State Budget Woes Cost Coast Panel : Finances: The commission, which hoped for more money this year, had its allocation cut from $6 million to $5.7 million.

The California Coastal Commission, accustomed to rocky financial seas, hit another patch of rough water last week when its annual appropriation was cut by about 6% in the state budget signed by Gov. Pete Wilson.

Wilson’s initial budget plan, unveiled shortly after he took office early this year, sought increased funding for the commission. That would have reversed eight years of bare-bones budgets the agency had come to expect under former Gov. George Deukmejian.

But when the state’s budget deficit ballooned to a record $14.3 billion, Wilson approved the cut in commission funding as part of across-the-board reductions.

As a consequence, the commission’s general fund budget will drop from just over $6 million in the 1990-91 fiscal year to about $5.7 million in the fiscal year that began July 1. The state budget totals $55.7 billion.

Retained in the commission’s budget is $656,000 that Wilson proposed in January to help the agency in its efforts to restrict illegal development and to open a new office on the North Coast. But in Wilson’s original plan, this money would have boosted the commission’s total budget to nearly $6.8 million.

Peter Douglas, the commission’s executive director, praised the governor for providing the $656,000, saying: “I just shudder to think what (the budget) would have been like if the governor hadn’t give us an augmentation.”

Nonetheless, Douglas described the overall funding cut as “probably the most drastic” the agency has had to deal with in six years. He said the financial squeeze will force the commission to restrict staff travel, extend a hiring freeze, and cut printing, telephone and other costs. It may also delay the issuance of coastal development permits.

In a memo to his staff this week, Douglas lamented the latest turn of events. He said: “It is ironic and a reflection of how unpredictable modern life is to finally have a governor who is supportive of a strong coastal program at the very time a general budget crisis forces funding reductions which further impair our ability to implement that program.”

Even so, Douglas said, the Administration and the commission agree that enforcement cases remain a high priority. Instead of adding investigators, Douglas said, the agency will be required to divert staff from other areas to check out complaints about illegal development.

“In the long term it would be false economy to let enforcement drag,” said Douglas, citing a backlog of between 600 and 700 enforcement cases.

During the Deukmejian era, the full-time enforcement staff dropped from as many as six to one San Francisco-based staffer assigned to look into problems along California’s 1,100 miles of coastline.

Overall, the commission’s staff dwindled from about 170 to around 100 as Deukmejian sought to dismantle the agency, which he viewed as an unnecessary layer of government.

Douglas said that because of cuts during the Deukmejian Administration, he had hoped the commission might have been spared across-the-board reductions triggered by this year’s budget deficit. But that did not prove to be the case.

One budget analyst, who asked not to be identified, said: “The Coastal Commission (was) not treated any differently than any other department in terms of the reductions.” The analyst also said the commission’s budget could drop even more, depending on the outcome of talks on whether to reduce salaries for all state workers.

Darryl Young, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, said his group would have preferred that Wilson’s original budget proposal for the commission be enacted. “But given the fact that the state is in tough financial times,” Young said, the cut was not unexpected.

“It’s hard to criticize when all agencies are being hit,” Young said.