City Council - Regular Meeting

It was a really, And then they have like. I don't know if that's flyable. That's interesting. That's interesting. It's gonna take a while. Oh, no, no. It definitely needs air. Right, exactly. You can sense that. Yeah, you can speak. Are you joking? No. isn't good, and they have the package . Hello. Not everything . Thank you. Thank you. Hi, how are you? Thank you.

No problem.

Sure. Sure.

Mm-hmm.

Oh, shoot. Okay, okay.

Well, hello, everybody. I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting to order. We begin with a moment of silence followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, with her God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thanks and welcome, everybody. Great to have you all here tonight. Clerk, will you call the roll?

Morales. Halliburton.

Here.

Morales.

Here.

Nash.

Here.

Stead. Here. Willett. Here. Five present, one absent. Thanks. And now minutes.

Madam Mayor, I move approval of the minutes Oh, sorry, I'm not on mic. Madam Mayor, I move approval of the minutes from the work session and regular meeting on June 2nd, 2026.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Clark?

Halliburton.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Nash.

Yes.

Dunn. Yes. Willard. Yes. All in favor, motion carries.

Thank you. And now, is Cameron LaFrance here? I don't see her. I have to put before council the reappointment of Cameron LaFrance to the Arts and History Commission. as our student commissioner for a one-year term that expires June 30th, 27.

Madam Mayor, I move where I ask unanimous consent for the reappointment of Cameron LaFrenz to the Arts and History Commission for a one-year term expiring June 30th, 2027. Without objection.

Well, I want to thank Cameron for wanting to come back one more time. Cameron is a senior and has served one year already and was interested in returning for a second year. So we're so glad to have this reappointment. And with That, I'm going to move on to the appointment of Theresa McLeod to the Library Board of Trustees for a five-year term that expires June 30, 2031.

Madam Mayor, I move appointment of Theresa McLeod, or asking, I'm sorry, I ask unanimous consent for the appointment of Theresa McLeod to the Library Board of Trustees for a five-year term expiring June 30, 2031. Without objection.

All right, your official, Theresa, come on up. I want to say, as we're coming up first, I would love to hand you this. And there's a letter in here from me. Thank you for your service.

Really appreciate it.

I was so pleased to see that Teresa was interested and had applied for an appointment to the library board. You've great history with the city and with this community and really welcome your leadership on that board.

Thank you so much. I just want to thank all of you for providing this great opportunity for me. It's hard to believe, but it's been 22 years since I was an employee of the city of Boise. And one of my responsibilities in the mayor's office was to help orchestrate appointments to boards, committees, commissions. And it was one of the best parts of my job. And I thought, gosh, someday I'd like to serve the city in this capacity. And I... received an inquiry if this might be something i'd like to do and i through my careers which have been in the private sector the public sector and non-profit sector now at st luke's my through line has always been community and when i had this opportunity in front of me i just um felt so blessed. And, uh, the city is beloved to me and to my family for generations. And, uh, so it's just a privilege to carry on the tradition of serving the city and especially in this capacity. So thank you.

Ben, Mary, if I could really quick, um, Teresa, I'm always so thankful for every single person who joins one of our commissions, their volunteer roles. There are a lot of work when people jump in there and do them. I just can't tell you how much I appreciate you jumping in for this particular position. I can't think of somebody who embodies more of what our Boise community is than you. And you've demonstrated that with your family over all of the years. You've also been a mentor, you know, to myself and I think countless other people, you know, who've worked in the nonprofit space. So I just want to say thank you for jumping into this position. I know you'll be an incredible asset to the team, as you always have been for our city. So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I appreciate you. Thanks for being here as well. And look forward to having a report out hearing how the first meeting goes. Have a great evening. Take care. All right. And next up, we have another item of special business. And we have with us tonight the Boise Robotics team back here with the yellow jerseys. Welcome. I want to just say that the Bananas Robotics, I like that with the yellow shirt. Oh, and I see a banana on your shirt now too, is the first tech challenge team from the Treasure Valley that has grown from a small Lego League team into a highly successful robotics and STEM program. And this season, the six-member team earned one of the top honors at the state championships, recognizing excellence in engineering, teamwork, leadership, and community impact. And your leadership actually qualified you to head over to South Bend, Indiana, and you'll be representing Idaho and the Treasure Valley among the 96 of the world's top robotics teams. I hope that you enjoy your visit to one of the most, if not the most, beautiful college campuses in the country, my alma mater, Notre Dame. And beyond competition, the team gives back through a free STEM camp at Whittier. They mentor young robotics teams and they provide other efforts to inspire future innovators. So you've produced Dean's List finalists, you've sent a student to represent Idaho at the First World Festival, and have helped graduating seniors continue STEM studies at universities nationwide through prestigious admissions and scholarships. I was so pleased that you reached out and shared your success and It's really great to have you here. I'd love it if you guys all wanted to just stand up and be recognized. And thanks so much for being here. I wish you the best of luck at the tournament this summer. And I have a feeling some other council members have a couple things to say too.

