BILL ANALYSIS
SB 262
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 262 (Alan Lowenthal)
As Amended July 13, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-18
NATURAL RESOURCES 8-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Skinner, Gilmore, | | |
| |Brownley, Chesbro, De | | |
| |Leon, Hill, Huffman, | | |
| |Logue | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the California Coastal Commission
(Commission) to meet 10 times per year, instead of monthly, at a
place convenient to the public. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the Commission to meet 10 times per year, instead of
monthly, at a place convenient to the public.
2)Directs the Commission to give the public at least 10-days
notice prior to canceling a meeting and must consider such an
action at a public hearing to allow for public comment.
3)Extends permit application and appeal deadlines to the next
regularly scheduled meeting after the deadline if the
Commission cancels a meeting.
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
SB 262
Page 2
"complete."
FISCAL EFFECT : None
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."
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 $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.
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
SB 262
Page 3
law, the Commission will continue to plan for monthly meetings
but will cancel a meeting only if financially warranted. This
bill requires the Commission to give the public 10-days notice
prior to canceling a meeting and must do so at a public hearing
to allow for public comment.
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 if the Commission cancels a meeting.
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Dan Chia / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
FN: 0001899