DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition June 14, 2021 Lincoln County Planning Commission c/o Mr. Onno Husing, Planning and Development Director Lincoln County Department of Planning and Development Attn: 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 Second Street Annex 210 SW Second Street Newport, OR 97365 Via Email to: [email protected], [email protected] Re: Lincoln County Applications 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 Applicants: WorldMark, SeaRidge Condominiums, Lincoln Avenue Homes Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 5 Exception Comments of Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Dear Planning Commission members: Please accept these comments from the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition and its members (collectively “Oregon Shores”) to be included in record for Lincoln County Land Use Applications 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 (Public Hearing Date: June 14, 2021).1 Oregon Shores is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the natural communities, ecosystems, and landscapes of the Oregon coast while preserving the public’s access to these priceless treasures in an ecologically responsible manner. Our mission includes assisting people in land use matters and other regulatory processes affecting their coastal communities, and engaging Oregonians and visitors alike in a wide range of stewardship activities that serve to protect our state’s celebrated public coastal heritage. For half a century, we have been a key 1 Lincoln County Planning Commission, Pub. Notice, available at https://www.co.lincoln.or.us/pc/page/goal-18- exception-public-hearing Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 public interest participant in legal and policy matters related to land use and shoreline management at the local and state level. Oregon Shores has been an active public interest participant in legal processes and policy decisions related to coastal land use, shoreline management, and protection of coastal resources in the State of Oregon. Over the past several decades, we have offered testimony on numerous proposals involving shoreline protection structures (“SPS”)2 before the Lincoln County Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) and other county and state bodies in order to express serious concerns about the known harmful impacts these structures have on shorelines, coastal ecosystems, the public’s access to the beach, and public safety. Oregon Shores’ members and the public we serve live, visit, and enjoy recreation opportunities on the beach fronting and in the near vicinity of the proposed project area. Oregon Shores’ CoastWatch volunteers, which include members and non-members alike, monitor the miles of shorefront directly before and in the near vicinity of the proposed project area.3 Hence, Oregon Shores will be impacted by the Department’s decision in this matter. Oregon Shores requests that the Planning Commission find that the applicants have failed to justify an exception to Goal 18 and deny these applications. Oregon Shores also requests that the record remain open for an additional seven (7) days so that additional material may be added to the record as appropriate. Please notify us of any further decisions, reports, or notices issued in relation to these concurrent applications. Oregon Shores will provide further comments as appropriate and allowed within the open record periods. I. Background of Applications and General Analysis The Applications fail to demonstrate compliance with applicable SPS criteria contained within Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”), Chapter 660, Division 4 of the Oregon Administrative Rules (“OAR”), and the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals (“Goals”). As the Oregon Court of Appeals explained: “an exception must be just that—exceptional.”4 The Applicants’ proposal that Lincoln County set forth within the Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan (“LCCP”) and Lincoln County Zoning Ordinance (“LCZC”) (collectively, “Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan”) an amendment and justification for a Goal 18 exception at the proposed sites warrants careful consideration to assess consistency with this “exceptional” standard. Our comment supports the view that Applicants do not meet the required legal standard. A. Project Area, Location, and Description Lincoln-Gleneden Beach (hereinafter, “Gleneden Beach”) is located approximately five miles south of Lincoln City and is a prime example of how riprapped shores devastate the 2 Hardened shoreline protection structures (synonymous with “beachfront protective structures”) include riprap revetments, concrete seawalls, bulkheads, and the like. These structures are somewhat different, but the publicly available evidence indicates that the harmful impacts of each are substantially the same and should be considered as such for the purposes of review. 3 Tour of the Miles, Mile 235-236, link: https://oregonshores.org/mile/237 4 1000 Friends of Oregon v. LCDC, 69 Or App 717, 731 (1984). 