Council - Regular Meeting

He's online. Ready to go? All right. I tell you, these council meetings, they come and go quickly. So we're into August, and thank goodness the smoke has lifted a little bit. But what we do every council meeting, which I am so proud of, is we have prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. And as you know behind us, in God we trust. So we have Reverend Chris Evenson with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and I asked him earlier if he knew how many times he had done this, because when I was on council and this short time now in mayor, I mean, I've seen him several, several times. But anyway, it's just a pleasure to have you. Thank you for saying the prayer and the pledge for us.

Mayor and council members, thank you so much. Father in heaven, Lord, thank you so much for your love and your many blessings. Lord, thank you for the opportunity we have to conduct city business this evening. And Lord, before we do that, we need to think about the international skirmishes that are going on. Cortex and all the things going on around this world. We need to protect this nation. About the state of Idaho, the many blessings you've given to us, we... for our sister community.

Yes.

Who have been impacted. When we think of those close to the home who are facing violence.

I'll just give one. Thank you, Pastor, very much.

And we'll see you several other times, I'm sure, before my term's up. Okay. Just before we do roll call, just a quick little comment because you mentioned Twin Falls. And hopefully that's been in your mind and prayers. But we have our MPD back here. And Chief Huff was kind enough to send five patrolmen on Sunday, yesterday, to help out just with patrol with Twin Falls. Meridian also sent, and I think Caldwell sent at least one. So anyway, a community that's going to give in so many different ways. So they were down there early Sunday morning and came back, I believe, last night. So anyway, thank you for agreeing to partner with Twin Falls in that situation. Okay, roll call, please.

Gog. Present. Tangula. Here. Bills. Here. Reynolds. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Griffin.

Here.

All present.

Okay, I'm not seeing any proclamations, so we're going to move right on to the public forum, and this is where we allow five individuals, up to five individuals, to speak on an agenda or non-agenda item for a maximum of three minutes. I understand our five is full, so we get to hear from five of you tonight, and if you'll still please, Madam Clerk, whoever goes first.

Our first speaker is Nancy Hovey.

We just need your name and address when you come up here, please.

I have handouts. I have handouts.

Mayor, just a heads up that we do not have audio coming through from the podium mic.

Okay, I think, yeah, I We'll see how it goes miss up have to go ahead and say something see if it did it the mic is working for us.

My name is Nancy Hovey yeah, it's not working.

Can you hear me yeah, it was it will see if say I have a cop at Councilman the Griffin can hear you can you go ahead and say so I can I can now hear her okay, thanks. You can go ahead and start. Did you give your address already?

No, I did not. My name is Nancy Hovey, and I live in Nampa. My address is 888 West Corporate Lane, apartment number 410 in Nampa.

We need to get just a little closer, and we'll see if that works. I'm sorry. I'm scared. You're going to have to be very intimate with that mic, I guess, tonight.

Okay. I am speaking on the transportation funds to be cut from VRT services in Nampa. I have used Access for approximately 15 years. I hope and pray that you will vote to keep the VRT services without cutting any of the services currently in operation. Access allows seniors and the handicapped to have the independence to travel where they need to go. I have no family, I have no car, and I do not have the funds for Ubers and cabs. The freedom to be able to continue our life independently is necessary. We do not want to rely on our family or others. Family members, for the most part, need to lose work, which becomes a burden on them. We do not want to be a burden to anyone. Family members need to be aware that if our busing is taken away, they will have to step up to take us to all these places. When Beyond Access became available, I started using this service also. This service allows me to go to Meridian in Boise. I have made a VRT service list for you, which includes all the information that VRT needs when I call to make reservations with Access and Beyond Access. That's the attachment that I had. There are 34 places on my list which includes by many doctors because as we age and or have a handicap, we have other doctors besides our primary care. My two eye doctors, my dentist, my bank, my hairdresser, many markets, the post office, our companion animals vet, dmv office for state id and hospitals were not an emergency it also allows us to maybe go to a restaurant for a meal maybe with friends go to visit at friends and family's homes and do many other things that make each one of us feel like maybe life isn't so bad as we age you all will be in our position someday. I pray that there is a transportation service for your needs.

Thank you, Mrs. Huffy. Thank you for also all the work you did in presenting this. Next, please.

Our next speaker is Melinda Parker.

Thank you.

Give those to me so you can start speaking.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Melinda Parker, and you're loud now.

I live at 816 17th Avenue South. I'm a taxpaying citizen of District 3. Sometimes I think we undervalue the things we don't know about. I'm here today to shine a light on some of the many programs your constituents are a part of at the Nampa Public Library. Specifically, I want to share with you information about important adult services and programs. TRIO, a federally funded program that helps adults get their general equivalency diploma, apply for financial aid, and explore college and training options, meets with adults at the library every Tuesday, four or five times a month. The Idaho Department of Labor also meets with adults to assist with career planning and unemployment insurance benefits every Thursday. The Women and Children's Alliance staffs a table at the library twice a month to offer information about free services and safe shelter for abused women and their children. The Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program provides a free legal clinic monthly at the library. The Alzheimer's Association hosts a drop-in caregiver support group every month taking care of those who devote themselves to their loved ones. On January 31st, our library hosted a visit from the Radiation Screening and Education Program from Intermountain Health St. George Regional Hospital. Dozens of citizens of Nampa and the surrounding area were given information about the reinstatement of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, a federal benefit program to compensate the families of downwinders who had experienced serious medical complications from the U.S. nuclear testing program. Where would all these things happen if they did not happen at the library? This is our common good where our tax money is spent, counselors. This is the educational, instructional, nonpartisan space where we invest in our community. We ask that you accept the library's proposed budget for the 2026-2027 fiscal year. It is disingenuous to say that there are no cuts if you expect the library to operate with the budget it had last year and also deal with cost of living adjustments, building maintenance, insurance, and other routine expenses of serving our community. We ask that you fully fund the Nampa Public Library so it can continue to serve all of our citizens. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you for doing the right thing for our city.

Thank you, Mrs. Parker. Next.

Mayor, our next speaker is Scott Pearl.

Okay.

Well, good evening. My name is Scott Pearl, and I live at 427 River Valley Street here in Nampa. And I've had the privilege of living here in Nampa since 1999. And my wife and I live here and raised a couple of our kids here. They graduated from Columbia a couple months ago. Back in 2008, I went almost totally blind, which obviously prevents me from driving. And ever since 2009, I've used Valley Regional Transit every single day to get to work to downtown Boise. And I've relied on it, and it's always been there. And I appreciate the funding in the past, and the work that you guys have done, and I'm just asking if you'll keep it. I need it, I rely on it very much. Some of my colleagues, I work at the EIDL Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Some of them very much rely on public transit, and some of my clients and students, they rely on it very much, and this would, This would affect me big not to have the public transportation and that I need very much to get to work and back and just to other places that I've used. So thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Perl, for coming and making the effort. Appreciate it.

Next.

Mayor, our next speaker is Justin Reynolds.

Hi, my name is Justin Reynolds. We own Club Storage Condos off Eustick Road in the Star, 4751 West Eustick. And we're a small business, and we've been pursuing this since 2019. I think Christine's part of this business, and I think I'm going to kind of give her kind of leeway since she's kind of lead on this.

We wanted to introduce ourselves. We'll be emailing everyone, because there's a lot of information, too much to go over in just a couple minutes. But we are being negatively impacted by the changes in the road design, and it appears to be fluid enough that perhaps there's a chance to amend something to allow, we're for long vehicle storage, and right now there's a solid curb blocking access to our facility. our CUP was approved prior to the road updates, and then once those road updates were approved, they've changed twice. So again, we'll be emailing you, but we're a small business, and we relied on the information from the city before we bought the land and before we designed our

So the design now, it has our customers driving four miles out of the way, four miles out of the way to turn around heading westbound on Eustick Road, which we have RVs pulling accessory vehicles and boats and semi-trailers for customers that have electrical contracting bringing material in. So the road construction has been bad enough just because it's been closed off many times and Signage and access has been super limited. I've had, we've had multiple, multiple customers calling, we can't get to our stuff. And then I gotta run out there and see what's going on, because I didn't know anything about it, so the communication hasn't been very good. And then as soon as the curb kind of went up, separating the north and south sides of Eustick Road, got multiple calls on that with people that were like, what is happening?

Which was our first indication. that that change had been made. We've been in constant communication with the transportation department. We've shared easements. We've shared contact information for Northwest Pipeline and all the different easements associated with our property. We've been so helpful because we thought we were partners in this. And then they put up this solid curve, which is, again, they pivoted from the design for the third time. and we didn't know anything about it until the concrete was forward. So.

And we both came up here, because you said there's only five people, we both signed up, we had different programs, but we thought we'd come up together because we didn't know if we would both get called, so I didn't know how that worked.

But we're a small business, so.

It's Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds, is that correct? Correct. Okay, all right, well thank you, and I think maybe we have a meeting coming up here soon, so. Yes, thank you. All right. Thank you for your time. Excuse me, yes. Yes, we'll start over here.

What's the name of your business before you sit down?

Club Storage Condos.

Club Storage Condos, thank you.

Yasemin Rodriguez. Thank you.

And give me your, I've got 751 West Euston. Is that your address?

4751 West Euston.

In District 2.

In District 2. And do you have a modification of... plans from the last time around, or is this surprise to you when you notice the changes?

Surprise to us because we were not notified. We've probably got... two or three addresses that would show up, and a couple different emails, and we knew nothing about a new design until the curb popped up, which caused a lot of conflict with the customers that we already have. And it also costs, it's costing us new customers, because it's been real quiet since all this stuff's gone on. So the impact, the impact has been huge.

Okay, what is the nearest crossroad?

Star and Ustick. Star, okay. Yeah, we're just east of Star Road on Ustick Road. Thank you, sir. Thanks.

Next, please.

Mayor, our last speaker is Melissa Sue Robinson.

Hi, I'm Melissa Sue Robinson, 15 5th Street North, Unit 210, Napa. Okay. Summer said, good evening, Mayor, council members, and fellow citizens. Thank you. One of the greatest responsibilities of government is ensuring that every resident has the opportunity to participate in democracy. That today, many people in our community, especially senior citizens and those without reliable internet access, are unintentionally left behind. While many city meetings are streamed online, thousands of residents either do not own a computer, cannot afford broadband service, or simply are not comfortable using today's technology. These citizens still care deeply about Napa, but they often have no practical way to watch city council meetings, planning and zoning meetings, budget hearings, or other important public discussions. I believe we can change that. I propose that the city of Napa explore a partnership with Idaho Public Television, local cable providers, or another public access television outlet to create a dedicated government channel that broadcasts city council meetings and other important public meetings. Cable television remains one of the easiest ways for many seniors to stay informed, and a government channel would allow them to watch from the comfort of their homes. But broadcasting meetings alone is not enough. The city should also launch a six-month to one-year public awareness campaign, encouraging residents to become involved in local government. Meeting dates, times, and major agenda topics should be regularly advertised in the Idaho press and prompted through local television and radio news stations. Social media should certainly remain part of the outreach, but should not be the only method. Democracy works best when citizens know what is happening before decisions are made, not after. An informed public leads to better discussions, stronger public trust, and policies that reflect the voices of the entire community rather than only those who happen to be online. Increased participation also helps future community leaders emerge, encourages volunteerism, and strengthens neighborhood engagement. As Nampa continues to grow, Accessibility should grow with it. We should make every responsible effort to ensure that every resident, young or old, connected to the internet or not, has equal access to the work of their local government. Government should never be accessible only to those with latest technology. It should be accessible to everyone. I respectfully ask the mayor and city council to explore creating a televised government meeting channel. through a partnership with Idaho Public Television or another appropriate provider and implement a six-month to one-year public information campaign.

Mrs. Hsu, our time is up. Yeah, okay. Okay, thank you. Anyway, you got the idea. As always. Do you have just a couple more sentences?

Together we can build a more informed, more engaged, and more united Napa. Thank you for your time and your services to the city. You certainly did. My voice is like this because of the smoke in the air.

Yeah, it's bad, yeah.

Right, thanks very, very much. Okay, I think that does it for our public forum. Any council, any changes to the agenda? Nope. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Also, consent agenda. Do we have any? Oh, okay. Okay, so we need an adoption. Thank you. Madam Clerk keeps me in line, and I appreciate that.

So moved.

Okay. Need a second?

Second.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, and then the same thing with the consent agenda.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. I believe we are now ready for our communications. So, John and Crystal, I think you're up first. This is regarding the Eustick Corridor Projects update.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. For the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation. I'm trying a new innovative thing. I'm an engineer and I really like my PowerPoints, but I'm gonna try doing a live voiceover for a video, so let me know if you guys like it. Maybe we can do something like this in the future, but we're gonna go ahead and share it on the screen real quick. that somebody sharing for me would be easier. Sorry, guys.

You are good.