Do we get to see the robot?

Oh, that's right. Thank you for reminding me of that. Sorry, I ruined the big reveal.

While they're getting organized there, I will just also mention this. I'm so, so proud of you guys. I'm so excited you're here. This is really cool. What an awesome way to represent our city. And I'm really excited to have you guys doing it. Can't wait to hear how it goes in Indiana.

Yeah. And Madam Mayor, I guess I would say maybe besides just showing us the robot, can you also do the show and the full tell? Like, what does it do? Yeah.

So we called her Mackenzie for a name. And basically what she does is we have this intake. We have something called an intake on the back where we take in our elements, game elements called artifacts. And it goes through the robot and comes out through the other side. We have three shooters here because we are allowed a maximum of three artifacts in the robot at a time. So these spin up to 6,000 rotations per minute. And they come out this way and shoot into goals. So yeah, that's the basic function of our robot. It drives around. There's an autonomous period in the game that we play where the robot is completely controlled based on pre-written code and sensor inputs. And then we have a tele-operated period where it's controlled by remote controls. So we play this game not only to build robots and have fun, but also build a community. Like Mayor McLean mentioned, we like doing STEM camps and community outreach. So this has just been a really great opportunity for us to spread that and really represent Idaho on the world stage. So we're really excited for Indiana.

And are you able to turn it on? Is it going to start shooting things at people? Artifacts? Throwing artifacts through? Okay.

Don't worry about it then.

I think that this is really exciting and really interesting to see this robot that you've built and to understand it a little bit more. I'm really proud of you all. Can we do a picture with the robot? Would you guys mind a picture? And the people. Yes, of course. Can we do that? Awesome.

Awesome. I saw that in your bio that you want to do that. Okay. I'm sorry. Ready? Yeah. I just want to Yeah, we have a vision of how this thing works. And bit by bit, this is big. Yeah. And there are sensors in there that recognize the color of the ball. It's like, it's like a bird. It's like a bird. It's like a bird. It's like a bird. It's like a bird. It's like a bird. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Really? Next one.

Yeah.

Thank you so much. Take care.

well that was awesome thank you all and good luck again the competition is they leave next wednesday for the big competition so good luck and have fun oh yeah you guys can leave Thank you. Council Member Halliburton just reminded me that I do often say that, but I hadn't yet. Don't feel as though you have to stay. You're welcome to stay. But if you're wanting to leave and go do other things, don't feel that you need to stay because this will be here for a little while. Have fun, everybody. Really nice to see you all. All right. Next up, we have CUP25. and CVI 2528. This is an augmentation of the public record. Before Josh gets started, I want to thank everybody for being here today to revisit the Interfaith Sanctuary CUP. Today, the council will augment the record in CUP 2522 and CVA 2528 and hear testimony from both Interfaith Sanctuary and the Veterans Park Neighborhood Association regarding documents that were previously misfiled. The documents to augment the record were included in council's packets and have been reviewed by the council. And with that, Josh, go ahead and introduce us and kick us off.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of council. Appreciate it. Before each night, as the mayor mentioned, is an agenda item necessary due to a court order to augment the public record regarding council's decision on the conditional use and variance or conditional use permit and variance approvals for Interface Sanctuary. I'll provide a brief summary of the application history, describe the augmented information that has been provided in Council's packet tonight, and then, as mentioned, the applicant and Veterans Neighborhood Association will have a chance to speak as well. There will not be public testimony taken tonight, and the information to be considered is limited to what was included in the Council packet.

Yeah, I want to reiterate that this is a closed record and the discussion should only and must only pertain to the items that have been provided to augment the record. And again, to clarify that council has those in their packets and so will not be receiving additional information.

