Trump and Newsom Are Attacking the California Coastal Commission

In a hotel meeting room two blocks from the beach, the California Coastal Commission might as well have written “S.O.S.” in the sand.

“We are under complete assault,” said Susan Lowenberg, a member of the coastal-preservation commission, which was born in the 1970s from the same movement that gave rise to Earth Day and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “We need help.”

President Trump has publicly castigated the state commission, vowing not to “let them get away with their antics.” Elon Musk has said it “should not even exist as an organization.” Mr. Trump’s administration has threatened to withhold federal aid for the Los Angeles wildfires unless the state defunds the agency.

The attacks are surprisingly bipartisan: Democratic state lawmakers are trying to weaken the commission’s authority over housing development. And Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has said the commission has too much power, and delivered a stinging rebuke in January.

The California coast stretches 840 miles, from mossy redwood forests in the north to cliff-side waterfalls on the Central Coast and palm tree-studded beaches in the south. Millions of visitors are drawn each year to its kaleidoscope of landscapes and pristine shoreline.

The California Coastal Commission has been instrumental in preserving that stretch of the state facing the Pacific Ocean by limiting development and ensuring public access. But more than half a century later, the commission has been under siege like never before.

The destruction caused by the Southern California wildfires in January has galvanized critics, who have long opposed the commission for impeding development and fear it could now play an outsize role in the speed at which homes are rebuilt near the shore.

The threats to eviscerate the Coastal Commission have alarmed environmentalists, who consider protecting the shoreline a fundamental part of California’s culture. Dismantling the agency, they say, would not only endanger rare ecosystems but also pave the way for high-rise towers and other developments that could make California’s coast look much more like Miami’s.

Commissioners and staff members who met earlier this month at a three-day meeting in Santa Cruz, a funky surfer town just south of the San Francisco Bay Area, appeared uneasy. In between discussions of oil pipelines and lithium battery plants, they used the public forum to defend their work, allude to the mounting pressure against them and criticize “false narratives” and “misinformation.”

By design, the agency rejects the desires of some of the world’s wealthiest and most influential people. Nestled in the ridges and cliffs overlooking the Pacific are the homes of tech moguls, Hollywood stars and business tycoons. There has long been boundless desire to build on the coast, but residents felt that untrammeled development could spoil the natural beauty that has come to define the state.

As the environmental movement hit its stride in the early 1970s, a post-World War II construction boom drew backlash from those worried about the potential destruction and privatization of the state’s coastal habitats. Activists leaped into action after one development, Sea Ranch, promised to cordon off 10 miles of the Sonoma County coast for private use.

In 1972, California voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that maximized public access to the shoreline, required extra permitting for any construction near the coast and created the commission to review development proposals. It’s the only state agency in California created by voters. Later, in 1976, the State Legislature cemented the protections in the Coastal Act.

“In Malibu, if a billionaire’s house is on the beach, any person can go sit in front of that person’s house and go enjoy the ocean, and that’s thanks to the Coastal Act,” said Mark Gold, an environmental scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s something I don’t take for granted.”

Over the ensuing decades, however, the commission made enemies by limiting construction on some of California’s most desirable real estate. Among those who have tussled with the agency over the years is Mr. Trump.

In 2006, Mr. Trump illegally placed a 70-foot flagpole with a giant American flag at the golf club he owns in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif. He sought permits only after erecting the flagpole, and battled the Coastal Commission for years. At one point, he suggested that no one should need permission to hoist the American flag and expressed frustration that the commission required various approvals.

That dispute has seemingly lingered in his mind.

“I’ve dealt with the Coastal Commission for a long time and they are considered the most difficult in the entire country,” Mr. Trump said in January during a forum with fire victims in Los Angeles. “We cannot have them play their games and wait 10 years to give somebody a permit. In fact, I’m going to override the Coastal Commission.”

Last year, the commission denied a request by SpaceX to increase the frequency of rocket launches off the California coast north of Santa Barbara. In doing so, some commissioners publicly chided Mr. Musk, the company’s founder and chief executive, for some of his political stances — “his bigoted beliefs” toward the transgender community, said one commissioner — and for backing Mr. Trump in the presidential race.

“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA,” said Gretchen Newsom, an alternate commissioner, who is not related to the governor.

One major complaint about the Coastal Commission in recent years has centered on how far inland its authority extends. The “coastal zone” under its purview can stretch half a mile inland in some places and five miles in others.

Democrats have increasingly rebuked the agency as they have sought more housing construction to address the state’s soaring cost of living. Housing activists say the state desperately needs more homes in coastal cities.

In recent weeks, state legislators have proposed a dozen bills to amend the Coastal Act. One measure would exclude housing projects for university students and staff from the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction. Another, a response to the recent fires, would exclude from its oversight certain units in Los Angeles County and any other county where housing is damaged and the governor has declared a state of emergency.

Democrats pushing for changes say they recognize the broader value in having the commission protect the coast, but want to curtail certain powers.

Some California environmentalists, however, said that the agency has simply been following its charge to protect the coast and carefully review development, and that its restrictions have become an easy excuse for cities that don’t want to build more housing.

“The Coastal Act is a hugely important thing for all Californians and all people who come to California, and it should not be sacrificed to solve other problems,” said Jennifer Savage, California policy associate director at the Surfrider Foundation.

It’s unclear exactly what the Trump administration can do when it comes to the commission. The federal government provides only about 10 percent of the commission’s $35 million budget, and it would be up to the State Legislature to dismantle or defund the agency. Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican of California, proposed a bill this month aimed at supplanting the commission’s authority.

Commissioners say they have been inaccurately portrayed as a roadblock to rebuilding communities destroyed in the Los Angeles fires.

Caryl Hart, a commissioner, met recently in Washington, D.C., with members of the California congressional delegation. She said she took comfort when every member of the state’s delegation later urged his or her colleagues in Congress to provide aid to California.

The governor may still need convincing.

In October, after the commission’s SpaceX decision, the company sued the agency, accusing it of political discrimination. A federal judge said SpaceX had failed to establish that it was a victim of political bias by the commission and that he would move to dismiss the lawsuit.

Mr. Newsom sided with SpaceX and Mr. Musk, saying that the commissioners should have confined their decision to the merits of the permit. “I literally said, ‘I’m with Elon Musk attacking the Coastal Commission,’” Mr. Newsom said on his new podcast. “I was very vocal about it. It was unacceptable.”

In January, the governor emphasized that rebuilding in the fire zones was exempt from the Coastal Act. He blamed the Coastal Commission for issuing “legally erroneous” guidance about whether homeowners needed agency approval to rebuild — an unusual public rebuke of a state agency by a Democratic governor.

At the hotel meeting room in Santa Cruz, with about 30 people in attendance, commissioners openly discussed ways to improve their agency’s reputation. They said that their work was being unfairly portrayed, that they were too often being made a scapegoat.

“We’re not getting in the way of the advancement of society,” said Linda Escalante, a commissioner. “We’re really just doing our very best to move things forward.”

For the first time, the commission published a report documenting the number of permits the agency had issued annually. The report showed that local governments, not the commission, were responsible for approving or denying the vast majority of permits for development near the coast.