City Council - Regular Meeting

I'm just going to take a small take. I know. Thank you. Okay, I think I should go. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think you got it. I'm just getting to some of it. Yeah. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. That was very good. That was interesting. Yeah, it was cool.

Oh, let me talk about that.

So unfortunately it's undone but it was mentioned. That's right. Thank you.

Well, hello, everybody, and welcome.

I'm going to call this meeting to order. We start with an invocation, which we observe by 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 under all, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I don't see it.

Okay, I'm going to add that. Clerk, will you call the roll?

Corliss.

Here.

Halliburton. Morales. Here. Nash. Stead.

Here.

Willits.

Here.

Four present, two absent.

Madam Mayor, I make a movement. I move to approve the council minutes from the regular day meeting on August 25th, 2026. I second the motion. Madam Mayor, before we move into special business, I was going to make a motion on the agenda.

I need a vote on the council minutes.

Morales. Yes. Stead.

Yes.

Willits. Yes. Corliss. Yes. All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, I move that we move the consideration of the mediation request for CUP 26-9, TVA 26-12 under special business to the end of tonight's business after consideration of CUP 26-9.

Second motion.

Clark.

Morales, yes. Stead, yes. Willits, yes. Corliss, yes. All in favor, motion carries.

All right, before we move, well, actually, first off, is Kent Rock here? Oh, there you are. I'm sorry I didn't see you. I am proposing that we reappoint Kent Rock to the Boise City Ada County Housing Authority for a five-year term ending October 31, 2031. I want to thank you for your service.

Madam Mayor, I ask for unanimous approval of Kent Rock to the Boise City Ada County Housing Authority for a five-year term ending October 31st, 2031.

Without objection.

Yeah, Madam Mayor, I just want to say a few words. I've had the great pleasure of working with Kent Rock on the Boise City Ada County Housing Alliance Board, where he currently serves as chairman. And he is a wonderful guy to work with. He's got so much history and knowledge in this area. He served at the city of Boise for several years, I believe, since 91 to 2012. Is that right, Kat? 81 81. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much for all your work at the city. And thank you for continuing the work of serving on the, as a chairman on the housing authority. We've done some great work under your leadership and some good guidance for future direction as well. So appreciate you can, and glad to see you being reappointed here tonight. Thank you.

I saw a piece of paper. Did you have something you wanted to say? Oh, great. Okay. All right. You're welcome to come up if you want, but there's no obligation. I thought you were walking up with a speech.

Just looking at the minutes, and boy, I'm glad we don't have that long agenda at the Housing Authority. But I'd like to thank you for the reappointment to this. I enjoy serving for the city, although I live outside the city now. But 30 years, most of those as city treasurer and risk manager, and I still enjoy doing things to help the city. And one thing that with the board that I think is very important that we're doing right now is working with the city and with CCDC to meld our different resources to develop more housing and more accommodations for those that are struggling. You know, the CCDC certainly has land access. The housing authority can issue bonds and the city can contribute some money to those proportionately to whatever we need to do. And we're still working through the groundwork of laying the framework for this in writing. And it's... enjoy working with the staff. Nikki and Kai have done a great job of coordinating this whole effort. And I wanted to just thank the city for helping us find those ways to use all of our resources together to make better and maybe more projects. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a great night. And next, before we move on, we have a proclamation tonight. Camille Oldenburg is in the audience. Thanks for being here. And this is to recognize that September is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. And so I'll go ahead and read this and then can present it to you. Whereas ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths of women in the United States and causes more deaths than any other gynecologic cancer. And whereas in the United States, a woman's lifetime risk of being diagnosed with ovarian cancer is about one in 78. And whereas the American Cancer Society estimates that over 21,000 cases of ovarian cancer will be newly diagnosed in 26th, And 12,450 people will die from the disease nationwide, including 100 new cases and 70 deaths here in Idaho. And whereas the five-year survival rate for ovarian cancer is 50%, you have so beat the odds, so beat the odds. And survival rates vary greatly depending on the stages of diagnosis. And whereas the mammogram can detect breast cancer and the pap smear can detect cervical cancer, there's no reliable early detection test for ovarian cancer. And whereas too many people remain unaware that the symptoms of ovarian cancer include bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, urinary symptoms, and several other vague symptoms that are often easily confused with other diseases. And whereas improved awareness of the symptoms of ovarian cancer by the public and healthcare providers can lead to a quicker diagnosis, I hereby proclaim September 2026 as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Boise. And thank you for all your work in building awareness. Really appreciate it. Yeah, you're welcome to come up. Did you have something you wanted to say? Hi. Camille, will you talk in the mic? Thank you.

Thank you, Todd. We really do appreciate this, but both of us have our personal reasons for joining. I have beat the odds. And this is recently, every time I come in front of you, I find out I've been in a reoccurrence. So I'm on now number four. But here I am. And I think it's due to commitment of people for research. So whatever we can do to do more cancer research is absolutely critical. I think the other thing I want to point out, though, because we're all from Boise or the area, I've gone to MD Anderson and the University of Chicago for second opinions and to be put on their clinical trial lists. And in both instances, they're known for you know, cancer research, they have complemented the care that I've received in Boise. And so I think it's important we constantly say that because sometimes people think cities our size don't have the same strength of larger cities. And that's not necessarily true. So I'm not going to be the proponent of talking about how great health system we have. But I do thank you because I really do believe it's a tough one to beat. but we can keep doing it. So everything we can do to create awareness and your support is appreciated. Tiffany is my colleague in this. We're both volunteers and her story is slightly different.

I want to thank you too for the opportunity to be here and your continued support in our efforts. So it's an honor to be here next to Camille and with her story. I'm here because I lost my mom and my great grandma to I do it every time. Oh, darn it. I could tell her I speak really well, but the moment I say my mom is just like, man, I cracked down. But losing my mom and my great grandma to ovarian cancer at 54 and 33, that's why I got involved. So it's extra special that I get the opportunity to go advocate in Washington, D.C., but when we get to bring it home and bring it here, it's amazing the stories we hear. I remember last year when you did this proclamation for us, we met people out in the lobby that they're like, my mom had ovarian cancer. I know somebody that suffered. So it's really, it's a we hear a lot about breast cancer and that's very important with October, but we got to wear teal too. Just because like we had said, the symptoms, you know, look perfect color today. We saw that when you walked in and we're like, we love our jumpsuit. But just the symptoms are really our only best detection right now. There's no detection for it. So awareness that even, even the lady sitting here, if we, or the gentleman sharing the story with the women you love, that if it's one symptom that could save a life, this was worth it tonight. So we wanna thank you guys for your time and your continued support in this effort. So thank you very much.

There are materials we left outside. Great, thank you. Thank you again. Thank you.

I can take a motion while the mayor is busy for the consent agenda.

Madam Mayor, I approve. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda this evening.

Second. Great. Clerk, if there's no discussion.

Morales. Yes. Stead. Yes. Willits. Yes. Corliss. Yes. All in favor, motion carries.

Madam Mayor, I'll just mention real quick, I think we had in here, we have a lot of consent agenda items tonight, but in here, I think is the renewed partnership with the Humane Society for another year of their service for the city. So I appreciate staff's work on that and appreciate all the Humane Society does for us in our community.

Thank you. All righty. It looks like we have no ordinances. Is that your read of the agenda as well? Okay. We'll move into subdivisions. These are can move along pretty quickly most of the time. What I'm going to do is staff will come up to present on the subdivision. I'll check in to see if the applicant is in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report. If you are and if there are no questions, I'll just have council take action on it. And with that, Danielle, welcome. We've got Danielle from the city. I see Drew Alexander here from Boise State. Is there a neighborhood association or member of the public here for this item? Okay, then we'll follow the What I just suggested the. We will is there anybody online for this one okay great go ahead Danielle.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members, the item before you is. SOS 26-00005, a request by Boise State University to change the name of a private street from West Cesar Chavez Lane to West Friendship Lane. The private lane is located on the north side of the campus next to the Greenbelt on 101.6 acres property, generally located at 1910 West University Drive in an MXU zone. As detailed within the project report, the request meets the change in street name section of the code where Cesar Chavez Lane connects to Capitol Boulevard and terminates to the east onto Broadway Avenue. The current street is not located within a subdivision and it's a private lane that only serves the Boise State University campus and its facilities. The Ada County name community also recommended approval of the requested name change. Therefore, the planning team recommends approval for the street name change. Thank you, and I'll stand by any questions you may have.

