CC - Applicant's Request for Reconsideration - Speedy Quick
Charlene Way
From:Chris Johnson
Sent:Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:56 PM
To:Lynette Cochran; City Clerk
Cc:Josh Leonard; david@speedyquick.net; Bill Nary
Subject:RE: Request for Reconsideration - CR-2021-0003 - Speedy Quick
Received. We will be in touch with next steps soon.
Chris Johnson, M.Ed., IdCMC
City Clerk | City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208.888.4433|Email: cjohnson@meridiancity.org
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: Lynette Cochran <lcochran@clarkwardle.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:50 PM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Josh Leonard <jleonard@clarkwardle.com>; david@speedyquick.net
Subject: Request for Reconsideration - CR-2021-0003 - Speedy Quick
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Please see the attached request for reconsideration submitted on behalf of Speedy Quick in CR-2021-0003. Please
acknowledge your receipt by return email.
Thank you,
Lynette Cochran, Legal Assistant
251 E Front Street, Suite 310 | PO Box 639 | Boise, Idaho 83701
lcochran@clarkwardle.com | Phone 208.388.1000 | Fax 208.388.1001
DEVELOPMENT ATTORNEYS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named as recipients. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or
protected
from disclosure under applicable law including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission,
please notify
the sender immediately by telephone. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this transmission, disclose its contents, or take any action in reliance on the information it contains.
THIS E-MAIL IS NOT AN OFFER OR ACCEPTANCE: Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any other law of similar import, absent an express statement to the contrary
contained in this e-mail, neither this e-mail nor any attachment are an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract, and are not intended to bind the sender or any other person or entity.
1
Charlene Way
From:Lynette Cochran <lcochran@clarkwardle.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 31, 2021 3:50 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Josh Leonard; david@speedyquick.net
Subject:Request for Reconsideration - CR-2021-0003 - Speedy Quick
Attachments:Request for Reconsideration.pdf
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Please see the attached request for reconsideration submitted on behalf of Speedy Quick in CR-2021-0003. Please
acknowledge your receipt by return email.
Thank you,
Lynette Cochran, Legal Assistant
251 E Front Street, Suite 310 | PO Box 639 | Boise, Idaho 83701
lcochran@clarkwardle.com | Phone 208.388.1000 | Fax 208.388.1001
DEVELOPMENT ATTORNEYS
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named as recipients. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or
protected
from disclosure under applicable law including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission,
please notify
the sender immediately by telephone. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this transmission, disclose its contents, or take any action in reliance on the information it contains.
THIS E-MAIL IS NOT AN OFFER OR ACCEPTANCE: Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any other law of similar import, absent an express statement to the contrary
contained in this e-mail, neither this e-mail nor any attachment are an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract, and are not intended to bind the sender or any other person or entity.
1
CLARK
DEVELOPMENT REAL PROPERTY ZONINC
JOSHUA J. LEONARD
J LEONARD@CLARKWARDLE.COM
August 31, 2021
Meridian City Clerk
33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 104
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Speedy Quick (CR-2021-0003) - Request for Reconsideration of Meridian City
Council's Land Use Decision CW Matter No. 23481.1
Dear City Clerk,
This firm represents Blood, LLC ("Applicant") in the above-referenced matter. On behalf of
the Applicant, we write to formally request reconsideration of the Meridian City Council's final
land use decision in application no. CR-2021-0003.
Meridian City's Uniform Development Code ("UDC") provides that a request for
reconsideration of a final decision of the City Council is appropriate only after "final approval
of the findings of facts, conclusions of law, decision, and order" (UDC § 1-7-10.A.1).
In late July, we received a letter dated July 21, 2021, which referenced "Speedy Quick (CR-
2021-0003)," and included only the following statement about the City Council's decision in
the above-referenced matter:
This letter is to confirm that the City Council upheld the Director's determination
regarding the dimensional standards set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and
denied the subject application at their July 6, 2021 meeting.
July 21, 2021 letter from Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager (the "July 21st Letter").
In late August, we received a similar letter, this one dated August 23, 2021, which again
referenced "Speedy Quick (CR-2021-0003)," and included only the following statement
concerning the Meridian City Council's decision:
This letter is to confirm that at their meeting on August 17, 2021, the City
Council entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Order
upholding the Director's determination associated with the above-listed
application.