Thank you, Mayor. Following the approval of the applications, as you know, VP&A filed for judicial review and as part of that objected to the public record on file, asserting that some materials submitted to planning staff were not included in the materials presented to City Council. The District Court found that materials were omitted and issued an order requiring that the application be remanded to City Council for augmentation of the public record. These materials were omitted as a result of an error that occurred when hyperlinking the documents within the Council report. Due to the large size of the submitted materials by VP&A, they could not be hosted within our permitting system and therefore were uploaded to Google Drive and hyperlinked within the Council report. An Appendix E titled Public Safety Data within the exhibit inadvertently pointed to Appendix D, therefore omitting the materials in Appendix E from the public record. So to remedy this omission, the court order required that the public record be remanded to counsel and be augmented with the entirety of Exhibit E as presented in your packet tonight. This is specifically pages... bait stamped August AUG. It seems like it should be August, but AUG-004 to AUG-471. It's worth noting that the record provided to Council for the September 2025 hearing exceeded 24,000 pages, and the materials presented tonight for augmentation total is approximately 470 pages. While it appears that a majority of Exhibit E was included in the information presented for the September 30th hearing, to fully comply with the order, the entirety of Exhibit E has been provided to Council for review tonight. The Augmented Exhibit E includes the following information. Pages AUG 004 to AUG 133 are VP&A's report on CUP 25-00022. A version of this report was included in the Council packet in the original record, but is provided again for context and also to comply with the order to augment. Pages AUG 134 to AUG 149 is correspondence between VP&A and PDS staff. We also believe that this was not part of the omitted Appendix E, but is included per the order to augment. Pages AUG 150 to AUG 178 are crime statistics, public records requests, and responses from Interfaith and Boise Police Department, calls for service, data, and public safety five-year plan. Pages AUG 179 to AUG 187 is a copy of a City of Boise leadership update dated 4-25-22. Pages AUG 188 to AUG 465, and this is the bulk of the information provided tonight, are converted Excel spreadsheets and tables showing calls for service within specific geographic areas of the city. Pages AUG 466 to AUG 471 is a Boise Dev website article regarding a CEP application for a battery storage facility that was decided by city council. So in summary, council must decide tonight whether the information presented in the packet would lead you to modify your decision on CEP 25-00022 and CVA 25-00028. If you decide not to modify your decision, the action letter dated October 23rd, 2025 stands as the council's final decision. If you decide to modify your decision based on the information presented today, staff will return with a revised decision for council adoption at a later hearing. And with that, I would stand for any questions.

All right. Thanks, Josh. Okay. We will provide offer... 10 minutes to both the appellant and the applicant. And Josh, do we take the appellant first? Yes. So first we'll hear from the Veterans Park Neighborhood Association.

Okay.

