Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Oh, yeah. Yeah, there's like. Oh, yeah. Yeah. um um So that's probably how we do it.

Oh, you mean the regular one?

Yeah. And it's 36. You guys can wait for that. We might be out of market. So we thought we might be out of market. Program. Program. Why? Yeah. If you could extend the mic. Yep.

else.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

um um

I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. All we can do is take out some of the items from the balance sheet and put them in the balance sheet. And that's what we're going to do with the balance sheet. We're going to put those in the balance sheet. And that's what we're going to do with the balance sheet. Hey, guys. Thank you. Oh.

all right good evening everybody welcome to the boise city planning and zoning commission public hearing a few things to start out with for tonight's proceedings everyone from the public entering the hearing virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak as the item you're interested in comes up for discussion you'll be called upon and unmuted there is a chat function in zoom however this is not part of the record and should only be used if technical difficulties arise Our procedures for public hearings begins with the presentation from the planning team. Then we'll go to the applicant and then the representative of the registered neighborhood association followed by questions from the commission. After that, we proceed to public testimony, starting with those who are in person. Then, uh, who signed up on the setup sheet in advance and then anyone else who raises their hands virtually. If you're tending through your telephone, you can type in star 9 to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony. Now we are strict with this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed five minutes for rebuttal after which the hearing will be closed and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Mr. Chair, you have the floor.

Okay, thank you, Crystal. Clearly we don't have Chief or Bronco fans in the audience here today, right? Nothing else to do. All right. Well, good to have you here. Appreciate it. All right. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on type three applications and recommendations to the city council on type four applications as specified in the Boise zoning code. Any appeal to city council? Am I reading the right one, Crystal? geez almighty a decision made tonight may be filled in the last 10 days a written decision in order to file an appeal you must have given written written or oral testimony tonight's meeting so that's why it's important to give your name and address when you testify tonight we utilize the consent agenda this means that if the applicant agrees with the staff report and if there is no public opposition the item will be placed on the consent agenda all items that are placed on the consent agenda are approved with one motion without further public comment For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing in the order just detailed a few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Danley.

Here.

Moore. Here. Schaefer.

Here.

Deha. Torres.

Here.

Stallings. Defonsic.

Here.

By present to absent.

All right. First off, we're going to create that consent agenda in the first items. Eligible are the work session minutes and the meeting minutes from both the August 3rd and August 10th minutes. Are there any comments from the Commission on any of those four items? Okay. Hearing none, I'll go ahead and place those four on the consent agenda. All right, we have a few items that are eligible. I thought item number one was going to be eligible, but we have a handful of people who have signed up to testify. And so there's what five names on here for testifying. So if there's opposition, to item number one this is the boise state university plan then we will go ahead and need to actually have that hearing um and so i was gonna do a hand okay if your name is on the if you intended to sign or uh speak tonight on this item and are in opposition to this particular item can you raise your hand so that i'm going to assume then that everybody who is signed up here salvador george Gil, Santiago, Cooper, and Ramon are all for this item. Because if you are, then we can put this on consent and move forward.

If I can speak. It's not really against it, but it's just something that we want to speak about the project. So we'd like to be able to get a chance to speak on it. Okay.

Okay. Well, in that case, we're going to have a full hearing on that item and we'll move forward. All right, next up for consent is item number three. We'll come back to that moment. And then let's see, it's item number three. This is SUB 26-33 Montana Subdivision, located at 1303 West Howard Street, a preliminary and final plat for a residential subdivision comprised of four buildable lots. Is the applicant present? Okay, and do you agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report? All right, let the record reflect the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition? Hold on. Okay, in opposition to item number three, SUB 26-33. All right. Seeing no hands in chambers or online. What did you say? Oh, ma'am, are you here to testify in opposition to item number three? This is the Montana subdivision located at 1303 West Howard street.

Okay. That's okay. No problem.

All right. In that case, then item number three, unless there's opposition will be placed on the consent agenda. Okay. okay moving on uh this is item number five next step that's eligible this is car 26-8 adler industrial this is the rezone of approximately 76.3 acres located at 5110 west lake hazel road is the applicant present okay and do you agree with the terms and conditions the staff report okay let the record reflect the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and conditions of staff report is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number five this is car 26-08 seeing no hands and chambers seeing nothing online all right and without objection i'll go ahead and place item number five on the consent agenda and that is that okay is there a motion Mr. Chairman. On the consent. Commissioner Moore.

I move that we approve consent agenda as constructed.

Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Moore. Is there a second? Second. All right. I've got a second by Commissioner Torres. Any discussion? Hearing none, the clerk please call the roll.

Danley.

Aye.

Moore. Yes. Schaefer.

Yes.

Horace.

Yes.

DeFonse.

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. So to the applicants who are here for that, you're free to go. All right, that takes us to, we're going to open this up now to item number one. This is CPA 26-2 Boise State University's Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Adopt the 2025 Boise State Tenure Plan. And this is going to be our staff, Lena Walker.

Is it working? Okay.

Yeah. Welcome, Chair. May I interrupt for a moment? Please, go ahead. I'd just like to put on the record that I am an employee of the Boise State University, but have not been involved in the comprehensive plan at all.

Very good. Thank you, Commissioner.

Go ahead, thank you good evening, Mr chairman and members of the Commission, the item before you tonight is CPA 26 dash 0000 view a comprehensive plan amendment to adopt by reference the boise State University 2025 10 year campus master plan. The master plan encompasses an area generally bordered by the Boise River to the north, Boise Avenue to the south, Lusk Street to the west, and Broadway Avenue to the east. The campus is bookended by two of Boise's gateway corridors, Capitol Boulevard and Broadway Avenue. It also interfaces with several key areas of the downtown and southeast planning areas. The campus is connected to Julia Davis Park by Capitol Boulevard and the Friendship Bridge, which joins the Greenbelt on the north and south sides of the river. To the west across Capitol is the Lusk District, a mixed-use district with a high density of off-campus student housing, as well as a variety of businesses and several housing developments on which the City of Boise is a partner. The campus is bordered on the south by multiple residential neighborhoods. Finally, the campus itself contains several important cultural institutions. These include the Albertsons Stadium and Extra Mile Arena and the Morrison Center for the Performing Arts. The current zoning in this area is largely commensurate with the future land use map. The master plan area is predominantly zoned mixed use university, which is intended to provide flexible development on Boise State's campus. The zoning district's dimensional standards include some specific limitations on building height and setback for the campus edges within 50 feet of public right-of-way on Beacon, Broadway, and Boise, Ave., and within 50 feet of a residential zoning district. Just briefly a little background on the relationship between our comprehensive plan and the Boise State master plan. Boise State adopted their first master plan in 1997, which was subsequently updated in 2005 and 2008, and then adopted by reference into the city's comprehensive plan in 1999. In 2015, the university completed another master plan update, and this was adopted by reference into Blueprint Boise that same year. In 2021, the university adopted a new strategic plan, the framework of which lays the groundwork for the update before you this evening. This most recent version, the 2025 10-year master plan, was adopted by the Idaho State Board of Education in April of this year. Very briefly, the master plan has four focus areas, academics and research, student housing and campus life, mobility and infrastructure, and campus community integration. Projects and concepts outlined in the capital improvements plan fall into one or more of these categories. Additionally, the plan is organized around a thematic framework based on the university's strategic plan. These themes include sustainability and resilience, community integration, and land use planning. These themes inform the types of projects selected in the CIP as well as the guiding principles and priorities which coordinate development efforts between projects. The master plan document includes a background on the drafting process and a detailed assessment of campus needs the primary backbone of the plan is the capital improvements plan which provides funding and. Implementation timelines for projects that will be pursued over the next 10 years, as well as concepts that should be studied further and could be considered if opportunities arise. The timeline is notably shorter than the previous master plan, which was based on a 30 year outlook. This timeline is fiscally constrained and puts the focus of the plan on what could potentially be accomplished within the next 10 years. The plan also issued specific building footprints for proposed facilities, opting for a land use approach that indicates general areas where projects would best be suited. Finally, for each of these four focus areas, the plan does provide a land use map as well as a detailed assessment and list of recommendations for projects and priorities, some of which will be included in this presentation just for reference. So as you can see here, the master plan's land use map does not show any anticipated expansion of the campus boundaries over the next 10 years, but it does create some border areas for their land uses where operations could be relocated or facilities repurposed to improve the layout and connectivity of the campus. Student services are roughly shown as internal to campus, while athletics and events and academic facilities, as well as administrative offices, tend to somewhat form the boundaries of the campus map. Here you can see mapped general areas for projects identified in the 10-year CIP. It should be noted, just for clarity, that not all projects identified here are for construction of facilities. For example, the East Stadium Lot mixed-use development project, listed as number 12, is for a concept study to explore development possibilities on this site. Additionally, some of these projects have already been completed or are currently under construction. Others, such as the less district complex indicated by the blue number one, have changed funding or priority outlook since the plan was drafted. These details are found on pages 18 and 20 of the master plan, which are in your packet if you would like to reference them. The planning team has analyzed the master plan for its alignment with the city's zoning and land use, strategic priorities, and the comprehensive plan. The campus master plan is generally well aligned with the city's zoning and land use. Boise State campus, while a destination unto itself, also functions as a key transition area connecting the mixed use areas of downtown to the compact residential neighborhoods to the south. To this point, the plan provides better definition of the southern edge along Beacon Street with academic facilities, administrative buildings, a potential parking garage, and improved streetscaping along Beacon Avenue. Additionally, improved pedestrian connectivity across University would help to anticipate future growth within the Lust District, which, as you can see in this map, is zoned MX-5, our highest mixed-use zone. Additionally, multimodal safety and wayfinding through campus helps to facilitate travel for people who are moving from not only to campus but from the Boise River to the neighborhoods to the south. And finally, the clustering of academic land uses does support a plan where students can park once on campus and easily access the things that they need to rather than having to drive from building to building. I will note just briefly there are some potential challenges in terms of zoning and land use just in the sense that there are those restrictions I mentioned before in terms of um height limits and neighborhood transitions and there is a density of or I should say a diversity of different zoning districts here it's not anything we don't see in other parts of the city but just should be noted that it is a somewhat complex area in terms of zoning and land use The master plan is also aligned with the city's strategic priorities, in particular, priorities of a home for everyone, movement for everyone, and opportunity for everyone. This plan provides a detailed outline of student-specific housing needs and a defined boundary of development between the campus and adjacent neighborhoods. the plan maintains a public road network by which i mean university drive maintains this public right-of-way that moves all the way through the campus and puts a high priority on the completion of the greenbelt pathway along the boise river it also incorporates safety improvements for pedestrians and bicycles including clear pathways through campus and accommodations to meet the rising demand for micro mobility such as scooters and e-bikes lastly the plan supports economic opportunity in boise by prioritizing investment in academic and research facilities supporting broadway's growth as a mixed-use corridor and improving campus connections downtown both for the benefit of students exploring the surrounding city and residents coming on campus to attend cultural or athletic events In our analysis, the planning team considered areas of the master plan which interface or overlap with the city's planning priorities. We'll detail just a few of them here. Housing is obviously a major priority for the city. The 2021 City Housing Needs Analysis estimated that an additional 20,194 units were needed by 2033 to meet projected demand. Boise State has identified the need for an additional 753 on-campus beds to meet their projected demand for the same year. According to the Campus Master Plan, fall 2025 on-campus enrollment was around 17,000 students, which is approximately 7% of Boise's total population. So addressing a student housing need is very much a shared priority for both the city and the university. Notably, the capital improvements plan does not identify any specific housing projects in the 10-year CIP, but does call for an adaptive strategy that could involve renovating existing residence halls or building new developments depending on funding opportunities as they arise. We should note that the university did very recently complete Syringa Hall, a 452-bed residence hall meant to support first-year students, as well as a renovation to update Riverfront Hall near the Boise River. The plan's land use map and list of potential concepts supports collaboration and partnership between the City of Boise and the University on the issue of housing. The University's commitment to grow within existing campus boundaries could involve redevelopment of existing housing sites, which are located near the campus edge. dimensional standards design overlays and proximity to key corridors or adjacent neighborhoods conditions which often overlap in these areas can make them complex to redevelop this plan helps us to take a proactive approach to understanding where the city would support additional student housing and what sort of challenges development could entail The plans assessment of housing need by student year also seeks to not just build more housing, but the right kind of housing to support students at every point along their academic journey. The support is essential for the university for student retention and graduation, but it also helps us at the city understand what associated impacts we could anticipate with different projects, most notably parking and transportation. a couple other areas to note um as i mentioned before the lust district which is immediately west of campus across capitol boulevard um the lust district is an area where the city of boise has been heavily invested in planning for some time we do have a lust street less district master plan And as I mentioned before, the zoning is MX 5, so there is a wide variety of uses and building types that could go here. And the city has been actively involved in the capital campus and the general lost street redevelopment project, which involves building various types of housing in this area. Boise State does own some properties here, notably the West Commuter parking lot, the Health Sciences Riverside property, and a housing and residence life facility. And there is also a pretty high concentration of off-campus student housing that has been built here over the years. So this area has already seen a lot of development, and remaining opportunities will play a crucial role in the maturation of this district as envisioned in the last master plan. So generally there's good alignment between the city and the university's master plan in this area but we just want to highlight it here that this is an area of high importance for us transportation and mobility Beacon Street, Broadway Avenue, Boise Avenue, Capital Boulevard do form essentially the boundaries of the campus. And the plan envisions University Drive as a multimodal corridor that connects campus to downtown. The plan includes a lot of improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along University Avenue. uh which is a heavily used corridor as well as assessments for parking the role of the bronco shuttle the need to address micro mobility and the completion of the greenbelt pathway along boise state's campus between capitol boulevard and broadway avenue One area to highlight that is listed in the master plan is a potential redesign of the intersection at Capitol Boulevard and University Avenue. This three-way intersection is a complex traffic interchange and can be a difficult crossing for pedestrians and bicycles, especially moving between the less district and the university campus. This area also functions as part of the Capital Boulevard Gateway Corridor and a gateway into the Boise State campus. This was one area of concern for us as we reviewed the master plan was that we do not necessarily support the site concept as shown in this drawing that is included in the plan. However, we are in agreement with the general intent of improving pedestrian connectivity and strengthening Capital Boulevard as a gateway corridor. We also recognize that while there is a proposed concept study currently included in the draft ECHD five-year plan to evaluate that potential relocation of Boise Avenue, um it is not currently listed as on the Boise State University priority list for the ACHD five-year plan so there are a lot of different moving parts that go into um assessing how we would move forward on this um and while the city is in general alignment with the the need to address this intersection and that has been part of planning efforts for many years um we did want to make the note that this specific illustration included in the plan is not something that we would support okay broadway avenue um broadway avenue is the city of boise gateway corridor and uh there is as i mentioned a concept study listed in the cip that involves the east stadium parking lot uh near albertson stadium in that northwest corner so this is something that the city of Boise would very much you know would look to be a partner in as we develop further but I will say that the inclusion of details in the master plan does help to provide some clarity on how we would look at both our zoning in this area streetscape requirements and how any kind of development on this site would impact the the corridor as its own entity Finally, the Greenbelt and the Boise River are obviously very high priority to the city. It should be noted that the Boise Parks and Recreation Department does have an easement for Greenbelt maintenance and oversight from 2002, and that the Boise River system ordinance overlay is in in effect in this area so we are heavily involved when whenever there is a planning application in this area and the plan does um call that out and then also recognizes some particular cip projects for completing that section of the green belt and potentially exploring improving the friendship bridge plaza that connects boise state to julia davis park As a whole, the planning team finds the campus master plan well aligned with the comprehensive plans, themes, goals and policies. Blueprint Boise heavily emphasizes the importance of compact walkable development patterns that support transit and reduce reliance on private vehicles. These goals are important to reduce carbon emissions, but also to expand choices for mobility and support a lively built environment that promotes the health and safety of our residents. The master plan supports these goals by embracing the landlocked character of the campus and directing growth inward rather than expanding out. It presents a truly multimodal framework for how people travel to and through campus, including vehicles and the need for parking management. While demeaning demand for on-campus housing remains a challenge, the plan provides meaningful tools for the University and the City of Boise to make decisions today that will support meeting these goals, as well as near-term projects that create the necessary framework to support students living on campus. Additionally, it is in alignment with other policies and goals within the comprehensive plan that have to do with promoting culture, the arts, economic development, and promoting the interests of the surrounding neighborhoods. Finally, there was one agency comment from the boise parks and recreation department, they were generally supportive of the master plans focus on how the campus connects to the boise river. And they did highlight several projects and concepts which fall under that boise river river system ordinance those are listed there, they primarily have to do with the green belt and so that letter from the Agency is included in your packet. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval of CPA 26-00002, and I will stand for any questions. Thank you.

Okay. I see some familiar faces over that way. I'm assuming you're wanting to come on up or not.