Thank you, council members. In today's... In today's update, we're highlighting the Ustick Road widening project. This effort will widen approximately 1.7 miles of Ustick Road from just east of the Phyllis Canal to the new State Highway 16 interchange. The goal is to transform this rural two-lane cross-section into a more efficient urban five-lane roadway. This enhanced design features improved lighting, new underground facilities, a centerline median, and multi-use pathways to better serve our community. Our corridor study indicates that this new state highway is projected to increase traffic on Eustick Road by nearly 632%. In response to this significant forecast, Nampa is doubling down on its proactive efforts to ensure that these vital improvements are completed in a timely manner. Moving west from this interchange, we come to the Waihi Storm Intersection, featuring a durable concrete surface which will reduce maintenance costs. This intersection will be equipped with a new traffic signal and is designed to accommodate a future southern connection. It will also include two east-west through lanes, left turn bays, and a northbound right turn lane, enhancing traffic flow and improving safety. Half a mile to the west, we arrive at Star Road, our second concrete intersection on the corridor. This widened intersection will also feature two east-west through lanes on Eustick, left turn bays on every leg, and two dedicated right turn lanes heading towards and leaving the new state highway. Both this intersection and the Owyhee Storm intersection will provide protected, signalized U-turns for safer accesses to businesses and residences along the corridor. Nampa has heard the citizens' frustrations regarding long-term road closures, and in response, the City and contractor have developed a phased approach for this project. This strategy ensures that one lane in each direction remains open during construction, minimizing disruptions for commuters. It also allows contractors to install permanent improvements, including 10-foot concrete side paths, which safely separate vulnerable users like bicyclists and pedestrians from fast-moving traffic. Enhancements such as roadway lighting, improved drainage, new utilities, and loons will also be integrated into this project. Now let's discuss the loons a little more. Loons are an innovative intersection design known as a Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection, or R-CUT. At these loons, drivers enter a dedicated median crossover area and make an allowed U-turn at the widened section of the roadway. This design effectively reduces conflict points and can significantly enhance both safety and traffic well. Houston Road is just the first of many priority corridors targeted for improvement, as we are committed to prioritizing our citizens' needs and getting ahead of the growth in our community. By investing in these vital roadways, we're not only enhancing accessibility, but also ensuring that NAMPA continues to thrive. We'd also like to extend our gratitude to our agency partners for their collaboration project. Thank you for your support. As we celebrate this progress, it is one step towards improving movement in and through NAMPA. Questions, counsel? I'll stand for the questions.

Okay. Councilman Rodriguez.

Do you have an aerial view of the intersection of Star Road and U6?

I don't have one on hand, but you can find, oh, sorry. Mayor, Councilman, yes. I don't have one on hand, but you can look up the Ustick Corridor Study, and it shows what the aerial view should be. We also have a Ustick Corridor Project website, and it has interactive maps that show sliders of the before and after and the renderings of what that looks like. And then the video that I just shared is what it is in the field as of about a week ago, so. Okay, thank you.

Mayor. Yes. Crystal, do you have a current timeline of completion on this?

Absolutely. So we're projected for, Mayor, Councilman Jangula, we're projected for July of 2027 for final completion on this.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir. Crystal, I can tell you have three wonderful children that you're reading books to a lot. You did a great job. Thank you. And I think Char might want to have you read some ordinance. Good job.

Any other questions I can stand for?

Yes, sir. Crystal, the couple that came up and talked about, would you be able to follow up with them?

Yeah, Mayor, Councilman Bills.

Blocking their entry or whatever?

Absolutely. We have another scheduled meeting with them on the 11th with Mayor and Chief of Staff. We also, I met with Chief of Staff and the property owners about three weeks ago on the 14th to try and resolve some of their issues. We are actively working to not block or restrict access at all during construction, which there are inconveniences during construction. There'll be about just under a quarter mile from that signalized U-turn that I was talking about, and about a half a mile from that loon, which I spoke about as well, which is the allowed U-turn opportunity for them.

Mm-hmm. Okay, thank you, Crystal. John?

Mayor, City Council, John Spencer, Director of Water Resources.

And stand pretty close. That mic, maybe it's just my age and hearing, but yeah, thanks.

I will not be doing a reading as Crystal presented, but we do have a video for you, which I can walk through some of the aspects of the U6 sewer line extension. This is west of the widening project. A lot of this is work package one.

I'm sorry, John, can we shut down? Okay, we're totally off. I love music, but I don't think we're, okay. I was about ready to get up and dance, but you don't want that, so we'll go ahead. Okay.

Yeah, so this is a lot of work package one, the deep sewer. We've got about 1600 feet of deep sewer in the ground, 30 to 35 feet deep. Work package two is also going in. currently, and that includes water in pressure irrigation. So that's ongoing as well. And when they've gotten through Ustick, we'll have paving coming behind to pave over the road that was disturbed.

That's three stories down. Incredible.

It is a relatively slow process, but the contractor has been doing a fantastic job getting more and more efficient as they've moved along with their deep trenching. This dewatering system is required. Water usually stands about 13 feet below ground, so there's a significant amount of dewatering that goes on in this project. and they are currently working in Franklin, and they are working to get out of Franklin. There were some unknown utilities in the ground there, which has caused some challenges, but we're working through those and trying to stay on schedule, but we are on budget still.

And there again, projected timeline. I know Councilwoman Jengel had asked Crystal, and on this though, what's your...

I drive this almost every day, so I'm ready for it to be done.

The full project will not be done until April of 2028, and that is all the way through Canada. As each section is completed, though, obviously those sections will be opened. So Treeline to Franklin should be open in the next month if things continue to go well with the schedule.

Thank you. So the joke with my kids that they'll go to Ridgeview all through high school and never have a non-construction area actually is true. Thanks.

Yes. It goes with growth. Any other questions for John? Hey, hey, good presentations. All right. Appreciate it. Okay. I think we're ready for our Rodney. Are you ready to go? Okay, this is the Planning and Zoning Staff Communications, Planning and Zoning Recent Action Summary, Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Objective, 2026 Second Quarter Applications and Density Reports. So we're gonna be here for another hour or so. That seems like a lot of material. I know he knows how to summarize. Okay, here we go.

59 minutes, Mayor. Just kidding. All right, so I do have a lot to cover here. I'll try to move through this pretty quickly. Oh, there we go. So this is our typical density report. What I'd like to do is highlight some good things that are happening in this report. Again, preliminary plats are several years out before we'll see them but this is a year's worth of projects that have come before City Council. Some of these were not approved, so some of them were denied, like the one to the very north, Madison Ranch, and I'll give you a closer look to the north. And to the south. And then the summary here, with those removed, like Sagewood, Madison Ranch, and Elite Industrial, those removed that were denied, there were 1,267 units approved, and single family units, excuse me, and 26 multi-family units. So again, that's long term. Sometimes those don't develop out, but that's what was approved in the last year. So these are final plats. What I'd like to highlight here is just probably more to the south here. You're seeing a lot of infill development, which is a really good planning principle because we have utilities already in place. So we have the roadways in place, we have the utilities in place. That's a really good thing to see those infill developments come in for final plats. Here's to the north. Here's to the south, and you can see some of those infill developments there. And here's the summary. So of final plats in the last year, we had 1,656 single family residential units approved and 146 multifamily units. So again, if you have any questions there, I can stop for a minute if there's anything on that. Council?

Mayor.

Yes.

Rodney, when you say multifamily units, is that the actual unit or is that per dwelling?

Yeah, good question. Mayor and council, the unit that I'm talking about is a dwelling unit. So it's a home.

Any other questions on that part of his presentation? Okay, we'll move on.

I probably should have summarized the planning and zoning report real quickly. I'll do that. Last planning and zoning meeting was July 28th. That was last week. We had Crosswood Estates phase one, and you had that on your consent agenda tonight, so I won't address that. ADERA number one, this is the first extension for subdivision final plat, so they were approved for a one-year extension. The next one is subdivision Schwartplatt, and that was on your agenda tonight for Devlin number two. Those were two industrial lots. And then the last one is an annexation and zoning to IL, and then a rezone to IL for some airport property at 73 North Happy Valley Road. That was recommended for approval and will come before you on September 8th. All right, so if we jump into the update on the comprehensive plan, a lot of good things happening right now. We've got 25 outreach events scheduled, some of them tonight, some of them tomorrow night. As you know, I think it's national night out tomorrow. Is that right? We'll have events to go meet with communities in their neighborhoods, reach out to them and get their feedback. We've got three outreach events completed already. We've had great verbal feedback from Nampa residents and some surveys are coming in. We are handing out hard copy surveys at every event that we attend and then we also have the survey which is online that we're evaluating and looking at regularly. So next, we are continuing to collect feedback from the public during outreach events. We are refining the seven vision themes along with their objectives and strategies to guide the comprehensive plan draft. And updated draft of future land use map should be here by fall of 2026. And so there will be lots of discussion at that point. So with that as the background, you've already heard a little bit of my spiel about these seven themes. I think this has been really helpful for us to come before you and get your feedback. We've already made some changes. We've heard comments back. It's helped us refine this process. So we'll continue to do that. We will only have one left after today. But the ones that we're gonna cover today are sustainable infrastructure and services, and then safe and engaged community. Number five is a really pertinent topic that we've heard a lot about even tonight. So what is sustainable infrastructure and services? Well, it's to plan and maintain high quality public facilities and utilities that meet the needs of a growing population and then coordinate efficient infrastructure investments with land use decisions and responsible resource management to ensure fiscal efficiency and long term So there's a lot of words in there. So what we try to do is we take it down to the next level. What does that mean? What does that mean? And so on. So we'll go into a little bit of detail here. The draft objective topics are one through four there. We're gonna cover the first one. and then go to the next one. Thoughtful growth and development. What does that mean? It means we're gonna guide growth into desirable and fiscally responsible locations. That's an example of that infill type development that we want to see. We want to encourage that. That was a major theme we heard from the community and from our committee. And then second, we're gonna align an annexation decisions with long-term growth and service goals. We're going to try to tie what it's gonna take to service those areas that are annexing into our community. And does that make sense? Can we officially say that it's fiscally responsible to do this for the city? We have made some really good progress. Doug and his team have been working with Daniel Badger and myself to develop this fiscal impact analysis that will give you more details on later this month, is that correct? Yeah, later this month, and we hope to be able to start using that really quickly. But that, again, that stemmed from comments we received from the public. Next is sustainable infrastructure. Ensure infrastructure systems are adequately funded, efficiently maintained, and strategically expanded. And then second of all, incorporate sustainability into infrastructure design and operations. In this case, you might look at this from a perspective from a resident and say, oh, they've got a really nice water feature in the middle of the road. Actually, it's a storm drain swell, right, and you plant plants that will survive on sporadic water coming in there. And this is just a good long-term strategy to beautify our community, but also to be sustainable. Then the next one is improve public understanding of infrastructure development and the relationship between the two. This is a tough one for me. It's so complex. Infrastructure is complex and development is complex. And so we're trying our very best to help the public understand those two things. and we'll continue to do so. Next is airport area development. I'll be really quickly, we just want to make sure that the area around the airport is safe, that we're protecting the pilots, but we're also protecting the people who live nearby and work nearby. Promote the airport's economic benefits and ensure continued operations and economic growth associated with aviation. To be honest, when I first started, I didn't understand how impactful our little airport was for our economy. And so we want to make that clear to the public. And last of all, under the first topic or the first theme is coordinated provision of services. This is probably pretty self-explanatory, so I won't spend too much time on there. But, whoa, that was quick. There we go. Ensure the efficient, equitable, and coordinated provision of public services and infrastructure, aligning service capacity with growth while maintaining high levels of services and long-term sustainability. Just coordination of all of those efforts. And then our next theme is safe and engaged community. Maintain low crime rates, well-lit streets and clean public spaces, strengthen neighborhood identity and civic engagement through inclusive planning, cultural events and transparent governance. And I'll talk about that. in a minute here. Here's the draft objectives. We'll focus on the first one here. Emergency preparedness and operations. We want to maintain effective emergency response services that protect residents and minimize damage during emergencies. We've seen our fair share of those, right? So we need to be prepared for those. And we need to promote a culture of preparedness so community members are ready to respond during disasters. Next is crime prevention through environmental designs or CPTED. I wish I could remember what that stands for, but it's essentially a design that creates safety in our community. So what researchers have found is that when cities are designed with certain principles in mind that they are safer for the community. Maybe there's more eyes on that area or there's more openness and there's more connectivity between different land uses and that makes for a safer community where less crime occurs. So that was an interesting topic that I thought was really astute of our community and our citizen committee that came together to guide this process. We don't want to just address it after the crime has occurred. We want to prevent the crime from happening. So how do we do that, these principles? And so we'll get into detail in the comprehensive plan about that. Safety through community culture as well and social systems. Strengthen Nampa's network of resources to address safety issues such as cooling and warming stations. And that is all we had on that one. So a couple of things, or just a response to a question. One council member recommended that we need to add police enforcement to safe and engaged community. I agree. An important social system to create safety in our community is support for and relationships with our police officers. We propose adding this as a strategy to safety through community culture and social systems. Yes, we want to prevent the crime from happening in the first place, but we don't want to forget that our police officers are a critical component of keeping our community safe. So that's what we're going to do. And then last is civic pride and community engagement. We want to expand our community events and gathering to strengthen engagement, belonging, and civic pride. and then increased neighborhood identity, inclusion, and participation throughout the city. I think we've seen some good movement in that area. And then just a discussion. If you have any questions or feedback for us to take back to our plan.

Council? No one seems to be raising their hand, so. You still have one more section here?

I don't think so. I think just next steps is that we will handle pathways to opportunities, and then we'll come back at the next council meeting.

That'll be at the next council meeting? Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. Thanks, Rodney. Thank you. Appreciate it. Our final communication is going to be a legal one, so hopefully we can all understand. But anyway, our legal counsel, Preston Rudder, and then Ben also will be presenting, I believe.

