Columbia County Courthouse Ted E. Grove, Circuit Court Judge 244 Strand St. Steven B Reed, Circuit Court Judge St. Helens, OR 97051-2041 Berkeley A. Smith, Circuit Court Judge (503) 397-2327 FAX (503) 397-3226 CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF COLUMBIA May 9, 2001 Ms. Teri L. Powers Mr. Robert A. Peterson Attorney at Law Department of Justice 8705 S.W. Nimbus Avenue, Suite 360 1162 Court Street NE Beaverton, OR 97008 Salem OR 97301-4096 Ms. Angela M. Stewart WILLIAMS FREDRICKSON, LLC 1515 S.W. Fifth St. Suite 844 Portland OR 97201-5447 Re: Glen D. Mark and Teri L. Powers vs. State of Oregon, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, State of Oregon, Division of State Lands, and Naturist Action Committee, a National Association. Columbia County Circuit Court Case No. 96-2019 Dear Ms. Powers, Mr. Peterson, and Ms. Stewart: I would like to thank counsel for their thoughtful arguments and recommendations. I can certainly understand Plaintiffs' desire for the dourt to take all possible actions to eliminate this nuisance. I believe that the court has a duty to effectively address the nuisance tempered by the significant concerns raised by defendant and intervener. It is my intention to establish parameters that the defendant must comply with but do not intend in all aspects of this ruling to state specific requirements. The defendant has a duty to abate the nuisance and is best suited in certain areas to develop strategies. The parties have acknowledged that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order and to insure that the nuisance is abated. First, it is my belief that the buffer is inadequate. The only successful strategy that I can envision requires a significant buffer and adequate enforcement. The current buffer does not adequately distance the nude beach from the plaintiffs' property. I am not setting an exact length for the buffer, but will do so if the plaintiffs are dissatisfied with defendants's determination. My standard for the buffer is that it be such that the clothing optional portion of the beach not viewable from plaintiffs' property. It is not my intention that the buffer be utilized to address other problems at least at this time. The second major concern is that the defendant adequately police the area around the plaintiffs' property to control illegal and offensive behavior. I do not at this time intend to order a specific staffing level, other than to say that this is an area in which defendant's past commitment was woefully inadequate. To avoid further court scrutiny defendant needs to significantly beef-up their patrols so that the nuisance is eliminated. The final area that I intend to address is that of signage and other forms of public notice. Substantial and vandal resistant signs need to announce the boundary of the beach. I applaud defendant's suggestion that authority be developed to arrest persons not complying with the nude beach restrictions. Defendant needs to develop pamphlets and signs advising of nude beach restrictions and potential sanctions for non compliance. Ms. Powers, Mr. Peterson, and Ms. Stewart Page 2 May 9, 2001 I encourage defendant and the beach users to develop strategies to alleviate the nuisance. I can not stress enough the benefit I perceive will come from peer enforcement. The court has a duty to see that the nuisance is abated and is prepared to take such measures as are needed to meet this goal. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the court's injunction.Plaintiff may submit their cost bill at this time. I would entertain a conference, phone or otherwise, if the parties have questions as to the form of my order. I, however, am not interested in receiving further arguments as to the terms of the injunction. Sincerely, Ted E. Grove Circuit Court Judge TEG:cf Enclosure