Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County planners and CREST propose streamlined revisions to comprehensive plan Goals 16–18
Summary
Clatsop County senior planner David Cook and CREST liaison Garrett Phillips presented proposed updates to comprehensive plan Goals 16, 17 and 18 to consolidate redundant policies, incorporate state guidance and add requirements that applicants address future sea‑level and weather scenarios.
Clatsop County senior planner David Cook and Garrett Phillips, liaison for the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST), briefed the county commissioners on April 16 about a multi‑month effort to update the county's comprehensive plan Goals 16, 17 and 18.
"Of the county's 18 planning goals, these are the last 3 that remain to be updated, and they have not had a meaningful update in 30 or more years," David Cook said, explaining the scope and timeline of the project that began in December 2023. Garrett Phillips said the revised goals aim to protect ecological, recreational and economic values in the county's estuaries, shorelands and beach/dune areas while reflecting recent state guidance.
The presenters said Goals 16 and 17 (estuary and coastal shorelands) currently run to more than 400 pages because policies have been repeated for each estuary; the proposed rewrite will consolidate duplicated policies, incorporate previously adopted ordinances (including older dredge‑material policies), and remove outdated provisions for uses that no longer occur, such as log rafting. "Goal 16 is about protecting a broad range of values in Clatsop County's estuaries, including ecological, social values like recreation and economic values like development opportunities," Phillips said.
For Goal 18 (beaches and dunes) the update addresses cable‑landing projects, beachfront protective structures, dune grading and geologic‑hazard report content. Both presenters emphasized new draft language inviting applicants to evaluate future weather and water‑level scenarios and to document how proposed developments would perform under those scenarios.
Cook and Phillips described public outreach conducted to date: three in‑person and three virtual public meetings, five technical‑advisory committee sessions, presentations to the Planning Commission and the board, and an online questionnaire. Cook noted community feedback stressed the length and usability of existing documents and raised concerns about shoreline stabilization and cable landings.
Commissioner Banks urged staff to clearly label which proposed policies are required by state or federal law and which would be local additions, and to use precise language — for example, using "may" rather than "shall" for discretionary items. "I don't want us creating more policies outside of state and federal requirements," Banks said. Cook said staff will flag state/federal mandates and identify local policies that staff recommends remain mandatory, with supporting reasons.
Commissioner Webb observed that Oregon land‑use law and case history make wording choices legally consequential and said he was comfortable with CREST's role. The planners said the next draft will go to the Planning Commission in June and that staff will return for another work session on April 23 to collect additional board comments.
No votes were taken during the work‑session update; staff requested direction and asked commissioners to review the attachment summarizing draft policy changes and to provide specific comments or higher‑level guidance by the board's next work session.
