not exceed two
thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500);
c) The amount of the fine for the third violation of the
same ordinance within five years
AB 514
Page 3
of the first violation is greater than ten thousand dollars
($10,000), but does not exceed fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000). In the absence of a permit fee, the amount of
the fine shall not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000);
and,
d) The amount of the fine is based upon the severity of the
threat to public health and safety.
3)Provides that, if an ordinance described in 1), above, is not
subject to a fine established by ordinance as set forth in
this bill, the violation of that ordinance shall be subject to
a fine described in existing law.
4)Provides that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines
that this bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those
costs shall be made pursuant to current law governing state
mandated local costs.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Allows the legislative body of a city, county, or city and
county to collect any fee, cost,
or charge incurred in specified activities, including the
AB 514
Page 4
abatement of public nuisances, enforcement of specified zoning
ordinances, inspections and abatement of violations of the
State Housing Law, inspections and abatement of violations of
the California Building Standards Code, and inspections and
abatement of violations related to local ordinances that
implement these laws.
2)Limits the amount of a fee, cost, or charge described above to
the actual cost incurred performing the inspections and
enforcement activity, including permit fees, fines, late
charges, and interest.
3)Provides that violation of a city or county ordinance is a
misdemeanor, unless by ordinance it is made an infraction.
4)Provides that a violation of a city or county ordinance may be
prosecuted by city or county authorities in the name of the
people of the State of California, or redressed by civil
action.
5)Provides that every violation of a city or county ordinance
determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
a) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a
first violation;
b) A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a
AB 514
Page 5
second violation of the same ordinance within one year;
and,
c) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for
each additional violation of the same ordinance within one
year.
6)Provides that a violation of local building and safety codes
determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
a) A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a
first violation;
b) A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) for a
second violation of the same ordinance within one year;
and,
c) A fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) for
each additional violation of the same ordinance within one
year of the first violation.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a
state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS:
AB 514
Page 6
1)Bill Summary. This bill establishes a new fee structure for
violations of a number of specified county ordinances, if
those violations are infractions. The specified ordinances
include those that govern building and safety; brush removal;
grading; film permitting; zoning; and, the drilling,
operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and
geothermal wells.
The proposed fee structure is as follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------
|Number of |Amount of fine if a |Amount of fine in |
|violations within |permit fee exists |the absence of a |
|specified time | |permit fee |
|periods | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|First violation |Fine does not exceed |Fine shall not |
| |the amount of the |exceed $1,000 |
| |permit fee required | |
| |by the ordinance | |
| |multiplied by 10, or | |
| |$5,000, whichever is | |
| |less | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Second violation |Fine is greater than |Fine shall not |
|within five years |$5,000 but does not |exceed $2,500 |
|of first |exceed $10,000 | |
|violation | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Third violation |Fine is greater than |Fine shall not |
|within five years |$10,000 but does not |exceed $5,000 |
|of first |exceed $15,000 | |
AB 514
Page 7
|violation | | |
| | | |
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------
The amount of the fine is based on the severity of the threat
to public health and safety. This bill is sponsored by the
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "AB 514 will
provide counties with more local control to impose fines for
specific violations of the County's Land Use and Development
codes, specifically where permits are available.
"The Land Use and Development codes focus on events that have
over 300 people attending, if there is potential public
disturbance, and/or a structure is built that would alter the
local landscape. The current small fines for violations of
forgoing permits do not provide disincentives for violations
of the Land Use and Development codes for special events
(parties, weddings, and film shoots) and conditions for
construction hours and days.
"AB 514 creates a reasonable deterrence mechanism and provides
counties with more control to enforce local health and safety
ordinances."
3)Background. Local governments have the authority to enact
local planning and land use regulations to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare of their residents through their
police power. The "police power" provides the right to adopt
and enforce zoning regulations, as long as they do not
AB 514
Page 8
conflict with state laws.
Current law allows cities and counties to establish
ordinances, makes violations of ordinances misdemeanors,
unless they are made infractions via ordinance adopted by the
city or county, and outlines the following fee structure for
ordinance violations and building and safety code violations
that are determined to be infractions:
-------------------------------------------------------------
|Number of |Amount of fine for |Amount of fine for |
|violations within |ordinance violations |building and safety |
|specified time | |code violations |
|periods | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|First violation |Fine does not exceed |Fine does not |
| |$100 |exceed $100 |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Second violation |Fine does not exceed |Fine does not |
|within one year |$200 |exceed $500 |
|of first | | |
|violation | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Third violation |Fine does not exceed |Fine does not |
|within one year |$500 |exceed $1,000 |
|of first | | |
|violation | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------
AB 514
Page 9
According to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors,
the sponsor of this bill, these fines are too low to provide
incentives for individuals to obtain proper permits. The
sponsor notes that this code section was updated in 2003 to
account for inflation, but has not been updated since. The
sponsor contends that the fines are so low that many property
owners find it easier to violate the County's land use and
development codes and pay the low fine than to obtain a
permit.
