In early January, the Coos County planning commission approved Bandon Biota’s proposed New River golf course, which would be sandwiched between Bandon State Natural Area to the west and cranberry-growing and forest lands, plus some rural residential dwellings, to the east. The whole area is south of Bandon. Biota is a Michael Keiser company, and this proposal is a second attempt by Keiser to build a golf course here — this time without trying to purchase 280 acres of Bandon State Natural Area.

The county planning commission discussed several issues related to the proposal, especially whether or not the tract contains high value farmland. Clearly, it does, as ORCA pointed out in testimony — some ninety-three acres of Keiser’s property is growing, or has recently been growing, cranberries, which are a crop attaining to the HVF designation. The planning commission required the golf course to not itself be placed on the HVF parcel, though that does not meet state law’s restrictions against golf courses on HVF lands in contiguous ownership. The planning commission also decided the applicant’s extremely vague and poorly done water report was adequate, but at least one member felt the commission should require the applicant to do more work to weigh impacts to surrounding farmers. ORCA agrees, as we said in testimony. The commission likewise determined the applicant’s report on development in the Beaches and Dunes zone passed muster. Curiously, they split off the proposed clubhouse and additional buildings from this approval, requiring the applicant to submit a new application for them in the future.

All in all, the planning commission decision was a classic example of deferring to an applicant at the expense of local farmers and residents, and the local ecology. It has already been shown that groundwater wells for a golf course in this area drain the wetlands on the adjacent state park, for example. But that was not discussed at all. Farmer concerns about water supply were briefly discussed and then ignored. Serious traffic issues on small, little used rural roads received only cursory attention. ORCA would not judge this as a decision of which Coos County can be proud. Public participation and concerns of residents deserve better than this.

You may recall that the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) recently handed down its decision on the decision of the Tillamook Board of County Commissioners to allow homeowners at Pine Beach to place riprap in front of their houses, despite it clearly not being allowed under the decision criteria in the Beaches and Dunes Goal. But the applicants took a risk: they decided to go ahead and place the riprap as soon as they received approval, despite the county decision having been appealed to LUBA by Oregon Coast Alliance, Surfrider and Oregon Shores. Now that LUBA has ruled against the county decision, that riprap is illegal and must be removed, and it is the county’s responsibility to make sure the homeowners take it out.

However, the county is, unsurprisingly, reluctant to do this, as it would be very unpopular. Instead, the county is waiting for the statutory time period to end for the applicants to request a remand hearing. At that remand hearing, not yet scheduled, Tillamook County will look at LUBA’s requirements. Probably, given their prior decision, county officials will strive mightily to find ways to justify their earlier approval, and thus also to keep the riprap in place that the homeowners risked putting in.

The 2023 Oregon Legislature has now convened, and the number of bills affecting land use in general, and the coast in particular, are (predictably) growing quickly.

At this early date, ORCA can only mention a few bills that might or might not make it through the legislative gauntlet. One concerns the serious crisis of affordable and workforce housing that Oregon currently has on its plate. HB 3032 would set up and incentivize homeshares: if the owner agrees to rent a spare bedroom for the longterm, for a price under $1,000/month, he or she can be absolved of state income tax liability on the earned income. This could help the housing crisis that is being driven, in part, by the great increase in short term rentals (STRs) that are burgeoning on the coast and other places, and reducing the housing stock available for longterm rent or purchase.

Another bill that would impact the coast is SB 530, a bill to encourage natural climate solutions. The bill, as introduced, would set up both a source of state funding for voluntary actions to remove climate pollution, and also fund state agencies to provide incentives and support to forest owners, farmers and ranchers to implement natural climate solutions on their lands. What kinds of things are we talking about? Natural solutions include urban tree canopy expansion, protection of drinking watersheds, wetland and riparian restoration, cover crop planting, reforestation, and assisting coastal communities dealing with storm surge and sea level rise. The bill would also set Oregon up to use monies from federal legislation by getting the necessary partnerships and ready projects in place. 

There will likely be a slew of other land use-related bills, as there usually are during the legislative sessions. A bill has already been introduced to provide new ways to site dwellings in forestlands, for example. Much more to come on legislative issues as the pace of hearings picks up.