Chris Rogers

Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976 (the Coastal Act) , among other things, requires anyone wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, except as specified, in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, to obtain a coastal development permit, as provided. The Coastal Act generally requires each local government, as specified, to prepare a local coastal program, for certification by the California Coastal Commission. Existing law also imposes an analogous requirement on port governing bodies to prepare port master plans, for certification by the commission.

With regard to local coastal programs and port master plans, existing law provides that an amendment determined to be de minimis by the executive director of the commission, after notice in the agenda of the next scheduled commission meeting, becomes a part of the certified program or plan 10 days after the commission meeting if 3 or more members of the commission do not object to the de minimis determination.

This bill would make de minimis amendments to local coastal programs and port master plans effective upon adjournment of that meeting if 3 or more members of the commission do not object to the de minimis determination.

The Coastal Act authorizes the commission to impose specified administrative penalties on a person, including a landowner, who is in violation of any provision of the act other than public access, and separate administrative penalties for violations relating to public access. Regarding the violations of the act unrelated to public access, existing law requires the commission staff to annually prepare and present a written report to the full commission that includes specified information related to the imposition of those penalties and to annually provide the written report to the Legislature, as prescribed.

This bill would require the commission staff to prepare and present a written report to the full commission every 5 years instead of annually, as specified, and would require the report to address public access violations as well. The bill would require the report to include, in addition, the number of violations referred to the Attorney General, the number of pending violations at the end of the reporting period, and summaries of violations that were resolved that are both illustrative of the commission's enforcement workload and that provided significant public benefit.

This bill would repeal an obsolete reporting requirement that concerned violations of the act related to public access.