For example, when a property owner would like to build or
demolish a structure, the property owner will need to obtain a
permit that establishes acceptable working hours. The permit
will take into account if there will be noise pollution,
traffic issues, and safety hazards to the public. The permit
fee is then used to provide safety precautions and limit
public disturbances. Fees are accessed on a situational
bases, thus the cost of each permit varies. The cost of
permits for large events and certain construction projects are
typically higher than $100, which does not incentivize
property owners to obtain the permit.
The sponsor provided another example in the County of a large
commercial wedding for out of town residents. The property
owner did not obtain the necessary permits for such a large
event. The non-residents had the means to acquire the permit,
but the fee to accommodate 300 or more guests would have been
higher than the violation fine for this event. The permit
review would have addressed public safety and traffic concerns
for an event of this magnitude. In this case, the County was
AB 514
Page 10
only allowed to fine this owner $100 for the purposeful
violation. This amount is insufficient to deter property
owners who can easily absorb this as part of their routine
business operating expense.
This bill provides for increased fines for a number of
specified ordinance violations as a means of encouraging
proper permitting. The author's office notes that recent
amendments inadvertently removed a section of the bill that
would have applied its provisions to cities. The author
intends to restore that language so that this bill will apply
to cities, as well as counties.
4)Policy Considerations.
a) Temporary Use and Construction Permits. The sponsor's
stated intent of this bill is to encourage proper
permitting for construction activities and for large events
at residential locations. The Committee may wish to
consider whether the bill should be narrowed to impose
fines based on what a temporary use permit or a
construction permit would have been for any given
violation, had it been properly permitted.
b) Inflationary Adjustment. The sponsor notes that the fee
amounts in existing law have not been adjusted for 12
years. The Committee may wish to consider if an
AB 514
Page 11
inflationary adjustment alone would serve as an appropriate
remedy for the problem identified by the sponsor.
c) Fee Amounts. Current law caps fines for infraction
violations at amounts ranging from $100 to $1,000,
depending on the number of violations in a year's time and
the type of ordinance that is violated. This bill raises
those amounts significantly, ranging from a cap of $5,000
to $15,000. The fines will be determined based on the
severity of the threat to public health and safety, which
the County will decide. If existing fines were adjusted
for inflation, they would range from about $130 to about
$1,275. The Committee may wish to consider to what extent
fines for the types of violations identified in this bill
should be increased.
d) Repeat Offenders. This bill extends the time frame
during which a repeated violation
of the same ordinance would incur an increased fine. Current
law limits that time period to one year. This bill expands
it to five years. The Committee may wish to consider
whether this extension is appropriate.
e) Statewide Application, No Sunset. The Committee may
wish to consider if the provisions of this bill should
apply statewide, both in cities and counties, or if they
should be narrowed to apply only to Santa Barbara County.
The Committee may also wish to consider adding a sunset
date to allow the Legislature to revisit this authority in
the future to determine if it does, indeed, encourage
proper permitting.
AB 514
Page 12
f) Court Action. Existing law provides that a violation of
a city or county ordinance may be prosecuted by city or
county authorities, or redressed by civil action. The
Committee may wish to consider whether this bill is needed,
given this avenue of redress.
g) Oil, Gas and Geothermal Ordinances. The most recent
amendments to this bill added language that would apply the
bill's provisions to ordinances that regulate the drilling,
operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and
geothermal wells. This language is beyond the stated
intent of this bill and is unclear. The Committee may wish
to remove this language from the bill.
5)State Mandate. This bill is keyed a state mandate, which
means the state could be required to reimburse local agencies
and school districts for implementing the bill's provisions,
if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill
contains costs mandated by the state.
6)Arguments in Support. The Santa Barbara County Board of
Supervisors, sponsor of this measure, states, "AB 514 gives
local governments the authority to raise local fines for
violators of land use codes who did not obtain a permit where
one is available?The current maximum allowable fine amount is
insufficient to deter violators of the Land Use Enforcement
Codes, and allows entities to visit a County without being
appropriately accountable to land use codes."
7)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 514
Page 13
Support
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors [SPONSOR]
Lake County Board of Supervisors
Shasta County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
AB 514
Page 14