Mayor, council, thank you for having me here tonight. We're excited to share an update on an e-bike ordinance. And for the record, Preston Rutter, city attorney, and I have with me Ben Gardner, our law clerk, who will actually be wrapping up with us this Thursday. He's been with us for eight months and been a valuable contributor, and he'll be starting his final year of law school. And he's done a lot of work on this. So I wanna not take too much time from him. And I know how much Mayor loves brevity, so we'll try to get to the point here. As you know, e-bike is a expanding industry. This was brought on our radar a few months ago. Council President Bills had raised a concern. We looked into it. We consulted with our PD. Lieutenant Childers is here in the room, I believe, and Cody Swander. And we consulted with them where our pathways, we see an increase of e-bike usage. And just this weekend, it was on full display for me. We're up in the McCall area, Ponderosa State Park. And there were two or three people bouncing on these e-bikes that had, no one was older than 14 years old. I thought how timely this is for our community. We're all aware of probably these horror stories of youth who are getting extremely injured. I have a nephew who's a pediatric dentist, and he showed me a picture. I don't want to describe it to you how violent the injuries can be. This is an extremely serious area that we want to regulate in a responsible way. As I mentioned, we've consulted internally. We've also sent a draft ordinance to our Canyon County Prosecutor's Office. There is an infraction element in there we'll talk about. And just some quick high level before I turn it over to Ben for a little more of what this ordinance entails. As we know, this valley has a greenbelt through it that's a great artery for recreation and among other things. Boise and Garden City really are the stewards of that greenbelt, and so they have tried to get ahead of e-bike ordinances. We've looked to them for some inspiration and guidance, but we try to tailor as much as possible to Nampa and our needs. With that, I'll turn it over to Ben to give you a little bit of detail about this ordinance.

Thanks, Ben, and thank you for your service for these last eight months. I know you, whenever I come in, you're hard at it, so good luck with the rest of your law school.

Yeah, it's been a fun time here, doing a lot of good work. For the record, Ben Gardner, law clerk. So e-bike ordinance comes from currently the landscape where We have a state definition of what eBakes are. We know that they need pedals, they can be assisted by the electric motor up to 20 miles per hour, and the state defines that into three classes, but generally speaking, assisted up to 20 miles per hour, and cap out at 750 watts. The interesting part is when the vehicles have either no pedals, have, much higher wattage than 750 watts or they don't cap out their motor assistance. They get assisted beyond 28 miles an hour and are basically electric motorcycles or e-motos. So that's mostly what we've tried to remedy in this ordinance. And part of the research for this was digging through state code into all the different vehicle laws and how all the different vehicles overlap in their definitions. And hopefully this is legible. I tried to make it as clear as possible where bikes, e-bikes, and other relevant motor vehicles overlap in their definitions.

Ben, I'm going to interrupt real quick because Lisa, I'm not able to read it for the print. Is this on our website or where someone can see this yet?

It's not on our website. I can send you guys a copy. Yeah It should be right.

I'm just talking about the public as far as We want to wait till that ordinance is in place before we do anything as far as public wise I'm sorry to interrupt you Ben. I just

No, it's a good question. This is our best attempt to visualize what the current state law is when it comes to all the various types of vehicles and where do e-bikes fit. The legislature, maybe Ben was getting to this, tried to run a bill through to address it. It ran out of steam and it never got to the floor. And so this is the landscape we're dealing with right now.

Okay, so this is your research that you're part of? That's correct. Okay, thanks. Continue on.

Yes. So as Preston was saying, legislature tried to pass a bill that would have cleared everything up nicely. The bill would have said that it's not an e-bike if it doesn't have pedals, if it goes faster than 30 miles per hour with motor assistance, or it has a motor greater than 750 watts. They didn't pass it, so we are left to do that ourselves, basically. The good thing is that once we define it, the state has enough coverage for whatever vehicle we define it as. including just a general motor vehicle. So Treasure Valley, all trying to do this at the same time. Boise and Garden City have already put out ordinances that covered this. Boise did it first and then Garden City did it a couple weeks later and this is July. Both of them happened in July, so super recent. Garden City opted for two definitions for high-speed scooters and high-speed e-bikes. Boise adopted a single definition that covered both of them. Of the two, we decided that Boise had the clear definition. So we took a lot of Boise's code and adopted that into our proposed ordinance. So what the ordinance does is it pretty much overhauls the existing e-bike ordinance that we have. We add more definitions and clear definitions for bikes, scooters, e-bikes, e-scooters, and a new one for e-moto, which will cover pretty much every electric vehicle that goes fast and isn't a car. Those e-motors are prohibited to 15 miles per hour on the multi-use paths. So all the park paths that people are worried about, 15 miles per hour max. And the e-motors are also prohibited from using multi-use paths, bike lanes, and sidewalks. We classify them as a motor vehicle, so they'll be same as any other car or motorcycle. As for penalties, we've gone with the hardest infraction possible, $300 for e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-motos, mostly because misdemeanors are difficult on resources, and as we like to push our tax dollars to the max, this is the most efficient way to do that. And one more part that Boise PD has is they added an optional registration with their police department. We have that in our proposed ordinance. It allows for city council to add a fee for the registration, but that is optional. With that, I stand for questions.

Questions, council? Mayor? Yes, sir. So on... looking at the document. Uh, so six, five dash five.

We're there with you.

Okay. Uh, at the very end there, it says a speed greater than as reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards. People aren't hazards. And, the way I read that is it's just saying it's more for the benefit of the rider on the bike. It seems like we need to expand that thought just a hair that we're cognizant of hazards are the speed and hitting people on the pathways. So I would just versus, Oh, you got to navigate, you know, for the root growth in the pathway. No, we want to be cognizant of the people of, on the pathway?

Mayor, Council President, we share this common goal. We want to have safe pathways and trying to articulate action into words can be a legal exercise in gymnastics. What we try to achieve here is there always will be a speed limit cap as a back rail safety measure, right? Nobody's to go over 15. And that number is not arbitrary. In consultation with PD, their LiDAR can actually target 15. You go lower than that, you're gonna get a non-read. And so that was what the recommendation was. Obviously that's up for further discussion. But we do wanna have a standard there. If they're driving recklessly, but still under 15, or they're not doing it in a reasonable manner, this could give some sort of enforcement mechanism for the city, for those who are saying, hey, technically I'm under 15, but this lets us point to say how you were driving was unreasonable given how many people or other bikes were on the pathway.

I just suggest that we expand that a little bit or something in there.

And we can take note of that to see if we can expand that more for sure.

One of the things, uh, under six, five, six, it seems like we should add an H where pathways greater than for me, it'd be 10, but you guys have chosen 15 miles per hour. That should also be listed there.

And Council President, can you direct us to a subsection?

Maybe you feel that would be appropriate. We can take note of that. 656.

And then any subsection within that?

Well, I'm suggesting that we add H and say pathways greater than 15 miles per hour.

Okay. Any other comments or questions?

Yes. President, I would like to hear from Chief Huff. Ordinance is only good as is what we can do to enforce it. And I would like to hear his comments on if it's enforceable or how we're going to enforce that. Maybe one of the captains or maybe chief can answer that question.

Who has the shortest? Okay.

Looks like Lieutenant Chile's got the shortest pass.

Shortest drop.

Mayor and City Council, Lieutenant Bradshaw, Louis Napa Police. I think there's two prongs to that question. The first one with regards to the hazard. The reason why we like that suggestion in there, it goes with our reckless driving code. If there's people in the area or other pedestrians, meaning on a bike or not, that's the hazard that is in danger there. As far as enforcement on it, same thing. We have to have some type of hazard there. On the pathways, if it's within the city, we're good. Where it gets a little tricky is when that pathway then goes through a subdivision. We'd have to work with HOAs on that.

Okay, and then as far as the miles per hour that Councilman Bills was referring to, are you going to stand out on the green belt with a radar gun, or how do we do that?

If we get a few more cops, we might be able to arrange that and get a few of us out there on that. I think more realistically, though, it's education that's going to be the most powerful thing on that. The people that see those signs, whether it's 10 miles an hour or 15 miles an hour, they're going to obey that until it's the people that don't want to, regardless of what sign on there. We talked about putting a radar up there that would flash their speed on it. Oftentimes that just becomes a challenge to see how high of a number they can get on it. So we didn't recommend that. But we would like to help enforce that in any way we can.

Mayor, one last comment. So I agree with the overall concept of this ordinance. but a lot of it comes back to common sense. Seems like it's not so common anymore. But I agree with the educational piece. First and foremost, I see, you know, 10 and eight and 10 year old kids riding down the middle of 12th Avenue on these things today. And that's a parenting issue. It doesn't matter what kind of ordinance we write if we don't educate. So I think that's really important if we could put out a public awareness campaign and have some, I know Amy does a great job with those things. Not that she needs anything else on her plate, but anyway, we can write ordinance all day long, and if it's not enforceable and we don't educate, then we're wasting our time.

Just Councilman Rodriguez is going to be next. Let me just pause on the parent thing. Are not parents also accountable with this ordinance, or was that not included in there since that was mentioned? My understanding was it was going to be.

Mayor and Councilman Reynolds' parents would be held accountable because if they're on e-motos and aren't on e-bikes, which are regular bikes, those are motor vehicles. So if they're driving under the age of a license.

So making some examples need to be, maybe getting the word out that we are going to enforce. Okay, thanks. Councilman Rodriguez, you've been waiting. Then we'll go to Councilwoman Jangela.

Well, I was wondering about the consequences to parents allowing their children six, seven, eight, nine years old to ride on these bikes. So what actually is the consequence for a parent?

The consequence for a parent would be the same as a child. And there is also, let's see, go to the 6517D, a parent or guardian who knowingly provides an e-bike, e-scooter, or e-moto to a person under 18 years of age with knowledge or reasonable grounds to know the juvenile will use it in violation of this chapter, may be charged as an accomplice or for contributing to juvenile delinquency or some other independent violation of the chapter. So they'll be held just as accountable as the child. Okay.

Also... I believe, in my opinion only, that these e-bikes not be allowed on our pathways. And so is that a Supreme Court ruling that you're following? This is a safety issue.

So actually, Idaho, the state has allowed legislation. They have legislation that allows cities to completely prohibit e-bikes from pathways. We've proposed the 15 miles per hour speed limit, but if prohibiting e-bikes altogether from pathways is something council would like to take the direction on, that is entirely possible.

I would, it's just my opinion, fellow councilman, is that we should not allow them on our pathways, especially around six, seven in the morning when the mothers are taking their babies with their strollers. So the other thing is, it says exemptions to traffic laws any piece of service defined in this code, um, they're not, uh, uh, in the course and scope of their official duties, exempt from the requirements of a subsection of the section. Are we Joe, are we buying e-bikes? I don't think so. And so I don't even know why that's there, but it also says, see in the immediate pursuit of an actual suspected violator of the law at 20 miles an hour, I don't know about that. Why is that even in there?

Mayor, Councilman Reynolds, could you pinpoint that section?

Rodriguez.

Oh, Rodriguez, sorry. Could you pinpoint that section again?

It's exemptions to traffic laws number 1653.

Council Rodriguez, it's a good question. This is an ordinance to be a little more future proof. So in the event there would be a need or desire to regulate more of a tight inner downtown area, this would allow or exempt the law enforcement from any regulations here. It's to empower our PD really is why it's in there. It may not be applicable today, but it's an option in their tool belt if they want to go there. And if they don't, they know how to enforce and the best practices. This just gives them an option if they do want to go that route. Okay, thank you.

I'M GOING TO GET YOUR NAME, I'M GOING TO START SAYING IT.

CALL ME WHATEVER YOU WANT. I'LL ANSWER TO ANYTHING. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

BEN, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE PACKET, SO IF YOU DON'T MIND E-MAILING THAT TO US, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, JUST AS WE KIND OF WORK THROUGH IT. BUT I JUST, A FEW QUESTIONS. SO THE PARENTS ARE LIABLE, SO WHEN YOU SAY THEY'RE LIABLE, IS IT THE $300 FEE THAT THE RIDER WOULD ALSO RECEIVE?

That would be correct.

Okay. And who collects that? Is that PD? Is that city? How does that?

It's infraction, just like every other criminal violation.

Okay. So this is only for pathways and it's not for, say this kid is writing this on the sidewalks and the subdivisions and that would be HOA, that's completely separate?

So HOA and pathways, those would be... separate, but this doesn't just include the city pathways, it also includes city streets. So as long as they're on city streets, city property, it's enforceable.

Okay, so if it's a pathway that's inside of a neighborhood, because we're promoting that, we have a lot of developments that have those, this would not be enforceable under the city? That would be HOA?

Yeah, Councilman Jangela, the ownership is what drives this. So ownership of public streets, this is what our jurisdiction is. If there's a private street that has not been dedicated to the city, the regulations for how they use it is a private matter. Overarching all this are all the current state laws. Those don't disappear just because it's an HOA. It's not a laissez-faire, do whatever you want on it. So there's still that enforcement in law enforcement's tool belt. This is taking on a more localized level, those city-owned pathways. We do have sections in here that pertain to sidewalks. We're trying to protect all those likely areas that have been dedicated to the city, whether it's a city-owned path or a sidewalk that's been dedicated to the city. So those are what we can target within our jurisdiction. That's what we're targeting right now.

And then let's say Linda sees somebody driving one recklessly, who does she call? Does she call dispatch? Maybe that's a question for PD. Just trying to figure out how this is tackled and enforced.

Mayor and City Council, Senator Brad Chiller's again. Great question, Councilwoman. So as soon as it goes to reckless, it doesn't matter if it's HOA or anywhere, if there's the hazard there for people, then we can take action on that. As far as the parents go, there's a warning right at first for their kids writing this, and it's failed to supervise. Second, that's documented in our system. If there's another occurrence, then the parents are held accountable for that. The $300 ticket, most likely the parents are going to be paying that. So that's something right out the gate that they'll be dealing with.

So how does a citizen report it? Do they just call this back?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, we do. Go ahead, Councilman.

