07/17/2025
Port of Hood River: Update on Marina Park Ordinance 29
On Tuesday, July 15, both Brian Robb and Brian Carlstrom spoke again to the Port Commissioners to oppose the new ordinance. Brian Robb told commissioners that the new ordinance ignores the intent of the past ordinance (passed through voter initiative on Measure 14-3 in 1995), which was NOT to have new commercial development at Port Marina Park, and only to allow existing non-recreational existing structures. He also said that the new ordinance isn’t explicitly repealing the original ordinance, and pointed out concerns in the ordinance language.
�Brian Carlstrom spoke to propose that the Port stop talking about how their parks don’t create revenue, and consider transferring ownership of Port waterfront recreational properties to the City of Hood River, which has more tax revenues than the Port to better support parks. He pointed to the success of the Waterfront Park and its attraction to many people locally and out of town. Brian was also permitted to speak again – Commissioner Bieker reopened the public comment after Brian asked to point out an error. Brian stated that the intent of Measure 14-3 was NOT to allow any new development besides what was already present on the developed parcel of land. Commissioners said that info did not change their minds about the need for a new ordinance.
I’ve posted the entire discussion with virtually no editing except for names (and removing a few long stretches of silence), so you can watch what you want (Full video on the Port’s YT channel: Full video from Port of Hood River here https://www.youtube.com/live/s1XXQlF6ksk
)
My thoughts: Reading the text available from the Measure 14-3 that created the original ordinance, Section 4 seems to have spurred adoption of new Ordinance 29. Original #4 reads: “Existing structures and infrastructures on the developed Portion of Port Marina Park may be maintained and renovated in accordance with this ordinance.”��The newspaper article that promoted Measure 14-3 provided a bit more context, saying that existing structures – Port office, chamber of Commerce offices, DMV, boat ramp, and several small businesses – “would not be eliminated but could be maintained and renovated.”
With the new HRWS bridge requiring the land where the Port Offices now stand (for which the Port will receive what’s called mitigating recreational property of equal value), legal counsel for the Port was concerned that removing any structures to allow new bridge construction could be viewed as a violation of the original ordinance.
Given the vital need for a new bridge, the new ordinance explicitly allows the bridge to receive property: New Section 4 reads: “Bridge Replacement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained within this ordinance, the Port may take all actions necessary to effectuate the maintenance, reconstruction, renovation, or replacement of the Hood River-White Salmon interstate bridge, as determined reasonable and appropriate, in the Port Commission’s sole discretion.”
Measure 14-3 original advocates took exception to the language in Section 3 of the new ordinance, which states “Developed Legal Lots. The Port may continue to maintain, renovate, and develop legal lots within the Port Marina Park that are already developed, provided that the Port abides by all applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations.”
During public comment, they’ve suggested that the voter intent was to keep structures that were there, but not to remove them or change them to new commercial properties.
Unfortunately, I have to concur that Measure 14-3 isn’t explicit enough about the desire to keep only those properties in perpetuity. It’s always a challenge on citizen initiatives to write them for the decades ahead, and nothing read “No new structures shall be added to the existing developed area.”
The str DMV and “old Chamber” buildings are hardly meant to last for centuries. The new Waterfront Strategic plan must imagine creative uses for structures to replace those old facilities that maintain or enhance the waterfront.
And remember - between the Marina West, Marina East, and the Port Offices, the Port will lose almost a quarter of a million $ in the past fiscal year ($232,967 through June 30).
The entire Marina Green area retains federal & state protections in perpetuity because of funds granted for its development back in the 1970s (in fact, the Port Offices should never have been allowed to be built, as far as I can tell). Once funds are used from these grants to develop a property, federal rules state “No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the Secretary[of the Interior], be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. “
The public should be very involved in what comes next to the 2.6 acres available after the DMV & “old chamber” building go away.
The Port Commissioners’ discussion points before voting:
· A new ordinance allowing the new bridge to acquire the land needed without delays or legal issues was critical, given the vital importance of the bridge to the area’s economy;
· Members of the public had a chance to weigh in with their concerns over several months, and commissioners appreciated their input;
· A Waterfront Strategic plan (with public meetings/input coming later in the year) will help set direction for the replacement of the old facilities now there (DMV/Chamber).
· Failing to consider alternatives to the DMV and Chamber (Marina West and East) would be a failure of the Port’s fiduciary duty.
The ordinance passed with all commissioners present voting to approve it.
