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