BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 514
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
514 (Williams)
As Amended August 26, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 22, 2015) |SENATE: | |(August 31, |
| |47-27 | | |25-15 |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY: Allows counties to assess larger administrative fines
for specified violations of county ordinances that govern
building and safety, brush removal, grading, film permitting,
and zoning.
The Senate amendments:
1)Limit the bill's provisions to one-time violations, defined to
mean a violation that is not a continuing violation and cannot
be corrected or cured, including, but not limited to, a
violation of permit conditions or a use violation.
2)Prohibit a county from assessing an administrative fine of
AB 514
Page 2
more than $500 unless both of the following findings are made
in the administrative record prior to the assessment of the
fine:
a) The person who violated the ordinance did so willingly
or the violation resulted in an unusual and significant
threat to the public health and safety; and,
b) The payment of the administrative fine would not impose
an undue financial hardship on the person responsible for
the payment.
3)Make technical and conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill allows counties to assess larger
administrative fines for violations of a number of specified
county ordinances, if the violation is determined to be an
infraction and is a one-time violation. The specified
ordinances include those that govern building and safety,
brush removal, grading, film permitting, and zoning.
The fine must be based on the severity of the threat to public
health and safety, and shall not exceed the following:
AB 514
Page 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
|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 does not |
| |$5,000 or the amount |exceed $1,000 |
| |of the permit fee | |
| |required by the | |
| |ordinance multiplied | |
| |by three, whichever | |
| |is less | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Second violation |Fine does not exceed |Fine does not |
|within five years |$10,000 or the |exceed $2,500 |
|of first |amount of the permit | |
|violation |fee required by the | |
| |ordinance multiplied | |
| |by five, whichever | |
| |is less | |
| | | |
| | | |
|------------------+---------------------+--------------------|
|Third violation |Fine is greater than |Fine does not |
|and subsequent |$10,000 but does not |exceed $5,000 |
|violations within |exceed $15,000 | |
|five years of | | |
|first violation | | |
| | | |
| | | |
AB 514
Page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
A county shall not assess an administrative fine of more than
$500 unless both of the following findings are made in the
administrative record prior to the assessment of the fine:
a) The person who violated the ordinance did so willingly
or the violation resulted in an unusual and significant
threat to the public health and safety; and,
b) The payment of the administrative fine would not impose
an undue financial hardship on the person responsible for
the payment.
This bill defines a one-time violation to mean a violation
that is not a continuing violation and cannot be corrected or
cured, including, but not limited to, a violation of permit
conditions or a use violation. 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."
AB 514
Page 5
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
and makes violations of ordinances misdemeanors, unless they
are made infractions via ordinance adopted by the city or
county. Existing law outlines the following fine 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 6
| | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------
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.
4)Policy Considerations. The Legislature may wish to consider
the following:
a) Inflationary Adjustment. The sponsor notes that fine
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 wish to consider if an inflationary
adjustment alone would serve as an appropriate remedy for
the problem identified by the sponsor.
b) Fine 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. While the bill requires a
county to make specified findings before assessing fines
greater than $500, it is, again, the county - rather than a
financially disinterested party - that will make these
determinations. The Legislature may wish to consider to
what extent fines for the types of violations identified in
this bill should be increased, and whether this bill
provides adequate safeguards for low-income residents.
c) Repeat Offenders. This bill extends the time frame
AB 514
Page 7
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.
d) Statewide Application, No Sunset. The Legislature may
wish to consider if the provisions of this bill should
apply statewide, 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.
e) 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 avenue of redress.
5)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."
6)Arguments in Opposition. None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0001597
AB 514
Page 8