getting close yeah yeah

Good evening. For the record, my name is Drew Alexander. I'm the Associate Vice President for Campus Operations at Boise State. The address is 1910 University Drive, Boise, Idaho, 83725. I haven't been up here for a while, but when I am, I usually like to start with a few thank yous, and that includes the Planning and Development Services team. Lena, thank you for your comments. Thank you for the review of the plan. but on this plan as you'll see in a minute it definitely includes the community uh we we listened closely in 2015 applied a lot of those lessons and i hope that's apparent to you commissioner danley i know that you were in a similar seat 10 years ago 11 years ago so i'll say that out loud it's been too long but also i'm joined by three members of the boise state team that did a lot of heavy lifting on this janelle smith christy bitts and alexa reitman huge thanks to them as well You probably don't often have an applicant that claims to have 200 acres of downtown property. And I just want to go about saying that we're aware of the importance of that. We're aware of how important it is to be good stewards of that property. We're closely with the city, other agencies, and again, I'll just reiterate the community. So what is a campus master plan? For us, it's one leg of a really clear three-legged stool at the university. University has a strategic plan, maps out its aspirations for the academic mission and growth of that programming, certainly has a financial plan and a budget, and a master plan explains and tells the story of how those will be accomplished from an infrastructure and facilities standpoint. We are asked by the State Board of Education to do this document roughly every 10 years. Sometimes it's sooner than that, sometimes it's later than that, but there's a general guidance and State Board policy that all institutions of higher education in Idaho will have a current campus master plan that affords them internal campus leadership and the community guidance on where the institution is aspiring to head, especially with its infrastructure and facilities. You've already heard a bit of this, but we decided to take quite a different approach with this plan. We got out a crystal ball in 2015 and thought we could look 30 years into the future. That's a pretty steep task. There were some aspirations in that plan that clearly created some strain and friction with the community, especially those areas around campus. And one of the things that we immediately agreed to and mapped out with leadership was tightening that timeline to a 10 year timeframe. which felt like such a relief right out of the gate. It gives us a much more realistic and tangible timeline to do a plan like this and work in partnership with the community. Also that land use approach. Also previously there was an attempt to be almost too prescriptive with the recommendations in the document. A lot can change in six months, 12 months, two years. And we think this philosophy of replicating a land use approach gives that predictable flexibility that a land use code affords the community on many other potential projects. We can't have it all, and I'll say a little bit more about that in a minute. We needed to make sure this plan was very intentional about the growth that it forecasts. There are some tough decisions to make over the next five to 10 years about where the university's financial capacity goes, and this plan really aligns with that. Spaces in higher ed need to be shared resources these days. The new science research building that we're working on is an interdisciplinary workhorse research building. that by design has flexibility and adaptability built into it to respond as higher education programming sponsored research evolves and that is a continuing element that you'll see as campus expands and i've already hit on the last about how this needs to align with our strategic and capital plans these timelines that we see really remind us these things take a minute to do we started this back in february of 24. mapping out those goals that you just saw, the foundational goals that would chart a course for the plan. We did experience leadership transition during that time. We still have kind of the end period of some interim leadership roles, but we maintain progress slowly but surely. The first year, year and a half was a lot of listening, gathering information, spending time with the community. And then one of the things we're really proud of is that we did the vast majority of the document that you see in-house, the writing, the drafting, the graphic design. That was a commitment that took a bit of time, but we're really proud of the end result, what we were able to accomplish leading up to our approval process, which is kind of our second stop on that. We went to the board in April and received their approval back at their April 26 meeting. So key components. The first is what we know we need. These are the highlights the plan communicates from that 10-year timeline, anticipating a rather modest enrollment growth, around 1% per year. But I got ahead of myself. This is the transparency and collaboration slide. And this is one that I want to lean into a minute with you to emphasize something that we did. After 2015 it was immediately apparent to us that we had a larger obligation to spend time with the Community, especially the Community around campus. We are part of the southeast neighborhood association which you're all familiar is a rather large neighborhood association we're an area one and since 2015 to now we've. made an attempt to try to attend every single one of their monthly neighborhood association meetings a couple misses there but we've maintained a really good relationship open dialogue with the neighborhood association we created a subcommittee for this process that had both board and neighbor resident membership that met 17 times throughout the process updating that group as we went as decisions were close to being made and recommendations were being forged so It's something that we all feel extremely proud of and something that we're going to remain committed to is maintaining that high bar of involvement, especially with that neighborhood association nearest to us. I think we touched seven, but that's the one that's really around the table with us most frequently. This is what I was originally looking to. These are those growth needs that are roughly 1% per year enrollment growth would forecast us having. As Lena said, these numbers, the 21,901 is on-campus, campus-based student population. When you factor in concurrent enrollment, online education, that number is much closer to 30,000. But if we were just to maintain some linear growth calculations, we would need to have space for 270 additional staff. roughly 415 more first-year beds, 750 beds total, and then an additional emphasis on on-campus parking to handle that capacity. The other part of that story is our space needs. We conducted a thorough space audit a handful of years ago that informs this slide. This speaks to Boise State's rapid growth and how our programming needs more space. And this plan has a handful of projects, one that's about to break ground in April that will help us cover some ground on this, but I'll highlight the research space. As you see, that's 140,000 square feet. The new research that we're building is going to get us about 40 to 50,000 square feet of assignable. So the challenge is not done and will continue to be there. But these numbers really influence a lot of what you see on the CIP and the concepts for consideration. Housing, I'll hit on this briefly. This slide is the first year student community. The number starts at 646, but in 25, it dips significantly. That's due to the Syringa Hall project that came online that academic year. But again, if we maintain the growth that we've forecasted, By the end of this timeline, we'll be back to about a 417 deficit in that first year community. All of these numbers are reflective of what universities call their capture rates. So how many percentage of your first year students do you aim to house in your housing? What's the percentage of your upper grade level graduate students? Those dials could also be turned. If leadership wanted to have a higher capture rate, for example, for first year students, those numbers would go up proportionally. Right now, the plan forecasts a 60% capture rate for first year students. Next is what can we realistically accomplish? So again, we talked about modest growth in enrollment really firmly understanding our financial capacity and focusing on those prioritized near-term needs the comparison that we've been using seems to be somewhat effective is that we're essentially shopping we have a recipe of needs facilities and infrastructure we also have a budget And so this plan helps us prioritize what we're going to be reaching for on those shelves as we go shopping over the next 10 years. There will be certainly things that are looking attractive and appealing that we'll want to reach for and put into the cart. But the concepts for consideration are juxtaposed with the CIP to afford leadership with that certainty that we, again, can't have it all. Decisions will have to be made. Priorities would have to be adjusted. Philanthropic support grants or public-private partnerships to pull things from the concepts into the CIP. And that's why we chose to intentionally broadcast the plans in that manner. I won't spend really any additional time on this. I thought Lena did an excellent job, especially highlighting that not all of these are shovels in the ground ready. many of these and they're noted this way whether they're planning in construction or just planning at the moment because we have some deep analysis and feasibility to do and then these are the concepts okay uh so just everybody knows applicants have up to 20 minutes we typically go with 10. i'm assuming you can wrap up and just almost yeah perfect thank you nearly there The concepts are not to say they're less important. In fact, they may be even more important than some of the things, but it's really rooted to that financial capacity. And so we expect to have this document inform a lot of important leadership conversations over the next five to 10 years to see how we can make progress on these concepts and not just the CIP. Housing, I know housing is important to you, it's important to the community, and it's important to us. As Alina said, all the housing concepts that were evaluated are still in the concepts for consideration, but there are levers and switches that we could evaluate and talk about at the institutional level to move those forward. The thing that's not reflected here, a little known fact, is Boise State has an employee housing assistance program. We have 40 apartments between houses and apartments that help support our workforce, have an attainable place to live as they work at the university. Nothing really rose beyond the concept of the property along Boise Avenue, what we call the Drake Housing Project. That's in your plan to look at as well. This has received some attention in the last few weeks, this project around the stadium. We wanted to just put a slide together to clarify where we're at. Again, we're not reaching for a shovel to put in the ground on this. We are entering more or less our second phase of feasibility. We have talked about this project with a number of agency partners city I TD a CHD we've also presented to the board and really what we're expecting to do next is go and retain an owner's representative that has. topical knowledge in a project like this to help us make a smart decision or help us not make a decision that's really where we're at so we have a ways to go until this would be. ready for construction or any type of groundbreaking. And then I'll just roll through this quickly. An urban campus requires a slightly different perspective and we allow these undercurrents to inform the plan as we went. Sustainability and resilience being the first. We're happy to partner with Idaho Power on their Flex PEEP program, and we recently joined their industrial energy efficiency cohort. It's a two or three year process where they're going to help us lower our energy use intensity. Syringa Hall that just came online was our first LEED certified building. But sustainability and resilience is really an undercurrent that touches most of the facilities and infrastructure work that we're doing. including new spaces like the riverfront plaza with implementation and new landscape guidelines. There will be shade elements in this plaza, I guarantee you that, but embracing the river corridor as well. Waste, we just received our champion level Kerbet Award. We have a small but mighty team that helps Boise State reach accomplishments like that. We host several plogging events and attend many of the major events to make sure we're being good stewards of our waste. And then transportation, these are a thrill to see. The mobility hub on the left was a project in the plan that recently was completed. This will be additional secure bike parking outdoors with charging capabilities. We're working hard to bring those activities outside of buildings, especially outside of residence halls. And then some of you may have already appreciated the new green belt section. We applied for a grant a mere six years ago and it's done. We made it and we got it open just a couple days before that that home kickoff. And then again, I'll just close on this piece on the community integration. It's something that again was a valuable lesson learned for us in 2015 and we don't plan to back away from that. I've spoken about the land use framework Lena has as well. So thank you. And I'm happy to stand for questions.

All right, thank you, Mr Alexander, is there anybody from the registered neighborhood association in chambers or online who also wanted to testify seeing none either place okay item is up for questions from the Commission any questions. okay i don't see any so we'll go ahead and move this to public testimony and so um i'm gonna call your name if you don't want to testify you don't have to it sounds like there might have been just a couple comments but um for the record if you can just come on up say your name and address for the record you'll have three minutes first up is salvador george next up is uh gil oh I am stumped on how to say that last name. How do you say it? Aaruk said it. Aaruk said it. The X you actually said. Okay. All right. Not yet. All right. All right.

Don't feel bad. I always have trouble saying his name, too. Hi, everyone, chair and commissioners. My name is Salvador George, and I am a representative with the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. We represent 60,000 members that work across the 10 Western states. The reason I'm here with you today is I want to make it clear that we are in favor of developments. We don't like to impede in progress. But I also want to share with you a little bit of what projects like this 10-year master plan for BSU and how it benefited individuals like myself. So I'm sorry, I don't know how much time I have. Okay, I see it. So I'm a 20 year carpenter. I've, uh, through having decent wages and a good benefits package, I've been able to raise, uh, myself, you know, my, my five kids, I was able to purchase my home and, uh, you know, I, I still have that. I'm, I'm still improving on all that because of projects like this, good wages and good benefits. Right. But one thing I didn't hear today with the master plan is a commitment to the community, a commitment to labor standards, uh, when this project's being built. And I just want to bring awareness to the community that there is opportunity to have a holistic approach on this project with a real community benefit to some of the workers that are going to be building this project for you and for the university. So that's the main thing is build responsibly, right? We want to engage with the university early. We do have responsible contractors here in the Treasure Valley. that we can definitely recommend to work on this project. And more importantly, I think the reputation of BSU is on the line, depending on what contractors they pick to build the projects. Because I can tell you, we visit projects day in and day out. And some of the stuff that we see on major projects, major commercial projects, shouldn't be happening here in Idaho. And I'm not going to indulge too much into that, but it's very concerning. And I think we can build this a little better. What does that community benefit look like here today? You can see that we have some of our members and some of our apprentices that also feel the same way. They are going through an apprenticeship program right now, and what they're benefiting from is upskilling themselves. These are folks that live in our community, right? Projects like this have that ability to have responsible contractors and have apprenticeship building some of this work, right? And they are also able to benefit from health coverage. And what better than to upscale our community so they can continue building our infrastructure and continue building the housing that we need here in Idaho. So I want to just, like I said, bring awareness. There is an opportunity to build this 10-year master plan a little better. And we'd like to engage, once again, with the Carpenters Union. And we want to be a part of that plan. Thank you for your time and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Chair, can we get his address?

Oh. Thank you. Appreciate that. Good catch. Yeah, no problem. 4911 West Smokewood. Right.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay. Go ahead. Come on up if you have anything to add.

Gail Ruxat, Western States Regional Council of Parpener. I'm the vice president of local 208 and my address is 319 West Howe Street, which is just a hop, skip and jump from the stadium. I was a little disappointed the comprehensive plan didn't have a bridge from my driveway over to the stadium. But Drew, I will forgive you for that. And I just wanted to touch on What Sal was talking about is, you know, I think with opportunity, these 10-year comprehensive plan, we know that nothing happens without carpenters. And as an institution that's building these buildings, that's going to have, and we appreciate BSU for doing this. We understand that Boise's blowing up. You don't have to go a couple blocks to not see a new tilt-up or a residential complex or buildings that happen with carpenters. That being said, we need to invest in the future and Boise State's doing that by having this comprehensive plan to make sure that they're retaining the local community by educating the youth that is coming out of high school and going to BSU. Well, we are also an education institution and understand that fully. Now, when the students that are being built these projects, when the projects are being built and the students are sitting there, there also should be a consideration to other institutions that train skilled workforce and have registered apprenticeship, because we understand that part of educating a community is retaining a community. is building a strong workforce to keep idahoans local idahoans local so part of this comprehensive plan and what i was talking about is considering the fact that there are institutions out there like bsu that are educating the skilled workforce because i don't know the numbers off the top of my head but i understand that idaho has an issue as far as not every not every uh graduate from high school is gonna go into bsu we would like to educate everyone however there are a lot of kinesthetic learners that need those trades and as an as as a carpenter's union we understand that fully so if you have 82 graduation rate and maybe 62 of those that go on to university are not graduating from university, then we need to capture those percentages and we fully understand that. So implementing that in these processes of building is something to consider as we understand. And so I just wanted to talk a little bit about also the apprentices that are in class here. They're in part of a four year program. i don't know the percentage off the top of my head but they go to they go to school one month out of the year so they're getting trained to be professionals being the safest on the job and they understand the importance of that training and implementing it on the jobs so having that investment is an integral part of building strong communities And that's it. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chair and commissioners. And if you guys have any questions about the apprenticeship, I am more than happy to stay and answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much, sir.

Okay. I've got a few more people who are signed up. You don't have to testify if you want. You can. Santiago, is it Nino? And then Cooper Holbrook.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Santiago Nino. My address is 2808 Bobcat Drive in Nampa, Idaho. I am a born and raised Idahoan, been here for the last 47 years. I'm also a representative of the local 208 Harpenters Union here out of Boise, Meridian, Idaho. And I want to touch on some basis, not only wanting these commitments from one another here to build this community that we all call home here. But to educate some of the community here on behalf of what we see as representatives in our communities in not only the commercial industry, but also in any structure being built due to some labor brokerage and misclassification, misclassification, misclassification of workers and stuff and them not knowing their rights and behalf of to where the point is where they're not even getting paid. And I'm all over the Treasure Valley, including the eastern Idaho also. And it's just amazing in the last year what I've been able to do it for the impact, just to make sure that all these people are educated, knowing that they do have rights and they are valued here in our community because in the state of Idaho right here that I love to call home. it's so valuable we see it every day when we're walking out in these streets comfortable safe but mostly i learned to be honest here and it's about time to make these commitments honest commitments to each and one another especially right now this 10-year commitment uh in between of the uh the one person talking about this right now they they had a bigger turnout it was a 25 30 year turnout that ended up coming getting combusted down into 10 years let's utilize some carpenters and make this place a better place and be able to make our money come right back into this beautiful state that we call home i appreciate your guys this time thank you okay thank you very much all right um i've got a couple more people if anybody wants to testify on the comp plan portion of this is cooper holbrook and then um

should probably put my glasses on that would help right uh and then ramon is it samuel cooper all right hello uh cooper holbrook uh 1405 south seashore street uh here in boise idaho um i'm a local just like to talk about born and raised a younger man who would love to build the future of boise here um i plan to have kids attending college hopefully in the next 0.5 years So to be a part of a project such as this, to be able to give them an opportunity to attend college and higher education would be an honor. Yeah, I don't have too much else, but just to be a part of the future here and to provide for my kids and their generation.

Okay, thank you very much. All right, and then Ramon, is it Samagwe, I think? Or I butchered the last name. Anybody named Ramon? Going once, going twice. Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers who wishes to testify on this who did not sign up? All right. Seeing none, anybody online? No hands online either? All right. Well, in that case, we'll go ahead and close the public testimony portion and the item. Do you want to have any rebuttal? You're good to go? Okay, in that case, the item is before the Commission.

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Torres.

I move that we approve CPA 26-2 with all the terms and conditions in the staff report.

All right. I've got a motion by Commissioner Torres to approve or recommend approval, rather. This is a comprehensive plan amendment. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay, thank you. Second by Commissioner Moore. Any discussion? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Torres.

Sorry, I should have, I spaced on that. I should have said recommend approval. All good. I think this is a good, it's a pretty good looking plan as far as the goals that the city shares with BSU in this regard. It's a very thorough plan, but it's also a shorter term plan than the previous one. I appreciate what obviously looks like a lot of collaboration between the city and Boise State to try to make this work for the entire community. As we develop as a city, it's really important, especially in the downtown core, to make sure that we're all on the same page on these kinds of things so that we can have our city develop in a way that is responsible and plans for future growth. So that's why I'll be supporting this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Torres. Any further discussion? Commissioner Moore.

I agree with Commissioner Torres. I appreciate the collaboration with the Neighborhood Association. I think it's very apparent. And I think taking their feedback and taking the kind of learning opportunities provided with 30-year plan and morphing it into something a little bit more into what we see really here. um I think it shows that and took all that to heart um I appreciate that I think you know also the focus on infill development making the best of the land that BSU has uh is really valuable and it does show some collaboration with the city and acknowledgement of how valuable that land is so I appreciate that as well for those reasons I'll be in support of motion okay thank you Mr Moore any other discussion

I'm just going to add, I just want to give a shout out to the folks who joined us and made comments. I think clearly, especially in the world of AI, we need all the hands we can and non-computer brains to build the things that we need to. Certainly commend All of the work that you do, I will just add that we don't have any authority on who Boise State works with or employees. I think there's a sentiment of support for sure and appreciate all the hard work. But just so that you're clear, our charge here tonight is about the comprehensive plan and adopting this into the plan so that it can actually be approved. My comment, I'm just going to make, well, I guess two. Drew, if we're both here in 10 years from now, buddy, we got problems, so that's not going to happen. But I just want to give a shout out to the university and everybody on the planning team in particularly one area. This is a hard thing to do, to plan for a campus that's completely surrounded by a river, by too busy corridors, by residential, everything, all the pressures and changes. Imagine what's happened in the last 10 years. I just want to particularly give you kudos on the transportation side of things. I think you guys are an incubator for innovation. And there's no place in the state of Idaho that has more of a diverse set of transportation approaches than on the campus of Boise State. You're the only one that has a pedestrian scramble in the entire state, for example, and other sources or other types of projects. And you have taken a lot of... Chances and not all of them maybe have panned out the way that you'd hope, but keep doing it because you are the proof of how things can be done throughout the entire state. And so I think you deserve credit for that. I will most definitely be in support of the plan. All right. Any other discussion? Hearing none of the clerk, please call the roll.

Stanley.

Aye.

Moore. Yes. Schaefer.

Yes.

Torres.

Yes.

Stefanski.

yes all in favor motion carry okay very good um let's take five and then we'll come back and we'll have the river riverside hospitality item number two next up

Thank you. um um

Okay, if we can go ahead and reconvene, that would be great. All right. I've also heard a cell phone go off a few times. If you wouldn't mind just giving us a quick check and just make sure everything's turned off, that would be awesome. All right, the next item before us is item number two. This is CFH 26-54 Riverside Hospitality. This was an item that was deferred from our August 3rd meeting. It's a river, Boise River system permit. of which we are deciding bodies is 3206 West Pleasanton Avenue. Mr. Moser.

Mr. Chair.

Oh, Commissioner Schaffer.

I will be recusing myself from this item as I work for the land group and we worked on the design for the project.

Great. I'll take a double mocha.

Okay.

Got it.

All right. Guess not. Commissioner Moser.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The applicant requests a Boise River system permit to install a pedestrian bridge over the Boise River adjacent to the Bernadine Quinn Riverside Park. And the site is generally located at 3206 West Pleasanton Avenue on a 70.9 acres in a open land, very low density with the Boise River system and floodplain protection overlays. This is the vicinity map of the general area. On the northeast side of the river, adjacent to the site is the Bernadine Quinn Riverside Park, which is owned by Boise Parks and Rec. On the southwest side of the river is the Riverside Hospitality Campus, which is located within the Garden City. Adjacent to the north and south is the Boise River. This slide shows the site plan. The site plan shows the proposed location of the bridge with respect to the Riverside Hospitality Campus and the Sandbar Restaurant. The bridge will expand access to the existing pedestrian and bike facilities of the Greenbelt and will allow walkers and cyclists to improve or to safely cross the river without using the upstream Main Street and Fairview Avenue bridges. The project will include two viewing platforms, one in the center of the bridge, the other on the south side of the bridge within Garden City. The City of Garden City will require a conditional use and floodplain permit to address the project's impacts within their jurisdiction. This is the landscape plan. It shows the trees that will be removed along the east and west side of the river. The proposed bridge design will minimize the impacts on the surrounding sensitive environmental features along the riverbank to the maximum extent practicable. However, the construction staging area will remove about 16 trees from within the park. Boise Parks and Recs reviewed the landscape plan and recommends that mitigation be provided for the loss of all the public trees. In addition, the application was heard before the Parks Commission and they recommended the project mitigation conform with the recommendations of Boise City Parks and Recreation. This will provide in-kind compensation for the loss of the public trees. This landscape plan shows the northeast side of the river within the City of Boise and how the bridge will connect to the Greenbelt. As seen here, the applicant proposes 12 trees to be planted adjacent to the Greenbelt. In addition, the disturbed areas of the riverbank area will be repaired and restored. This area will be revegetated with native plants. A recommended condition of approval requires the disturbed areas in general to be revegetated and stabilized. And it is understood that the bridge abutment protection area will not contain vegetation because it will contain riprap and will be under the bridge directly and adjacent to the bridge. The planning team did receive letters of opposition from the public expressing concerns regarding the bridge's impact on the river habitat and that there was no need for a new pedestrian bridge in location due to the proximity of other bridges in the area. However, I will note with the conditions of approval, the impacts to the river habitat will be mitigated this area is also a high pedestrian pedestrian traffic area the green belt and the bridge will provide a benefit to the public as such the planning team recommends approval of the river system permit thank you okay thank you mr moser is the applicant president very good and if you wouldn't mind sir please state your name and address for the record and you'll have it's 10 minutes okay yes sir okay great

