Gov. Gavin Newsom is backing a late-session legislative maneuver that would carve out special treatment for a Santa Monica development tied to one of his longtime campaign donors, drawing sharp criticism from environmental groups and local lawmakers alike.
A draft proposal obtained by CalMatters would effectively shield a mixed-use oceanfront project — designed by the late architect Frank Gehry — from the standard review process required under California’s coastal protection laws, but only if the city of Santa Monica fails to adopt its own local land-use plan by January 1, 2028.
The project belongs to developer Jeff Worthe, who along with his wife, Kristin, has contributed more than $274,000 to Newsom’s campaign and inauguration funds since 2018, according to state campaign finance records. Newsom appointed Worthe to the California Privacy Protection Agency Board in 2023 and, more recently, to the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
The $350 million development, planned for the corner of Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard, was approved years ago by both the Santa Monica City Council and the California Coastal Commission after Worthe agreed to contribute millions toward affordable housing and infrastructure improvements. Those approvals have since expired, and construction never began, despite Worthe’s public statements that groundbreaking would occur in early 2025.
News of the proposed exemption angered a coalition of coastal advocates who have spent much of the year fighting off similar efforts to bypass the California Coastal Act, the 50-year-old law that governs development along the state’s shoreline. In May, the group blocked an attempt to fast-track Worthe’s project, and in June it defeated a broader Newsom administration proposal that would have exempted most Santa Monica beachfront housing developments from coastal oversight altogether.
Susan Jordan, executive director of the California Coastal Protection Network, said the latest effort sets a troubling precedent.
“Every other developer is going to want the same treatment,” Jordan said. “It sends the message: If you have deep pockets, you get a big payoff.”
Assemblymember Rick Chávez Zbur, a Santa Monica Democrat, said he received the draft language Monday night and immediately raised concerns. Zbur authored Assembly Bill 1740, which sets a 2029 deadline for Santa Monica to complete its long-delayed local coastal program — a land-use blueprint required for cities to manage their own development approvals rather than relying on the state Coastal Commission for individual permits. Santa Monica is one of only 14 California cities without such a plan. Zbur’s bill passed the Assembly 76-0 this week and now awaits the governor’s signature.
“This isn’t about the project,” Zbur said. “It’s about the precedent of exempting a project, and about doing something that conflicts with and undermines a bill I worked so hard to bring all the parties together on.”
State Sen. Ben Allen, D-El Segundo, echoed those concerns, saying the proposal could actually discourage the city from finishing its coastal plan, since a developer might benefit more from missing the deadline than meeting it. Allen said he supports Zbur’s approach instead.
“I am not interested in unwinding that work,” Allen said in a statement.
Newsom has been openly critical of the California Coastal Commission in recent years and has appointed several commissioners favorable to accelerating housing construction along the coast. His push comes as the Trump administration has separately targeted the commission, opening an inquiry into its regulatory authority — an effort Newsom himself has denounced as an attack on California’s environmental protections.
That contradiction wasn’t lost on advocates.
“He’s carving up the Coastal Act. He’s selling it to the highest bidder,” Jordan said. “We don’t need a governor doing that, and we certainly don’t need our next president doing that.”
Marce Gutiérrez-Graudiņš, founder of the ocean advocacy group Azul, said undermining coastal protections now sends the wrong message. “We should be strengthening this law, not weakening it,” she said.
Asked about his ties to Worthe and the timing of the proposal, Newsom declined to answer directly, saying only that he had spoken with an unnamed lawmaker from the area earlier in the week and received “healthy feedback.”
“It’s a work in progress,” Newsom told reporters Wednesday at a press conference in Vallejo. “We are in the process of negotiating and discussing it with them.”
The proposal surfaced shortly after a company linked to Worthe spent roughly $270,000 between January and June lobbying state lawmakers and the governor’s office on Zbur’s bill and related budget matters, according to state lobbying disclosures. The payments were reported by lobbyist Bob Giroux and came from Catalina Media Development LLC, an entity connected to Worthe’s real estate firm. Neither Worthe nor Giroux responded to requests for comment.
Under the draft language, the coastal exemption would apply only to a narrow category of Santa Monica developments — residential or mixed-use projects that meet specific labor and sustainability standards, sit within urban zones, and avoid sensitive coastal habitats. One requirement in particular stands out: the project must include a museum dedicated to Gehry’s architectural legacy, with written approval from his estate.
The Worthe development appears to be the only project in Santa Monica that would meet all of the outlined conditions. As previously approved, the plan called for a 120-room hotel, 100 residential units including some designated affordable housing, more than 70,000 square feet of commercial and cultural space, a rooftop observation deck, and nearly 300 parking spaces.
As part of earlier negotiations with the city, Worthe agreed to pay $6 million toward transportation, parks, affordable housing and other community programs, and later pledged an additional $6.5 million toward a nearby youth hostel intended to offer lower-cost lodging in the area.
Under Newsom’s proposal, the exemption would only take effect if Santa Monica misses the 2028 deadline for finalizing its coastal plan. In that scenario, the Coastal Commission would be required to hold a public hearing on the project within 90 days and issue a decision within 30 days, with the presumption that the development complies with environmental standards unless the commission can demonstrate a specific and unavoidable harm.
Jordan argued that rushing complex land-use decisions to meet an artificial deadline undermines the entire purpose of coastal planning.
“If that means you need to go six months over a deadline, then you should do that,” she said. “You should not be penalized for making the correct decision.”
Original source: CalMatters
