►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Evening Session
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
D
C
E
B
D
F
I
approve
I,
move
approval
of
the
minutes
from
September
12
2023
for
the
6
PM
meeting.
Second,
the.
F
F
A
And
now
the
consent
agenda,
I
all
items
with
an
asterisk-
are
considered
routine
by
the
council
and
will
be
enacted
by
one
motion.
There's
no
separate
discussion
on
these
items
unless
a
council,
member
or
citizen
so
requests,
in
which
case
the
item
will
be
removed
from
the
general
order
of
business
and
considered
in
its
normal
sequence.
G
A
H
I
F
And
Madam
mayor
now,
I
approve
move
approval
of
the
consent
agenda.
Second,
we.
C
Madame
mayor,
yes,
I'd,
just
like
to
point
out
that
there
is
an
art
project
and
I
believe
it's
number
nine
nope
number
eight
number
eight
on
the
agenda
for
West,
Bocce
and
I
was
part
of
the
committee
of
neighbors
that
looked
at
this,
as
well
as
the
city
and
I'm
very
excited
and
thrilled
that
it's
coming
before
this
Council
and
I.
Think
it's
going
to
be
a
great
addition
to
the
to
the
park
there
and
just
appreciate
the
city's
investment.
So
thank
you.
A
Well,
thanks
for
participating
on
that
committee
and
I
will
just
point
out
and
I
want
to
thank
we've
got
I,
just
change
Turn
the
Page
excuse
me
well
clerk.
Will
you
go
ahead
and
call
the
roll?
Oh
here.
H
H
A
A
Carries
and
just
before
we
move
on
I
just
wanted
to
acknowledge
items
43
and
42..
This
is
a
deferral
of
impact
fees
for
affordable
housing
at
Denton,
Street
and
I'd
also
like
to
thank
the
Ada
County
Highway
districts,
deferral
of
fees
as
well
that
we've
acknowledged
and
accepted
in
number
42
here
and
this.
A
This
is
yet
another
way
that
the
city
and
partner
agencies
can
support
those
that
are
helping
and
meet
our
housing
challenges
and
so
really
appreciate
the
steps
that
achg
is
taking
alongside
us,
and
now
we
will
move
into
ordinances.
We've
got
two.
It
looks
like
on
second
reading.
B
A
Thank
you
and
we're
going
to
move
into
the
public
hearing
portion
of
the
evening.
The
first
two
items
have
requested
deferral,
I
think
best
that
we
take
them
up
by
motion.
F
H
H
F
A
A
Okay,
great
all
right
and
then
the
applicant
Ryan,
Hager
and
Austin
Conger.
A
Do
we
have
somebody
from
the
neighborhood
association
here
all
right,
great
and
then
I've
got
a
list
of
a
couple
folks
that
are
parties
of
record.
A
The
bulgaravia
old
Boise
Condominiums
Association,
so
we've
got
Josh
again
you
pellent
Matt
Reese
and
Victor
Miller,
all
right.
The
applicant
Jason
Miller
from
the
city
and
the
neighborhood
association.
Are
you
here
for
this
one
as
well?
I've
got
a
Bruce
for
downtown
Boise,
neighborhood
association.
A
All
right
and
we've
got
a
list
of
parties
of
record,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
start
this
one,
because
we've
got
the
applicant
and
the
appellant
here
and
thank
you.
Josh.
J
All
right,
thank
you,
madam
mayor
I'm,
before
you
tonight
for
an
appeal
of
the
historic
preservation
commission's
decision
to
deny
the
appeal
of
an
administrative
certificate
of
appropriateness,
and
this
is
for
an
approval
to
install
a
stand-alone
restroom
facility
in
CW
Moore
Park
in
the
old
Boise
commercial,
historic
district
in
downtown
Boise.
J
So
the
subject
site
is
located
on
the
northeast
corner
of
Grove,
Street
and
5th
Street.
It
is
CW
Moore
Park
a
public
park.
J
J
Some
renderings
of
the
location
of
the
restroom
and
the
park
again
very
near
the
alley.
On
the
north
side
of
the
site,
there
is
some
minor
landscaping
and
site
work
that
will
need
to
be
done
to
make
way
for
the
building
that
will
entail.
Cutting
back.
That
planter
bed
and
removing
three
magnolia
trees,
one
of
which
will
be
replaced
on
site
the
other
two
will
be
replaced
elsewhere
within
the
city.
Again,
some
perspective
views
of
the
location
of
that
restroom
facility.
J
This
would
be
from
Fifth
Street
from
the
northwest,
so
at
the
March
27
2023
historic
preservation,
Commission
meeting,
they
took
up
the
appeal
submitted
by
the
Belgravia
board
of
directors
of
the
administrative
approval
of
the
certificate
of
appropriateness.
At
that
hearing
there
was
a
there
was
a
substantial
amount
of
new
information
submitted
by
the
appellant.
J
The
commission
felt
it
best
to
defer
that
hearing
to
the
next
available
public
Hearing
in
order
to
digest
and
read
that
information
and
consider
it
for
their
decision.
So
at
the
next
Hearing
in
May,
May
22nd
2023,
the
the
historic
preservation
commission,
took
some
additional
testimony
deliberated
on
all
the
information
that
they
had
received
and
rendered
a
decision
to
deny
the
appeal,
based
on
the
proposals,
compliance
with
the
design
guidelines
for
commercial,
historic
districts
in
Boise
and
the
findings
required
in
the
ordinance
for
approval.
J
Those
are
detailed
further
in
this
in
the
pack
that
has
been
provided
to
council
tonight.
They
also
found
that
the
proposal
was
congruous
with
the
historic
district
and
much
of
the
testimony
and
materials
that
were
submitted
at
that
hearing
were
regarding
public
restroom
facilities
and
their
standard
practices
in
general,
and
then
also
potential
users
of
facility.
The
historic
preservation
commission
specifically
found
that
that
did
not
fall
within
the
review
of
the
certificate
of
a
Brokenness
application.
J
So
after
that
decision
was
the
decision
for
denial
of
the
appeal
was
issued
by
historic
preservation.
Commission.
That
decision
was
appealed
to
city
council,
and
we
are
before
you're
here
tonight
to
determine
if
the
historic
preservation
commission
made
an
error
in
their
decision.
J
So
the
applicant
or
the
appellant
submitted
their
Appeal
on
the
following
grounds.
There
are
five
grounds
for
appeal
listed
in
the
appeal.
Application
in
your
packet
is
that
the
industrial
design
of
the
restroom
is
not
compatible
or
congruous.
With
this
historic
themed
character
of
the
park
improvements,
the
restroom
location
at
the
main
entry
has
a
detrimental
impact
on
the
main
Park
features
due
as
massing
and
incompatible
design.
J
Location
of
the
restroom
offers
no
screening
from
Park
activities
or
from
the
adjacent
property
and
is
not
per
manufacturer's
recommendations.
False
and
misleading
testimony
was
given
at
previous
hearings.
Documents
that
were
submitted
at
the
first
hearing
were
not
made
part
of
the
public
record.
Reasons
stated
for
the
denial
of
the
appeal
are
in
dispute
and
significant
Landscaping
is
to
be
removed,
compromising
the
symmetry
of
the
Park
Plaza.
J
We
have
reviewed
the
grounds
for
appeal
that
were
submitted
and
consistent
with
the
historic
preservation
commission's
decision.
They
found
that
the
standards
in
ordinance
in
terms
of
findings
that
are
required
to
be
made
for
approval
of
a
certificate
appropriateness
were
met
and
the
Boise
design
guidelines
for
commercial
historic
districts
were
met
as
well.
Many
of
the
concerns
outlined
in
the
appeal
documents
are
outside
of
the
purview
of
those
standards
of
review.
We
would
recommend
denial
of
the
appeal
upholding
the
historic
preservation
commission's
decision
to
uphold
the
administrative
certificate
appropriateness
to
install
the
Standalone
restaurant
facility.
J
D
F
So,
item
number
three
there
it
says
the
location
of
the
restroom
offers
no
screening
from
Park
activities
or
from
the
adjacent
property
and
is
not
permanent
manufacturer's
recommendations.
So
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
understand
that
a
little
bit
more.
Is
there
something
specific
about
the
manufacturer's
recommendations?
That
would
say
this
can't
be
used
this
way
or
is
the
one
that
we
have
installed
over
at
SRI
Buckner
Webb
Park
in
a
significantly
different
sort
of
placement
that
would
that's
different
than
this
one
Madam.
