Hint, Commissioner Franden could not have said what you attribute to him because, on June 28, 2006 when he commented on the access road problem, Ada County’s condition of approval was still 6 months in the future.

At the time of my departure from Ada County (laid off two years ago), The Cliffs’ first subdivision of land (Adelaide) had a condition of approval placed upon it that required the developer to first acquire adequate access to the subdivision, before the plat could be duly recorded. This type of condition of approval is not uncommon, similar ones regarding sewerage, water, electricity, and telecommunication provisions are standard fare on subdivision rulings. If the developer fails to meet these conditions of approval, then the plat cannot be fully recorded. I believe Commissioner Franden correctly noted that Skyline was stuck between Ada County’s access condition, and ITD’s inability to act on the proper disposition of potentially excess ITD Right-of-Way. The onus rested with the developer to secure some type of resolution with ITD, not upon either Ada County (as the condition noted) or upon ACHD (as Commissioner Franden noted). Again, back to protecting the resources of tax supported services.

Code Man may be correct in regard to the “intent” of LLUPA — but it isn’t up to either he, or myself, to inject our own interpretations on the intent of legislators when they passed the law. Legislative intent matters most to courts when they rule on such cases. These court decisions, and the actual letter of the law are what public planners must rely on when crafting policy for elected officials to act upon. The worst kind of repressive public policy is one where a public official (elected, appointed, or employed) chooses to inject their own interpretation on the letter of the law — guided only by their interpretation of “intent”. Thankfully, we have a judiciary to provide a check and balance on such misguided attempts to sway public policy.

If ALL urban development were mandated to occur within existing incorporated cities — if one were to believe Code Man’s assertion that this is what legislators’ intent was when LLUPA was adopted — then two conflicting conditions would have to be simultaneously entertained. 1) All urban development in Idaho after LLUPA was enacted (in 1975) was/is legally required to occur within the incorporated limits of cities (as they existed in 1975), and 2) That all municipal Comprehensive Plans could not plan on urbanizing areas within their unincorporated Areas of City Impact — since this would openly conflict with the “intent” to accommodate ALL growth within existing incorporated cities. Growthaphobia ad absurdum.

Such a reading would also remove the legal right of citizens to vote to incorporate themselves as a new city — and undermine all of Title 50 of the State Code, from which municipalities gain their right to self-governance. This is why the Ada County PC Ordinance has never run the risk of being reversed in Court and why no city has ever launched a serious case against Ada County on the matter (outside the court of public opinion). The PC Ordinance is not only legal, it is the predictable outcome of LLUPA and a complete reading of Idaho Statutes.

It took John Franden, ACHD Commissioner, about 30 seconds to both see the problem and broadly sketch the restrictions associated with disposing federally funded, eminent domain acquired state land to private entities.

If the problem was clear to Franden, it is difficult to understand how the developer’s team of planners and attorneys, together with the county’s planning staff, especially a transportation planner with a demonstrated penchant for the law, could have missed the problem.

At the other end of the continuum, conspiracy theorists point to the possibility of a back room deal whereby ITD would ignore the various rules and regulations, simply hand over the dirt to the developer, and the public would either not care, or never be the wiser.

Perhaps Dean can shine some light on the situation?

“I thought you all might find the letter below from Tony Jones entertaining.
Rich

Can’t remember the outcome of the judicial review on this???

Either Mr. Gunderson or Mr. Jones still involved in PCs in Ada County or elsewhere?

Note:
Avimor is a partnership of SunCor and the McLeod family (Spring Valley Ranch), not the Johnson family (Skyline Corp.)

The question was, where does the code say (or even imply) that urban development MUST occur inside a pre-existing urban area.

No question that most urban development “should” be “encouraged” to go inside existing incorporated areas. But LLUPA doesn’t say that it “shall”, or “must”.

Look at these sections for further clarification; 67-6503 states that County’s “shall” excercise all the powers conferred by LLUPA — which places them on a par with any city as an urbanising authority, and 67-6508 clearly states that even county Comprehensive Plans shall include urbanised components within its jurisdiction — clearly, county’s jurisdictions don’t extend into existing incorporated areas.

Ask youself how cities form, and which (sole) constitutional authority is obligated to shepard the formulation of those new cities — counties, and counties alone.

When counties adopt rules that streamline this process, they must be rigourous and contain the cost of any tax supported public service. Ada County’s PC Ordinance is the best example of this type of local rule in the State of Idaho. And, it’s 100% compliant with LLUPA.

Idaho Code, 67-6502.

PURPOSE. The purpose of this act shall be to . . .

(f) To encourage urban and urban-type development within incorporated cities.

A PC in Ada County is intended to operate as a starter city. In fact, once a PC acquires more than a small number of qualified electors as residents — they can begin the process of incorporation (even if it is over the developer’s objections). A PC’s development and regulating plans are all that are needed to qualify as a new city’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. And a PC’s financial plan is more operational than most of those found in the existing cities in Ada County. Some of the proposed PC developers even planned to push for incorporation as soon as possible. I suspect just to get out from under the required biennial County development review all PC’s are required to undergo. No other development type in the region is subject to as much scrutiny, or have as many conditions of development placed upon its fiscal solvency.

The purpose of regional planning is to encourage reasonable and fiscally sound development that contains the cost of tax & fee supported public services. The PC Ordinance is only one tool that does so, by tying the permissible development of internal phases of the PC to fiscal benchmarks. The PC Ordinance, and the number of private developers who appeared interested in submitting such an application, had a curious (and not altogether unpredicted) effect within the existing cities in Ada County. They began to seriously look at ways to better serve the taxpayers within their respective boundaries. It also kept them at the table as the region tried to forge a new future through the Communities In Motion (Long Range Regional Transportation Plan) and the Blueprint for Good Growth.

Without the pressure of the “Barbarians at the Gate”, it would have been extremely unlikely that the six cities, ITD, VRT, and the Ada County Highway District would have gotten as far as they did through the process. And, there would have been significantly fewer people showing up at the various public planning meetings.

Since all the hubbub regarding PC’s started around 2004, the only one still building is the only one that existed before 2004 — Hidden Springs. And, even Hidden Springs wouldn’t have been approved under the revised PC Ordinance used to approve The Cliffs. And, not a dime of existing taxpayer money was spent reviewing the applications. Unlike all the over-built subdivisions developed within the cities during the bubble, the PC’s impacts were contained to the developer alone — and if they failed to build on the approved schedule they surrender their provisional land entitlements. Unfortunately, this can’t be said of all the excess Sprawl parcels approved by the cities in Ada & Canyon Counties during the same timeframe. We will all be paying for those approvals for years to come.

As far as I am concerned, I was happy to play my small part as the “aggressor” since I knew that the supposed threat of the PC’s (which could become their own cities, with their own Areas of City Impact) would keep the existing cities in the region at the table to forge the Communities In Motion Plan — and provide support to ACHD to help it develop its Livable Streets Design Guide.

These two achievements cannot be separated from the PC discussion. In fact, few of the meetings for either the CIM or BGG happened without the obligatory railing against Ada County and its contemptable stance on PC’s.

My only regrets are that we couldn’t keep the pressure up long enough to force meaningful concessions on regional Agricultural & Open Space protection, or achieve some kind of sensical ITD stance on getting developers to pay for their impacts on the State highway system, or get Canyon County to the Blueprint negotiation table.