HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-07 Cameron Smith U EC? EIVE �
CAMERON SMITH L.
4122 W . PHILOMENA DR . NOV 0 7 2022
MERIDIAN , IDAHO 83646
'e4# �I€�ICS OFFICE
November 7, 2022
Mayor Robert E . Simison
Members of the City Council
City of Meridian
33 E . Broadway Avenue
Meridian , Idaho 83642
Attn : Chris Johnson , City Clerk ( for further circulation )
Cc : William L . M . Nary, City Attorney/ Risk Manager
Caleb Hood , Planning Division Manager
Re : CR 2022 -0006 • Request for Review of Planning and Zoning Commission Denial of Application
H 2O22 -0047
Dear Mayor Simison and Members of the City Council :
This undersigned opposes the request by Alpha Development Group to have the City Council
overrule the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying Applicant' s conditional use permit
application in H2O22 -0047 . Applicant sought a CUP to develop a massive 235 - unit multi -family
apartment project on 16 . 6 acres of property located just west of the Ten Mile Road Walmart Center and
north of McMillan Road ( between Vicenza and San Vito ) . At a public hearing on September 1, 2022, the
Commission denied the Application . Applicant has now requested a de novo review by the City Council
( CR 2022 -0006 ) . The undersigned supports the Commission ' s decision and respectfully asks the Council
to uphold the decision and deny Applicant' s request .
Meridian Culture
In front of the Meridian City Hall there is a charming bronze statue of three carefree children
walking and skateboarding, one of them eating an ice cream cone . They are safe . The statue is a clear
representation of Meridian values and a way of life to be cherished and preserved . The cultural
statement captured by the statue should weigh heavily in the balance of competing interests in this
matter ( CR 2022-0006 ) and ultimately influence the City Council to uphold the Commission' s denial of
the Application .
Scope of Discretion
Certainly, the Commission had the right and power in the proper exercise of its discretion to
deny the Application . Similarly, the City Council has the right and power in the proper exercise of its
discretion to uphold the Commission ' s decision . Curiously, however, Applicant' s position on the scope
1
of discretion appears to be that discretion exists only insofar as there is agreement with him .
Otherwise, decisions will be challenged as an abuse of discretion , erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious .
See the narrative submitted by Clark Wardle, dated September 29, 2022 ( " Narrative" ) .
Applicant' s position on is untenable . In this era of unpredictability and uncertainty, with one of
the fastest growing populations in the country, Meridian is experiencing severe stresses on it resources,
infrastructure, and services . If the City' s governing bodies are to meet their responsibilities to secure
premier and uncompromised measures of safety for Meridian citizens and retain the ability to balance
and resolve conflicting demands present in every matter involving public interests, both the Commission
and the Council require and are authorized a broad scope of discretion . Pursuant to Table 11 -5A-2 of
the Meridian City Code of Ordinances, both the Application for a CUP to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and this request for City Council review require a public hearing . Then , Section 11 -5A- 6 ( A)
of the Meridian City Code of Ordinances clearly states :
"Scope. Decisions on permits and requests for action requiring a public hearing are based on
standards that require substantial discretion and are matters having broad public interest"
( emphasis added ) .
Propriety of Commission' s Denial
In exercising its discretion in this matter, the Commission properly denied the Application .
The Commission ' s decision begins with Commissioner Lorcher' s motion to deny, seconded , and carried
( 2 votes for, 1 opposed , and 1 abstention ) :
" Lorcher : After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to deny file H -2022 -
0047 as presented in the hearing on September 1st, 2022, for the following reasons : According
to the CUP guidelines, the ACHD study has had too much time to linger based on current
conditions and the increase in traffic -- safety and infrastructure are not adequate at this time .
` Seal : Is there a second ?
Stoddard : Second ."
See, Transcript of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of September 1 , 2022 pertaining to
Application H2022 -0047 ( "Transcript" ) , page 50 . The Transcript is available from the City Clerk.
Please note that Commissioner Lorcher' s reasons for her motion included references to safety and
infrastructure as well as traffic .