Thank you. I personally am having hesitation with the ordinance as a whole. However, I won't cut into it too deeply, but one specific area that I really don't like is 6-5-16, talking about commercial e-scooter programs. If a private entity or business is wanting to take on the liability of running an operation, I think that should be up to them and that the city should not have any sort of partnership or any sort of requirement of allowing them to do so. I might be the only one on that position, but that was one that stick out loudly to me. And I would like to see that removed. I have a difficult time and this is going to sound funny to say, but we voted last month or earlier this month to eliminate VRT funding. And now we're making it even more difficult and i was a proponent of of cutting the funding we're making it difficult for people to even get around town via bicycle at this point. And we have restrictions within this document saying what is required. And I don't know what's currently in ordinance when it comes to bicycle, rather e-bike. But talking about the specific distance that brakes have to work, the lighting that needs to be on it, we want them to register if they want to or not. I absolutely believe they're needs to be some intervention, because it is a problem. My wife, turning out on Flamingo, almost hit one of these e-motos rather than an e-bike. But I think we're casting a net wider than we anticipate for the issue at hand. I'm having a hard time with that, so I don't know. I don't know what's currently in ordinance when it refers to bicycles. Maybe in bicycles were required to have, uh, breaks that can stop within 25 feet, and that's just a normal common standard. But if it's not, I am going to be very hesitant of approving such strict requirements for people just to use a bicycle in the city of Tampa. But I might be an outlier on this issue. It wouldn't be the first time. But those are some of my concerns. A specific request would be eliminating that commercial use section. But I'd like to see the whole thing whittled down, frankly.

Mayor and Councilman Griffin. So the section you're referring to, 6516, is the only section in the proposed ordinance that is entirely untouched from the current ordinance. So that language is already in the code. As for...

Sorry to jump in, but I recommend if we're going to do this new version, let's eliminate some red tape for the free market and start cutting back. If we're going to add two, we can at least cut back from. I don't think the city of Nampa should have any say who operates a business. in the sense of bicycles. It's one thing to be running a hookah lounge in a neighborhood. It's another thing to allow people to use bicycles in the city of Napa or scooters or so on as a for-profit business. And you did a great job on this ordinance. I hope my comments don't feel ATTACKING WHAT YOUR WORK DID. YOU DID A GREAT JOB. I'M VERY EXCITED FOR YOU. FINISH 3L. YOU'RE STRONG. IT'S BRUTAL. KEEP GOING.

OKAY. I THINK ONE THING THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF, TOO, IS I CAN SEE COUNCILMAN RODRIGUEZ'S POINT VERY CLEARLY. IF YOU'RE ON A PATHWAY AND THERE'S A MOM WITH A LITTLE KID THAT'S LEARNING HOW TO RIDE A BIKE AND YOU HAVE A KID BLAZING BY, I MEAN, THAT'S HAZARDOUS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE, WE JUST HAD PLANNING AND ZONING TALK TO US ABOUT CONNECTIVITY. in the city and we're trying to implement that and create more revenue or more opportunities for people to get through in different connectivity ways. And so we kind of just have to be careful that we're not kind of slapping ourselves down when we're trying to create something and then hindering the ability to do it. So just something to think about.

Mayor. Yes, sir. I just think it's real important for city council to continue to read this and continue to think about it. It's important for us to implement. I've witnessed multiple times the e-motos, the regular e-bikes, et cetera, get the speeds up and whiz around people who are on the pathways, nearly take somebody out. And I think it's a real issue. And I think it's also an issue on sidewalks. And technology has moved this along to where It's a great tool, like any tool, if it's used correctly. But when it's used nefariously and out of control, then somebody gets hurt. And from my perspective, when you've got enough people walking the pathways, that we've encouraged the last 25 years to put pathways in the city of Napa. And I've put in a great deal of them. And, and so then to watch people say, well, I don't walk the pathway anymore because somebody just mows me over or comes whizzing by me so quick that, you know, I don't even know they're, they're coming behind me because you don't hear the noise, but you sure feel the bike. So, you know, in, in, in, disagreement that we've made this too strict for the private sector and for the free market system, it's the free market system that doesn't have any control. And so that's wherein government has to step in and provide some of that guidance. And so I'm hopeful as a council that we will adopt soon this rough draft modified and keep moving forward and give our police department the opportunity to help out.

And I'll just make one comment. Surveys for the last several years, the number one item that is on our citizens' minds is public safety. And this is certainly, in my mind, currently public safety. So we'll send your ideas. All right. And we'll continue to work on this. Thank you gentlemen for your time on this. Appreciate it, Ben. And again, have a wonderful year. All right. Thanks. Okay. Normally we'd be in public hearings, but we got two, I believe going to be very short. Yes. Not until, not until we do that. Let's do our action items and we'll do it.

Just two quick ones. Okay.

Okay. Cause I've kept Mr. Spencer here for last two council meetings late. So let's get him on here. So this is a five one. John, if you're going to come up and I'll read this. Action item, authorized mayor to sign agreement in Nampa Marine Irrigation District, NMID for the administration of NMID's parcels, approved by the city attorney, Preston Rutter, proposed in the F27 budget. Thank you, John.

Second.

See, I told you it was quick. Okay, the roll call, please.

Cog. Yes. Bills. Yes. Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin. Yes. Yes. Yes. Reynolds. Yes. All in favor. Motion carries.

So if you so desire, John, you have a nice evening. Okay.

Okay.

He was here. He had to wait to after all the public hearings last two times. So he, uh, and I think that same thing happened. I think it was a motion in a second as I recall. Okay. Five to Cody. You're also, we're going to try to get you out of here if you so desire. Action item.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

I'll start off with comments on this. I have, uh, okay.

You want me to read what he's going to do?

Go ahead and read it.

All right. Action item authorized mayor to sign professional services agreement to replace the Harwood Recreation Center weight room carpet with new sport impact rubber flooring with wall-to-wall flooring for a cost of $103,686, not took seed. This has also been approved by legal and approved in Y26 budget. So we haven't spent it yet, huh? Right. Okay. Thank you, Cody.

Mayor. Yes. Cody, kind of as we discussed before the meeting, there's several things about this that just don't sit well with the process. And I think the first one is, is that on the RFP that went out, I think you specced Mondo flooring, is that correct?

Yeah, Mayor, Councilman Reynolds, that's correct. We wanted to match the same brand and type of flooring that we had in other locations in the facility.

Okay, so in Idaho statute 67-2808, it would be considered a sole source to spec a specific brand of flooring. And in that case, we can do a 14-day notice and we can come back to council, we can approve a sole source and then go out for that sole source. If that's only one vendor is a higher standard than this vendor known as or this is our preferred brand. There's some legal stuff that goes there and Preston can talk about that. But the other problem I have with that is our budget was published at $104,000 and they came back with $103,600 or whatever. They were the only vendor that has this. They were a sole source. They're the sole distributor for this flooring product. And that to me, it's like they were able to write their own check. Also going through this, I don't see any liquidated damages. That makes me concerned. It's a problem if we have a vendor that doesn't perform and we have to sit on that. And so every contract in my opinion in the city should have liquidated damages to cover us. There's no retainage. It says specifically in the contract, no retainage amount. Also, just on my math, this is 5,000 square feet, is that correct?

Yeah, it's close to that, I think I have.

Just under that. Yeah. So it should be no more than about $5 a foot for the material, based on my research and what I've done in my business in the past. That's $25,000 of material. And then about two and a half dollars a foot for demo and haul off. That's $12,500. And then that's $37,500 combined. And then you've got to install labor and add some cove base to it for about $28,000. That's a total of $65,500. So in my assessment, by the way we put the RFP out with the sole source product, I know that that's what you would prefer because that's what's in the rec center. But legally, I don't believe we can do that. And Preston might disagree with me. But I've done public works procurement for years. And I don't think we can do that. But if we sit in there as an alternate on our spec, we can have Mondo or XYZ brand or whatever. We can have substitutions in there. then we're opening ourselves up to other bidders and competition. And we're going to get numbers back that are more comparable to that 65, five number that I came up with. If I did that job today or tomorrow for 65, five, that puts about $35,000 in my pocket. That's pretty good. You know, for two and a half weeks worth of work, I wouldn't mind that at all. So, um, I'm concerned about this whole process and this. I want you to get your flooring. I understand the need for it. There's a lot of options on gym flooring. We installed one in a Lifetime Fitness building that was three-quarter inches thick, and it locked together like a tile. It was three by four sheets of it. This stuff will last longer than the building. And that was just under $5 a foot for that material. And it was about the most expensive thing you could buy at the time.

Okay, I think we'll get a legal opinion in just a second. And it may be where this needs to be amended to put off for another time. Maybe the next council meeting is going to be a very busy one. But anyway, legal opinion, please.

Mayor, thank you. And Councilman Reynolds, appreciate the questions. From a legal standpoint, there's no concern here on the process. And with all respect to Councilman Reynolds' practice, those are options, but legally, this is fine. You are not required to go to sole source. And if I may, Mayor Cody, were you aware if the product was, could multiple vendors have provided it by the time you put the bid out?

Mayor and Preston, my understanding is that there was a sole provider of the material, but there were multiple options and vendors that were certified to do the install. So we had sent it out to several companies with the Mondo certification for the install process, and where they sourced that, I wasn't sure whether it would be, most likely the local geographic service area, which is the wall-to-wall.

Yeah, Marin, sometimes you put these out for a public bid for a low bid and you'd sometimes get one bidder that comes back and they have the time capacity, the ability to meet it. It doesn't require you that you should have gone sole source, but it gives you an option. Under state code 65-2806-1E, it says if you get less than three, you can actually go out and try to find somebody else, if you want, who's a qualified bidder. I understand there's some operational rationale for why you sought that, and maybe there's a few ways to go about it. It seems like a lot of the points were more operational, more from the legal. We're on good grounds here from a legal process standpoint.

Mayor Brunner. Yeah, let me ask Cody one other question. Do you have a timeline, a really hurried timeline? Are you trying to get done before school starts or what's your objective?

Yes, Mayor Brunner. The big push for us was to, we targeted September as the window for installation for this project, although it was funded, you know, the beginning of the fiscal year because the facility is closed for four days every year in September and And it was our goal to minimize the downtime for the public by utilizing those four days for some.

I understand. Yes. Yes. Councilman.

I'm just going to make a motion to approve, sir.

Okay. So we're, we're moving along. Is there a second? Okay. Roll call please. Unless there's discussion, any further discussion?

I'd like to just chime in. I just think it's important that, uh, to not have multiple beds is unfortunate. And, uh, not to have in the agreements that we're gonna have retainage and a warranty, et cetera. The warranty may be questionable, but not having a retainage. We've had problems with this vendor on other jobs and we've been picking up the pieces as the city, so I have concern going forward, so I'll be voting no. Any other discussion?

Okay, roll call, please.

God bills. No Reynolds. No Griffin.

No.

In Gula. Yes. Rodriguez. Yes. It's a tie.

I vote.

And here we go again. Okay.

Uh, I think there needs to be a further discussion on this. So I'm going to vote no at this point in time, but I want this to be, uh, expedited as quickly as possible. So this September deadline, that may not seem possible. Let's do our best though, to, uh, do what we need to do. But this time, no, at this point in time, Cody, hopefully you have some alternatives, at least get some further writing in the, in the contract.

Okay. Legal. Anything else? No, we'll do what we can. We're kind of constrained now that we're at the bid has been awarded. And so I'll work with Cody with options to see what we can do.

I appreciate you. Thanks. Okay. Council has asked for a break. I do have one question before, before we break. These public hearings, there's a couple that I do not think are going to take too long. The first public hearing, though, who is here for 6-1, which is annexation and zoning to R.A. Suburban Residential Zoning District with corresponding right-of-way potential development agreement and subdivision for Lake Lowe? Who's here for that? Most of you are desiring to speak? Not necessarily? Okay. Okay. Well, that's fine. That's not that many will start. Otherwise, I was maybe going to put that later on the agenda. So let's seven-minute break. I like seven minutes.

And if I could just ask anyone.

Go ahead. Madam Clerk is speaking.

For those that want to speak, can you please sign up with the clerk that's up at the front counter?

Okay, did everyone hear that? If you do want to speak on any of these public hearing issues, please sign up with the clerk at the counter out in the foyer.

She's getting ready to leave, so if you could go.

Okay, if we can bring this session back in, please. Thank you. Okay, we are going to make one quick little switch. I've talked to Puppet Works, and I understand that 6-3, which is a public hearing, will take very, very little time, so we're going to move to 6-3, so I'll read that, and then we'll have Christy Watkins come up and present. Action item. It's a vacation of a 20-foot by 21.97-foot by 29.71-foot, 219.7-square-foot portion of a public utility easement addressed as 15715 or 0 Idaho Center Boulevard. For Kendall Hyendel of Nampa representing Graycon LLC, Original concept, relocation of water line due to expansion of existing auto dealership building. Okay. Christy, is she here? There she is.

Okay.

Mayor, would you like to hear from the applicant at all, or do you want me to just go straight into it?

No, you tell me. Your applicant would be first if they want to hear.

I think we can just go straight in.

Okay.

Char's telling me, applicant. It's fine.

I'll defer to legal, but I always thought that applicant has to start and end.

Can we start from the beginning? I need to get on the facts. I'm sorry.

It's whether the applicant needs to present first or we can defer to Christy.

Typically, we will have the applicant present.

That's our normal process.

It's more a procedure thing, not so much a legal requirement.

Can the applicant go ahead and defer to Christy?

Do they have a presentation that they will? None at all?

No, she's sitting right here.

If that's their call, then they can proceed. Okay, thanks. If you're okay with that, Mary. Okay, Christy.