J
Mayor
council
president
Holly
Burton,
so
there's
a
significant
amount
of
information
in
the
appeal
packet
about
best
practices
for
this
type
of
restroom
facility
and
manufacturer
recommendations
that
the
appellant
provided.
They
have
quite
a
detailed
presentation
about
that.
So
I
know
that
they
will
get
into
some
details
of
that,
but
essentially
it
is
the
it's.
J
You
know
the
historic
guidelines,
don't
really
speak
to
that
aspect.
Certainly
I
think
those
two
concepts
do
conflict
a
little
bit.
If
we
want
the
facility
open
and
safe
and
visible,
then
you
know
heavy
screening
from
either
the
street
or
adjacent
properties.
It's
probably
not
appropriate,
and
there
is
you
know
significant
Landscaping
in
the
park
that
has
been
pulled
back
away
from
the
silly
a
little
bit.
It
will
help
it's
kind
of
soften
and
integrate
it
into
the
site
without
really
concealing
those
activities.
Good.
Thank
you.
C
J
Absolutely
Madam
mayor
council,
member
Willis,
that's
probably
one
of
the
more
basic
things
I
should
have
opened
up
with
so
this
park
is
within
the
boundaries
of
the
old,
Boise,
commercial,
historic
district.
Therefore,
any
activity
in
the
park
any
new
construction
landscape
changes,
a
new
restroom
facility
such
as
this
goes
through,
what's
called
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
process.
That
is
an
application
that
goes
through
historic
planning
staff
in
order
to
determine
compliance
with
our
historic
guidelines
and
ordinances.
A
J
Madam
mayor
council,
member
Willits,
most
parks
in
Boise
are
zoned
A1
without
a
design
review
overlay,
so
it
would
not
go
through
the
designer
view
process.
Typically,
an
accessory
building
in
a
park
that's
Zone
day.
One
would
just
go
through
with
what
we
would
call
a
certificate
zoning
compliance
review
to
ensure
things
like
setbacks
are
met.
The
hype
is
met.
There
would
be
no
discussion
about
design
really.
I
Had
a
mayor
if
I
could
Josh
I
guess
the
feedback
I've
gotten
is
surprise
over
cost
I'm,
less
surprised
having
like
looked
into
cost
to
install
bathrooms
at
other
Parks
generally,
that's
the
cost
is
wrapped
up
in
the
utility
work
to
get
it
there.
A
And
I'd
say
we
can
take
that
up
in
question
when
they're
here,
that's
not
can't
be
part
of
the
consideration
with
regard
to
the
appeal,
but
it's
something
that
we've
all
been
asked
about.
So
it's
good
to
get
on
the
record.
A
K
Do
I
have
a
time
limit?
Yes,.
A
A
K
So
my
name
is
Matthew
Reese
I'm
at
499,
West,
Main,
Street,
Boise,
Idaho
83702,
so
mayor
McLean
and
members
of
the
council.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak
here
tonight.
To
be
honest,
I
don't
enjoy
doing
this
and
I'm,
not
a
very
good
public
speaker,
but
I
am
here
tonight
to
speak
in
opposition
of
the
proposed
Portland
blue
restroom
at
CW,
Moore
Park.
K
So
I
come
before
you
as
board,
president
of
the
historic
Belgravia
building,
which
is
adjacent
to
C.W
Moore
Park
and
would
be
within
30
feet
of
the
proposed
Portland
blue
restroom
I
also
come
before
you
as
a
unit
owner
of
two
office
Condominiums
there.
My
personal
opinions
may
or
may
not
be
the
opinions
of
the
Belgravia
Association.
K
But
to
be
clear,
we
are
both
opposed
to
the
industrial
design
of
this
restroom
and
its
location,
so
full
disclosure
I
have
no
personal
financial
or
political
conflict
of
interest
that
I'm,
aware
of
and
I
am
not
related
to
any
paid
Consultants
or
vendors
or
a
city
of
Boise
employees,
or
anything
like
that.
I'm
just
here
to
testify
against
a
bad
solution
and
a
bad
design.
K
Five
days
a
week
for
the
past
20
years,
so
I
know
C.W,
Moore,
Park,
I
know
what
goes
on
there
and
I
know
that
the
restroom
as
proposed
is
a
bad
solution
in
a
bad
design.
K
K
The
design
of
the
park
is
complete
and
it
is
beautiful.
The
proposed
Portland
Lou
is
not
the
grand
entry
is
a
large
Sandstone
Arch
that
was
salvaged
from
a
historic
building
that
actually
came
from
this
site
where
City
Hall
is
you
enter
that
Park
to
that
Grand
Arch,
and
the
first
thing
you
will
see
is
that
restroom.
K
The
proposed
restroom
destroys
the
symmetry
of
what
we
call
the
Wagon
Wheel
Plaza
The
Wagon
Wheel
Plaza.
Is
this
brown
Plaza
as
to
bold
out
areas?
Each
side
has
three
magnolia
trees
with
the
Grove
of
pine
trees
in
the
back,
the
magnolia
trees
beautifully
screened
from
the
alley
in
the
adjacent
buildings
and
that
all
gets
leveled
and
in
goes
just
a
concrete
slab
and
just
a
industrial
unit.
That's
just
kind
of
picked
from
a
catalog
and
just
plopped
down
in
there.
K
The
the
location
of
the
unit
clearly
competes
with
the
prominent
historic
elements
of
the
park
and
competes
and
detracts
from
the
historic
theme
of
the
park.
This
alone
should
have
been
the
justification
for
city
planners
to
recommend
a
denial
and
should
have
been
the
justification
for
the
historic
commission
to
deny
the
project
per
your
own
ordinance.
K
K
Ask
yourself
this:
if
there
was
a
proposal
to
place
a
Portland
blue
at
the
Ada
County
Landfill,
would
it
look
any
different
than
what
is
proposed
for
CW
Moore
Park
I'm
told
the
reason
this
project
is
that
we
have
free
money
from
the
federal
government
and
need
to
use
it
or
lose
it.
I
am
told
that
the
proposed
location
for
the
restroom
is
based
on
the
proximity
to
the
sewer
line.
So
basically
the
design
of
the
restroom
is
about
money.
K
K
This
area
of
town
has
seen
a
tremendous
growth,
especially
in
residential
use.
The
number
of
people
living
and
working
within
walking
distance
of
the
park
has
grown
exponentially.
However,
so
is
the
number
of
toilet
facilities
literally,
there
have
literally
been
hundreds
of
toilets
facilities
constructed
in
the
new
residences
and
the
businesses
that
are
within
walking
distance
of
the
park.
K
You'll
probably
hear
testimony
about
how
much
this
park
is
used
as
a
justification
for
the
restroom.
When
the
park
is
reserved,
it
has
the
ability
to
provide
a
porta
potty
in
a
newly
constructed
concrete
pad.
That
is
by
the
alley,
but
you
probably
won't
hear
how
many
times
the
park
has
actually
been
reserved
and
used.
I
have
not
seen
a
porta
potty
out
there.
I
haven't
seen
one
in
years.
K
Actually
you
might
be
presented
a
picture
of
the
Park
full
of
people
and
presented,
as
this
is
just
a
typical
day
in
the
park
and
I
think
that
picture
is
also
very
misleading.
I
think
if
you
went
to
us,
Google
Street
View
you'll,
see
that
the
there's
typically
about
four
to
six
people
at
the
park
at
any
just
given
time.
K
K
We
understand
that
a
public
restroom
on
this
end
of
town
would
be
nice
amenity,
so
the
city
of
Boise
is
currently
planning
a
brand
new
park
on
the
corner
of
6th
and
Grove,
just
one
block
away
from
C.W
Moore
Park.
It's
a
vacant
parking
lot
right
now
and
they
had
an
open
house
and
they
presented
planned
concepts
of
the
park
and
none
of
them
included
a
public
restroom
and-
and
so
my
question
is
is
why
is
this?
K
This
is
the
perfect
opportunity
to
site
plan
a
restroom
and
do
it
right
and
it's
arguably
a
busier
corner.
It's
going
to
probably
see
more
people
to
me.
That
seems
to
be
the
more
appropriate
place
for
the
a
restroom,
so
I've
asked
these
questions
and
the
responses
I
get
is
that
different
departments
are
planning
these
things
and
we
have
no
control
on
what
they're
doing
essentially
I'm
kind
of
told
that
the
left
hand
doesn't
know
what
the
right
hand
is
doing.