2 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public Hearing Comment for Lincoln County Files 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 Oregon coast. By the 1990s, large sections of Gleneden Beach were hardened due to swiftly eroding sandstone and mudstone bluffs. In the words of the County, “the proliferation of riprap at Lincoln-Gleneden Beach has had profound negative impacts on that beach”5 that continue today. Today, a majority of the beach is currently riprapped—with the exception of the Applicants’ sites. Due to extreme erosion, safety concerns, and the tremendous proliferation of riprap on the shoreline, recreational opportunities and public access to the beach are extremely limited. The beach’s conditions and continual erosion have also resulted in diminished vegetation and degraded natural resources. The Applications request a Goal 18, Implementation Requirement 5 (“Goal 18, IR 5”) exception to allow a hardened shoreline protection for several oceanfront properties developed after January 1, 1977 in Gleneden Beach. Lincoln Avenue homes were previously denied building permits by the Planning Director, as well as emergency permits from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD).6 In total, the Applicants propose approximately 1,280 feet (“ft.”) of shoreline for hardening.7 The three sites at issue include the WorldMark Gleneden Resort (the “Resort”), SeaRidge Condominiums (“SeaRidge”), and four adjacent single-family vacation homes8 (collectively, the “Properties”) located on Gleneden Beach. The Resort is a neighboring property of Gleneden Beach State Recreation Site (also called “Gleneden Beach Wayside”) and is located 0.5 miles away the state recreation site’s beach access point on Wesler Street.9 The Resort was constructed from 1993 to 1996 and all four residential homes were built between the early 1990s and 2002. At the time they were under construction, erosion impacts on Gleneden Beach were well documented.10 SeaRidge was constructed between 1985 and 1987. Because all sites were 5 Staff Report on 01-LUPC-21, 02-LUPC-21, 03-LUPC-21 (“Staff Report”) at 6. 6 See Staff Report on 01-MISC-ADM-21 at 3–4 (“Based on the preceding facts and analysis set forth in this staff report, the Lincoln County Planning Division concludes that development did not exist on the subject property on January 1, 1977, and also that the subject property is not subject to an acknowledged exception to Statewide Planning Goal 18, implementation requirement 5 . the requested building permit authorization is denied based on failure to comply with the applicable requirements of LCC Chapter 1.”). 7 The Resort sits on approximately 430 ft. of shoreline, the SeaRidge sits on approximately 600 ft. of shoreline, and the four properties collectively sit on approximately 250 ft. of shoreline. 8 Located at 4755, 4805, 4815, and 4825 Lincoln Avenue. 9 Gleneden Beach currently has three numbered public access points, 51, 51A (Gleneden Beach State Recreation Site) and 51B. Additionally, the Salishan Spit has three numbered beach access points, 50, 50A, and 50B. All are contained within a gated community, and thus accessible to the public only by hiking north on the beach from Gleneden Beach. 10 See Paul D. Komar & Shyuer-Ming Shih, Cliff Erosion along the Oregon Coast: A Tectonic-Sea Level Imprint Plus Local Controls by Beach Processes, 9 J. Coastal Research 747, 747 (1993) (“The erosion of sea cliffs is a significant problem along many of the world’s coastlines, including the coast of Oregon in the Pacific Northwest of the United States . Examples of communities where cliff erosion is an important problem include Lincoln City, Gleneden Beach, and Newport[.]”); Shyuer-Ming Shih & Paul D. Komar, Sediments, Beach Morphology and Sea- Cliff Erosion within an Oregon Coast Littoral Cell, 10 J. Coastal Research 144, 154, 156–57 (1994) (“As a result, the rip embayments are a major factor in determining the occurrence of property erosion, whether the property is on sea cliffs as at Gleneden Beach or on foredunes as along Siletz Spit” and “Erosion is certainly more active along Gleneden Beach and Siletz Spit fronted by coarse-grained reflective beaches, than along coastal properties fronted by fine-grained dissipative beaches as in north Lincoln City. This implies that there is a long-term reorientation of the bluff line along the length of this littoral cell suggesting a continued disequilibrium in its overall geometry as well as the continued presence of the longshore variations in beach sediment grain size.”). (internal citations 3 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition Public
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oregon Sea Grant Natural Resource Policy Fellowship Host Descriptions 2020-2021*
    Oregon Sea Grant Natural Resource Policy Fellowship Host Descriptions 2020-2021* * Please note that due to the evolving COVID-19 situation, projects and locations may need to be modified. We will monitor the situation and communicate accordingly. Please check back periodically for updates to this document. About the Natural Resource Policy Fellowship: The Natural Resource Policy Fellowship (NRPF) places a graduate student fellow with an agency or nonprofit in Oregon. This fellowship is intended to give the student first-hand experience in natural resource policy related to marine and coastal issues. For additional details visit: https://beav.es/4zz In 2020, We anticipate filling at least one of the positions listed, in addition to the externally supported Aquaculture Fellowship (position 1, highlighted in blue). Position Fellowship position Title Host Office Location Page # # 1 Location TBD 2 Aquaculture Fellow Oregon Sea Grant 2 Oregon Department of Fish Newport, OR 4 and Wildlife/Fish Division/Marine Resources Squid Fisheries Fellow Program (MRP) 3 Ocean Acidification and Oregon Department of Fish Newport, OR 6 Hypoxia (OAH) Marine Policy and Wildlife/ Marine Fellow Resources Program (MRP) 4 Oregon Department of Fish Newport, OR 9 Shellfish Conservation and and Wildlife / Marine Fishery Management Fellow Resources Program 5 Oregon Coastal Newport, OR 11 Management Program (OCMP) within the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Ocean Shores Policy Fellow Development (DLCD) 6 Advisor to the Executive Columbia River Inter-Tribal Portland, OR 14 Director on Marine and Fish Commission (CRITFC) Estuarine Ecosystems 7 Rocky Habitat Management Portland Audubon, Portland, OR 16 Strategy Fellow Conservation Department Please note, the Oregon Sea Grant Scholars Program is focused on broadening participation and diversity by restructuring our recruitment and review processes to be more equitable.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen's Guide to the Oregon Coastal Management Program
    Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Capitol Streeti NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 Caring for Our Coast Every Oregonian cares about the future of our Coast. That caring is reflected in a series of laws, rules and plans that regulate how the coast is developed. These documents are not blueprints. They give elected and appointed officials considerable discretion to decide how and where new development will occur. They also give citizens an opportunity to participate in many of these decisions, and to help shape the future of our coast. This booklet discusses the origins and the intent of the laws, rules and plans. It is a primer about the Oregon system for managing land and coastal resources. It explains how decisions are made, the legal requirements for decisions, and how you can participate. It’s a booklet for people who care about and want to help share the future of Oregon’s coast. Important Note: This booklet is only a summary of Oregon’s coastal laws and regulations. It is not an exact statement of planning or regulatory requirements. For precise information about a particular law or program, please contact the appropriate local, state and federal agencies listed in the back of this booklet. Funding: Financial assistance for the preparation of this document was provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through a grant to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Acknowledgements Patricia L. Snow, Oregon Coastal Management Program Manager Dave Perry, South Coast Regional Representative Lorinda DeHaan, Program Support Photo Credits: Front Cover: Looking south from West Shelter Observation Point on Cape Perpetua.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 1, Issue 2
    Vol. 1, Issue 2 Capitol Events Building Tours Jan. 2 to Nov. 22 Monday through Friday 10:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Exploring Oregon’s Heritage: Asian and Pacific Islander Day at the Capitol May 20 | 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Speaker Series Floyd McKay June 1 | Noon Join us at the Capitol for a free event celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Rep. Mitch Greenlick June 15 | Noon The Oregon State Capitol will host Exploring Oregon’s Heritage: Asian Charles Johnson July 6 | Noon and Pacific Islander Day at the Capitol on Saturday, May 20 from 50th Anniversary Beach Bill 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The event honors May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, celebrating the culture, traditions, heritage and Birthday Bash at the Capitol history of Asian-Pacific Americans. Come see exciting performances Mall from local cultural organizations, dance troupes and musical groups. July 6 | 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Learn about cultural regalia, enjoy children’s activities or join an all- level yoga class. Beach Bill Birthday Bash Concert in the Capitol Mall Tower tours* to the Oregon Pioneer will take place at 10:30 a.m., with Slater Smith 11:30 a.m., 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., weather permitting. Food will be July 6 | 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. available for purchase at two food carts outside the Capitol. The detailed schedule is available on the event page at All exhibits and events are free oregoncapitol.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Stevens V. City of Cannon Beach: Does Oregon's Doctrine of Custom Find a Way Around Lucas? Melody F
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Maine, School of Law: Digital Commons Ocean and Coastal Law Journal Volume 1 | Number 1 Article 6 1994 Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach: Does Oregon's Doctrine Of Custom Find A Way Around Lucas? Melody F. Havey University of Maine School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/oclj Recommended Citation Melody F. Havey, Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach: Does Oregon's Doctrine Of Custom Find A Way Around Lucas?, 1 Ocean & Coastal L.J. (1994). Available at: http://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/oclj/vol1/iss1/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ocean and Coastal Law Journal by an authorized administrator of University of Maine School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STEVENS V CITY OF CANNON BEACH: DOES OREGON'S DOCTRINE OF CUSTOM FIND A WAY AROUND LUCAS? Melody F Havey I. INTRODUCTION The Oregon Supreme Court recently issued an en banc decision in Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach' affirming a court of appeals decision to dismiss plaintiffs' claim of inverse taking. In so doing, the court confirmed its holding in State cc rel. Thornton v. Hay2 that a public easement for recreation exists in the dry sand areas of the state's beaches under the doctrine of custom. The Stevens court stated that because custom as applied to Oregon's ocean shores3 merely enunciates the "background principles of ...the law of property,"4 its decision comported with the United States Supreme Court holding in Lucas v.