Doesn't look like we've got questions for staff. This was a request from Boise State, so I'll go ahead and close the hearing and take a motion. Thank you, Danielle.

Madam Mayor, I move approval of SOS 36-5, the street name change at Boise State University. A second request.

We have a motion and a second discussion. Clerk?

Morales? Yes. Stead? Yes. Willits? Yes. Corliss? Yes. All in favor, motion carries.

Thank you. And now we've got the free house subdivision. We've got Doug Exton from the city. Connor Lindstrom, welcome. Anybody here talk about this one online? Okay, go ahead.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Before you tonight is a request for the approval of a preliminary and final plot for residential subdivision comprised of two buildable lots on 0.97 acres located at 10529 West Stardust Drive in an R1A residential large lot zone. Included in the application materials are requests to allow well water for the two-lot subdivision and to allow attached sidewalk on Stardust Drive, both of which will be discussed further. Regarding the well water, the site currently uses a well for the existing single-family home The request to utilize well water is at the discretion of Boise City Council and the planning team recommends not approving the well water request. Water lines are available in the surrounding area and extending well water or extending water lines is a common component of redevelopment. As summarized in the project report, the planning director did not waive the detached sidewalk requirements for Stardust Drive, a local roadway with no existing sidewalk. The director's determination is not before the council tonight and the path forward to allow attached sidewalk on Stardust Drive would be through a variance application. While the applicant did reference a nearby segment of attached sidewalk, the sidewalk was installed in 2016. The requirements for five mile road have been waived due to an upcoming ACHD project as summarized in the project report. Planning and zoning commission did have questions as to why water was not being extended as part of the upcoming five mile project and planning staff did not hear back from the highway district as to a reason why. A 30 foot landscape even is provided along five mile road per code and the lots do meet the dimensional standards of the R1A zone. And in conclusion, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, and I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Any questions for Doug? Yeah, Madam Mayor. Doug, thank you so much for this. Do we have a map to see where the water line is in relationship to the property?

Yes, I believe I have one in here. Here we go. Madam Mayor, Council Member Corliss, there is a water line in Franklin and Five Mile Road to the north, about 439 feet. to the south, there is also additional water lines further to the south with another subdivision that's down there just a little bit further away.

Madam Mayor, did you say further down on Five Mile? Correct. So we're about 440 feet. Yeah, being on a well, I know that this can be problematic. And I know if the resident chooses to pull that, it can be hundreds of thousands of dollars is the cost to pull that line. Do we, have they give us an estimate of what that would cost to hook up to the city service or not city, but to Veolia?

Madam Mayor, Council Member Corliss, I believe the applicant might be able to provide some numbers there. I know they've had some conversations with Veolia on the initial stages of things. But as I mentioned, in terms of that upcoming ACHD project, there's been no information as to why there's no coordination there to extend the water lines down.

Perfect. Thank you. Any further questions? All right, I'll ask if the applicant's in agreement. Yeah.

Thank you, Mayor. There is a condition that we would like to address regarding the well, so I have a presentation here. Thank you, Deb. I'll just skip right to it. Regarding the plot here, we have the two lots. Currently, it's a just under an acre, so we're looking to do 0.45, 0.47 acre lots. The house would remain on the east lot, and then the buildable lot would be on the west, specifically regarding the well situation. So we did speak with Veolia. They said that there are no approved plans to extend the water line south or north. So to the south, Bridge Tower is the closest water line there. It's about 1,000 feet away. And then to the north, as Doug pointed out, it's about 439 feet away. And there is the Reidenbach Canal that you'd have to bore underneath to extend that water line. We think maybe that's why Philae doesn't have any approved plans in place to extend that. It's also a fairly low-dense area for the city of Boise. This was a county subdivision that was in, and the surrounding subdivisions were then annexed into the city, so... Yeah, it's unfortunate that Veolia has no plans to extend that water line. In our research, it would be a significant cost. We don't have any specifics, but over $100,000 at least to extend that water line to the site. So that's our main requests before you. Planning and zoning was supportive of our request due to that lack of Veolia's extension. Regarding the sidewalk, You know, we do have very little sidewalk in this area. The red dots there show where sidewalk does exist, and those have been approved as attached sidewalks, specifically just across the street. This was a record survey that was approved in 2024 with attached sidewalks, so that's our request as well. But beyond that, we're supportive of staff's decision, the landscaping requirements, and I'll stand for any questions. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for for bringing that up. I mean, it's, it's such a hard thing. I mean, we want the housing out there. These got these beautiful large lots that can support more housing, kind of wish I would have thought this into more parcels. But we do have some problems with not extending water out there. I mean, we just go in this knowing that this is a problematic area for for water, a lot of wells go and dry out in those. But the recourse is spending over $100,000, which I think is an unfair due burden on the developer. Yeah. So I appreciate you running that down with us today. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Other questions? Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Anything more for staff? Madam Mayor, I just want to double check my understanding. So There is a condition that the subdivision be hooked up to city water.

Madam Mayor, Council Member Willis, that is correct. A typical process for a subdivision is that they do hook up to municipal water and municipal sewer. So in this case, it would be Veolia Water. There is a brief section in code that allows city council to authorize well water. But traditionally, planning team has always been very black and white on the hooking up to city water.

Thank you. And then the question regarding what Planning and Zoning said about this, could you clarify what they said about the well water versus hooking up to city services?

Of course. Yeah, Planning and Zoning Commission had similar sentiments to Council Member Corliss where acknowledging ideally we do want that water service brought down and having that water service extended. would open up more development opportunity in the surrounding area as well. And that's where the questions about ACHG extending that water line came from. But they did also acknowledge that it is going to be very expensive for a two-law subdivision to have to extend that down as well.

So educate us on this because, you know, we have extended the opportunity to hook into city water. And in some areas, it's much cheaper to do so when it's there. What happens in this kind of no man's land where it's I mean, this is a developed part of town. I mean, five mile is a major artery, but everyone is on a well. At what point does the opportunity become available for those folks to hook into city water? Or is this like once we say you can use a well, it's a well forever?

Madam Mayor, council members. If City Council did grant the use of the wells for both properties here, there is one existing well right now, so it would be adding an additional well to the area. That would essentially be until either property chooses to either redevelop further or there is water service there and they choose to electively join on without redevelopment. Otherwise, it would essentially be waiting until water is brought up. There's another subdivision in this general area that was heard of probably two months ago that's bringing some water in as well. So there is already some water coming in kind of from the southeast into this area, the Chupin Cotterell, kind of in that same neighborhood there. So there is already some water lines slowly being extended through redevelopment as well. But at this time, either pretty much stay on the well and redrill if it goes dry or orders don't redevelop is kind of that situation right now, unfortunately.

Might I make one more question? I had a constituent reach out to me who was just across the street in my district and he did an extension added onto his home and he had to actually then get on the city water because the permit only allowed for that amount of water with the well. So I think we do need to be cognizant that if If someone puts an ADU in there or if they remodel and extend, they will be forced to be on city water. We ran that trap with this gentleman. And so I just want to make that clear that folks know that going in. I understand the cost issues. I totally get it. This poor guy, he paid a fortune to do it. It wasn't even that much of a larger home that he was remodeling. But I think we need to be clear with folks about what that means.

All right, anything further? I'll go ahead and close this.

Madam Mayor, I move approval of the Freehouse Subdivision SUB 26-26 preliminary and final plot at 10529 West Stardust Drive as recommended in the staff report without the approved well water conditions. I think you know what I mean.

I was. Can you repeat that? Sorry.

Approval of the subdivision as recommended in the staff report without the well water approval.

Okay, correct.

Yes. So then I just need a second.

Do we have a second? Second. Okay, just to be clear that this is a motion to approve as recommended by staff, which included a deferral of the city water requirement.

No, of requiring the city water requirement.

You were adding in the city water requirements?

Yes, without the well water approval.

That's my motion. Okay, so it's different than what staff is recommending, which is fine. I just want to make sure that everybody knows what they're voting on. Are you requiring the applicant to connect to city water?

Yes.

Okay, so this... Okay, the seconder rescinds her second.

Do I have a second?

Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. This motion requires the developer to hook up to City Water. Discussion?

Madam Mayor, this is a tricky part of town, no doubt, and I'm eager to hear from those closer to it. But what I do hear often is about wells drying up and the the issues that that causes in those neighborhoods and for those residents. And I believe in making smarter development decisions the first time. And that might mean that this is not ready for development yet or that there's a different funding stack that needs to be acquired to make it happen. But I would like to I mean, it seems short-sighted of us to be approving development that allows wells when we hear regularly from well owners complaining that their development was not required to be on city water.

