MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 2006
CALL TO ORDER. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 PM at the West Linn Adult Community Center by President, Lynn C. Fox. Other officers in attendance: Harvey Schultz, Vice President; Donna Baker, Treasurer; Charles Lytle, Secretary.
QUORUM DATA. Eligible members in good standing as of the previous meeting: 52. At 10%, the quorum for this meeting was 5. Only members in good standing can vote. The number of eligible members in good standing in attendance at the start of the meeting was 7. Therefore, the meeting stands as an official meeting of the Neighborhood Association.
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17, 2006 MEETING. There were no additions or corrections to the draft minutes.
Motion To Approve The Minutes: Donna Baker
Second To The Motion: Harvey Schultz
Vote On The Motion: 6 Aye, 0 Nay, 1 Abstention ? Motion Carried
TREASURER’S REPORT. Treasurer Donna Baker reported a current account balance of $1,085.09.
POLICE REPORT. Officer Kempas reported that there were a total of 37 calls within the NA boundaries since the last meeting (35 calls were logged in October). There were no home or car break-ins during the month. Complaints logged were the usual nuisances such as noisy parties, barking dogs, etc.
PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY ARNOLD COGAN, PRINCIPAL OF COGAN-OWENS-COGAN, WITH ASSISTANCE FROM BRYON BROWN, W.L. PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Note: the following is a rough summary of the dialogue as hand-written in real time by HSNA Secretary, C.R. Lytle, who is NOT a stenographer! Because the discussion was often heated and rapid-fire and because several people were often talking at once, this portion of the meeting minutes is not complete and must be taken as a general synopsis of the discussion, not as a literal transcription. HOWEVER, the presence of quotation marks indicates that these statements were written down verbatim. The entire meeting was video taped, and copies of this tape can be made available for those interested in checking the record.
Arnold Cogan (AC): AC began the discussion with an overview of the entire neighborhood plan process, including how the vision statement was created. Explained that the Plan will go first to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. If approved, it will become part of the Comprehensive Plan. Reviewed the goals, policies, and actions section and then reviewed the action charts, which contain time lines and parties responsible for taking action(s). Stressed that all of the neighborhood plans were to be considered dynamic, that is, they may be updated and/or changed in the future.
HSNA President Lynn Fox (LF): Noted that no process is currently in place for when and how changes and updates can be made.
Bryon Brown (BB): BB stated that the City is interested in conducting annual reviews of the plans, with complete revisions every five or ten years, as the situation warrants. All four of the plans in process have many action items, and the City can’t rapidly implement all of them. The process will take several years. Controversial items will take extra time for review, and cost will always be an important factor. If certain items have high costs, they would have to go through the budget committee to see if funds could be made available.
LF: Read an e-mail protesting the proposed traffic change at Santa Anita and Appaloosa Way. Felt that this was a symptom of the entire neighborhood plan process being rushed (four at once, expedited timeline). Also felt that the short timeline prevented outreach efforts and resulted in too few people becoming engaged in the process. The result is that the plan is okay “to a point,” but significant concerns haven’t been addressed.
November 21, 2006 Meeting
HSNA Member Gary Heitsman (GH): GH felt that the plan was a good start and was better than having nothing. Also felt that the City did a good job with the whole process. Was worried in the beginning that the plan would be too vague but now feels that it has a good, basic structure.
LF: Still concerned that not enough HSN citizens were involved.
GH: Felt that this was just a symptom of a large number of people who do not get involved in political issues, period. Emphasized that the plan was a good start.
HSNA Member Bob Thomas (BT): Asked if sending postcards to HSN residents was a part of the Cogan-Owens-Cogan (COC) outreach -scope of work?
LF: Yes, it’s on the audio tape made at one of the Neighborhood Plan Leadership Team (NPLT) meetings.
AC: Adamant that a direct mailing was not part of the scope of work.
BB: “We’ve heard all of this before. The City should be recognized for all its efforts and desire to have neighborhood plans. Citizens don’t appreciate how unique all of this is.” Not aware of anybody, anywhere doing this kind of citizen involvement.
LF: (Held up a bound copy of the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Planning Kit.)
BB: Agreed that it would be difficult to get every issue right the first time. The idea of annual reviews was to adjust the plans, address deficiencies, allow for changes. The Council was in agreement that the earlier neighborhood plans (e.g., Willamette) took too long and wanted to expedite the process. Can’t let criticisms, such as the traffic items, slow down the process.
