SANTA ROSA, Calif. (CN) - Ignoring its own staff and the unanimous will of nonprofits, government representatives and residents of Sonoma County, the California Coastal Commission neither approved nor denied California State Parks' effort to install pay stations at eight locations along the rugged Sonoma coastline.
Instead, the embattled 12-person board punted the issue to a later date and urged the combative parties to reach a compromise.
"It's pretty clear to me how wonderfully united Sonoma County residents are," Coastal Commission chair Steve Kinsey said. "But at the same time, denial [of this application] does not move the dial at all, nor does an approval."
The dispute dates back to 2012, when the California State Parks Department, still struggling with significant budget shortfalls — and by some accounts a billion dollars of deferred maintenance — attempted to install automatic pay stations dubbed "iron rangers" at 14 locations along a 55-mile stretch of the Sonoma County coast.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors balked at the plan and, citing the California Coastal Act which mandates the maximization of universal access to the coast, denied California State Parks the right to install the pay stations.
The parks department whittled its proposal to eight locations along a 17-mile portion of the coast and appealed the county's decision to the Coastal Commission, which agreed to hear the appeal and scheduled the hearing for Wednesday.
In what amounted to a verbal lashing during the staff report portion of the item, Coastal Commission North Central District manager Nancy Cave characterized the parks department's approach to the fee schedule implementation as both defiant and inept.
"Coastal Commission tried to set up meetings several times with representatives from parks," Cave said. "Unfortunately, those meetings proved elusive."
Cave added that the parks department failed to fully analyze the effect implementation of fees would have on coast access, particularly for low-income residents.
"Fee-based system result in impacts to public access of the coast, which is particularly acute in Sonoma where one needs a vehicle to access the coast," Cave said. "In its current form the fee schedule may prevent access to the coast for many economically disadvantaged groups."
Indeed, many of those present at the hearing made the case that implementing fees was a social-justice issue, including Sonoma County Supervisor Efren Carrillo. Carrillo noted the coastline is 24 miles away from Santa Rosa, Sebastopol and other parts of the county's urban corridor.
"Low-income families will have to make hard choices if new fees are imposed," he told the commission. "The Coastal Act requires that you maximize access."
Sara Wan, executive director of the Western Alliance for Nature and former chairwoman of the Coastal Commission, was blunter.
"The parks department is trying to balance its books on the backs of the working poor," she said during public comment.
Representatives from the parks department refuted the accusation, saying their plan contained provisions for the economically disadvantaged, including a lower priced pass for those who qualify.
"Our low-income pass is the same exact pass Sonoma County uses," Karl Knapp, a California State Parks employee, said.
However, many attendees rejected the assertion, saying one had to be on welfare, make less than $11,000 and supply copious documentation to qualify for the pass. This is not the case with the county's pass, since officials are more proactive and lenient in their pass distribution.