T.Hethe Clark Ceoffrey M Wardle Joshua J.Leonard Rylev Siegner 7:208.388,1000 251 E Front St,Suite 310
F 208.388.1001 PO Box 630
clarkwardle.com Boise ID 83701
August 31, 2021
Request for Reconsideration: Speedy Quick (CR-2021-0003)
p. 2
August 23, 2021 letter from Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager (the "August 23rd
Letter"). The August 23rd Letter did not enclose a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Final Order that the City Council approved on August 17, 2021, to uphold the
Director's decision finding against the Applicant.
Idaho Code ("I.C.") § 67-6535(2) contains requirements for final decisions:
The approval or denial of any application required or authorized pursuant to
this chapter shall be in writing and accompanied by a reasoned statement
that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the
relevant contested facts relied upon, and explains the rationale for the
decision based on the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan,
relevant ordinance and statutory provisions, pertinent constitutional principles
and factual information contained in the record.
I.C. § 67-6535(2), emphasis added. Subsection (a) then prescribes the result of a final
decision that fails to include the requisite elements:
(a) Failure to identify the nature of compliance or noncompliance with
express approval standards or failure to explain compliance or
noncompliance with relevant decision criteria shall be grounds for
invalidation of an approved permit or site-specific authorization, or
denial of same, on appeal.
I.C. § 67-6535(2)(a).
Reading UDC § 1-7-10.A.1. together with I.C. § 67-6535(2), the Applicant is entitled to a much
more detailed "reasoned statement" that includes approved "findings of facts, conclusions of
law, decision and order." Until a complete "reasoned statement" is approved by the City
Council and sent to the Applicant, the timeline for the Applicant to submit its request for
reconsideration has still not yet begun to run.
Pursuant to UDC § 1-7-10.A.2., a reconsideration request "must be in writing and filed with
the City Clerk within fourteen (14) days of the final approval." This Request for
Reconsideration now is filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of the August 17th "final
approval."
The Applicant's request for reconsideration is submitted pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-
6535(2)(b), 67-6521(1)(d), and UDC § 1-7-10.
Specific deficiencies in the Council's decision include the following:
1. Failure to Comply with LLUPA Requirements. Although "at their meeting
on August 17, 2021, the City Council entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final
August 31, 2021
Request for Reconsideration: Speedy Quick (CR-2021-0003)
p. 3
Order" (August 23rd Letter), neither the July 21st Letter nor the August 23rd Letter included
the information required by Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act.
2. Failure to Comply with LLUPA Requirements. Reviewing the approved
"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Order" ("Findings, Conclusions, and Order")
also fails to comply with LLUPA, in that the Findings, Conclusions, and Order does not include
a sufficient "reasoned statement," as required by LLUPA. As a result, the Applicant's due
process rights are violated, in that the Applicant has no way to know:
• what criteria and standards were considered relevant by the City Council;
• what relevant contested facts were relied upon by the City Council;
• the rationale offered by the City Council for its decision; and
• how the City Council might have reached its decision, based on relevant
provisions of (a) the comprehensive plan, (b) the UDC, (c) LLUPA, (d)
constitutional principles, and (e) factual information in the record.
No substantive request for reconsideration (or subsequent Petition for Judicial Review) is
possible without all of the above information being provided to the Applicant, which is why
LLUPA requires the City Council, for every LLUPA-authorized or -required application, to
issue final decisions that include all of the above information.
3. Incorrect Standard Applied. The Findings, Conclusions, and Order fail to
explain the "criteria and standards considered relevant," as required by I.C. § 67-6535(2).
The first reason given by the City Council for upholding the Director's determination,
according to the Council's Findings, Conclusions, and Order, was:
...in evaluating the intent of the interpretation to apply to a re-use of an existing
structure was [sic] more reasonable interpretation to apply to the single
residential building, but not to any new buildings to be constructed on the site;
Findings, Conclusions, and Order, Section CA., third bullet. The Findings, Conclusions, and
Order included no citation to Idaho Code, the Uniform Development Code, or Meridian City
Code authorizing "was more reasonable interpretation" to be applied as the standard in this
matter.