K
K
So
I
ask
you
to
ask
these
questions
number
one.
Is
there
a
better
opportunity
to
properly
site
plan
a
public
restroom
in
this
area
of
town?
Is
there
a
better
site
is
number
two?
Is
there
an
opportunity
when
designing
structures
for
a
historic
theme
park
than
an
appropriate
structure
designed
for
the
area
and
not
just
a
prefabricated
industrial
unit?
K
K
Number
four
is
picking
a
spot
based
on
proximity
to
a
sewer
line,
justification
for
a
bad
location
number
five.
What
is
the
justification
for
the
need
for
the
restroom?
Has
there
been
a
study
done
there
are?
There
are
many
other
places
in
town
we
have
cease
Landers
Park.
It
is
used
quite
a
bit
more
than
CW
Moore
Park.
It
does
not
have
a
public
restroom.
Your
new
City
Hall
Plaza
open
to
the
public
there
to
accommodate
many
larger
groups
of
people.
It
doesn't
have
a
public
restroom.
K
So
the
other
thing
that
concerns
us
is
that
CW
Moore
Park,
because
it's
kind
of
its
secluded
nature
does
have
a
history
of
a
transient
problem,
and
so
there's
a
there's.
A
question
is:
does
this
restroom
add
to
that
problem,
or
does
it
become
a
magnet
or
a
destination
point
for
this
and
I
think
these
are
just
questions
that
I,
don't
think,
have
been
properly
asked
or
answered.
K
K
A
H
Yes,
I
have
one
question
for
Mr
Reese,
maybe
two:
you
talked
about
the
design
of
the
restroom,
not
matching
the
historic
theme
of
the
park
or
not
being
consistent
with
it,
and
then
also
the
location,
and
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is,
if
you
feel
there
is
a
design
for
a
restroom
in
this
park
that
would
be
appropriate
or
if
you're
considered
testimony
is
no
restroom
is
appropriate
in
this
park
at
all
ever
well.
K
H
Me
try
again
it's
not
it's,
not
I,
don't
mean
I,
don't
want
to
play
the.
What,
if
game,
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
if
your
view
and
what
you're
hoping
to
communicate
to
us
is
that
in
your
mind
and
your
experience
as
an
architect,
there
is
a
design
for
a
restroom
that
could
fit
in
this
park.
But
this
isn't
it
or
if
your
testimony
is
based
on
my
experience,
there's
no
design
for
a
restroom
that
was
fit
in
this
park.
K
K
So
it's
not
the
focus
of
the
park,
but
it
is
next
to
a
parking
lot
right
next
to
the
public
road,
so
police
and
other
people
can
drive
by
and
quickly
see
if
there's
something
happening
there
and
it
doesn't
feel
secluded
or
whatever
it
is
out
in
the
open,
which
is
kind
of
the
dragon's
recommendations
is
that
these
things
are
highly
visible,
so
I
think
that's
an
example
of
how
you
would
do
it
right.
K
Clearly,
if
you're
designing
a
park
from
scratch,
you
have
all
the
opportunity
to
do
that
and
I
would
ask
the
question
on
on
6th
and
Grove
the
park.
They're
planning
there
perfect
opportunity.
You
have
an
alley
with
a
parking
garage.
You
could
put
the
restroom
right
close
to
the
road,
but
still
screen
it
from
Park
activity.
So
it's
not
the
main
focus
of
the
park.
K
It's
like
not
the
first
thing
to
see
when
you
enter
into
the
park,
because
you
know
nobody
wants
to
put
the
restroom
right
at
your
front
entry
door
and
essentially
that's
what
we're
proposed
here
at
CW,
Mark.
H
F
Amendment,
yes,
I
asked
this
question
of
Staff
about
the
point
that
you
brought
up
with
the
manufacturer's
recommendation
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
what
that
has
to
do
with
the
historic
committee's
discussion.
K
So
the
historic
commission
has
a
very
narrow
Focus.
You
know
let
the
city
council
has
a
wide
view
of
everything
you
can
consider.
Everything
of
you
know
is
this
a
an
appropriate
site,
appropriate
design
or
whatever
and
I
I.
Don't
know
if
the
manufacturer's
recommendations
as
far
as
sight
lines
and
all
that
stuff
crosses
requirements,
the
historic
my
guess
is:
no,
it
does
not,
but
it
just
goes
back
to
just
kind
of
basic
planning.
Where
would
you
want
to
put
a
restaurant?
K
F
Mademere,
just
a
follow-up
there,
so
I
guess
what
I'm?
What
I'm
hearing
you
say
is
that
you're
not
necessarily
appealing
just
the
historic
committee's
decision
that
this
was
historically
appropriate,
you're
appealing
just
the
whole
grounds
of
the.
A
G
Mayor
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
too,
but
I
can
wait
until
yeah.
E
H
L
So
mayor
McLean
president
pro
tem
of
agent,
thank
you
for
letting
us
speak
I'm,
Victor
Miller
and
my
wife
I
own
two
units
at
the
Belgravia.
A
bathroom
should
not
be
installed
at
CW
Moore
Park
for
three
simple
reasons.
First,
the
Lou
ignores
safety
concerns
which
I
think
are
very
important
here.
Just
for
context.
No
city
has
relied
on
its
historical
preservation
to
make
a
choice
on
whether
they're
going
to
install
this.
It's
usually
safety
concerns
police
fire.
The
historical
preservation
side
is
has
not
been
the
the
guiding
force.
L
Mr
Madden
sent
me
a
white
paper
summarizing
the
results.
The
questionnaires
sent
out
by
Washington
D.C
to
more
than
two
dozen
other
cities
that
use
the
port
and
Lou
in
it.
Cities
mentioned
many
safety
issues
with
the
Portland
lieu
that
should
cause
significant
concern
relative
to
CW
Moore
Park,
especially
given
its
close
proximity
to
residential
buildings.
L
First,
the
CW
Moore
installation
ignores
every
crime
prevention
through
environmental
design
principle
laid
out
by
the
manufacturer.
It
is
not
quote
in
an
open,
visible
location
with
a
lot
of
pedestrian
and
vehicular
traffic
during
day
and
night.
Secondly,
it
is
not
in
or
near
a
commercial
area
where
eyes
can
be
kept
on
the
restroom
during
the
daytime
and
into
the
evening.
L
Third,
it
does
not
have
good
Street
lighting
at
night
and
four.
According
to
what
we've
seen
there
are
no
Arrangements
that
have
been
made
for
police
monitoring
at
night.
Additionally,
in
the
Washington,
DC
study
acknowledged
that
the
issues
will
arise
after
installing
a
Portland
Lou,
including
criminal
activity,
using
for
shooting
up
possible
use
for
prostitution,
arson
public
nuisance
issues
include
graffiti
sleeping
inside
the
loose
and
camping
near
the
loose
maintenance
issues
include
local
locks
that
are
broken,
broken
hinges
and
Hardware,
inappropriate
items,
flush
down
the
toilet,
frozen
pipes.
L
A
L
Sorry,
what
you'll
see
in
these
pictures,
though,
is
that
by
given
to
us
by
Portland
Lou,
it's
clear
that
the
Lou's
have
been
located
in
places
with
very
open
sight
lines
in
very,
very
public
places,
including
crosswalks
major
city,
intersections
very,
very
publicly
visible
places.
That's
the
point
of
these
things!
That's
why
you,
when
you
look
at
SRI,
Buckner,
Webb
Park,
and
you
look
where
that
was
located.
It's
an
open
sight
line.
It's
right
next
to
a
parking
lot,
it's
right!
L
Next
to
a
road,
it's
far
away
from
residential
buildings,
far
away
from
from
a
commercial,
the
commercial
building
right
next
door.
So
it's
actually
I
think
that's
done
actually
very
appropriately,
and
the
reason
why
that's
done
is
that
the
open
sight
lines
is
because
it
is
trying
to
adhere
to
the
crime
prevention
through
environmental
design
principles
that
I
mentioned
earlier
the
report.
L
Lastly,
the
proposed
cwmr
site
location
for
the
Portland
news
within
20
feet
of
the
CW
Moore
apartment
buildings
and
only
25
feet
from
the
side
of
the
Belgravia
building
the
Portland,
who
installed
at
SRI,
Buckner,
Webb,
Park,
again
with
open
sight
lines
near
traffic
and
parking
lots
near
businesses
seems
appropriate
given
locations
in
other
cities,
but
CW
Moore
Park
is
just
the
opposite.