Thank you. I would just like to open with an objection. I prepared a PowerPoint with the graphs and tables from the omitted data and was told tonight that that would not be admissible and that was not given with advance notice. That is a demonstrative necessary to comply with the court's order, not an additional exhibit. So I will do my best to reference pages throughout your packet. I would recommend opening up that PDF now. And I will be referencing the augmentation page numbers, the AUG- numbers. I didn't realize that was included in my time. My name is Katie Decker. I'm the president of the VPNA. My address is 5001 West Boymaista Street. The data figures and conclusions that we're discussing today were prepared directly by the Boise Police Department. The bulk of what I'm presenting was prepared internally for Chief Lee's presentation in 2022, but this goes into much more detail than he was able to present. It focused on how historically IFS has impacted the areas around it, and the analog to that is how our neighborhood may be impacted. The data chiefly was provided shows that the majority of the nearly 1,000 calls to service per year within 300 feet of interfaith sanctuary relate to impacts of individuals on the surrounding environment. The most common calls for service include trespassing, problems with subjects, theft, liquor and narcotics violations, and battery. When that radius is expanded up to a quarter mile from Interfaith Sanctuary, BPD's data was clear that that 300 feet around Interfaith Sanctuary was still the highest impacted of the top 15 calls for service locations in that quarter mile radius. Cooper Court was number one with over 600 calls per year. Interfaith was number two with 480 calls per year and Road Skate Park was number three at 400 calls per year. River of Life had 250 for comparison and Red Lion had 183. When we dig in a little deeper, we also see that the calls directly to Interfaith Sanctuary were the highest call, repeat call types or welfare checks. subject in crisis, project with subject, things like that, things like citizen assist. But when you look at the surrounding neighborhood, the calls to Rhodes Skate Park and Cooper Court, you have liquor violation, narcotics violation, check for sleepers, things that are impacting the community. It's not IFS that will see the impacts such as drug and alcohol use for the population they serve, but the area around it. We do also want to note that loitering did not make it to any of the top call reports in these data sets. So the repeal of Boise's loitering ordinance is not expected to significantly change the number of calls associated with interfaith. Now, if you can turn to the graphs on page augmentation 0446 of your packet, this shows BPD comparison of crimes, not calls for service, but crimes to the 300 feet around Interfaith Sanctuary in blue compared to crimes around the former Salvation Army building on State Street, which is an area that includes naturally affordable housing from 2014 to 2021. There were approximately 2000 crimes near Interfaith Sanctuary in this period. including 24 to 39 violent crimes per year. In comparison, there were 349 at Salvation Army, ranging from one to nine violent crimes. Page augmentation 0445, the lower left graph in green is the graph that BPD prepared to show the total number of crimes at each of several shelters or housing facilities in 2019 through 2021 respectively. Interfaith at the left had double the number of crimes that the River of Life Men's Shelter had in 2020 and 2021, although Interfaith served more people. The lower barrier of population increased the number of crimes. River of Life did have about 40% more crimes than was typical for housing, such as Adair, Newpath, and Valor Point. But Interfaith had about three times as many as those housing providers. And Women and Children's Alliance and Valor Point, as you know, are in Veterans Park. I don't have a page number for this, but PPD has a summary table related to those graphs. And their notes were made before they added interfaith to the graph. The River of Life experiences the highest level of total crimes with only the men's demographic. And New Path, which has this mostly single adult, quote, experiences the second highest level of total crimes with highest amount of person crimes, which they use interchangeably as with violent crimes. After they added interfaith to the table, the interfaith had double as many violent crimes as New Path. These findings raise a few troubling points, notably that the CUP does not prevent the State Street location from transitioning to an all-men's shelter in future. which BPD has noted is associated with higher levels of crime. Secondly, NewPath provides 41 units of permanent supportive housing, which is the model that Interfaith is emulating in their shelter home, but still has a per person similar rate of violent crime to Interfaith's low barrier shelter. The CUP does not require Interfaith guests to utilize this type of service and allows it for a much larger population that was present at the time of the compilation of this data set. On augmentation page 0444, BPD does a lot of research into the hotel shelters used during COVID. VP&A pointed out that calls for service to the Red Lion had spiked when Interfaith started there, and Interfaith pushed back on that during the prior hearings. However, these notes from BPD also show that they came to the same conclusion that VP&A did. quote, increase in crimes at Red Lion Hotel when interfaith house people for COVID. Increase in crimes at Riverside Hotel when interfaith house people for COVID, though this was only a contract from March to July of 2020, and served families. Interestingly, continued increase in crimes at interfaith with offset to population to hotels. So despite the hotel shelters being dedicated to medically fragile and family services, There were still a notable increase in crimes again nothing in this up as a currently approved requires interface to provide a higher level of service or security than they did at the hotel shelters. In fact, the city's contract with interface at the red lion required them to her security and included parenting restrictions in the contract, neither of which was included in the CP indicating that the maximum practical mitigation measures have not been implemented. The record also included much further detail on calls for service to cottonwood and riverside hotels, this is around augmentation 438 to 441. And a few excerpts include calls for a man naked and masturbating behind the cottonwood and along the river calls regarding drugs. John is in room 237 with a bunch of heroin and meth and needles all over. His friend got all messed up and stole all his money and calls about theft of TVs, mini fridges, and laptops from the hotel. For Riverside, which was a family COVID shelter, The calls include details regarding a suicidal 11-year-old child with history of violence toward others being left with shelter staff while the mother was unable to be contacted, a suicidal father who cut his neck in front of his five-year-old child and was being verbally abusive to his partner, families being asked to leave, a bag of white dope powder being found, items being stolen. The omitted data underlines that there is ample evidence for the potential of interface operation to impact the surrounding area. We're asking for the conditions of approval to be updated to, at minimum, reflect the mitigation measures that Interfaith has claimed they are implementing, which are not reflected in the conditions of approval. We have included a lot of other mitigation measures previously, but this is the absolute bare minimum. They've said that they're mitigating impacts through their building design, but the CUP allows them to increase the population density of the building, which erodes the benefit of those design elements. They have described this as a programming shelter and sometimes a high barrier shelter, but the operations manual only states the interfaith should encourage guests to join programming. Nothing in the written conditions would prevent them from drastically reducing their programming offerings if they met financial constraints or if guests were disinterested. Nothing would prevent it from reverting to an exclusively low-barrier shelter, despite the pervasive advertisements of family and medically fragile shelter. We've long requested the waitlist, which Interfaith now purports to follow with remote access only. However, it's not referenced in the conditions of approval in any point, and in the operations manual, there are no instructions for accessing the waitlist and does not preclude a waitlist being a line out the door, as was used at the prior shelter and called a waitlist. prepared a small list of written modifications. I would try to read them, but there are only 11 seconds left. I would note that this can only be addressed now. The only legal recourse that the neighborhoods in Veterans Park have is putting enforceable conditions into the CUP now.

We're at time. Thank you. Thank you. And now I'll call the applicant. And I'd ask that you stick with referencing the materials as submitted in the augmented record.

Madam Mayor, members of Council, Jeff Wardle, my address is 251 East Front Suite 310 here in Boise. I'm counsel for Interfaith Sanctuary. And I wish we were actually here for a work session to talk.

I'm going to pause you just for a second. Can people hear in the back? Because I'm hearing more your natural voice than a mic voice.

