Z - Request for Reconsideration 2021-08-27Brian Tsai
brian@theoasismeridian.com
(Address on File, Not for Public Record)
August 27, 2021
City of Meran City Council
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, ID 83642
Reconsideration Pursuant to MCC 1-7-10
City Council Members:
REcErvE
D
AUG
CIT2 7 201,
Y
OF
rIN CLERKS OFFICE
I am requesting a reconsideration hearing under Meridian City Code 1-7-10 pursuant to a
decision made on CR-2021-0004 and CR-2021-0005 upon a number of factual basis listed
below:
In consideration of inadequate parking, in multiple instances on the public record the city
council has deferred the acknowledgement of SME (Subject Matter Expert) material in the
areas of planning compliance to the appropriate SME representatives at the City of Meridian
Planning Department. In this case, our representative Mr. Joseph Dodson acted as the subject
matter expert in the original case W2021-0004 and indicated in his professional opinion and
comprehensive analysis that a ratio of 4:1 (one parking space for every 4 persons) would be
more than adequate to fit the proposed use. This ratio is in excess of 400% more than what is
required by Meridian Code. This opinion was subsequently approved by his immediate
supervisor Mr. Bill Parsons prior to publication, and recommended the permit for approval.
Upon reaching consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission, it was recommended a
ratio of 3:1 be required, which was provided by the applicant and subsequently the permit was
approved. After reaching the City Council, this ratio was moved again in a "moving target"
scenario, where the ratio of 2.5:1 was proposed with the knowledge the number would be
increased until compliance would be impossible, and was inappropriately used as the basis for
denial.
In deliberation, multiple members of the City Council mentioned that the City of Meridian did
not have a law to specifically address the proposed use and its standards, and pointed out the
shortcomings of the currently written law as published. It is not the responsibility of the
applicant to comply with arbitrary statements and opinions when the appropriate law does not
exist. This action erodes the rule of law to govern its citizens equally and fairly, and it is
unreasonable to suggest compliance with a law that does not yet exist.
In following quasi-judicial proceedings, the City of Meridian allowed the appeal hearings to
proceed in direct contradiction to the written law, and the appeal applications were not
completed and finalized with the required documents until long after the allotted 14-day period
to file an appeal had already elapsed, and were allowed to proceed despite missing several
critical elements the law required. The City of Meridian selectively applied compliance to the
written law as a bias to benefit the appellants.
While multiple documents, demonstrations, and diagrams were provided as part of the
application process, the original narrative documents, and also presented in the previous
hearing, specific information was not provided in the appeal hearing due to elapsing the
allowed time to present the project. Because the two primary concerns and basis for the
decision came down to noise and parking, the parking issue was addressed above. A sound
study was performed at the project site, and the results reflected the same claim made with
sound published and documented known scientific principles as presented in the hearing and in
the application narrative. The study found the average ambient noise (of three separate
measurements) of A -weighted standardized decibels (dBA) at the sidewalk adjacent to Eagle
Road to be 70.2 dBA. The measurement at the property line of the project site for ambient
noise was found to be an average of 58.9 dBA.
A total of four inverse square decibel reading tests were conducted at 60, 70, 80, and 90 dBA
thresholds using 244t 96kHz pink noise. For comparison, noise exceeding the range of 80 dBA
would no longer allow for a normal conversation without shouting. It would be extremely
improbable for this level of sound pressure to exist outside of a fully contained indoor facility.
For the 60clBA test, no detectible noise above ambient could be found beyond the 8ft mark
from the location of the proposed building. For the 70dBA test, no detectible noise above
ambient could be found beyond the 16ft mark. For the 80dBA test, no detectible noise above
ambient could be found beyond the 32ft mark. For the 90dBA test, no detectible noise above
ambient could be found beyond the 64ft mark. No other tests were conducted as all detectible
sound had dissipated long before reaching even halfway to the closest residence. A total of four
test conducted at all different sound pressure levels demonstrated congruency to the
presented scientific principles and have demonstrated in real -life practicality its consistency to
the claim that all noise would be less than the sound of traffic from Eagle Road.
This reconsideration is being requested not only for the account of the above, but on the basis
that a fair and impartial hearing was not conducted. It became immediately apparent once
again that the appellants utilized their leverage with friends and religious organizations to
intentionally fill the council chambers with opposition members in an effort to sway the
decisions of city council members, making it impossible to have an impartial deliberation and
decision issuance. All but a few of these individuals once again resided far outside the area of
potential impact, other than a small portion of potential traffic impact. I had the opportunity to
meet with many members of the public after their testimony, and once again they told me they
weren't actually against the proposed project, but only voiced their opposition because
someone asked them to.
Deferring to the subject matter experts of traffic in the area, the Ada County Highway District,
no traffic impact study was requested or required as part of this project as the minimal scale
and use size would not cause any discernable difference in traffic flow or congestion during off
peak hours as evaluated by the District.
As the applicant, I have been asked to provide information, documents, plans, and coordination
far above and beyond that has been asked of any other applicant in the entire history of the
City of Meridian. Many of these including an extensive safety plan, exhaustive mitigation
efforts, and working with all available public services of the city to demonstrate the
consideration of all legally required elements require another look, as the basis of
reconsideration listed above.
Sincerely:
Brian Tsai