It
does
not
have
open
sight
lines
and
has
little
traffic.
L
Lastly,
in
its
own
March
17
2023
memo,
the
Parks
and
Recreation
Department
for
its
city
of
Boise
proves
there
is
not
a
great
need
for
the
permanent
bathroom
in
the
study.
The
city
admits
a
bathroom
at
CW.
Moore
Park
is
needed,
potentially
from
April
to
October,
only
on
the
weekends
and
only
after
six
and
the
park
averages
only
10
events
a
year
when
it
was
active.
This
is
not
legitimize
a
full-time
bathroom.
Thank
you
for
the
time.
Thank.
G
So
this
is
yeah.
This
is
for
the
appointment.
What
I'm?
What
you're
asking
of
us
tonight
is
to
find
error
in
the
decision
by
by
the
historic
review,
Community,
Committee
and
based
on
our
development
code
based
on
this
specific
criteria,
which
would
be
that
it's
in
violation
of
constitutional
law,
city
law
or
state
law
that
it's
the
public
hearing
was
inadequate,
that
it's
arbitrary
or
capricious,
or
that
the
decision
was
not
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
So
I
hear
reasons
why
you
aren't
comfortable
with
this
decision
of
development.
G
But
why
specifically,
based
on
this
criteria,
are
we
finding
error
in
the
decision
that
they
made.
L
K
K
We
are
in
a
historic
district,
and
so
what
does
that
mean
we're
a
historic
theme
park
in
a
historic
district?
So
some
might
say
it's
not
a
Historic
Park.
So
therefore,
nothing
in
the
historic
ordinance
even
applies.
You
can
do
whatever
you
want
to
do
and
if
that's
the
case,
why
you
have
the
designation
on
that
property
as
a
part
of
the
historic
district?
Why
don't
just
remove
it?
That's
why
I
came
to
you
and
said
that
that
needs
to
mean
something
so.
K
A
K
A
A
The
we
just
moved
that
to
rebuttal.
So
you
know
if
you
don't
have
a
question:
okay,.
A
A
D
M
I'm
Madam
mayor
council,
my
name
is
Jason
Miller
when
the
design
and
development
project
manager
for
Boise,
Park
and
Recreation
I've
got
I'm
a
licensed
landscape
architect
with
over
20
years
experience
and
I'm
here
today
to
discuss
the
parole's
restroom
at
CW,
Moore
Park,
the
park,
you
know,
as
you
know,
serves
the
downtown
community
and
provides
a
wonderful
place
to
enjoy
coffee
lunch
or
just
a
few
moments
on
the
Park
Bench,
surrounded
by
a
vibrant
and
ever-growing
City.
M
M
The
charm
of
the
park
is
in
its
location,
respite
for
shade
and
enduring
elements.
The
park
is
reservable
and
events
such
as
weddings
and
family
gatherings
are
frequently
held
at
the
park
as
the
event
sizes
and
requests
have
increased
over
the
years.
The
park
has
retained
its
Nostalgia,
despite
the
need
for
modern
accommodations
events
that
are
held
at
the
park
on
weekends
and
evenings
have
increased
in
a
need
for
a
restroom.
Current
accommodations
are
made
by
placing
Portable
Restrooms
in
the
north
alley.
M
Last
year,
Boise
Park
and
Recreation
must
provide
an
opportunity
to
apply
for
and
obtained
Federal
funding
for
a
permanent
restroom
at
the
park.
Without
this
funding,
a
new
restroom
would
not
be
an
option
to
add
a
new
amenity
to
an
existing
Park,
recognizing
the
importance
of
the
Park
Boise
Park
and
Recreation
held
a
public
meeting
in
December
to
discuss
the
proposed
restroom.
At
that
time,
the
restroom
design
placed
the
facility
even
closer
to
the
alley
along
the
north
side
of
the
park.
M
The
third
was
to
utilize
the
federal
funding
available,
which
was
an
opportunity
through
us
through
a
Community
Development
block
grant,
and
the
significance
of
this
is
that
it
will
benefit
low
to
Modern
income
persons,
preventing
and
improving
the
Health
and
Welfare
of
the
overall
Community.
This
is
not
something
that
we
could
just
do
in
in
all
of
our
Parks,
based
on
the
community
so,
and
our
fourth
goal
was
to
address
future
demand
and
growth
surrounding
the
park,
as
development
has
reshaped
the
boundaries
of
the
park.
M
The
use
of
the
park
is
notably
increasing
and
anticipating
improvements
of
the
old
Boise
blocks
and
the
Grove
Street,
and
the
demands
along
the
park
will
continue
to
increase
as
it
as
it
continues.
So
the
location
of
the
park
or
the
location
of
the
restroom
was
selected
because
it's
proximity
to
utilities
the
existing
use
along
that
North
alley
and
its
limited
impact
to
the
overall
Park.
The
goal
was
to
preserve
the
existing
Park
features
in
their
current
state
and
access
the
utilities
that
are
available
in
the
alley.
M
It's
not
just
a
sewer
line,
but
all
of
the
utilities
are
within
that
alley.
In
further
location
of
the
building
in
different
site
planning
locations
would
actually
incur
additional
trenching
excavation
replacement,
Paving
and
walls
which
would
further
impact
the
character
of
the
park
so
due
to
the
need
to
place
the
restroom
further
away
from
the
edge
of
the
alley
and
to
address
crime
prevention
through
environmental
design
principles.
Additional
space
around
the
structure
is
required
and.
M
M
The
proposed
restroom
is
manufactured
by
romtec,
which
manufactures
a
restroom
similar
in
size
proportion,
elevation
and
features
as
the
Portland
Lube.
The
maintenance
advantage
of
this
restroom
is
that
has
a
square
door,
reducing
stress
on
the
hinges,
in
an
external
hand,
washing
station
that
complies
with
local
health
code
requirements.
M
So
the
sidewalk
restroom
has
chosen
over
a
permanent
building
which
would
take
up
considerably
more
space
within
the
park
and
have
a
greater
impact
to
the
sight.
Lines
within
the
existing
Park,
the
scale
of
the
structure
is
appropriate
to
the
park
in
a
single-use
restroom
will
sufficiently
serve.
The
public
needs
the
simplified
appearance
of
the
building
Blends
easily
within
the
landscape
and
does
not
visually
detract
from
the
historical
details
within
the
park.
M
So
the
elevation
implant
views
are
shown
in
the
following
slides.
The
building
is,
like
I,
said,
simple
Vandal
resistant
and
designed
with
safety
considerations,
including
UV
lighting
through
discourage
needle
use,
Sharps,
collector
box
and
louvers
to
indicate
when
it
is
in
use,
parts
are
readily
available
and
our
staff
has
similar
experience
with
Sherry
Buckner
Webb
Park.
M
The
location
supports
the
crime
prevention
through
environmental
design,
principles
with
the
following:
there's:
natural
surveillance
with
adjacent
residents
and
proximity
to
fit.
There's
natural
access
control
is
not
needed,
such
as
the
gate
fence
or
bound
boundary,
because
it's
in
a
public
park,
pavement
treatment,
art
signs
and
maintenance
all
support
the
visual
cues
for
the
structure.
Sight
lines
to
the
building
include
five
foot
surrounding
all
sides
minimum
and
there
are
no
hidden
spaces
within
the
alignment
that
you'll
see
in
the
visualization.
M
D
M
Park
and
Recreation
is
responsible
for
the
ongoing
maintenance
and
upkeep
of
the
park.
We
have
a
proven
track
record
of
maintaining
our
facilities
and
addressing
concerns,
as
they
arise.
Graffiti
is
addressed
within
24
hours.
Litter
pickup
is
addressed
daily
in
our
current
Parks
demonstrate
that
they
owned
and
cared
for.
M
So
here's
some
graphic
illustrations
of
how
the
restroom
it
does
not
obscure
the
archway,
the
entrances,
as
well
as
the
main
plaza
itself.
All
of
the
historic
elements
are
able
to
be
retained.
We're
able
to
relocate
the
existing
wall
with
the
Magnolias
so
that
there
is
a
more
visibility
around
the
restroom.
But
again
it
is
highly
visible
from
Fifth
and
it
is.
But
it
is
not
the
prominent
feature
within
the
park.
M
There's
some
this.
