Suit Cites Land-Use Decisions Intervention By Hasson Contended In Affidavits

Affidavits filed in a recent lawsuit contend a former Spokane County commissioner used his influence to sway some individual land-use decisions.

In at least two cases, construction allowed as a result of Steve Hasson’s intervention violated the intent of county ordinances, court documents show. The projects included a concrete retaining wall that’s more than twice the height normally allowed without a hearing and a duplex in which the two halves are linked only by a 64-foot gravel path covered by a roof.

Of more lasting impact was the reshaping of the county’s Planning Department, done by Hasson with Commissioner Phil Harris. Spokane became one of only a handful of counties in the state where planners answer to a nonplanner.

The court documents were filed in a lawsuit brought by Wally Hubbard, who claimed he was fired as county planning director for not going easy on developers.

Superior Court Judge Richard Schroeder dismissed the lawsuit last month, saying there was no evidence Hubbard was coerced into doing anything illegal. Hubbard was an “at-will” employee, meaning he could be fired without cause.

Two planners still employed by the county testified that Jim Manson started his job as director of building and planning by telling staff they should “bend the rules” if necessary to accommodate growth.

In his sworn testimony, planner John Pederson compared Manson’s philosophy of interpreting county ordinances as similar to driving slightly faster than the speed limit.

“The intent was clear that … it is a different era, more liberal readings of the laws, if you will,” Pederson said. “The laws are more subject to interpretation.”

Several planners took exception to Manson’s philosophy, planner Steve Horobiowski testified.

Manson and other county officials would not comment on the allegations because Hubbard is vowing to appeal the suit’s dismissal. Any comments they make could become evidence for that appeal.

For the same reason, Hasson, who now lives in Boise, spoke guardedly.

Hubbard filed suit against the county, Hasson, Harris and Manson when he was terminated months after the 1995 reorganization. The consolidation put Manson, who had been the building director, above Hubbard in the chain of command.

The county’s top planner is still called an assistant and still answers to Manson.

Hubbard testified that a disagreement with Manson over a proposed motel at the airport was the final incident that led to his firing.

According to court documents, Hubbard insisted the project required a hearing that could have subjected the motel plan to criticism. Manson disagreed and told airport officials he thought the project could go forward without a hearing.

Hubbard took his argument to county attorney Jim Emacio, who wrote a letter to the airport saying a decision to avoid a hearing might not stand a court challenge. Emacio copied the letter to Manson.

Court records show Manson fired Hubbard the same day Emacio wrote the letter.

Hasson, who has a bachelor’s degree in urban planning, was commissioner from 1989 through 1996. He lost the 1996 Republican primary election to Kate McCaslin, who later won the general election.

First elected as a Democrat, Hasson switched to the Republican party during his second term, saying its small-government philosophy better matched his own. Soon, his Volkswagen van bore a bumper sticker that read, “Make welfare as difficult to get as building permits.”

Among the lawsuit’s allegations against Hasson:

* That in 1994, he pressured planners into approving a duplex in which the two halves were joined by a long, narrow roof without walls or floor.

That decision skirted rules against two houses on one lot, which was what the owner had wanted. By building a 64-foot-long roof and gravel path linking the two, the separate buildings met the county’s definition of a duplex, which is two units under one roof.

Planner Francine Shaw described the duplex as “a stupid solution” to a problem that could have been easily solved.

The landowner could have had his two houses by subdividing his large lot, a process that could have taken several months. Court documents indicate the owner complained to Hasson about the delay, prompting the commissioners’ intervention.

“I’m sure that I didn’t come up with the breezeway thing by myself,” Hasson said Thursday. “If I recall, one of the staff suggested that as an option, and I asked him to explore that option.”

Hasson said he considers the duplex a creative solution that took care of the landowner’s problem without harming the neighborhood.

* That in 1995, he unilaterally approved construction of a retaining wall without a required public hearing. A note on the building permit reads: “Wall height of 14 feet approved by Commissioner Hasson.”

While the county’s building code doesn’t specifically address concrete walls, planners testified they’re typically treated like fences, which can be no taller than 6 feet.

Planners said they suggested several solutions to the owner. He could have built the wall away from the property line, for instance. Or, he could have requested a hearing at which county officials would have decided whether to approve the 14-foot wall after neighbors had a chance to comment.

Hasson said he remembers little about the case.

* That in 1996, he ordered staff not to require a wetlands study for a proposed 100-home development along the Little Spokane River. Officials from the state Department of Ecology and Department of Fish and Wildlife, along with neighbors who opposed the project, later questioned why the study wasn’t done.

Such studies, by certified biologists, typically cost thousands of dollars and can take months to complete.

Hasson said he can’t recall intervening on the wetland issue.

Hasson noted that he and Commissioner John Roskelley convinced the landowner to discuss selling the land to the county for preservation. Those talks ultimately failed because the two sides couldn’t agree on a price.

County commissioners and the county’s hearing examiner rejected the Haynes Estates development for a number of reasons. Hasson had already left office.

It’s not unusual for commissioners to ask questions about land-use planning issues, particularly if a constituent complains about red tape, planners testified.

Hasson, they said, applied more pressure than others.

It was “a lot more innuendo than it was a direct statement to do something that was not conforming to whatever the rules and regulations of the county were,” Gary Fergen testified. Fergen said he resigned as the county’s assistant planning director to avoid the politics of the job.

Hasson said that if he pushed harder than other commissioners, it is only because his knowledge of urban planning taught him there’s always more than one way of viewing a problem.

“If I didn’t understand the operation as well as I did, then maybe I wouldn’t have intruded as far as I did,” he said.

But, he said, he never asked anyone to do anything unethical, even though that’s how his requests may have been interpreted by staff.

“I saw many people overreact to things that I asked them to do.”