All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Christy Watkins, Principal Planner for the City of Nampa. As stated, this is vacation of a 219.7 square foot portion of a public utility easement. Just to give you an idea and put that into perspective, that's only slightly larger than the size of a standard parking space. It's not very big. Okay, this property is over off of Idaho Center Boulevard and it is completely surrounded by GB1 zoned properties. This is a layout of their site. That little red cloud there is the size of the easement. These are the applicable regulations for a vacation that's in your staff report. We received no comments from any agencies or departments. They are expanding their shop to the west of the existing structure, and this requires relocating the water line and the easement. This vacation would be permanent, and if it were to be approved, it would still apply even if the property to redevelop in an alternative way. It follows Idaho State Code 51306A in terms of vacation. Vacating this utility easement is necessary to accommodate the request for expansion of the building. These are the conditions of approval, and these are the potential motions. I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you. Any questions for Christy? Okay, there's no one signed up to testify on this issue. Is there anyone that has not signed up that would like to? Okay, if not, if there's anything else from the applicant or Christy? Okay, we just need a motion to close public hearing then, please. So moved. Second. Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, council discussion or motion?

Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

I move to approve the project as stated on the screen.

Second. Okay, any further discussion? Okay, roll call, please.

Scott. Yes. Chingula. Yes. Mills. Yes. Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez. Yes. Reynolds. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Christy, you're only over by three minutes. Okay, okay. She told me 30 seconds, so... That's all right. She is wonderful. Let me tell you, we have a great, great group over there. Okay. We are going to move to six one then. So I will read that. And our applicant is here, I assume for six one, which is the annexation and zoning to our a suburban residential zoning district with corresponding right away. Potential Development Agreement and Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval for Lake Lowe Estates, addressed as 0 Lake Lowe Avenue for Breckenland Design, representing Ronald Lester. Original concept was a 24 single family detached units, six common lots, and a right of way. Is there an applicant here? Yes. Thanks. Zoe, you know the process, name and address. Thanks.

All right. My name is Becky as a Gary and my address is 4818 West chemistry, Boise, Idaho. So I'm here to present applications for annexation and preliminary plot for the approval of Lake Lowell State subdivision.

Not moving.

Okay, the project is located west of Midway Road and north of Lake Lowell Avenue. Surrounding land uses include existing two-acre single-family residential properties to the north, future home of Grace Bible Church to the east, Cope Sand and Gravel to the south, and a mix of half-acre residential lots and agricultural farmland to the west. The site is located approximately one half mile from Lake Lowell Park, providing a convenient access to recreational amenities. The property also is encumbered by 120 foot wide Idaho power transmission easement that traverses the site and has influenced the overall design of the site. The project proposes 25 buildable lots on approximately 38.74 acres with a requested RA zoning designation. The lots average 1.12 acres in size with a minimum lot size of 0.68 acres, resulting in a density of just one acre. We have also incorporated 105 foot wide landscape buffer on the north property boundary. This buffer was added after discussions with the neighboring property owners to the north. This provides substantial separation to the existing homes on the north there. The overall design creates a low density estate style community that is compatible with the surrounding rural residential character. The project is requesting a few minor exceptions due to the existing 120 foot wide Idaho power easement that crosses the property and impacts the layout. The two highlighted blue lots request a small exception to the one acre minimum lot size, while the red highlighted lots request an exception to the 150 foot requirement. These exceptions allow the development to work around the existing easement while maintaining consistent lot pattern throughout that subdivision. This project provides 6.24 acres of open space, although the open space and amenities are not required by code. The development includes a pickleball court, a 10 foot by 20 foot gazebo, and a forestall parking area. Turf and sod will be proposed throughout all of the common areas in the landscaping, including the Idaho Power Easement, creating an attractive usable open space for residents to enjoy. The proposed roadway network is designed to meet city standards while providing safe and efficient access through the development. Internal streets include a 56-foot right-of-way, six-foot parkway strips, and a four-foot detached sidewalk. Along Lake Lowell Avenue, the project will construct roadway improvements to the center line and provide a 40-foot right-of-way dedication, an eight-foot parkway strip, and a 10-foot detached sidewalk. This will improve both connectivity and safety. For the utilities, the city has confirmed adequate capacity to provide sewer, water, and pressurized irrigation services to the site. And I'll stand for some questions.

Any questions, Council? Yes, sir. So, Christy, Road C, dead ends, and Is there a plan for as a turnaround or a temporary turnaround?

Yes, so in the conditions of approval, or excuse me, in the Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bill, sorry, excuse me. Yes, FIRE did comment on that and there is room to provide that in there. Yes, so we will put that in there, yes.

Okay, so the layout will change slightly on how the access or...

The layout will not change at all. We'll just put that hammerhead there on the west side. We'll just put a hammerhead in there.

Okay. Next question is lots 16 and 17, block two. About combining those so that you stay above the one acre on all lots.

Yes, we thought it would look maybe a little bit more appropriate to not combine them because you would have one massive lot and then you would have the rest one acre lots. So it would just look, we just kind of want to keep with the pattern that we have. But we did try, we tried, this easement is very tough to work around. I tried all sorts of configurations, lot configurations on this to try and work around that Idaho power easement. It just looks really funny with like a large two acre property just hanging out right there. That's why we split it.

Well part of it would be whether the pickleball court would be up more to the front than in the back, but that's your decision. I just see the need for trying to, for what it seems that you're proposing, trying to hit that one acre would be a better option there.

Mr. Mayor.

That's my questions and comments.

Council Member Bills. So I did look at trying to move that pickleball court and to make that open space usable as a buildable lot, and it just doesn't work because we're not meeting frontage requirements at that point, too, with that easement. It's just a super tough site, yeah, with that easement. Yeah.

I understand. Thank you. Any other questions, Council?

Mayor?

Yes, sir.

I DIDN'T THINK THAT COUNCILMAN BILLS COULD SEE BETTER THAN I COULD ON THIS, BUT I'M WONDERING, I CAN'T SEE 16 AND 17. CAN YOU SHOW US WHICH ONE, OR IS THAT THE ONE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT?

16 AND 17 ARE DOWN AS YOU COME IN.

MINE'S LIKE SUPER FUZZY. OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU.

OKAY.

ANY FOLLOW-UP ON THAT, COUNCILWOMAN?

NO.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNCILMAN GRIFFIN HAS A QUESTION OR A COMMENT.

I'm just curious in the same vein that Councilman Bills was going down. Would you be opposed to turning lots 16 and 17 into a 1.6 acre lot? I know it's bigger than the other lots. However, it might not be too standout. It might be a premium lot in the neighborhood. I'm not sure. Obviously, more lots is... more profitability. But I'm just curious, rather than going below that one acre threshold, maybe meeting at that one and a half, two acre lot there.

Yeah, yeah, we would be open to it, but I mean, ideally, we would like to keep that two lots just to keep with the consistency of the subdivision. I mean, at that point, you know, at two acres, you can allow a lot more livestock and whatnot than what is normally allowed on a one acre. So, you know, you're kind of just changing what the vibe of it, I guess, if I may. So we kind of want to just keep everything consistent.

Thank you. And just for a comment, I appreciate you bringing an acreage development back to Nampa. So thank you.

Yes. Any other questions before we have Candice come up? Okay. Thank you so much, Christy. Candice, you're up. This will be our staff report that Candice will be bringing us.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Candace Frye, Associate Planner for the City of Nampa. The request before you this evening is an annexation and zoning to RA, Suburban Residential Zoning District, potential development agreement and subdivision preliminary plot approval for Lake Lowell Estates. The original concept is 24 single family detached units, six common lots and right of way. And the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended this for approval on June 23rd. The property details, so this parcel, both parcels are currently under Canyon County jurisdiction. The surrounding zoning to the north is Canyon County, to the west is Canyon County, to the east is Canyon County. The parcel directly next to this property is currently in the process of annexation. Once it is annexed into the city, it will be zoned RA, suburban residential, and to the south is Canyon County. Our comprehensive plan designates this area as very low density residential. And just to note, the path to annexation is provided by the parcel next door, which is contiguous to be annexed to Nampa City parcels to the south and east. And here is a better map of the path to annexation. It is provided, again, by the parcel next door. And that parcel is Grace Bible Church. Currently has an annexation application in process. And that application will be presented at city council. on August 17th. Under the conditions of approval, condition number two states the following, the parcels listed here for Grace Bible shall complete annexation prior to the reading of the annexation ordinance for this project. And then there was a mistake at the planning and zoning meeting that we mentioned that Grace Bible was already annexed. That was incorrect, but we have since contacted the commissioners to clarify that. And that, again, is listed as a condition of approval that Grace Bible be annexed first, completely finished, and then this application will be finished as well.

Just a quick interruption. My understanding was it's actually going to be presented on the annexation for Grace Bible on September 8th. Am I incorrect on that? That's what I read, at least.

That's correct, yeah.

Okay, so it is September 8th. September 8th. Rather than August 17th.

Yes. Okay, thank you. That's what I said, but it didn't come out of my mouth.

All right.

I tried. Applicable regulations. So annexation Idaho state code lists out the criteria for annexation. And then more applicable regulations. We do have the zoning code, 10.2.3.2, the conclusions of law pertinent to proposed zoning map amendments. Chapter 27 of Title 10 is the subdivision chapter. And then Chapter 7, Title 10 is the suburban residential chapter. Here is a close-up of the proposed preliminary plat. And then correspondence. We did receive two public comments in time. So there was one comment that had concerns about the increased traffic and overcrowding. And the second comment had concerns regarding development around the lake and wanted to initiate a petition to create a state park at the lake. And then there was also only one person that spoke at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. So agency and department comments, Highway District 4 had comments for Lake Lowell Estates, and those are included in your staff report. Idaho Power provided general comments regarding the plat and the easement that does go through the property. Nampa GIS would like an updated site plan or a draft copy of the plat to reflect the changes that are listed in the staff report. And then the Nampa Fire District had comments regarding general water supply and fire access comments. And then they do not approve the access road. There needs to be a dead end turnaround incorporated on public road C. And then I believe the applicant has discussed that. More correspondence. The Nampa Engineering Division has completed a review of the preliminary application for Lake Lowell Estates. The full comments and conditions are listed in your staff report. Nampa Police Department had comments regarding the number of, the projected number of new residents, which would be 57.6. And then they recommend to fund 0.07 additional officers and 0.04 additional support staff if this project is approved to maintain current police service levels. So the preliminary plot analysis, 10-7-4, the property area width and yard requirements. So this property, the minimum property area in this zone shall be one acre. Lot sizes shall be a minimum of one acre. The lot sizes shown on the plot range from one acre to 1.19. The maximum gross density shall be one dwelling unit per acre. And then the front property line width required shall be 150 feet. The applicant is requesting an exception request for the 150 foot minimum frontage requirement for lots 9 and 13 of block 2 and then in addition they're also requesting an exception to the one acre minimum lot size for lot 16 and 17 block to all other lots meet the frontage and lot size requirements. Qualified open space, so 1027.6.m.3, developments with gross acreage of five acres or more, at least 15% of the total gross area shall be retained as qualified open space. Residential lots that are 32,000 square feet or greater within a development are not required to contribute to the gross parcel area utilized to calculate the required qualified open space. This project includes over that 15% qualified open space and this project is projecting to provide 6.7 acres or 17% of the gross acreage for qualified open space. Findings for annexation. So here are some facts that are listed here and then as well as your staff report. Oops, skipped ahead. The property parcels proposed for annexation fall under the criteria outlined in Idaho Statute 50-2.22. Because the property owners have given consent to annex the property as stated above, it is contiguous with city limits. The proposed parcels are available for annexation because they are located... with the current Nampa area of impact boundary as shown on the Future Land Use Map published in Nampa 2040 Comprehensive Plan. And proposed zoning matches the very low density designation as shown on the Future Land Use Map. So findings for the Zoning 2 are A, these are also listed in your staff report. The proposed zoning map amendment for the parcel listed is in harmony with the city's currently adopted 2040 comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map, as well as the Southwest Nampa specific area plan and its land use map because it establishes an area of RA zoning that will be compatible with future and existing zoning in the area. And the proposed zoning district is a permitted zone under the comprehensive plan future land use map designation of very low density residential. A single family home subdivision is a use that will be reasonably compatible with adjoining properties. The proposed use is determined to be compatible according to the compatibility definitions in the comprehensive plan. and it complies with the uses listed in Nampa City Code 10-3-2, Schedule of Uses for the RA Zoning District. It is in the public's best interest and reasonably necessary because the development of these parcels will extend city services and utilities and any new construction will bring improvements to the property per city code. Here are the recommended conditions of approval. There they are. Here are the recommended conditions of approval and any other that the council wishes to add. Here are the potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

Mayor Brunner. Yes, I guess I'll start it off. I think this will be for Daniel, so thank you. Under utilities, Daniel, it says sewer for this area is master planned to be served from the midway sewer trunk. Current service shall be to the Middleton trunk. Flat shall be revised to show the infrastructure needed to facilitate the abandonment of the private lift station. So what is the fiscal responsibility of the city then?

The city is not, it will be, the lift station would be owned and operated by the HOA and it would be their responsibility to abandon at such time as it becomes necessary.

So if you abandon it, what happens to the Middleton trunk?

So the Middleton trunk, they would be pumping back to that. They would abandon the lift station, and the force main, and the existing infrastructure that goes towards the Middleton trunk would remain and still be in use from the other developments that currently .

OK. Would you please explain what regarding under utilities, what is static pressure?

So that is the pressure that you would see in the system at typical usage. So not under a fire demand or anything like that. That's the pressure that you would see within the system under normal times.

It says here that you would have static pressure over 80 psi. What does that mean?

It's just how much pressure is in the how much water pressure is within those public mains typical our system runs between 80 psi and down to 50 Depending on the elevation you are and in which part of the city you are And so that's it's still in common terms.

It would be what you're doing by doing this is is uh assuring that the residents will have constant pressure of water yes we've modeled it to verify that that the system can handle the uh demands that they would put on this okay that's what i i didn't know what you said here so i got thank you thank you any other questions mayor yes candace how much open space did you say this has

Mayor and Councilwoman Jangula, they are providing 17% or 6.7 acres.

And 15 is required?

15 is required for developments over five acres. But if the residential lots are more than 32,000 square feet within a development, they are not required to contribute to the parcel area utilized to calculate the required qualified open space.

