By SUE RYAN
News staff writer
February 6, 2008

Fallout continues over a land-use planning decision made in 2006 in Cascade Locks.

The city’s planning commission had approved a 30-unit development known as the McCoy Meadows project, which was later successfully appealed by citizen Gary Munkhoff to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.

Following the state’s reversal of the city’s decision last August, the council decided in October to have an independent investigation of the process that led to the LUBA decision. Those findings were presented to the city council at its Jan. 29 meeting.

Land-use planning specialists John Andersen and Larry Epstein had the task of reviewing the facts about the process and determining its consistency with city code. They also were charged with making recommendations to the city to improve the situation.

“We were not to look at the politics or ethics of the situation,” said Andersen.

His statement underscored the fact that from the beginning the McCoy development has been a political powder keg, which has at times bitterly divided the town.

The approval by the city council in July 2006 led to a recall of two city councilors that November. Since then, five of the seven councilors representing the city are new to office and their involvement with the saga began in January 2007.

At that time, the council voted to recuse itself from hearing an appeal of the case and uphold the planning committee’s decision. Munkhoff and Stan Bowyer, who later moved away, filed the appeal to LUBA following that vote.

While citizen Sandra Kelley did not argue the appeal, she did help Munkhoff prepare for the hearing and has been one of the consistent critics of the city’s decision.

The investigation addressed 15 questions for Cascade Locks. Overall, the team found the city to be in compliance with the law. But they said there were many opportunities where the city could have communicated far better with its residents.

“You can make (the process) more useful to the public,” Andersen said.

One of those issues was how the city planning commission handled the public hearings portion of the process. In his appeal to the state board, Munkhoff had stated that the amount of time allotted to public hearings was inadequate for citizens to voice their objections or opinions.

The investigators affirmed that and said while the city may have met the requirements, it did so at a bare minimum.

During their presentation, Andersen and Epstein addressed among their specifics whether notice was adequate for a Nov. 9, 2007, Planning Commission hearing.

Epstein said the conclusion was the notice was marginally adequate but very poorly done.

“You have to appreciate that makes the public feel they are being hoodwinked,” Epstein said.

Additional recommendations included training both city councilors and planning commissioners on correct procedures as well as rectifying city code to match state codes.

“You need to create policies to create the appearance of fairness and to educate the public about how to participate effectively,” Epstein said.

He was speaking directly about the issues that had been raised concerning bias and ex-parte contact by the council and commission.

Other issues the report addressed included pre-application conferences, councilors instruction to staff, application processes, complying with the 120-day clock requirement, staff report quality and public hearing conduct.