This
one
illustrates
the
how
far
that
we've
pushed
it
off
of
the
alley
within
our
building
setback
line,
so
that
again,
that
it
doesn't
for
the
further
that
it
goes
the
more
impact
it
would
have
to
the
Central
Plaza,
the
location
that
it's
in
now
is
further
from
the
edge
of
the
Belgravia
than
the
Portable
Restrooms
that
are
being
utilized
at
the
moment.
M
I'm,
just
gonna
flip
through
these,
because
Josh
showed
these
in
response
to
the
report
regarding
the
public
restrooms,
the
report
identifies
that
public
restrooms
are
needed
in
Boise,
Park
and
Recreation
shares
the
goal
of
the
report
to
provide
amenities
to
our
community.
The
report
advocates
for
the
government
to
install
Clean
safe
public
restroom
is
needed
in
commercial
areas
and
we
feel
that
this
there
is
a
need
here
for
this
Boise
parking
Recreation
acknowledges
that
occasional
problems
will
arise,
including
broken
locks,
stopped
up,
toilets
graffiti
frozen
pipes.
M
M
So,
in
conclusion,
as
stated
in
the
report,
the
cost
to
the
city
would
be
much
greater
if
people
didn't
perceive
downtown
to
be
a
welcoming
and
clean
place.
This
is
a
community
need
brought
to
us
from
the
public.
Boise
Park
and
Recreation
has
a
proven
track
record
of
care
of
our
facilities,
citing
Sherry
Buckner
Webb.
As
an
example,
we
have
made
accommodations
to
the
appellant
with
the
goal
of
limiting
the
impact
of
the
structure
to
the
existing
part,
and
further
changes
would
generate
more
impact
and
seem
unnecessary.
M
As
previously
mentioned.
This
is
a
rare
opportunity
to
add
a
needed
amenity
to
an
existing
Urban
Park.
This
is
not
something
that
we
would
otherwise
be
able
to
provide
and
we
believe
it
meets
a
key
need:
a
Boise
park
and
rec.
We
strive
to
meet
the
current
public
needs
and
anticipated
future
needs,
and
with
the
growth
surrounding
CW
Moore
Park,
we
feel
that
it
is
our
responsibility
to
seek
out
opportunities
to
identify
funding
when
appropriate.
That
will
benefit
our
community.
We
believe
that
this
project
will
greatly
benefit
our
community
members.
H
Just
quick
ones,
I
hope,
lots
of
stuff
there
and
it's
all
obviously
been
very
considered
and
very
thought
about,
but
here
on
an
appeal
from
historic
preservation,
Commission
well
I
can't
say
what
matters
most.
What
what
seems
like
it
ought
to
matter
most,
at
least
to
me
is:
is
the
property
consistent
with
the
design
guidelines
for
the
Boise's
commercial,
historic
districts?
That's
what
we're
here
to
discuss.
So
my
question
is:
did
you
consider
those
and
did
you
discuss
those
in
the
historic
preservation
commission
meeting
you
had.
H
C
M
Madam,
mayor
counselor,
as
we
know,
public
bathrooms
are
very
expensive
and
the
largest
cost
is
all
of
the
infrastructure
that's
required
for
a
public
restroom.
The
cost
on
this
restroom
is
is
right
around
350
000,
as
it
stands
right
now,
with
the
with
the
current
proposal
that
we
have
here.
M
This
is
within
the
grant
for
our
funding
and
it's
pretty
it's
honestly.
That's
a
pretty
typical
kind
of
going
price
for
a
public
restroom.
At
this
point,
with
this
being
a
single
use,
restroom,
it
has
less
cost
than
if
there
was
a
double
use,
restroom,
which
we
feel
would
be
too
large
in
scale
and
would
create
even
greater
impact
to
the
park.
So
the
summary
is
that
the
amount
of
infrastructure
and
cost
required
to
install
public
restroom
is
is
very
expensive,
largely
due
to
the
site
work.
E
C
M
Yes,
Madam
mayor,
counselor
I,
our
general
strategy
is
that
the
level
of
service
is
really
determined
based
on
the
classification
of
the
park.
So
if
we're
at
a
regional
park,
we're
anticipating
large
users
coming
from,
you
know
everywhere
surrounding
the
city
of
Boise
right,
it's
a
really
large
draw.
Therefore
we
need
to
provide
more
facilities
as
we
step
down
to
something
that's
more
of
like
a
a
community
level
park.
M
In
regard
to
the
majority,
we
have
a
lot
of
smaller
Parks,
which
are
more
of
a
neighborhood
part
in
that
neighborhood
park
really
anticipates
the
the
quarter
mile
to
half
mile
radius
around
the
park
and
and
what
that
does
is
a
lot
of
times.
There
is
not
a
high
need
for
a
restroom
facility
in
a
park
like
that,
because
this
the
size
of
the
park
is
typically
smaller
and
it's
more
for
local
residents.
M
So,
in
this
instance,
this
this
park
was
is
appropriate
just
because
of
the
density
of
population
around
the
park,
as
well
as,
like
I,
said,
the
low
income
qualifications
and
the
you
know
the
way
that
the
future
growth
is
kind
of
quickly
occurring
around
the
nostalgic.
You
know:
CW
Moore,
Park,.
A
M
Final
mayor,
counselor
I
believe
that
that
this
would
not
be
the
case.
I
believe
that
the
existing
we
would
be
able
to
put
a
facility
within
our
Park
because,
as
we
see,
funding-
and
we
have
opportunities
like
this
to
add-
add
amenities
to
our
Park.
C
G
I,
just
kind
of
for
my
own
curiosity,
I,
imagine
I,
mean
I
know
that
we
have
another
one
of
these
in
the
Buckner
Webb
Park,
so
I
was
curious.
Have
we
had
any
crime
issues
there
is
there
for
this
proposed
restroom?
Is
there
like
hours
of
operation
or
months
of
operation?
Is
there
a
maintenance
and
monitoring
schedule?
M
Yes,
I'm
Adam,
Mayer
and
counselor.
Yes,
there
is
a
in
a
lot
of
our
Parks.
We
we
close
the
restroom
through
the
the
winter
months,
and
that
has
to
do
with
largely
the
infrastructure,
just
not
being
able
to
support
the
extreme
cold
temperatures
that
we
have
here
so
I
think
the
from
my
understanding
in
discussions
with
our
maintenance
staff.
This
is
something
that
we
will
be
keeping
open
year
round.
M
We
do
keep
Sherry
Buckner
Webb
open
year
round
and
when
I
say
open
I
mean
we
do
our
very
best
because
we're
dealing
with
frozen
pipes,
all
kinds
of
things
you
know
the
the
that
need
to
be
repaired,
as
that
is
ongoing,
and
that's
one
of
the
the
interesting
things
like
I
mentioned,
like
between
the
two
products
of
the
Portland
Lou
versus
the
ROM
Tech,
our
main
and
stuff
feels
like
the
the
ROM
Tech
may
be
a
better
option
for
the
Portland
Lou.
M
A
Further
questions
well,
Jason
I
want
to
say
thank
you
because
we
typically
wouldn't
see
these
were
it
not
for
being
in
a
historic
commercial
District.
You
typically
aren't
under
the
gun
in
front
of
city
council,
so
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
your
time.
Your
presence
and
thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
E
C
M
Madam,
mayor,
counselor,
I
believe
the
money
would
be
lost
in
regard
to
this
project.
We
do
have
opportunities
for
similar
grants
on
other
part
projects
that
we
are
pursuing,
but
this
one
nice
is
earmarked
for
this
project.
A
A
I've
got
the
two
appellants
and
then
Susan
I'm
sorry
come
on
out
and
then,
sir,
were
you
planning
on
testifying
as
well?
And
you
were
party
of
record
I'll
go
ahead
and
have
Susan
testify
and
then
I'll
have
you
come
up
I'll
just
make
sure
you're
a
party
of
record
yeah,
because
there
are
multiple
people
that
are
in
here
that
didn't
that
aren't
on
my
sign
up
sheet
that
I'll
call
through
so.
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
hearing
us
I
just
feel
that
oh,
could
you
read
your
name
and
address
into
the
record?
Please
Susan
desalhorst
4
31
and
461
West
Main,
Street
thanks.
E
This
is
a
little
neighborhood
park.
It's
smaller
than
this
room
that
we're
in,
and
it's
mainly
used
by
those
of
us
who
work
or
live
nearby
and
making
having
a
restroom
there
rather
unnecessary.