Thank you. Also, thank you for adding, instead of the officers in the packet, having it like 1.2 officers, but actually putting the dollar amounts is really helpful. So thank you for that change.

Any other questions? Okay, we're ready for public comment. We have three individuals currently signed up. Okay.

Our first speaker is Doris Phillips.

And as usual, Doris, name and address, please.

Doris Phillips, 220 South Ivy Street, Nampa, 83686. I'm here because I have concerns about growth around Lake Lowell. I grew up here, and I love this city, and Lake Lowell is one of our prized possessions, in my opinion. And it concerns me that we want to add more living plots out there and more people. Requiring more parking, more people on the roads, and that type of thing. I am concerned about the fact that needing the extra police because we already have an issue with not having enough police or being able to maintain them. And so that is a public safety concern. And if I were someone that was considering and moving into an area, I certainly would want to take that into consideration. So, I, too, was concerned about the water pressure. It was good to hear that there is some things taken care of there and that the system can handle it. And I did read what, that Derek had submitted and I think that there was some good ideas in there that might be taken into consideration by city council for this and for future growth in that area so that we make sure that the quality of our life in the city of Nampa stays as good as it is and provides for the people of the city what we need and what we want. Thank you.

Thank you, Doris.

Our next speaker is Sheila Seratorius.

My name is Sheila Sartorius. I live at 12674 Wildrose Lane, Nampa, Idaho. So I'm here because we moved to the country six years ago out by Lake Lowell. And living on that road on Lake Lowell, there is no, it is a very dangerous road at this point. to add 24 houses to across the street from us. There's just no place for it out there right now. And sitting in this council meeting, we missed the first council meeting when we were talking about Grace Church. The signs do need to be changed because it still shows August 17th to come to that meeting. So finding out that it's in September is a new one for us. But It sounds like a lot of this hinges being annexed into the city is if grace gets approved. I would highly ask that you wait and see if that happens. You know, this year when it came to the mayor's race, I went down. I was very excited about the candidates. I did my research. I went down to vote and found because I live in the county, I can't vote. But yet here I am standing in a city council meeting fighting subdivisions going in all around us. We have a new subdivision that was just planned on Midway and Lake Lowell that we hear nothing but construction now over there because somebody approved that. So we live in the county, but the city is quickly coming in on us. I would highly encourage when we talk about connectivity, that's a dead-end sidewalk at that neighborhood because there is a deer flat wildlife refuge around there, so the subdivisions can't go too much farther. So next to the lot that we're talking about right now is a hay field, and from what I understand, it's in that wildlife buffer zone. So it's a sidewalk to nowhere. It doesn't go to Lake Lowell. I don't know how the last time you guys went to Lake Lowell and tried to go down there on a bicycle or walk across that street. It's extremely dangerous for people. So if we're gonna be including residential areas over there, the city needs to get with the county and put in sidewalks and crossing and make sure that's available because it is very dangerous over there. Our street is 35, people go 55 all the time on it. So I would encourage before we include anything else growing in that area that we do some research because you know I listen to somebody say that they don't want to make one lot two acres and talk about that it would look wrong in the neighborhood. Let's be clear it's not because it looks wrong in the neighborhood it's because it's a thousand or a million dollar home that doesn't get built there. We're not talking about $350,000 homes that are going on these lots. They're probably gonna start at 8.50. You cut that lot, you make that one lot, that's a big loss on that subdivision. So I think it's important that we protect our night skies out there and things like that that our grandchildren are coming up to know. And there is something to be said for that. We're losing it here in Nampa. So I hope that the city council takes that into effect with those of us who chose not to live in city limits that are getting encroached on daily. Thank you for your time.

Mayor, our last speaker is Cheryl Higley.

Okay, thanks.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Before I start, can I have one of the staff put up page 174 of the agenda packet that is the pathway to annexation, please?

Mayor, do you want us to take that action?

What's your request, Cheryl?

To have page 174 of the agenda packet put up on the screen. It's in the packet.

Has that request made prior to the council meeting?

No.

Okay, let's go ahead and move on, Cheryl.

Okay. Hopefully you'll remember it because you've already seen it.

All the council people do have that piece. No, that's not the same one. Well, that's not it, okay.

Yeah, that's a different one you won't have in the packet. Sorry. Okay, well, good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way here in Nampa. I have really mixed feelings about this application. On the one hand, I'm thankful that this application is for 24 dwelling units on almost 39 acres, resulting in a gross density of 0.62 dwelling units per acre, which is appropriate for this rural area and its designation on the land use map. However, it does seem like sprawl to develop in the undeveloped area on the west side of Midway when there is still so much land on the east side and within the city limits that is available for development. I'm also concerned about precedents being set with pathways to annexation, including parcels for which there are no current plans for development. such as Grace Bible Church's application and the southeast corner of Midway and Lake Lowell, which they indicated at the public hearing before the P&Z Commission that they have no plans at this time to develop it. This same pattern was used by Oaks Landing on Middleton Road at Hunts Road, which was approved by the council on May 18th. It seems like this pattern will create more properties that will cause gaps in the infrastructure improvements, just like infill properties do now. Even though these undeveloped pathways may cause the annexation of properties to be contiguous, it does not seem that their development will be contiguous. In addition, it seems out of order to approve this development before Grace Bible Church has come before you. Mark Stoyer, though, has reassured me that the approval of this development would be conditional upon the approval of Grace Bible Church's application. It seems that there may be issues that could arise that you wouldn't yet be aware of that could affect your decision and even that of the applicant. For instance, Grace Bible Church's preliminary plan, which I've provided as a handout, shows two baseball fields and a soccer field on the west side of their property. I have several questions regarding the sports courts that you might have as well. Now that you've been made aware of them. Mr. Mayor.

Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry. We'll pause the time.

Can you pause my time, please?

Yeah, I'll defer to legal, but you're...

Yeah, we have here, Mayor and Council, a situation where we have a pending application, as you recall, was continued due to a defective notice. As a technicality, you want to have that pathway of contiguity or a pathway of annexation prior to taking on another one. You could approve it, if that's the course tonight, with the condition of that approval. You could take public testimony and defer the vote until all that approval and review annexation ordinances recorded on the pathway path. That's the grace Bible church application. Oh, there's my apologies. Let me clarify that. That is a pending application that needs to be assessed on the four corners of that public hearing item that's scheduled for a future date. September 8th is what I'm being told. And so that would be, it'd be premature to put any weight in that. And I'd advise to have the, Ms. Higley or whoever come make comment at that time rather than at this setting.

But it could affect this property. That's why I'm bringing that.

Understood. Mayor, Council, I'm giving you direction. You can take it as you want. Oh, no.

Well, you were illegal for the city, so we will take your direction.

Okay. Okay.

So, in other words, no more discussion as far as regarding Grace Bible. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, and there'll be a time and a place to do so on... September 8th is what I'm told.

Okay, then I'll speak in generalities.

Proceed. We have about 45 seconds, Cheryl.

Okay, thank you very much. So when you have one application that you haven't heard yet that could have an effect on this application, it seems premature to make a decision on this one. And I have concern about the lights in the area. regarding Grace Bible Church and as well as for the wildlife. I'd love to see that area have dark sky lighting so that the wildlife is not affected. I can send to you a letter that was done by the Golden Eagle Society and the Southwest Idaho Birding Association that they provided for Deer Flat Ranch that would also apply to this application as well. and talking about the lighting and how that affects the birds to have a lot of lighting in that area.

Thank you, Cheryl.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Okay, we have the, is there anyone else that has not signed up that wish to speak? Okay, Mark.

Mark Mitchell, one, two, three, five, five land, Alway, Nampa, Idaho, eight, three, six, eight, six. Um, it's funny because I find most of the people that have come up here tonight don't remember where they're living was the, that's where we used to hunt. Couldn't hunt geese, but you can hunt duck. You can hunt pheasant. You can do all that. I mean, even on the corner of Midland and Greenhurst, we used to hunt that with pheasant all the time. So we, As being here for 40 plus years, you have a tendency to see the development. Some of it I've liked, some I haven't. But what this developer has done, he has come out with the acre parcels that we've all asked for. Larger, they butt up to larger ones. As far as Grace Bible, don't know anything about that. The traffic, I did sit down with some people in the city and it looks like in the future, we're gonna have some pretty nice roads going down. Midway's gonna be a very good road. Middleton will be a good road. So they are gonna be widened. There are those potential to happen. We're talking 26 units, is that right? Is that what I saw? Is it 26? Where'd she go?

24?

Okay, so 24. I will say, David, I do appreciate that comment about the two smaller lots. I mean, me, I turned it into an RV storage, but that's because I've got an RV. So... You know, you can move that over a little bit, make that one corner lot an acre, and then maybe put the pickleball court there. I mean, just food for thought, but it is a really nice laid out subdivision that's had a lot of concept. And I'll tell you, I haven't seen any difference in the birds. I've been here 77. That's a lot of birds. The deer still come down. I've seen them right at the entrance of our neighborhood on Iowa and land out. And that's within the last two years. Um, see him on the golf course all the time. There's, there's just so much development that has moved there that has not hindered what people are saying. It's going to hinder. It's just not the birds are going to hate, keep hanging out. As far as the pheasant pheasants aren't that great hunting around here anymore.

Anyway, you have to go to South Dakota still.

You do have to go to South Dakota. It's a little out of my price range over budget. So I don't know. I think a developer's put a really nice subdivision together here, acre-sized lots. They will be million-dollar-plus homes. I mean, it's very similar to Lone Star Ranch. Very nice. That would be nice to have. And we were not in the city when I moved into Carriage Hill. We were in the county. So you had your right to either hook up a sewer or you had your right to put in a septic. Once we did go in, you still had your sewer or this, that we had our own. Well, I mean, these are all things that have happened. Guess what? We're still living there. And even some of the speakers tonight live in that neighborhood. So thank you. I made my time. Thanks. Good job.

Okay. Is there anyone else that wish to speak? If not, we will have the applicant come back up and hopefully answer any questions that have been a real rise at this point in time. Okay.

okay well i thank you for everybody's comments um the like like we kind of said the property is located in the area of impact um so so we the the property is the development is appropriate for the area um as it is close to city limits um or in the area of impact Open space is not required in this sub, but we are offering quite a bit of it, along with amenities. We thought it might be a little nicer for the residents living there. And I know how Council Member Jangula, you do like open space. So we put that in there. This is gonna be a great subdivision. These lots are gonna be amazing. The location's great. There's gonna be a 10-foot pathway, hopefully in the future, connecting all the way to the park. It's just gonna be a beautiful area, and I think this development is gonna just improve this area. I'll stand for it. Any questions?

Questions, council? Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so are we ready to have a motion to close public hearing? No move. Second. Roll call, please. All in favor? Aye. Sorry. Aye, aye, aye. I like that. Much quicker. Okay. Okay, council discussion or a motion and or?

Mayor, I make a motion to approve the annexation of zoning as presented on the screen with the exception of the combining lots 16 and 17 as one lot. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Mayor? Yes.

Okay, go ahead, Councilman Rodriguez, and we'll be with you, Councilman Griffin.

One of the things that we have been worried about is the impact of growth especially on the north side and the southeast side of nampa it's just it's just so much the growth on the southwest nampa appears to in this project goes toward what i wanted to see in a long time and it's about time that we did that however Growth is not paying for itself. Growth is a detriment at times to our taxpayers. But you know what? It's a good thing to see a growth of a project like this. And I want to commend the developers and the owners for this. So I'm going to surprise you all. I'm going to support this. But I hope it comes through that we can relieve the taxpayers for services and police and And our services have water, et cetera. So I'm going to surprise you all and support this.

Okay. Any further discussion?

Mayor?

Yes, I'm sorry. Councilman Griffin.

It's okay. It's difficult not being there in person. I understand. Thank you. Hey, I try. A lot better than a cowboy hat. I'm... having a significant amount of difficulty with this decision because I'm balancing two important issues in my mind It's exactly what I would want to see on the west side of Midway Road. Estates, large acre lots, bigger properties. We know that growth does not pay for itself on larger acre lots, but I've never argued that point of, oh, it pays for itself. I argue the point that Those individuals would probably classify or be classified as affluent individuals, and they're the ones who give back into the community. The developer gives back into the community, and ultimately it's the economic benefit of larger estates, especially on the west side of Midway near the lake and those properties. This is the side that I'm having an issue with. It's still... growth outside of an area that's as one of the testifiers said, basically still sprawling, and we aren't focused on the issues internally, and we're still growing out. So I'm just trying to weigh, do we want to set the precedent and start approving projects heading west of Midway now? Do we want that growth to begin happening now? Or do we want to figure out the issues with our infrastructure, with our public safety, and then go that direction? So not necessarily a... that I'm seeking an answer for, but I'm just expressing some of the feelings I'm trying to work through as we're discussing.

Thank you. Any further discussion, Council?

Mayor? Yes. Just a question on the motion. So 16 and 17 combined, does that also include, because we heard Becky say that the reason they didn't do that was because it would feel awkward. Would that include them, if we combine 16 and 17, cutting off a sliver and making it green space, if that's what they choose? So it's still one lot, but maybe a little piece of common lot?

I think that's for the developer to, to work out that part. I'm just looking at the consistency of one acre of, uh, trying not to weigh in further design. But, um, I think based on the comp plan, based on stuff, yes, they, they have the right to ask for an exception. I'm just not, uh, agreeing with the exception. And so it seemed like the easy was to combine the 16 and 17 if it still works for them, but trying to redraw a green, more green space, et cetera. I think that's to them in the marketplace.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? I'm looking down both ways. Okay. Let's do roll call. We've had a motion in a second, I believe.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Griffin. No. Reynolds? Yes. Bills? Yes. Five in favor, one opposed. Motion carries.