    [Show full text]
  • Cascadia Winter 2005
    News and information from the Oregon Department of Geology & Mineral Industries Volume 4, Number 1 www.OregonGeology.com Winter 2005 Where will it be tomorrow? In this issue: From your State Geologist – page 2 Our changing Oregon coast Please don’t take the cobbles – page 3 Tsunami hazard mitigation update – page 4 owhere is nature’s ability to shape the New coastal staff – page 5 Nlandscape more Measuring beach morphodynamics – page 6 apparent than on the ocean Shoreline change in littoral cells – page 8 shore. The ocean, aided by tides, rain, rivers, and cur- South Oregon coast mapping – page 10 rents, constantly and some- Know, know NANOOS – page 10 times dramatically chops away at the land. The result of this natural process af- fects those who have chosen Who owns the beach? to live within this dynamic Most people think Oregon’s beaches landscape. Our coastal are publicly owned. Th at’s not entirely communities are growing correct. Th e public does own the wet sand faster than ever before, but beach, up to the ordinary high tide line. the price for some is homes But the dry sand beach is usually part of abandoned and communi- the adjoining upland property. In many ties threatened by the same cases, this is privately owned. forces that drew people Even so, the public has a perpetual there. Our coast is also seis- easement to use the dry sand beach up mically active and subject to the statutory vegetation line or the line to infrequent but severe cat- of established upland shore vegetation, astrophic earthquakes and whichever is more inland.
    [Show full text]
  • House Bill 3149 Sponsored by Representatives SMITH DB, GOMBERG; Representatives HEARD, KENNEMER, NEARMAN, WHISNANT, WILSON, WITT, Senators HANSELL, ROBLAN
    79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session House Bill 3149 Sponsored by Representatives SMITH DB, GOMBERG; Representatives HEARD, KENNEMER, NEARMAN, WHISNANT, WILSON, WITT, Senators HANSELL, ROBLAN SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. Requires development of plan for Oregon Coast Trail. Establishes Oregon Coast Trail Fund. Continuously appropriates moneys in fund to State Parks and Recreation Department for developing and implementing plan. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to the Oregon Coast Trail; and prescribing an effective date. 3 Whereas 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Oregon Beach Bill, House Bill 1601 (1967), in 4 which the Legislative Assembly established the public’s right to uninterrupted use of Oregon’s 5 shoreline and beaches; and 6 Whereas the Oregon Coast Trail spans more than 350 miles of Oregon coastline from the south 7 jetty of the Columbia River on the north to the Oregon-California border on the south, taking ad- 8 vantage of the publicly owned beaches and providing connections between the beaches; and 9 Whereas the State Parks and Recreation Division began development of the Oregon Coast Trail 10 in 1971 and declared it hikeable in 1988, and the State Parks and Recreation Department has a 11 target date of 2021 for completion of the trail system; and 12 Whereas numerous trail segments or “gaps” require trail users to walk along the shoulder of 13 US Highway 101 or on other roads not designed for pedestrian use; and 14 Whereas closing the gaps in the Oregon Coast Trail system will increase the safety of trail users 15 and motorists alike; now, therefore, 16 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: 17 SECTION 1.