Losing
trees
is
always
a
horrible
thing
to
do,
especially
beautiful
trees
like
those
there
are
better
locations
nearby
property
here
at
City.
Hall
would
be
an
excellent
location
for
it
more
traffic,
easier
to
police
and
there's
basically
I
just
support
everything
that
the
board
members
from
the
Belgravia
have
said.
A
N
Ahead,
yes,
again:
I'm
Greg,
Buchanan,
420,
West
Man
live
at
devel.
Techs
I
live
about
a
half
a
block
from
C.W
Moore
Park,
as
it's
been
mentioned
here
a
couple
times.
The
reason
we're
here
is
because
it
is
in
the
historic
district
and
I
believe
it.
You
would
consider
it
a
Historic
Park.
It
looks
like
a
Historic
Park
in
every
way,
sir.
A
Will
you
pull
this
a
little
closer
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
councilmember
Willits
online
can
hear
you
can.
N
Thanks
again,
Greg
Buchanan
420,
West,
Main,
valtex,
Building
I
live
about
a
half,
a
block
from
C.W
Moore
Park
and,
as
is
the
point's,
been
made
here
a
couple
times
that
the
reason
we
are
here
is
because
it's
an
historic
district
and
it
is
a
Historic
Park.
It
looks
like
a
Historic
Park
all
the
aspects
of
our
Historic
Park.
It
is
in
Historic
Park.
It's
one
of
the
things
that
cities
Boise
has
chosen
to
support
to.
N
So
we
I
believe
that
this
park
should
be
maintained
in
that
regard.
I
live
in
the
beltex
building.
It
also
has
some
historical
aspects
to
it
in
terms
of
presentment.
So
it's
part
of
this
part
of
the
historical
district,
the
Portland
Lou
I'll,
just
quote
from
the
Portland
Lou's
website.
It's
a
modern
design
originally
focused
on
function
and
durability.
The
Portland
Lou
is
a
Sleek
freak
standing
public
restroom
designed
to
deter
criminal
activity.
N
It
goes
on
to
say
that
the
Portland
Lou
focuses
on
crime
prevention
aspect
of
public
restrooms,
and
then
it
further
goes
on
to
say
that
speaking
about
drug
use,
the
Portland
Lou
also
uses
blue
lice
to
prevent
drug
users
from
locating
veins,
I
suppose
in
some
aspects,
some
areas
that
might
be
a
good
thing,
but
the
the
the
feeling
I'm
getting
is
that
this
is
not
a
structure
that
should
be
located
there.
N
N
The
other
aspect
of
this
is
there
are
better
locations
again
considering
this
is
Historical,
Park
and
and
a
small
park
or
pocket
park
where
you
want
to
call
it
for
the
neighborhood
there's
a
new
park,
of
course,
just
down
the
street
between
fourth
and
fifth
on
Grove.
There
are
significant
but
not
finished,
plans
for
Grove
Street,
there's
a
significant
plans
for
development
and
adding
public
infrastructure
to
support
that.
N
To
my
knowledge,
this
this
structure
is
in
no
way
part
of
that
plan,
or
has
there
been
any
coordination
with
it,
but
I
do
know
that
the
new
park
down
the
street
in
in
reading
about
it
is
anticipated
to
be
well
used
and,
as
I
understand
is,
if
you
will
design
for
a
number
of
events,
it's
it's
located
well
for
events
and
I
think
that's
the
encouragement
again.
A
O
Yes,
I
can
okay
Jennifer
Stevens
445
West
Main
Street,
which
is
a
unit
of
the
Belgravia
building
I
just
I,
want
to
say
a
couple
of
things
that
is
are
probably
things
that
the
council
already
knows,
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
for
the
record.
O
This
is
this
park
that
we're
talking
about
is
in
fact,
of
course,
in
a
historic
district,
but
there
is
no
such
thing
as
a
Historic
Park
in
the
city
of
Boise
there's
no
such
designation
and
CW
Moore
Park
certainly
isn't
called
that.
There's
no
such
thing
as
a
historic
theme
park
and
I
would
just
say
just
so.
You
guys
have
a
little
bit
of
background
regarding
the
history
of
this
park
and
the
history
that's
in
the
park.
O
The
park
was
designed
in
the
1970s
and
it
was
right
at
the
tail
end
of
urban
renewal,
so
many
buildings
downtown
and
many
structures
had
been
demolished
as
a
result
of
that
when
this
park
became
the
subject
of
it
became
Park
and
it
was
being
designed.
The
idea
was
to
put
some
of
these
objects
into
the
park,
with
the
hope
of
having
some
interpretation
in
Park
that
went
along
with
the
objects.
O
O
And
those
plaques
were
never
placed,
so
in
fact,
unfortunately,
what
we
have
is
a
is
a
park
where
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
that
nobody
knows
what
it
is.
So
there
is
some
interpretation
on
the
corner
where
the
turret
is
located,
but
unfortunately
there's
the
interpretation
That
was
supposed
to
happen,
never
occurred
so
just
so.
O
You
kind
of
have
that
background
on
on
what
the
park
is
and
I
would
just
argue
as
a
historian
myself,
that
the
restroom
itself
is
is
not
going
to
be
a
detracting
factor
in
this
particular
Park,
as
I
mentioned,
there's
already
no
interpretation
so
having
a
restroom.
There
certainly
is
not
going
to
make
that
problem.
Any
worse.
O
I
did
work
in
the
building
in
my
condominium
there
for
seven
years
and
also
walked
through
CW
Moore
Park
many
many
times
over
those
years,
and
it
is
a
lovely
place
with
lots
more
people
than
four
to
six
people
in
it
on
a
regular
basis,
as
you
all
probably
are
aware,
there's
a
great
deal
of
development
happening
in
the
area
right
now.
Ccdc,
of
course,
has
an
urban
renewal
district
there,
and
there
is
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
stuff
happening
there.
O
I
will
also
just
say
one
final
thing,
and
that
is
I
would
support
not
only
a
restroom
in
this
park,
but
also
a
restroom
in
the
park
down
the
street
I
think
that
the
city
should
be
putting
restrooms
as
many
as
possible
in
the
Parks
and
in
lots
of
public
spaces,
because
we
are
growing
tremendously
and
going
to
the
bathroom
is
a
human
need.
D
A
P
Good
evening,
how's
that
good
evening,
mayor
McLean
and
City
Council
Members,
my
name
is
John
Stevens
address
318
East,
Highland
View
Drive
Boise
as
an
owner
of
a
Belgravia
condo
unit
adjacent
to
the
park
in
a
20-year
tenant
of
the
CW
Moore
office.
Building
just
south
of
the
park.
I
strongly
support
the
construction
of
this
public
restroom
at
this
location.
Now
providing
public
facilities
for
basic
human
functions
keeps
the
city
clean
and
takes
pressure
off
private
businesses
who
otherwise
end
up
providing
these
services
to
the
public.
P
Frequently
during
the
week
the
park
is
filled
with
young
school
children,
their
teachers
and
young
and
adult
members
of
the
public
enjoying
the
outside
space.
Throughout
the
day,
the
nearest
public
restroom
I'm,
aware
of,
is
located
here
in
City
Hall
three
blocks
away
enclosed
after
business
hours.
Three
blocks
is
a
long
way
for
small
children
to
walk
in
a
hurry
like
the
restroom
at
Cherie,
Buckner,
Webb
Park
at
11th
and
Bannock.
This
one
will
be
discrete
clean,
functional
and
safe.
P
It's
an
appropriate
location
for
a
restroom
in
an
area
that
is
otherwise
underserved
for
public
facilities,
for
public
facilities,
I'm,
confident
in
the
city's
ability
to
maintain
it
properly.
Please
construct
it.
We
need
more
like
it
throughout
the
city
and
in
my
opinion,
the
public
restrooms
ought
to
become
standard
features
in
other
outdoor
public
spaces.
Thank
you.
M
Madam
mayor
counselor
I
would
just
add
that
the
521
Park,
which
is
the
park
that
doesn't
have
a
name
that's
a
little
bit
down
from
the
intersection
of
Fifth
and
Grove,
that
Park
is
being
implemented
by
CCDC
and
as
of
right
now
to
go.
That
will
be
a
part
that
will
be
donated
to
us.
So
we
have
some
input,
but
I
would
encourage
anyone
that
wants
to
see
that
work
with
the
restroom
to
do
so.
To
support
that.
Thank.