Okay. Okay. Now can you? Okay. So I wish we were here to talk about and have a work session on how things have gone now that we're open, but that's not what this is about. What you just heard is nothing more than an attempt to re-litigate issues that you fully vetted. that you fully vetted when you granted the conditional use permit. Staff did an excellent job of identifying the documents that are before you. And it's important to note that the argument you just heard from VP&A all has to do with this police data. So the question is, yes, approximately 300 pages of spreadsheets did not make it into the hearing. But does that change the finding and determinations that you made? And the answer to that is no. And I wish that it had. I wish that we weren't here having to do this. But a variety of things, as Josh laid out, transpired that caused this to happen. So the court has remanded this to be augmented and for this council to decide whether or not it modifies its decision. Now, when you made your decision in your written reasoned statement, you specifically addressed this at the time. On page five of the reasoned statement, you noted the crime data that had been proffered. The concerns that had been articulated by, quote, VP&A and public commenters asserted that there will be negative impacts to the surrounding area caused by the shelter home, including increased prevalence of drug and alcohol consumption, violent crime, property crime, diminished property values. And you took that into consideration. And you articulated why you didn't accept that argument. You noted that, quote, evidence was submitted showing that the prevalence of violent and drug crimes around the current IFS location on Americana Boulevard and the proposed location on State Street. So you had the information before you. VP&A may not have cited you to a specific spreadsheet, but Ms. Decker and a dozen or more residents that participated in the hearings articulated this and showed slides talking about the crime and the impact and all the things you've heard. Maybe not a specific reference to the lewd and lascivious act behind the Cottonwood Inn, which has absolutely nothing to do with what's before you. But you knew, you heard, you understood, and you adopted conditions related to that because you determined that that council finds a number of factors, including facility design and operational characteristics, and clustering of homeless service providers at the Americana Boulevard location make a direct comparison between the IFS Americana Boulevard location and the IFS State Street location in opposite. So there's nothing new that you're being asked to evaluate. There is no new crime data. In fact, the supporting materials from Chief Lee, Chief Lee testified and that transcript was included in the record at VP&A's request. VP&A provided you with tens of thousands of pages of documents from our 2021 application and on this application and other items articulating and identifying what these issues and concerns were. So having done that, the question becomes, does what you hear tonight necessitate a change in your decision and a modification of the conditions? And I would posit no. What do these documents demonstrate that have not already been shown and argued? What additional conditions are mandated? by the testimony you heard tonight and by the omission of these documents. Mitigation neither requires nor justifies dehumanization of the unhoused in our community. Yet that's what we just heard. Mitigation neither requires nor justifies interference with interfaith delivery of services as VPNAs requested. The unhoused by their mere existence are not a material negative impact to the surrounding area. That is the fundamental crux of what VP&A has argued, that you haven't done enough. You haven't done enough to make the lives of the unhoused difficult and hard.

I'll just ask that you not characterize their statements, but stick to the record.

Sorry, Miracle. There is no reason to reopen this matter. There is nothing that has been presented to you tonight in the augmented materials that dictate any response, any change to the decision you made. There is no reason to modify the reasoned statement. The fact of the matter is criminal conditions that criminalize existence do not mitigate adverse negative impacts. And that's what you're being asked to do. So members of council, I wish, I wish as the applicant, as the applicant, I wish we didn't have this hanging over our heads. I wish that the complete record had been heard. But you heard nothing more tonight from VPNA and the citations they made to the omitted pages than the arguments that were made to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to you. These objections have been fully raised and have been fully vetted. And you're to be commended for the conditions that you imposed that enabled us to move forward. Enable us to move forward and address the situations that existed. Because why is there crime on Americana? Because this community ghettoized services for the unhoused. That's the problem. It's incredibly difficult to deliver services to the unhoused where we have multiple providers providing different services to different populations. When we looked at the documents that were omitted, the report that they set forth in the first 135 pages, that was in the record.

The various emails between VPA and staff

have nothing to do with the conditions you imposed and aren't material to the discussion. The Boise Dev article that's included is not germane to this issue of mitigation. The shoreline crime data was argued by Ms. Decker and by Mr. Zimmerman in their oral and written testimony that was submitted and is in the record. So the real question becomes, what more do these individual line items require? And the answer is nothing. This council did its job. We therefore request that you affirm the decision that you made. There is no reason to reopen this matter and that you augment the record with these documents, leaving intact the prior approval. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. With that, I will close this hearing and this matter before council.

Madam Mayor, I move to affirm the decision of CUP 25-22 and CBA 25-28, dated October 23, 2025, without modification. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Madam Mayor?