    [Show full text]
  • House Bill 3149 Ordered by the House April 27 Including House Amendments Dated April 27
    79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session A-Engrossed House Bill 3149 Ordered by the House April 27 Including House Amendments dated April 27 Sponsored by Representatives SMITH DB, GOMBERG; Representatives HEARD, KENNEMER, MCKEOWN, WHISNANT, WILSON, WITT, Senators HANSELL, ROBLAN SUMMARY The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure. Requires development of plan for Oregon Coast Trail. Establishes Oregon Coast Trail Fund. Continuously appropriates moneys in fund to State Parks and Recreation Department for developing and implementing plan and for developing, maintaining and operating Oregon Coast Trail and trail facilities. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. 1 A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to the Oregon Coast Trail; and prescribing an effective date. 3 Whereas 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Oregon Beach Bill, House Bill 1601 (1967), in 4 which the Legislative Assembly established the public’s right to uninterrupted use of Oregon’s 5 shoreline and beaches; and 6 Whereas the Oregon Coast Trail spans more than 350 miles of Oregon coastline from the south 7 jetty of the Columbia River on the north to the Oregon-California border on the south, taking ad- 8 vantage of the publicly owned beaches and providing connections between the beaches; and 9 Whereas the State Parks and Recreation Division began development of
    [Show full text]
  • Voters' Pamphlet
    . STATE OF OREGON Voters' Pamphlet General Election November 5, 1974 Compiled and Distributed by CLAY MYERS Sec:l'etary of State 2 Official Voters' Pamphlet INFORMATION STATEMENT (1) Requirements for a citizen to Application includes: qualify as a voter: Your signature. Citizen of the United States. Address or precinct number. Eighteen or more years of age. Statement relating why applicant Registered as an elector with the is physically unable to attend County Clerk or official registrar the election personally. at least 30 days before election. Address to which ballot will be (2) Voting by absentee ballot. mailed. You may apply for an absentee ballot if: Ballot, when voted by elector, must be returned to County Clerk not You are a registered voter. later than 8 p.m. on election day. ("Service voters" are automat­ ically registered by following (3) A voter may obtain from his the service voting procedure.) County Clerk a certificate of regis­ You have reason to believe you tration if he: will be absent from your coun­ Changes residence within his pre­ ty on election day. cinct, county or to another county You live more than 15 miles within 60 days prior to the en­ from your polling place. suing election and has not re­ registered. (Certificate is pre­ You will be physically unable for sented to his election board.) any reason to attend the elec­ tion. Is absent from his county on elec­ tion day. (Certificate may be "Service voter" means a citizen presented to the election board in of the State of Oregon absent any county in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • House Bill 3149
    79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 3149 Sponsored by Representatives SMITH DB, GOMBERG, BUEHLER; Representatives HEARD, HOLVEY, KENNEMER, MCKEOWN, WHISNANT, WILSON, WITT, Senators DEVLIN, HANSELL, ROBLAN CHAPTER ................................................. AN ACT Relating to the Oregon Coast Trail; and prescribing an effective date. Whereas 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Oregon Beach Bill, House Bill 1601 (1967), in which the Legislative Assembly established the public’s right to uninterrupted use of Oregon’s shoreline and beaches; and Whereas the Oregon Coast Trail spans more than 350 miles of Oregon coastline from the south jetty of the Columbia River on the north to the Oregon-California border on the south, taking ad- vantage of the publicly owned beaches and providing connections between the beaches; and Whereas the State Parks and Recreation Division began development of the Oregon Coast Trail in 1971 and declared it hikeable in 1988, and the State Parks and Recreation Department has a target date of 2021 for completion of the trail system; and Whereas numerous trail segments or “gaps” require trail users to walk along the shoulder of US Highway 101 or on other roads not designed for pedestrian use; and Whereas closing the gaps in the Oregon Coast Trail system will increase the safety of trail users and motorists alike; now, therefore, Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. (1) The State Parks and Recreation Department shall, in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, other interested state agencies, local governments, nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders, develop an action plan to complete the Oregon Coast Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Rights Versus Public Access: a Battle Over Who Has Control of the Beaches
