At the 1/31 City Council meeting, City Council agreed that the fence separating Interfaith’s Proposed Shelter from the adjacent properties should be constructed of a barrier with soundproofing qualities sufficient to block conversational noise generated on the site. We are proud that our advocacy resulted in this improvement for the immediate neighbors of the property.

However, City Council did not even acknowledge our concerns that, since the project was approved, the promised re-opening of the Willow Lane Substation has been cancelled and de-funded. This is a major concern for the neighborhood as a whole, and we are not aware of any plan to address it.

Note – The Design Review process is separate from the CUP and focuses on design details. The VPNA lawsuit on the overall project is still in process with the first hearing at the end of March.

INTERFAITH UPDATE January 6, 2021 – On Monday night, the Planning and Zoning Commissioners deliberated for over an hour and a half, after three hearings dedicated to public testimony, eventually voting 5 to 1 to deny the application for Interfaith Sanctuary to relocate and expand to State Street. While we are still waiting for the final Reason Statement (the official findings), all of the Commissioners voting to deny the application agreed that the project proposed would create impacts on the surrounding area that were not mitigated by the proposed conditions.

It was clear from the deliberation that Commissioners had deeply engaged with the entire project record, and had spent a long time considering their decisions. Having spent the last year engaging with the questions this application raises, we can deeply empathize with the internal struggle many commissioners expressed in having to vote to deny a proposal for an organization serving an immensely important mission. However, the law requires that a Conditional Use Permit be issued only if the project can be implemented without adversely affecting other properties of the vicinity. Concerned neighbors have been asking questions about impacts to the vicinity since January of 2021, and Interfaith did not provide a response to these impacts.

Yet, in the days since the decision, we regret that we have seen social media attacking the Commissioners on a personal level, attacking the Commissioners as not taking their duty to make this decision seriously, and even calling this decision “NIMBYism” though, at least as far as we are aware, no commissioner lives or works in an area that may be impacted by the proposed project.

We would like to thank the Commission for the long hours they spent listening to testimony and reviewing the record to make an objective decision based on the required criteria laid forth in Boise’s Zoning Ordinance and Idaho land use law. While we see that the evidence on record unequivocally supports the Commission’s denial due to the impact on the surrounding area, we do recognize that this has been a difficult decision to make, and thank the Commissioners for their dedication to applying the rule of law impartially.

Here are a few of the quotes from the January 3 hearing that are worth highlighting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U13xrX-S-fA:

Commissioner Mooney (1:12): “Frankly, I was amazed at the amount of detail and research that the neighbors did in understanding this problem. I mean, they treated it with wonderful compassion about what’s the right thing to do here.”

Commissioner Mooney (1:59): “I’m trying to bend over to accommodate what is obviously an immensely important mission that this charitable organization is up to.”

Commissioner Gillespie (2:02): “I just can’t figure out how to get conditions in that mitigate the adverse impact to that neighborhood.”

Commissioner Blanchard (2:04): “I didn’t see a way we could condition our way out of this. … I agree with one of the statements made earlier made by Commissioner Mooney – I think it is a really heavy lift and there’s not much we can do. IFS is going it alone, and that’s a shame! PDP 4 says the City is supposed to be taking a leadership role in planning for and coordinating regional growth, and that would include providing these kind of services to these residents. What’s happened throughout the Valley is that everybody has exported their homelessness to Boise… there needs to be a lot more of a solution than IFS going this alone.”

Commissioner Danley (2:07, on a vote to deny the application):

“To the applicant: This isn’t something I want to do; this isn’t something I don’t think any of us want to do. It drives me nuts that this State doesn’t help out in this issue more than it does. We don’t fund the Housing Trust Fund. We have so few limited tools. The applicant is absolutely not a person trying to ruin any part of this City. They are doing everything they can to support a part of this City that needs support. It kills me that this is where we are. Nevertheless, this is what I do believe at this point and time is the right thing to do.

With regard to the public: A lot of folks were part of this process. A lot of folks wrote us, a lot of folks came and spoke to us. It takes a lot of courage to do that, and I appreciate that. I know that some things were maybe said that maybe shouldn’t have been with regard to some folks who might be homeless. I regret hearing some of those things.

But I also regret hearing that the neighborhood, by and large, is nothing but NIMBYs, because I don’t believe that to be true as well. I think there’s a lot of concern on both sides of the aisle here its being worked out in this discussion.

…A conditional use permit can not be granted due to the lack of information regarding mitigating the adverse effect that the development and or operation of the proposed use may have upon other properties or upon the ability of political subdivisions to provide services for the proposed use. That’s where I am, we just simply don’t have enough information. I can say with a full heart that I’ve tried the best I can to get us there. I KNOW that to be the case.

I was disappointed in some of the responses. I really want to go further, I really want to say more, especially having experienced certain comments that were made, especially at the second hearing, that I didn’t think were right. I will say this, we were accused of injecting our own personal beliefs, or whatever the comment that was made.

That was nothing but a distraction from our responsibility as a Commission, as per LLUPA, as per our Code, as per representing the public, the Commission, the City, AND the Applicant. That’s what we have to do. The effort we put forward that night was about THAT, pure and simple.”

Commissioner Mooney (2:11): “We’re asked to assess the claim of future impact. And its sleepless nights to figure that out. I can’t in my mind understand how we can approve this without impacting that neighborhood.”

Commissioner Mohr (2:13): “A lot of my mind was based on, ‘Well, can we condition it properly?’ Being left in that realm of leaning on the Commission here to condition it from the dais, as opposed to being conditioned before it makes it here…is a tough position to be in.”

Commissioners Gillespie, Blanchard, Danley, Mooney, and Mohr voted to deny CUP21-00026. Commissioner Stead did not support the motion to deny.