all right thank you mr chair and commission my name is jeff bauer my address is 601 west bannock in boise here tonight on behalf of the applicant riverside hospitality we do have one application before the commission tonight and you are the final decision maker on it it's a application for a river system permit and it will allow for the construction of a multi-use bridge across the boise river This application was heard by the parks and recreation Commission and August they recommended approval and at that hearing the parks director provided testimony that was also in favor of this application being approved. We have reviewed the staff report for this project, we agree with planning staffs analysis that we meet all of the criteria for approval for a river system overlay and we also agree with all the staff recommended conditions of approval. I'll breeze through this because staff did a great job. I think all the Commission knows where this bridge is to be located. I just wanted to highlight that the northeast side of this bridge is in the city of Boise's jurisdiction. and as you move to the south west uh we encounter garden cities jurisdiction so there are two land use jurisdictions that will approve this uh this bridge uh this body through the river system overlay permit and garden city through the cup but the city of boise does uh have planning authority all the way across the river to the ordinary high water mark on the south west bank One other thing I wanted to highlight about this vicinity is that we are in the city of Boise's 30th Street area master plan, which is a subplan of Blueprint Boise. All of the land at issue in this instance, at least what the Boise Planning Commission is reviewing, has A1 open land zoning. We are here today because of the overlay. So we are in the Boise River overlay and there are Class A lands at issue here that the bridge will span. It is important to note that your code, the modern zoning code, does expressly allow river bridges and paved accesses in the Class A lands. So what we're proposing here is contemplated to be included in Class A lands, primarily to provide access to recreation and so that the community can enjoy the river. Highlighting a component of the 30th Street Master Plan that we found compelling in this instance. Again, this is a subplan of Blueprint Boise. within that plan there's a main Fairview sub-district a lot of this is getting planned out right now the the River District in the in the northwest corner but this plan does specifically call for a river crossing uh near the intersection of Idaho Street and 30th and so we are proposing a bridge in that location which is where the city's planning documents also have contemplated a bridge Planning staff did an excellent job going over the site plan. I want to just highlight a few more things. One, the current alignment of the greenbelt on the Boise City side for through traffic will not be altered by this project. So the greenbelt will stay in its normal alignment. um we will tie into the current alignment of the green belt with two 12 foot wide ramps those ramps provide easy access for users going in both directions both east and west on the green belt and then you can also see in that little triangle between the the green belt and the ramps there's also a stairway proposed for pedestrians that helps separate bike and scooter traffic from pedestrians so pedestrians aren't using the ramps Moving across the river, you can see the bridge there. It is 12 feet wide. It's approximately 175 feet long. In the middle of the bridge, you see those two bulb outs. Those are two viewing platforms, about six by 21 feet, one looking upstream, one looking downstream. And then as we move to the west across the river, you can see where we hit Garden City and have some additional ramps and integrate into the Garden City Greenbelt side. staff covered our landscaping well i did just want to highlight two things in that strip between the new ramps that will be constructed and the current greenbelt there will be some plantings those will all be native plants that the land group has has designed for this area and then in terms of uh restabilization of the bank we are not anticipating any disturbance of the bank except for in the precise location where the footers for this bridge will be located so we do have a condition of approval that requires us to restore that bank to the extent there is any disturbance but again we're not proposing any uh bank disturbance for this project beyond just the the narrow footer for the bridge Lastly, just wanted to kind of highlight the need here. It's not specifically a criteria of approval, but I did want to go over the need. So you're all well aware of the River District project going on on that Main Street corridor, adding hotel uses, multifamily housing. a new parking garage, I think close to 50,000 feet of commercial, and then the CWI Boise campus. All of that is going to funnel into and activate onto the Greenbelt on the Boise side. And you can see a rendering from a recent design review approval there. You can see the steps down to the Greenbelt. we're we're seeing similar development maybe not quite to that extent but on the Garden City side between 30th and 36th lots of new commercial uses lots of new housing projects again all activated onto the Greenbelt so we we are proposing this bridge to provide a safe crossing for folks to to utilize those rapidly developing areas and in closing uh we again would ask you to approve this project it does fulfill the long-term goals of the 30th street master plan it also comports with blueprint voices policies for a connected community and to support recreation and access to the river in greenville thank you thank you mr bauer um hold tight is there uh and is there a person representing the west end neighborhood association in chambers or online all right looks like no so the item and uh for any questions of the commission

Commissioner Moore. Question for, I think it's a question for staff. So if I read the packet report, there was a little bit of a weird tree mitigation requirement. If I understand what I think it was Boise Parks Commission required was that all trees that are removed, regardless of whether they're in good condition or they're desirable trees or regardless of whether or not they would actually, they would typically be mitigated, should be mitigated because they're all public trees. Is that correct?

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I believe the applicant is working with Boise City Parks and Rec on this and has been working with the community forestry. The applicant has provided an arborist report indicating that a number of the trees on site that will be removed are, I think, some of our Siberian elms. There's a little bit of discrepancy on, I guess, it's still being worked out and maybe the applicant could inform in better detail about what a public tree is. I think the parks wants the trees that they deem to be value within the parks to be mitigated if they're going to be removed as part of this process. And there is some question as to whether that should include poor or fair trees in health. Normally, we would not mitigate a poor tree, but these are still mature trees in the park. They provide canopy. They provide a public benefit. Parks would like to see them compensated.

i believe there's also maybe some some issue about what what the actual nature of those trees are um because i think parks will not look at them so but i i i'd refer to the applicant on what those conversations are sure chairman danley and commissioner moore thank you for the question i think to to get to the crux there is a condition condition number eight which requires the applicant to mitigate for the loss of all public trees associated with this project kind of full stop that being said we are having some ongoing discussion between our arborist and the city forester about what the actual public trees are on this site there are some so the elms on site are technically invasive and there's some question as to what their utility is and you know we're just trying to work through that between arborists if the city forester ultimately decides that they are public trees that need to be mitigated for we will

okay all right and that kind of captures that condition as written kind of captures the flexibility to allow them to do what they need to do to debate that okay mr chair members of commission that is correct i i wrote it specifically to basically require the mitigation of all public trees then i left it to the parks to determine what a public tree is so i'll leave it to their discretion and their expertise sounds good uh and then commissioner mr chair

um so a slightly different topic uh so Garden City has a little bit different approvals you're in the process of getting those approvals Chairman Danley Commissioner Moore yes we um

we have held a neighborhood meeting we've prepared a cep application we are not we have not had a hearing yet though but we are in the process of getting those approvals um as you're well aware too there's a plethora of other permits that we're required to get as well um due to the fact that we are you know below the high ordinary high water mark so we have idwr idl army corps we're in the process of getting all those as well okay great and then mr chair

so assuming that um you know maybe for some reason garden city denies it then this kind of automatically doesn't work is that correct it's for either of you and whoever wants to answer that one mr chair members of the commission that would be correct i mean we we are only one jurisdiction here so they would need it from both it is a bridge perfect okay commissioner torres mr chair

My question is for staff. So we heard a recent item that had Class A habitat involved. So I just want to, in the interest of consistency, ask about that. It sounds like obviously this is a much smaller project than the previous one, and it looks like most of the trees are being replaced. Can you clarify that? And I guess my follow-up to that is it looks like all the trees or most of the trees are within the City of Boise's jurisdiction on this item. Is that correct?

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, that is correct. The impact to the riverbank where the Class A land will be fairly minimal as mentioned in the report and at this hearing. to the about to the bridge abutments themselves and where they are going to be impacted they'll have to be restored back with native riparian habitat and plantings as for the trees they will have to be mitigated and most of the trees are on the on the boise city side i think there's only true two trees on the garden uh garden city side that would be impacted and i believe the arborist report had noted um that they were um in poor condition but i that's going from memory

Which response like you know chair follow up question to that, can you show me or clarify because I didn't quite see this, so the class a land that the bridge footing will be on on this on this North side. How will that be mitigated if the footings there. So doesn't that exclude that space from being replaced or mitigated so we potentially lose that size of the footing of Class A wetland? Mr.

Chair, members of the Commission, that is correct. I mean, by default, you have to put a footing here. You're going to have to disturb the bank to some degree to put the bridge in. The River System Ordinance does call out natural resource values that it wants protected, and part of those natural resource values does look at recreation and public benefit. So we are looking at more than just restoring the riparian. Although they are going to be in that whole green area or around it, they will be basically where they're impacting, they are going to be restoring with riparian. They're going to be planting additional trees that they're removing into the parks and around the area. you know so they are going to be basically mitigating for the impact of that of that area but yes there will be spaces along the river our section of the river that will be impacted there's no way around that i mean the but the bridge above it has to go someplace for this to happen but there's not in our in our plans or in our policies that if any class a is removed that it has to be recreated somewhere else

It would like the trees like you're with the trees. You're like cut down a tree. We put in a new tree the same or make up the same caliber, but we don't do that for Class A.

You would have to plant the same caliber of trees, the amount of trees being removed. Then they would have to basically plant the same caliber inch back or pay into a tree mitigation fund to the to the parks where they can do it offsite in kind mitigation using the money. There are the only place I know of it within the river system permit where it talks about um restoring per se would be like or when you're dealing with emergent wetlands that there has i mean where you need to restore it and to say in kind there is like no net loss but that can be achieved through other means such as planting of other like restoring or restoring habitat along along the area using native riparian habit or native riparian plants

improving the bank adjacent to it planting additional trees into the park area along the bank all go to basically um addressing that no net loss of riparian habitat if that makes sense okay so but there's no at least in this wherever that footing is there's no like you have to create more class a river bank system area in this and so if that's the if that's the case which i think that's what you're saying then what is the limit because you just said that there's a cost benefit to public access and enjoyment of these areas what is the the limitation do you think in in the city's eyes for how big of a bridge would have an impact that they would not be worth the public interest question Mr.

Chair, members of the Commission, I think that what they're proposing is exactly what we would want. It's a 12-foot bridge, which is what we'd want for a pathway bridge going across to see both for bikes and peds. It isn't any larger than that. Even where the bump out and the viewing spots are in the center of the river itself are not going to affect the bridge abutment. um on either side so even where that where it bumps out provide additional pathway or additional pedestrian viewing is not impacting the river itself it's suspended over the top of the river i i think a lot of this though is subjective in some degree there is not um a har i mean as far as i'm i'm aware there's it's not like a it's not a mathematics game of like one to one. You lose a one square foot of class A land, you have to replace one square foot of class A land someplace else, unless you're talking about specifically wetlands, because that's a different thing, but there are no wetlands here. So it's kind of a subjective thing and also looking, so you look at their mitigation plan and you look at their enhancement plans and what they're proposing and you weigh it out towards the project and the benefit it provides.

John Potter, Okay, and can I ask one one more question is there i'm just thinking as we're here on the planning Commission lot of things are zoned there's certain amount of things setbacks those type of things and all of these zones, I wonder. John Potter, Does the city ever think about how many bridges, they should have over the river. John Potter, How many is too many. Like what, I just foresee here's one business, they wanna put a bridge. I mean, are we gonna get one in another month that's down at the next place that doesn't have one and then the next place and the next business that's right on the green belt that wants another bridge?

Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I mean, that would be more long-term parks planning, and if they would actually want to put any more bridges adjacent to crossing the river to their parks, I don't suspect they have it in their plans, and I suspect putting a bridge in has a cost to it, so it's not something that would go in as readily as you'd expect it or is what you're suggesting but um but overall I I think that's more of a long-term Parks planning and I don't think they have a lot of bridges additional bridges proposed this is one that I think is being proposed by a private entity wanting to put it in at their cost and then donate to the city after the words for so you know to provide a public benefit so I I think that is that's a kind of a unique situation in that sense all right thank you

But to be clear, this was also conceptually, maybe not exactly Nat's eyelash, located in an adopted plan that was vetted by the public and had been on the record for 20 years.

Mr. Chairman of the Commission, that is correct. It is noted that a river crossing would occur here within the 30th Street Master Plan.

Okay. Big difference there. Big difference there. Okay, any other questions from the Commission? Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Okay, with that, if there's no more other questions, then we'll go ahead and take a seat real quick, and let me see if there's anybody from the public that wishes to testify, and we'll go from there. I have the sign-up sheet, but there's no name on it, so if anybody wishes to testify on this item now, I thought I'm looking in the very back of the room. This is your time, ma'am. Okay. It's not your time, ma'am. All right. So CFH 25-54, is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify on this item? There is not. Okay. Well, normally we'd offer you five minutes of rebuttal. I'm assuming you don't want to rebut nothing. Okay, in that case, the item is before the Commission. Again, this is a river system permit, CFH 26-54.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres.

I move that we approve CFH 26-54 with all the terms and conditions in the staff report.

Okay, I've got a motion by Commissioner Torres to approve with the conditions in the staff report or second.

I'll second. I'll second.

I heard you. Commissioner Moore with a second. Is there any discussion? Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Torres. I appreciate the questions and answers from staff and the applicant on this project. I wanted to ask the questions about the classic lands because we have had that discussion recently. And I wanted to try to, we always want to be consistent, but we also have to take each application as it is and treat it as a unique application. ultimately i think the fact that this has been in a 20-plus year uh plan that's been vetted by the public as chair danley mentioned um is important and i think um the footprint of this bridge is much smaller than you know a bridge could potentially be um it's I always have concerns more we're affecting you know the natural habitat, particularly on the river, but I think this. This project kind of splits the the difference as well as it possibly can I mean if we're going to have a bridge it's going to have an impact. And this is a bridge that has been vetted by the public and the Community, so I will be supporting it, thank you.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Torres. Any other discussion? No. Nothing. Mr. Sponsic?

Chair? Yeah, this one is a tough one. I will be in support of it. Because of the community plan that had labeled this. But I do, based on the questions that I asked, I think you can tell I'm a little... um weary of starting to kind of approve bridges and maybe it's not as frequently as we're seeing because we just had another bridge last month and i'm just like oh no are there more bridges coming is the whole we're going to pave over the river i know it's extreme but um i want to indicate that this is a narrow pedestrian bridge uh there's no like major posts in the river there's full mitigation it's part of the plan um already in the community to have this bridge here um And I would have loved to see some more Class A mitigation because there's nothing there currently. And this footer, and I know it's small, but It's like, yeah, you build another one, you build another one. And before you know it, that adds up and we're losing a lot of that habitat in that stream bank right there. So those are some of my concerns, but I will be in support.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner Stefancic. Real quick, I'm being yes and there's nobody in opposition, so I'm just speaking to you. And I know you got to go in front of Garden City Council at some point here soon. And I would just encourage you to add a couple of things, and that is two things. One is economic development. This is huge. This is a great example of the City of Boise and the City of Garden City, I think, collaborating in an area that is growing quickly and is really turning into a significant community center. you know, of all the activity that's happening there. And this is a bridge that I think is going to do a lot for not just the economic development, but the other part of that coin is the transportation side. Because right now, one of the alternatives is to go down Main. And that is not a great crossing for anybody who's walking, biking, taking a scooter and so forth. So this I think would relieve some of the tension that exists on that side. Anybody who's spending time down this way sees it constantly. There's lots of skid marks and we know why and it's right, all the activities. So I would just encourage you to add those two things next time you go in front of Garden City. The bad news is we only charge 25% of future sales tax for approval. No, okay. All right. With that, will the clerk please call the roll?

Danley.

Aye.

Moore. Aye. Schaefer.

He's getting the mocha.

Torres.

Yes.

Stefancic.

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. Thank you, sir. Okay, let's take this. I think we're good. Yeah, keep pushing. Let's go to item number four. This is CAR 26-1. This is Cedar Creek Architectural Design. This is a rezone of one acre, basically, at 9320 West Franklin. Mr. Exson.

Good evening, Commissioners. Before you tonight is a rezone of approximately 1.04 acres from I-1 HSO Industrial Light with Hillside Development Overlay to MX-2 HSO Mixed Use General with Hillside Development Overlay. The rezone is requested for a proposed multifamily or recovery residence, which is not before the Commission tonight and is outside the scope of the specific rezone application. Subject property is located on the north side of Franklin Road, surrounded by industrial zoning. The area is also one with a consistent zoning pattern and aligned with the future land use map as shown on screen. Summarizing the project report, the area has not substantially changed since the annexation in 1987. In the annexation ordinance, a letter from the planning director allowed office uses by right in the area shaded in red, which shows additional flexibility in the uses permitted in this area. Properties were zoned industrial within Ada County and then annexed and assigned the I-1 zoning at that time. Rezoning the subject property would allow for residential uses to occur, resulting in additional setback requirements to the adjacent I-1 properties, which are shown on screen. potential for these new setbacks highlights the incompatibility of the proposed mx2 zone lastly blueprint boise contains a policy which guides a potential mixed-use corridor after the completion of a high capacity rail study that study is currently underway by compost and as such it does not align with blueprint boise multiple public comments were received in opposition of the rezone some of the comments did discuss the incompatibility of the proposed mx2 zone with the surrounding area Echoing the staff analysis, the majority of the comments, however, focus on the proposed multifamily recovery residence use, which, as I mentioned, is not before the commission tonight, and there's no application submitted for that use yet. In conclusion, for the reasons in the staff report, the planning team recommends denial, and I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Doug. Is the applicant present? Come on up. If you wouldn't mind, just share your name and address for the record. You have 10 minutes, okay?

Yeah, I think I can make that work.

Okay, great. Thank you.

I am Austin Archambault. My address is 925 North Lander, Boise, Idaho, 83703. Chair and commissioners, thank you for your time. I'm representing the property owners at 9320 West Franklin. um let's see here oh thank you um so the image you see is a proposed concept we've spent months on a survey site plan building design and renderings tonight we're asking you to consider the zoning change that would allow us to take the next step in the city's review process our request is a um you can go to the next oh i've got the clicker okay so yeah you sh you saw this picture um our zoning request um our request is a zoning map amendment we're asking you to recommend approval for car26-1 for light industrial to mixed use we would the hillside overlay would stay in place we understand that your recommendation goes to city council for the final decision the development itself would still need to require reviews for use design occupancy parking traffic and access we're willing to enter a development agreement to put appropriate protections for the east neighbor in writing and i will explain that offer in a moment uh first i want to show you the property so we kind of discussed uh it's right here and uh and this is your obviously your light industrial zoning and the neighborhood across the street the residential separated by franklin and the canal and then the railway um so this vacant one acre property uh it's narrow the access is constrained by an easement along the canal uh the nearby properties along the side of franklin are also zoned light industrial you can see the canal and the railroad the north and franklin in the homes of the south i'd like to point out uh what is actually operating around us though uh to the west is lowry's dental office let's go to the next slide so we have the dental office operating here uh our next neighbors to the west is curtis blue line which is a police supply store directly next to us. Then there's a drainage pond between that and our property, which is outlined in the red. After that, you see Weld Pro. Weld Pro is a metal fabrication shop with a residential duplex on the property. um and then just past that you have uh wind supply uh plumbing supply store and then big smoke a tobacco shop all in that industrial zoning area these uses help explain that setting an industrial zone area that includes office retail service industrial businesses along with an existing duplex we recognize that those businesses need to be able to continue operating the compatibility with them is part of what our proposal needs to address here's also a history of considering office use there's also a history of considering office use here in 1987 annexation letter allowed office uses and identified areas subject to review in 2006 the city approved a three-story office proposal which was my father's proposal um on this property with a five foot east side setback variance that earlier proposal does not approve our project today it helps explain the history of this site and why we believe it deserves a closer look all right For future concept, here's what we've been working toward. It's a four-story recovery residence. There's a smaller three-story office with supportive services such as counseling. The concept shows a 26 unit, two to four bedroom apartment and a 39 parking spaces. Those are the numbers in the submitted concept, and they have not been approved. We understand that the city will need to review the use, building design, occupancy, parking access through future application. We included these drawings to help you understand the intended direction. We also want to introduce the organization that would operate the housing.

Rising Sun Sober Living.