Mayor Bruner, if I may. Just legal clarification. Because of the delayed or faulty notice on the Grace Bible Church, this has to be deferred for the ordinance cannot be approved or recorded until such time the Grace Bible application comes through. And if there is an approval, there has to be a path of annexation. Well, it's not contiguous otherwise. That's correct. And that's a state law requirement. And so just making that clear for the record for you, this body, as well as the public, that this will not go out of order. There will be a proper procedure. Some of this was outside of our control and the applicants with the faulty notice. That's the process we'll need to follow.

Thank you. Thank you for advising, sir.

Yes. Counselor, do we need to state anything on the record that we acknowledge that We've approved it, but yet it's delayed and subject to.

Mayor and Councilman Bills, if I can direct your attention to the screen. Condition number two says that.

Excellent. Thank you, Christy. Hey, they're always ahead of the game, so we're good.

Okay, so anything else, Council?

Mayor Bruner? Yes. Just one quick question, or one quick statement. The decision I made has no bearing on Grace Bible Church. I'm not connected by my decision to Grace Bible Church on the next hearing. Is that what you wanted to hear? I don't know.

That'll be brought up, I think, on September 8th.

That's totally separate. I just want everybody to know that. I understand the point.

We're finished here. My understanding is, I'm not driven out there, but my understanding is that it is properly Notice that it is September 8th. Have you in the last day or two? Have you noticed that? And it still says still said August 17. So whoever Rodney or whoever, can somebody contact Grace regarding that?

Yeah, we will go.

I know it's not your responsibility, but.

So remember, it's September 8th. So it has to have it. I mean, it has to have the three weeks or whatever.

They're still they're still in the window.

Yeah, they're still in the window. And we have to have proof of that before we will move that on to your agenda.

OK. And I believe they are aware. So, yeah. OK. All right. Thank you so much. They were ready to move on to a 6 to. Anybody that wants to part feel free. You're going to miss a lot of action know here. Okay, let's let's move on to 6 to this is an also at. public hearing action item variance of NCC 10 dash 4 dash 3 10 dash 22 dash 3 dot B and 10 dash 33 dash 4 dot C dot 3 dot C restricting vehicular parking movement and drive aisles in the 10 foot front yard setback in the 5 foot side and rear setback backs and requiring a 20-foot landscape buffer from the right-of-way addressed as 92nd Street South in the GB1 Gateway Business Zoning District. Original concept, redevelopment of the property with drive aisles and parking within the setbacks and required landscape buffer for a rebuild of our Burger King restaurant. So applicants here? I figured you guys were the ones. Sorry, sorry about the way. Thank you gentlemen.

Yes, Connor Gray, 505 South 7th Avenue, Caldwell, Idaho. But yes, good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. Again, my name is Connor Gray. I'm with the Court of Real Estate Companies, and I am working as the owner's representative tonight on behalf of Burger King and its owner located just off of Second Street as they're traveling south from Northside Boulevard. First, I'd like to thank the city staff for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing this application. I believe the staff report does an excellent job outlining both the requests and the reasons why they're recommending approval. I'll try to keep my comments fairly short and focus just on a few of the key points. As outlined in the staff report, we're requesting two variances. The first would allow vehicle maneuvering within portions of the required setbacks, and the second would allow relief from the landscape buffer requirement. The reason for these requests is fairly simple. What we're doing is we're proposing a scrape and rebuild to the existing Burger King and replace it with a brand new modern restaurant that will continue serving the citizens of Nampa for many more years to come. The existing building has been a recognizable part of the corridor for decades, but it has reached the point where replacement is the better long-term investment for both the property and also the community. I included a rendering. Let's see. Is it on the side? I'm just not pressing it.

Technical difficulties.

Yeah, no worries. Yeah, there's just one particular slide. If we could just have one that I'd like to use.

The other ones are, you know, they're just Phil.

Oh, there we go. Yes, so yeah, I included one of our renderings that we just recently completed over in CUNA. Yeah, one of the restaurants in CUNA. While the Nampa restaurant, the rebuild, is not gonna be 100% identical to this, we're gonna be planning for a little bit larger dining area just due to this location and the amount of in-service dining that happens with here. But it's gonna be very similar in architecture. We believe that this redevelopment will significantly improve the appearance of one of the primary gateways into the city. And then if you could, maybe this works now. Could you go to the next slide, please? Perfect. As we began designing the new restaurant and going through the design process, one of our primary objectives was to preserve what was already at the site. This property has functioned successfully for many years. Customers understand how the site operates, traffic flows efficiently, and the building's orientation creates an attractive interest into the city. Our goal was not to reinvent the site by any means. It was to replace an aging building while also preserving the successful layout that already exists. During our pre-application meeting, city staff informed us that because the project involves a complete demolition and rebuild, that the site must comply with today's development standards rather than the standards that existed when it originally was built. We fully understand this requirement and worked through numerous site layouts in an effort to meet the current code without requesting a variance. Unfortunately, as we progressed through the design process, it became clear that this property presents several unique site constraints that make strict application of the code extremely difficult and most of the times impossible. As staff notes in the report, the site is constrained by its unique configuration, frontage along three streets and its existing access layout and the location of the property lines as I'll touch on a little later. Those are the conditions that we didn't create and they are exactly the type of circumstances that the city's variance process is intended to address. As we attempted to eliminate the need for these variances, we explored multiple alternative site layouts. One of the only solutions that seemed to address the setback requirements was to rotate and relocate the building a little further north on the property. While that approach technically did reduce some of the setback issues, it created even more significant problems that made the project completely unviable. For example, changing the building's location created conflicts with internal traffic circulation. by forcing vehicles entering the site directly into the primary drive aisles resulting in a less safe and less efficient layout for the customers. Relocating the building also created parking deficiencies. This restaurant experiences significantly more dine-in traffic than many of the other Burger King locations that we work with. Many of these customers drive larger trucks and vehicles with trailers, making adequate parking an important COMPONENT OF THE SITE'S FUNCTIONALITY. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN EACH OF THESE SITE ITERATIONS, WE FACED A DIFFICULT TIME EVEN GETTING THE MINIMUM PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO COMPLETELY AVOID FOR THIS SITE IN PARTICULAR. FINALLY, CHANGING THE BUILDING'S ORIENTATION WOULD ELIMINATE THE ARCHITECTURAL PRESENCE THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS ALONG NORTH SIDE BOULEVARD BY PRESENTING THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING TOWARD THE PUBLIC STREET INSTEAD OF THE PRIMARY BUILDING FACADES. In other words, every effort to strictly comply with the code resulted in even more problematic hardships for the business and also the public. This is ultimately why we're here tonight. And then you can go to the next slide, please. I know the exhibit's gonna be a little more difficult to read from here, but I do have a little bit more zoomed in. Maybe actually this is it. The purpose of this picture is to illustrate exactly what we're requesting through these variances. More importantly, it demonstrates how limited these requests are actually. While the variances are measured from the property line, we believe this exhibit also shows that the underlying intent of the code is still being achieved. The proposed site continues to provide the separation, circulation, and landscaping that these standards are intended to accomplish. As staff noted in their analysis, this request represents the minimum relief necessary to preserve the site's functionality while also allowing the development to move forward. I know there's going there's a lot to look at that visual if you don't mind going back just real quick yeah sorry about that there's a lot in this visual so if we want to get more detail about it, we can we have our design team here as well, and we can kind of. GO OVER SOME OF THAT IF WE WOULD LIKE TO, BUT FOR JUST TIME'S SAKE, I'LL JUST GO OVER JUST ONE KEY IMPORTANT POINT. IF YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE THE EXHIBIT ON THE SCREEN, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS REALLY AT THE CENTER OF THIS REQUEST. DURING THE DESIGN PROCESS, WE DISCOVERED THAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE EXISTING BUILDING than what we had originally anticipated. For many years, the property owner has maintained the landscaping located outside the property line and has every intention of continuing to do so. What I think this exhibit illustrates particularly well is that while we're requesting these variances because of where the property line is located, the underlying purpose of the setbacks and landscape buffers is still being achieved. As staff notes in their report, there is virtually no visible distinction between the public right-of-way and privately maintained landscaping. From the public's perspective, it functions as one continuous landscaped corridor. If you look at the site as a whole from the sidewalk to the curb, you still have the required landscape area, along with the separation between the sidewalk and the drive aisle. In other words, the public experiences the same visual buffer and separation that the code is intended to provide. The only reason why we're requesting relief is because the property line happens to fall a few feet closer to the building than the visual corridor would suggest. So although the code technically measures the landscape buffer from the property line, the public still receives the full benefit of the landscape corridor today, and they'll continue to receive the same benefit after redevelopment. The owner has maintained this landscaping for years and is committed to continuing to do so well into the future. So while the site may not technically satisfy the numerical...

Applicant time is up. How much more do you have?

I've got maybe 30 seconds.

Okay, I'll let you.

Thank you. The intent of both landscape and buffer and setback requirements are still being fulfilled. So ultimately, just wrap it up real quick. Ultimately, what we're asking is we want this development to remain the same position of where it's at today. Every iteration that we have been able to try over the last little bit, it has just not worked both on a financial but more a safety level. So what we're doing is just asking it to remain the same.

Thank you. My big question is, if your proposal passes, how long will we be without the Whopper?

You know, the owner is here tonight, so I think you would be able to try to expedite things as quickly as possible.

Mr. Mayor, I'm sad to report that we would be without the Whopper at 92nd Street South for approximately six months.

However, the 11-0 West Karcher location

Do you deliver to City Hall at all? Okay, thanks, good job. You did a lot of verbiage in that amount of time.

I'm used to a little bit bigger projects.

Any further questions for the applicant?

Mayor?

Yes.

I just have to say that I am Burger King's biggest fan, and this council knows I eat Whopper after every council meeting, and I get very angry when our meetings are too late and I can't get one. And they know it.

Awesome.

Okay. Is there any further? Yes. Yes. Okay. Go ahead.

Okay. I'll be real quick. The other day I did go into Burger King and it was at eight o'clock, 8 p.m. And your folks were cleaning it up and it looked fantastic. You've always been that way. Thank you for that. It's always clean. It's always workable in there.

You're welcome.

No, thank you. Well, you're welcome. The other question is I have is, is regarding the variances. is it because you're making the building larger or, or is it easier for you to move it forward? Or I should say more East in the parking lot to not, to not have to use the variances.

Uh, mayor council member, and I don't want to misspeak up on behalf of our, um, our design team on this, but, uh, it's my understanding the biggest issue with this is we're adding the second drive aisle on there. And so that, um, I believe the building is going to be a little bit larger. like I said, with the dining area. And so we can only push it so far, um, back into kind of the center of the development. And that's when we were running a running into the problems with the parking spaces. And so like, as I had mentioned, the only other route would have for us to be able to completely change the location of the footprint. And that's something that we just weren't able to do a follow up mayor.

Just one last question. Why can't you just move the landscaping out and put more building there?

Council member, again, I'll refer that question over to our architect on that one. He's, like I said, he's gone through several iterations, so he might be able to have a better question for you. Just an idea.

I wouldn't worry about it. I just want to.

Okay.

Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. We'll have you come back here in a little bit. Thank you. If there's any. Terry, are you about ready? And he did, he did, like I said, he said so much in a short period of time. So you can keep yours a little shorter if you want. Okay. Okay.