Although the stated reasons behind Commissioner Lorcher' s motion to deny included safety,
infrastructure , and traffic, the official Findings of Fact, drafted by the City Attorney, narrowly
references only traffic, primarily traffic on McMillan . See Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law , Final
Decision and Order pertaining to Application H2022 -0047 ( " Findings of Fact" ) , Items A4, A5 , A6, and
A7 . The Findings of Fact are available from the City Clerk and the City Attorney . Notwithstanding that
2
there were questions about the narrow basis of the findings , the City Attorney opined they were
sufficient, as drafted , to withstand challenge . )
The Commission was aware and took account of :
• The Local Land Use Planning Act, Idaho Code , Chapter 65 , Title 67 ; including but not limited
to Idaho Code section 67 - 6503 ;
• Title 11 of the Meridian City Code , also known as the Unified Development Code of the City
of Meridian ( " UDC" ) ;
• All current zoning maps;
• The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan ; and
• The requirement to make one or more findings designated by UDC Section 11-58 - 6 ( E ) .
See Findings of Fact, Items 131 , B2 , B3 , and B5 .
When considering an application for a CUP , Specific Provisions found in UDC Section 11 - 56-
6 ( E ) direct that the Commission base its determination on nine findings . Although the Commission is
1 In an exchange of emails September 13 - 14, 2022, Paul Elam , an opponent of the Application for the CUP, and a party of
record, questioned Kurt Starman, Deputy City Attorney and drafter of the Findings of Fact, about the omission of any reference
to safety and infrastructure . Mr. Elam objected to the omission because ". . . the findings listed are too narrow and don't fully
reflect what Commissioner Lorcher actually said . " Mr. Starman responded : " I understand your question . It is important to note,
however, that the findings section of the document is not intended to reiterate the Commission's discussion or motion . Rather,
the purpose of the findings section is to support the conclusions of law, decision, and order. . . . In order to approve a
conditional use permit, the Commission must determine " [t] hat the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public
facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,
water, and sewer. " The Commission was not able to make that determination with respect to McMillan Road . The findings of
fact and conclusions of law are intended to support that conclusion . They are structured to be legally defensible in case they are
challenged in court." Copies of these emails will be submitted upon request. The City Attorney will likely have copies as well .
2 Section 11- 5B -6 ( E ) "Findings. The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the
following :
1 . That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development
regulations in the district in which the use is located .
2 . That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the
requirements of this title .
3 . That the design , construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general
neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change
the essential character of the same area .
4 . That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed , will not adversely affect other
property in the vicinity .
5 . That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,
schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal , water, and sewer .
6 . That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community .
7 . That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that
will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare or odors .
8 . That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature
considered to be of major importance .
9 . Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use :
a . That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses
within the area ; and
b . That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development
standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties ."
3
required to make findings on all nine in order to approve a CUP , it does not have to make findings on
all nine in order to deny a CUP . Rather, a single finding that one of them is not satisfied is sufficient to
support a denial . ' During the September 1, 2022 hearing, the Commission was extensively advised by
the City Attorney on the importance of the required findings . Transcript, pages 4243 . In counseling
the Commission , the City Attorney stated : " . . . in Meridian' s code . . . for conditional use permits here
are the findings that you as a body have to make in order to approve a conditional use permit . . . "
( emphasis added ) . Then the City Attorney put Section 11 -56 - 6 ( E ) on screen as a visual for the entire
chamber to see and proceeded to read and discuss each of the nine items . Transcript, pages 4243 .
At the conclusion of the public hearing the Commission was unable to find that the proposed use
would be served adequately by essential public facilities and services as required by UDC Section 11 -
513 -6 ( E ) ( 5 ) and on that basis denied the Application . See Findings of Fact, Items B3 and B4 .4
Based in the foregoing, the Commission properly denied Applicant' s request for a CUP and
issued its Order accordingly . See Findings of Fact, Item C . The City Council should uphold that
decision and issue its own findings . '
Some Important Facts
There were a multitude of facts presented to the Planning Staff and the Commission in
connection with Application H2022 - 0047 , some of which purported to support the Application while
others opposed the Application and supported the Commission ' s denial . Only a few observations will
be mentioned in this letter, in part because the undersigned assumes the Council has addressed the
issues before and is well - aware of the competing interests and how they impact development
decisions . Please note, however, these selections are not intended to be complete , comprehensive,
or exclusive .
Before commencing discussions of particular facts of interest, however, it must be observed
that Applicant' s reliance on satisfying conditions of the City' s Development Agreement is misplaced .