Yeah, I'm in the mirror. You know, my reasoning tracks with Council President Stead. I think, you know, in our city, we have constituents consistently asking us to ensure that we build infrastructure to meet growth needs and we do need more housing. And the part of that infrastructure that's of most concern really is water. And we need to be doing that in a way that is resilient and And the way that you build that infrastructure that you need is through new development. And there's different kinds of development. Some development doesn't pencil for certain types of infrastructure. And in an area like this that is substandard that doesn't have that infrastructure already, you know, this project may need to look different or it may need to be more partners. But we have to, you know, we have to consider what the needs are for our community long term, you know, several generations really. and getting the proper infrastructure in there for a critical resource like water. So that's supporting this motion.

Madam Mayor, this one is real tricky, and I know my fellow council members have heard from me. I am on a well, and my well did go dry a couple years ago, and it's an exorbitant cost. To put in a new well is really around $30,000. And it can be tricky. It's difficult to be in this position. You have a property that for you, you never had the opportunity to be on the services. The city's not offering to pull those services. Veolia is not offering to bring those services. Yeah, as a taxpayer, you're fully taxed on everything else for services that aren't there. So your property, you become unable then your property is now restricted without any fault of your own to do any sort of development because there's a refusal to bring those services out to that area. And I agree, I don't think we need to compound the interest per se, but I think adding one extra housing unit and one well is certainly not going to have a deep impact into future generations being provided water. And this can help for them to use their property and to develop that as they see fit and they have right to do. And it's allowed under code with the approval of the well. That's how I'm kind of looking at that. And until at such time, Veolia, or there's enough development, large development up there that will drive the services. But I'm glad this is brought up tonight because this is driving a bigger problem in the city. And it is something the city is going to need to look at and to address because it's not only there's not city water out there, there's not fire hydrants. A lot of these residents are paying higher costs for insurance as well because of it. So I feel like I'm talking a little bit out both sides of my mouth, but I guess the reason why I'm approving this tonight is because Because it's one resident, it's one well, and I feel that they have a better right to their property to divide that, and it's not going to have a significant impact to water service today or for future generations.

Madam Mayor, I'm going to oppose the motion because it doesn't include the option for the property owner to put a well. Correct. Okay. Just make sure that we all understand. Thank you so much. I live in West Boise. I love this area. I frequent this area all the time. I want more people to have the opportunity to live in West Boise. And we have these wonderful parcels that can support a few more homes and still have a very, very big lot. I think what you're hearing up here is this angst because we all know that it's either pay now or pay later. And at some point, someone will pay. My concern about denying the opportunity for a well here is that it increases the cost of the home. So we are going to lose any sort of opportunity for the development to be reasonably priced because you're going to have to eat those costs and the homeowner is going to have to pay it. And so if we want more housing, but we want to keep it within the realm of attainable, I think the city requiring a well here is placing a tax on you that is going to end up with a taxpayer. Having said that, though, at some point, the person that buys this home is going to have to pay because the well could run dry. Or there's an opportunity to hook to city water services. It would be my preference that we're very upfront about that. if this goes through, because then people can plan for it and they know. My constituent across the way had a really expensive bill. And to Kathy's point, it wasn't his doing. But to deny an opportunity for a family to live in West Boise, Fort One Well, I want a family in West Boise. So I will oppose the motion. that requires city water.

And Madam Mayor, just to confirm, as Council Member Morales said, I want to make sure I'm clear that I am also opposing the motion that requires the well.

No, the motion requires city water. You said requires the well.

I'm sorry. That was my... I apologize for that. I promise we... This is live theater. Thank you for being here. This is improv. Thank you, Mayor. Let me restate. I am going to oppose the motion that requires city water because I would prefer that the government allow you to drill your own well for one home so that more people can live in West Boise on a larger lot. Okay.

And you said you oppose requiring the well.

I support that.

I just want to make sure everybody knows. I agree.

Yeah. Thank you, Mayor, because I've said this wrong twice now. I'm opposing the motion that requires the developer to hook up to city services and allows them to go move forward with the development and to develop a well onto the property.

Great. It's rare that I vote. I guess I'm voting on this one tonight. Typically, I would be persuaded by staff because you've suggested that we could defer this. However, I heard from council member Willits, even though you're not voting for it, the issues that your constituent is having to no fault of his own because of a decision made when a different decision could be made. I hear often from this council member over here and your constituents about what's the city gonna do now to provide water when wells have dried up. And because of that, in this unusual situation, I'm compelled by your arguments that you made in making this motion that we know this will be a problem later, so why aren't we dealing with it now? We need to make it possible for ADUs and other things and remodels to be done and to not get the question or punted to another council of what are you going to do for water for us when the city didn't require it in the past. So for that reason, I'll be voting for the motion. Clerk?

Morales? Yes. Stead? Yes. Willits? No. Corliss? No. Madam Mayor, there's a tie. If you can please cast your vote.

Yes.

Motion carries.

All righty. Well, that was a thing. Thank you very much. We're going to move on to the public hearing now. This is CUP 26-9. Doug, you're still with us.

I've got both the land group and Givens listed.

Are you doing this one, Elizabeth? Okay, great. And then do we have the neighborhood association here? Is Donna online?

Nope. Okay.

No neighborhood association currently. If they show up, we'll give them their time. I've got folks signed up. So I'll go first through this list. And then if I didn't call you, You can still talk. I just ask that you come on up to the front row and so we can move through this relatively efficiently. And then also we'll say, I believe that many of you are here with the applicant. And if you want to refer to what's been said, we can do that too. Whatever is most comfortable. Doug, go ahead. And welcome, everybody.

Good evening again, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Before you tonight is an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of a modification of a conditional use permit for a surface parking lot associated with a religious institution generally located at 1110 West Hay Street on 0.42 acres in an R3NCO residential urban with near north end character overlay zones. Shown on screen are the standards of appeals for conditional use permits. On May 11, 2026, the Planning and Donating Commission denied the CUP and the associated variance application. The CUP was appealed, and on July 6, 2026, the Planning and Donating Commission chose to not reconsider their denial of just the variance, summarized in the project report. The CUP modification was part of a request to expand a conditional use permit from 1983 onto the adjacent undeveloped one-quarter block and construct an additional surface parking lot. The variance that was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission to deviate from the near north end character overlay is not before council tonight. The appellant references two religious freedom laws, ARLUPA and FERPA, as shown in the project report. and the associated reason statements from prior decisions. It is unnecessary to analyze the city's interest as no burden on religion was established. Furthermore, many alternatives exist to add more parking while complying with city code. As shown on the screen, for example, are bus routes and bikeways in the general area. With a new parking garage in the yellow box, Main Street Station is 0.72 miles away from the site. The second appeal ground argues that the determination of the surface parking lot to be a primary use incorrect. And as such, the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The planning team stands by the determination that the parking lot while off-site to the religious institution is considered a primary use for Boise City code. The code section is shown on screen in bold as a statement about how accessory uses need to be on the same lot as the principal use. The existing surface parking lot is separated by a public street and therefore not on the same lot as the existing religious institution. Additional public comments.

Doug, will you go back to that slide? I just wanted to read the second part. Oh, it's an exception in ADU or tiny home. Okay, great. Thanks.

Additional public comments were submitted as part of the appeal, expressing the similar opposition that was found in some of the comments from that original application. Additionally, the appellant also submitted an additional supplemental memo containing similar arguments to their initial memo that was accompanied in their appeal. In conclusion, the planning team recommends that council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's denial of the conditional use permit. And I would be happy to stand for any questions.

Madam Mayor? Doug? You get two fun ones tonight, don't you? Good to see you. Thank you for all your hard work in helping us understand. Could you go back to the map? Because I want to better understand where the parking lot is and where the cathedral is.

a pointer oh yeah will you um use your just a little triangle right there and explain thanks thank you madam mayor council members so this is the existing religious institution theater of the rockies there is one parking lot here that is owned by them this is the parking lot where the conditional use permit modification was proposed to expand it into this area as well and they do have a third parking lot right here that's already existing So the modification, the variants were for this quarter lot. There's that community garden there along, I believe, Hay or Fort Street, just to kind of help add some more context to where exactly we are.

