|
By RAELYNN RICARTE
News staff writer
January 28, 2006
The City of Hood River could soon be faced with its first
Measure 37 claim and forced to defend a new riparian protection
plan at the state level.
Included in the city’s new boundary to protect fish-bearing
waterways is Riverside Grill at the Best Western Hood River Inn.
Also sitting inside the 75-foot setback to prohibit development
is CEBU Bamboo Lounge and the north-facing rooms along the west
wing.
Tom Stevenson, the Inn’s owner, and his general manager, Chuck
Hinman, are trying to find humor in the “unbelievable” turn of
events.
“I know that it can get a little lively in CEBU at times but we
never really thought it qualified as a wildlife habitat area,”
said Stevenson.
“We are wondering if we should even be cooking fish in the
kitchen,” said Hinman.
But all jokes aside, Stevenson has instructed Vancouver, Wash.,
attorney Dan Chandler, a zoning law specialist, to challenge
Ordinance 1874 on three fronts. He intends to simultaneously
file a Measure 37 claim to recoup lost development rights, bring
his case before the state Land Use Board of Appeals, and request
an amendment to Goal 5 at the city level.
On Monday, the City Council drew fire from Stevenson after
imposing a more rigid setback along the majority of shoreline
within its jurisdiction. The new boundary is intended to comply
with the state Goal 5 planning rule to preserve riparian
corridors.
Stevenson contends that officials should have adhered to the
prior Goal 5 plan designed in cooperation with the Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). He said the original
Goal 5 regulations under Ordinance 1863 recognized that the area
had a high level of human activity, little natural vegetation,
and brought economic gain to the community.
He believes the new Goal 5 standards penalize the business that
pays almost $400,000 annually in property and lodging taxes.
With the city budget in the red, he questions why any move would
be made to jeopardize that revenue source. Hinman also estimates
that each guest spends an average of $150 per day shopping and
recreating in the area — thereby contributing to other
businesses.
“From a basic land-use planning perspective, I don’t think I’ve
ever seen a setback for open space placed in the middle of a
development under Goal 5,” said Chandler. “I’m not sure it makes
any sense from a planning perspective and certainly it makes no
sense from a protection standpoint.”
Hood River City Manager Bob Francis believes the issue can be
resolved without any drastic action being taken by Stevenson. He
said the council decided to adopt 1874 in order not to hold up
the master planning process being undertaken on the Port of Hood
River’s waterfront property.
In addition, he said if 1874 had been left open there could have
been challenges raised by other parties. He said city officials
wanted to ensure overall riparian protection before dealing with
concerns raised by just one entity.
“The bottom line is that we have an open mind and we’re willing
to work with them to do what we can,” said Francis. “I think the
Hood River Inn is looking out for its best interests but I feel
they need to give staff and the government bodies the benefit of
the doubt here.”
Stevenson said Nichols Boat Works, a largely undeveloped
industrial site along a nearby water channel, was given no
setback under the new Goal 5 plan. Conversely, he said the Hood
River Inn, which has sat atop fill material next to a rip-rap
bank for 40 years, somehow became a riparian corridor.
And that, said Stevenson, will prohibit most ground-disturbing
activities and make it impossible to relocate the swimming pool
as planned or adjust the structure to meet market demands.
Francis said the negotiations with Stevenson and Hinman that
have been underway since late summer should continue. He
believes the outstanding issues can be resolved before 1874
takes effect on Feb. 22. The city has even offered to waive the
$1,704 fee for an amendment to make that prospect more
attractive, according to Chandler.
In mid-January the city staff offered Stevenson the opportunity
to build within 25 feet of the embankment with a conditional use
permit. Chandler said there was no time to explore that offer
before the council made its decision on Jan. 23. He said the Inn
just wanted to ensure that restrictions were not placed on any
existing buildings that were sited closer to the river.
“We were almost there with an agreement in language and then the
council basically said, ‘You go ahead and make your deal and
bring something back to us,’” said Chandler.
Hinman questioned why the Inn has been forced to spend thousands
of dollars in attorney fees, and hours of staff time, to have
its business interests considered.
Stevenson said, now that the new law has been approved, he
cannot rely on city staff to resolve the issue. He said the
clock is ticking on the 21-day appeal period to bring the issue
before LUBA. After failing to get his differences with the city
resolved before the passage of Goal 5, Stevenson intends to
pursue every open avenue to protect his business.
“I have to take the most conservative approach to this now. This
ordinance is not friendly to our ability to expand and compete,”
he said.
Francis said no one from the Inn was present when the planning
commission was making changes to the original Goal 5 plan last
summer.
He said Stevenson’s objections were not registered with either
the commission or the council until the new regulations had been
given preliminary approval.
Stevenson contends the Inn was actively involved in the creation
of 1863 — and repeatedly aired concerns to city staff about the
subsequent changes.
“They may have made their needs known to staff but the planning
commission was the one making its decision at that time, not the
staff,” said Francis. “Once the planning commission had decided
on a setback, it went to council and the Hood River Inn didn’t
come in and represent its desires.”
Stevenson said that he has “deep regret” for not giving a
stronger voice to his objections when the city was poised to
change Goal 5 standards. He believed the stand of the Inn had
already been clearly communicated and would be factored into the
review process.
In fact, Stevenson said the commercial use of his property,
which comprises about 12 acres to the east of Highway 35 and the
toll bridge, was given special consideration in 1863, which was
designed with assistance from DLCD and, ultimately, signed off
by the agency.
The reasons behind the more flexible setback, said Stevenson,
are the same “common sense” reasons that should apply today.
“Ninety percent of this property was developed 40 years ago —
any habitat destruction has already occurred,” he said.
Under 1863, Stevenson said any construction at the Inn within 75
feet of the river would have been required to have three times
the allowable size in riparian enhancement. He said that would
have better accommodated the business’ need for future footprint
changes.
“We could live with that and were surprised when they went way
beyond the recommendations of even the state consultant,” said
Stevenson. “I’m not privy to all of the politics that are
driving this but I feel we are taking the brunt of it.”
Last year the council decided to find a “compromise” between the
original Goal 5 plan and the demand for a setback of 200 feet or
more from citizen activists.
In March of 2005, the Preserve the Waterfront political action
committee brought Measure 14-22 before the city’s 3,381
registered voters. About 36 percent of the referendum ballots
were returned by the electorate, with 747 voters wanting to
throw out Ordinance 1863 and 465 opposed.
Within days after the measure’s passage, the Attorney General’s
office rendered the opinion that the vote was illegal.
However, the planning commission factored the “will of the
voters” into its subsequent review process. The commission came
up with a recommendation that no new permanent development occur
within 100 feet of the Columbia.
The council modified the width of the setback to 75 feet —
except along the Hood River — but took out the provision that
allowed for landscaping mitigation. The second reading of 1874
was delayed for several months after Stevenson came forward with
an objection.
On Wednesday, Hinman hinted that, if the Goal 5 rule stands, the
Hood River Inn could undertake the arduous process of
“de-annexing” from the city.
“We’ve started to ask whether we are welcome in the city or
would be more welcome in the county,” he said. |