A
G
D
G
Sure,
I
guess
so
yeah,
so
we
on
appeal,
our
Boise
development
code
requires
us
to
find
we're.
Looking
for
error
in
the
decision
made
by
the
historical
preservation
committee,
the
the
guardrails
that
we
have
for
that
are
either
that
it
was
a
violation
of
constitutional
state
or
city
law,
thought
it
was.
The
public
hearing
was
inadequate
that
the
decision
is
arbitrary,
capricious
or
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
that
the
decision
is
not
supported
by
substantial
evidence,
so
I
guess
in
so.
G
K
G
K
I
would
say
it's
a
bit
arbitrary,
because
the
language
in
your
ordinance
is
is
so
subjective,
so
the
line
is
that
it
does.
The
proposed
project
by
the
adopted
guidelines
is
is
that
the
request
will
not
be
incongruous
with
the
historical,
architectural,
archaeological,
educational
or
cultural
aspects
of
the
district,
so
we
are
in
a
district
and
I
always
have
to
look
up
the
word
incongruous
to
get
a
better
understanding,
you
know.
What
are
we
asking
here
and
the
definition
is:
is
it
lacking
in
harmony
or
is
it
incompatible?
K
The
placing
the
restroom
right
at
the
front
entry
I
think
Not
only
would
that
just
be
inappropriate
for
your
Park,
your
your
theme
park
and
and
the
experience
that
you're
trying
to
establish
at
that
park
it
would
be
kind
of
inappropriate
for
any
park.
I.
Don't
think
you'd
want
to
have
that
right
right
when
you
walk
through
that
Sandstone
Arch
entry,
that's
the
first
thing
you
see
and
then
again
the
design
of
it
is
very
incongruous
with
the
rest
with
the
rest
of
the
park.
L
L
Historical
preservation
has
not
been
the
basis
that
cities
use
the
the
bottom
line.
Is
the
city's
completely
not
thinking
about
safety.
It's
not
thinking
about
being
25
feet
from
an
apartment
building
with
several
hundred
people
living
in
it.
It
ignores
the
manufacturer's
recommendations
on
how
these
should
be
placed
in
they
ignore
crime
prevention
through
environmental
design.
L
L
K
I,
so
we
can
argue
on
the
narrow
focus
of
this
being
in
a
historic
district
and
historic
theme
park.
It
is
what
it
is,
and
that
is
this
an
appropriate
location
for
it
is
this
is,
is
this?
Is
this
element
adding
or
detracting
to
the
other
elements
in
the
park
and
I?
K
Think
it's
clearly
detracting
in
its
prominent
location
and
and
just
the
removal
of
the
Landscaping
that
helps
form
that
wagon
wheel,
Plaza
I
would
like
the
council
to
also
consider
the
bigger
picture
which
is
you've
got
a
new
park,
one
block
away,
that's
being
designed
from
scratch
and
right
now,
there's
no
public
restroom
there
and
that's
actually
the
to
me
the
logical
place
to
do
it.
We
are
not
anti-restroom
we're
not
trying
to
say
no
restroom
period.
K
This
park
is
a
special
place
in
the
design
of
the
restroom
and
where
it's
located
is
what
is
inappropriate
and
that's
what
we're
contesting
so
the
park
that's
being
planned
and
also
the
project
of
redoing
Grove
Street
I,
hear
rumors.
That's
also
going
to
involve
reconstructing
the
south
side
of
CW
Moore
Park,
not
I,
have
not
seen
much
information
on
that,
but
I
think
the
council
I
asked
the
council
take
that
bigger
picture
view
and
just
and
ask
those
questions.
First,
before
we
just
plop
something
down
right
at
the
front
entry
of
the
park.
A
P
F
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
a
couple
things,
so
we
Grant
staff
administrative
authority
to
put
a
bathroom
into
a
park.
That's
not
something
that
would
take.
You
know:
Council
approval
or
Planning
and
Zoning
approval.
That's
administrative
approval
that
we
give
to
staff
question
mark
Madam.
J
Mayor
council
president
Hallie
Burton,
so
from
a
historic
preservation
perspective,
that
is
an
administrative
decision.
We
have
a
decision
Matrix
that
determines
what
goes
to
the
commission.
What
is
Administrative,
that
is
an
administrative
decision
for
the
planning
part
I.
I
am
sorry
I'm
not
familiar
with
Parks
facilities
planning
in
terms
of
the
process
that
goes
on
there,
but
from
planning
standpoint,
administrative,
yes,
yeah,.
F
I
guess
you
know
so
one
of
my
questions
is
is
that
you
know
it's
very
clear
to
me
that
this,
the
group-
that's
testifying
tonight,
they're
not
appealing
the
historic
preservation
committee's
decision,
they're,
appealing
they're
in
disagreement
with
the
administrative
approval
for
this
facility
in
this
location.
F
But
that's
not
something
that
we
have
available
for
the
public
to
appeal
outside
of
being
in
a
historic
area.
So
there's
not
a
method
for
them
to
appeal:
the
city,
council
or
Planning
and
Zoning
outside
the
historic.
A
Right,
the
the
issue
at
hand
tonight
is
the
certificate
of
appropriateness,
not
the
decision
to
locate
the
bathroom
there,
which
is
Administrative,
which
is
why
we
don't
see
Jason
Miller
on
the
topic
of
bathrooms,
but
this
is
here
tonight
because
of
the
they've
appealed
the
certificate.
But,
as
council
member
said
said,
there
are
certain
things
that
have
to
be
looked
at
as
to
whether
or
not
the
commission
aired
with
regard
to
the
certificate
that
they
issued.
H
H
I
moved
to
deny
the
appeal,
because
I
think
there
are
two
different
issues
here,
only
one
of
which
is
in
front
of
us,
so
the
one
that's
in
front
of
us
is
did
the
historic
preservation
Commission
make
an
error
in
its
conclusion
that
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
required
XYZ
elements,
and
that
has
to
do
with
the
design
guidelines.
Judgment
calls
certainly,
sir,
as
to
whether
something
is
Congress,
Congress
or
incong
group
in
congruous,
but
they're
a
specialized
body,
and
our
code
directs
us
to
recognize
their
expertise
in
these
substantive
areas.
H
So,
on
the
discussion
that
mattered
most
to
me,
was
this
arbitrary
our
code?
Instructs
us
is
that
when
there's
room
for
two
opinions,
action
is
not
arbitrary
and
capricious.
If
the
Planning
and
Zoning
excuse
me,
the
historic
preservation
commission
exercise
honestly
and
upon
due
consideration
reading
their
transcript,
they
clearly
considered
all
of
this
stuff.
They
thought
about
it.
They
chewed
through
it.
They
worked
on
it.
H
I.
Take
your
bigger
point,
though,
that
you
don't
like
the
bathroom
and
you
don't
like
it
in
this
park
and
you
think
there's
a
better
part
for
it
or
better
place
for
it
and
I
applaud
you,
particularly
for
participating
in
the
planning
process.
Early.
H
The
design
was
accommodated
and
moved
around
to
consider
input
that
that
you
had
that's
the
right
process
and
the
right
place
to
do
it
and
I
understand
the
design
is
hopefully
a
little
better
because
of
your
participation
early,
but
that's
the
right
place
for
those
kinds
of
decisions
and
they've
been
made
administratively
here
on
the
historic
preservation
issue.
The
commission
didn't
make
an
error
on
the
things
that
it
was
supposed
to
consider
that
that's
my
conclusion.
F
And
Mary
there
was
some
discussion
at
the
historic
preservation
commission
about
color,
appropriateness
and
I.
Think
that
that
was
something
that
Parks
was
still
continuing
to
look
at
and
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
make
that
as
appropriate
as
possible
for
that
area.
So
I
guess
I
would
ask
you,
know
parks
to
continue
to
explore
ways
to
to
make
look
as
good
as
we
possibly
can.
I
agree
with
everything
that
Council
Pro,
Temp
agent
said.
F
F
You
know
I,
don't
know
if
I
agree
with
those
things,
but
that's
not
what
we're
hearing
tonight
I've
been
in
that
Park
a
number
of
occasions.
I
often
have
to
leave
if
I'm,
trying
to
prepare
for
a
council
meeting,
because
there's
too
many
preschoolers
there
using
the
park
at
the
same
time,
I
know
that
there's
a
bathroom
that
they
would
be
using
if
they're
there
I've
conducted
three
weddings
at
that
Park
before
we've
had
to
bring
in
a
porta
potty.