It's a family owned business, Idaho business that has been operating since 2008. We provide more than 600 beds. We have 104 locations. It's structured housing across eight cities in Idaho, including approximately 300 beds in Boise alone. I share that background because we have experience with daily working of running these homes, setting expectations, supporting accountability, and responding when concerns come up. We understand that operating experience is only part of what you're considering. You also need to decide whether zoning fits this property. Our experience helps explain how we intend to manage it. So for us, structured housing means clear expectations, daily accountability. Our house rules include sobriety, drug testing, curfew, roommate courtesy, shared responsibilities to keep the home clean. for franklin we've proposed 24 7 staffing controlled access visitor limits building design that supports safety daily reports are sent to probation and parole any incidents being reported immediately we also provide a designated rising sun contact for neighbors they know exactly who to call about a concern the specific operating details still need their own review we are the These are the responsibilities we expect to take on as the operator. so public services and quarter access the location matters all utilities are available on site the property is near existing building businesses and services such as boise town square mall which is a major transportation hub in addition to jobs proximity to probation and parole as well as health well health and welfare are integral for our intended residential population and their success bus routes 42 and 45 are about a half a mile away on foot That provides some access to transit, although it doesn't answer all transportation questions. Fire and Parks reported no comment on this rezoning stage. That does not mean they have approved the development, traffic access, and actual demands of the project still need review, including ACHD. parking and access are questions we expect to work through in detail showing 39 spaces compared with a calculation of 38 using shared parking calculations still need to be verified future application would need to address access through bethel court possible parking overflows delivery fire access safe walking and biking connections We understand that those details matter to both the city and our neighbors. A recommendation on the rezoning would leave those required reviews in place. With that background, I want to address the concerns in staff's recommendation, staff's four concerns. Staff recommends denial. because they do not believe the current record meets the required findings for rezoning we take that seriously first staff does not map find a map error or changed conditions needed to support the request our letter also describes the property and neighboring property is unchanged for the last 20 years so we understand why that is a concern second residential use here could trigger setback requirement on the east industrial property, making its existing building nonconforming. Staff also questions whether rezoning the one parcel is premature and points to policies that protect industrial land. We understand the four findings need to be addressed. Here's our response. This property has sat vacant for years with homes and shops and other uses around it. We asked to consider that context. We understand that long vacancy alone does not establish the change conditions require for approval. Public welfare. this is an opportunity to add housing and office space on a vacant lot in an already developed area near jobs and services utilities are available on site and the project would still go through the required agency reviews compatibility We are willing to put protections for our east neighbor in writing through a development agreement. Staff and legal would need to confirm which conditions actually address the setback concern and comprehensive plan. Blueprint Boise allows flexibility for properties of 1.5 acres or less. when other policies support this proposed use our property is 1.04 acres we believe it deserves that consideration while recognizing that the sign is alone doesn't guarantee the approval proposed east side development agreement Let me explain what we mean by development agreement. We mean we put a specific conditions on this property into a binding agreement with the city. We're offering to work on a residential buffer along the east side, landscaping or screening wall, lighting directed away from neighbors and controlled access would also identify a rising sun contact whom neighbors can reach directly we are not naming a buffer distance today because staff and city legal need to confirm what would actually address the setback issue the agreement may also need limits on uses height for the amount of development because mx2 allows more than the concept shown here my understanding is that a 30-foot standard okay almost done uh can a couple minutes you'd be good absolutely all right go ahead my understanding is the 30 foot step back would apply to the neighbor uh weld pro so the variance on our property would not solve that concern we would like to work with staff and city legal to confirm the right approach in the final action and this is final slide we're asking for you to recommend approval of car 26-1 to City Council with appropriate protections for the East neighbor worked out through a development agreement we understand that their acquired findings must be met and that the development still has further review ahead we are willing to keep working with staff and neighbors on details And thank you for considering our request, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great, sir. Hold tight. I'm going to make sure the neighborhood association, this is the West Boise neighborhood association, Chris Cockrell representing. Is that person or anybody from the neighborhood association in chambers or online who wish to testify? Okay. Seeing none, then we'll go ahead and open this up for questions.

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Moore.

On the development agreement, to mitigate the buffer between the residential zone. The way I'm reading the zone standards, it's the note at the bottom of table 1102.27. It reads to me like it's from the property line. So if this parcel is used for a residential use, it would be from the property line that the buffer needs to be taken for the adjacent one. I don't know if I've ever seen an application come in front of us that

puts a development agreement on the subject property to aid an adjacent property i don't know is that is that kind of the correct line of thought there chairman commissioners that is correct yes a development agreement typically is just for the property that's entering into that agreement in this case the only application or the only property before the commission tonight is this singular subject property um you know, we would need to work with legal a little bit more to see if there is something there that could be worked out with the applicant in a development agreement mechanism there. But as you mentioned, you know, it's currently from the property line, the second any residential use goes on one of these properties, even if it is just two townhomes, for example, perimeter of that regardless of the size of the property does kick in those setback requirements to the adjacent properties, not just the one on the east also kicks in for the adjacent property to the west.

So, I mean, even putting a development agreement in place, it's not tied to like, so even if we got creative and said, okay, well, as long as you don't put your, your multifamily building or your residential use building 50 feet from any property line, that still wouldn't take care of the issue because it's the property line issue and not the building issue.

That is correct. Yes.

That's all I got for right now.

Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Chair. Who is that? Me. Okay. Mr. Torres.

Sorry.

My question is for staff. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's my understanding that the current, the modern zoning code cleaned up a lot of these things so that it discourages development agreements because the code is more clear about what's allowed in each zone. Whereas development agreements were used more in the previous code because we were trying to make things fit based on city goals and policies, but we had not yet amended the code. Can you confirm or deny that?

Chairman, commissioners, that is correct. Yes, with the currently adopted zoning code, there has been a shift away from development agreements because in the past, development agreements were used to address some of those deficiencies as the city's grown, but ordinances hadn't kept up with that. As shown on screen is the initial findings or the initial applicability for development agreement. If the Commission does find that the MX-2 zone is appropriate in general, however, there's some aspects where it doesn't meet the findings, the Commission could add a development agreement to this property as a condition of approval. In this case, just an example could be a rezone to MX-2 with a development agreement that no residential uses go on this property until the adjacent properties redevelop into a mixed-use corridor. know outline in blueprint boise because the mx2 zone does allow for a lot more different uses that are non-residential in nature such as restaurants retail things like that that would not create those setback conflicts with the surrounding industrial zones mr chair follow-up commissioners um i don't have it in front of me but i believe one of the pieces of written testimony we received commented on this being an example of spot zoning can you give me the city's perspective on that course commissioners yes so with this specific property since there is no real mx2 zoning kind of surrounding it and it is such a small um property acreage wise city would likely consider it spot zoning. Spot zoning is also very much a legal term, so I won't comment on the legality nature of a term like that. However, it would very much be something that the city would not support because it doesn't create that predictable development pattern. As it relates to that Blueprint Boise policy, this is very much looked at more as something that would be kind of a large-scale city-led rezoning of this whole franklin rail corridor rather than one property at a time as redevelopment interest occurs thank you commissioner stefancic i think you had a question maybe oh this is mr shaver my bad mr chair appreciate it um doug a couple questions for you for staff um where is the nearest mx2

parcel or area in this vicinity.

Commissioner, give me just one second and I will find that. Commissioner, it looks like it is approximately about half a mile.

to the south on the other side of the r1c zoning on the south side of franklin interesting then the town square mall is a higher density or a higher and more intense version of mx yeah right yeah sure okay great and then just so i understand and for everybody's knowledge here in the audience the setback issue that commissioner moore uh brought up currently there are what's the site setback now currently for the industrial zone for these parcels

Commissioners right now, I believe it is zero feet for the sides. You can do a zero lot line for industrial right now since it's surrounded by industrial. The second residential use goes on any of these properties, that's where those setbacks really get triggered. So again, with a rezone, if there were no residential uses proposed, if this rezone was approved by city council and a restaurant went in, that setback issue does not occur. It's only the second that there's a residential use going in. And that setback applies to

both parcels or just the parcel that is being proposed for redevelopment?

It would just be for the surrounding, the adjacent properties that don't get redeveloped. Correct. So in this case, the east and west of the subject property would then now have 30 foot setbacks. Whereas right now they have zero foot setbacks. That's what I was trying to get to. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Any other questions from the commission?

Mr. Chair.

Commissioner Moore.

So the other piece of this is that adjacent property, the one to the east, I think it was mentioned that that has some residential use. So would this property, if it was developed as industrial, have a 30-foot setback because of that duplex that's there?

Commissioners, at this moment, I don't believe it would since it is a legal nonconforming residential use that was in the county versus brand new.

Okay.

And furthermore, a duplex would not be permitted in the industrial zoning at all in today's standards.

So just for everyone's clarity, that duplex was existing when it was brought into the city zoning from Ada County? Correct. Okay.

Okay. Any last questions? Okay, sir, you can take a seat. We're going to go ahead and open this up to the public for their comments. Before I do that, however, let me just set the table a couple things. One is the item in front of us tonight is the ReZone application. Um, and I know that the applicant, uh, put forth their intentions should a rezone be approved, but what was put forth would be subject to another set of hearings, um, just to be clear. So again, for tonight we are hearing. the reason the other thing i was going to say is that we've seen the letters that you all have submitted and i've seen the names on many of those letters also written on the sign up sheet that does not mean or prohibit you from testifying tonight but also know that you do not have to testify because we've read your letters and if you we get through this list and you start to feel like hey my points already been made There's no harm, no foul in saying I'm good. I'm, you know, do something else. It's OK. So with that, we're also making sure we try to find new information as we go through this. And I just say that because there's a lot of names on here. I just want to make sure to be respectful of everybody's times. All right. With that, again, name and address for the record. And everybody will have three minutes. First up is Janet Sherman and followed by, I think it's Deanna Lowry. And Deanna and Eric Lowery, if you guys wouldn't mind, come up to the front and just be ready to go. That would expedite things if you still intend to testify. Hi.

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Janet Sherman, 134 Old Quarry Way, Maple Hill Subdivision, 83709. I appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to voice my opposition to the proposed rezoning of 9320 West Franklin Road from I-1 to MX-2. as boise continues to grow our need for light industrial land uses is also growing the i1 corridor along the north side of franklin road is one of boise's main light industrial zones i oppose spot rezoning a single lot to mx2 within the franklin road i1 corridor for a proposed project that is incompatible with existing businesses and the surrounding neighborhood and inconsistent with boise's expectations for growth of light industrial businesses With apologies to the developers, I question the proposed project's financial viability and the developer's commitment to it. And if the project isn't viable, then rezoning is not warranted. Financially, at last October's neighborhood meeting, the developers reported they had been unable to secure bank financing. And none of the documents in the current case files address the project's financial viability. And I'm questioning the commitment to the project as proposed because the developers have a two-year track record of flip-flopping on the purpose. Specifically, they've submitted documents for this site proposing an office building, a Tier 3 psychiatric facility, a rehabilitation and reintegration facility, and a five-store building of luxury apartments. these demonstrate both lack of commitment and a lack of rationale for rezoning the rest of my comments are covered in my written testimony but I did want to address that while site use residents site plans are not being considered tonight I think that the viability of the project is essential to a justification for rezoning thank you

Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Appreciate you coming out. Okay. Deanna Lowry and Eric Lowry followed by Mark Meyerhofer.

my name is hello my name is dina lowry and my address is 3132 east lake hazel road um lowry dental is a family practice on franklin and bethel street serving thousands of patients in the area including many young children we oppose the proposed rezone and the high intensity recovery residents at 9320 west franklin road the fair housing act and related reasonable accommodation rules protect people with disabilities including those in recovery from discriminatory zoning, but they do not require a city to approve 130 plus person all-male facility coming directly from prison next to a working medical and business corridor. A request of that scale is not a reasonable accommodation. It would fundamentally alter the I won business character of this parcel and impose on undue burden on surrounding businesses. At the neighborhood meeting, the project was described as a housing more than 130 men with felony convictions. That intensity is incompatible with the dental office that treats families and children all day. Patients already have difficulty exiting Bethel onto Franklin, adding 130 plus residents and staff and event traffic at the same intersection would worsen backups and crash risks. There is little transit and there are no sidewalks. or bike lanes a claim that most residents will ride bikes as will ride bikes is not a traffic plan the site plan shows only 38 parking spaces for residents staff and events overflow will spill onto our full lot and a narrow street that cannot absorb it if occupancy later exceeds that posted count as has been reported at other properties operated by this applicant the parking and traffic problem only grows Our staff of about 30 is mostly entirely women, many of whom arrive early and leave late, often alone. Our patients are largely families with young children. Our building holds controlled medications and expensive equipment. Legitimate non-discriminatory public safety and property protection concerns, traffic, parking overflow, loitering, and after hours risks are proper zoning considerations under both local code and fair housing case law. Keep this parcel zoned I-1 for business. Deny the rezone and reject a use of this intensity next to Lowry Dental. That's our plead. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you for joining us. Okay. Eric Lowry followed by Mark Meyerhofer followed by Brian Hale.

Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Eric Lowry. I'm a co-owner of Lowry Dental. We operate a dental office and a dental lab there at that facility on 9460 Franklin. And we've been there for, wow, 40 years almost now, and it's been a long time. And it's been a great place to work. We've enjoyed our companions of other industry that is represented in that little area along the whole corridor. And we hope it doesn't change. I want to acknowledge all the people that are opposed to this rezoning. If all those people that are here that oppose it could raise their hand. We want to acknowledge all the people that showed up tonight. And we know this is just a rezone meeting, but we are passionate about it. And we feel that though these gentlemen are great people, I don't deny that. They've got a lot of good things going in the community and they're serving many people. I just feel like maybe in this spot is not the best spot for them. And it doesn't fit with the comprehensive plan that Boise has established. and um i i think maybe we we look for a different location that that would um fit their needs a little bit better and and um but i feel like the their spot that they're trying to rezone is not and so um i object and i thank you for your time thank you sir okay mark meyerhofer brian hale and then ken it's either uh is it a bear a bear hi uh good evening uh

Mark Meyerhofer we're going to withdraw comment at this time to the extent that the rezoning is actually approved and we would like to reserve the right to come back to give commentary on what we've observed in the operation of the Rising Sun Homes as we serve those on a regular basis and have watched sort of the operational side of it and what is done to manage the residents there and also to address the need for affordable housing at that level of returning citizens. But we'll withdraw for now until they decide to do so.

Great. You've given us just enough information. I feel like I should probably get your address just for covering bases.

4103 West Whale Hillport. Perfect. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Brian Hale, Ken, and then Donna Freestone.

Hi there. Brian Halley, 9527. zero west bronze drive that's in boise um you know i've been working in this area for about the past nine years and when i heard about this facility coming in one of the things that surprised me was the number of beds and the number of parking spots and the amount of traffic that would be turning on franklin road i gotta tell you i feel like i already take my life to my hands trying to make a left-hand turn on my way home and this would this is a very busy you know road it's two lanes each direction with a turn lane in the middle And I just don't know how it would accommodate that. I'd also just be concerned about the parking spot. So previously I lived next to the Rising Sun home on Ustick, and I actually loved the mission of Rising Sun. I got to say that. But the more than one out of every three residents has a vehicle right and the the parking that's being called for there would be close to that percentage and i don't see how that would be possible to accommodate um with the exception of a duplex it sounds like it was grandfathered in i'm not aware of any other residential um proceedings going on there was a homeless guy one time that lived in the area but that that didn't work out very well either I do think if we allow this residential zoning to take place, is that an ironic precedence for other residential facilities to come into this area, which isn't consistent with the plan that's already been set forth by the city? And I want to say that I do appreciate what is trying to be accomplished, providing housing for those that are transitioning back to society. I've worked with the Department of Corrections on a volunteer basis to help provide church services. My heart goes out, and I think we do need to do all that we can to help people transition back into society after their incarceration. But this is a strange location to facilitate that, and thank you for your time.

Okay, thanks, sir.

uh ken is it is it either a bear or hebert i'm not sure favorite gosh i'm bad enough my name is ted hebert my address is 2136 north similarly avenue and meridian i am currently with saint vincent de paul i am the president of st dismas reentry conference we help returning citizens coming into our community although this is a planning and zoning I'd just like to mention that Rising Sun is one of our community partners. We just gave a presentation to the National Assembly in Salt Lake City, and we use Rising Sun as one of the transition homes. There are 30 in the city, and we really need a facility such as the one they're planning because of the need of returning citizens coming in. And I understand the fear of people that have never encountered anybody coming out of incarceration. But we enter the homes of Rising Sun at least on a weekly basis. And I can say we've never had a problem. The fear of them going around committing crime in the neighborhood is really, it's not even a question to be answered. It doesn't happen. And I'm sure the city of Boise Police Department can attest to that. I myself am also retired law enforcement. And again, I understand this is plenty of zoning, but I think we really have a need and support of Rising Sun building this facility. Thank you.

Thank you for coming out. Okay. Donna Freestone, followed by Monty White, followed by Ben Lowry. Laurie, I'm bringing it tonight.

My name is Donna Freestone and I live at 3077 South Ladera here in Boise. I wasn't going to I can't talk about the zoning part, but I do feel I need to address the issue that was brought up about the safety of women. I've probably been in those houses, every single one of them, in Ada County multiple times over the last eight years doing home visits. Never once was I afraid, never once was I uncomfortable, and never was anyone disrespectful for me. They're clean, they're well-managed, they have set rules, and I've seen the evidence of what happens if the rules are not followed. And like I said, the people are very respectful. They just want another chance.

Thank you. Great. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Monty White, Ben Lowry, then Martin, I think it's Geffen.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Monty White. I live at 921 South Curtis in Boise. I am a product of what they stand for um rising sun um i've never lived in in their house but i live in a transitional housing um right now and if it wasn't for transitional housing I would probably still be incarcerated. I was released from custody on January 2nd into a special program where I got out early, 90 days early. I was officially released from custody March 30th. Some of my history is back in 1997 and 98, I did time in Chino prison. When I was paroled from there, I was kicked out on the street and California didn't care what happened to me. Idaho, they care. They won't let you leave prison without somewhere to live. And because of places like Rising Sun and where I live, It's given me a chance to be a productive member of society. I'm working on getting my contractor's license back. I lived in Valley County for 20 years as a contractor. I just wanted to come and give my support for them because it's people like them that have given me a chance to be what I am today.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming out. Ben Lowry, followed by Martin Geffen, and then Amanda Wheeler.

Good evening. I'm Dr. Benjamin Lowry. I'm also one of the owners of Lowry Dental. My father started this building, built it back in the 80s. and as a dental lab we were approved by the way and this light industrial zone i know this meeting is not about us but it is about our neighborhood and my dad did have the foresight to invest in this property based on the current zoning and my family has built our generation and our We've been able to provide for our families based on this building. If the zoning is changed based on this spot change, it will have an immediate effect on us and our future at this location, we feel, and we think it could compromise other properties around us. the I don't you know based on your guys's uh decision um you know this zoning is very important to us it matters for our longevity um there's a lot of people in on this street that are dependent on this work um we do also value people that are Um, going through these potential developments that has nothing to do with that. This is about zoning, um, and are in protecting our, our neighborhood essentially. Um, and I just wanted to make sure my opinion was heard that this is, has, does have an impact on us and any potential change of the zone. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh, Martin Geffen, Amanda Wheeler, and then Dennis, uh, Tana Cooney.

Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I'm asking you to recommend a denial of the request to rezone this property from I-1 Light Industrial to MX2 Mixed General. I want to make it clear my opposition is not in i don't stand in opposition to the service that the facility will provide i recognize the importance of that my concern is whether this particular property is an appropriate location for a proposed facility and whether it's appropriate to permanently change the zoning of this property to the much broader mx2 designation this is a very unusual and constrained site It's bordered by Franklin Road on the south, a metal fabrication shop on the east, a retail police equipment and uniform store to the west. To the north is the Ridenbaugh Canal and the Boise Valley Railroad with additional industrial properties beyond them, including the chemical distribution facility. Directly across the road is Maple Hill subdivision where I live. and i forgot my address is 9336 stonehill court where my wife and i have lived for 46 years there is also very serious access and traffic concern the property will be connected to bethel court Bethel Court is simply a small two-lane dead-end street constructed to serve the commerce that it passes through. It serves additional, I'm sorry, it's serving the existing commercial area. There is no outlet to the west. Its only egress will be to Franklin Road. This means very limited access for additional traffic generated by the property. This facility can generate employees, visitors, transportation of residents or clients, deliveries, service vehicles, and emergency traffic. The question is whether Bethel Court can handle that. I doubt it. we need to consider more than the current proposal the applicant is asking for MX2 zoning which could allow a broader range of future uses on this property once that zoning is in place it remains with the property the city should therefore consider the long-term traffic and land use consequences of zoning a single property within an I-1 district The site's physical constraints also raise questions about infrastructure and public services, including emergency access, pedestrian access, utilities, and traffic circulation. Before approving a permanent change in zoning, the city should be satisfied that the infrastructure serving this property is adequate for the intensity and range that MX-2 could permit. finally i believe rezoning needs to be considered in the context of the boise comprehensive plan including the relationship of a proposed development to its surrounding uses its location its access and its neighborhood character commissioners this decision this decision is not simply about whether the proposed recovery facility serves a legitimate purpose is about whether it makes sure it was appropriate i need to have you stop but can you real quick uh state your name for the record though we never caught that

I'm sorry, I never we never caught your name for the official record. Can you just state your name too, please?

Martin Giffon.

Perfect, thank you. Thank you very much. OK, Amanda Wheeler and then Dennis Tanakuni. And then Fletcher Fountain.