Yes. Thank you for being here. I have a couple of comments, particularly as the lone dissenter the last time. I would like to speak to the Neighborhood Association first. You've done all you can do. You really have. You've kept the city honest. You've made sure everything was in that record. You've done all you can do. To interfaith, I'll say it again and again. We need community groups like you that help us to house and feed and clothe the least of these among us, like the Bible says. We can't do this work without community groups. This decision has always come down to location, location, location. I've had concerns about the location from the get-go. I was the lone vote the last time. There were two votes against it the time before, but the die is cast and I don't see the votes changing here.

Madam Mayor. Yes. I just want to state that I've had the opportunity to review this additional document in addition to the thousands of pages that we did previously, but the 474 pages here that includes the original report, conversations between VP&A and staff, the crime statistics, the city Boise leadership update, some Excel spreadsheets, and then also the Boise Dev article, which whether it was in the record or not, I had already read and didn't see any information in there that I don't feel like was covered during our meeting. And so that's why I seconded the motion.

Thanks. Clerk? Allie Burton?

Yes.

Morales? Yes. Nash?

Yes.

Stead? Yes. Willett? No. Four in favor, one opposed. Motion carries.

All right. Thank you. I should have said at the beginning, and the council president caught this for me, that we have one item tonight that's being deferred. I'll take a motion. And this is the item at 2607 Lancaster. In case anybody is here for that, I'm sorry. I should have said this at the beginning.

Madam Mayor, I move to defer CRR 25-19 to the June 30th, 2026 City Council hearing. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk?

Halliburton? Yes. Morales? Yes. Nash? Yes. Sedd? Yes. Willett? No. Oh, yes. All in favor, motion carries.

And now we'll take up the consent agenda.

Madam Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk?

Halliburton?

Yes.

Morales? Yes. Nash?

Yes.

Stead? Yes. Willard? Yes. All in favor, motion carries. And now we've got first reading.

Getting there. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, I ask unanimous consent that all ordinances on the first reading be read by name and number, read by number and title only and filed for the second reading calendar. Without objection.

ORD-24-26, an ordinance repealing and striking Boise City Code Title I, Chapter 16, entitled Emergency Temporary Suspension and Amendment of Provisions of Boise City Code, Title III, Chapter 3, Alcoholic Beverages, Title III, Chapter 4, Sidewalk Cafes, and Title V, Chapter 2, Section 10, Alcohol Open Container, approving by summary of the ordinance and providing an effective date. ORD-25-26, an ordinance, CAR-25-00015, for property located at 3412 and 3414 South Lindsay Avenue, amending zoning classifications of the City of Boise City to change the classification of real property, particularly described in Section 1 of this ordinance and adjacent rights-of-way from I-1, Light Industrial, to R-2, Residential Compact, setting forth a reasoned statement in support of zone change and providing an effective date.

Madam Mayor, we have a two on third reading. I move that further reading of ORD 19-26 and ORD 20-26 be dispensed with and the record reflect it has been read that they've been read the third time in full. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk? Halliburton.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Nash.

Yes.

Dead. Yes. Willits. Yes. All in favor of motion carries. ORD-19-26. And ordinance CR-25-00017. for property located at 1907 West Jefferson Street, amending zoning classifications of the City of Boise City to change the classification of real property, particularly described in Section 1 of this ordinance and adjacent rights-of-way, from R-2, residential compact, and R-3, residential urban, FEMEX-1, mixed-use neighborhood, setting forth a recent statement in support of subzone change and providing effective date. ORD-20-26, an ordinance DRH-25-00206, designating the Betty the washer woman and a comic sign located at 15 or South of the avenue as a local landmark. But the finding the waiting period prior to demolition material alteration remodeling or removal of the local landmark directing written notification to the property owners directing the city clerk to file the ordinance with the county reporters offer directing the planning and development services department to notify the county assessor's office on behalf of the historic preservation Commission and providing effective date.

Madam Mayor, I move that ORD 19-26 be approved.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk? Allie Burton.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Nash.

Yes.

Dead. Yes. Willits. Yes. All in favor, motion carries. Madam Mayor, I move that ORD 20-26 be approved. Second. We have a motion and a second.

Clerk? Allie Burton.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Nash.

Yes.

Dead.

Yes.

Willits. Yes. All in favor, motion carries. Thank you. And now we'll move on to subdivision. The first one up is SOS 25-7. We've got Matt Dennis, Matthew Dennis here from the city. The applicant, Stacy Crabtree. Oh, exterior concepts. Is anybody here to testify on this beyond the applicant? We don't expect anybody to be here for this. So what I'll do, if it's all right, is after we hear from staff, I'll see if you're in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report. And if you are, we can just move this along. Great.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. Thank you.

