BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 514
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
514 (Williams)
As Amended May 4, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Local |6-2 |Gonzalez, Alejo, |Maienschein, Waldron |
|Government | |Chiu, Cooley, | |
| | |Gordon, Holden | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Appropriations |11-4 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Calderon, Eggman, |Gallagher, Wagner |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Increases fine amounts counties may impose for
violations of specified ordinances. Specifically, this bill:
AB 514
Page 2
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; or, e) a zoning ordinance.
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 three or $5,000, whichever is less. In the
absence of a permit fee, the amount of the fine shall not
exceed $1,000;
b) The amount of the fine for a second violation of the same
ordinance within five years of the first violation does not
exceed the amount of the permit fee required by the ordinance
multiplied by five, or $10,000, whichever is less. In the
absence of a permit fee, the amount of the fine shall not
exceed $2,500;
c) The amount of the fine for the third violation of the same
ordinance within five years of the first violation is greater
than $10,000, but does not exceed $15,000. In the absence of
a permit fee, the amount of the fine shall not exceed $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
AB 514
Page 3
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 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.
AB 514
Page 4
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 $100 for a first violation;
b) A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the
same ordinance within one year; and,
c) A fine not exceeding $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 $100 for a first violation;
b) A fine not exceeding $500 for a second violation of the
same ordinance within one year; and,
c) A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional violation
of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill is permissive and, therefore, any local costs
are not reimbursable.
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill establishes a new fee structure for
AB 514
Page 5
violations of a number of specified county ordinances, if those
violations are determined to be infractions. The specified
ordinances include those that govern building and safety; brush
removal; grading; film permitting; and, zoning.
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 three, | |
| |or $5,000, whichever | |
| |is less | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Second violation |Fine does not exceed |Fine shall not |
|within five years |the amount of the |exceed $2,500 |
AB 514
Page 6
|of first |permit fee required | |
|violation |by the ordinance | |
| |multiplied by five, | |
| |or $10,000, | |
| |whichever is less | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|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 | |
|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
AB 514
Page 7
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 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 |
| | | |
| | | |
AB 514
Page 8
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|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 | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------
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
AB 514
Page 9
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
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 Legislature may wish to consider
whether this bill should be narrowed to impose fines based on
what a temporary use permit or a construction permit would
have been if those permits been properly obtained or
followed.
b) Inflationary Adjustment. The sponsor notes that the fee
amounts in existing law have not been adjusted for 12 years.
If existing fines were adjusted for inflation, they would
range from about $130 to about $1,275. The Legislature may
AB 514
Page 10
wish to consider if an 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, with maximum fines ranging from $1,000 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. The Legislature 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
Legislature may wish to consider whether this extension is
appropriate.
e) Statewide Application, No Sunset. The Legislature may
wish to consider if the provisions of this bill should apply
statewide, in both cities and counties, or if they should be
narrowed to apply only to Santa Barbara County. The
Legislature 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.
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 Legislature
may wish to consider whether this bill is needed, given this
AB 514
Page 11
avenue of redress.
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 this bill's provisions, if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains
costs mandated by the state.
6)Arguments in Support. The Santa Barbara County Board of
Supervisors, sponsor of this bill, 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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0000468