Commentary: A coastal development exemption in Santa Monica? Shame on Gov. Newsom

My plan, just back from a trip to the East Coast, was to give California a well-deserved pat on the back for its unwavering commitment to coastal protection and public access.

My travels had taken me to coastal areas in Connecticut and New York that are so privatized, you’d need a kayak or a parachute to make it onto a beach. One trick they use to keep you off the sand and out of the water is to limit parking to local residents, and typically, there is nowhere else to park within easy or safe walking distance.

So here I was, eager to remind everyone that in 2026, Californians should all be lighting candles on the cake celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act, which established guidelines regarding public access, conservation and development.

But then Gov. Gavin Newsom, while nobody was watching, gave a swift kick to the cake.

I’d barely unpacked my bags when a gaggle of sources and news reports grabbed my attention on what Newsom was up to. I’d say the CalMatters headline and story neatly summed things up:

“Newsom pushes environmental carve-out for campaign donor’s Santa Monica project.”

That’s right, folks. As the legislative session comes to a close over the next few days, Newsom is in the kitchen, stirring a foul chowder that stinks along the state’s entire 1,200-mile coast. He’s pushing a bill that would exempt one particular project from normal regulatory review by the Coastal Commission.

Speaking of review, let’s remind ourselves what we’re looking at here.

Newsom is essentially saying the hell with the Coastal Act.

He is doing it on the 50th birthday of an elegant declaration spawned by a citizen uprising aimed at preserving the state’s greatest treasure.

And as CalMatters does the math, the project in question “belongs to Jeff Worthe, who, along with his wife, Kristin Worthe, has donated more than $274,000 to Newsom’s campaigns and inaugural fund between 2018 and 2022, according to state campaign finance records.”

Susan Jordan, who single-handedly runs the California Coastal Protection Network out of her kitchen in Santa Barbara, was somewhere between flabbergasted and apoplectic.

“You don’t expect to have a governor do something so under-handed as this, and now that it’s out in the open, there’s no shame about it,” Jordan told me. ”And he would be the first person to carve out an exemption in the Coastal Act, that has survived all these other attacks over the last 50 years, and he’s trying to shove it down everyone’s throats in the last days of the legislative session.”

Jordan and others tell me the governor’s office is working with legislative leaders as the clock winds down, trying to jam this through before the session ends Monday.

I’ve read the bill, and it’s a curious concoction that doesn’t name a specific project but makes clear that it involves a long-proposed and occasionally controversial Worthe company project that would sit just up from the beach in Santa Monica. In previous incarnations, the project has included a luxury hotel, apartments and a Frank Gehry museum.

The Coastal Commission signed off on the project a few years ago, after tussles over low-cost housing provisions during the course of erecting yet another luxury hotel. But after getting the green light, Worthe pulled back, and the permit expired.

This next part gets a little tricky so I’ll keep it short: Under the Newsom-backed bill, a new project at that location would not be subject to the established review process if Santa Monica fails to complete an arduous local coastal plan (LCP) by 2028. And since it could be difficult for Santa Monica to meet that deadline, Newsom’s bill essentially provides a way to escape the kind of critical review demanded by the Coastal Act.

Among the screaming critics is Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles). Zbur had been working on his own coastal development and public access bill and trying to assemble Santa Monica’s LCP.

“I am frustrated that, once again, I must devote time and energy to working to defeat this terrible proposal,” Zbur said in a statement, calling the Newsom gambit a Coastal Act exemption. “I have already communicated my strongest opposition to the Governor and the leadership in the Legislature … This is not the right path forward and I am working strenuously to stop it.”

In July, before I left town, I wrote about President Trump’s reckless attempt to torpedo the Coastal Commission and California’s long-established authority on matters of coastal conservation and development. If Trump could, he’d turn the length of the coast into a golf course, with lots of sand traps and putting greens atop oil derricks.

Now here comes Newsom, acting like Trump’s caddy as he kicks sand in the faces of those who have taken up stewardship of the coast.

And questions abound.

What’s Newsom working at? He’s scheduled to leave soon for South Carolina, the first democratic presidential primary state, which of course reminds everyone that Newsom considers himself a potential successor to Trump. We also know that running for president is expensive, so wise is the politician who keeps loaded donors happy, even as he turns his back on his own state.

Here’s another question, offered up by Jordan:

“Why the exemption?”

Exactly. Is there something so odious about a potential reworked design that the only way to hustle it across the finish line is to give it a free pass?

“If you want to build in the coastal zone, you need to go through the Coastal Act,” Jordan said. “That’s why we have the Coastal Act, and I don’t think it should be corrupted by this developer or by the governor.”

By the way, if the governor and/or the developer would like to explain to me why the rules shouldn’t apply in this one case, I’m available. Asked about the bill the other day at a news conference, the governor said, “I’m not going to comment about any pending bills.”

Why not? If you’re going to tear up the rule book on coastal development, doesn’t the public deserve an explanation, even if you’ve already got one foot out the door?

If the Legislature rolls over on this, why wouldn’t every other coastal developer line up and ask for an exemption, and will carve-outs go to the biggest campaign donors?

The Coastal Act and the agency that enforces it have fielded some fair criticism over the years from developers, homeowners and others. But the California coast is largely protected as a public asset, not a private one, because of the spirit and letter of the act, which represents the will of the people.

Happy anniversary from a California native who fell in love with the coast at first sight, and shame on those who would defile it.

Steve.lopez@latimes.com