Thank you. Madam Mayor, thank you for this. There is supposed to be a new parking garage structure, I believe, a couple blocks away. Can you kind of indicate where that's at on the map?

Yes, Madam Mayor, Council Member Corliss. It's this yellow little block here right by the new YMCA. So I believe it's only about three, four blocks.

And that is a public parking structure? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Further questions for staff? All right, Elizabeth, come on up.

This is really tough.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Boise City Council. I'm Elizabeth Kekritz. I'm Land Use Council with Givens Persley, 601 Bannock, Boise, Idaho. I'm here representing Cathedral of the Rockies. Their real name is actually First United Methodist Church of Boise, which is something I learned with this. We have members of the sort of the leadership of the cathedral, as well as Matt Adams, our landscape architect here. And they will be able to answer questions I'm not able to. Cathedral is asking you to grant its appeal and approve this modest 35-space parking facility on property that Cathedral already owns, immediately adjacent to its existing parking lot and directly across the street from Hayes and the Cathedral campus. There are two independent reasons why Council can grant this appeal tonight and grant it completely outright. First, the city's own code can and should be interpreted to permit this, allow this parking as an accessory use, which is just outright allowed by city code. And second, and this is what we'll spend most of our time talking about, is Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protection Act, FERPA, imposes a legal standard that we respectfully submit absolutely requires approval of this parking lot. Going through. Here's the location zoomed in a little bit more so you can see where it is. And then especially in answer to your question, Council Member Willits, here you can see this is the corner that we are proposing to place the parking lot on. It's right at the corner of Hayes and North 11th Street. And then you can also see it if you were at the alley looking back towards the field and the cathedral. We are not simply proposing just to pave a vacant lot. This proposal really did its best to take into account all of the city's various planning objectives. It includes alley access rather than street access, pedestrian connections, stormwater facilities, safety lighting, tree protection and mitigation, substantial new landscaping and wide buffers on Hayes and 11th Street. And the purpose of these 35 spaces is straightforward. The cathedral is not trying to get into the parking business. They want this parking to act as parking to serve cathedral and the people who go there. The project will also move vehicles that are already coming to cathedral from other neighborhoods and into a more organized landscape facility on property that cathedral owns, which helps alleviate some of the parking pressures on those surrounding streets. First, there's a straightforward path to just outright approval under the city's own code. Staff relies on the general rule that an accessory use must be located with the principal use. But there is a specific exception to that. In the R3 zone, parking may be located up to 600 feet from the principal use it serves. And that's what we propose. Staff has taken the position that a principal use and the accessory have to be on the same lot. But if that were the case, why would this exception exist? If separate offsite parking automatically becomes a prohibited use, then this exception has no meaning. Additionally, the Near North End overlay talks about on-site surface parking lots larger than 2,500 square feet are prohibited. But the proposal is not for off-site parking. The proposal is for off-site parking, not for on-site parking. When you look at the actual cathedral, it takes up the entire block. There is simply no way to get more parking on the lot. And offsite parking is defined in city code as the parking that's located on a different parcel to the principal use this is an accessory use if the cathedral didn't exist, there would be no need for the cathedral to ask to have parking at this location. But that's all sort of beside the point because the really, the easier issue, or maybe not the easier issue, but where you can really focus the attention today is on the religious protection laws. There's the federal law, which was adopted in November of 2000, but then there's also, which is called ARLUPA, and then there's the state law, which actually predates the federal law and was adopted specifically in response to a certain case where the state said, we want our protections and we're allowed to have our protections more all-encompassing than the federal law. That was recognized in both a state court case and in a federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case. And I'm sorry, this conversation is going to be much more legally technical than what I like to stand up and present to people typically. So FERPA. The primary point is that free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in the state, even if the laws, rules, or other government actions are facially neutral. And it's really a three-part test. Is there an exercise of religion? Does denial substantially burden that exercise? And then it's a 3A and a 3B. Is the burden essential to further a compelling government interest? And is it the least restrictive means of furthering that interest? First, is there an exercise of religion? The city has questioned whether there's an exercise of religion here because the application concerns a parking lot, but that's not FERPA's definition. The statute defines the exercise of religion as the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not it's compulsory or central to a larger system. Constructing this parking lot and having a place to park when going to church is substantially motivated by religious belief. People are trying to go to church. The parking lot doesn't have to be compulsory or central to the religion, but it certainly is a very important piece of that. It just has to be substantially motivated by religion. Cathedral seeks to use its own property to facilitate access to worship, ministry, religious education, funerals, outreach, and other activities through which it carries out its religious mission. On the average workday, 70 to 80 people work at Cathedral of the Rockies. This includes the preschool cast, the different ministries, including Alzheimer's and dementia care, other ministries of the church, and direct church employees. It doesn't include drop off for the kids programs and that doesn't include all of the volunteers that go there on the daily basis. On the weekends, the number of people in attendance on Sundays is between 550 and 650 on average. And large funerals can exceed 850 people. They're almost never held during the week anymore because of the lack of parking because of Boise High obviously is taking up a lot of the spaces around there. This is a map Of all of the people who donated to Cathedral of Rockies in the past year, 954 households donated. And it looks like at least 90% of the donors live more than one mile away from Cathedral. Presumably, most of them that are donating are also attending the church. And as the map shows, they come from all across the Treasure Valley. They need to get the ability to get to the church and to attend services. The second question is, does the denial of this parking lot substantially burden the exercise of religion? And it absolutely does. FERPA defines substantial burden as simply to inhibit or curtail religiously motivated practices and expressly provides that this requirement exists only to exclude trivial, technical, or de minimis burdens. Denial of the parking lot has certainly inhibited the cathedral's religiously motivated practices, and it's far more than a trivial burden, especially for elderly parishioners, persons with disabilities, caregivers, and families with young children. This is one of the few churches in an era of fewer and fewer people going to church that is actually continuing to thrive and it's continuing to grow. In the last few years, they've been working on adopting, they now have three services on Sunday. The parking is central to its religious mission and its ability to continue to grow. It allows them to increase the density of the use of the building by adding more services and adding more community outreach. It is all mission-based. And the alternatives identified by staff don't eliminate that burden. Public transfer is not available on Sundays when cathedral's primary worship occurs, nor is requiring cathedral to construct a building it doesn't need merely so it can provide additional parking a meaningful solution, and nor are congregants required to attend the Amity branch. They have the legal right to worship at the branch where they want to attend. They don't have to show that denial makes worship impossible. The question is whether the city's decision inhibits cathedrals sincerely held religiously motivated conduct. And under Idaho's specifically very broad standard, it does. So finally, compelling government interest. The city then must demonstrate that this burden is essential to furthering a compelling government interest, and it's the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. And there is an important point in the staff report tonight because staff states that it concluded they didn't establish a burden. It considered unnecessary to analyze the city's interest or whether denial is the least restrictive means. The city absolutely has a legitimate interest in neighborhood character and thoughtful development and Cathedral absolutely respects those interests. But quite honestly, under the case law, those interests simply don't rise to the threshold of a compelling government interest. It requires, FERPA requires more than planning objectives. If religious exercise is substantially burdened, the question becomes, is this outright denial the least restrictive way to protect those interests? And I don't believe that it does. If you look at what Cathedral has already proposed, they're proposing landscaping, substantial buffers, alleyway access, pedestrian improvements, stormwater facilities, lighting and other measures that are specifically designed to address neighborhood impacts. This is a congregation that has specifically tried to meet with the city's code. We have Other congregations that would say, you know, we don't have to follow any of that. FERPA lets us do this, period. We don't have to put in the buffers. We don't have to do the enhanced landscaping. Cathedral wants to work with the city. They want to put in this parking lot that they are legally entitled to do, but they want to do it in the most... They want to come to the table and do it within the most neighborly way possible, trying to get... trying to address the city's concerns with the parking lot without prohibiting the project altogether and so we submit council has two paths to the same result you can either look at it through the lens of it's allowed by right by one reading of the city code um or importantly, you can also look at it and should look at it through the lens of FERPA. This isn't an ordinary land use decision because it is a religious exercise. It needs to be looked at through that more careful looking glass. And so we do ask that you approve the parking lot tonight. Questions for the applicant?

Nope. All right. Looks like there are no questions.

Thank you.

I am going to start going through this list. First, I've got Wyatt Johnson, and then Terry Frisk, you're on deck, and Max, I think it's Corbett.

