Crossroads for Coastal Commission

As he sat across from Gov. George Deukmejian in a private meeting three weeks ago, Michael Fischer, executive director of the California Coastal Commission, already knew that there was little likelihood the governor would soften his proposed budget cuts. Fischer, a commission veteran who assumed his post in 1978 and who recently revealed he is resigning to take a job in private industry, said the governor was unambiguous:

“Mr. Fischer, how can I give you permission to apply for significant improvements when my intentions for your agency are exactly the opposite? . . . Let there be no mistake, if I had the votes today I would abolish the Coastal Commission.”

As it is turning out, the governor may not have the votes in the Legislature to abolish the commission, but neither do the agency’s supporters have the votes to override $1.6 million in Deukmejian budget cuts. That represents an 18.5% reduction from the previous year’s level, the biggest reduction in the agency’s 12-year existence. Moreover, key commission members--including chairman Melvin L. Nutter--who have vigorously enforced the Coastal Act for years, face the prospect of not having their terms renewed by the Legislature.

In short, said one longtime observer, 0the commission “is at a crossroads in terms of the constellation of lobbyists, developers and special interests attacking it.” This is a most critical time for an agency charged by the voters with protecting and policing California’s 1,100-mile shoreline.

The governor has said that budget cuts are justified because the commission has completed work on several local coastal plans. Supporters counter that the agency’s mission is still essential. Even after the last of the local coastal plans is approved, they argue that the commission has an ongoing oversight and enforcement function critical to the long-term protection of coastal resources. Amendments to already approved local coastal plans could radically change their character and must be ruled on by the commission. The commission is the appellate body before which appeals of local coastal development decisions are heard. Equally important, supporters say, the commission is the only state agency with legal authority to determine whether proposals before the federal government for oil and gas drilling in the outer continental shelf are consistent with the state coastal act. The commission’s comments by law must be weighed--though not necessarily heeded--by the federal government in approving or denying outer-continental-shelf activities.

Given the commission’s adversarial role over the years, its budgetary and political problems could be expected. In the past, critics have charged that the commission at times was unduly restrictive toward development. There were long delays in acting on development permit requests, and some property owners, both big and small, said unreasonable controls were placed on their plans. For example, some property owners were required to plant grass on their roofs to preserve bucolic appearances.

But there also is a contrary perception emerging, that the agency is maturing, its members more inclined to treat developers and environmentalists with a greater degree of evenhandedness than in its early years. Indeed, some recent commission decisions have stirred the ire of environmentalists, and Fischer himself has said the commission’s role is becoming more passive.

The governor, however, has not dropped his long-held opposition.

Commission staff morale, once very high, has plummeted as major cutbacks will force the closure of the agency’s Eureka office, a phase-out of its Santa Cruz facility and layoffs of 13 employees statewide.

In the background is political jockeying over imminent commission changes; the 12 voting members are appointed by the governor, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Rules Committee. Their choices may have profound impact on future decisions.

Nutter, a Long Beach lawyer viewed by environmentalists as the conscience of the commission and an appointee of Assembly Speaker Willie L. Brown Jr., ended his two-year term a few weeks ago and will not be reappointed. Los Angeles realtor Carolyn McNeil, who has generally supported Nutter, is expected to leave in August. Both are viewed as critical swing votes by such fervent commission watchers as the Sierra Club.

Brown has offered assurances that his new appointee would be acceptable to environmental interests. Carefully monitoring the Speaker’s decision is Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, who has at least two commission cards to play: the already-expired term of San Diegan George Shipp III and the upcoming renewal of Los Angeles lawyer Marshall Grossman.

Major economic interests closely watch appointments. They range from developers who want to accelerate residential and commercial building in Malibu to Occidental Petroleum, with its proposal to drill in Pacific Palisades expected to go before the commission this fall. Some of these interests believe time is on their side in terms of confronting a commission likely more receptive to their views--or, just as important, so weakened by the budget slicing that it has lost much of its pro-Coastal Act muscle.

Peter Douglas, commission deputy director, admits, “The crisis facing the Coastal Commission today is the most significant, most severe since the people passed the coastal initiative in 1972. . . . We’re on the thin edge.”