Compliance with the conditions may be a starting point but it is not a linear guarantee of approval of
an application . For instance , if Applicant' s project provides 235 residential units ( which is within the
density limitations of Meridian ' s Comprehensive Plan ) that is not the end of the inquiry . ' Applicant
cannot be heard to say : "Well , I satisfied the density requirements , but if it means the schools will be
extremely overcrowded , that' s someone else' s problem . " Or, " I satisfied the parking requirements by
providing 450 spaces , but if that means the number of additional vehicles will overly tax the capacities
3 See footnote 1, above, and accompanying text .
4 Singling out Item 5 does not mean the Commission found the other required findings were satisfied . They are simply not
addressed . For example : A comes to B and states : "The earth is flat and it' s the biggest planet in the solar system ." B replies :
"You' re wrong, the earth is not the biggest planet in the solar system ." A cannot use B' s reply to prove the earth is flat.
5 If the City Council overrules the Commission' s decision, then the City Council must issue findings . UDC Section 11-5A-7 ( 1)) ( 2 ) . r
The Council would likely be unable to find that the Development satisfies Items 3 , 4, or 5, and possibly others of 11-58-6( E) .
6 According to Mr . Parsons of the City' s Planning Staff, the preferred density requirement established by the Comprehensive
Plan is between 6 and 15 dwelling units per acre . 'Transcript, page 7 . The density of Applicant' s proposed project is fractionally
under 15 units per acre (the original plan of 250 units exceeded the limit) . In any event, the current Development Agreement
( 2019 ) is not a bible that creates concrete and immutable safe harbors . Even Applicant agrees that Development Agreements
are "regularly and frequently" amended and changed . Narrative, footnote # 1, page 3 .
4
of the adjacent roadways , and make them unsafe , that' s someone else ' s problem . " Clearly, in order
to serve the interests of the City and its citizens the analysis of facts must be more thoughtful than a
march - step of numbers as Applicant suggests .
Please consider the following facts :
Traffic on McMillan Road .
• Before the Commission ' s vote to deny the Application, Commissioner Seal stated :
" . . as far as McMillan , it' s the elephant in the [ road ] Stet . McMillan is the most horrible
road in Meridian for a lot of different reasons everybody has already elaborated on . "
Transcript, page 46 .
• The problems caused by McMillan Road are designated in the Commission' s Findings of Fact
as the principal basis for its denial of the Application . See Findings of Fact, Items A4, A5 , A61
and A7 .
• The Commission found that the Applicant estimated that its project would generate an
additional 1 , 788 vehicle trips per day and 148 vehicle trips per hour in the afternoon peak
hour . See Findings of Fact, Item A4 .
o Applicant' s estimate is based on a Hales Engineering ( Lehi , Utah ) analysis of Institute of
Transportation Engineers ( ITE ) data .
o After being submitted , Hales Engineering' s data was never updated to reflect
subsequent adjustments to the Application . The current configuration with properly
adjusted data for single family attached housing ( Land use 215 ) and Multifamily low- rise
housing ( Land use 220 ) provides significantly different impacts, throughout the day and
especially during the morning and evening peak hours .
o For example , properly applied ITE data to Applicant' s current configuration indicates the
additional vehicle trips per hour generated by the project during the afternoon peak hour will
be 289 ( not 148 ), making Applicant' s estimate incorrect by nearly 200% !
• According to ACHD , McMillan Road will not be widened (to three lanes between Black Cat
Road and Linder Road ) until 2031 — 2035 .
• There is no stop sign , stop light, or crosswalk across McMillan at San Vito , which is an
extremely dangerous condition . Pedestrian crossings at that point should be prohibited . The
approval of this project cannot be approved until and unless ACHD addresses and provides a
solution to this issue .
• McMillan may well be "the most horrible road in Meridian . " It may be the most horrible road
i
in Idaho !
Cut-Through Traffic on Gondola .
• One of the more alarming and worrisome consequences of the proposed project will be the
impact on Gondola , which is the principal route our children in Bridgetower West take to get
to Parkview Elementary School , walking or on skateboards or bicycles .
• Children will be endangered by the near certainty there will be significant additional cut-
through traffic on Gondola , when drivers take short- cuts through the neighborhood to get
between Black Cat Road and San Vito , McMillan and/or Ten Mile Road .
