State Coastal Commission’s Budget Slashed 15% : Environment: The agency suffers the worst blow in its 20 years of existence, losing $833,000 in funds. It also faces an anti-secrecy bill awaiting the governor’s approval.

On the eve of its 20th anniversary, the mood at the California Coastal Commission is anything but joyful.

The commission, buffeted over the past decade by severe funding cuts, now finds its budget slashed another 15% by Gov. Pete Wilson.

“It’s a hell of an anniversary,” said Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas, noting that his agency, which traces its roots to a voter-approved 1972 initiative, may have to lay off 10 of its 110 staff members. Commission staff said it is too early to tell which coastal protection programs might be eliminated.

Douglas said that as the state’s budget stalemate dragged on this summer, he had known his agency’s budget would be cut. But he didn’t think that it would be cut by nearly as much as the $833,000 Wilson blue-penciled Wednesday.

Wilson’s predecessor, George Deukmejian, had sought to dismantle the agency, which is charged with regulating development and increasing access along the state’s 1,100-mile coastline.

But Douglas called Wilson’s action the most devastating blow in the commission’s history. “There’s nothing left to cut except programs,” he said.

Even before the latest budget squeeze, the commission had hit rough seas.

A federal grand jury last spring indicted former Coastal Commissioner Mark L. Nathanson of Beverly Hills on eight felony counts, alleging that he used his office to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from people seeking coastal development permits. Nathanson has pleaded not guilty.

In the wake of the indictment, Assemblyman Terry B. Friedman (D-Sherman Oaks) on Aug. 28 won final passage of legislation that would prohibit secret meetings between members of the commission and developers. The action was a setback for the commission, which had opposed the measure.

But of more immediate concern at the commission’s San Francisco headquarters was the belt-tightening that would be triggered by Wilson’s $833,000 cut. As a consequence, the agency’s general fund budget will drop from about $5.5 million to $4.7 million. By comparison, the state budget is $57.4 billion.

Wilson termed the cut in the commission’s budget “a matter of equity.”

“The budgets for nearly all state departments funded from the general fund have been reduced by a similar percentage through previous legislative action,” Wilson said.

During the Deukmejian era, the commission’s staff dwindled from about 170 to a low of about 100 as the former governor sought to eliminate the agency, which he viewed as an unnecessary layer of government.

With Wilson’s 1990 election, the commission had anticipated a change of course. But last year’s budget deficit prompted Wilson to cut the commission’s budget 6% as part of across-the-board reductions.

“I don’t know of any other program that’s been cut as drastically over the last 10 years” without a commensurate change in the law spelling out its duties, Douglas said.

In addition to the budget blow, the Assembly dealt commissioners another setback by passing Friedman’s anti-secrecy bill on a 56-18 vote. Wilson has until Sept. 30 to act on the proposal.

Under the bill, the commission’s 12 members would be required to disclose to the agency any contacts with developers or their representatives or face a $7,500 civil fine. Also, when developers seek building permits from the commission, they would be required to list the names of any person talking to the commission on their behalf.

Friedman’s push for the measure was fueled, in part, by Nathanson’s indictment.

“The Coastal Commission process has been corrupted by allowing secret lobbying, and this will bring out into the open all debate regarding development applications,” Friedman said in an interview after the bill passed.

One way to change the agency’s image, Friedman said, “is to ensure that all matters that come before the commission are considered in the open.”

But in an interview, Commission Chairman Thomas Gwyn took strong exception to Friedman’s remarks, saying that “the commission process is open, and the issues do get discussed before the public.”

“I have serious problems with things that imply that the commission as a whole lacks integrity,” Gwyn said.

However, Gwyn will not urge Wilson to veto the bill. Gwyn cited strong support for the proposal in the Legislature and said he sees no merit “in fanning the flames about the commission.”

In recent years, a growing number of consultants, land-use planners and architects have specialized in expediting permits through the sometimes lengthy commission application process.

Seeing the increase in consultants, Friedman in 1988 unsuccessfully sought legislation to ban secret contacts between lobbyists and commissioners.

A Senate staff analysis of Friedman’s current bill noted that the attorney general’s office has for the last decade urged commissioners to report communications with developers to the agency’s staff.

But the analysis said that “there is clear evidence that some commissioners have engaged” in secret communications, and that without new legislation or regulation, “a commissioner cannot be compelled to report” such contacts.

In a July letter to Chairman Gwyn, Atty. Gen. Daniel E. Lungren’s office renewed the call for regulation.

Lungren’s office noted that the issue of secret communications involving commissioners has been raised in lawsuits against the coastal protection agency.