Z - Request for Reconsideration - Applicant Response
601 W. Bannock Street
PO Box 2720
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: 208-388-1200
Facsimile: 208-388-1300
www.givenspursley.com
Gary G. Allen
Christopher J. Beeson
Jason J. Blakley
Clint R. Bolinder
Jeff W. Bower
Preston N. Carter
Jeremy C. Chou
William C. Cole
Michael C. Creamer
Amber N. Dina
Bradley J. Dixon
Thomas E. Dvorak
Jeffrey C. Fereday
Martin C. Hendrickson
Brian J. Holleran
Kersti H. Kennedy
Neal A. Koskella
Debora K. Kristensen
Michael P. Lawrence
Franklin G. Lee
David R. Lombardi
Kimberly D. Maloney
Kenneth R. McClure
Kelly Greene McConnell
Alex P. McLaughlin
Melodie A. McQuade
Christopher H. Meyer
L. Edward Miller
Patrick J. Miller
Judson B. Montgomery
Emily G. Mueller
Deborah E. Nelson
W. Hugh O’Riordan, LL.M.
Randall A. Peterman
Jack W. Relf
Michael O. Roe
Jamie Caplan Smith
P. Mark Thompson
Jeffrey A. Warr
Robert B. White
Kenneth L. Pursley (1940-2015)
James A. McClure (1924-2011)
Raymond D. Givens (1917-2008)
Gary G. Allen
garyallen@givenspursley.com
December 6, 2018
VIA EMAIL TO CITY CLERK
City of Meridian
Mayor and City Council Members
33 East Broadway Avenue
Suite 300
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: H-2018-0075
Applicant Response to Request for Reconsideration
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Joint School District No. 2 (“School District”) provides this response in opposition to the
Request for Reconsideration submitted November 26, 2018, by Mr. Hethe Clark on behalf of
Woodside Avenue Investors, LLC (“Woodside”). Woodside’s Request for Reconsideration only
addresses condition of approval 1.1.8 (“Condition 1.1.8”), which requires the School District
construct a local street from the mid-mile collector east to the Flowers’ property. For the reasons
stated below, the Request for Reconsideration should be denied.
I. The Request for Reconsideration does not identify any deficiency in the
Council’s Decision.
The Meridian City Code sets forth reconsideration standards that “must be strictly
followed.” See generally M.C.C. § 1-7-10(A)(1)-(9). One of the City’s reconsideration standards
requires that a “request [for reconsideration] must identify specific deficiencies in the decision for
which reconsideration in sought.” M.C.C. § 1-7-10(A)(3).
Woodside’s Request for Reconsideration does not identify any specific deficiency in the
Council’s well-reasoned and properly issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision
and Order (“Decision”). The Request for Reconsideration merely asks the Council to reweigh
December 6, 2018
Page 2
policy arguments Woodside previously made hoping for a different outcome. For this reason, the
Request for Reconsideration cannot be granted under the City’s standards.
II. Woodside’s property is not landlocked; the Owyhee High School will not
landlock Woodside’s Property; and the School District is working diligently
with the Flowers on an easement for Woodside.
Woodside’s property has access via McDermott Road and Ustick Road. The property is
not landlocked. Construction of Owyhee High School will not affect the accessibility of
Woodside’s property via McDermott Road or Ustick Road. If SH 16 is funded, and if SH 16 is
constructed through Woodside’s property, the Idaho Transportation Department will maintain
access to Woodside’s property through construction of local streets.
In concert with the recommendation of ACHD, the Council imposed a condition on the
School District to give Woodside a right of way easement though the future residential portion of
the School District’s property. ACHD was not supportive of splitting or impacting the school’s
campus to provide access to the Woodside property.
Immediately following the October 23rd hearing where H-2018-0075 was approved, the
School District began communicating with the Flowers to secure an easement over the Flowers’
parcel for the benefit of Woodside.
III. Councilmember Borton’s motion was clear, and Condition 1.1.8 is consistent
with the motion and the Council’s action approving the motion.
