Currently, the California Superior Court handles Coastal Act violations; the Coastal Commission wants to take over such cases and collect penalty fees directly.
By Olivia Damavandi / Staff Writer
As a means to remedy its severe budget deficit and deter unpermitted development, the California Coastal Commission has proposed an Assembly bill that would authorize it, without court approval, to directly impose $5,000 to $50,000 fines on violators of the California Coastal Act.
Currently under review by the state Senate, AB 226 would also empower the commission to record liens for unpaid penalties, and would delete the current law requirement that the commission’s revenues from permit fees and penalties be transferred to the State Coastal Conservancy for purposes of developing and maintaining coastal public access ways.
At present, only the Superior Court handles Coastal Act violation cases and issues any resulting fines. AB 226, if approved, would require an alleged violator to attend a public hearing before Coastal Commissioners, who could only impose the fine with a majority vote. If convicted of a violation, an individual could still appeal the commission’s decision in court.
Supporters, which include the Legislative Analyst’s Office and environmental groups Heal the Bay, Sierra Club and the National Resource Defense Council, among others, in a written statement say that because the judicial process is too slow, expensive and resource-intensive, the state doesn’t address or collect “nearly the money it should” for violations of the Coastal Act.
But oppositionists, which include a coalition of business, construction, manufacturing and real estate companies, argue that authorizing commissioners to act as judges and jurors in their own hearings will create less due process. In addition, oppositionists worry that the proposed authority would incentivize the commission to impose fines and penalties to augment its operating budget.
“It’s not a question of whether the Coastal Act has been violated or not, it’s about whether the person who allegedly violated it is getting a fair and impartial hearing under the law,” Alex Creel, senior vice president of governmental affairs for the California Association of Realtors, said Friday in a telephone interview.
“If it takes a little longer to make sure people get due process, I think that’s a legitimate price to pay,” Creel continued. “I’m sorry if they [coastal commissioners] think that their right to get money quicker is more important than citizens’ due process rights. To me, that’s an interesting argument to make.”
City Attorney Christi Hogin in a telephone interview last week also said the bill has raised concern among many who feel it may jeopardize their chance at a fair hearing.
“The goal should be to provide due process and fair outcome, and ensure that people accused of violating the Coastal Act have a chance to dispute that and prove otherwise,” Hogin said. “The Coastal Commission seems to have at its disposal plenty of sticks to encourage compliance.”
Calls made to the Coastal Commission Thursday and Friday of last week have not yet been returned.
In response to oppositionists’ concerns, Sarah Sikich, Heal the Bay’s coastal resources director, on Friday in a telephone interview said, “I don’t see that conflict,” and explained that coastal commissioners do not always vote in the direction their staff recommends.
Supporters argue that most other state and local regulatory agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, have the authority to assess and issue fines and penalties. They also predict the bill, if approved, will curb unpermitted development and benefit the environment.
“By giving the Coastal Commission the ability to levy fines for enforcement cases, it’ll streamline that [the judicial process] and help the commission do its job of enforcing the Coastal Act,” Sikich said. “I’m hoping it [AB 226] would have a good effect on the environment. Backlogged cases are situations in which development is degrading our coastal habitat.”
The Coastal Commission currently has more than 1,300 backlogged enforcement cases “that would take over 100 years to clear at the current pace of resolution,” Sarah Christy, the Coastal Commission’s legislative director in Sacramento, said during a telephone interview with The Malibu Times in April.
Due to budget cuts, a 20 percent reduction of the commission staff since 2000 has forced the commission to lose a number of its enforcement officials who monitor unpermitted development. As a result, Christy said unpermitted development is unenforced in at least 25 percent of the California coast.
“It’s frustrating to know who the opponents are because you’d like to think they are good actors and want to comply with our coastal laws,” Sikich said. “If that’s the case, this [bill] should actually benefit them by enforcing the law on people getting away with bad development.”