The item before you is a request to vacate three plat notes associated with three lots generally surrounding 1720 Sendero Way within the Monte Video subdivision number two on a total of approximately 0.72 acres. and R1BHSOWIO zone. The vacation requests are associated with a proposal that includes consolidating the lot shown here outlined in red into one lot to accommodate the construction of a new detached garage shown here outlined in black. The site will continue to be accessed from Sendero Drive or Private Road from the south with direct lot access to Shaw Mountain Road to the north remaining prohibited by the subdivision plat number two, which is unaffected by this request. Shown here is a subdivision plot recorded in 1980. As you can see, these lots were plotted with a different layout than what the applicant currently has in mind, with lots mandated to be HOA-owned and or designated as common landscape and or private motor court drive. The HOA currently owns these reference lots and submitted a statement of legal interest with this application, thereby expressing no opposition to the proposal. And just a point of clarification for the record correspondence was received from today from the applicant that stated that lot be three, which is shown here in red, a very skinny narrow lot on the western side of the proposal. Although it was included within the application materials was not intended to be included with with this request as such lot be three will remain as an HOA owned and maintained lot for the purpose of common landscape and will not be included within the forthcoming resolution. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval of the Plano vacations as shown on this slide, and I will stand for any questions.

All right, looks like there are no questions, and I'll just ask if you're in agreement. Yes. The record will reflect that the applicant agrees with the recommendation, and with that, I'll put this before counsel.

Madam Mayor, I move approval of SOS 25-7 exterior concepts LLC for the Montevideo subdivision at 1720 East Sendero Lane.

Second.

We have a motion and second discussion.

Clerk?

Holly Burton.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Nash.

Yes.

Dunn. Yes. Willis. Yes. All in favor, motion carries. All right. Thank you so much. And now we'll move on to CR 26-4 at 200 North 4th Street. We've got Madison Lockhorn here. The applicant is here. Do we have people from the neighborhood planning on testifying? Right, I've got a couple nods. The Neighborhood Association? Nope. All right, we'll hear from staff, then the applicant will open up to the public. Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council.

The item before you is to modify the development agreement at 200 North 4th Street in the mixed use downtown and development agreement zone. As outlined in the project report, the proposed change of the development agreement is relatively minor and only includes reducing the required amount of residential units in the project from 69 to 68 residential units. The project will still provide the five affordable units. No other changes are proposed. Public comment was received in opposition to reducing the number of units, stating the number of units should remain to support more housing. The proposed change complies with the findings of the development code. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, and I will stand for any questions. Questions for Seth? Yes.

I think it was noted in the staff report that One of the reasons the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval is that in the new modern zoning code, it wouldn't have even been required for there to have been a development agreement. Am I understanding that correctly?

Madam Mayor, members of the council, that is correct.

But this one was originally proposed underneath the old development code.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thanks. And now we'll hear from the applicant.

Madam Mayor, members of the council, for the record, Ryan Cutler, Chief Development Officer for Allquist Development. My address is 1144 South Silverstone Way in Rudion, Idaho, 83704. I really appreciate staff. That was a great staff report, short and sweet, similar to how we had it at the PNZ hearing last month. And we certainly appreciate staff's communication with us and helping us walk through this process. Again, we're very excited for this building, as you can tell. If you've seen it recently, it's nearing completion. We are making one minor modification to the development agreement, and I'll explain why that is to Madison's staff report. We are changing that from 69 units to 68. The only reason that is being changed by one unit is because we had an individual reserve two units that they wanted to convert into one. So they purchased two units or will be purchasing two units, but they want to convert that unit into one larger unit. And because our DA indicated that we had to have a minimum of 69 units, we're asking for a change in that DA to say 68 so that this individual can change two units into one bigger unit. That's it. The remainder of, I know in our previous hearing, and I'm sure we have some members of the public here that are concerned about that and to the point of their online statement, all of the rest of the units within the building are nearing completion. This couldn't be done again without us carrying out and significantly doing damage to already completed units. So we won't be back here doing this anymore. We have stopped all work in units 911. two and 903 to be able to accommodate this DA. And we have not done any work in those units until this was completed. And so merely for that fact, we're asking for a change of one unit so that two units could be converted into one for an individual user. I'll stand for any questions.

Madam Mayor? Yes. Thanks for being here tonight. Do you know about how many of the units have been sold or leased at this point? Great question, Madam Mayor, Councilmember.

Because it isn't finalized in the DA, the condo plat has not been completed. So technically we can't sell units yet. We've taken some reservations for units that are waiting for the condo plat to be completed once the DA is approved. But we have seen, if I had to guess, we had to see probably reservations of up to 20 units and we haven't gone out to MLS yet.

So this person then is someone who has reserved. So hasn't actually purchased them yet.

They've reserved it and have shown to us that they have the ability to pay for two units. And again, we've stopped that. They will make that official purchase once the condo plat is completed. We haven't put any demising walls or any of the finishes within that unit, anticipating that that person will then make that purchase and we'll convert two units into one.

