BILL ANALYSIS
AB 291
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 291 (Saldana) - As Amended: May 11, 2009
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill restricts the Coastal Commission from acting on a
coastal development permit (CDP) for development on a property
that has an unresolved violation of the Coastal Act.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits the commission from acting upon an application for a
CDP for a property that has an open enforcement action for a
violation of the Coastal Act until the enforcement action is
resolved, as determined by the commission's executive
director.
2)Allows the commission to act upon a CDP for such a property if
the commission's executive director determines the CDP
application includes provisions that would fully resolve the
enforcement action, once realized, or that the violation is so
minor that the property owner can easily resolve the violation
voluntarily.
3)Provides that any unresolved dispute between the executive
director and an applicant regarding the implementation of this
section may be resolved by the commission at a noticed
hearing.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor General Fund costs, likely in the tens of thousands of
dollars annually, associated with resolution of unresolved
disputes between the executive director and property owners.
2)Potential savings, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of
AB 291
Page 2
dollars annually, resulting from avoided enforcement
proceedings.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends this bill will help the
commission address its backlog of enforcement cases.
According to the author, the commission currently has a
backlog of 1,300 enforcement cases, mainly the result of
understaffing and other resource limitations. The author
intends this bill to provide individuals subject to unresolved
commission enforcement actions with an incentive-the ability
to apply for CDPs-to resolve those cases.
2)Background. The State Coastal Act of 1976 permanently
established the Coastal Commission, following its initial
creation by a voter initiative in 1972. The act seeks to
protect the state's natural and scenic resources along
California's coast. It also delineates a "coastal zone"
running the length of California's coast, extending seaward to
the state's territorial limit of three miles, and extending
inland a varying width from 1,000 yards to several miles.
The commission's primary responsibility is to implement the
act's provisions, including regulation of development in the
coastal zone. It is also the state's planning and management
agency for the coastal zone. The commission's jurisdiction
does not include the San Francisco Bay Area, where development
is regulated by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission.
Under the Coastal Act All development in the coastal zone not
exempt in statute requires a permit. That permitting process
allows the Coastal Commission and local governments review
proposed projects to ensure that they will not have impacts
inconsistent with the environmental protection policies of the
Coastal Act and of the plans created by local governments to
implement the Coastal Act, known as "Local Coastal Programs"
(LCPs).
The commission has several enforcement options to address
violations of the Coastal Act. The commission generally uses
cease and desist orders to halt ongoing violations, to order
removal of unpermitted development, and to obtain compliance
with requirements of the Coastal Act or LCPs. The commission
AB 291
Page 3
generally uses restoration orders to bring about removal of
unpermitted development and/or restoration of damaged coastal
resources. The executive director of the commission can also
issue cease and desist orders when someone has undertaken, or
is threatening to undertake, development without a CDP or
inconsistent with a CDP. These executive director orders stay
in effect for 90 days and are followed by commission-issued
orders if needed.
3)Supporters, including conservation and environmental
organizations, note that, at current staffing and resource
levels, it would take the commission over 100 years to address
its backlog of 1,300 pending enforcement cases. This bill,
supporters claim, would provide applicants the incentive to
quickly resolve violations and the harm to the coastal zone
those violations represent. In turn, applicants would be less
likely subject to penalties and expensive enforcement
proceeding associated with unresolved enforcement actions.
Supporters note that most municipal governments and many state
agencies have similar authority to require resolution of a
violation prior to consideration for a permit, license or
other approval.
4)A coalition of opponents -including some municipal governments
and industry groups-has raised concerns that the bill does not
contain sufficient due process provisions. They therefore
claim that the bill would unfairly penalize an applicant based
on the mere assertion by staff of a Coastal Act violation.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081