At the October 23rd hearing, the School District’s representative was clear–Condition 1.1.8
required the School District to construct a local street up to the Flowers’ parcel.1 In several
instances, the Council asked for clarification about the location and orientation of the local street.2
After closing the public hearing, Councilmember Borton moved to approve H-2018-0075, with
the proposed conditions of approval, including Condition 1.1.8 as modified at the hearing.3
Councilmember Bernt asked for clarification on how Councilmember Borton’s motion addressed
access to Woodside’s property.4 In response, Councilmember Borton stated: “Section 1.1.8 … that
would remain but be modified to capture the school district’s concession … to include provisions
for a public roadway easement and future dedication along their own parcel connecting to the east.
It does not address the Flowers’ parcel.”5
1 October 23rd Hearing Video at 1:55:57 (Mr. Gary Allen: “As the staff mentioned, the school district is now going to
complete a local road over to the edge of the Flowers’ parcel.”).
2 See e.g. October 23rd Hearing Video at 2:00:02, 2:22:47, 2:56:55.
3 October 23rd Hearing Video at 3:04:40.
4 October 23rd Hearing Video at 3:05:45.
5 October 23rd Hearing Video at 3:05:55.
December 6, 2018
Page 3
City Attorney Nary also asked Councilmember Borton for clarification on access to
Woodside’s property.6 Councilmember Borton clarified that his motion and Condition 1.1.8 would
only require extension of the local road to the Flowers’ parcel.7 Deliberation ensued, which
primarily addressed the local street orientation and Condition 1.1.8. Before taking a vote, Mayor
De Weerd clarified, “[w]e do have a motion on the table, to vote on, that approves this application
with the road stopping at the district property line.”8 Ultimately, the Clerk called the roll, and
Councilmember Borton’s motion passed, three in favor and two opposed.
IV. Conclusion.
The School District requests the Council deny Woodside’s Request for Reconsideration.
Woodside had a full and fair opportunity to participate and made its concerns very clear throughout
the Council’s consideration of H-2018-0075. Woodside provided oral and written comments and
had legal counsel appear on its behalf. Now Woodside is simply asking for a second bite at the
apple. That is not the purpose of the City’s reconsideration procedure. The Decision has no
deficiencies, and Woodside has failed to articulate any deficiencies. Accordingly, reconsideration
is not proper.
Thank you for your consideration of this response.
Sincerely,
For Gary G. Allen
cc: Bill Nary (bnary@meridiancity.org)
Hethe Clark (hclark@spinkbutler.com)
Geoffrey Wardle (GWardle@spinkbutler.com)
14447152_3.docx [14408-2]
6 October 23rd Hearing Video at 3:06:30.
7 October 23rd Hearing Video at 3:06:50.
8 October 23rd Hearing Video at 3:14:10 (emphasis added).
1
C.Jay Coles
From:Jeffrey W. Bower <jeffbower@givenspursley.com>
Sent:Monday, December 10, 2018 8:22 PM
To:C.Jay Coles; Hethe Clark; Stacy Wardein
Cc:Bill Nary; Geoffrey M. Wardle; Gary G Allen
Subject:RE: H-2018-0075 - Applicant Response to Request for Reconsideration (14408-2)
[IWOV-GPDMS.FID849294]
Mr. Coles: The Applicant provides the following reply. Please enter this into the record in the above matter.
As stated in the School District’s December 6 th response, M.C.C. § 1-7-10(A)(3) requires a specific deficiency
be articulated in support of reconsideration. Woodside’s opinion that Condition 1.1.8 is an “incomplete
solution” is not a deficiency in the decision that can support reconsideration. Additionally, Idaho Code § 67-
6535 only requires decisions on land use matters be adequately reflected in a reasoned written decision.
Woodside has not raised any claim that the Council’s written Decision is inadequate; therefore, Idaho Code §
67-6535 is not at issue. Lastly, the City’s reconsideration provisions prohibit additional evidence on
reconsideration. See M.C.C. § 1-7-10(A)(6) (“No additional evidence or testimony will be allowed at the City
Council meeting.”). Accordingly, the additional evidence included in Mr. Clark’s December 10 th email may not
be considered under the City’s standards.
Thank you,
Jeff
Jeff Bower
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 W Bannock St, Boise, ID 83702
main 208-388-1200
direct 208-388-1260
fax 208-388-1300
jeffbower@givenspursley.com
www.givenspursley.com
From: C.Jay Coles <cjcoles@meridiancity.org>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 4:14 PM
To: Hethe Clark <hclark@spinkbutler.com>; Stacy Wardein <stacywardein@givenspursley.com>
Cc: Bill Nary <bnary@meridiancity.org>; Geoffrey M. Wardle <GWardle@spinkbutler.com>; Jeffrey W. Bower
<jeffbower@givenspursley.com>; Gary G Allen <GaryAllen@givenspursley.com>
Subject: RE: H-2018-0075 - Applicant Response to Request for Reconsideration (14408-2) [IWOV-
GPDMS.FID849294]
This will be entered.