GH: Pointed out that process and technical details are two different aspects of the plan.
HSNA Member Charles Roberts (CR): Council talked about whether the plans were aspirational or to be taken as directives to Council.
BB: They are both. The vision statements are aspirational, and the policies and actions are directives. The Council cannot be held to implement every single action item in the plans. Also, some action items will probably have to be modified following citizen input down the line.
CR: Concerned that the plans will be adopted and then sit on a shelf and be ignored.
BB: This will not happen. However, the implementation of action items will take some time.
LF: What happened to the NPLT request for an R-10 overlay?
BB: The WL Planning Department feels this is not the right way to go about controlling density. The Willamette NP contains an overlay because the neighborhood has business/residency transition zones.
BT: Took exception to BB’s attitude that the four neighborhood associations should consider themselves lucky because the City has deigned to allow them to have plans. Also disagreed with the conclusion that an overlay zone is inappropriate for Hidden Springs. Said it could be done. Wanted to slow down the whole process. Rushing causes errors and increases the chance to miss or gloss over important issues. Wanted to involve more people and felt that the rush to completion prevented the level of outreach that the seriousness of the plans demands. Also pointed out that Hidden Springs and Santa Anita are collector streets, not minor arterials as stated in the draft plan. Said that this mistake had been pointed out several times in NPLT meetings but the error was never corrected.
November 21, 2006 Meeting
LF: Had talked with City staff on a number of occasions about this and was ignored. Felt that this was subterfuge dictated down to staff from Council.
HSNA Member Doug Hawkins (DH): What will happen if the HSNA votes to not approve the plan?
BB: City will “disadvantage the Hidden Springs Neighborhood Association.”
DH: “What in the world does that mean?”
[BB gaveled down as out of order by LF after BB responded angrily and disrespectfully to DH. BB allowed to continue after order is restored.]
BB: The City will find it difficult to provide further support in terms of staff time and materials. The allotted funds were for the consultant, and once the consultant’s work is done, the contract is closed, and no more money is available through it. Staff will also be inclined to favor those neighborhoods who approved their plans.
HSNA Secretary Chuck Lytle (CL): This is equivalent to the “odious deal” in the WW-II novel Catch 22. Translated the City position as “our way or the highway:” either give us back the answers we want or pay dearly down the road.
DH: Asked what the COC will do if the HSNA voted down the plan?
AC: Make the additions and corrections brought forward at this meeting, produce the final document, and turn it into the W.L. Planning Department. “COC gets paid regardless of what the HSNA does.”
LF: Noted that there were two issues at hand…lack of citizen involvement and changes made to the plan after the final NPLT meeting. COC changed the content of several sections, and these changes came after the NLPT approval.
At this point, HSNA Member Gary Heitsman moved that the following resolution be adopted by the HSNA:
“It is hereby resolved that the HSNA formally approve the Neighborhood Plan, understanding that is a good beginning and that the City will be asked to define the process to be used to further refine and improve the plan.”
Second To The Motion: Gretchen Katko
Vote On The Motion: 3 Yea, 6 Nay, 0 Abstentions ? Motion Not Carried
HSNA Member Chuck Lytle moved that the following resolution be adopted by the HSNA:
“The HSNA membership directs the HSNPLT to continue working with the City, as much as the City will allow, to resolve the problems brought forth at this meeting, with the goal of completing the plan in the most expeditious manner and with the greatest citizen input possible.”
Second To The Motion: Harvey Schultz
Vote On The Motion: 8 Yea, 1 Nay, 0 Abstentions ? Motion Carried
November 21, 2006 Meeting
NEXT MEETING DATE TO BE JANUARY 16, 2007
Motion To Meet In January ’07 and to skip December ‘06: Chuck Lytle
Second To The Motion: Bob Thomas
Vote On The Motion: 7 Yea, 0 Nay, 0 Abstention ? Motion Carried
ADJOURNMENT. There being no other business to come before the membership, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM by HSNA President Lynn C. Fox.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY CHARLES R. LYTLE, HSNA SECRETARY.
MINUTES APPROVED BY FORMAL MOTION AND VOTE AT THE DULY-CALLED MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007.