Madam Mayor, members of the City Council, Wyatt Johnson, 199 North Capitol, Boise. The staff is right. in its assessment of this application for a major modification of a non-conforming pre-existing use. It's a parking lot in the North End Overlay District. Significant policy choices went into crafting this North End Overlay District. And in order to have a major modification, you've gotta comply with the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan does not contemplate new vast parking lots in this district it seeks higher density pedestrian friendly bicycle transit. work. The religious. exception that they're requesting. it's. there's there's not a. Zoning laws do not apply only to bad people, and the law does not go as far as they ask in this particular case. I submitted comments which are with the materials, and I've submitted cases dealing with this. Here's text from a decision in Michigan. Now, granted, it's under the federal law, but I think it's applicable here, and I'm just going to read it because I think it clarifies this. This had to do with the application of a zoning ordinance to a church. And the analysis by the court was, a substantial burden on one's religious exercise exists where there is government action that coerces one into acting contrary to one's religious beliefs by way of doing something that one's religious prohibits or refraining from doing something that one's religion requires. That is a substantial burden exists where one is forced to choose between violating the law or forfeiting an important benefit and violating one's religious tenets. A mere inconvenience or irritation does not constitute a substantial burden. Similarly, something that simply makes it more difficult in some respect to practice one's religion does not constitute a substantial burden. Rather, a substantial burden is something that coerces individuals acting contrary to their religious beliefs. Idaho statute specifically notes that a substantial burden does not include trivial technical or diminutive misinfractions. We're talking about a new parking lot for a church that's been functioning perfectly well for many, many years. And in fact, it's thriving and it's seeking to expand a parking lot and it has nothing to do with their operations. I don't, think that it's fair to come in and say that they don't need to follow the same specific zoning requirements in this case for something that's merely a parking lot.

Great. Thank you. Questions? All right. Thanks. Terry, welcome. And then Max and then Adam Burdell.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Terry Frisk, residing at 2928 East Autumn Way in Meridian. And I have been a member of the Cathedral of the Rockies for 25 years and currently serve on the church governing council. I live 10 miles away from the cathedral and people often ask me why I bypass a Methodist church that is within two miles of where I live to drive there. You know, the answer is simple. Local churches are not commodities like fast food chains. Each has its own distinct culture. While some look inward, the cathedral looks outward. We focus on outreach to our community. We're a vital lifeline for Boise. We feed the hungry, partner with Habitat for Humanity, support Boise High students, provide Alzheimer's respite care, and proudly champion the LGBTQ plus community. Our message resonates deeply with many, but our physical capacity cannot keep up. As Boise grows, the demand for outreach grows with it. A strong foundation of committed Christians is essential to sustain our outreach ministries, and that commitment is nurtured through regular worship. While online options for worship exist, you cannot share communion or physical fellowship through a screen. A thriving church community requires steady in-person worship. The cathedral has over 2,300 members with about 650 attending every Sunday. And because 90% of our congregation lives more than a mile away, driving is a necessity to get there. Our parking shortage is not an abstract inconvenience. It is a barrier to entry. Worshippers are forced to park blocks away on neighborhood streets. This creates a severe burden for our older adults, people with disabilities, and young families. It turns away first-time guests who don't know where to go. Our attendance reached 1,480 last Easter and totaled over 3,200 across our five Christmas Eve services. During these holy times when in-person worship is especially meaningful, the parking shortage becomes so severe that it has discouraged even my wife and I from attending. And like many others, we sometimes choose to stay home rather than face the difficulty of finding parking. So we welcome everyone who wishes to worship and serve Boise. To do that, we need infrastructure to accommodate them. So please approve our request for this parking lot. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, I have a quick question. Hi, thank you so much for coming out tonight. I have sent many, many people to Cathedral of the Rockies because I really appreciate all the community work. Is there, so it sounds like My question is around how is 35 Spots going to check this box of the thousands of cars that come into the neighborhood?

Well, 35 cars would transport probably around 100 people. In addition to our current parking lot, it'll relieve the tension from the local neighbors, especially during the week when Boise High is in session.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor. Gary, thank you for being here tonight with us and for providing your testimony. I had a question for you. You talked about Christmas services having five congregations, meeting times. What's the regular normal Sunday? How many meeting times do you have on a regular Sunday?

Last year it averaged 650.

Sorry, I guess how many individual meeting times, like times of service? Three times. Okay, thanks.

We have three services each Sunday.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Max? Wait. Yes, Max, behind you. And then Adam. Great. And then Ken McClure and Duane Anders. Hey.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I will be short. I'm Max Corbett of Southeast Boise, and I'm a member of the Church Council, and I'm also the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the Church Council. I'll be very brief if they've already kind of covered what we're discussed here tonight. But the main thing I think is just our church, as mentioned, I think Elizabeth mentioned, is growing. We have a lot of programs that we're very proud of helping, whether it's collective care for Alzheimer's people. We have friendship feats. Also, we have for the different homeless people that come around. in our childcare and just the different mission programs that we have. One of our key goals at our church is providing missions and in a lot of different ways for a lot of different people. And just, it takes people and the staff is there. And we have a lot of volunteers that come. And I just, your question about, I think about the 35, how is that going to, well, We could do more. We would love to do more. But that's what we're looking at. Because with that many people, it's going to make a big improvement on us, though, by able to at least have 35 more spots there during these different services. to help relieve that. And especially I was down there today on a day when the school's going on, it's very difficult for, if a lot's fill up for anybody to come, especially people that have handicaps or having to walk and coming across the street. So I just wanted to mention that. I appreciate your thought and time for tonight and hopefully the approval of this mission for our church. Thank you.

Thanks, Matt. If I can ask you a question here. Hey, thank you very much for your work and really appreciate that the church is mission driven. It has lots of great programs throughout our community. Question, are some of these programs offered at your Amity campus in West Boise?

I will let Pastor Adam speak to that. He's our pastor at our Amity campus. The answer is kind of yes and no. I mean, there's some mission work that we have out there, like our food pantry is at our Amity campus. And they also have some other missions that they're the ones that we've been talking about here, mainly at the property here at the cathedral. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Adam, come on up. And then Ken and then Dwayne.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council.

Grateful. Adam Burdell. I live at CUNA, Idaho. I'm one of the pastors at Cathedral of the Rockies. And I can affirm our parking challenges. Churches are rarely static organizations. People die, people move, new people come. Churches tend to either shrink or grow. And we are growing. And so we're serving in new ways and something that we're particularly proud of right now is providing one of the state's only programs for respite for families caring for loved ones with dementia and that's a weekday program where we really really feel the pressure of our parking restrictions currently i serve as the pastor out at the amity campus where we have our food pantry on monday nights and uh encourage any of y'all to come on out and join us on a food pantry night. It's a really fun opportunity to serve. And we're grateful for all. the eight acres we have out at Amity when it comes to the way that pantry draws so much of the community to us on Mondays. But when it comes to programs like our respite program for the caregivers of family members with dementia, there's just no substitute for better access at our downtown site. So thank you, and I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Thanks, Pastor. Yeah, Madam Mayor. Pastor, thanks so much for being out here. I have attended your church out at Amity. It's a very nice facility. But curious, so for your respite care for Alzheimer's, have you tried that out at the other facility?

There would be demand for it there, for sure. So as we look to expand that program, the Amity campus is certainly a place we've considered. It's a little bit of a service desert out in that neighborhood. It really is. But the demand downtown is just... Enormous. Well, I think we have a lot of expansion opportunities for that ministry, but it's just so critical downtown.

Yeah. And I guess I'm just trying to get at that is, is the demand downtown is because it's only, that's where it's at is downtown or is it the people are just so, so much closer to the downtown area that it couldn't be expanded to another location?

Great question. Yeah. I don't have a map of where those participants are coming from.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah. Great. And then final question since I have you up here and you're a pastor, um, it does, uh, I guess, Cathedrals Rockies, do they offer any transportation services to their patrons for services?