4. No Factual Support. The Findings, Conclusions, and Order fail to identify the
"relevant contested facts relied upon," as required by I.C. § 67-6535(2). The second reason
given by the City Council for upholding the Director's determination, according to the Council's
Findings, Conclusions, and Order, was:
The intent of the code was to grant limited leeway to re-use an existing
structure, but not simply waive all setback requirements entirely.
August 31, 2021
Request for Reconsideration: Speedy Quick (CR-2021-0003)
p. 4
Findings, Conclusions, and Order, Section CA., fourth bullet. There is no mention in the
Findings of the source of this unilateral finding of intent by the City Council.
If the City Council's decision to uphold the Director's determination was based on "[t]he intent
of the code," then there should be a citation to the source of such interpretation of intent.
Although testimony was offered regarding the "legislative intent" behind the applicable
language contained in UDC Table 11-2b-3, the person providing that testimony provided no
foundation for his personal knowledge of such claimed intent, and no citation was provided
for the source of any personal knowledge to support such testimony.
5. UDC is Ambiguous. Table 11-213-3 in the UDC states the applicable side
setback in the L-O zoning district as "10/52," with note 2 reading: "minimum setback only
allowed with reuse of existing residential structure." Reading this in the UDC, the Applicant
interpreted it as clearly authorizing a smaller 5' side setback for all buildings, if an existing
residential structure on the property was being reused. The City Council recognized that the
language used in the UDC's Table 11-213-3 is ambiguous:
The Council determined that the language on its face could be construed
in more than one way, but in evaluating the intent of the interpretation to apply
to a re-use of an existing structure was more reasonable interpretation [sic] to
apply to the single residential building, but not to any new buildings to be
constructed on the site;
Findings, Conclusions, and Order, Section CA., third bullet, emphasis added.
In reliance on his reasonable interpretation of Table 11-213-3, which the City Council now
admits is ambiguous, the Applicant expended funds to design and plan a site plan that
complied with the shorter 5' side setbacks.
6. Incorrect Legal Standard. Among the reasons given on the record for the
denial of the Applicant's appeal was that all applications must be treated the same, which is
incorrect. The unique facts and circumstances of each application must be considered and
decisions made on the merits of each application. Land use decisions by a local agency have
no precedential value.
7. Final Decision Flawed; Violated Applicant's Substantive Rights. The City
Council's decision was:
• In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, including (without
limitation) those entitling the Applicant to due process of law and the rights
of the Applicant to own, use, and enjoy its real property;
• In excess of the statutory authority of the agency, in that the City Council is
required to implement the plain language of the UDC;
August 31, 2021
Request for Reconsideration: Speedy Quick (CR-2021-0003)
P. 5
• Arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, as set forth above.
Based on the above deficiencies, the Applicant's substantive rights, including its right to own
and use property, were violated.
Additionally, while the Applicant's appeals were still in process, and before the City Council's
August 17 "Final Decision" was made, City staff notified the Applicant:
...you were to commence the use, acquire the building permits and commence
construction on or before July 6, 2021. As it is July 22, 2021 and this has not
occurred, the CUP is no longer valid.
July 22, 2021 email from Current Associate Planner Alan Tiefenbach to Lynette Cochran,
Applicant's attorney's Legal Assistant. However, the Applicant could not have pulled building
permits for its planned improvements on the subject property - the Applicant needed to wait
for a final decision on its appeals. It was fundamentally unfair for the deadline for expiration
of the CUP to continue running while the appeals were unresolved. In a subsequent email,
Planning Supervisor Bill Parsons noted his concurrence with Associate Planner Tiefenbach's
UDC interpretation of the CUP deadline and expiration.
On behalf of the Applicant, we continue to reserve all rights to supplement this request for
reconsideration. We further reserve our right to submit a request for reconsideration within
14 days of receipt of a complete final decision that includes the "reasoned statement that
explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts
relied upon, and explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable provisions of
the comprehensive plan, relevant ordinance and statutory provisions, pertinent constitutional
principles and factual information contained in the record" required by LLUPA and "findings
of facts, conclusions of law, decision, and order" required by the UDC.
Sincerely,
014�j
Joshua J. Leonard
Cc: David Blood