My name is Amanda Wheeler. My address is 4900 North Sandy Ave, Boise 83704. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity today. I was incarcerated in 2019. In 2020, I was released. I met the people at Rising Sun. I've never met more supportive people, people who are so involved in this community. They gave me an opportunity that I needed at the time. Through them, I've now been employed with them. I work closely with the community. We have such a need for housing for people like myself in this community. Being able to zone this property where it's located would give so much access that I personally needed when I was released from prison, access to jobs, being able to be close to things, resources that I needed. And they're gonna have some of those resources within this facility. Being able to have everything in one building, being able to support the people like myself is very much needed and desired. accomplishment that i think is great that we're able to hopefully provide um i would love to see the support that the community has being given back to rising sun because they've done so much for this amazing community thank you all right thank you very much for coming out okay uh dennis tanakuni the excellent opposition witnesses that have testified certainly

certainly okay okay thank you sir appreciate it okay uh Fletcher Fountain and then Michael book good evening thank you for the opportunity

Fletcher Fountain, 8050 West Eustick Road, Boise, Idaho. I came to Rising Sun a little over five years ago. And I know the importance of having a build and build for people like myself and i know that i can't speak much on the zoning but i can't speak for rising sun and they've been a family to me and we all need people like rising sun to freaking help us reintegrate into the community and make it in this world we i don't see where it would be it would just be a tragedy not to you know rezone this and have this facility build we really need this really need this thank you thank you for coming out okay michael book i think it is good evening thank you guys for the opportunity um the zoning i understand is going to be

That's the battle tonight. So, I mean, wherever this location is going to be accepted is definitely needed. I could have been homeless, dead, re-incarcerated. I was not from here. I was released into Boise five years ago. Didn't know anybody. Nowhere to go. No job. No recovery program. And all I could think of and have hope for was that I was going to go back to prison. I gave up Rising Sun, didn't know nothing about them, didn't know nothing about the people. They brought me in and I've developed a relationship within that community, within those individuals that I consider personal. I am now a very successful business owner. I have my own contracting company. I am huge in the recovery program and in the recovery community in Boise. there is a problem with homelessness there is a problem with people getting out and having nowhere to go and it's backing up our prison systems so wherever this location is it is needed it is definitely needed and knowing that there are people against it because of the location because of traffic tell me someplace in boise right now that doesn't have a traffic problem because of our building because of different things that are happening we're growing we're a growing city that's the greatness of it the problem is we have a highest recidivism rate in the country per capita in the whole country idaho where are we gonna where are these people gonna go like me like myself when do i get the chance to show that you don't have to i build homes i go into people's homes i have a successful business and it started with a chance from developers you know rising sun caring about people my wife is employed by rising sun she manages women's housing the care and compassion they've given people a chance to prove that hey i'm not an addict you don't have to be scared of me i'm not going to break into your home your business if i hadn't had that fighting chance that might have happened because what else would i had done i would either died or recommitted felonies and went back to prison I think this is a great opportunity, a great location, and I appreciate your time.

Before you hop off, sir, can you give us an official address?

10230 West Edna Street, Boise, Idaho.

Perfect. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, that is the end of our sign up feet. That doesn't mean that there isn't a chance to still come up and speak. So if you'd like to come on up, all I ask is that you state your name and address for the record. And then if there's anybody online, we'll get to you in a minute to quit. Come on up and just the mic as you need.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Hope Brighton. My address is 385 South Old Corey Way, Boise, Idaho. I am a member at large of the Maple Hill subdivision that is directly south of the rezoning plot that's our topic this evening. I would just like to outline that our HOA works very hard as we maintain an acreage plus of community space that has a pond and walking areas. Our HOA has been nervous that our area that has been funded by our HOA will be exploited by neighboring groups as there are not easily walkable spaces along the area. There's also not a sidewalk along the Franklin corridor there on that side, so they would have to go to the Big Smoke. intersection and then cross to access a sidewalk our HOA also reviewed the renderings of the buildings and wanted to pull out a double review or maybe ask question about the fire code that was conducted as part of the building there are lots of individuals in a small area as other folks have represented this evening so we just wanted to be sure that that was also addressed i also wanted to outline the maple hill elementary school that lies directly south of the proposed facility as long as as well as a preschool across the road on the other side it's a montessori farm preschool our neighborhood also has a high concentration of young individuals with a 30 percent demographic rate of individuals under the age of 18. so there are certainly a demographic contrast that we would be seeing as well as additional emergency services as my fellow neighbor had outlined so um just a couple questions there and wanted to outline our neighborhood's concern as well as the concern about folks just walking through and how this might influence our property values in the area for the neighborhood great thank you very much thanks for hanging in there all right any I think there's three more of you any one of you can come on up here I'll get your time oh boy that doesn't fit if you break it though you gotta buy it buy it yeah no

Okay. My name is Kelly Bauscher. I live at 9195 West Maple Hill Drive, Boise A3709. I'm an 11-year resident of the Maple Hill subdivision that's adjacent to the proposed site being considered for rezoning. I'm opposed to changing the industrial zoning to mixed use. Our subdivision is a dense residential area heavily populated by two vulnerable groups. those being elderly and children, introducing a transitional housing facility into this specific ecosystem creates unnecessary security anxieties for families and those who chose the specific neighborhood for its quiet, secure environment. I urge the committee to deny the proposal and seek an alternative location that balances the facility and public sustainability. A few points and questions. for the commissioner or the lack of infrastructure, which I know has been mentioned several times. The north side of Franklin doesn't have any sidewalks. There's no bike lanes. So a new area which will be populated with perhaps 100 plus beds begs the question of where and how are these folks going to get around? I'd also like to speak about the parcel size and the concern for lack of parking with over 100 beds and workers and folks on site there on staff i'm just wondering how they're going to you know provide parking for everyone um of course rezoning this property to mixed use would have an impact on the first responders in the area um a facility housing 100 plus, again, residents could generate additional calls for medical emergencies, behavioral crises, overdoses, disturbances, welfare checks, and other incidents. And I was wondering if a written impact assessment has been obtained from police, fire, EMS, and I could be overstepping because maybe we're not there yet. And so my apologies if that is the case, and it looks like that is. And of course, if we do get there, there are concerns about the rehabilitation center and the nonviolent criminals and all those things that we can address at a later time. I think that's it.

Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay.

thank you good evening my name is stacy leroux i live at 631 south gray pine boise idaho 83709 my home is less than a mile from the proposed site i first want to address a couple of the speakers mentioned about their concern for young individuals and children specifically being concerned that this would be a group negatively impacted by a rezoning and I would like to say that I I would say it's the opposite the state has one in 12 kids who has a parent who's come out of incarceration or who is currently incarcerated um that is three kids in every classroom that's a lot of children. I'm guessing that some of those children go to that school. I'm guessing those children also exist within those communities. And I promise you that some of those kids have parents who lived in a space that would need a home, that would need somewhere to go. Aside from that, I am here today in strong support of rezoning for this. Recovery and reentry is so much more than just housing. It's more than a place to sleep. It's about having an opportunity to build a life. That means they also need employment opportunities, education, transportation, individualized reentry guidance, access to resources, and healthy leisure activities. I believe this proposed development would be creating a location where housing and supportive services exist intentionally and in harmony and can make an impact on many reentry barriers that many people face. Having access to positive peer connections, sober spaces, career development pathways, and other resources that cater to the incredibly complex array of needs that individuals coming out of incarceration have, it's extremely important. All of this being under one roof just increases the likelihood of someone moving forward with confidence in their successful reentry. This location I find very valuable to me and my family who lives right there because it's super easy to get to places. I can get to all kinds of different employment opportunities and I think The public transportation system is pretty in jeopardy here, and I think having somewhere like this location would just be such a great tool for people. As the program manager for a reentry career development program, I can't express how much already of an impact these guys have on our community, but I believe passing this would be a strong demonstration that you guys are ready to invest in solutions that give people the tools to succeed. families will benefit employers benefit neighborhoods benefit i respectfully ask you to move in favor of rising sun thank you thank you ma'am okay come on up my phone goes off i apologize i'm old and don't know how to shut it off i'm martha hooper i prefer to be called marty hooper

I live at 1500 South McDermott Road in Nampa, Idaho. I am currently the Executive Director of Southwest Idaho Recovery Community Center. I work closely with Rising Sun and with St. Vincent de Paul. I want to commend Rising Sun for putting all this on the table. But now we have really the stigma attached to alcoholics and addicts driving this decision, not whether or not it's a good move for the city of Boise, because what I've heard mostly tonight is the concern about who's going to be in that housing. And that really isn't the issue on the floor, right? want to let you know that i've worked in the alcohol and drug field for 45 years i've worked in this city for most of it and in idaho idaho is number one in the nation for female incarceration ma'am can you just back up from the mic just a little bit like like an inch that's fine it's just picking you up really great yeah i usually don't need one um But we're number one in the nation with female incarceration. We're number three in the nation with males incarcerated. Our recidivism rate is through the roof. Our job as a community center is to stop that recidivism. That's the job of Rising Sun. That's the job of St. Vincent de Paul. We're trying to lower that recidivism rate. We have no affordable housing. There's so many other issues. We have no affordable housing. at least Rising Sun provides that for these people coming out of incarceration. I am living on my Social Security. I would be homeless if I'm not working because my spouse passed and I cannot afford the housing. And that's a position a lot of people are in. So we need more housing for reentry people. They need somewhere to go. We need to be able to stop their recidivisms, lower Idaho's rate of number one being incarcerated for females. Do you know how many mothers that is in prison? How many daughters? How many children that put in our foster care system? We have much bigger fish to fry than an acre of ground that could save some lives. I want to thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. And if any of you would like to talk to me about the condition of the state with housing, please talk to me. because our elders are being put on the street. We just housed seven women aged 63 to 89 at the shelter here in Boise because their spouses died and they could no longer afford housing. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, come on up, sir.

Yes, I'd like to talk specifically about the rezoning. Great. And my name is Russell Thompson. I live at 9324 West Maple Hill Drive. I'm a retired former accomplished metal worker, and I do exactly the same kind of work they do on this project to the east. And I guarantee you, nobody wants to have a residence within a city block of me doing metal fab work. with my grinder all day long and my hammer. So just saying that this would require a substantial barrier to not interfere with the business next door. But mainly I wanted to talk about that there's a problem with the drain that runs along the easement. And how this applies to rezoning is there may be a better use for this product or property that will be required by Ada County and Boise City to meet the drainage code and the existing laws. I have Ada County Highway District email from October 22, 19 or 2022 with the results of an investigation that had just been completed. Darren Carroll, an engineer for Ada County Highway District determined the sole source of the drainage Through this pipe is an 80-county storm drain runoff from the street above. This unsupervised, unmaintained drainage from a 1970s pipe has been carrying storm water from the streets along with manually controlled dumping from the HOA above, discharging into the Ridenbaugh Canal. the drain must be made to comply with current or should i guess that's your guys's job should be made to comply with current epa required guidance for boise city and 80 county established policy and controls for storm water when the required monitoring treatment and inspections of the flows from this drainage take place as required the manual dumping from the hoa into this flow can also be identified and addressed This compliance could most likely require an engineered modification to the outflows into the Ridenbaugh Canal on this property before the committee today. I suspect that before any determination can be made for a change in zoning or any permitted use be approved by this body, Boise City, Ada County and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District will need to provide guidance on how to move forward with that drain and if development

is needed before it enters the canal and basically that's all i have thank you very much thank you sir appreciate you not bringing your grinder with you all right anybody else wish to testify come on up and if there's anybody online who wishes to testify down be a good time just to raise your hand hi

Hello, I am Shaylee Bartlett. I'm at 2910 Bo Daniel Lane in Nampa, Idaho. I am all for giving people second chances like I am. I just think this is about the rezoning and we're like we said, we're at a light industrial and I think I don't know why we would want to bring into that area specifically a home for people. I personally don't think I would want to sign up to live right at that section between all of us businesses. It's a really tight corridor. I live on an acre at home currently. And I just see this building and I kind of don't really see how it would fit. And I think too, just even that drainage has been a huge talk that has been brought up as well. So once again, like I said, I'm all for giving people second chances, but I'm just kind of like, is this maybe the best place for it? Just because it is also, like I said, a workplace. We all go home at the end of the day. but you know none of us are sleeping there we feel like we spend majority of our lives there probably but we do go home at the end of the day and so i think that's the biggest thing is just reminding like this is an industrial use and i don't think we should change it to a mixed use and that's my statement thank you okay thank you ma'am okay i see a couple hands online i'm going to get to them and if there's anybody else in chambers who wishes to testify you can come on sit up in the front row i'm going to start with carrie thomas

Good evening to the chair and to the commission. My name is Kerry Thomas, and I'm a Boise resident. I currently live at 2257 South Amy Avenue in Boise, Idaho, 83706. And I'm here today to support Rising Sun Sober Living's rezoning request for 9320 West Franklin Road. So I come to this issue through both lived experience and public service. I returned to Boise in September of 23, after serving 15 years in prison. Today, I work as a Public Engagement and Narrative Strategist for CERO Project. I also serve on the Idaho Department of Corrections Citizens Advisory Council, as well as the Idaho Behavioral Health Council Supportive Housing Subcommittee.

and okay hold on hold on hold on a second can you stop the clock we're having you're fading like with every second you're speaking sir i want to make sure we preserve your time i don't know if it's a you issue or if it's on us is this a little bit better just make sure to speak closer to your mic that would be great sure how's that not any better when you start off it was it was excellent really yeah we can still hear you just not exceptionally well i got you

see if i can get a little bit closer does that help a little bit uh i think that'll be good enough okay excellent thank you go ahead um so i talked about how i served in multiple committees here recently in boise since my release so i've seen how much is asked of people when they return to the community or begin rebuilding their lives and recovery and the leadership commitment of rising sun is leading the way in that I really appreciate this nuanced conversation we're having in depth and everyone who had the opportunity to present their view. So when we tell people to remain sober or follow supervision requirements, find work, attend treatment, rebuild family relations, and make better choices, then I'm seeing way too often we leave them trying to do all that without safe and stable place to live. Idaho's numbers tell us that how much this matters. The Idaho Department of Correction reported that 16,000 people under probation and parole supervision at the end of fiscal year 2025. It's three year success rate was 63%. IDOC specifically identified access to stable housing, mental health services, employment, transportation as all factors affecting people while if they're gonna succeed. That is why this proposal matters. 26 sober living homes connected with supportive services can give people structure, accountability, community where recovery is expected, and more important, supported. The housing and the services belong together. A bed alone cannot help someone navigate treatment, employment, transportation, supervision, or the daily work of building a new life. This community also benefits. Stable recovery housing reduces reliance on shelters, emergency rooms, jails and other crisis systems. It gives people a place to address problems or risk factors that before those problems become emergencies. It allows residents to become their neighbors, workers, parents, mentors, and people who contribute back to the community. Listening today, I understand that this hearing concerns more rezoning. Questions about design, parking, traffic, and the site plan will have their own review. Those are all fair matters to examine. But I'm also hearing that the fear and stigma about people in recovery should not decide where the proposal gets the opportunity to move forward.

i know what it means i need to stop you there um it's it's about three we actually went a few seconds over just to account for the the volume issue but we do appreciate you testifying and hanging in there and i appreciate your time as well thank you okay i need to move forward with uh vance paulson hello hi we can hear you if you can just go ahead and state your name and address for the record you'll have three minutes

vance polson 9220 west franklin road on the adjacent east property that has been discussed throughout the meeting i do own and maintain a duplex there on the property currently unoccupied i have had experience with having those coming out of incarceration as my tenants all of which have not been good experiences It's taken a lot to get them out there. Constantly there's a theft problem. There's a lot of problems that are associated with that, and I do not want that with 130 people next door. I have never been approached by the owners of the property as to any setbacks or any. redistribution of my property um the the impact that it will uh have on my property that has never been discussed um i don't know um where they're coming from we have not discussed anything about that i also appreciate the other welder in the testimony we do make a lot of noise we start at five in the morning and we're usually there until seven or eight at night metal working does require unfortunately quite a bit of noise and we are a operating facility been in the valley for 40 years this property we've owned since 2010. i'm opposed to the rezoning i think it's not the right place to rezone there's just a a multitude of uh, reservations that I have to, uh, support the property. I, um, support the arch and bows. I, I, uh, understand that they're doing a good service. Um, however, I think that, uh, possibility of another property might be a better, um, idea for them. Um, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to voice my opinion.

and i do not approve the the plans to rezone in any way shape or form thank you for your time okay thank you sir appreciate it i don't see anybody else's name online who wishes to testify and so i'll return back to chambers one more time um and i think we're getting close hi hi

My name is Megan Hunt and I live at 17378 North Fort Laramie Way, Nampa. And I am here to support Rising Sun and what they're trying to do. I am a mom and I can understand some of the fears and concerns. Having been around these different men and women, I will say they are not running around and raping and murdering or kidnapping or anybody. To that, they come willingly to make the changes in their life, which makes them more dedicated to change. It is transitional living. It is a crossroads from jail to learning new skills and work to outside life. Rising Sun has done such a great job at rehabilitating their tenants that oftentimes they hire them because of their willingness to work hard and make the necessary changes.

um i'm sure you've heard all the other stuff that i had but um and so therefore i approve and would hope that that would go through thank you okay thank you all right last call anybody in chambers who wishes to testify oh come on up anybody else online if you now is the time to raise your hand and i'm uh mark archambault i'm the owner of the property and um we had a we had different uh

plans for the property and then we did extensive research and we found that the location of this property would work well for the population that we provide housing for we received our first recognition nationally from access to recoveries a federal program in 2015 as being the best at what we do And then we've had state recognition. And then just recently, last month, the state, no, for three years in a row, we've won best of Boise at what we do. And then the state of Idaho also gave us a community enhancement community. Oh, you make community safer. I can't remember the exact verbiage, but it's a nice little crystal plaque. And they had a ceremony in the whole nine yards. So for the people that have concerns, that would be if it was in a place, you know, housing for people that aren't properly supervised. And we've proved over and over again that we are the best at what we do and we have for decades. We've provided housing for 20,000 Boise Boiseans. I mean, Idahoans throughout the state. And I think that and there's a hodgepodge of businesses that are now it's not like we're going in and saying we want to be specific um i think that uh the um uh the setback requirement on the east side it could be addressed and and we would have a a program and a project that would enhance the the problem that we have a lot of our uh residents are Boise State uh students so um we'd help take some of the pressure off of that and uh and we also have educational program a research program that's very sophisticated And we've figured out that most addiction disorders start as teenagers with recreational drug use. And we have programs that educate not only the public, but the lawmakers for that. Thank you for your time.

Can you real quick just state your address for the record?

Yeah, it's 10953 North Hanley Place.

Perfect.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. OK, I think that's about it and there's nobody else online, so we'll go ahead and bring the applicant back up. You have 5 minutes for rebuttal and then the item will be before the Commission.

I'm trying to think if I have anything to say. There was the. Sorry. I'm not sure if there's anything that we can do. I hope that by the grace of God, this goes through. But if not, then just keep trying because this is definitely needed. Thank you guys have offered that. So I really appreciate all the time that you've given this population and who we serve. And and, you know, I also I don't know if there's a possibility of a continuance for a reverse site plan so we can try to make something work with the 30 foot setback but if this is not the place for it then it's not the place for it and we'll try it somewhere else and come and see you then but i think it's important that you all heard the importance and the support whether it's today or tomorrow okay okay thank you thank you very much appreciate it okay uh with that the item is officially before the commission

For a recommendation to council, this is a rezone. CAR 26-1, Cedar Creek Architectural Design, located at 9320 West Franklin Road.

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Torres.

I move that we recommend denial of CAR 26-1 with all the terms and conditions in the staff report.

Okay, I've got a motion by Commissioner Torres to deny the rezone application with the terms and conditions staff report. Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Stefancic with a second. There's a discussion. Mr. Chair. Mr. Torres.

I want to start with just a general point. You know, we do have a broad need for housing in this city. The city needs more housing of all types at all price points, particularly for lower income people throughout the city. we need to build more housing. A lot of the people who are supported by Rising Sun are, there's a lot of overlap between them and the clients I work with in my day job. So I understand the need. I also understand Beers Public Safety and understand that the city has, the city's role is to balance both of those needs to the best of its ability as possible. Having said that, as we've discussed pretty extensively during this hearing, we can't consider the actual project of rising sun for this hearing we have to consider the rezone request and you know i'm going to read a couple things from our staff report um while i'm doing that doug can you pull back up the description about the da uh development agreements um because i'm going to reference that as well um so i'm on page um 451 of our packet um and it states blueprint boise focuses on protecting industrial lands and supporting the businesses within them from encroachment through various goals and policies the reason of the subject property to mx2 would result in an encroachment into established i1 properties including the creation of a new non-conformity being the existing being the existing setback of structures on the adjacent parcel to the east Blueprint Boise discusses the possibility of a corridor-wide rezone to a mixed-use area once a feasibility study is constructed for passenger rail, which is currently ongoing. The rezoning of a single property without the study being finalized does not align with the guiding documents the public has supported. Further, the 1987 annexation letter described above allows additional uses beyond the typical scope of the I-1 zone, thus allowing a more appropriate mix of uses for the interim. I'm also going to read on page 452 under item 2, condition 2, Should the site be redeveloped with residential use, the introduction of these setbacks would result in a new nonconformity to the eastern property. Lastly, Blueprint Boise discusses the possibility of a corridor rezone to a mixed use area. This kind of repeats what I just said, actually. The rezoning of a single property without the study being finalized does not align with the guiding documents the public has supported. Going back to the offer of creating a development agreement to work with the adjacent properties, as we discussed when we were asking questions of staff, the modern zoning code discourages development agreements. The code is more flexible to avoid having to do them in most cases. We still have that power, but we try to avoid it when we can. You can see up on the screen where it says after after determination has been made that is zoning map amendment application does not meet the required findings without additional restrictions to those imposed by proposed on the district so. It kind of cuts off there, but basically. You can submit one to us, or we can consider one. If the project makes sense, even with the differences here, but I just I just don't see it in this project. I appreciate what rising sun is trying to do, I think it sounds like you do a great work you're for biology accounts you're a valuable member of the Community. Unfortunately, we can't consider what you're building, we can only consider what you want to do with the property as far as the zone and that's why i'll be opposing it thanks.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Any further discussion?