Right. Our motor pool is limited to the preschool and the daycare facility. They have our buses. That's the only transportation to and from the site.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the council. I'm Ken McClure. I'm not a pastor. I'm not in the church management currently. I have, however, been a member of the cathedral for 45 years or so. I had the privilege of helping work on the assembly of this property in order to provide parking for the church. When the church was built in 1960 and opened, it was under-parked then. It's still under-parked. And we had the good fortune or perhaps I should say the misfortune of having a member die who left us a bequest to acquire additional property for parking. This property was acquired with that bequest for the sole purpose of parking. It has always been a need of the church since 1960 to have this additional parking. In fits and starts, we've attempted to get some over the years. In fact, we bought the whole block, assembled those lots over a 10-year period probably, and I had the privilege of being involved in that. But to your question, Councilmember, yes, 35 spaces is just 35 spaces. On the other hand, it's a good start, and it fills a significant need. We have slightly over 100 spaces currently. If we were to build this facility today, your parking requirements would be for us to have 225 spaces, which is something that we obviously will fall far short of after this parking lot is built, if it is approved. We have a problem with parking. You go around our church and just come sit and watch people circling the block and parking several blocks away. It's kind of a funny thing. I attend the 11 o'clock service, and you could clock it every week as people trickle in from 11 until about 11, 12 or so, as they have found parking either further away or parking from people who have left the 10 o'clock service. It's a problem. It is impairing our growth opportunities. And we would be very grateful if you would help us expand our parking so that we could serve the parishioners that we do serve. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Dwayne Anders. I'm the lead pastor at Cathedral of the Rockies. Thank you for this time. As you know, Cathedral's been part of the downtown Boise area environment for over 150 years. We were here before Idaho was a state, and throughout our history, we have tried to be more than a building where people gather on Sunday. We've tried to be good neighbors and good partners in the community. Nearly every week, over a thousand folks will come through the doors for classes, preschool, weddings, funerals, recovery groups, community meetings, children's ministry, music programs, opportunities to serve. Every day we feed people who are hungry. We provide food, diapers, basic necessities. We open our doors during the heat and the cold. We support ministries like Interfaith Sanctuary, Boise Rescue Mission, and other organizations serving our city's most vulnerable people. One of the challenges, as you heard, we face is parking. 35 spaces becomes 100 spaces when we flip them three times on a Sunday. 35 spaces is more than a trivial need. For older adults who want to attend worship but cannot walk multiple blocks, it's more than trivial for families who bring young children to church or that spouse who brings their loved one for dementia care. It's more than trivial than for folks attending a funeral when they're looking for street parking. It's about volunteers who arrive early in the morning to prepare meals or distribute food. It's about making our building accessible to our neighbors and to the city we are trying to serve. Over the years, actually parking that was once available to us has steadily declined. As the city has worked hard to make the streets safer, we've lost parking. As we've bumped out the corners, which we appreciate to make parking safer, make walking safer, we've lost on each corner a few parking spaces. As Boise High redid the football field, they removed about 25 parking spaces that we used on Sunday morning, pushed down and built the Baptist a parking lot, I say. We celebrate that. We love being a downtown church. We want to continue to be a partner in a thriving city. And the reality is our church continues to grow and we need more availability. One of the questions I think we have to ask as the city grows is what's it mean to remain in the heart of Boise? Churches, schools, nonprofits, shelters, organizations, we all need the ability to adapt if we're going to remain downtown. If every change makes it harder for us to stay downtown, over time, some of the very organizations that make downtown character great will make other decisions. We want to stay downtown. We want to serve people downtown, feed people downtown, welcome people downtown, be a place where all continues to mean all. Thank you for considering this option. Questions? Madam Mayor?

Mr. Pat, first of all, thank you for all you do. I really appreciate you being here. My question for you tonight would be talking about getting to parking and getting to parking in a way that this would not, would allow for in current zoning through mixed use. And I guess, I don't know if this is an appropriate question for you or for, or maybe it's for the givens personally that's here. But is there, are there things that are inhibiting you from being able to develop this property in a way that could provide parking and a mixed use that would be required in this.

Well, it was years ago we came before you and wanted to build housing and were told no at the time. Different code, different time. We come before to build parking and we were told you should build housing. And so we felt caught. And it feels funny at times to say build housing so you can get parking. We are open to the discussion about affordable housing on the full block. But at the same time, we can't lose parking. Every time I've had a discussion with a developer that wants to buy, I'm like, you can buy it as long as I get 100 parking spaces. And so there are conversations like that. I mean, if it was a perfect world, we'd say we we would park on the grass for another 10 years. And, you know, but that option went away with the new code. We used to get permission from the city and pay for a way to park on the grass. And with a new code, that option went away. So it's almost forced us to ask for parking.

So I've actually, Pastor, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions because who knows, this is one of those nights I might be voting. You know, you sent me an email, which I really appreciated. And I want to say first off that your church, your community does incredible work and makes people know that they are welcome here. And I see you as a key partner in our work. to ensure that Boise is a safe and welcoming city for everyone.

Thank you.

I say that because I also want to be clear that a decision related to parking, from my perspective, is separate from that partnership. And to be pushed on the religious question in parking when we've had other churches come to us having had issues appealed and not made that argument, makes me think that we aren't the ones to be deciding that. But in your email that you sent to me, you said you wanted to talk about how we could partner and you put housing in that email. And so I'd like you to talk a little bit more about that because I remember when housing was turned down and it wasn't this council and it was not the codes that we have now and that wouldn't happen now. But I hear you saying that you need parking And then I read you writing that you wanted to talk about partnership and housing was in that list. So what would you need to see to make something temporary work for the moment? And then what do you envision that partnership to be?

I think the challenge before us in partnership is most of the things that have been proposed so far have been five plus years out. That's... not that long out, but it's a long way out.

So five years with no answer of parking is really tough.

So there has to be some form of compromise in the midst of that to say, how can we, if we seek to do housing on part of the property or all the property, how do we find a midway to alleviate this issue between now and when something is built?

So is this request being made because the new code had the unintended consequence of allowing your temporary solution of a grass lot to work?

Can you say it one more time? I'm sorry.

Is the request that you've made this application, was it put in because our new zoning code had the unintended consequence of preventing the temporary solution that you've had of a grass lot from working any longer?

Yes.

Okay. That's unfortunate.

That is unfortunate.

Because... paving is not temporary right okay um the i think i'll leave it there right now thank you is there anybody else in here that would like to speak come on up and it you're good okay Elizabeth, will you grab a chair for the mic that's here on the, there's a, it's so good to see you, ma'am. There's a, there's a chair right here with a mic. And see, there's this mic is right here designed. Great. Elizabeth, will you turn that button on, please? And we'll come down, we'll get the copies from you.

Thank you.

Nice to see you here. Usually I see you.

My name is Eleanor Cheehee. I live at 617 North Ross Street in Boise. My family joined First United Methodist Church when I was in the third grade. I was a student at Boise High when the new church was being built. We lived in the East End and I rode the bus to Boise High with all the rich kids from Warm Springs Avenue and Mobley Drive. Bora High opened when I was a junior at Boise High. It was built on a big open field out on the bench with an athletic field and lots of parking for faculty and students. Downtown people thought that Boise High students should have equal opportunities. My classmates did not mind going over to the Fort Boise fields for football practice and other activities. outdoor activities. There were two blocks of old houses west of the school. The district bought those old houses and tore them down to build a play field for Boise High. The district and the city of Boise gave Boise High students on street parking permits to park in the neighborhood. They parked for blocks around the school. The north end is a much more high toned neighborhood than it was in my youth. Big old houses have been turned into studio apartments that rented for $50 to $75 a month. In 1972, my husband and I moved back to Boise. We looked at a nice big old house on 18th Street that was for sale for $25,000. There are likely more Boise High students with cars now than there were in the 1960s. Our church is across the street from Boise High. We started buying property to provide parking for weekday activities. We have lots of active retired members who meet during the week. Families who know about the parking situation schedule funerals on Saturdays during the school year. Governor Batt moved to Boise in his later years and became a member of the church. When he died, his Canyon County family scheduled his funeral for a weekday during the school year and the legislative session. I called Governor Little's office and suggested that they do a service in the Capitol because parking at the church is scarce. The church has three services on Sunday at 9, 10, and 11 o'clock. People stay around and visit between services. It would be really nice if we could have that extra parking lot with some more handicapped parking spaces. My husband and I rarely attend on Sundays because it could be a several blocks walk from our car. We would really like to have that last quarter of the block made available for parking. Why are people objecting to that? Thank you for listening.

Thanks, Eleanor. I love seeing you at the library and other things. It's rare that I see you here, so it's wonderful to have you.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Any questions?

And I actually have a question. Is what you just read to us what you handed us?

Is what?

Is what you read to us what you handed to us, the piece of paper that you shared with us? Great. Okay. Thanks. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Oh, come on up. Oh, I didn't recognize you. I was about to call you, sir. I think I'll just call you Jim. Oh, Jim, will you turn that green light off on that one? Thanks. Welcome.

