From: Dan Huff
Sent: Tue Aug 28 08:44:23 2018
To: Aldo Rodriguez; Gerald Fisher
Subject: RE: Inept "Planning" that leads to appeals and lawsuits
Importance: Normal
Microsoft Exchange Server;converted from html;
I do not want any response to Susan Hansen from Staff.
From: Aldo Rodriguez
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 9:24 AM
To: Dan Huff ; Gerald Fisher
Subject: FW: Inept "Planning" that leads to appeals and lawsuits
From: Susan Hansen foxglovefarm@inbox.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2018 3:10 PM
To: Omar Reynaga oreynaga@cityofmolalla.com>; Jennifer Satter jsatter@cityofmolalla.com>; Doug Eaglebear deaglebear@cityofmolalla.com>; Hardeep Singh Brar hsinghbrar@cityofmolalla.com>; Rae-Lynn Botsford rbotsford@cityofmolalla.com>; Debbie Lumb dlumb@cityofmolalla.com>
Cc: Aldo Rodriguez arodriguez@cityofmolalla.com>; jbaker@canbyherald.com; jennifer.donnelly@state.or.us; rdavis@oregonian.com
Subject: Inept "Planning" that leads to appeals and lawsuits
Dear Molalla Planning Commission,
Yesterday I received the attached notice that ODOT has appealed your decision about a zone change/commercial development to the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
As a local citizen who has to drive Highway 213, I've been in close touch with ODOT regarding what, to me, were very specific mandates in the ODOT "recommend" letter which you were furnished with.
Chair Botsford was on the PC in a previous hearing that involved development on Highway 211 that ODOT had issues with and had to appeal. She should have learned from that planning fiasco that ODOT is serious when it sends its "recommend" letters. I would have hoped that the PC, which is supposed to be a well informed, independent commission capable of making sound legal decisions, would have been led by Chair Botsford to honor ODOT's input. Instead, from the transcribed minutes of your flawed hearing, it appears that the PC was swayed by the Public Works Manager into believing that ODOT didn't mean what it said in VERY CLEAR mandates (from your hearing minutes):
"Craig Jenroy, representing the client as their civil engineer speaks. Asks for the
ability to adjust, revise or talk with ODOT about their recommendations (Exhibit I)
for the access to HWY 213. Citing the one-day time span as too short to accurately
review and respond to them. He also states he is unclear on what they require as a
“traffic controlling device” and wants clarification on if that is a light pole or not.
Ø PWD Fisher responds by saying the recommendations regarding street improvements
aren’t absolute, they don’t need to be a traffic light but needs to be a traffic
controlling device that can handle the new traffic generated by P29-2018. He goes on
to state that it needs to meet a certain threshold of mobility and access to be built."
Perhaps the PC is naive about hearings and does not know that it has the ability to table a decision until it has full clarification about the issues involved, especially when it comes to something as large as a major zone change, a big commercial development and highway safety issues cited by ODOT? I read the ODOT letter and it was crystal clear. I talked to ODOT and they said that because of the zone change, they had the authority to mandate a light or round about. Why didn't the PC ask ODOT for clarification before making a decision, instead of endorsing the hear say from PW Director Fisher? Why didn't the PC ask for legal clarification from Molalla's land use attorney to understand whether or not PW Director Fisher was providing accurate advice?
Molalla has a long sad history of failed planning adventures. Those failures make Molalla look exceptionally foolish to the outside world, create distrust and cost public agencies (and thus taxpayers of Oregon) money - now ODOT has, twice in less than two years, had to appeal a Molalla planning decision that failed to heed ODOT's input.
Most cities provide training for their PC members so the PC can learn to make competent decisions and learn not to be swayed by developers who are in a hurry or who seek to degrade code requirements - have you had adequate training to be on a PC or is your function simply to rubber stamp whatever a developer wants? The Model Code consultant pointed out multiple ways Molalla's codes failed to produce safe and attractive quality development, yet it is clear that this PC is eager to cave in to any demands developers make instead of working to better the city with great design standards and needed safety improvements.
If your only purpose for being on a PC is to quickly rubber stamp the demands of developers and whatever the City's managers are pushing, you should not serve on a PC.
If you have failed to learn about the duties of a PC or about the legal conduct of hearings or what agency input means, you should not serve on a PC.
Less than 10 years ago, the PC led a prolonged quest for a giant urban reserve that the State and County said over and over and over would surely not be allowed. In the end, it was roundly denied at County hearings and by then Molalla had wasted years and hundreds of thousands of dollars it could not afford to waste on lawyers and consultants pushing that certain to lose quest for a ridiculous urban reserve. Worst of all, Molalla looked ridiculous when the final deny came and newspaper stories were written about that absurd quest. It is certainly sad to see that legacy continue with a PC, "managers" and a planner who won't or can't accept the reality of agency oversight.
A lot of banter is thrown around about city "insiders" and "outsiders" - yet I note that some of the Molalla PC members don't live in the City limits. Please also understand that we all pay for the agencies that seek to regulate access and safety to our highways. ODOT is working to protect us all and your cavalier dismissal of ODOT's letter was an insult to all Oregonians who have to use highway 213 and who pay for the work of ODOT.
It is long overdue to work for HIGHER STANDARDS instead of always trying to default to the lowest quality development a developer can get away with. Selling out to cheap development makes Molalla a low quality place!
Susan Hansen
Bear Creek Recovery