Chair?

Commissioner Sponsic?

Yeah. I don't want to repeat what Commissioner Torres has shared, but just to hit on a couple points again here, that this corridor has not doesn't have a community plan like we saw in some of the previous things that came up like on the one with the bridge there right that was already built into that community plan um you also heard from Boise State right Boise State had been in a situation you know similar where they tried to do things and and hadn't brought in the whole community and not a lot has changed in what Boise State but they've been able to bring the community in I think to to be able to put in some of this housing in this location, if that ends up being what it is. Definitely talk, you know, start working with community, you know, address some of these potentially misconceptions on the population that potentially was there. So that's just some some advice is thinking and moving forward with this. But as it is a rezone in front of us here. Um, you know, looking at that corridor, there's not a lot of mobility set up built in that it's not the land use plan isn't designed in that way. It's hard to take, you know, one property and then start to build from that. We do need this industrial area, as we heard and saw in the report here. And so we got to respect that and what's happening there at that point. So at this point, I'm going to support the motion that is denial of this CR. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Tomasic. Commissioner Moore?

Mr. Chair, so I'm in support of the motion. I mean, ultimately, there's no change conditions. Unfortunately, there's no change conditions. It's kind of one of those things with the with the rail that would be a change condition if we determine that we needed the rail, but how do we determine that we need the rail do we put in multifamily first and then need the rail or do we do we determine that we need the rail and then put in multifamily regardless. Either way, there is no change conditions currently. There's no estimate on the timeframe when that rail would be determined or. I didn't see any real metrics in there about that either. Might be a good thing to learn about in a work session. But regardless of that, too, I think, you know, not all of the uses in the MX2 zone are incompatible with this industrial zone. I mean, I think the point being that really it's not even specific to the use that's You mentioned, and this application or this narrative but it's kind of holistically the residential itself that's kind of what is an issue with the surrounding environment and it's creating new potentially creating new non conformities. One way you could do that would be a development agreement that restricts residential. I don't think that really gets what you need to do. We also don't have a development agreement application in front of us to review. So there's nothing that's not something that we're able to kind of condition in here when there's no application um you know really i think it is about that one use otherwise there are some compatible uses office dental things like that are compatible um and it is unfortunate that you know that rail study isn't happening that could open up so much more potential space for residential that the city does need space for resources like that that like this that the city does need um but Short of that, short of some sort of development agreement that mitigates the concerns about the non-conformities, I don't know how to create a development agreement otherwise. I don't have experience doing a development agreement that would place restrictions on the subject property to allow things on an adjacent property. I'm not sure how that would work either way. There's no development agreement for us anyway. So that's kind of where I'm standing on this one.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Schaffer?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, thank you. I'll also reluctantly be in support of the motion. First of all, I want to thank everybody for the testimony tonight and the tenor of the meeting was very well run, well-spoken meeting by all parties. I appreciate that. I've been sitting up here for a long time at these meetings. So I appreciate when we have a good discussion about these proposed projects. As I said, I'll be in support of the motion. I agree with Commissioner Moore that it's the residential use within the MX-2 zone that creates an issue where we're creating a nonconformity on the adjacent parcel with a setback. So and unfortunately, there's just no way for us to work around that. Secondarily, I don't see any, you know, map error or zoning correction that needs to take place. Everything north, you know, this whole area north side of Franklin is zoned industrial. There wasn't a parcel that was errantly zoned incorrectly, you know, when this area was annexed into the city. So we're not correcting any issues there either with the industrial use. So I feel like that the map is correct and that, you know, there's really no argument to rezone the parcel to correct something. I just hope everyone understands, too, that if we were to rezone the parcel, that zoning stays with the parcel. If you all were to sell that parcel in the future, that zoning stays, and that still creates issues, right? It's not your use at all, right? It is the fact that that zoning stays with the parcel, regardless of ownership. So it creates a long-term issue if we have an avenue forward, and I don't believe that we do have an avenue forward to approve the rezone. You all are doing great work. absolutely needed 100 the use the proposed use is absolutely needed 100 there's no issue where i sit with that with that need and that use it's just not in the right location okay thank you commissioner shaver um yeah i'm gonna just take that last baton real quick because we don't have the luxury of specifically considering rising sun at all

I hate to put it to that way, but that's what our charge is. It's purely the rezone. And I understand, again, I think to Commissioner Schaffer's point, sounds like everything's running great and a lot of people have been helped, but we don't have that luxury because the moment we were to recommend approval and the moment city council would approve it, To Commissioner Schaffer's point, your property is entitled. And now, if you wanna walk away, you can. And the person who then has it can do whatever is entitled within our code under MX-2. It could be a six-story residential tower. And they could say, we don't even have to have a hearing because guess what? It's entitled. And now I've got residential next to metal grinders. And now I've got a sound issue. I've got complaints going all day long because we've got a potential for those types of conflict, which is precisely why industrial uses are typically zoned together so that we don't have those types of conflicts. And so that's what we have to assume up here. That's our charge and what we have to kind of think ahead about. um totally that has no in bearing or in any implied disrespect to the intent of the owners and what you're trying to operate it's just it's pretty cut and dry for what we have to do up here tonight so um okay i think we've got a motion by commissioner torres second by commissioner stefancic to recommend uh a denial of the rezone application with clerk please call the roll

Stanley?

Aye.

Moore? Aye. Schaefer?

Aye.

Torres? Aye. Stefancic?

Aye.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay. Let's take a much needed five-minute break, hit our last item, and we'll wrap up.

Thank you. it's okay What's going on? traveling please please keep us Erin, are you getting a lot of work done? I am a lot better than I was on Friday. I ended up, so Thursday, no, it was Wednesday. So Wednesday night, I got a job. Then I got, I got a job. Thursday, because I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, The brand new lights. Yeah, no, by Sunday, I was doing much, much better. So like I said, it's just like, oh, thank you. But the contract's held kind of, but it's like a super long chair.

So it's a little bit of work. Yeah. Thank you so much.

But this time she'll be here. I'm going to turn it off. Okay. It's a huge thing. And then . I was like, I don't know if that matters. Good. Thank you.

Right.

Like you can see . I know.

And we've got some mood lighting going on up here today, don't we? Very Zen today. All right. Let's move forward. I think we're all ready. Our final item of the night, and this is item number six, correct? Yeah, item number six. Okay, this is CUP 26-17. This is a well tower. This was an item deferred from the August 10th meeting. Located at 2017 West Victory Road is a modification of a conditional use permit and a preliminary plat for a residential subdivision. And this is Rafa Sanchez. Hi.

Hello. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. The item before you this evening is a combined request from Welltower for the Vista Point development located at 2017 West Victory Road. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a major modification to an approved 44-acre planned unit development alongside an updated preliminary plan. The subject property is currently vacant and located in a R3 slash DA residential urban with a development agreement zone. The land use designation of the project site is mixed use and designated, excuse me, as an area of significant new development anticipated in the comprehensive plan. And 2022 under the legacy code the subject property received approval of pod 22 dash 27 a plan unit development for a residential project proposing a total of 892 units. In a preliminary platform residential subdivision comprised of 157 billable and 29 common lots the applicant is now seeking a major modification to the approved pod. modification would decrease the total proposed density by over 25 triggering the need for this major modification application dropping from the previously approved 892 units to 640 units the neighborhood configuration is also transitioning from individual lots into a unified multi-family land use pattern across 12 newly defined buildable lots into common lots Important to note that the proposed modification will also make changes to the street layout and overall traffic and parking pattern items that were a common concern during the initial approval leading to an unsuccessful appeal of the project approval. A development agreement was also recorded as part of the original approval in 2022. the development agreement will not be required to be modified as part of this major modification request and all provisions and requirements of the agreement will be upheld including the items shown on the screen the modification would deviate from the original development plan by shifting to an all multi-family development pattern across the proposed 12 available Lots the proposed modification would no longer provide individual single family Lots development the development will still maintain a mix of housing types. The 640 units will consist of 240 single family type units built as detached individual homes and duplexes, along with 400 traditional apartment units distributed across three different buildings. Examples of the housing types can be seen on screen. As outlined in the project report and shown here, the applicant is proposing an array of amenities for the development. development will also include a 12 foot 12 foot wide pathway along the new york canal to the south connecting to the adjacent developments in a 10 foot pathway along the western boundary connecting to victory road to satisfy provisions of the development agreement a condition of approval would require public access easements to be recorded over the proposed 12-foot wide multi-use pathway and noted on the plat the applicant would also be required to provide at least one additional publicly accessible community amenity as per the development agreement This amenity is to be identified and incorporated into plans in the subsequent design review application. By reducing the density, the applicant also intends to increase the project's usable open space. The original layout provided 24% of the land area as open space. The revised layout increases that total to 38%. As proposed, this open space percentage for the land meets the code requirements for multifamily developments. Primary vehicular access will be delivered via three distinct entrances on West Victory Road. Improvements along Victory Road will also be completed as per conditions from ACHD. Internally, front access service drives will feature five foot detached sidewalks to elevate pedestrian safety, while rear access drives will function as traditional alleys. While the original approval proposed three public street connections to the eastern Jason development West Alexander drive is now proposed as a permanent dead end. Though full pedestrian connectivity and emergency vehicle access will be preserved in the area, both the city of Boise and Ada county highway district staff were amenable to making the Alexander drive a permanent and permanent dead end due to the site constraints. Additionally, the project will be required to build out the street along the west property boundary, known as Hollowfield Avenue, in conjunction with the adjacent development to the west. As conditioned by ACHD, the applicant will be required to complete Hollowfield Avenue. And further conditioned, the construction of the street would need to be completed prior to first occupancy of any adjacent homes being granted. Here is a... view of what's being proposed for that street development the original project design contained a total of 1 369 parking spaces on site comprised of garage spaces for single family and town units and podium parking spaces for the apartment buildings the proposed modification now proposes an approximate total parking count of 956 spaces across single family housing types duplex housing types and multi-family apartment buildings this would accommodate residents and guests all subject to final determination during design review further recommended condition of approval would also limit the final parking total across the development to no more than 125 above the minimum required as outlined in the code as previously mentioned a core feature of the neighborhood connectivity plan is a 12 foot wide multi-use public pathway uh riding right along the new york canal on the south boundary paired with a 10-foot wide pathway running along the western property edge to maximize public utility staff has added a condition of approval requiring centralized north to south connection that ties the canal pathway directly into the development's public street network development will also meet multi-family development standards by providing a pedestrian circulation system in the form of public streets and private service drives both conditioned to be developed as public street standards with detached sidewalks to provide for pedestrian safety public comment was received both in opposition and in favor of this project traffic impact concerns and visual impacts were the prevalent concerns in opposition of the project while support for the project uh praised the inclusion of traffic safety improvements that are required to ACHD. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit major modification and recommends that commission recommendation of approval to city council for the preliminary plan. At this point, that is all I have and I will stand for any questions.

Thank you. Great, great job. Okay, is the applicant present? Okay, would you want to please come on up and 10 minutes okay or do you need more than that?

I think 10 minutes should be fine.

Great.

I'm just going to wait for my presentation to come up. While I'm waiting, my name is Amanda McNutt and I'm at 2929 West Navigator Drive in Meridian. So we're calling this Vista Point and Rafa did a great job covering some of these details, so I won't go into much more detail about some of these things. Just a larger snapshot of the overview for this area. As mentioned, the original design was more buildable lots, but essentially the single family detached and townhome product hasn't changed all that much. That is really going to be the same. When this was approved originally, this project was always anticipated to be a multifamily project, it wasn't ever going to be for sale and that is how it was presented and approved. But they were individually lauded and now they'll be more multifamily lauded. Here's a stylized version of what the revised design is going to look like. Again, with those 12 buildable lots, two common lots. One thing that I would like to mention is we don't have the exact number of units for the multifamily buildings that are larger. So we anticipate up to 640, but it could be fewer than that. It's just going to depend on what bedroom types and all those kinds of features that we have. We don't necessarily know for sure if the five-story building is going to be planned, but what we've anticipated right now is more likely a four-story, but our DA does still allow up to that 65-foot limit. So essentially, the key difference here is that we do have 252 less units and 10 acres more of open space. So we are about six and a half acres or dwelling units per acres less than what we were. Another major change that we've made to this plan is that we centralized where the pool clubhouse and the kind of main amenity block is. We feel like this is a much better situated area for that than it was in the previous version. Here's kind of a scope of other amenities spaces. These are parks and green spaces, corridors for pathways, things like that. Again, kind of all leading to that central location. We also feel like this layout in the roadway system is a little bit more efficient for especially the east to west corridor. As you can see, those blue lines were public roads in the previous plan, and they do wind quite a bit more than what we have now. And so we do feel like this is a lot more efficient layout to our roadway system. And we do have an extensive network of pathways and sidewalks throughout this development. The main 12 foot pathway goes along the southern canal, but we do have many five foot and 10 foot sidewalks throughout and those are detached. One thing that Rafa did mention, but I wanted to go into a little bit more detail about was that connection at Alexandria Drive. Originally, it was proposed to connect through, and it was something that I think Boise at the time really wanted to see. I think the neighbors would prefer not to see it, but realistically, the reason why we can't do it is because there's no feasible way to make that connection without disrupting the canal um so we cannot get into that easement and to make the type of turn that we need to to actually physically make that connection work we'd actually disrupt the existing lot owner um on the on the east side um so it really just determined that we couldn't do it So instead, we are proposing some emergency access through there that will be blocked off with bollards. But if emergency access was needed, they could get through there and then that pathway will continue through there as well. So pedestrian connectivity will be maintained. A major change to our proposal was the previous design for the multifamily buildings had podium parking, which is desirable, but essentially is not attainable. We would not be able to build this if we aren't surface parking. And it's an unfortunate thing, but financially it's not feasible. That is a big portion of why we're losing so many of the units, which is again unfortunate, but this is a buildable project versus something that isn't buildable. um the single family detached and paired product will have uh private garages so that will i think alleviate some of the fears that we we heard at the neighborhood meeting of it not having enough parking um there also is uh some guest parking throughout and then the multi-family buildings will also be self-sustained in their parking needs through those parking lots We are doing kind of a mattering of different roadway improvements with this project. The hawk signal at Mallet and Federal Way was something that ACHD required as part of this original approval. And so with this project, we would be doing that hawk signal there. um we would also be doing several roadway improvements on Victory Road including raised crosswalks that multi-use pathway um and then obviously completing the roadway section it's actually not a full section at the moment and then we would complete Hollowfield Avenue as well I'll have more to discuss on that in just a minute I just wanted to give an example of kind of what the amenities would look like here. Obviously, these are subject to change and subject to design review, but this is kind of a snapshot of our pool and clubhouse area, the interior of our clubhouse, and then the sports court that is attached to that area as well. We would have a dog park. We're thinking probably in this little awkward triangle shape, but there was another location that it may end up as well. Again, that'll be determined in design review. And then we are having a plan for a gazebo and some barbecue area for guests to use. And then I just don't know how familiar you guys are with Brighton and our product, but this is an actual example of a community center that we have built in Meridian. And this is some example landscaping. So just to give you an idea of what we build and what our product typically looks like. Here are some renderings of the alley loaded. We like to call those carriage lane accessed homes. So the garage is on the back. Here are some typical elevations for our front-loaded products. And then we have a paired alley-loaded product as well, or a paired carriage lane. So again, we'll kind of have those throughout that area. I wanted to just kind of... show here what those phasing were as well so one two and four are the phases that we would have those um single family and duplex and then phases three and five are multi-family projects um So there were a couple conditions that staff had put together that we would like to have modified. The first is that they asked that we make the multi-use pathway be available during the initial phase of construction or with that initial phase. So as you can see that, first of all, it's fairly disconnected from our initial phase of construction. And with phase four, it's directly adjacent to what will end up being heavy construction as we build those homes and as we build those roadways. So what we would ask is that it be completed with Phase 4. While there will still be some construction that happens in Phase 5, it's mostly going to be some paving, landscaping, and then the buildings are kind of toward the north side. And so a lot of that building construction is going to be out of the way of the pathway. And we really feel like this is more of a safety concern than anything. We just really don't want that heavy construction traffic and pedestrians to be in conflicting with each other. I think one thing we could do is possibly do the easement right off the bat and make sure that we have that easement in place. But again, the construction of that pathway, it just it didn't really sit right with us to have that completed with the first phase knowing that we're going to have heavy construction in that area later on and then i said i'd circle back to this the hollow field avenue or street i'm actually not sure what they call that is required to be constructed prior to our first occupancy of adjacent units this is problematic because that road's actually on the adjacent property and so while we're willing to do our last piece of that because that developer is required to do half plus 12 feet of the roadway construction and we're required to do the last piece of it um happy to do it but we are kind of tied up with roundhouse and when they complete that So essentially what we would ask is that after Roundhouse has completed their portion, we then be required to complete our portion with that. And again, if Roundhouse gets delayed or they change ownership or something else happens and we're required to complete that full road, the road's not on our property and we don't have a right to complete that road off of our property. So yeah, it's more of a timing thing on this. And that actually is all. I stand for any questions.

We've done this before.