Thanks for having me. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm sorry. My thoughts aren't totally collected because my neighbor who is a member of the congregation asked if I would come down and speak as I've Talked to her about this issue before. But good evening council members and mayor. I'm Jim Walker. I live directly across the street from this church property. My home is actually a kitty corner from the church. So I get to see and experience the parking situation in the neighborhood every day. I'm here tonight to strongly support the church's appeal for the proposed parking lot. And I understand the historic missions, preservation commissions, decision here, but I think, because I've had to deal with the Historic Preservation Committee in several occasions of my house and I've always found it to be fair and the decision is to be in line with what the city wants and what the neighborhood wants. But I believe in this case, the decision does not actually adequately consider what is actually happening in the neighborhood today. Since this neighborhood is adjacent to Boise High, During the school year students routinely parked throughout our neighborhood and there are many days when my neighbors and I simply cannot park in front of our own homes. Then add in church activities, particularly funerals and other large gatherings like on holidays and the parking situation becomes even more difficult. We end up with competing demands for the same limited parking and not to mention there's a past the preschool at the church. That creates additional congestion, and it's a big safety hazard, not only for the folks who are attending the church services, but for the children who are walking between the vehicles in the school. I think it's important to consider what is actually there today. The property, it's been bare for 20 years, just a bare lot with brown weeds. And I'd rather see it turned into a properly designed and landscaped parking lot with trees and landscaping. something would add to the appeal of the neighborhood. You know, the church has the option to sell to the developer and who knows where it goes from there. If you think back to 25 years ago when the church was moving houses off that lot in order to build the parking, it's been almost 25 years and they haven't been able to add parking yet. And they've abandoned some of their previously thought of development ideas with housing and parking below. In fact, they have been gracious enough to provide part of the lot for the community garden, and it's finally taken shape into a community amenity that serves people from throughout the neighborhood, and I'm just here to ask you to support the church in their appeal for the decision by the Commission and I thank you for your time and consideration.

Jim, I've got a question for you because you have been there for the long haul. Were you there when our neighborhood erupted over housing on that lot? You lived right there still? Yeah. I couldn't remember how long ago that was. The current grass lot that exists, I understand, I think I heard you say that you prefer to see it developed. Have you had issues with the grass lot as it exists right now with usage in terms of thinking about like temporary solutions, long-term solutions?

I mean, other than some temporary parking and some like the Halloween event that happens there, it's really not used. I don't see anybody in the neighborhood who uses it. It's full of weeds. I will say that the weeds, I sometimes attribute to what happens in my yard. I have to pick these things out.

That's what I should blame my weeds onto. Yeah.

I'll blame it on the school behind my house next time.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Before we hear closing arguments from the applicant, I want to see if there are questions for staff.

Madam Mayor, I have a question of understanding, and I can also ask the applicant this as well. Am I to understand under current code that if a property owner wants to add parking across the street, they are not allowed to do so because they would need to own the entire city block to have it be adjacent?

Madam Mayor, Council Member Willits, in this situation, that is the reasoning is because there is that public right-of-way that is separating the actual religious institution building from where they're trying to place that parking right now and in reference to the off-site parking being within 600 feet that is allowed within the r3 zone however that intent is to repurpose existing parking lots since with the adoption of the current development code our parking requirements have been slashed a lot compared to what they used to be So allowing these uses to kind of share parking facilities that are already existing, that does not guarantee a right to establish a brand new parking lot in the R3 zone.

So at this point, the Cathedral of the Rockies owns that entire block, correct? In order for them to get more parking, they would have to knock down a building on their current block and build a building on the empty lot to get parking on the current block.

Madam Mayor, Council Member Wallace, they wouldn't have to necessarily knock down anything on their existing building. The North End character overlay, which I'll pull up right now. I'll just find it in my slideshow.

Here we go.

So you should see that now. What they could do, one of the alternatives that staff has discussed with the applicant team is constructing some form of building essentially between the sidewalk slash street and that parking facility that they are looking to build. So if they did build some form of a structure and whatever that use of the structure is, that is obviously up for conversation. We're not saying it has to be anything specific. It just has to be an allowed use within the R3 zone. They can have an on-site surface parking lot larger than the 2,500 square feet there. The main thing with the overlay is that it just has to be not visible from the right-of-way. So there is alternatives there for them. It just involves the construction and the actual development of that property.

Thank you. I've got a question. Will you talk to me about the existing grass lot and what would need to be done to allow that continued use as is? I see this as an unintended consequence. It's something that they've had access to. We've allowed them to use it. And from what I understood from the pastor, to continue that no longer works under the code.

Madam Mayor, I believe the process to allow for that to happen now would require a variance because our code does require that all parking is on a paved surface of some form, whether that is asphalt, concrete, or pavers. Our code does prohibit... using gravel as parking. And I know the Highway District also doesn't like to see gravel for a parking surface or anywhere really near their roads outside of kind of a borrow ditch situation. But if you wanted a full answer as to what would have to happen outside of a zoning code amendment, I'd be happy to get back to you on that.

Well, I need the answer before making a decision tonight. So we're in a bit of a time crunch. The variance that you refer to, is that the variance that's currently working its way through the process? Or is that a different variance?

Madam Mayor, it's a different variance. I believe in this situation, the variance that would need to be required is to deviate from the parking surface requirements. And that would be associated with a temporary permit for parking. But I'll check code just to verify to see what the channels would be for a parking lot outside of kind of the proposal that's before us.

What I would like to understand is if in denying this request for a paved parking lot, there is a continued allowance for the current use, how we do that, and what that process looks like.

Madam Mayor, so the existing parking lot that's there is allowed right now, and it can continue to operate, expanding that parking into that other quarter block. That's where this application comes into play. And in terms of finding alternatives, that's something I just have to look through code to figure out what those alternatives really could be.

I'm not talking about the, I thought that I heard from the pastor that the lot in question is currently used as a grass parking lot. We can, why don't we take a five minute break? And so to give staff some time to convene and answer my questions. Yeah, everybody can be at ease for a little bit.

No doubt. Yeah, I just thought it was a good idea. I was just like, I'm gonna do that. All right. Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Hmm.

Thank you. Yeah.

Are you good? Is everybody here?

You kind of got distracted looking at library books.

All righty, we'll go ahead and get started again. Thanks, everybody, for your patience. All right, you've got an answer to my question?

I do, Madam Mayor, yes. One thing the applicant could do is essentially establish legal non-conforming status for the temporary parking on the existing undeveloped property. They would just have to file that administrative application with the planning department so we can process that appropriately.

Okay. Thank you.

Further questions for staff?

All righty. We'll hear from the applicant.

Thank you. Elizabeth Kekritz, Land Use Council, 601 Bannock, Boise, Idaho. I just want to make a couple of points. One of the frustrations, I think, with this application is if you bring back that north end, the definition of the NCO, the parking within the north end, near north end neighborhood overlay, is that there are ways throughout this, there are ways to approve this and have an expansive reading, and this can be allowed by right. If you look at this, it says on-site surface parking lots larger than 2,500 square feet are prohibited. On-site surface parking, that's a defined term, and that's on the site as the primary use. We argue, and parking lots are an accessory use, and as an accessory use, this section simply doesn't prohibit it. It would allow it. And the whole point behind the other section that talks about within 600 feet, there are no lots in, like there's, I can't think of lots in the R3 district where you wouldn't be crossing some sort of road to be onto a different property or lot. And so there has to be that common sense reading of it that, of course, typically they do need to be the accessory parking use needs to be on the same lot, except that it allows in the R3 zone when you're not, you can be within 600 feet. And of course, that means you would have to cross a street unless we were to come before you and try to do something like St. Luke's and shut down a street and do all of that. And that's, far beyond what Cathedral is looking at doing. or would possibly even want to do. I do feel like there is a way to get there. I don't know if just establishing this as a legal non-conforming use could work. They received a letter that said this isn't allowed from the temporary use because they want to continue to, they want to be able to do additional improvements. It's not only having the lot, not only having just the grass lot, but they would like that. And they are absolutely willing to put in permeable pavers to have this and even to have the grass parking as a temporary use, but they really do want the accessibility, like the sidewalks, the trees, just all of those things that also come along with it. And there's ways to read this code more expansively that absolutely allow you to get there. That being said, we are also here on a CUP modification. And so if you do look at the CUP modification approval criteria, we also do meet all of those. And so we would request approval of that. Just ticking through them quickly. It's the proposed location is suited to accommodate the proposed use. It absolutely does. It's supported by the comprehensive plan goals having to do with faith-based support for faith-based organization. appropriate context for things in the north end. This is a good location for it. There are not any material adverse effects. In fact, it improves the effects on the neighborhood by bringing parking off the street and onto the parking lot. The site is large enough to accommodate this use. The site provides a safe, convenient, and efficient network that minimizes conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicular traffic. they're going to put in like the sidewalks are already there and the pathways, it's not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. And then if it's combined with an application for a variance, the findings for approval of the requested variance have been met. And that's where this is such an interesting procedural posture to have the variance having been decided below, reconsidered below, and we filed for judicial review on that already and we would hope to be able to withdraw that but through your approval of a cup modification um you can also then order the mediation to mediate to figure out this requested variance hit that as well and then this can be approved we're just it's in a really we're like, we have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to practice nut. And I think that's one of the ways that you can get there. Um, and for that, I will stand for any other.