Thanks,
C.Jay Coles
City Clerk | City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208.888.4433|Email: cjcoles@meridiancity.org
2
Built for Business, Designed for Living
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law,
in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.
From: Hethe Clark [ mailto:hclark@spinkbutler.com ]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:50 PM
To: C.Jay Coles < cjcoles@meridiancity.org >; Stacy Wardein < stacywardein@givenspursley.com >
Cc: Bill Nary < bnary@meridiancity.org >; Geoffrey M. Wardle < GWardle@spinkbutler.com >; Jeffrey W. Bower
<jeffbower@givenspursley.com >; Gary G Allen < GaryAllen@givenspursley.com >
Subject: RE: H-2018-0075 - Applicant Response to Request for Reconsideration (14408-2) [IWOV-
GPDMS.FID849294]
Mr. Coles:
In response to the below-mentioned letter from counsel for West Ada School District, we’d ask that the
following points be submitted to the Council for their review prior to tomorrow’s meeting:
1. Our request for reconsideration is made both on Idaho Code 67-6535 and Meridian City Code 1-7-10. As
discussed in our letter, the deficiency in this case is a condition that is an incomplete solution. It places
the burden on Woodside Avenue Investors, LLC / Boise Hunter Homes (BHH) to solve a problem that is
not of its making and threatens to landlock BHH’s property.
2. ITD representatives met with BHH last week and informed BHH that its access will be negatively affected
with the SH16 construction. The impact of loss of access by the actions of ITD, the City of Meridian, and
WASD has not been adequately considered by any of the involved agencies, including ACHD. The issue is
certainly not resolved with this condition.
3. BHH has reached out to Flowers and attempted to buy the piece of property in question at a price of
$141,000 per acre. During an in-person conversation late last week, the offer was rejected with no
counter-offer. We understand Mr. Flowers believes he needs to be negotiating with WASD. WASD is
supporting the current condition, which lets it off the hook. BHH meanwhile is left with a problem it
cannot solve on its own.
We are asking that the City Council resolve this matter by imposing the language identified by Staff at the
November 6, 2018 hearing. Thank you.
Hethe Clark
251 E Front Street, Suite 200 | PO Box 639 | Boise, Idaho 83701
hclark@spinkbutler.com | Direct 208.388.3327 | Fax 208.388.1001
From: C.Jay Coles [ mailto:cjcoles@meridiancity.org ]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 2:16 PM
To: Stacy Wardein
Cc: Bill Nary; Hethe Clark; Geoffrey M. Wardle; Jeffrey W. Bower; Gary G Allen
Subject: RE: H-2018-0075 - Applicant Response to Request for Reconsideration (14408-2) [IWOV-
GPDMS.FID849294]
This will be entered into the record.
3
Thanks,
C.Jay Coles
City Clerk | City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208.888.4433|Email: cjcoles@meridiancity.org
Built for Business, Designed for Living
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law,
in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.
From: Stacy Wardein [ mailto:stacywardein@givenspursley.com ]
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:24 PM
To: City Clerk < CityClerk@meridiancity.org >
Cc: Bill Nary < bnary@meridiancity.org >; 'hclark@spinkbutler.com' < hclark@spinkbutler.com >;
'gwardle@spinkbutler.com' < gwardle@spinkbutler.com >; Jeffrey W. Bower < jeffbower@givenspursley.com >;
Gary G Allen < GaryAllen@givenspursley.com >
Subject: H-2018-0075 - Applicant Response to Request for Reconsideration (14408-2) [IWOV-
GPDMS.FID849294]
Good afternoon,
Please ensure that the attached correspondence is delivered to the Mayor and City Council
members. Thank you!
Best,
Stacy
______________________
Stacy Wardein, Legal Assistant
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 W Bannock St, Boise, ID 83702
direct 208-388-1249
fax 208-388-1300
stacywardein@givenspursley.com
www.givenspursley.com
______________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is confidential and may contain privileged information. If you have received it
in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or
disclosing the contents. Thank you.