Well done.

okay all right well in that case you know the drill let me just make sure um is the representative from the vista neighborhood association here okay and i'm assuming you want to testify okay and to clarify you are the uh designated representative from the neighbors i am uh i'll say that into the mic too okay

um i am the development representative for vista neighborhood association and i've been appointed by mia russell the president of the vista neighborhood association i live my name is craig bergman i live at 1580 west right street in district 10 of the vista neighborhood association um i've been tasked to come and convey the thoughts mr chair we can allow that today but in the future if you're going to be the representative that needs to be communicated to us ahead of time oh my apologies it's all good um so the vista neighborhood association supports a large majority of the project our concerns right now we kind of hoped that brighton would discuss more of the mixed use element of it one thing that was left out of their presentation is that the commercial elements are being removed from this development That is our major concern. We don't know if the project at this point still delivers mixed use and provides a connected, thoughtfully transitioned neighborhood that was originally presented with the entitlement. The cumulative impact of the modifications has fundamentally changed this project as well. I think anybody is kind of in general favorable of reduced buildable lots. I think condensing multifamily down to single lots makes sense, but these are single family formed buildings. And that was kind of the expectation with the original entitlement is that the single family homes would be built on single lots to allow for potential mixed use later down the line of different ownership types. So we believe the commission should consider these changes carefully because at some point, A series of modifications stops being a refinement of an approved project and becomes something else entirely. The major argument supporting the current proposal is that it continues to provide multiple housing forms. The proposal includes detached looking units, attached or townhome style units, as they've mentioned, and a larger multifamily building. Visually, that certainly creates architectural variety between the VISTA, but the neighborhood association believes there's an important distinction between the architectural variety and actual housing diversity. So housing diversity should be more about creating three different, more than creating three different looking building silhouettes, it should provide different ways for people and households to live within a neighborhood. That can include differences in building type, lot pattern, density, household size, and ownership opportunity. We believe the Commission should have the applicant express how are they creating generally different types of housing if everything is going to be classified as multifamily. One multifamily rental product expressed through several architectural forms and that's not necessarily the same thing as pure diversity. The Neighborhood Association believes that that distinction of housing type also matters when considering how the development will transition to a surrounding VISTA neighborhood. Brighton has actually maintained a very nice transition across the development, moving from single family forms into those more condensed units, and the neighborhood association supports that alignment with the previous entitlement. It's clear that a successful transition should involve more than simply lowering building height as the development approaches existing homes, and I think they've provided that thoughtful transition. Successful neighborhoods are also capable of transitioning gradually from apartments to townhouses, which they have done. We also believe the removal of the commercial component, which I've mentioned briefly, requires significantly more attention. The original project was not presented simply as a collection of residential units. Commercial uses contributed to the idea that VistaPoint would function more as a complete neighborhood. They created the possibility of residents living near services or destinations, including gathering places and potentially employment. With the removal of that commercial space, it does more than change the land use table. It changes how the neighborhood will function. One of the fundamental criticisms of the conventional development is that we often separate these basic elements from everyday life. When these uses are separated and secluded elements, nearly every daily activity will require a trip in a car. And with that, that's directly relevant to this proposal. If this point becomes overwhelmingly residential, then more of the daily needs of the 600-unit households that would live there will have to be met outside of that project, and that moves the development away from the concept of a mixed-use neighborhood and closer to that large residential enclave. It's simply worth noting in providing several residential building forms, a mixed-use neighborhood should provide different reasons for people to be there. The removal of those destinations also affects how the Commission should evaluate the walkability of the site. The site plan can contain sidewalks and technically be pedestrian connected without creating an environment where walking is generally useful or appealing. People need somewhere meaningful to walk and they've connected the routes, but they also need the buildings that engage the street. They have removed those housing units on the south side of the property that would engage the multi-use pathway and have replaced it with surface parking. that kind of prevents and puts pedestrians in an awkward spot where they're between a wall to the canal and parking. It doesn't really give them anything to look at or to do. Sorry. If residents can walk through the neighborhood, but most everyday destinations remain outside of it, then the project may provide pedestrian circulation without providing meaningful pedestrian access. It's another reason a lot of the commercial usage should not be considered independently from the rest of the modifications. For a development of this scale, parking becomes a huge part of the urban design. If buildings and public spaces define that neighborhood, parking should support them. The surface parking begins defining the public spaces between the buildings, and parking becomes the neighborhood's dominant organizing element. And I think that we believe that that is important to mention. finally in the neighborhood uh this neighborhood association believes that the commission should consider what kind of place is actually going to create the neighborhood is more than one the number of dwelling units it contains streets and public spaces should feel intentional buildings should help to find those spaces and homes should relate to those streets open spaces should be visible usable and accessible um we noticed that I I just noticed a part of their open space they included the actual Canal I don't know if that was part of the calculations for their open space but I'd like that to be talked about as well by the applicant When the buildings define the streets and public spaces, those spaces begin to function like an outdoor room. And when buildings become isolated objects that surround the drive aisles, parking, and residential landscaping, it becomes much more difficult to create that sense of place. And that is particularly important here because this development is not isolated. This point will become part of the established neighborhood. Its streets, buildings, and open spaces and edges will affect the existing residents as much as the future residents. ultimately that's why we believe the commission needs to consider these modifications while we are not directly opposed to the modifications to the project we believe it is worth considering thank you for your time great we'll stand for any questions if you have any uh hang tight we might okay so

But you can go ahead and have a seat for now. So thank you. All right. Open it up to any questions from the commission.

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Torres.

I have a question for the applicant. And my initial question is essentially what the Neighborhood Association just discussed. Can you address their concerns about the parking, the open space, and the pathway? And if you need me to repeat any of that, let me know.

Thank you. So the open space calcs, it does include the canal. That is fairly typical that you include any kind of open waterway that you're including in your project as part of your open space calculation. So we did include that. You know, he said useful and appealing sidewalks and having a. You know, a good place to walk and I think the open space that we're creating is a good place to walk and the canal is a good place to walk. 10 mile where. Brighton actually is located just right there on the freeway. Is actually a really prime example of. some pathway that is exactly like that where there's parking lots up against the pathway and then there's the canal on the other side it's actually a beautiful and really pleasant place to walk and it is very frequented by the people who who live and work in that area I would kind of say that pathways against a canal are actually one of the most desirable places to walk because it's quiet, there's birds, things like that. As far as the removal of the commercial space, that was a small portion of the project. It was really going to be like a spot for food trucks to be. And so that was kind of our public amenity from the initial application. The public amenity is now going to be a little bit different. We haven't fully nailed down which piece of this is going to be public, but we are dedicated to making some of our amenities public to satisfy that DA requirement. Did I miss anything?

Mr. Chair, follow up on that. Actually, just to clarify, I think the question about the pathway and the open space and the parking lot, the parking basically being right next to it was less of a concern about the canal part of it and more about it being just right up against parking and the parking taking up the majority. I don't want to misquote him, but majority of the site is now going to be parking. So I think the concern was more about that pathway being just against parking, more so than against pathway, and then also of the pathway not really going anywhere. It just runs alongside the neighborhood, essentially. Does that make more sense?

Yes, Mr. Chair, Commissioner. That does make more sense. Thank you. So yeah, there is a big swap there that's against a parking lot. But again, it does go somewhere. It will connect to Roundhouse. It'll actually connect up to Victory through public sidewalks on both the east and the west edge through public right of way. And it also connects to the existing neighborhood on the east. So it actually does provide quite a bit of connectivity throughout that area to have that pathway there. Again, is a parking lot the worst thing to walk against? I would say no. And we do plan on landscaping that. There will be trees and flowers and other things to look at that are going to be a buffer between that space. If you pull up our landscape plan, you can kind of see the things that we're kind of intending to plant through there. So it will be heavily planted, and I think it will be a really desirable walk.

So, Chair, I just have two more questions. Go ahead. Looking at the design you showed, and I realize a lot of this is going to be reviewed during design review, it looked like the landscaping around the individual units was a grass yard as opposed to native or xeriscape landscaping. Can you address that?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, Commissioner, we do plan to have kind of grassy areas on each of those townhome and single family unit. Reason being is we do intend to have families there with kids that would like kind of more of a private yard. And I think that is something that's actually going to be pretty unique to this particular project where it is a rental project, but they will have a private outdoor space.

uh with each unit so that's um that's something that we actually think is really unique and really exciting for this project and then last question mr chair um i've developed a reputation over the years on this commission of being mr affordability every time there's a housing project i always ask about affordability um so my question is since these are going to be rentals are they going to be renting at market rate are they going to be targeted at a lower income like 80% area median income, 50%, 30%. Will some units be targeted to those demographics versus others in market rate? Can you kind of explain that?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, Commissioner. They will be market rate. For our development agreement, we do have 25 units that will be restricted to 100% AMI. And so we do plan to maintain those 25 units, but the rest will be market rate.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Chair? We should sponsor. Okay. I have a couple questions here. This is for staff. Rafa, nice job. First one here. Will folks be able to park their cars on Victory on that On that street there is there parking at all allowed on that street do we know.

Mr chair commissioners it's a great question I do believe that is a question better answered by the applicant at this time, as I do not have that widely available right now. And based on the design, I do know that they are proposing street parking i'm not sure if it's going to be public. Internal or if it's going to be available on victory.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner, ACHD, it does allow parking on that street.

Okay. And then another, this question for applicants. Sorry, I got a couple. Yeah, go ahead. Please just continue. Can you clarify what the potential building height will be on this new apartment complex here? And then how does that impact sight lines from Sunrise Rim residents?

yeah Mr chair, Commissioner, I don't know the exact height that's proposed. Again, per our da that's in progress in already, we have a height limitation of 65 feet, so we know we won't go above that. But again, that was a previously approved amendment to the code and it's already in our project.

Okay, so you're still going to follow that, even though the buildings are potentially.

I don't think we'll end up actually being the full 65 feet, but I don't know exactly what that height is on those buildings. So it's likely to be less than that, but I don't know the exact height.

John Potter, Okay i'm sorry i'm kind of bouncing around here this one's for staff, I believe in some in the packet that we received some of the comments and questions were around return to applicant a individual noted that a couple days before this went out there. John Potter, Some of the materials were removed sorry i'm kind of scrolling down to where this was. From the website. Okay. Yeah, the Senate, the permit portal listed these two as returned to applicant on August six, and then four days before the scheduled one in August.

uh and they didn't explain you didn't there was no explanation they wanted to know like what why they were returned or that was there anything or could you address that Mr chair commissioners of course uh yes uh that was one of the reasons why we requested that this hearing be rescheduled to today uh there was additional documentation needed for us to properly review and present the information to the commission for proper evaluation uh It was at that point or around those dates that we determined with the applicant that this path forward would be to reschedule and have the meeting and hearing set for today. I believe that is what the comment was alluding to. There was discussion on August 10th about why this was being, uh, delayed to today. Um, I did reply to that applicant staying, you know, that this was your schedule because of the missing documentation to provide additional, uh, details for the commission.

Cool. Thank you for that clarification. Just wanted to get that out there. Um, and then, um, for for you Rafa here so the applicant um has asked for the 12-foot path to potentially be delayed to phase four um because of that what what are your concerns or are you willing or would the city be willing to consider that modification of course Mr chair commissioners uh our

primary objective with requiring that the multi-use pathway be constructed during the initial phase is to have all the amenities be present during that initial phase, whereas the bulk of the amenities are being proposed. It is our thought that if we are to grant occupancy for some of these homes that are going to be constructed in the earlier phases, that residents should have availability to all proposed amenities from the get-go.

some excellent and then the other modification that they asked about for the hollow field road um seems like a tough situation here if the Brown or whatever the development whenever their timeline is for the road do you have any insights on how they could potentially move forward with half of a road in this in this scenario or what would you recommend for them Mr chair commissioners uh yes uh um

Definitely is a bit of a pickle in terms of who would be responsible for completing the road if Roundhouse cannot, for whatever reason, complete it and needs to delay. We are willing to work with the applicant to find a solution if that is the case. However, we are under the impression that Roundhouse is currently under development and uh should be finalizing their section of the road um and in time for uh our applicant here to uh be able to complete their section and prior to any occupancy being granted okay cool thanks for everyone's patience mr chan can i ask a follow-up on the pathway question

for you, Rafa, is another part of the concern and another reason for the requirement of having it built initially so the amenities available at the beginning when the first occupancy occurs. If they build phase one, maybe phase two, and then they stop and they never complete the project,

um the pathway never gets built is that does that factor into the city's calculation as well chair commissioners uh yes that is correct uh you know we we do not want an incident where have you know development goes halfway and it stops um and now we're left with a half-built housing project with no connectivity to the surrounding area thank you mr chair mr moore

On to the road question. So the road is required by ACSD. It's not required by Boise Fire. Is that correct?

Mr. Chair, commissioners, that is correct.

Okay. So it's mainly for like filtering traffic and stuff like that. But Boise Fire wouldn't, they probably were just looking at the state plan as a whole, we don't actually know if they want, if they're going to require the road to be built or not. They're just kind of assuming that it is. Is that kind of correct?

Chair, commissioners, we did have a project manager meeting with where fire was present and they did express concern about having accessible roadways for their vehicles in the case of an emergency. Again, I wouldn't

have to double check fire comments to give you a precise answer but i would imagine that fire would have a it would behoove them to have the road completed prior to any occupancy totally and then um on the question about the height uh the height limit is i know typically boise code high limit is the top of the parapet but then you you can have like elevator overruns and and mechanical screening and things like that above that. Is this to the very tip top of the building or is this to like the top of the parapet that would be typical for Boise code?

Mr. Chair, commissioners, I would have to get back to you on that one as I don't have that information at the top of my head since it was a condition of the approval for the previous PUD. i do see that you know uh the maximum instruction that was the maximum height of any structure that was approved for that pud sits at 68 feet okay and then um i guess a follow-up question on the height are there any kind of easements related to views or anything like that for any any anybody above mr chair commissioners uh not this time okay

Okay, any other questions, Mr. Schaffer?

Mr. Chair, thank you. Staff, do you agree with the applicant's comments regarding the commercial slash mixed-use space that was removed in this iteration?

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, that is correct. There was, in the original approval, for the development to have approximately 2,000 square feet of reasonable ground floor commercial flash retail use space and up to 6,000 square feet of additional non-residential flex space that was approved with the original PUD. However, that was an optional development feature that was proposed by the developer at the time. was not conditioned through the development agreement nor through the pud that this was a requirement for the development so the lack of that commercial space for this new proposal does not bring the project out of compliance okay i'm going to follow up with that if i can and this is of the applicant um so you're you're zoned r3 and you've got on the commercial many

commercial opportunities that are completely permitted right now and allowed by use by table. But nothing in your application has anything to do with that. And you've got 640 units give or take right now, we're at about two and a quarter, two and a half people per unit. So about 1500 residents, I'm guessing that's around your target number. Can you tell me philosophically, why is there no commercial when you're allotted that despite 1500 potential residents?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I think the main reason is there are There needs to be a very specific type of commercial be viable in a spot like this. We could maybe put something right against Victory and it would have enough visibility to actually be viable. But realistically, this is more of a residential area. The surrounding area is residential and it just doesn't quite have the visibility to house something like a commercial center.

Respectfully, you're using the word visibility as if you're talking about a thoroughfare as if driving traffic going through, but you're placing 1500 people here. And I know we're not talking about your neighbor to the west, but there's another, I don't know how many people are going to be there. So you have a creation, you're creating a place with rooftops where that visibility is there every day, but not a square foot towards commercial uses. I'm trying to understand that sort of philosophically, that there's towns in Idaho that are far smaller than 1500 people.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, and I think those towns also have a high amount of traffic that happens outside of their community that sustain those types of businesses. Even in a small residential project that we've done in other areas of not Boise, but Meridian, where we are trying to get, say, a coffee shop to come into an area where we already have 1500 houses built and and they're occupied it's still very challenging to make those work um typically those businesses just they need they need a lot to sustain them um in other areas we we actually have given them you know breaks on leases or no dollars per tenant improvements and things like that. And it's still difficult to get something to stay to stick in a spot where you're not like on a commercial corner or things like that. So it does just become very challenging. And I think also the business model is, you know, we are a developer for for residential and multifamily, and that's kind of what we do. But I really don't know that it would be a viable situation to have a commercial center within this development.

Okay. Any other questions? I've got a couple more, but they're on different topics.

I'll follow up on that. I think what Chairman Damley was trying to get at is obviously your other property you mentioned is in Meridian at 10 Mile. Boise has chosen through our modern zoning code to try not to develop along the same model as Meridian. We want these kinds of things in our community where we want people to be able to get to businesses or services or what have you without necessarily having to get in a car and drive somewhere. The connectivity with the pathway and the sidewalks and victory and I'm sure I'm missing something there. potentially opens up that possibility of people even if they don't live in the neighborhood being able to possibly bike to a coffee shop or a convenience store or something like that you know it's always very nice when you live in a neighborhood being able to just walk to a gas station I know that's ironic but and get you know a bottle of water or a candy bar or whatever so I think that's kind of where he was going with that question if that helps a little bit and I'll just listen to your thoughts yeah Mr chair commissioner

I'll just I'll say that the project I was speaking of is actually not the 10 mile district that I would say is an extremely walkable area. We have multifamily in the back and then lots of commercial, the shields and all of that. It's extremely walkable there, and we have a high amount of residential around there as well. But a lot of those businesses do require driving to get to them. there's a lot of people also driving in. And those businesses are sustained by the traffic on 10 Mile and the traffic on other arterials. That's kind of what's driving those businesses. If it was just the people that lived there and just the offices that work there, those businesses wouldn't really be sustainable for just walking or pedestrian type traffic. So you know here, I think the pedestrian pathways and the connections that we have allow people to get outside of the subdivision and get to some services is you know, there are services out there on this and other places that they can get to. I think that will be something that people will enjoy and they'll be able to do I just don't know that we're going to see it right inside the development. Thank you thanks.

And Mr chair commissioners just to go back to commission more so question regarding height. The 68 feet Max is the total Max for the building and anything above it.

Okay, a couple questions that I've got. One is this is the New York now right. I mean, my house butts right up against it and I've been there for 20 plus years and there's people walking all day long every day and all kinds of stuff up there, but it's prohibited. So my question to you is, have we set a precedent with the New York Canal Company that you now have permission, you've been granted permission by them to use their canal top to have a pathway and ultimately promote walking and biking on it?

would be news to me that that the new york canal company is now open to that uh commissioner that's a great question they do allow some pedestrian activities within their easements or sorry outside of their easements as long as it's not within the easement you're okay so you can put a pathway or whatever you want next to it um To your point, will people still probably go off the pathway at some point into where they're not really supposed to be? Yeah. But the New York Canal District does not have an issue with pathways being adjacent to their facilities.

Wait, Mr. Chair.

Yeah.

So let's clarify. My understanding of what you're drawing is the pathway is the toe of the slope below the canal. Is that right or am I wrong?

It is. Oh, apparently I'm wrong about that, so I apologize. Okay.

So is it all the way within the easement?

Because the canal is... Oh, okay.

Okay, so we're still without... The canal is like 20 feet above your property, right?

Yeah, but we're still outside that easement.

Okay. Okay, hold on. We got staff wants to jump in here. I think we've got a hot topic here.

Mr. Chair, apologies. My mic is dead now. So I get to do this. That was great conversation. Could you restate it into the microphone for the record, please? Thank you.

So they were just clarifying that the slope, there's a slope and then at the bottom of that slope is where that is going to be placed, but it is outside of the easements. So I guess it's a unique slope situation, but it's still outside the easement.

In my experience, Commissioner Danley, your experience is correct. They don't love people walking along their access road. Oh, I know. So this is a different scenario, though. You're not proposing a pathway on their access road. You're proposing a pathway along the canal.

What happens on that canal, man? It's crazy. All right. I have another question for you because you might be setting another precedent here. Talk to me about the hawk signal on Federal Way. ACHD is mandating that?

um commissioner yeah so that was originally a requirement of the approval um and so it's it's a carryover from the original and we're totally willing to do that um it is an achd requirement so i i actually don't know exactly where that came from or why they required it so far outside of our project um but they did and so we're going to be doing that when when we go to start

That is a massively important result in this city that I've never heard of ACHD requiring an offsite pedestrian, especially a crossing, a quarter million dollar crossing that you're gonna be putting in on Federal Way. We've tried that in the past, but it's not gone very far. So thanks for paying for that. Appreciate that. Okay. All right. Any other questions? That was my fault. I pulled that string. My fault.

Any other questions from the Commission?

Right. Thank you. Hold on.

Never mind.

No, I'm just going to try to find the number real quick. Bear with me. Anybody else have a question you want to ask in the meantime?

Mr. chair, I'll give 1 important clarification. I think when discussing the commercial area, the square footage that Rafa had discussed is separate from the proposal that there was originally to also include food trucks. So those are 2 different things in the original proposal.

Right.

Okay. Mr. Chair.

Mr. Moore.

That is considered the public amenity. It's not required. The only way that that's required as part of the DA is because it's considered the public amenity and not because the DA specifically requires commercial.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that is correct. The DA does not specifically require commercial space to be included as part of any project proposal.

Okay. Mr. Che, what are some examples of a public amenity that they might do? Is that like a dog park or is that something a little bit more involved than like a dog park?

Excuse me, sorry.

mr chair members the commission uh yes uh as far as examples for public amenities uh yes things like the food truck court that was previously uh discussed would be a good example uh similar to the parks that are being proposed uh playgrounds dog parks the barbecue area those are examples of public amenities that um you know would be uh a great fit for development like this um As mentioned in my report and in this presentation, the applicants are required to provide at least one more publicly accessible amenity space. And that is something that the applicant can probably elaborate upon a little bit further if you wish to elaborate on that. But yeah.

Got it. Thank you.

So what I'm trying to find, I'm just not seeing it in ACHD's report. Maybe you happen to know a general number. I'm looking for how many trips are going to be generated by your application, vehicle trips. I see it broken down by number of vehicle trips by type, housing type, but I don't see a total in here in this anywhere. do you happen to have any general sense of what that looks like i mean typically you're looking at anywhere from eight to ten per dwelling you've got 640 dwellings or so i know you haven't finalized that but then you're looking at about 55 to 6 000 vehicle trips per day that are that are half going out half coming back but does that sound back of the envelope Don't answer if you're not comfortable with that.

I would say I'm not very comfortable. determining what that final number is. I don't have the report in front of me. I will say one thing that we didn't really discuss so much is part of the multifamily is going to be specifically active adult, where it is kind of an older demographic there. And so they would have significantly less trips. Just in our experience, that demographic doesn't have very many trips. So I don't know if it would be 8 to 10 per household necessarily over the whole project. But, yeah, just something to consider there is that one of the building or sorry, two of the buildings will be active.

