‘I don’t think it met the spirit of the law’: City Council pauses fate of assisted living home

Marc Seidenfeld’s brother gets his mail at the Arbor Village at Hillcrest assisted living home, where he lives. But he never received official notice about an upcoming city hearing that could require him to move out, according to an appeal to the Boise City Council.

The fate of the assisted living home and its more than 100 residents in the Central Bench remains unclear, but the property’s owners now face another hearing in their request to allow possible redevelopment into apartments.

The Boise City Council sent that request back to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday night, after council members said the owners of Arbor Village, 1093 S. Hilton St., had not properly notified their residents of the potential impending changes.

“They misrepresented the situation by sending out a letter telling people ‘we’re not going ahead,’ and then they went ahead anyway,” Marc Seidenfeld, a retired attorney, told the Idaho Statesman by phone on Wednesday. Seidenfeld eventually learned about the hearing and attended, along with three others who opposed the owners’ proposal.

The Statesman sent a request for comment to the property’s owners, DiNapoli Capital Partners, via an architect on Wednesday.

In April, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a conditional use permit for California-based DiNapoli to convert the home into an apartment complex with 77 units.

Later that month, Seidenfeld appealed the decision on the grounds that residents were not properly notified about the permit application hearing and that an apartment complex at that location would harm the community and was not in line with the city’s long-term planning efforts.

While multiple council members said they did not think there were issues with the content of the permit application for the 5.26-acre property and expected it to eventually go through, they pointedly questioned an attorney representing the owners as to why they had not given more notice to residents, and instead downplayed the potential redevelopment.

At issue was whether the property owners properly informed residents of their plans and of a scheduled city hearing, as is required by city code.

The owners sent one letter to Arbor Village itself. But there are over 100 residents within the home.

“Unlike multifamily buildings, residents of the assisted living home do not have individual units with individual addresses, so they did not receive individual notices,” a city planning staff member told the council, adding that the company had therefore complied with the notice requirements.

But not sending notices from the city to each resident did not comply with the rule, council members said.

In separate letters sent to residents and read at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing in April, the property’s owners and management told residents that they plan to provide service “for many years to come,” that possible redevelopment was a “contingency” plan, and that “there is no plan to move forward with a different use of our building.”

Council Member Patrick Bageant said the letters and the lack of official notice did not comply with city requirements.

“You knew there were 115 people there. You didn’t tell them about it individually. And instead what you did tell them was, ‘Don’t worry about this process. It’s a nothing burger. We’re probably not even going forward with it.’”

An attorney for the company, Amanda Schaus, told the council that signs had been posted on the property, and staff members had met with residents about the possible changes.

Council Member Luci Willits said that the notice the company gave to residents had not been sufficient.

“I think you could read this, that there was some notice given. I don’t think it met the spirit of the law, and I don’t think it gave people an adequate opportunity to have their voice be heard,” she said.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Bageant said that notifying residents is important, because it gives them “advance knowledge that there is going to be a change of circumstances in your vicinity,” which he said was especially applicable to the residents of an assisted living home who could have to move out.

Finding space at assisted living homes can be difficult, as the Statesman has previously reported.

“These people are vulnerable. There’s not a lot of places for them to go,” Bageant said, noting that many are elderly, disabled, frail, and living on limited incomes. “What (residents) were not notified of is like the most material thing to their well-being.”

Seidenfeld told the Statesman that, if his brother had to move, it would be difficult to find him a new place to live.

“This is home for 100-plus citizens of Boise, and they’re going to be evicted for a California developer to make money,” he said. “I’m not opposed to California, I’m not opposed to making money, but it just seems wrong to me.”

On Tuesday, the council unanimously passed a motion for another hearing to be held at the Planning and Zoning Commission “with proper notice to the residents within the development.”

Will the conversion to apartments go forward?

During Tuesday’s meeting, Council President Elaine Clegg asked the attorney for Arbor Village, Schaus, whether the owners would object to having a condition added to their permit requiring that they come up with some kind of transition plan for residents.

“A transition plan has not been prepared, because we don’t know if we’re going forward with it,” Schaus said. “Properly worded, a transition plan condition would be acceptable,” but she said she’s concerned that it’s not clear what the conditions might be.

“It’s not clear whether we’re required to find spots for everybody or if we’re just required to provide resources,” she said. “At this point, it seems premature to have a specific transition plan.”

She added, “Despite some of this testimony about the communications from the company ... (they) care about the residents, they want to do a good job. They are more than happy to provide their services and their connections ... They’re not going to put residents out on the street.”

Hallyburton changes his vote

During discussion on Tuesday night, Council Member Jimmy Hallyburton initially said he could not support the motion, even though he agreed with it, because he thought it wouldn’t be fair to other developers.

As is normally the case, the property owner had gotten a list of addresses from the city including all parties in the property’s vicinity that needed to be notified about the conditional use permit hearing.

“(The developer) came to our city staff and our city staff (said), ‘Here’s the requirements. Here’s a list of the people that you have to notify,’” Hallyburton said. “And so they follow those rules to do it ... When I look at the way that our code’s written, and what instructions our staff gave to the developer, I don’t think that I can vote yes.”

Bageant then said he would try to change Hallyburton’s mind, and Hallyburton eventually did after Bageant assured him he would review the city’s notice rules for some “tune-up and cleanup.”

Mayor Lauren McLean also directed staff members to review how common this notice issue is for group homes or dormitories, and Clegg pointed out that the council’s decision might itself change the city’s policy.

“The fastest way I know to direct the staff members to change a policy is to make a decision that is counter to the way that they are doing the policy today,” she said.