Wilson Budget Would Boost Coastal Panel’s Enforcement Efforts

Gov. Pete Wilson’s first state budget proposal would provide a shot in the arm to efforts by the California Coastal Commission to crack down on illegal development in the South Bay and elsewhere along the Los Angeles County coastline.

In the $55.7-billion state spending plan he unveiled Thursday, Wilson proposed increasing the Coastal Commission’s budget by $656,000 to about $7.5 million in the fiscal year beginning next July 1.

A Coastal Commission official said a portion of the increased funding would be used to pay for stationing a full-time enforcement official in the commission’s Long Beach field office. That official would be responsible for investigating alleged violations of coastal development regulations throughout Los Angeles and Orange counties.

The commission has a backlog of about 700 alleged violations along the state’s 1,100-mile coastline awaiting investigation--many of them arising in Los Angeles County, where development pressure has been especially acute. For most of the last six years, however, the commission has had only one full-time investigator; that official has been stationed in San Francisco.

Wilson’s budget proposal, which must be approved by the Legislature, signals a dramatic turnabout in gubernatorial policy toward the Coastal Commission. Created in 1976 to regulate development along the coastline, the agency was a favorite target for budget cuts by former Gov. George Deukmejian.

Deukmejian viewed the commission as an unnecessary layer of government and routinely sought to slash its budget. Last year, he vetoed $656,000 from the budget the Legisature approved for the commission--exactly the amount Wilson has proposed adding.

Wilson rejected the suggestion that his proposal to restore the same amount of money to the panel’s budget was a rebuke of Deukmejian’s policies. Instead, the governor maintained that he and Deukmejian, a fellow Republican, are friends, but “inevitably old and dear friends have some policy disagreements.”

Wilson added: “I want to see (the commission) funded so it can do its job” of protecting the state’s coastline.

And he indicated that the commission could fare well in future budgets. He called his proposed increase “an initial step in providing the commission with adequate resources.”

Not surprisingly, commission staff members greeted Wilson’s proposal with enthusiasm.

“We feel it’s a significant step in rebuilding California’s coastal program,” said James W. Burns, the commission’s chief deputy director.

Burns said the spending increase would allow the commission to hire three additional full-time enforcement officials to investigate complaints of illegal development along the coast. Development violations range from illegal grading of property to improper seawall construction.

Burns said he expects that one of the new officials would be stationed in the Long Beach field office because “that’s where the greatest need is.”

Another would probably be placed in Santa Barbara or Santa Cruz, he said.

Burns added that he considered the commission’s proposed budget increase particularly significant because Wilson recommended funding reductions for several other agencies to help the state close a predicted $7-billion budget deficit.

Wilson’s Coastal Commission budget proposal was also praised by several Democratic lawmakers who represent coastal areas.

Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles) described it as a good move and said it shows that Wilson is “generally pretty good on the environment.”

Assemblyman Dave Elder (D-San Pedro) said the commission has “been starved for resources, so they can’t do their job. I’m delighted that they will be augmented in the budget. It reverses a downward trend.”

But one Republican lawmaker, Assemblyman Gerald N. Felando of San Pedro, questioned the wisdom of raising the commission’s budget when the state faces such a huge budget deficit.

“I wouldn’t have given them an increase at this time. I wouldn’t have given anyone an increase,” declared Felando. “If I was going to single anyone out for special treatment, it certainly wouldn’t be the Coastal Commission.”