CC - Petition for Judicial Review
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - 1
4880-4620-3137, v. 1.1
T. Hethe Clark, ISB No. 7265
Geoffrey M. Wardle, ISB No. 5604
Joshua J. Leonard, ISB No. 7238
Danielle Strollo, ISB No. 11496
CLARK WARDLE LLP
251 E. Front Street, Suite 301
Boise, ID 83702
P.O. Box 639
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: 208/388-1000
Facsimile: 208/388-1001
filing@clarkwardle.com
#23481.1
Attorneys for Petitioner
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR ADA COUNTY
BLOOD, LLC, an Idaho limited liability
company,
Petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, an Idaho
municipal corporation, BY AND
THROUGH ITS CITY COUNCIL,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
Petitioner Blood, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company (“Petitioner”), by and through
its undersigned counsel of record, files this Petition for Judicial Review of a final action of the
City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, as follows:
I. NAME OF AGENCY FROM WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW IS SOUGHT.
1. The name of the agency from which judicial review is sought is the City of
Meridian, Idaho, an Idaho municipal corporation (“City”).
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - 2
4880-4620-3137, v. 1.1
II. JURISDICTION.
2. Petitioner is an “affected person” seeking judicial review of a final action of the
City (described below), as authorized by Idaho Code (“I.C.”) Title 67, Chapter 65 (the Idaho Local
Land Use Planning Act, or “LLUPA”), I.C. Title 67, Chapter 52 (the Idaho Administrative
Procedure Act), Rule 84 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or the ordinances of the City.
3. The final action of the City that is the subject of this Petition for Judicial Review is
subject to judicial review under I.C. §§ 67-6519, 6521, and 6535.
III. RELEVANT FACTS.
4. On or about May 5, 2021, the City issued a certificate of zoning compliance
(“CZC”) to Petitioner in the City’s Case No. CR-2021-0003. The CZC authorized construction of
a 2,500 sq. ft. storage building (“Storage Building”), renovation and reuse of an existing 1,700 sq.
ft. residential structure (“Residential Structure”), and the construction of related improvements at
2560 S. Meridian Road, which is located in the City’s limited office (or “L-O”) zoning district.
5. Table 11-2B-3 of the Unified Development Code of the City of Meridian (“UDC”)
specifies that the interior side setback for development in the L-O zoning district shall be “10/5”
feet, with a footnote that reads: “Minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential
structure.”
6. Petitioner, with the City’s approval, will reuse the Residential Structure and, as a
result, is entitled to construct the Storage Building with the smaller 5’ minimum interior side
setback authorized by the UDC.
7. Staff in the City’s Planning Department (“Planning Staff”) disagreed with
Petitioner’s interpretation of the UDC’s minimum setback provision, and required Petitioner’s
proposed Storage Building to be designed and constructed with the larger 10’ minimum setback,
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - 3
4880-4620-3137, v. 1.1
despite Petitioner’s reuse of the Residential Structure. The CZC included a condition of approval
that read: “The site plan and landscape plan shall be revised to reflect the proposed storage building
at the southeast portion of the property meeting the 10’ side setback.”
8. Petitioner, still in disagreement with Planning Staff’s interpretation of the size of
the minimum required interior side setback contained in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and its footnote,
timely requested a Director’s Determination as to the interpretation.
9. The Director’s Determination determined that Planning Staff’s interpretation was
correct, and stated:
As staff mentioned in their February 25, 2021 email, the 5’ setback allowance in
UDC 11- 2B-3 is to address the existing homes along arterials that may convert to
office uses. As an example, to explain the intent, staff noted most of the residential
structures in this area were constructed with a 5-foot setback, and if rezoned from
residential to office, requiring a 10' setback would create a nonconforming structure
if this exception in the UDC did not exist. This setback reduction has been
interpreted correctly and does not extend to all new structures that are proposed for
construction on the same property.
10. Pursuant to UDC § 11-5A-7(A), Petitioner timely requested City Council review of
the Director’s Determination. A de novo public hearing was scheduled for the City Council’s
review on June 22, 2021, and continued to July 6, 2021.
11. In advance of the July 6, 2021, City Council, Petitioner submitted a written
document to the City explaining the basis for Petitioner’s interpretation of UDC Table 11-2B-3
and its footnote.
12. On July 6, 2021, the City Council received testimony from Petitioner’s
representative, Planning Staff, and the public.
13. The City Council sided with the interpretation advanced by Planning Staff and
contained in the Director’s Determination.
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - 4
4880-4620-3137, v. 1.1
14. In late July of 2021, Petitioner’s representative received a letter, dated July 21,
2021, from the City’s Planning Division Manager (“July Letter”). The July Letter 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.
15. During the City Council’s Work Session on August 17, 2021, the City Council
entered written Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order affirming the
Director’s Determination.
16. In late August of 2021, Petitioner’s representative received a letter similar to the
July Letter, this one dated August 23, 2021 (“August Letter”), which again referenced “Speedy
Quick (CR-2021-0003).” The August Letter then included only the following statement
concerning the City Council’s decision on Petitioner’s request for City Council review of the
Director’s Determination:
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.
