Oregon Coast Alliance Newsletter
Urban Problems on the Coast
Brookings Approves Chetco Estuary Development Again   
 
Southern Portion of Mahar Tribble Property on Lower Chetco River  
  
ORCA opposes an inappropriate development proposal in the lower Chetco estuary, the so-called Mahar Tribble development. The owners applied to Brookings for annexation into the city, a zone change to Residential and a redrawing of the Shoreland Boundary.  Why? To develop around fifty housing units on this property, which consists of a frequently flooded gravel bar and low-lying field, both raised above river level by years of placing fill on the land.

Twice Brookings approved the proposal, and twice ORCA appealed it to LUBA, arguing (among other things) that the owners were required to do an assessment of the impacts this development would have on the Chetco estuary. 

As expected, Mahar Tribble provided information showing the development would cause little or no harm. The required habitat assessment report largely denied any effects on the estuary other than minimal ones, easily corrected by mitigation measures such as an unspecified "restoration" of Ferry Creek, which enters the property through a culvert. Sewage and stormwater runoff concerns were largely dismissed by assurances the applicant proposed to use City water and sewer, and design a stormwater runoff system.

This is yet another instance of a project that should never be built being rationalized by questionable data placing the proposal in the best light possible. Completely missing is a real assessment of estuary impacts and the strong likelihood of heavy flooding during frequent high water events on the lower Chetco during heavy rainfall. This is no place for housing, as we and concerned local residents have repeated for years now.



Rampant Bias in the South Dunes Siting Process     
 
Aerial Photo of JCEP Site on North Spit - Courtesy ODOE   
  
The Jordan Cove Energy Project is an enormous liquefied natural gas (LNG) export proposal targeted for North Spit, the sandspit that protects Coos Bay and North Bend from the ocean. Part of the project is a more than 230-mile pipeline from Coos Bay to Malin, near Klamath Falls, which would destroy dozens of farms, forests and rural properties. In order to liquefy the natural gas, the project also includes the South Dunes power plant.

South Dunes is sited through an obscure state entity called the Energy Facilities Siting Council (EFSC) which is part of the Oregon Dept. of Energy. The highly streamlined EFSC process includes a contested case hearing. Several environmental and landowner groups filed for party status in order to participate in the upcoming contested case hearing. But the EFSC Hearings Officer interpreted the rules so narrowly that many parties were knocked out of party status altogether, and others were reduced to being able to participate on only one or two of the many serious issues.

ORCA was one of those the EFSC hearings officer completely barred from participation. We appealed the decision, as did several groups whose participation was drastically narrowed. In mid-February EFSC itself held a hearing on the appeals. They summarily and unanimously dismissed the appeals of Citizens Against LNG, Jody McCaffree, Hair on Fire Oregon and Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition to expand the issues on which they could speak. 

They also affirmed the Hearing Officer's decision precluding ORCA from any participation. In a very ugly showing of bias and power-mongering, EFSC interpreted their own rules so narrowly that the hearing turned into a kangaroo court, appearing to be a just tribunal while the verdicts clearly had been decided before the proceeding began. One Council member, Betty Roppe, voted against ORCA's exclusion, saying she felt uncomfortable with preventing a group from any participation. We thank her for that flash of courage. Shame on EFSC for their misuse of the law to squelch public participation in a project both highly controversial and dangerous for the many thousands of Oregonians living in the Coos Bay/North Bend area.



Vacation Rental Dwellings and Housing: Lincoln City's Saga  
    
Lincoln City, Oregon. Courtesy Becherka      
  
Coastal towns have a serious housing crisis. It's no secret that affordable housing is hard to come by, and there hasn't been a rush to provide more of it. Cities are required by state land use laws to provide a mix of housing. Vacation Rental Dwellings (VRDs) are one reason coastal towns often fail to meet housing requirements. 

VRDs are houses which the owners rent on a short-term basis. VRDs are a big issue in coastal towns, due to their unpleasant effects on the surrounding neighborhood if renters are lax in following garbage and noise rules. They also compete with established businesses like hotels, motels and bed-and-breakfasts. However, landowners frequently want the extra income a VRD provides, and there have been lively fights over VRD regulation. 

Lincoln City is currently in the center of such a struggle. New ordinances were passed in 2014 to create a Vacation Rental Zoning District that would have allowed VRD use without the restrictions applying to residential zones. Another ordinance set up an expedited review process for VRDs if the applicant agreed to limit the number of days per year the dwelling could be used as a vacation rental. The new laws even allowed a 180-day limit for some existing VRD's in residential zones where the use must be "incidental and subordinate" to the main use. Clearly, this was a very generous provision.

The new ordinances came out of a VRD Consensus Project initiated in 2011. However,  the newly-passed laws were overthrown at the ballot amid accusations of misinformation and overreaching. In addition, Lincoln City has a spotty record of enforcing the existing ordinances limiting VRDs in residential zones, as well as policing the problems they cause once rented.

Thanks to the Lincoln City debates, the Land Use Board of Appeals recently clarified a burning question in the VRD struggle: whether VRDs are part of a city's housing requirements under Goal Ten of the land use planning laws. In the 2015 case Oregonians in Action Legal Center vs. City of Lincoln City, LUBA said the answer was no. LUBA sided with Lincoln City in holding that single family second homes can be considered needed housing for part-time seasonal residents, but VRDs  cannot, as they cater to "tourists," rather than residents.

This case should help clarify the debate around VRD regulation. It also might help the housing crisis that afflicts coastal towns so acutely. Lincoln City is still embroiled in debate about how best to regulate VRDs, and ORCA hopes the City will use all its legislative talent to make balanced decisions that recognize the growing need for affordable housing, as well as the importance of livable neighborhoods.



Quick Links...

Here's where you can make a difference for the Oregon coast.

Go to the ORCA website to make a donation or become a sustaining member. 

Contact Information
Contact Executive Director Cameron La Follette by email
or phone: 503-391-0210
Join Our Mailing List