Dispute over state-beach fees on Sonoma Coast heads to Coastal Commission

The California Coastal Commission on Wednesday will dive into one of the most contentious issues affecting the Sonoma Coast in decades - the state’s proposal to expand day-use fees at more than a dozen beaches along 35 miles of coastline.

The disputed proposal, opposed by surfing and coastal access advocates as well as many everyday beachgoers, has raised fundamental questions over how to govern access to California’s world-class coastline and whether such natural resources fall ultimately under local or state control.

A decision in the closely watched standoff could have significant implications for California’s bedrock provisions protecting coastal access and the ability of Sacramento to impose new charges for public sites that have long been free to visit.

Both California State Parks, which is pushing the fee proposal, and Sonoma County, which has stood in its way, claim to be acting in the public’s best interest.

In the case of State Parks, officials argued in a March 26 letter to the Coastal Commission that installing self-pay machines at 14 beaches in Sonoma Coast State Park and Salt Point State Park will “actually enhance public access to the coastline,” in part by raising revenue to pay for more beach amenities.

The agency outlined for the first time a proposed fee structure for coast parking, which would be $8 for an entire day or “up to $3” an hour for shorter visits. There would be no charge for visits of 15 minutes or less, a nod to those who simply want to pull into a beach parking lot to check out the surf or watch the sunset.

Also unveiled in the March 26 letter was the state’s plan to use automated machines to collect payment, including with the use of debit or credit cards, as opposed to the state’s original plan calling for the use of so-called “iron rangers,” which accept only cash.

The new fees would apply to sites stretching from Bodega Head in the south to Stump Beach in Salt Point State Park in the north. Popular spots on the list include Goat Rock, Shell Beach and Salmon Creek.

The state for decades has been charging a day-use fee at several Sonoma Coast parks, including Fort Ross, Bodega Dunes and Wrights Beach.

Wednesday’s Coastal Commission meeting at the Marin County Board of Supervisors chambers in San Rafael turns on the technical issue of whether the 12-member board should let stand Sonoma County’s 2013 denial of State Parks’ coastal permit application to install the pay stations, or whether the commission should take jurisdiction of the matter for resolution at a later date.

Commission staff is recommending the latter path, on the grounds that the issue has potential statewide ramifications for how State Parks fulfills a legislative mandate to generate more revenue to fund operations at sites across California.

Normally, such technicalities limit debate before the Coastal Commission to only a few interested parties. But Steve Kinsey, a Marin County supervisor and the commission’s chairman, this week said he expects commissioners will break with protocol to allow anyone who wishes to speak on the topic the opportunity to do so. The hearing is expected to draw dozens, if not hundreds.

“I understand people feel strongly about it,” Kinsey said.

Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo, whose district spans the coast, will present the county’s case before the commission. He reiterated his strong objections to the state’s fee proposal.

“It seems they (State Parks) are trying to do everything they can to shove this through,” Carrillo said.

The issue has a long history in Sonoma County. In 1968, county supervisors allowed developers of The Sea Ranch subdivision to make 10 miles of the county coastline off-limits to the public, sparking outrage among environmentalists, who launched a statewide ballot initiative that led to the creation of the California Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission.

A plan by developers to charge for parking at The Sea Ranch was later rejected by the commission on the grounds that it would restrict public access.

More recently, the commission approved State Parks’ request to install automated payment machines at five beaches in Orange County. Charles Lester, the commission’s executive director, signaled his support for such fees in a May 20, 2013, letter to Anthony Jackson, then-director of State Parks.

But commission officials insist that history should not be interpreted as de facto support for the state’s beach fee proposal in Sonoma County.

“By no means is taking it up as an issue to be translated into support for State Parks’ proposal,” Kinsey said.

At the coast Friday, most visitors who were surveyed expressed opposition to having to pay new day-use fees.

