AB 18 would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $1,500,000,000 for the acquisition, development, improvement, rehabilitation, restoration, enhancement, and protection of park, recreational, cultural, historical, fish and wildlife, lake, riparian, reservoir, river, and coastal resources. This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the bond act to the voters at the November 7, 2000 statewide general election.

AB 64 would establish the California Public Beach Restoration Program, to be administered by the Department of Boating and Waterways, for specified public beach enhancement, restoration, and nourishment purposes. The bill would create a Public Beach Restoration Fund to be funded by a transfer of $35 million from the General Fund for three years.

AB 492 would prohibit state land with existing or potential public accessways to, or along, the sea from being transferred or sold to any private entity, unless the private entity is a private, nonprofit organization that exists for the purposes of preserving lands for public use and enjoyment and meets the requirements of specified provisions of existing law.

AB 511 clarifies the Commission’s existing authority to address and minimize the adverse impacts of nonpoint source pollution when implementing Coastal Act policies related to coastal public access and recreation, the protection of biological productivity, coastal waters, and sensitive habitat, and new development. The Commission would also required, not later than January 1, 2001, to prepare and submit to the Governor and the Legislature an annual report on the progress made in implementing the Polluted Runoff Strategy of the California Coastal Commission.

AB 642 would establish the California Coastal Wetlands Mitigation Banking and Restoration Act of 2000, which would require the Resources Agency, in cooperation with other responsible federal, state, and local agencies, to adopt regulations that establish standards and criteria for a mitigation bank site qualification process in the coastal zone, the evaluation of wetlands acreage and habitat values created at bank sites, and the operation of bank sites. The bill would permit any person who desires to establish a bank site to apply to the agency, and to any other appropriate state agency that requires a permit, for a determination that the proposed bank site and the proposed operator qualify under the standards and criteria established by the agency. Most importantly, the bill finds that no net loss of wetlands acreage or wetlands functions should occurs in the coastal zone and it is the goal of this state to increase the total wetlands acreage and wetlands functions within the coastal zone.

AB 809 would require one-half of the fees that are currently deposited in the California Environmental License Plate Fund to instead be deposited in the License Plate Coastal Access Account, which the bill would create, in the State Coastal Conservancy Fund of 1984. The bill would require the money in this new account to be available, upon appropriation, to the State Coastal Conservancy for grants to public agencies and nonprofit entities or organizations for specified purposes.

AB 989 would permit the executive director of the commission to file notice of a violation of the Coastal Act if the executive director has determined that real property has been developed in violation of the act. The bill would require a public hearing to be held if the owner submits a timely objection to the filing of the notice of violation, and would require the issuance of a clearance letter if the Commission finds that no violation has occurred. If the Commission determines that a violation has occurred, the bill would require the recordation of the notice of violation with the county recorder in which the real property is located. AB 989 would require the executive director, within 30 days after the final resolution of a violation, to record a notice of recission with the county recorder indicating that the notice of violation is no longer valid.

AB 1000 would specify that any official act, decision, or regulation of a public entity which restricts the use or impairs the value of private property constitutes an exercise of the power of eminent domain, and shall only be given effect upon the payment to the owner of the private property of just compensation.

AB 1128 would provide that for the purpose of any law, including any constitutional provision, that requires just compensation for the taking of any private property, that requirement shall apply upon the making of a final decision affecting private property rights. The bill would provide that a final decision, for that purpose, occurs upon the last date that an agency may make or review any agency action prior to the bringing of any action or proceeding in any court to challenge the validity of the agency action. Further, the bill states that upon the existence of any final decision, any person who claims that an agency action entitles the person to just compensation for affected property rights may exercise any administrative or judicial right or remedy to obtain that compensation, separately from any claim relative to the validity of the agency action, and the agency or court shall process the claim for just compensation without regard to the validity of the agency action.

AB 1280 would amend the Coastal Act requiring that all oil extracted from a source located in whole, or in part, under the sea be transported by pipeline to onshore processing and refining facilities, and that all pipelines used to transport this oil utilize the best available technology to ensure maximum protection of public health and safety and of the integrity and productivity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. The bill would also require the California Coastal Commission, in conjunction with the State Water Resources Control Board, the State Fire Marshall, the Division of Oil and Gas of the Department of Conservation, and the State Department of Health Services, to conduct a specified inventory and assessment of oil and gas pipelines and, not later than June 1, 2000, to report its findings regarding that inventory and assessment to the Legislature.

AB 1293 would require that the Commission’s public education program also include outreach to special groups such as the boating community, and incorporate information on the prevention and reduction of nonpoint source pollution. The bill would provide that, because the actions of people throughout a watershed impact the coast and the ocean, the geographic extent of the commission's education and outreach program shall not be limited to outreach conducted only in the coastal zone.

SB 153 would require public agencies to minimize the number of agency actions that may significantly impair the use of private property. Under this bill, every public agency is required to conduct a private property taking impact analysis prior to taking any agency action that may significantly impair the use of private property. Furthermore, this bill would require an exaction or mitigation measure, imposed by a public agency as a condition to a discretionary act, to have a direct relationship to the public burdens imposed by, and to be roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of, the proposed activity.

SB would require the state board, on or before January 1, 2001 and in consultation with the regional boards, to prepare and commence the implementation of a detailed program for the purposes of implementing and enforcing requirements imposed on nonpoint source pollution discharges pursuant to Sections 303 and 319 of the Clean Water Act, Section 6217 of the federal Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. The state board would be required, commencing on or before January 1, 2001, and in consultation with the commission, to prepare and submit a biennial nonpoint source pollution control management report with prescribed components.

SB 243 would require the State Board of Control to allow a claim for reasonable attorney's fees incurred by an owner of any interest in real property or a public entity as a defendant in a civil action seeking to restrict or prevent public access through the property if the owner or public entity gives permission to the public to enter the property pursuant to a specified agreement. The bill would limit the total sum of the claim for attorney's fees to $200,000 per fiscal year.

SB 300 would provide that a state agency is liable to a private property owner for a temporary taking of the owner's real property if the agency is responsible for a delay in the issuance of a development permit affecting the use of the real property, and the delay is the result of a final decision of the agency that is later determined by a court to be legally erroneous. The bill would also provide that a delay that occurs as a result of the normal development approval process or as a result of litigation challenging a final decision by a state agency constitutes a temporary taking under those provisions if the final decision of the state agency is later determined by a court to be legally erroneous.

This bill would also declare that it is intended to supersede the holding of the California Supreme Court in Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Com., 17 Cal. 4th 1006, with regard to any claim arising on or after its effective date.