A bill that would let the California Coastal Commission (CCC) skip over the state court system and directly impose fines on alleged Coastal Act violators is quietly jumping through legislative hurdles after the State Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 last week to refer it to the State Appropriations Committee for consideration.
Coastal Commission officials say the bill is necessary to enforce violations of the Coastal Act. But opponents, including many business interests and political officials in coastal cities, view it as a troubling expansion of power.
Under current law, the Coastal Commission must first issue a “cease-and-desist” order when a Coastal Act violation is identified. If the order goes ignored, the Commission has the option of pursuing enforcement against the alleged violator through county superior courts.
If the new bill, AB 976, is approved by lawmakers, the CCC would be able to levy fines and issue holds without judicial oversight. Charged with interpreting and enforcing the California Coastal Act, the landmark environmental legislation passed in 1976, the CCC already holds broad authority over development in coastal cities. A former coastal commissioner, who wished to remain anonymous, said if this type of bill ever gets to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, the governor probably won’t sign it based on the CCC’s controversial and powerful reputation.
“For that body to be able to impose these penalties when governor after governor has had a history of trouble with the Coastal Commission… it concerns me,” he said. “And I think it will concern the governor.”
Given Malibu’s tumultuous history with the CCC, the legislation has local city officials worried.
“I have sympathy for the Coastal Commission, I understand their staffing and enforcement problems, but I’m not sure this is the best way to solve them,” said City Councilman John Sibert. “This is a little heavy-handed.”
Sibert has worked for the past several years to slowly mend Malibu’s shoddy relationship with the CCC, which often clashed with developers and individual property owners under former Executive Director Peter Douglas. Critics of the commission under Douglas contended the commission and its staff often violated the law in rejecting permits and ignored the economic impacts of their decisions.
“We’re getting past that history largely,” Sibert said. “We do work better with them than I think we used to.”
Sarah Christie, the legislative director for the CCC, said the bill would empower the CCC with an enforcement tactic already utilized by “virtually every state regulatory agency and local government in California, including Malibu.”
“It is a standard enforcement tool that serves as an effective deterrent against violating the law, and facilitates resolution of existing violations,” Christie said. Christie cited more than 1,800 of backlogged open enforcement cases. Only four of those have been pursued in court in the past decade.
One of those cases was against Malibu homeowner Lisette Ackerberg. In 2012, a Court of Appeals decision upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of the California Coastal Commission, which originally ordered Ackerberg to remove a 9-foothigh wall and other obstacles next to her Carbon Beach property in 2009. Earlier this year Ackerberg finalized an agreement with the Commission, agreeing to pay more than $1 million in fines and build a public access route.
Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) represents the 50th District, including Malibu, and sat on the Coastal Commission before winning an assembly seat last fall. Bloom spokesman Chris Wheat declined to comment on the proposed bill before it reaches the assembly floor. Wheat said only that in the grand scheme of things, Bloom supports striking a balance between enforcing the Coastal Act without overstepping legal boundaries.
“We’re definitely mindful of the fact that we need to make sure we’re protecting the due process rights of the alleged violators,” Wheat said. “Any bill that is seeking to add to the Coastal Commission’s ability to levy fines needs to make sure that it strikes that proper balance.”
Under the bill, the Commission would have to hold a public hearing and reach a majority vote against violators before issuing a penalty. Fees levied could not exceed 75 percent of damages that would have been pursued in court. Any money collected by the Commission would go into a violations remediation account and the Coastal Act Services Fund.
Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) authored the bill, which got the green light from the State Natural Resources Committee on March 20, followed by Judiciary Committee approval on April 17. Next up is a hearing by the Committee on Appropriations. The committee’s next meeting date has yet to be determined.