Just north of Bodega Bay, surfer Yvan Smith of Vacaville was suiting up in the parking lot of South Salmon Creek Beach. Smith said he already pays enough to support state parks in the form of taxes. He called plans to expand day use-fees, including at South Salmon Creek, “an insult.”

Nearby, many residents along Bean Avenue leading to the beach have expressed concern that visitors will park along the narrow road to avoid paying day-use fees.

Farther north, at Shell Beach, student Saffron Williams of Santa Rosa said she would have gone somewhere else Friday had she had to pay. But she added that she might support new fees if she knew that the money would be used to improve services at local sites. The only services at Shell Beach are pit toilets and trash receptacles.

“If it was for a good cause and they could show us where the money is, I would support it,” she said.

In the March 26 letter, State Parks estimated that there are 2,400 day-use parking stalls along the Sonoma Coast under its jurisdiction. The agency charges an $8 flat fee for daily parking at approximately 600 of those spaces. Under the agency’s proposal, an additional 814 spaces would be added to the fee structure, leaving 41 percent of all available parking spaces free for visitors.

In addition, agency officials argued, there are a “significant” number of pull-outs and unpaved dirt areas along the coast that are used informally as free parking, and visitors could continue to use those spots without charge.

Staff for the Coastal Commission, however, noted in their report that many of the pull-outs and informal parking lots cited by the state present potential public safety issues because the locations are on winding stretches of Highway 1 or miles away from official lots.

The automated machines the state proposes to install are solar-powered and have Wi-Fi connectivity, which officials say would give visitors the ability to pay for parking using cash, debit cards or park passes, and to add time using smartphones. Officials also are exploring technology that would allow visitors to pay for parking using their cellphones.

State officials said data generated by the machines could be used to maximize beach use and adjust fees to meet demand. But given the spotty or nonexistent cell reception in locations up and down Sonoma’s coast, it’s unclear how well such a system would work.

Critics of the state’s plans hone in on the fact that revenue collected from any new day-use fees would not necessarily be used to benefit locations where the money is collected. State law enacted in 2012 allows for half of the revenue generated within a park district to go back to that district - as long as the local district and state system on the whole meet revenue targets. The money otherwise is pooled in a State Parks recreation fund.

The more fundamental issue is whether day-use fees are a barrier to people enjoying the coast. The public’s access to beaches and waterways is guaranteed in the state constitution and by the 1976 Coastal Act, which encourages “maximum access” to such sites.

Sonoma County officials argue that their decision to deny State Parks’ permit application was consistent with that mandate, as well as with the county’s own development playbook - its Local Coastal Plan - which states that the county must take “all necessary steps to protect and defend” the rights of people to access the coast.

In a letter prepared this week by the county and signed by Susan Gorin, the Board of Supervisors chairwoman, officials argued that the commission would “wrest the administration” of the Local Coastal Plan away from the county should commissioners decide to take jurisdiction of the matter.

County officials further question whether the commission has standing to hear State Parks’ appeal.

The commission’s staff report describes the fee proposal as a “major public works project” subject to appeal. But county officials noted that State Parks has never described the installation of the self-pay machines as such, and that in fact, the agency sought an exemption from a full environmental review of the project on the basis that the machines were a minor addition to existing uses.

Gorin’s letter acknowledged the county’s “appearance of inconsistency” in objecting to the state’s plan while at the same time charging for parking at several county beaches. State officials noted the same thing in their own report to the commission.

Gorin noted that those fees were implemented prior to the adoption of the Coastal Act by the state Legislature in 1976 or the certification of the county’s coastal plan. Nevertheless, she said, the county will drop fees at some county parks on the coast if State Parks loses its appeal.

Wednesday’s meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. The public can submit written comments to the commission via sonomastateparksappeal@coastal.ca.gov.

The commission’s agenda and staff report are available at http://www coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html.

You can reach Staff Writer Derek Moore at 521-5336 or derek.moore@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @deadlinederek.