The initial planning commission hearing on the proposed Gravel Point Resort Phase 2 has been continued to December 11th at 7:00 PM. Anyone can write testimony on the proposal between now and the end of that hearing: the record is open. Bandon has posted the documents online here.

The first hearing made it clear that several planning commission members are leaning favorably towards the project. Public testimony, however, has been strongly opposed. Residents pointed out problems ranging from traffic issues to the serious questions about water and sewer availability, which even includes the city’s failure to have adequate water pressure for fire hydrants for existing development. But despite these serious, and even insurmountable, problems, city officials are likely to plow ahead. Why? The budget holds the key. The single largest chunk of the city’s General Fund budget comes from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The city’s approved budget for 2024-25 states, “TOT represents the City’s most promising revenue source, particularly if new hotels and resorts are approved for development in the future, as it has the greatest potential for growth.” (p. 4).

It is necessary for everyone concerned to point out to officials that growing the Transient Occupancy Tax by approving resorts the city’s infrastructure cannot support is not going to help the city budget, economy, infrastructure or livability. Testimony between now and the December 11th hearing should be emailed here.

There are two very quiet, but enormously important, beach access issues occurring in Gearhart. Both have enormous implications for not only beach access but beach protection along the entire coast. Both are complex, and one has a long history.

The first issue concerns a traditional public beach and salt marsh access path along Neacoxie Creek. In August of this year, Gearhart landowner and real estate developer Robert Kessi blocked this path with five “No Trespassing” signs threatening “Violators Will Be Prosecuted.” Though in September Gearhart officials declared the signs illegal, in violation of the city's prohibition of signs in wetland areas, in October officials reversed themselves, declaring the signs legal. As the signs became partially surrounded by water during higher tides, the owner has now placed them horizontally on the bank instead, jutting over the access path. These signs clearly violate Oregon’s policy of free beach access, not to mention violating public rights to traditional beach routes.

The second issue concerns the bulldozing of another public access route, along 13th Street, fencing it off, covering it with sand and seeding it with beach grass. Like the Neacoxie path, this road provides a traditional access to the beach. 

The 13th Street controversy has a longer history than just the destruction of a coastal access. It is related to Gearhart’s effort to build a new police/fire station. When a $14.5 million bond measure to fund it was defeated by a two thirds vote of the people in 2022, city officials turned to another option: a land swap with developers. Basically, developers would give two lots outside Gearhart’s urban growth boundary for use as a park and a new fire/police station. In exchange Gearhart would give the developers 34 acres west of the city’s no-build zone — land in the Beaches and Dunes Overlay zone. Gearhart would have to bring the new lands into its UGB, and justify doing so legally. The land the city wants to give the developers stretches across the Palisades dune frontage from 13th Street to Highlands — but has been, so far as appears in the chain of deeds, owned by the State of Oregon since 1939, now by the Parks Department as public land for all Oregonians. Gearhart claims it owns these lands. If that is so, the land is likely managed by OPRD due to its location on the beachfront. This potential land swap has gotten very little attention. If Gearhart owns the lands it wants to swap, then it needs to show proof of ownership via legitimate deeds.

Why all of a sudden are there two major public access issues flaring up in Gearhart? How is one of them related to the Gearhart Ocean Wayside, and a potential land swap that is being discussed by city officials as a solution to the perceived need for a new fire/police station? ORCA calls upon state officials at Parks, the Department of State Lands and DLCD to look into these two issues. Public access is under fire in Gearhart, and the state does not seem to be doing anything to stop it. 

As for the possible land exchange, there needs to be thorough research about the lands involved in the 1939 deed, which transferred properties in the Phillip Gearhart Donation Land Claim to the State Highway Commission. If the 34 acres under consideration for exchange are indeed owned by the state, Gearhart has no authority to swap them to a developer. Even if it turns out the lands are owned by Gearhart, the question arises as to the jurisdiction of the Oregon Parks Department on lands west of the vegetation line. This issue has serious repercussions for state policy. Let the research begin.

As ORCA has stated several times recently in our newsletter, coastal counties are slowly and silently removing public access to a large category of land use decisions: the administrative decisions that so greatly affect community livability, one small decision after another. Clatsop and Tillamook Counties both use a land use category of Type I decisions, which allow for no public notice, no public comment and no appeal — even for neighbors.

But the worst offender in the public notice shrinkage is Coos County, which now posts nothing at all on its website for land use, neither administrative applications nor conditional use permits, or any other proposal. They simply tell you to go to the state’s e-permitting website, which is very difficult to navigate. The ugly fact of the matter is that the Department of Land Conservation and Development does not see in this erosion of public participation anything they can regulate or even discuss with the county. Why? Because the county’s public involvement plan, dating from the 1980s, is still in effect. It is extremely vague and basic. As with most public involvement, land use language in manuals, ordinances, administrative rules and laws have not kept up with a changing world. Most people get most of their information now from websites — not notices printed in tiny print at the back of a newspaper, and not from an obscure state permitting website.

Has Oregon developed a tradition of public awareness, notice and participation in land use strong enough to overcome these county (and some city) tendencies to pull land use information away from the public eye? The current situation appears to be the test. If the local government is not telling you what is happening even next door, please be aware of surrounding activities, contact the county with questions, and pay attention when you do get notices of land use actions as required. Please let ORCA know. The public itself is going to have to stand up for its right to know what is happening, so participation in planning and permitting continues as it should. If you live in Coos County, contact the Board of Commissioners, and let them know how important it is to have land use applications posted for public review.