RED ALERTS

To take action on this Red Alert, please click here

 

What's At Stake?

C.A.R. Red Alert: Coastal Commission Power Grab

C.A.R. OPPOSES Coastal Commission Power Grabs!!

 

C.A.R. is OPPOSING AB 226 (Ruskin) and AB 291 (Saldana) which among other things, gives the California Coastal Commission (Commission) judicial powers and gives Commission staff new, unprecedented authority to stop permit applications. Both bills may be voted on by the entire state Senate at any time.  

 

AB 226 ISSUE BACKGROUND

 

AB 226 (Ruskin) origins: AB 226 is the result of a recommendation from the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) analysis of the Coastal Commission’s budget from the 2008-09 budget bill. Among other recommendations, the LAO suggested allowing the Commission to impose civil penalties as a way to augment the Commission’s budget.

 

What AB 226 (Ruskin) does: AB 226 would greatly expand the Coastal Commission’s enforcement authority by allowing the Commission to act as both prosecutor and judge and impose civil penalties and allow the Commission to retain the penalties it assesses to augment its own budget. Currently, civil penalties are imposed by the Attorney General’s office on behalf of the Coastal Commission.

 

Implications of AB 226 (Ruskin): AB 226 would create a dangerous motivation for the Commission to seek civil penalties as a way to augment its budget, and would strip alleged violators of due process afforded by the courts. The Coastal Commission already has the necessary tools by which to enforce the Coastal Act.

 

AB 226 TALKING POINTS

 

AB 226 creates a “bounty hunter” incentive for the Coastal Commission to seek large penalties and fees to support its budget. Giving the Coastal Commission the authority to both directly impose civil penalties and keep the proceeds creates a built-in conflict of interest. Bestowing a self-governing group of appointed commissioners the power of judge, jury and (executioner) bill collector is dangerous and irresponsible.

 

The Coastal Commission is not a court and should not be allowed to function as one. An individual facing potentially significant fines and penalties has the right to due process through the judicial system. The Coastal Commission does not swear in witnesses, does not require that witnesses be qualified to testify, allows hearsay, does not provide for cross examination or rebuttal, sets time limitations for testimony for the alleged violator but not for its staff, and provides no opportunity for expanded testimony on what are often complex matters of a technical nature. The Coastal Commission’s quasi-judicial procedures are suited to render decisions on planning and policy matters but not for proceedings with such potentially serious consequences.

 

The Coastal Commission already has the appropriate enforcement tools to implement the Coastal Act. It's about the money. Giving the Commission authority to impose civil penalties is overkill and is unsupported by any demonstrated need other than the need for a bigger budget.  The Attorney General has been effective at collecting civil penalties for the Coastal Commission through the judicial system, collecting millions of dollars in fines and penalties over the years.

 

 

AB 291 ISSUE BACKGROUND

 

AB 291 (Saldana) origins: AB 291 was developed by Coastal Commission staff to reduce the backlog of permit applications at the Commission by granting Commission staff the authority to deny permit applications without a hearing.

 

What AB 291 (Saldana) does: AB 291 would allow the staff of the Coastal Commission to halt processing of a permit application if the Commission staff asserts that any violation exists on any property for which a permit is filed.

 

Implications of AB 291 (Saldana): AB 291 would presume an applicant is “guilty until proven innocent” by giving the Commission staff the ability to refuse to process a coastal development permit application until staff is satisfied that the alleged violation, whether related to the permit application or not, was cured.

 

Home owners' rights will be prejudiced by arbitrary delays. The issue at hand is not that the Commission needs additional enforcement authority; rather it is a matter of the Commission being understaffed. AB 291 is attempting to resolve a staffing issue by empowering staff assertions to deny permit applications.

 

 

AB 291 TALKING POINTS

 

Coastal Commission staff should not have the authority to halt the processing of a permit application because of the mere claim that there may be a violation. The Commission itself should make that determination after a public hearing and evaluation of all the facts. There are many instances where the Commission staff has alleged that a violation exists and the Commissioners have disagreed with those assertion.

 

Executive director discretion does not equal due process. Under AB 291, the executive director of the Coastal Commission has sole discretion to completely halt an application for a coastal development permit without any basis other than an assertion of a violation, which may not be related to the permit application. The Commission, not its staff, is the decision-making body, and it should remain that way.

 

Violations are already resolved during the permit process. The Commission already has the authority to resolve violations through the permitting process by conditioning the permit to bring it properties into compliance with the Coastal Act. In addition, the Commission currently has authority to seek civil penalties up to $30,000; seek daily fines and penalties up to $15,000 per day; seek exemplary damages in an unlimited amount; record a notice of violation on the property; conduct a cease-and-desist proceeding; and sue using the California Attorney General. The Commission should not be granted more leverage to extort concessions from landowners.

 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Please contact DeAnn Kerr at deannk@car.org.