Madam mayor, Elizabeth, I want to make sure that I understand, um, What you're asking, I understand the CUP. I think you've noticed that there's some interest on the dais about what I would say the do no harm, the Hippocratic Oath, let you park where you've always parked. Would the cathedral, is that an acceptable option? Or is this like you want that parking lot with the sidewalk and everything that you've suggested?

Um, they, I believe would accept the prior status quo, but we have not reviewed that to see what exact steps are required for preexisting nonconforming use. And I don't know if we would actually meet that broader definition or we're just going to keep being back here over and over.

Okay. So, um, madam mayor. So I think what I hear you saying is that's an option, but you can't commit because you don't know what's in the details. And you'd like to have the opportunity to see if that would work, but you can't commit on the fly.

Okay.

Any further questions? Thank you. All right. Yeah, you're last. So I'm going to close the public hearing.

I mean, I have a motion in mind, but I wonder. So I would like to I mean, maybe I can just talk this through with you for a second. What I would like to do is deny the appeal and allow. continued temporary use of the parking as they're doing now on the lot that exists currently. Do those need to be separate? Do I just need to make the motion to deny and then that would be handled administratively separately? Or can I include it, I guess?

I have an answer for that. I just checked in with counsel. It would be a denial of the appeal with an insertion of an additional finding that would allow the continued non-conforming use. So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second the motion.

Discussion? Madam Mayor, I'll kick it off. I... Uh, this, this organization has been really great partners to the city. Um, I think I had just learned this week about the, the letter that you had sent. And I think that there's tremendous interest on our side to continue to discuss partnership opportunities on that. Um, I am not inclined to overturn the decision that was made on the surface parking lot simply because it doesn't, it's not prohibited within our code. But I do want to allow space for us to have a meaningful conversation with this council and this development code to discuss to figure out how we can continue that partnership and what might be possible. So that's the reason for my motion now. Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, Madam Mayor, similar with President Stead, I feel we do need to deny this because as it exists today within the zoning code, it does not meet that definition. But as you said, there's some unintended consequences. So with the denial and to take a look at that temporary going back to the use that it was prior seems to be fitting to where it's allowed within our temporary use within our code. That's the way we want to look at this. Sometimes the head and the heart just don't meet together. And that's honestly how I kind of feel tonight. is the church is doing such great work in the community in so many different ways. Super visible for Everyone Belongs, for LGBTQ plus community, expanding of services, mission-based organization, multiple services, multiple campuses, great things happening there. And that's where my heart is saying, hey, what else can we do to help you help serve our community? But as a council member, I'm bound by the code or zoning code. And that's where the head comes into play to say this is why I'm supporting the denial tonight.

Madam Mayor, first of all, thank you for coming out tonight. It's a really nice evening. I think it's probably going to be one of the last summer 80 degrees that we have. I'm so grateful that you love our city enough to come. and that you love your church enough to do this. It's time, it's energy, appreciate people testifying. It always inspires me when I see folks spend their free time in the service of Boise. I think what you've sensed up here is that there is a desire to try to find a solution. I don't think we found that yet, so I'm going to oppose the motion. I'm gonna oppose the motion for a couple of reasons. I think the city's interpretation of the law is too strict. I think it's nonsensical, actually. I mean, essentially what it's saying is that you have to own an entire block. And if you want to add parking, you've got to probably build a bridge over to it. I don't think that makes any sense. So I think we have a problem there in terms of the code. And also, I think we need to look at this a little bit more broadly. Here's what I know. People will choose where to go based on parking. You've got a thousand Instagram reels that talk about people asking, is there parking? Is there parking? If there's parking, we'll go. I am concerned that Boise will not remain the heart of this valley if we do not find a way to get people into Boise. Okay. We need parking in Boise. I want people from CUNA and Meridian and Eagle and Star to come into Boise for a lot of reasons. And if one of the reasons is to come and worship, I'm glad they're coming here because then they get to see our beautiful city. I hope they have lunch. I hope they shop. I hope they see a friend. If we deny those opportunities and say, oh, it's okay for you to be in Amity, we are hurting our city. We need to embrace these opportunities for people to come to Boise. And I think we have to accept that parking is part of that. So if a church wants 35 parking spaces so that they can deepen the community, create more opportunities for people to gather, we as a city should say, hell yeah, let's do it. So I'm going to pose the motion. I want you to have your parking lot. I want more people coming down to downtown Boise. And I want more people to have opportunities for faith. And you're doing that.

Madam Mary, I just want to reiterate, probably just say ditto and turn off my microphone. But I think there is a lot of difficulty in this particular property because it is a fantastic location as well. It is very near and dear the heart of this wonderful city, right? And the heart needs blood. And this church is feeling a lot of that blood that's pumping through our community. And so I appreciate that there are some significant barriers given. overlay and our zoning requirements. I was not convinced tonight that this conditional use permit should be approved. I think accessory use there, I appreciate the creativity in terms of trying to look at through this and expand upon that in terms of accessory, but I'm hoping that there is a a way that meets what we really need in Boise, which is vibrant neighborhoods where people can live here. And I think that there's probably a subset of the population attending this church and other churches downtown who would actually like to be downtown too. And so I'm hopeful that as we adhere to the code, that those priorities will be met, that that's the reason why we have this code. But I'll be supporting the motion tonight.

Well, it sounds like I won't be voting. But I wanted to say a couple of things before I call the question. And first off, I appreciate everybody being here and deeply value your service. I want to make clear that I would have voted with the motion if pressed for a tie. And the reason is because... I believe that there's a different solution that's possible. And with the current lot that you have available to you, not the paved one, but this corner that we're talking about, people can park there and exercise religion. And the additional improvements that you were requesting does not impact the exercise of religion because we have figured out with this motion how to allow that to happen. But it does make it harder for a bridge solution, which I want to make available to you in the current code that we have, to then talk about the long-term solutions that you've brought up and proposed. And so it's for that reason that I would have voted for it tonight and look forward to the continued conversations that we can have about how to move this forward to really get to the needs that you have as a congregation in service to our community and while meeting the needs and expectations that our residents have supported and really pushed us to accept and to enact with the zoning code that we've developed. But want to be clear, like this unintended consequence of taking a, granted it's grass, maybe a little rocky weeds that are impacting Jim's house, taking that away from you was not the intention of a code that really wants to prevent further paving of offsite lots in the long run. And so I am now going to ask that staff, while we've made the decision within this to continue to allow this, that we look at that to make sure and that we work with the applicant to facilitate that allowance that this motion has created. once and if it's approved, and then let us figure out how we can continue working forward on the other things too. Clerk?

Morales? Yes. Stead?

Yes.

Willits?

No.

Corliss?

Yes.

Three in favor, one opposed. Motion carries.

And then Madam Mayor, last we have the request for mediation for the same COP. that we move to the end of the agenda. So I'll just make a motion on that. This is for I don't expect that was a presentation with that. Okay, this is a request for mediation for CP 26 dash nine. And I'm going to move to deny that request for mediation.

We have a second.

A second.

And in the denial of the mediation request just before everybody votes, it doesn't preclude conversations to clarify how the lot can continue to be used, which was allowed by your motion? Correct. Okay. All right. Clerk?

Morales? Yes. Stead? Yes. Willits? No. Corliss?

Yes.

Three in favor, one opposed. Motion carries.

And Madam Mayor, with that, I move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Second.

We are adjourned. Thanks, everybody.