Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-21 David Claiborne1 Charlene Way From:David Claiborne <david@sawtoothlaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 20, 2019 10:00 AM To:mayortammy; Anne Little Roberts; Joe Borton; Ty Palmer; Treg Bernt; Genesis Milam; Luke Cavener Cc:Meridian City Clerk; Bill Nary; Caleb Hood; Brian McClure Subject:New Comprehensive Plan / H-2019-0101 Dear Mayor de Weerd and Members of the City Council: Thank you for the time to present comments yesterday evening on Meridian’s future and its proposed Comprehensive Plan. As you know, I presented on behalf of a neighborhood group for Locust View Heights subdivision, within the so- called Magic Bridge area. I wanted to follow-up on just a few items that were addressed with staff in response to my comments. I was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the staff comments, of which I take no offense as I know time is very limited at these proceedings, and it was important that you had the opportunity to hear from the homeowners directly, rather than through spokespeople. However, to close the loop, I would ask that you take note of the following items and consider them as you work towards a final decision. 1. During the public process preceding filing of the application, it is true that various alternatives for Magic Bridge area were discussed. My suggestion that the concept of 3 different use types within Locust View Heights did not come about until October, 2019, may have been inartfully stated. I believe the record would show that different alternatives were discussed, but they were rejected by the steering committee. It was not until October, 2019, that anyone was actually proposing changes be made to the FLUM for this particular area. Early discussion concepts had been dismissed. The application as submitted suggested no change to the FLUM in Locust View Heights. That is what your community requested. And that is the direction we urge the council to follow – the direction desired by your constituents. 2. The Staff Report for last night’s meeting, at page 15, suggested Locus View Heights is a long-term liability and not “in anyone’s best interests” simply because they have individual well and septic, and staff further suggested that someday the City will have to subsidize cleanup of these properties. These statements, and inferences therefrom, are disheartening inasmuch as they are made without resort to any site-specific analysis or data. We do not believe it is appropriate to characterize (particularly in a public record) a neighborhood as a liability, or not in anyone’s best interests, simply because they are an older development on wells and septic, and where no evidence is offered to show that current utility systems and designs are failing to meet the demands and needs of current users. We would hope that the Council will not make a decision to change this neighborhood’s future on vague and unsupported assertions. The needs of this community are being met currently. The neighborhood is healthy and safe. 3. A map was distributed last night as a basis for public comments. The map appears to be the FLUM as applied for by the applicant – the Steering Committee. That map then guided comment throughout the night. Many residents were confused as to why that map was distributed, when apparently it was being suggested by P&Z that a different map be adopted. For instance, the map distributed would be acceptable to Locust View Heights as it shows its area as low density residential. However, staff presented a report last night suggesting Locust View Heights be divided among 3 new categories. So, what FLUM will the Council be approving? The one distributed last night for purposes of comment – or the one argued for by staff and P&Z. It is unclear, and I suppose it may not clarify itself until an actual motion is made. But, in the future, I would think it would be helpful to persons offering testimony and for general understanding if the application FLUM were distributed, as well as the FLUM being proposed by staff or P&Z. I was disappointed to hear from folks that they chose not to testify after looking at the map and seeing it was not proposing any change in Locust View Heights. Now, you 2 have closed public testimony with confusion in the air. I think you on the Council understand what is at issue, but I think your residents are confused. I am not sure how you correct this now, given the state of the record, but I suppose it is a non-issue to the extent you adopt the FLUM that was handed out last night. Again, thank you for the time, and thank you for your careful engagement and attention to this issue. And, I don’t mean to be overly critical of the Plan or of staff. It is remarkable that they have put together a wonderful document and plan for the City, obvious from the fact that there are only a handful of issues, albeit significant issues, remaining for your considered decision. Respectfully, David P. Claiborne SAWTOOTH LAW OFFICES, PLLC david@sawtoothlaw.com www.sawtoothlaw.com Telephone: (208) 629-7447 ext. 213 Facsimile: (208) 629-7559 P.O. Box 7985, Boise, Idaho, 83707 “Virtus Vincit Invidiam” NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes a confidential attorney-client communication. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this communication in error, do not read it. Please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail or by calling (208) 629-7447, so that our address record can be corrected. Thank you.