I
5
• Evidencing little regard for the safety concerns , Applicant boasts he is in discussions with the
property owner to the north of the subject property ( where another huge development is
planned ) and is "confident they can work out joint access onto Gondola . " Transcript, page 10i,
• There is no stop sign or stop light, and only one crosswalk ( badly in need of painting and
nearly invisible ) across Gondola at Parkview Elementary School, a dangerous condition . The
approval of this project cannot be approved until and unless ACHD addresses and provides a
solution to this issue .
Safety — Police .
• One goal of the Meridian Police Department is for emergency response times to be as fast as
possible . The Police Department states that for priority 3 calls ( injury crashes ) the response
time should be no longer than 3 — 5 minutes . The average response time in the City of
Meridian is 3 : 45 minutes . The Police Department estimates that response times to this
project will be 5 : 38 minutes !
• According to testimony at the Commission' s hearing by Bob Thomas, a police and fire
chaplain , calls for [ police and fire] services in high density housing areas are six to ten times
what they are in a single-family residence area . Transcript, page 19 .
• According to a television news special report this past summer, there is a serious shortage of
law enforcement personnel throughout the Treasure Valley .
https : //www . youtube . com /watch ?v= 3VLmWFA71ql .
• The Meridian Fire Department is in the process of correcting deficiencies in personnel ( see
below ) and the Police Department should do the same .
Safety — Fire .
• Based on the 2021 Community Risk Assessment published by the Meridian Fire Department,
the Fire Department establishes four potential hazard categories, low risk, moderate risk,
high risk, and special risk . Only St . Luke' s Hospital is in the special risk category . Because this
plan is for 235 units ( more than 40 units ) , the proposed project is in the high- risk category,
meaning " in an emergency may bear the risk of large loss of life, loss of economic values to
the community, or large property loss . " Meridian Fire Department Community Risk
Assessment of 2021, page 23 .
• As the Council is aware, to address critical shortages of personnel necessary to assure public
safety, the Fire Department is in the process of hiring 30 new firefighters and 5 additional
administrators .
Drought and Power Grid Conditions .
• Meridian , in fact the entire State of Idaho, is facing severe climate warming and water
shortages which will likely continue for years . Reviewing and understanding the impact of
any new development on power and water supplies and usage must become a required part
of every review process .
• This past summer had a record number of days of temperatures of 100 degrees or more
i and September temperatures were 20 degrees above average .
6
• The proposed project includes 235 units ( all requiring air conditioning ) and six acres of
open space, much of which must be grass ( requiring substantial watering ) , but the
undersigned could find no information or analysis of what impact this may have on power .
usage or water resources .
• The only input on the issue of water sufficiency for proposed project H2022 -0047 at the
Commission was a nearly useless email from Settler' s Irrigation District . When asked by the
City Clerk for comments and recommendations about water, the reply, in its entirety, was .
" Please contact both the Beach Lateral and the McMullan Lateral Water Users Association
to ensure their facilities are not impacted . "
• The undersigned believes the City Council should review and modify every part of the
UDC addressing landscape, water, and power issues, with a view to implementing
responsible power and water management and preservation practices . At the very least,
Planning Staff should be required to obtain input on any proposed development from Idaho
Power and the Meridian Water Division .
Schools — OvercrowLh2g.
• Information provided by West Ada School District estimates the proposed project will result
in an additional 94 school aged children . Even before suffering the impact of this proposed
development, based on current dwellings and those already approved for development, the
affected schools are already extremely overcrowded .
Projected
Current Additional New
Capacity Enrollment Students from Projected � Beyond
Capacity
( 8/26/22 ) Approved Enrollment
Developments
' Pleasant View
I Elementary . 650 608 787 139544
Star Middle .°
School 1000 909 1033 1942949+#
Owyhee High �—
School 1800 1823 1136 2959 Zcr
Applicant' s Arguments
Finally, this letter must address several of the arguments proffered by Applicant in the
' Narrative , especially those which are simply wrong and misleading and should be disregarded .
