Tillamook County Board of Commissioners, in a controversial decision in 2022, granted an exception to Goal 18 for a group of homeowners in the Pine Beach subdivision, in the Barview area, to place riprap in an effort to control sea encroachment. Unwisely, the owners put the riprap in directly after the approval, not waiting for the outcome of the appeal filed by ORCA and other conservation groups.

LUBA, in an extensive opinion, upheld Goal 18’s strictures against shoreline armoring, struck down the Tillamook County approval, and remanded the case to the county. Since that opinion, the county has, unsurprisingly, not forced the owners to remove the riprap. That would be deeply unpopular.

Instead, the county is now holding a remand hearing on the LUBA opinion, in order to discuss options. Does that mean the county is trying to find a way to allow the homeowners to maintain the already-placed riprap? Maybe, though no such goal has been stated.

The remand hearing will be limited to argument and new evidence on the issues in the LUBA remand. It will be held:

Submit testimony to Lynn Tone. Testimony submitted by 4:00 PM on March 6 will be in the hearing packet sent to the Board of Commissioners.

ORCA appealed the Tillamook County approval of the Treehouse campground, a proposal by Treehouse Partners LLC for a 19-site campground on eighteen acres of a 58-acre parcel directly east of Tierra del Mar. The portion slated for the campground is zoned Rural Residential and Small Farm Woodlot -20. 

One of ORCA’s key arguments was that the county may not shunt important matters, like a wetland delineation and a geological hazard report, down to the building permits level as mere “technical” issues. Those things need to be part of the discretionary decision on the conditional use permit, where they can be appealed. Rather than defend their wrong-headed decision, the county took a voluntary remand.

The remand hearing will be de novo—any new evidence may be brought up. It will be held:

Submit testimony to Lynn Tone. Testimony submitted by 4:00 PM on March 8 will be in the hearing packet sent to the Board of Commissioners.

Lindly Park is a 9-acre little gem on the Alsea River above Newport. Owned by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, it is managed via lease by Lincoln County. The original vision for the park was to put in a boat dock and a large parking lot. Over the years the proposal expanded, until it included up to 50 parking spaces. However, the Department of State Lands recently axed this proposal because of the wetland it would destroy.

Lincoln County is not obligated to build any parking lot or a large dock for public access; the county is free to hold independent parks planning and land use planning public processes to determine the park’s future. The Marine Board and ODFW have both been strongly invested in a public dock and parking lot option, and are reluctant to move away from it in response to knowledge that times have changed in what public access gains priority, including bank fishing and kayaking. Lincoln County is interested in hearing what the public would like for this quiet, lovely, little park.

The county is holding public meetings to discuss the future of the park. The online meeting is March 9 at 4:00 PM. Click here to register.

The in-person meeting, originally scheduled for February 28, has been rescheduled for March 16 at 4:00 PM at the Central Coast Fire Town Hall, 145 NW Alsea Highway, in Waldport.

As the Legislature continues its work, more and more bills are being introduced. These include, as always, bills to eviscerate the land use system, which are front and center for 1000 Friends, and which they are following closely. As the coastal affiliate for 1000 Friends, ORCA will also prepare testimony on many of these.

The hostile land use bills include a study to remove most LCDC authority and to eliminate the Land Use Board of Appeals (HB 2127); a bill to allow more housing in forest zones (HB 2192); a bill to severely restrict the public appeals process for LUBA to those who live or have a business within 25 miles of the local government making the decision (HB 2207); a bill allowing farm and forest lands to be split into small parcels (HB 2210); and a bill allowing more housing on rural residential lands (HB 2211). 

There are also several new bills that specifically target the coast, and which therefore deserve special mention:

1.     HB 3382 is a shocking bill, requested by the Oregon Public Ports Association, that would allow the ports of Astoria, Coos Bay, Newport, Portland and St. Helens to construct, maintain and improve deep draft channel navigation improvements, in or adjacent to a federal navigation channel, or on port land, including docks and other berthing facilities, without demonstrating any compliance with land use laws, and without taking any “exceptions” as usually required for projects that will not comply with one of the land use Goals. 

2.     SB 948, sponsored by the two Curry County legislators, Senator Brock Smith and Rep. Court Boice, would appropriate $750,000 of General Fund money “for distribution to the City of Port Orford for the purpose of water recycling.” There is no indication of what project the money is for. It could potentially be to give the town assistance in providing matching money for an unspecified grant. Or could it be a back-handed way of assisting the moribund Elk River Property Development proposal to use city wastewater for irrigation of the (unbuilt) Knapp Ranch golf course? Either way, this bill is a grossly special interest bill that would be a poor use of taxpayer monies.

3.     SB 873 would allow three state agencies, DLCD, Transportation and State Lands, “to allow bioengineering to protect coastal resources.” This is a completely unnecessary bill; Goal 17, which regulates coastal shorelands, already expresses a preference for use of natural materials over hard shoreline armoring, as does Goal 18, regulating beaches and dunes. The only thing the bill would do is introduce an unfamiliar and totally undefined term, “bioengineering,” into state law, and thus confuse and muddy the requirements already in statute.