All right. And the latest traffic count on Victory Street, you're mostly fronting, right? It's saying thirty seven hundred. And that was just last year. So. i'm trying in my head to get somewhere into a number that tells me what is coming and going on victory and that doesn't even include the final product next door to you because they're not even occupied they're still under construction right mr chair commissioners if i may uh the prior approval did provide an estimation for uh

Trip generation. Again, this is when the proposal was 890 units. We are, ACHD estimated the generation of trips to 5,051 vehicle trips per day.

But that was the previous iteration. Correct. So this is 200 units, 250 units fewer. And you said 5,000?

5,051. Okay.

So 4 ish. Okay. All right. Cool. That helps me. Thank you. All right. Any other questions of the commission? Okay. I don't have any more either. So I think we can go ahead and have a take a seat and then we'll open this up to the public and then we'll come back for rebuttal and go from there. All right. I've got three folks who are signed up on the signup sheet, but that does not preclude you from testifying should you want. So I've got Carol, is it Coats? And then Alice Coats. And then Curtis, I think it's Fackler? Bless you, sir. There's some sort of candy out in the lobby, I'm sure. Go ahead and help yourself.

all right please go ahead good evening mr chair and members of the commission thank you for your service tonight and for the record my name is carol coates at the address of 1820 sunrise room road thank you for hearing my testimony regarding cup 26 000 17 and sub 26 000 25 the approximately 640 unit development proposed at 2017 west victory road I strongly urge the Commission to reconsider this overall proposal, this is not an opposition to growth or housing, it is a request that the city ensure the transportation network infrastructure and surrounding neighborhood can actually support this level of density before approving an irreversible project. I have two primary concerns. First, transportation constraints that have been discussed at length so far should drive appropriate density. As this hearing has already revealed, this development is not located directly on Vista Avenue, Federal Way, or other major arterials. It is unusually set back from the arterial network behind established residential neighborhoods for its size and density. Proximity to Vista Avenue is not the same as ready access to Vista Avenue. Proximity to Federal Way is not the same as ready access to Federal Way. So I'm going to put up a slide here and apologies for this. It's a Google Maps snapshot. But I just want to zoom out a little bit. We talked about from a project management and a developer standpoint, a soda straw look. But let's zoom out to see the real problem that's been discussed. You see the two development plots down to the south of the screen. To the left, you have Vista Avenue. That is a commercially acceptable. accessible through, right? So we have a major intersection at the top of Sunrise Rim that is known through local studies to be fairly dangerous already. And then up the road to Canal Street, we also have an area where Victory tees into Canal Street and then feeds into Vista Avenue. That T is managed by a stop sign. If you move to the right of the screen, to the right of the development, you see those red X, they're yellow Xs indicating the railroad crossings. As far as we understand, there is no plan to mitigate the severe bottlenecks of these access and exit points. If you go further to the right, to the east of this project, you see an additional two circles where stop signs are located as these roads, Mallod and Victory, intersect Federal Way. so just moving along to keep talking about the traffic issues this is victory road headed eastbound toward the uh first row of crossing there to the south so i gotta stop i'm sorry i know you've been here all night but i have to do what i have to do and so i apologize thank you for hanging in there uh alice you can

Keep it going if you want. That's your prerogative, but I just need your name and address.

I'm Alice Coates, 1900 Sunrise Rim Road. I've been canvassing the neighborhood and just repeatedly and constantly I'm hearing people say Victory Road can't handle the traffic. What are we going to do? It's going to be dangerous. There's going to be parking on both sides of the road. There are going to be people trying to cross the road and it's already full. So we're thinking of, you said, 4000 traffic units trips per day. And then, like you said, we're going to add another that many on the west end when it gets developed. And they're just it's not going to be possible. People are not going to be able to get out of their driveways. They're not going to be able to drive down the road. So that's my my first concern is that I think it's going to be dangerous. and undoable um my second concern is that it really is being plunked down right in the middle of a single-family housing neighborhood that's been there for years um i think that uh development can be done there that would involve duplexes and maybe some row houses and if you go out toward uh barber park and harris ranch you're going to see some really nice looking developments that have packed in a lot of people without having big monstrosity high-rise apartments and like i said in the middle of a single-family housing development that's neighborhoods that have been there for years um and yes that canal bank is posted and fenced off no trespassing so i've walked my dog there but i'm aware that it's against the law yes i i could be um okay i think that's about all i have to say thank you thank you for hanging out with us okay is anybody else go ahead come on up just state your name and address for the record

And I have nobody online, so it's just us.

I'll make it quick.

I'm also pretty tired, and I'll try to . So my name's Laura Coates. I live at 1900 Sunrise Rim Road. So I was walking along the Victory road point where it crosses over the railroad tracks towards accessing federal way. There's no sidewalks there and there is basically a white line on either side of the 2 lane road that plummets about. I don't know, 20 feet, like, exactly like the canal bank. Um, um, angle sorry. Excuse me. So. increasing traffic along that bottleneck, which is the only way for all of these people to access the grocery stores and all the amenities on Federal Way that they would be using would be to walk in the roadway there. So I would say that's pretty dangerous. It's scary. I would challenge you to walk it yourself without feeling like you're about to be roadkill because there's nowhere for you to go over that railroad crossing. So, yeah, the other point is I was confused about where that pathway along the canal would go and how it would connect to anywhere along the canal through the neighborhood to amenities. That wasn't made very clear, I didn't think, on the map. So that's kind of my... my main point is that um none of the plans that i saw today were addressing the dangerous railroad crossing there and all the excess traffic that would make that even more perilous so thank you okay thank you very much go ahead come on up let's make this quick i know it's right for everybody um my name is brighton jensen no relation so if they do put that on the bridge i won't be that bad

I currently reside at 2100 West Victory Road. So this is directly across from my property. Obviously this proposal affects me personally, but I also work in hospitality. So I want to be very clear that growth is very much in my best interest. I want Boise to thrive. I understand that we need housing and I am not opposed to development. But I think there is an important distinction between growth and smart growth. We are talking about permanently changing over 40 acres of currently underdeveloped, undeveloped land. Once that land is developed, we don't get to reconsider that decision ten years from now. At the same time, we have existing developed lots, including many along Federal Way that I pass every day on my way to and from work. They are vacant, underutilized properties that are already surrounded by infrastructure and could benefit tremendously from thoughtful redevelopment. The question isn't whether Boise grows. The question is where and how Boise grows. I also want to reiterate a concern that was raised during an earlier hearing. We are being asked to consider a project of significant scale while important pieces of the future multifamily development are still subject to future approvals. Even tonight's presentation states that future multifamily buildings and their parking needs are subject to those future approvals, as was pointed out by, I believe, Mr. Schaefer. I think that matters. The community should have the opportunity to understand the full impact of what is being approved, not discover significant details after the larger framework is already in place. I support growth, but irreversible growth deserves a high standard. And before we build outward, I think we should be able to explain why we aren't first rebuilding inward. Also, I do want to follow up. I'm glad you pointed out the canal is not walkable, and you cannot currently park on the south side of Victory Road. I know that because I live there, and I can't park across the street from my house. Thank you for your time. Have a great night.

Great. Thank you. I'm just impressed somebody finally listened to Commissioner Schaefer over there. All right. Is there anybody else who wishes to testify? Come on up, sir.

Paul Wilson, 2120 West Sunrise Ram. And I'm glad you all stayed up late to hear us. I came last week, but the meeting was canceled, but they didn't notify us. We showed up, but I think that's happened twice. But here we are. So I'm just wondering where the pizza is. somebody said they were going to bring pizza anyway um you know my background is um i've lived there about 14 years on sunrise rim and so our main concern we're the uplanders is the height of the buildings and so um it's confusing to me being an old guy that we don't know if they're can you can you address can you address us but they're going to be four story

And Mr. Wilson, can you just address us? They can address that in their report.

Okay, four-story. Did I get that from, did I make that up or is that true? Four-story apartments.

They they'll clarify it in a minute.

Okay.

And then I know they got approved for 65 feet total.

So that's confusing that the project could get this far and we don't know exactly how high they're going to be because at 65 feet, I'll be looking in their bedroom windows, they'll be looking in mine. And so that's the main concern we have up on the rim. I'm I am uh pleased that um I like the projects Brighton's done and I'm familiar with them and um that you're taking over there um and you brought pictures of some of the developments I've been in some of them over the years and you guys do a nice job anyway and then I have I found like four or five maps from when this started flat so God bless the engineers and the architects. They've made a lot of money. They've changed and changed and changed, but to the better, because when it started out, there was only one access road coming out of this huge subdivision, and it was 1,000 units and so now it's down to down 250 some so that's all a fuss to me with my real estate background and and i know that the if the traffic count and people count's not there you can't do a commercial just because it sounds good or it's convenient but there is like dutch brothers and a couple convenience stores fred meyer and albertson's all within not too far distance but um anyway uh good luck stopping growth i mean i've been here 55 years i know i i shouldn't say that you'll figure out how old i am but i can remember driving down the freeway and it was two lanes on both sides from melbourne my dad's farm potato farm and you might see a dozen cars going to boise so

time good luck stopping growth but i know it's got to be done thank you sir um in a smart viable way that makes it works for everybody great thank you sir appreciate it thank you for hanging out with us anybody else yeah yeah sounds like a plan uh anybody else want to testify we're good okay well seeing none and i have nobody online then we'll go ahead and move forward to rebuttal you'll have applicant will have five minutes

Can I get my slides back up, please? Thank you. So I'm going to try to hit as many of these points as I can. One thing I really want to reiterate is that this was a previously approved project. We're making some modifications to a project that's already approved. So we are reducing the density, but we're not changing the DA. So if we were to change the DA, that could change a lot of things about the project, but we're really just modifying a few things about the project. um I want to talk a little bit about the fire access and whether or not we need that road constructed I don't believe we do because the way that the fire code is written is you need half the distance of the greatest diagonal of the area served between those two access points and so we do meet that with the access points that we're providing if you take the um The farthest most most East and then kind of that West one that's not hollow field, so we don't need hollow field and actually we weren't going to do it at all, except that roundhouse got it, and so we are now required to finish it. and one of the things that i did want to discuss is that parking lot again and why we have the buildings uh situated the way that we do and why that parking lot's against the canal um it's because code actually requires that those buildings be uh against that street so we're we're kind of limited in how we can situate some of these things um and it it does mean that we have more parking but again we will have have landscaping um and i think it will be a nice area there for walking I think I wanted to talk a little bit about the transition from the existing residential area. So we did do this very thoughtfully. You can see here that the residential subdivisions are kind of north and east of us. And you'll notice in our site plan, that's where we've really done all of our single family detached and our duplex style product. That was intentional to create that buffer and to create that transition from the existing development. And then our higher density stuff and our multifamily is against what is already proposed from Roundhouse, which is, is a multifamily project as well. So we feel like that was a good transition and a good layout to kind of thread the needle between those two developments that we're trying to work against. I did want to discuss as well the crossing of the railroad. That's something that was brought up during the neighborhood meeting. So we were kind of aware of it already. It is outside the scope of our project, but if you're a pedestrian and maybe this is why they wanted the Mallard Hawk signal, you can actually go north and get across Federal Way on that Mallard Street. So again, potentially that's why they wanted that Hawk signal. As far as Victory Road being unsafe or too fast, you know we will be putting in those race crosswalks um and we are putting in some other kind of uh slow transition type things traffic calming is the word I'm looking for um so I think we're actually going to be increasing the safety here rather than decreasing it with more traffic um obviously more traffic can cause issues but we're definitely mitigating that and and putting in some features here that are going to create a more safe route through here You know, just reiterating again that Boise Blueprint actually does support a higher density here. Unfortunately, we couldn't make that work. We wanted to, but we have been sitting on this project for quite a long time without being able to start it. And this gives us that opportunity to actually start the project and get some housing into Boise that's critically needed. Someone said that this was a framework for getting started and we don't have all the details worked out. And I would say that that's mostly untrue. We do have most of the details worked out. We are still working on some design elements and exactly the number of units and things like that. But the you know the design that we had put together for that multi-family is is going to be basically this um but again we don't want to fully commit to this because we haven't been through design review which um for those listening is a public hearing so we do have to go back through a public hearing process it's not just an application that we submit to the city and they approve it fully goes back through a fully um public feature there for for people to comment on I think I hit everything. So thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Okay. That concludes bulk of the public hearing. It's now the decision is in front of us. We have two items. One, the modification to a conditional use permit. So we are the deciding body on that. And then the recommending body for the preliminary plat on the residential subdivision. So this is CUP 26-17 and Sub 26-25, both located at 2017 West Victory Road. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Mr. Stefanski.

Yes, can I make a motion to approve CUP 26-17 at 2017 West Victory with modifications for the conditional use permit as stated. and also recommend approval for sub 26-25 as well at 2017 west of victory road with all conditions stated in the report okay um before i look for a second i want to make sure uh this is your call

to do whatever you want, but the applicant had a couple of requests for the phasing of the pathway as well as the hollow field avenue and the potential of timing of that. So I just want to make sure you're good to go with the staff report as is. And okay, fair enough. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, I've got a motion by Commissioner Stefancic. to approve uh the modification to the conditional use permit and recommend approval uh for the subdivision as per the terms and condition in both respective or in the staff report uh any discussion uh yes sure commissioner um yeah uh i made this motion uh to approve this um because i feel like it it meets all of the criteria stated in the report um it's an area that um

We need some additional housing in support and it meets the major modifications criteria that is listed in the report here, as well as the subdivision part of that. So I think it helps move this project forward as has been indicated that we've been waiting for a while and to address some of the housing shortages that we have here.

so yeah that's why i'm in support of this okay thank you commissioner stefancic any further discussion mr chair commissioner torres um first i want to thank everybody who stayed with us until 10 almost well it is 10 30. um these hearings don't often run this late but they do occasionally and we appreciate you staying sharing your thoughts with us um also i didn't say it earlier great job rafa on your first uh item that was well done um I think I'm in support of the motion. I'm open to potentially granting the request for the road. I can't remember the name of the road at the moment. I'm sorry. It's late. Holifield, thank you. I'm not as open when it comes to the pathway. I think it should be required to be built early on. As far as the Holifield road goes, I mean, the fact that staff is willing to work with the applicant on that, I'm OK with the motion as made. You know, for everyone who's concerned about the amount of housing here, I want to note this is a reduction in the density of what was originally proposed. If they could make the original project pencil with that density, they could build it. And it would just go forward at this point. So this is actually less housing than what was proposed originally. I want to applaud the applicant for having the 25 units dedicated at the 100% AMI. I think this is the first one I've seen with that since the changes in our code earlier this year or late last year. I don't remember when it was. I'm not as thrilled with the grass on all the units. I would prefer more environmentally friendly xeriscaped landscaping there. I'm not going to require it. I'm not going to torpedo the project over it, but You know our summers are getting hotter water is becoming an issue in the in the valley, I would encourage you, maybe to consider that that in the future. And with that i'll shut up because it's very late, thank you.

Okay, thank you commercial tours for the comment. Mr sure sure more.

yeah I am in for the motion, I would also i'm not in support of an amendment to number for the multi use pathway. I agree with city of Boise getting that built in phase one, make fence. I think, you know, there's a lot of examples all over the place of pathways adjacent to construction. Downtown is a really good example. Some of these really compact infill sites. I think there's ways to make those safer and mitigate some of the safety concerns that you had mentioned. So I agree with city of Boise on that one. I would be open to an amendment on number 14, the construction of hollow field areas. avenue to work with ACHD and Boise Fire on requirements associated with that one, since that's an ACHD requirement. And since Boise is open to that, so worded however. Other than that, like Commissioner Torres stated, yeah, it's a reduction in housing, which goes hand in hand with the reduction in traffic, increasing safety that way. It is unfortunate that we did lose the podium buildings, though. It's a really efficient way to provide parking and the buildings. By using kind of the surface slots, we increase There have been heat island effects, all that good stuff. So it is kind of unfortunate that that doesn't pencil very well. But other than that, you know, I think, you know, open to an amendment on all of the lab, the high limit for the multifamily, if it's, you know, if it's four stories, I would guess that it would be very unlikely to be 68 feet tall unless you've got really high floor floors. So I think that should mitigate some concerns and requirement, but obviously no modifications for da are proposed here or are proposed with regards to the height so. 68 feet, I think, for 65 feet is the max that's permitted regardless. And with that i'll leave it at that.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Moore. Commissioner Schaffer.

Mr. Chair, I will be quick. I will be in support of the motions. I actually think this site layout is much better than the previous design. I think it's much cleaner, much simpler, so I appreciate um the revision to the state the site layout um appreciate all the comments as well regarding the surrounding infrastructure i'm glad that the applicant brought up the raised crosswalks on uh victory during rebuttal i think that's an important point to bring up in addition to the improvements on um federal federal way and this just to touch real quick i'm not concerned Well, it is or can be viewed as a disappointment that the commercial was removed in this iteration. I am not particularly concerned about that. Might be in the minority, but I don't think that true mixed use happens by adding a 2000 square foot coffee shop into a subdivision. so um so i'm comfortable proceeding without that component uh given proximity to vista avenue um and some of the uh mixed use in restaurants and other facilities that exist you know along vista so um i will be in support of the motions thanks thank commissioner schaefer um crystal can you pull up even on the applicant's uh slideshow there was that map the overhead view

uh nope nope the one that had the railroad crossing i guess i didn't realize there were that many maps that was a different presentation oh yeah that's the one uh no shoot it's the one that shows the hawk that's is that it No, that's not it either. Anyway, it's the one that showed the hawk signal circled and then it had a buffer around. That's it. That's the one right there. Or the star. Is it a star or the quasar? Is that a quasar? I don't know.

Is it a logo?

It's what? The Brighton star. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Okay. All right. Boy, oh, boy. I am in support of the overall project. I think that you have done a pretty darn good job with a lot of the layout of the site plan. I think that the housing, marching it down a little bit, has answered the call for a lot of what we heard from residents to an extent, but still does move the needle on housing. I think Commissioner Torres, look at you, finally got something that you're 125%. That's getting there. um so i think you've done a a pretty bang up job but i i guess where i differ from commissioner schaefer in particular is i think we are absolutely missing the mark on this the creation of place i would trade that hawk signal believe it or not for a commercial because I don't know that too many people are gonna use that hawk signal. Why? Because that's mostly for recreational trips. Getting over to that pathway is mostly a recreational use as opposed to people are, I mean, my work takes me all over the country and I will tell you that they are dying for places to go, to experience and to engage with one another. The food truck concept that you have would have been winner, 100% winner. You've got 1500 people here, give or take, you got another, whatever it is, 750 to your West. And all those people to the North and to the East have nothing except for going clear out to Vista, which that's only going so far. No one's going out to Federal Way because Federal Way is all either light industrial office or residential. So you're the one. You're the option and you've got a victory road that's about to have eight, nine thousand vehicles a day on it and not a square foot of commercial space or retail or collection of gathering places to be had. I'm struggling with that because to me, that's just... I don't see that as a good holistic approach to land use planning, to be honest with you. But I also see that you're compatible with the code and there are objectives in our comp plan, obviously, that you are absolutely fulfilling and there's other elements to it. So, man, I'm struggling with that. But when I looked at your site plan, what stuck out to me is that northwest corner, there's like 10 units up there. If I were in your shoes, I would really furiously reconsider that and maybe even work with the city of Boise. We're trying to do things differently with creating these senses of place. You heard from the neighborhood, that guy lives in the neighborhood, representing of the neighborhood association, who's probably their lived experience is begging you to do something different. And the biggest thing to me is trip capture. I don't want to have to worry about people going out to Vista for the reasons that we talked about with vehicles trips, right? I can do some of that on site. You got a whole big chunk of bare ground here to do some creative things and collect some people from making trips outside, including all of the residents around it. So I don't think I have enough to oppose this, but man, I'm bleeding with you to reconsider that and figure out a balance here because I can't imagine you would not have some success. This is not the same animal. And I think Commissioner Torres kind of hit it on the point. We're not trying to get a Shields. I need a sandwich. Right. I need a sandwich and a place to sit down and enjoy the company of my neighbors. So I think I've made that point emphatically. Anyway. Okay. I think everybody's had unless anybody else has any other thoughts. All right, cool. Let's go ahead and let's reset the table here. uh commissioner stefancic made the motion second by commissioner i think torres yeah uh to approve the conditional use permit and to recommend approval of the preliminary plat uh to council and just to make sure there's just i know we had some chatter but on item number two or the hollow field avenue i think we're set it sounds like with the motion okay then let's go ahead and clerk please call the roll danley yes

Moore? Yes. Schaefer?

Yes.

Torres?

Yes.

Stefancic?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay. Thank you, everybody. To the staff and to my fellow commissioners, it's been a privilege. Thank you very much for all that you've done and continue to do.