The first part of the Narrative purports to provide histories of the City' s activities regarding the
current Development Agreement, adopted in April 2019 , and the specific property which is the subject
of the Application and this hearing . Included in the histories are references to an application H2021-
0095 in which Applicant apparently sought to modify the concept plan attached to the Development
7
Agreement as it related to this property . That application was denied by the City Council on February 1 ,
2022 . ' Although the undersigned has no personal knowledge of the prior histories presented in the
Narrative , even if they are presumed to be correct, they are irrelevant to the present proceedings
because they have nothing to do with and do not address the merit or lack of merit of the current
Application . In any event, simply because the Applicant suffered previous denials and rejections in
matters concerning this property does not mean he is entitled to success now .
More relevant, and not even mentioned by Applicant, is a January 2020 City Council denial of a
CUP on five acres directly across McMillan from this proposed project . The reasons for denial included
what Councilwoman Liz Strader referred to as "a traffic nightmare on McMillan" and "school
overcrowding . " Transcript, page 16 .
Next, in several places the Narrative criticizes the Commission for relying on " lay testimony" and
disregarding recommendations of a " professional " traffic engineer . Among other points the Applicant
tries to make : the Commission ' s reliance on " lay testimony" makes their decision "arbitrary and
capricious" ( Narrative , page 5 ) ; only " professional " evidence submitted by Applicant is substantial and
competent ( Narrative, page 6 ) ; arid, in referring to the public testimany at the Commission hearing, Mr .
Wardle said : " Now we have heard a lot of communication and a lot of comments tonight that evidence a
lack of understanding; [on the part of the 26 public speakers opposing the Application ] . . Transcript,
page 35 . Throughout the Narrative, Mr . Wardle continues by repeatedly asserting that " lay" testimony
is neither substantial nor competent and cannot be relied upon without committing error . Narrative,
e . g . , pages 5 — 10 , Apparently, the intended implication is that anyone who testifies against the
Application is incompetent and uneducated and their testimonies should be summarily rejected .
In fact, Meridian is not a dumb place . Current Meridian statistics show that more than 97 % of
the population graduated from high school and 53 % have college and graduate degrees; 76 . 8% own
their own homes . Perhaps more significantly, the Meridian rules of procedure for public hearings, found
in Section 1-7 -7 of the Code of Ordinances, do not distinguish between " professional " and " lay" . .
witnesses but treat everyone with the same respect and provide everyone the same rights, directing :
"All persons shall be permitted to testify or speak before the City Council at a public hearing . . . "
( emphasis added ) .
+ Applicant' s attacks and attempts to personally demean the opponents of the Application are ad
hominem ["against the man ( person. )" ] and are completely inappropriate and out of order . Such
arguments do not advance debate of the issues, but rather are intended to cast doubts on the character
or personal attributes of the opponent as a means of discrediting their arguments . There is no
philosophy of argument that condones ad hominem debate tactics . As far back as Aristotle , and later
John Locke, philosophers have demonstrated the fallaciousness of putting the speaker but not the
I speaker' s argument under scrutiny . Ad hominem statements should never be permitted in Meridian
public hearings . It is noteworthy that Meridian City Council meetings are governed by Section 1-7 -5 of
the City Code of Ordinances . which , in Section 1 -7 -5 ( 13 ) adopts Robert' s Rules of Order for the purpose of
,I 7 Why was this Application permitted ? UDC Section 11- 5A-3 ( E) indicates that filing this Application for substantially the same
use as what was denied on February 1, 2022 should not have been permitted until February 1, 2023 at the earliest ,
8
establishing rules and regulations for the conduct of meetings . Robert' s Rules of Order prohibit ad
hominem attacks in argument . '
i
In addition , nowhere does the Narrative present any evidence sufficient to qualify Applicant' s
" professionals" as experts . Apparently, being " professional " means only that the witness is being paid
for testimony or submissions . In fact, the traffic calculations presented by Applicant' s " professionals"
have proved to be egregiously incorrect and misleading, being based on significantly outdated data and
inaccurate analysis . In contrast, critical information and data submitted through " lay testimony" is
accurate and reliable .
The Narrative then states : " Moreover, the Commission provides no basis for why its objection to
i the 2018 trip counts used by ACHD was problematic . " Narrative , page 6 . This statement is both
misleading and incorrect . Paragraph A6 of the Findings of Fact directly refutes that statement : " Based
on the testimony received , the Commission finds that the average daily traffic count for McMillan Road
from January 31 , 2018 [ provided by ACHD ] , does not accurately reflect the average daily traffic count for
McMillan Road in 2022 . " Problematic? , It would be problematic if the Commission di.dn' t object to
outdated and bad information .