No pressure though. Thank you, mayor and council members. My name is Terry friend, associate planner. for the City of Nampus Planning and Zoning Department. So we all know we're talking about the Burger King, not very far from here at Second Street and Northside Boulevard. They do want to improve that for us by removing the entire building and much of the site and rebuilding us a brand new facility. In order to do that, we are seeking a variance from two portions of code that are restrictive on the site. This site is .95 acres. In our future land use map, this is designated as downtown, which is going to become important in some of the code sections that we're referring to. The zoning district is GB1, Gateway Business. And as you can see here, we're in kind of a changing area. To the northeast is the City of Nampa's water facility. To the northwest is Fred Meyer. To the west is additional commercial locations like the Dollar Tree and Renta Center. And to the east, directly to the east, is Mountain America Credit Union and soon to be El Polo Loco. This property has gone through some changes over time. We rezoned it from IL to BC in 1985. Then in 2005, we rezoned it from BC to downtown business. That was part of kind of creating our downtown corridor. In 2009 we looked at that in a comprehensive plan map amendment and text amendment to help define that area for the city center district specific area plan and then just recently we've rezoned it from DB or that downtown business designation to gateway business one again in conjunction with our work in the central Nampa planning area. So here's the sticker for this project, the site improvement code in 10.1.6 tells us that if you are going to do a significant change on your property or your construction, then we want you to bring things into code compliance. And for this project, we're talking about creating a vacant lot situation because they're going to tear the entire building down. So this is essentially a 100% expansion of the primary use of the property when we do that, which means that they have to comply with current site regulations. regulations and improvements including when the parking lot is torn up and reconstructed that the parking lot area be improved to meet current code including the look required landscape offers. And here in Chapter 23 for off-street parking, it talks about how we're going to prohibit you from creating parking or having vehicle maneuvering in any required setback area. There is an exception here that does apply to this property, and that is we're not going to have to deal with the rear setback. and the rear landscaping buffer because there's actually a property line that divides a common drive there and that's what that exception talks about. We're not going to make you put landscape in the middle of your drive aisle. We talked about the downtown land use designation coming into play. We're looking for a more pedestrian oriented building excuse me, building orientation in our downtown area. So we do have reduced setbacks. And for this property, we're gonna have a 10 foot front setback. That's gonna be the North side Boulevard and five foot side setbacks. That's gonna be both your first and second street. And for your landscape buffer, again, we've got the definition of a landscape buffer. We talked specifically about the area of ground that is on private property that abuts the edge of any street frontage. So we're talking about the inside of the property line, which is where we kind of get into some trouble on this site. And in the GB1 zone, the landscape buffer requirement is the same as our reduced setback requirement. So it's not that 20 feet you see there for the general commercial properties. So what does that look like for this site? So we see that in on the north side's boulevard side we need a 10 foot setback from the property line as well as that landscape buffer. It's hard to see in this picture but it was probably better in your packet the orange lines there are the property lines we see that set in considerably on the north side boulevard side and so we're measuring our 10 feet from there. The First Street North needs five foot on the inside and the Second Street, sorry, that is First Street South. And the Second Street South also needs five foot from the property line. So what are we really talking about here? We're really talking about feet. And everything that they're asking for for a setback adjustment or the landscape buffer with a measurement adjustment is under 4 1⁄2 feet. In one case, it's 1 foot 11. So we're not talking about a lot. This is the site plan of the entire property. The property line is shown in red. Notice that it's inside the land area, especially along north side. And as we go through the next few slides, it's important to note that there's really no visible indication of the location of the property line. So that really blurs the distinction between that public and private area. and aesthetically the existing landscape area, which is partially in the right of way and partially on the private property, visibly appears to meet the code requirement for that landscape buffer width. So this section along First Street South, which has a five foot setback and landscape buffer requirement, we've got about one foot two inches between the property line to the drive aisle. So we're requesting a three foot ten inch setback area. to be able to have that driving and maneuvering. And there is a total of 5 foot 11 inches of landscape area that's provided, but only 1 foot 2 inches of it is inside the property line. So we're looking for that 3 foot 10 to be measured on the right-of-way side. Happens here again on Northside Boulevard, but we've got about 8 foot 1 inches of setback and landscape area that's provided inside the property line. So we're really looking for that measurement to equal 10 feet. So we need 11 foot, sorry, 1 foot 11 inches of variance for this side. And this is the 2nd Street South side. We are able to get... uh four foot we need four foot two inches of maneuvering in the setback and four foot six inches of landscape buffer area so council is empowered to grant variances in order to prevent or to lessen practical difficulties unique site circumstances and unnecessary physical geographic hardships inconsistent with the objectives of our zoning regulations The purpose of the variance is to provide fair treatment and to see that individuals are not penalized for site conditions that are really beyond their control. So we're talking about evening an uneven playing field. We do have criteria that need to be met in order to approve a variance. We've seen these before. There's five criteria. One would be that the literal interpretation of the code would result in practical difficulty that's not consistent with the intention of the code. Two, that there's extraordinary site characteristics applicable to the property which do not generally apply to other properties nearby. Literal interpretation of the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the area. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege, not consistent with the limitations that other property owners have to deal with. And lastly, that the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to other properties in the vicinity. All right, the staff analysis is listed in your staff report. Basically, we're talking about a long established commercial property where Councilman Jangula gets her burger after this meeting is over. If I don't talk faster, I know. And the site is constrained by some unique configuration, including street frontage along three roads and its current access layout, which we've all memorized. So we want to keep it consistent for customers. Additionally, the landscape right-of-way along Northside and First Street South do extend significantly into the developed property, and there's no visible indication of where that property line really is. So aesthetically, it appears to meet the code requirements and that desired landscape buffer that we're we love and enjoy. So applicable code requirements are intended to bring properties into compliance. This one is out of compliance. We're not sure how long it's been out of compliance, but this existing site layout has worked without hindering any of its neighbors for a long time. there would be practical difficulties for the applicant in trying to gain those just few feet. We understand that there's just design constraints that would be not beneficial to anyone. And we're really looking at the minimal relief necessary, really just a few feet in a couple of directions throughout the site. We did not receive any public comments, agency department comments and so there's only just the standard condition of approval recommended here. The facts that are listed in your staff report, we've covered pretty much everything. I'll just show them briefly on the screen. And this is the, excuse me. If you were leaning towards approval, this is a potential conclusion that you could use. This is also listed in your staff report for your consideration. And here are the potential motions.

Terry, then more so maybe for Daniel. It appears by the drawing that the city has quite a bit of right-of-way there that's under use for storm drain. Storm drain for the city storm event, or is that for this property event?

Mayor, Councilman Bills, that storm drain is site drainage. And as we work through the site design with them, we will have to determine what we're going to do with that, whether that is an encroachment agreement to allow that. My preference would be that it's relocated onto their site so that if at any future time the roadway widening or something, not that we have anything currently planned, but if at some future time we're not dealing with site drainage within the public right of way. Okay.

That was my concern because coming forward, 7th Street, and that work and design, whether we're gonna need the right-of-way for use for that forthcoming project.

And I shot Crystal a text and I've been looking at the study documents. I don't see anything right now that's going to trigger that at this time, but those are not final documents and designs at this point. So that would be something we would be working with them on during their design process.

Okay, so then the approval that was on the screen, do we need to say subject to the final review of the engineering of that?

So they are not requesting a variance to the storm drainage policy. So the storm drainage policy would require them to move that off into their property. So I don't know that we need a specific condition for that where they're not asking for something. So that's already a known quantity to... It's probably something that's just coming up now. That was something that when Terry got done, I was going to inject myself, but you beat me to it.

I didn't mean to beat you. No. I just don't like surprises and so forth. So, as you know. Yep. So, I just think it's important that we have that issue out in front here. Good competition, guys.

Okay. Okay, is there any other questions for staff, for Terry, for, no? Okay, I understand there's no one signed up as far as to bring public testimony. Is there anyone in our audience that is interested in bringing public testimony? Okay, rebuttal time. Is there anything that you would like to bring back to the council here? I think you're good for now, okay. So we just need a motion to close public hearing. So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Mayor, I'd make a motion that's on the screen, but subject to the clarification and possible storm drainage change, et cetera.

Second.

Okay, any further discussion? Let me just ask the applicant, then that's an understanding. but what the motion is. We have any, before I call for roll call? Okay, we're good. Roll call, please.

Gogg. Yes. Angula. Yes. Rodriguez. Yes. Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds. Yes. Bills. Yes. All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, thank you. All right, so. APPRECIATE THE CONTINUING INVESTMENT IN NAPA. I GUESS HOPEFULLY SHE WON'T BECOME A BIG MAC PERSON.

JUST PUT MORE SAUCE LIKE THEY WERE IN THE 90s. MAKE THEM BETTER. ALWAYS HAVE IT YOUR WAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE HAVE ONE MORE TO GO HERE, FOLKS. SO LET'S DO IT RIGHT. 6-4. READ THIS. Annexation and zoning to RS-22 of single-family residential zoning district. Potential development agreement in subdivision preliminary plat approval for I don't know if it's ISSA or ISSA, I'm sorry, Ridge Estates Subdivision addressed at 8230 and 8054 Eustick Road for Robert Lightfelt. Original concept, two existing single family homes and seven additional single family detached dwelling units. Our applicant, please. Thank you, sir. And I'm sure you've heard name and address. And then you have seven minutes.

Council, thank you for your time. I will make it short and sweet. Robert Liefeld, 8230 Ustick Road, Napa. Proposing here, I own 8230 and 8054 Ustick, consisting of nine acres combined. Proposing splitting them up into seven or nine lots total with two existing houses staying as is. Staying within what the city's comprehensive plan shows as light density residential. So it falls within that. Acreage would fall in the new lots between 0.8 and 0.9698 acres. The only exception I think would be My one existing house will be just over that one acre just because of the existing outbuilding has a little kick out around it. So instead of tearing down a whole garage section, it's just the exception would be appreciated to go around that. It meets to the east of me and my existing neighbor now. all larger lots. So it stays within that. And like I say, I feel in the city, it's a good infill project for underutilized property and stays within the aesthetics along Ustick there. And there's not a lot of larger properties, especially on the north side of the freeway. And staying with that, giving some options out there instead of, as you see to my north and to my west, the suite, neighborhoods of, you know, uh, CBHs and hubbles and all those high density housing. So, uh, that's why I'm here proposing is to annex in to the city, uh, subdivide into the multiple lots. Answer any questions for Mr. Liefeld?

Okay, sir. We'll have you come back if we need to. Okay. So Christie, this is yours, right?

All right, thank you, Mayor and Council. Christy Watkins, Principal Planner for the City of Nampa. The request tonight is for annexation and zoning to RS-22 and a subdivision preliminary plot for the Issa Ridge Estates. This property is located in the low density residential designation on the comp plan map. RS-22 is a compliant zone for the low density residential designation. A traffic impact study is not required for this development due to the number of lots that are being proposed. They will need to dedicate right-of-way along Ustick Road, and there will be a 10-foot side path required along with drainage along Ustick Road. The developer has proposed a rural two-lane private roadway for this development. If approved, no parking signs shall be required along that roadway. And water, sewer, and pressurized irrigation are available to this property and have adequate capacity. This property is currently enclaved, which means it is completely surrounded by the city limits, but it's still under the jurisdiction of Canyon County. To the north is RS7, the East Ridgeview Estate Subdivision. To the south is RS6, Astoria Park Subdivision. To the east, Canyon County Single Family Large Lots. and to the west, RS 8.5, which is the Timberlake subdivision. These are the applicable regulations for annexation. Correspondence, the building department had their standard comments. The police department indicated that they would recommend a commitment to fund .03 additional officers and .01 additional support staff. The Napa Fire Department does not oppose this application and had some comments about the design. They are located approximately 1.7 miles from Nampa Fire Station number four with an approximate response time of four minutes. And the engineering division had their standard comments about traffic access, utilities, drainage, and irrigation. So the lot width and depth for these meets city code. The density proposed is 1.01 dwelling units per acre, which meets with that low density residential designation. The lot sizes within the RS-22 zone can range from 22,000 square feet to 43,560 square feet, or one acre. The lot sizes shown on the plat range from 34,850 square feet to 51,056 square feet. So therefore, they are asking for an exception, which you may grant. There is one lot with the existing residence that measures at 50,056 square feet that exceeds the maximum of one acre for this zone. So qualified open space, this is where that second sentence comes into play. Residential lots that are 32,000 square feet or greater within a development are not required to contribute to the qualified open space. This project has all of its lots over 32,000 square feet, so it has not provided any extra open space in any common area. When we accept an application for annexation, we look at a few things. One, this applicant has permission to make this request. The property is located within the planning boundary on the future land use map. This property is located in the low density residential designation on the future land use map. The RS-22 zoning district is a permitted zone, and this does fall within the memorandum of understanding between the city and the highway district. For zoning, there are three criteria that you must find that this project meets. This project proposes a zone that's compatible with the adjoining districts. This project proposes a use that is compatible with adjoining property uses. And this development is reasonably necessary and in the interest of the public because it will be proposing a subdivision layout that will extend city utilities. It will install frontage improvements. It is compatible with the surrounding uses and it complies with adopted city codes. These are the recommended conditions of approval that are listed in your staff report. These are your potential motions, and I'll stand for any questions.

Questions, counsel? No? No questions. All right. Thank you so much, Christy. Appreciate that. Okay, would you like to come back for any comments? Oh, public testimony. Is there anyone here?

We do have two people.

We do have two signed. I'm sorry about that. So go ahead and announce who the first one is, please.

Our first speaker is Angela Gibson.

Good evening, Angela Gibson. I reside at 579 West Waterbury in Meridian. I'm just here to support this project. I think it's great. I like the larger lots with the nicer homes versus the smaller density. homes that we see everywhere. I've been here forever, so I can say I remember when all of this used to be a field. So if we need housing, which we do, I appreciate the larger lots to keep that aesthetic of somewhat remembering the size of our fields that we used to have. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much. Next, please.

Our next speaker is David Smith.

Good afternoon and evening.

David Smith in 86 South Bancroft Way, Nampa, Idaho. I just want to say that I'm also for this. I think that not having regular track homes crammed into the small space and having these larger lots are a much better idea. So I approve.

Thank you. Thank you for being here and your support. Okay. Anyone else interested in speaking for the application? Mayor Bruner. Yes. Madam Clerk, what was his name? One more time.

David Smith. David Smith.

David Smith. Correct.

I would have to look it up.

Do you want to come back up and give an address for you?

I didn't get you.

86 South Bancroft away.

Where's that at?

In a eight, three, six, five, one. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Okay. Now I pat any, any further. Okay. No closing remarks? Okay, we are ready for... Make a motion to close public hearing.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Discussion or motion? Make a motion to approve this property as listed on the screen.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Further discussion?

Mayor?

Yes.

I just want to say thank you for not trying to cram in apartment complexes.

Amen, sister. Okay, Councilman Jangla, you're not gonna talk about any open space.

I'm not because this is an infill, like rarely do we see an infill little piece where they've actually made large lots. So thank you.

Okay, so I think we're ready for roll call.

Skagg. Yes. Tancoula. Yes. Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds. Yes. Bills. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Thanks. Thanks for being patient, patient, but you were you got it what you wanted, right? All right. Do we do I need a motion to adjourn from regular session before going to Yeah, you need to do this. But do we need to adjourn from the regular session? Okay. Okay, we can do that after after. Okay. That's it for our regular session. We are going to have an executive session, so I just need a motion as far as... Oh, I need to read that. Thank you very much. Action item, motion to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 74-2061 to consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in Chapter 1, Title 74, Idaho Code.

You have to read the purple part too.

My favorite color.

I'm black and blue.

True disgust. Okay, I'm gonna start this one all over, and we'll get it right this time. To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter one, title 74, Idaho code, to discuss a legal memorandum about passing a permanent levy override to improve the city's public safety. Okay.

Second.

Okay, are we ready for a roll call on that?

Scott.

Yes.

Bill.

Yes.

Rodriguez. Yes. Griffin.

Yes.

Yes. Reynolds? Yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Thanks.