The Jump-Off Joe development was in a known area with landslide hazards and was a very contentious issue in Newport during the early 1980's. But how soon people forget, or wish to forget. Good sources of information about this development include Sayre and Komar (1988, 1989) and Komar (1997:161-173)(see References at end). On 16 October 2004, there was also a folder with some newspaper clippings about this issue in the Newport Public Library in their pamphlet cabinets in a folder "Lincoln County Land Use." Additional information may be in the Lincoln County Historical Society files and in the Newport News-Times (newspaper) files, though there were also articles in other newspapers.
Below, I first give some background of the Jump-Off Joe development, and then I compare the Jump-Off Joe issue with the City's Newport Exposition and Event Center in 2004.
An excerpt from Komar (1997:161):
"In 1942, a large landslide in the bluff at Jump-Off Joe carried more than a dozen homes to their destruction (Sayre and Komar 1988). In spite of continued slumping, a condominium was built on the remaining bluff in 1982. A certified geologist had determined that the site was stable even though it was adjacent to the 1942 landslide and in the area with the highest rate of erosion on the entire Oregon coast, and the Newport city government gave its approval to the project. Within three years, before the construction was even completed, slope retreat caused the foundation to fail, and the city ordered the destruction of the unfinished structure. The developers, the contractor, a lumber company, and the insurance company that had insured the project against slippage went bankrupt. Creditors with claims of $1 million were paid between 18 cents and 1 cent on the dollar. The consulting geologist lost his certification. The debate over Jump-Off Joe was the most divisive land-use battle ever fought on the Oregon coast, and people still have strong feelings about the project."
An excerpt from Sayre and Komar (1988:17)
In an inventory of geological hazards along the Lincoln County coastline completed in 1975, an erosion rate of 7 feet per year was calculated for Jump-Off Joe. That report correctly concluded that such active landslides should remain undeveloped; this is ironic in that its chief author was to become the prinicipal consulting geologist for the developer of Jump-Off Joe."
A geotechnical report of the site was completed for the developers by the well-known engineering firm of Shannon and Wilson; it acknowledged the geological hazards and proposed three engineering measures to stabilize it (Sayre and Komar 1988:18, Kmoar 1997:166). The first Newport Planning Commission hearing was in March 1981, with presentations by the developers and opponents. There were also two public Planning Commission meetings in April with expert testimony from both sides, and much of the opposition was then organized as Friends of Lincoln County (Sayre and Komar 1988:18). In late April 1981 the Planning Commission gave its approval, subject to several conditions, including the completion of a detailed geotechnical study and an independent review of the developer's plans for stabilizing the building site (Sayre and Komar 1988:18). A geotechnical study by Shannon and Wilson was completed in July 1981 and, at the City's request, reviewed by another engineering firm (CH2M-Hill), which had some concerns about the developer's plans (Sayre and Komar 1988:19, Komar 1997:168). Friends of Lincoln County appealed decisions to the Newport City Council and to the State Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA), but lost (Sayre and Komar 1988:18-19).
In the fall of 1981, another geological report by the developer's geologist was completed about a small section of uneroded bluff (Sayre and Komar 1988:19). An excerpt from Sayre and Komar (1988:19) explains:
"City Planner Jan Monroe has said: 'If (the geologist) hadn't issued that report, they would never have given the project a building permit. If a person meets all the requirements and goes through all the steps, they are issued a (building) permit. We have no discretionary authority to deny a permit based on gut feeling or knowing it's not good sense.'"
In January 1985, the City ordered the demolition of the unfinished condominiums because of land slumping, and they were torn down later that year (Sayre and Komar 1988:21).
Friends of Lincoln County had fought the project from the beginning, had expert geological testimony that opposed the project, and, later, an attorney; they spent nearly $10,000 and lost (Sayre and Komar 1988).
The landslide hazards at Jump-Off Joe differ from the earthquake and tsunami hazards at the Exposition and Event Center site because the landslides were ongoing, but Center hazards are not a problem until a severe earthquake or tsunami strikes.