The Narrative next proceeds to discuss various Idaho statutes, charging that the Commission ' s
findings are statutorily deficient . The undersigned is not an Idaho lawyer and cannot professionally
refute this charge . However, reading the specific statutes quoted in the Narrative ( Idaho Code Section
67 - 6535 ( 1 ) and Idaho Code Section 67- 6535 ( 2 ) [ Narrative , pages 7 and 8 ] , coupled with the stated
conclusion that "The Commission' s decision fails to satisfy either of these requirements" appears to be
wrong . Section 11-513- 6 ( F ) of the UDC, requiring designated findings and written Findings of Fact made
by the Commission ( extensively discussed above ) , satisfies and is completely compliant with the
requirements of the quoted Idaho statutes ..
The Narrative next charges that the Commission violated Idaho Code Section 67 -6519 which , if
I quoted correctly, requires that in the grant or denial of an application , the [Commission ] is required to
specify : " ( a ) the ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application ; ( b ) the reasons for
i approval or denial ; and ( c) the actions if any, that the applicant could take to obtain approval ( emphasis
I! added ) . The Narrative makes no complaint about the Commission ' s compliance with ( a ) or ( b ) but
appears to be quite offended in charging that the Commission failed to comply with ( c) , the requirement
I to advise the Applicant of what it could do to gain approval . The Narrative misstates and is wrong in its
position because it simply and completely ignores the two critical words in ( c ) " if any ." The Commission
is not required to advise the Applicant of what. it could do to gain approval because there is nothing the
Applicant could do to gain approval . The principal finding the Commission made, which was the basis
I for its denial , is that the proposed use could not be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services, specifically McMillan Road . There is nothing the Applicant can do ( and nothing the City can do ,
either) to eliminate the problems with McMillan Road .
$ In my reference source to Robert' s Rules of Crder, Rule V . G . require:; the Presiding Officer to keep discussion germane to the
' pending motion . Rule VII . H . , applicable to General Rules of Debate , provides; "Debate roust address issues not personalities
no one is permitted to make personal attacks or question the motives of other speakers . "
9
The next part of the Narrative charges that the Commission violated the Applicant' s
constitutional rights . The City Council should ignore and completely disregard this claim . First,
procedurally, the City Council has no jurisdiction to decide constitutional law questions . Civil claims that. ,
a person' s constitutional rights have been violated must be made in a court having competent
jurisdiction over such questions . Second , substantively, Applicant and opponents of the project have
had the exact same rights to notice, to a hearing, to participate , and to a decision . Thus, Applicant' s
rights are fully recognized and protected by the City and its ordinances, completely satisfying both the
Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution .
Conclusion
The undersigned opposes the construction of the huge multifamily apartment complex which is
the subject of this hearing . It is the wrong project in the wrong place at the wrong time . While there
may be an abundance of people in Meridian there is also scarcity and shortage of infrastructure and
services resulting from , among other things, the rapid population growth . McMillan , Chinden , Linder,
Ustick, Ten Mile, and every other road in Meridian , is overcrowded . Traffic accidents are
increasing . Police and fire protection , schools, water and power resources, parks and recreation, .
hospital , medical , dental , veterinarian , and emergency services are shorthanded and overwhelmed .
Building this project in the proposed location will significantly exacerbate and add to those problems,
creating further burdens that jeopardize the welfare and safety of residents .9
It would be far better for the City Council to make a " No" decision against this questionable
development of a multi -family complex of hundreds of units at this location at this time than to make a
"Yes" decision that is wrong and makes things worse .
As Will Rogers said : "When you ' re in a hole you want to get out of, the first thing to do is stop
digging . "
Respectfully,
I
Cameron Smith
I
I
I
i
i
I
91 avoid adding personal anecdotal facts about the annoying and worrisome difficulties and delays my wife and I experience in
scheduling doctor, dentist, car maintenance, veterinarian , and other appointments, even buying groceries . I expect, however,
my wife and I are not alone with these problems and that every individual involved in this proceeding will have experienced
j ! similar frustrations .
i
10
I