17. The August 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, upholding the Director’s
Determination.
18. On or about August 31, 2021, pursuant to I.C. §§ 67-6535(2)(b), 67-6521(1)(d),
and UDC § 1-7-10, Petitioner timely submitted its Request for Reconsideration of the City
Council’s decision to uphold the Director’s Determination in Project No. CR-2021-0003
(“Reconsideration Request”). In its Reconsideration Request, Petitioner noted the myriad ways in
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - 5
4880-4620-3137, v. 1.1
which the City’s July Letter and August Letter failed to comply with LLUPA’s requirements for a
final decision.
19. At its regular meeting on September 21, 2021, the City Council granted Petitioner’s
Reconsideration Request for the limited purpose of adopting new written findings of fact,
conclusions of law and decision and order.
20. In a memorandum dated September 23, 2021, which was addressed to Petitioner’s
representative and entitled “Written Decision on Request for Reconsideration” (“September 23
Memo”), the City’s City Attorney advised Petitioner’s representative of the City Council’s
decision to grant Petitioner’s Reconsideration Request for the limited purpose of adopting new
written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order. The September 23 Memo also
noted that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Order that the City Council
approved on August 17, 2021 were nullified by the City Council’s September 21, 2021 decision.
21. On or about September 28, 2021, the City Council approved revised Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision & Order (“September 28 Decision”), still upholding the
Director’s Determination.
22. On or about September 30, 2021, City staff provided a signed copy of the
September 28 Decision to Petitioner’s representative via email.
23. Having exhausted administrative remedies under both Idaho Code and the UDC,
Petitioner now files this Petition for Judicial Review.
24. Petitioner, as the owner of the real property that was the subject of the various
decisions of the City outlined above, is an “affected person,” in that Petitioner has a bona fide
interest in real property adversely affected by the denial of Petitioner’s application for City Council
review of the Director’s Determination. Petitioner’s application for City Council review of the
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - 6
4880-4620-3137, v. 1.1
Director’s Determination is an “application for a subdivision, variance, special use permit, and
such other similar applications required or authorized pursuant to [chapter 65, title 67, Idaho
Code],” as stated in I.C. 67-6521(1)(a)(i).
25. Petitioner’s substantial rights have been prejudiced by the City Council’s final
decision to deny Petitioner’s application for City Council review of the Director’s Determination.
IV. STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.
26. Due Process. Did the City act in violation of statutory and constitutional provisions
in upholding the Director’s Determination?
27. Decision Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. Was the City Council’s
decision to uphold the Director’s Determination supported by substantial evidence on the record
as a whole?
28. Decision was Arbitrary, Capricious, or an Abuse of Discretion. Was the City
Council’s decision to uphold the Director’s Determination arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of
discretion?
29. Petitioner reserves all rights to augment and supplement the foregoing issues,
pursuant to Rule 84(d)(5) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (“I.R.C.P.”)
V. RECORD AND TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED.
30. All proceedings affecting City Case No. CR-2021-0003, including testimony at
public hearings, were recorded by the City, and the City maintains possession of those recordings
at its offices.
31. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 84(g)(1)(C), Petitioner respectfully requests that the City,
within 14 days of the date on which this Petition for Judicial Review is filed, prepare and file a
transcript of all such recordings with the Court.
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - 7
4880-4620-3137, v. 1.1
32. The City maintains possession of the official record in City Case No. CR-2021-
0003.
33. Petitioner respectfully requests that the City, within 42 days of service of this
Petition for Judicial Review, prepare and file a certified and complete copy of the City’s entire
official agency record in this matter, pursuant to I.C. §§ 67-5249 and 5275, and I.R.C.P. 84(f).
34. Pursuant to the estimate provided by City staff, Petitioner has paid the amount of
$500.00 to the City for the costs of preparing the transcript and the record.
VI. ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION.
35. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 84(c)(7), Attorneys for Petitioner hereby certify that:
a. This Petition for Judicial Review has been electronically served upon the City,
which was the local government rendering the decision challenged in the within Petition for
Judicial Review; and
b. A transcript and the record have been requested from the City, as provided herein
(see Paragraphs 31 and 33, above); and
c. The amount of $500.00, which is the estimated amount for preparation of the
transcript and record, has been paid to the City.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of October, 2021.
CLARK WARDLE LLP,
Attorneys for Petitioner Blood, LLC,
By: /s/ Joshua J. Leonard
Joshua J. Leonard, ISB No. 7238
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - 8
4880-4620-3137, v. 1.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 26th day of October, 2021, I caused a true and correct
copy of the above/foregoing to be served upon the following individuals in the manner indicated
below:
To Respondent:
City of Meridian, Idaho,
Attn: City Council
C/O: City Clerk Chris Johnson
33 E. Broadway Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
[ ] U.S. Mail
[ ] Hand-Delivery
[ ] Federal Express
[ ] Via Facsimile to: 208-854-8072
[X] Via ECF/E-Mail to:
cjohnson@cmeridiancity.org
cc: City Attorney Bill Nary (to
bnary@meridiancity.org); Deputy
City Attorney Emily Kane
(ekane@meridiancity.org)
/s/ Joshua J. Leonard