The City may have learned that it didn't want to go through the controversy and embarrassment of Jump-Off Joe again. One way to do so would be to carefully consider several geotechnical hazard reports and independent reviews by qualified engineers to be sure that the engineering used in development construction would reduce the risk of failure. In the case of the Exposition and Event Center, whether by coincidence or by design, the City reduced controversy over its proposed development by giving only 10 days notice for its single public hearing and scheduling the hearing during the World Series and in the period prior to a big election. During the Hearing, the City Planner defended the short notice by saying that was all that was required by City Ordinance. In Jump-Off Joe, there were several hearings, so Newport Planning Commissioners had time to examine all written as well as oral testimony. In the Event Center hearing, some Commissioners acknowledged that they had not read all written testimony, yet they voted to accept the Conditional Use Permit the same night.
In Jump-Off Joe, there were several conflicting geological reports and independent reviews that in hindsight can be seen to show that the failure of the development was likely. For the Event Center, the developer (the City) only included its own geological report during the October 25 hearing. This single report was not known to opponents prior to the October 25 Public Hearing and was not mentioned in the Conditional Use Permit application or Staff Report--there has been no independent review. There is a conflict in the Event Center issue because the City is the applicant, the City Planner managed the Hearing Process, and the decision was made by the City Planning Commission. If appealed, it goes to the City Council. Where are the checks and balances to ensure public safety?
In Jump-Off Joe, it was clear that the landslide hazard was part of a land-use decision. Just prior to the beginning of the Exposition and Event Center Hearing, the City Planner announced that earthquake and tsunami hazards were building code issues, not land-use issues, even though the tsunami issue was included in the Conditional Use Permit under one of the criteria necessary for approval. By making this a building code issue, the City, in effect, indicated its faith in engineering and technology to solve any hazards, rather than address the issue of whether the Center should be built there or not. However, it is clear from the Jump-Off Joe issue that the engineering failed that was used in an attempt to make the site stable.
When the Newport Planning Commission approved the Jump-Off Joe development, it included several conditions including the completion of a detailed geotechnical study and an independent review of the developer's plans for stabilizing the building site (Sayre and Komar 1988:18). In contrast, for the Event Center, the Planning Commission did not include such a condition, but included a vague condition addressing construction (the applicant was to comply with all "applicable" building codes, etc.) as well as a time limit condition of 18 months for action as recommended in the Staff Report for the Conditional Use Permit.
During Jump-Off Joe, then City Planner Jan Monroe suggested that the City was obligated to give the permit because the applicant had fulfilled all requirements Consequently, the City then argued that concerns that the City may have had about landslide hazards were outweighed by the responsibility to give the permit. But the City was the applicant for the Newport Exposition and Event Center, so it would be appropriate for the City to carefully weigh concerns about public safety, but, in my opinion, this was not done.
In conclusion, it appears that more deliberation and independent review about hazards went into the Jump-Off Joe development than into the proposed Newport Exposition and Event Center. Yet the risk to public safety is considerably greater for the Exposition and Event Center because many more people can be present than in the few condominiums that had been planned for Jump-Off Joe.
In my opinion, it appears that the City of Newport was more considerate of public safety due to geological hazards during the Jump-Off Joe proceedings than 23 years later during the Exposition and Event Center issue.
Komar, P. D. 1997. Chap. 9: the Jump-Off Joe fiasco. P. 161-173 in P. D. Komar, The Pacific Northwest coast: living with the shores of Oregon and Washington. Duke Univ. Press, Durham, North Carolina. (This is TC223.8.K66 at OSU Libraries.)
Sayre, W. O. and P. D. Komar. 1988. The Jumpoff Joe landslide at Newport, Oregon: history of erosion, development and destruction. Shore & Beach 56(3):15-22. (This is at TC330.A1 A5 at OSU Libraries.)
Sayre, W. O. and P. D. Komar. 1989. The construction of homes on four active coastal landslides in Newport, Oregon: unbelievable but true! P. 3286-3296 in Vol. 4 of Coastal Zone' 89, Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. American Society of Civil Engineers. (This is at HT391.S935 1989 Vol. 4 at OSU Libraries.)