    University of Portland Pilot Scholars History Undergraduate Publications and Presentations History 12-2020 Private Rights Versus Public Access: A Battle Over Who has Control of the Beaches Richard` Ressa Follow this and additional works at: https://pilotscholars.up.edu/hst_studpubs Part of the Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Commons, and the United States History Commons Citation: Pilot Scholars Version (Modified MLA Style) Ressa, Richard`, "Private Rights Versus Public Access: A Battle Over Who has Control of the Beaches" (2020). History Undergraduate Publications and Presentations. 26. https://pilotscholars.up.edu/hst_studpubs/26 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the History at Pilot Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Undergraduate Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Pilot Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Private Rights Versus Public Access: A Battle Over Who has Control of the Beaches By Richard Ressa Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in History University of Portland December 2020 2 Introduction It is a beautiful evening with a warm summer breeze come from the ocean. The sun is setting over the water. The day was long and beautiful. The sand felt warm and the water felt cool. Whether you are the kind of person to run around, hitting a ball back and forth with some friends or sitting under the sun with a nice towel and a cool glass of lemonade, the beach is open and able to be enjoyed by all. This is the experience I have had growing up on the West Coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Stevens V. City of Cannon Beach: Taking Takings Into the Post-Lucas Era
    Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach: Taking Takings Into the Post-Lucas Era Peter C. Meier* CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 413 I. Takings Jurisprudence: Ebb and Flow ..................... 416 A. The Development of Takings Law .................... 416 B. Lucas and the Law of Takings ........................ 422 II. Stevens: Facts and Decision ............................... 425 III. Defining the Limits of State Power ....................... 430 A. Stevens: The Fall of a House Built on Sand ........... 430 1. Deemphasizing the Conflict Between Private and Public Interests .................................... 432 2. Malleability of Common Law Doctrines ........... 433 3. Federalization of State Property Law .............. 433 4. Chilling the State Regulatory Power ............... 435 5. Chaotic Variability of Post-Lucas Federal Constitutional Law ................................ 436 B. Stevens and the Property Perspective .................. 437 C. Summ ary .............................................. 438 IV. After Stevens: Reexamining the Lucas Approach ......... 439 A. Freezing the Flow of Environmental Regulation ...... 439 B. Toward a Post-Lucas Takings Jurisprudence ........... 443 Conclusion ..................................................... 447 INTRODUCrION In Stevens v. City of Cannon Beach,1 two beachfront property owners brought a takings claim against the city of Cannon Beach and the State of Oregon. The city and state, citing beach access and zon- ing laws, had repeatedly denied the plaintiffs permits to construct a seawall on the dry sand portion of the plaintiffs' beachfront lot.2 The Copyright © 1995 by ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY * B.A. 1990, Columbia University, Columbia College; I.D. 1995, School of Law, University of California at Davis. 1. 854 P.2d 449 (Or. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1332 (1994). 2. Id. at 451; Interview with Jeanette Stevens, in Cannon Beach, Or, (Dec. 26, 1993). ECOLOGY LAW QUARTERLY [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Adapting to Climate Change on the Oregon Coast: Lines in the Sand and Rolling Easements
    JOHNSON (DO NOT DELETE) 3/18/2014 12:00 PM COURTNEY B. JOHNSON AND STEVEN R. SCHELL Adapting to Climate Change on the Oregon Coast: Lines in the Sand and Rolling Easements Introduction ...................................................................................... 449 I. A Short History of Property Boundaries and Rights Relevant to Oregon’s Coast ................................................... 450 A. The Public Trust ............................................................. 452 B. Takings ........................................................................... 453 1. Total Taking–Lucas–40-Year Erosion Line ............. 453 2. Diminution–Beach Nourishment–Beach Erosion Control Line ............................................................. 454 3. Diminution–Palazzolo–Passage of Time ................. 455 C. Open Beaches in Texas .................................................. 456 II. Oregon Lines in the Sand ...................................................... 458 A. The Common Law in Oregon–Accretion, Reliction, and Avulsion .................................................................. 458 J.D. cum laude Lewis & Clark Law School 2007. Staff Attorney at Crag Law Center, Courtney coordinates the Coastal Law Project, a collaboration with Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition addressing land use issues in Oregon’s coastal communities. Key cases include: Oregon Shores Conservation Coal. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Clatsop Cnty., 249 Or. App. 531 (2012); Oregon Coast Alliance v. Curry Cnty., 63 Or. LUBA 324 (2011); Baxter
    [Show full text]