BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 976
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 976 (Atkins)
As Amended August 26, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |42-32|(May 30, 2013) |SENATE: |21-17|(September 6, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: NAT. RES.
SUMMARY : Authorizes 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).
The Senate amendments :
1)Require the administrative civil penalty to be assessed for
each day the violation persists, but for no more than five
years.
2)Prohibit an administrative civil penalty from being assessed
if the property owner corrects the violation within 30 days of
receiving written notification from the Commission regarding
the notification, and if the alleged violator can correct the
violation without undertaking additional development that
requires a permit under the Coastal Act.
3)Require the Commission to prepare and submit a report to the
Legislature by January 15, 2018, that includes information
related to the implementation of this bill.
4)Extend the sunset date of this bill from January 1, 2017, to
January 1, 2019.
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.
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
AB 976
Page 2
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 of the Coastal Conservancy Fund and used
to carrying out the Coastal Act, when appropriated by the
Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS :
Reason for civil administrative penalty authority. As stated by
Commission staff, penalties are a critical component of all
environmental statutes and are the primary means to persuade
would-be violators to comply with the law. The deterrent
component of any regulatory scheme is important, particularly
for environmental laws. A credible threat of penalties to
prevent violations in the first place can greatly increase the
ability of an environmental agency to obtain voluntary
compliance, and greatly increase its ability to protect the
environment.
While the Commission has the authority to seek civil penalties
in court, Commission staff claims that it is infrequently done,
citing the very slow, expensive, and resource-intensive process.
Even the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has weighed in on
the issue. In its 2008-09 and 2011-12 budget analysis, the LAO
recommended that the Commission be granted administrative civil
penalty authority. The LAO highlighted the cumbersome process
that "results in few fines and penalties issued by the
commission due to the high cost of pursuing enforcement through
the courts."
This bill's proposal and the LAO's recommendations are not novel
concepts. Several environmental state agencies have been able
to evade costly litigation through their administrative penalty
authority. For example, agencies such as the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the State Water
Resources Control Board (and regional boards), State Lands
AB 976
Page 3
Commission, Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Energy
Commission, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery, and regional air districts all have
administrative civil penalty authority, at least for certain
issue. BCDC's authority to regulate development along San
Francisco Bay serves as the best analog to the work of the
Commission. Using its civil penalty authority, BCDC has been
successful at discouraging and resolving the vast majority of
violations without resorting to expensive and time consuming
litigation. Supporters of this bill argue that "the state's
coastal resources are no less important or worthy of protection"
than the resources that these other agencies protect.
This bill is tailored to address intentional violations . The
scope of this bill is limited to people who intentionally and
knowingly violate the Coastal Act. The Commission cannot use
this bill to penalize unintentional violations that cause de
minimis harm if the violator has acted expeditiously to correct
the violation. It should also be highlighted that the Senate
amendments generally prohibit the issuance of administrative
civil penalties if a violation is corrected within 30 days of
receiving notice of the violation from the Commission.
Previous legislation . This bill is similar to AB 226 (Ruskin)
of 2009 and SB 588 (Evans) of 2011. AB 226 passed the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee and the Assembly Floor, but was
substantially amended on the Senate Floor. SB 588 passed the
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee; however, no
subsequent legislative action was taken on the bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092
FN: 0002639