BILL ANALYSIS
SB 262
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Nancy Skinner, Chair
SB 262 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: June 11, 2009
SENATE VOTE : 21-18
SUBJECT : California Coastal Commission (Commission) meetings
SUMMARY : Requires the Commission to meet 10 times per year,
instead of monthly, at a place convenient to the public; extends
application review and appeal deadlines to the next regularly
scheduled meeting after the deadline.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Commission to meet at least once a month at a
place convenient to the public.
2)Requires the Commission to set for hearing a coastal
development permit application or appeal no later than 49 days
after the date the application or appeal is deemed "filed."
3)Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the Commission is
required to approve or disapprove a development project within
180 days of the date that the application is deemed
"complete."
4)Provides that a Local Coastal Program (land use plan) or
related elements are deemed approved or certified if the
Commission does not act with 60-90 days of submittal. There
are similar deadlines for the consideration of appeals.
FISCAL EFFECT : Non-fiscal
COMMENTS : According to the author, the purpose of this bill is
to give the Commission the "flexibility to legally cancel a
meeting should that be necessary for fiscal reasons, without
losing jurisdiction over pending items."
1)Background : Under severe fiscal duress, even meeting on a
monthly basis, as it is currently required to do, could force
the Commission into deficit spending. According to Commission
staff, the total cost of meetings ranges between $25,000 and
SB 262
Page 2
$50,000/month. To cut costs, meetings each month have been
reduced from a total of about five days to three days. Even
though meetings costs represent a small percentage of its
overall $12 million budget, the Commission has been
under-funded for so long that, according to staff, "literally
every dollar it spends has an impact on operations." For
example, the savings associated with canceling a meeting could
offset unanticipated rent increases, purchase critical office
equipment, or avoid further layoffs.
Other state entities such as the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission, Fish and Game
Commission, Wildlife Conservation Board, and Ocean Protection
Council have recently cancelled or relocated meetings either
due to budget shortfalls or lack of bond funds. This bill
gives the Commission similar authority to cancel a meeting for
the same reasons.
2)Cancellations only due to fiscal necessity . The Commission's
budget has teetered on the edge of fiscal solvency for quite
some time and lacks much of a buffer. Commission staff states
that even an unanticipated retirement, workers comp claim,
adverse court judgment or vacation payment can push its budget
into deficit mode. Since fiscal year 01-02, the Commission
has lost 26 positions and $2.7 million in funding. All
discretionary spending has been eliminated and meetings are
held in public venues to avoid costs. Replacing its computer
network with surplus Department of Fish and Game computers
represented an "upgrade." Commission staff has voluntarily
taken leave without pay to prevent layoffs beyond the recent
loss of nine positions.
Thus, this bill appears to be one of the last remaining
measures to cuts costs (i.e.., about $100,000/year). If this
bill becomes law, the Commission will continue to plan for
monthly meetings but will cancel a meeting only if financially
warranted. Commission staff has indicated that only the
Commission itself, at a public hearing, would cancel a
meeting. However, since the bill is silent in this regard,
the committee and author may wish to consider whether the bill
should be amended to require the Commission to provide notice
of a proposed meeting cancellation at least 21 days in advance
and to direct the Commission to act on such a proposal at a
public hearing to allow the opportunity for public comment.
SB 262
Page 3
3)Extending permit deadlines : Existing law imposes deadlines on
the consideration of permits, local coastal plan amendments,
appeals of coastal development permits issued by local
governments, and other discretionary actions. Canceling a
Commission meeting may result in a de facto approval of a
permit or amendment, for example. In order to ensure that the
Commission would continue to exercise jurisdiction over these
and other actions, this bill extends relevant deadlines until
the next regularly scheduled meeting after the deadlines.
However, the bill does not make this extension contingent upon
an action to cancel a meeting. Accordingly, the committee and
author may wish to consider whether the bill should be amended
to make these extensions contingent upon a Commission action
to cancel a meeting at properly noticed hearing.
4)Arguments in support and opposition : A supporter of the bill
who has represented applicants before the Commission for over
25 years notes that the major obstacle to speedy resolution of
permit issues is the lack of availability of Commission staff
due to workload (not for lack of want). This bill would allow
the opportunity for more dialogue between staff and
applicants, which would expedite, not slow, consideration of
projects, according to the supporter. In her experience,
resolution of issues in advance increases the chances that a
project will be approved in a single hearing versus over
multiple hearings.
Before the Senate, a coalition of opponents argued that the
Commission "should not be allowed to decrease its meeting
schedule under the guise of budgetary savings" though it does
not identify any other motive for such a proposal. Instead,
in order to preserve an applicant's right to timely permit
consideration, opponents suggested that the Commission should
"undertake a managerial review as to how it categorizes and
processes various types of permits and undertake measures to
streamline workload flow and increase productivity while
maintaining high standards of coastal resource protections."
It appears that the Commission already liberally exercises its
existing administrative permit or waiver authority to
streamline its regulatory program. Information provided by
Commission staff indicates that between July and December
2008, over one-third of all entitlements issued by the
Commission were handled administratively and it expects this
share to increase this year. It is unclear whether there is
SB 262
Page 4
still opposition to this bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Coastal Commission
Culbertson and Associates
Sierra Club California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Dan Chia / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092