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