And then can you just explain the second part of the development agreement? There was a 68 unit, but then there was also the five residential units that we've got linked to housing choice vouchers. Any changes there?

No.

It stays the same. The only number of the going down is the units that weren't a part of that affordable housing.

Madam Mayor. Question for you. You stated pretty confidently that this wouldn't happen again, but if someone was to buy two units in the future, many, many years from now, and want to go through this process, has money to burn, whatever. Is there anything in the CCNRs that would prevent this from happening again, or you, that would actually prevent this from happening, or is there a chance that it could happen?

I mean, technically there is a chance, Madam Mayor and Councilman, there is a chance it could happen. It would have to be voted upon by, the CCNRs have a presidency that would have to be voted on. It would have to be vetted through that process. It would have to come back through the city again and go through this process again so technically by code it could but again at that point in time they'd have to be tearing down a full unit they could be compromising some of the structure of the unit by doing so so that's why we're confident that. We're going through this process now where we haven't completed that work in these two units. All the rest of the units have had further work done from electrical to plumbing for all those things. It would be significant work. I guess in theory, somebody with a lot of money could come and do that, to your point, but the chance of that is very unlikely.

All right, thank you.

Thanks.

And now, I don't have... I do have a sign that she, excuse me, Michael Nevin and then D. Allen Dalton. Anybody else? Will you guys all just head this direction if you're planning on testifying? He's here for this. Okay. If you're here to testify, please come on up. Yeah, you're up.

Okay, I'm not D. Allen Dalton or any of the other.

No, they're not here, I guess. So it looks like it's used. Will people raise your hands if you're planning on testifying tonight? Are there any hands raised? I can't see behind them. Okay, great. It's you. Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. My name is Dan Everhart. I live at 200 North 3rd Street in Boise. You've heard me speak on this particular development before many times. I'm not here to oppose this particular action, although the reduction of housing units in the city is probably not something that we should take too lightly. I'm here concerned about trash, the trash that constantly rains from this construction project, the trash that litters our neighborhood, the trash that clogs our drains, that decorates our historic trees, that finds its way into the flower beds around the Historic US Assay Office. How do I know? I pick up that trash daily sometimes. We will have the trash from this building project in our trees, in our flower beds, probably long after the construction project is completed. It's foam. purple foam and yellow foam and white foam. It's thin foam. It's thick foam. It's little pieces of foam. It's big pieces of foam. It's huge sheets of plastic. It's little pieces of paper. It's pieces of paper that are clearly labeled as being part of the construction activities at the building, if anyone were curious as to how we know. Oh, and also, we didn't have the trash littering our neighborhood in this way before this construction project began. It is pernicious. It's constant. It doesn't seem as if there's any interest in the developer or their contractor from taking care of the trash that litters our neighborhood. Some of the trees are so clogged with trash, particularly those that are beneath the building. They will be there forever, I imagine. I'd like to see something done. I don't know if there's anything the council can do to regulate the trash that constantly falls from this building. And I mean constantly falls. Now, just so you know, we have had some big windstorms. It is not just falling in the big windstorms. It falls all day, every day. We watch it from our balcony. We watch it from the street. I pick it up at the assay office, flowerbeds. Is there anything that can be done to get the developer to stop littering the neighborhood and stop clogging the drains and stop damaging the trees that they've been given access to by this development? With that, I'll conclude my remarks.

Thanks. Madam Mayor, I'm happy to follow up on those things after the application. I don't see those as actually tied to the decision that we're making on this, but can explore what those opportunities and abilities are after the council meeting is over.

I'd love to hear it.

Great. Thank you. Thanks for letting us know. And I just want to confirm nobody else sitting in this room is here to testify on this item. This is... This is the last item tonight. Okay, great. Okay, just giving you your last chance. With that, I'm going to close the hearing, and this is before council.

Madam Mayor, I move to approve CR 26-4, the development agreement modification at 200 North 4th Street.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Discussion?

Madam Mayor, I'm going to just speak to that too. I'm sure you have the developer in the room here. My guess is he's heard that and will look into it. I had some previous complaints with concrete pouring out of hours from one of your neighbors and we were able to follow up and that had been rectified. So I'm glad that you were able to bring that to our attention. Please feel free to do it sooner next time if there's something that we can take action on. And I expect that we will see that change. But I sort of, I mean, we hate to see units deplete here um anytime but i kind of see this as like a vacation of a plot um we we just did that in the subdivision where we're moving plots around um to accommodate the development so um so i'm going to support this one all right clerk will you call the roll holly burton yes morales yes nash yes stead yes willis yes all in favor motion carries And Madam Mayor, I move to adjourn. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. Thanks for joining us tonight.