F
Every
single
time
would
have
been
nice
to
have
had
one
there,
there's
police
that
are
in
that
area,
more
so
than
most
other
areas
of
the
city
on
a
regular
basis.
It's
a
very
heavily
trafficked
pedestrian
street
and
one
that
we
see
more
pedestrian
activity
coming
forward
in
the
future
as
Grove
Street
and
some
of
the
other
areas
develop
there.
So
I
I
don't
agree
that
this
is
a
bad
location
for
a
bathroom
and
it's
actually
as
a
Parks
and
Rec
liaison
on
Council.
F
It's
the
first
time,
I've
actually
heard
somebody
request
not
to
have
a
bathroom
in
their
park.
They
usually
are
wanting
more
bathrooms
across
the
city
and
our
challenges
are
you
know,
with
the
frozen
pipes
and
everything
else,
and
so
we
have
porta
potties
and
Parks
across
the
city
and
the
neighborhoods
hate
it
and
they
really
want
there
to
be
a
permanent
facility
there,
and
so
there's
there's
other
groups
that
would
be
fighting
for
this
again.
F
Those
are
none
of
the
things
that
we're
hearing
tonight,
we're
really
just
hearing
the
focus
of
the
historic
preservation
committee
and
I.
Think
council
member
of
agent
laid
out
very
clearly
that
there
wasn't
any
air
in
the
narrow
scope
of
their
decision.
H
Metameric
quickly,
it's
a
secondary
concerns
I'd
like
to
amend
my
motion
to
deny
the
appeal,
as
we
discussed,
but
instruct
staff
to
return
with
findings.
Second,.
I
I,
concur
with
all
the
points
that
council
member
Beijing
so
eloquently
stated
I'll
just
say
from
my
personal
experience,
I'm
jealous
that
this
spark
is
getting
a
bathroom
I
would
like
parks
in
my
part
of
town
to
get
more
bathrooms.
There's
56
parks
with
playgrounds
and
I
would
like
them
all
to
have
bathrooms
and
if
they
weren't
so
expensive,
I'd
probably
be
proposing
that
I
am
the
oldest
of
nine
children
and
seven
year
age
gap
between
me
and
the
next
one.
I
So
my
youth
is
filled
with
memories
of
my
parents
awkwardly
running
around
from
business
to
business,
trying
to
find
a
place
for
my
siblings
to
use
the
restroom,
and
it
was
always
awkward
and
so,
but
we'll
have
more
options
for
families
downtown
who
are
enjoying
downtown
with
their
kids.
C
C
You
thanks
to
everyone
who
came
tonight,
it's
it's
great,
to
see
Civic
discourse
and
something
like
this
and
and
I
think
we've
all
learned
a
lot
of
things.
A
couple
of
things
I
think
are
worth
noting
and
worth
reiterating.
C
One
is
that
the
city
has
the
authority
to
do
this,
and
the
only
reason
that
it's
here
is
because
it's
a
historic
issue
and
to
some
of
the
other
council
members
comments,
we've
heard
over
and
over
again
that
folks
want
bathrooms
and
we've
had
work
sessions
on
that
and
the
importance
of
bathrooms
as
a
as
a
basic
human
need.
C
A
couple
of
things
came
to
mind
as
I
was
listening
to
the
different
testimonies,
and
one
is:
is
that
it's
this
is
such
a
Sticky
Wicket,
because
it's
in
a
Historic
Park,
but
there's
some
conversation
that
it's
not
a
Historic
Park
and
you
know
what
does
that
really
mean
because
it
was
generated
by
some
some
historic
artifacts
there
in
this
park.
C
At
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
deemed
a
Historic
Park
I
do
think
that
the
design
and
the
location
is
arbitrary,
based
on
one
thing
and
that's
the
fact
that
there's
a
Federal
Grant
because
of
that
I
think
it
makes
it
a
different
conversation
than
have
there
been
something
else.
C
I'm
gonna
vote
now,
but
I
I
want
to
make
it
clear
that
I
think
we
need
more
bathrooms
and
not
less
and
in
this
case,
I
think
that
there
could
have
been
some
more
options
that
were
considered
but
the
grant
tied
our
hands.
Thank
you.
H
F
A
A
Alrighty
welcome
back
everybody
now
we'll
head
back
to
the
other
topic.
Drh2333
we've
got
all
the
parties
involved
in
the
room
now
so
we'll
go
ahead,
we'll
hear
from
Josh,
then
John
Marshall
for
the
appellant,
then
are
you
Ryan
I
didn't
introduce
myself
when
I
said
hi
for
the
applicant.
G
J
Right.
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
The
item
before
you
is
a
appeal
of
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission's
decision
to
deny
the
appeal
of
a
design
Review
Committee
approval
which
modified
the
conditions
of
approval
for
a
multi-use
residential
building
under
construction,
currently
in
downtown
Boise.
J
So
the
site
is
addressed
at
120,
North,
12th
Street
at
the
North
or
sorry,
the
southeast
corner
of
12th
in
Idaho
generally
behind
the
Record
Exchange
Building.
J
The
approved
design
review
project
is
a
26
story,
mixed-use
building
six
levels
of
parking,
approximately
300
residential
units
with
access
off
of
the
alley
and
off
of
Idaho
Street.
It
is
directly
adjacent
to
the
Royal
Plaza,
which
is
a
residential
structure
which
was
built
some
time
ago
in
Boise,
the
rendering
of
the
proposed
project
just
showing.
It
is
certainly
a
very
large
and
very
tall
structure,
again
26
stories
and
a
significant
addition
to
downtown.
J
So
as
part
of
that
2021
design,
Review
Committee
approval,
we
included
a
standard
condition
for
construction
activity
and
it
reads
as
construction
activity
on
site
is
restricted
to
the
hours
of
6
30
a.m,
to
6
p.m,
Mondays
through
Fridays
and
8
30
a.m,
to
6
p.m.
On
Saturdays
and
Sundays,
the
zoning
code
does
not
address
hours
of
construction.
We
use
a
standard
condition
of
approval
on
design
review
permits
conditional
use
permits
any
action
that
goes
through
some
of
our
our
commissions
and
committees
for
entitlement
on
these
projects.
J
In
order
to
attempt
to
mitigate
construction
activities
for
adjacent
properties,
this
project
was
approved
in
2021.
We
have
since
revised
this
condition
to
be
more
comprehensive.
It
talks
about
what
sort
of
activities
are
allowed
outside
of
these
hours.
You
know
activities
within
enclosed
floors,
things
that
don't
make
noise
like
surveying,
painting
stuff
like
that
is
allowed
at
any
time,
and
then
we
also
added
a
a
clause
that
allows
the
director
to
temporarily
waive
these
hours
in
very
specific
circumstances.
J
A
J
Vladimir
I
believe
you'll
hear
some
testimony
on
that
I've
heard
conflicting
reports
about
what
sort
of
activity
is
going
on
outside
of
these
hours.
I
believe
they
have
the
the
letter
of
the
law
would
say
they
do
not
conduct
activity
outside
of
these
hours
until
the
appeal
process
is
complete.
Gotcha.
A
J
All
right
so,
when
the
design
Review
Committee,
took
up
the
application
and
made
their
decision,
they
did
approve
the
applicant's
request,
but
with
some
specific
parameters
around
those
concrete
pouring
activities,
so
they
stipulated
that
they
on
specific
days
they
can
start
at
4
am,
but
they
have
to
provide
a
monthly
schedule
for
the
for
the
neighbors
that
would
be
distributed
and
then
provide
a
three-day
notice.
J
So
subsequently,
an
appeal
of
that
decision
was
was
submitted
and
now
tonight
we
we
are
here
with
with
the
appeal
before
you.
So
the
grounds
that
were
submitted
by
the
appellant
are
the
neither
the
pnz
nor
design
review
have
articulated
any
standard
by
which
they
have
reviewed
the
request,
the
rationale
for
approving
the
requests
and
denial.
The
appeal
are
inconsistent
with
the
applicant's
testimony.
J
The
committee
and
commission
did
not
properly
weigh
the
impact
of
the
change
on
the
neighboring
residents,
and
the
decision
on
the
application
is
a
public
policy
question
that
needs
to
be
addressed
by
city
council.
So
in
their
deliberations
and
consideration
playing,
a
zoning
commission
did
take
some
additional
public
testimony.
They
considered
the
design
review
committee's
decision
and
the
record
that
the
design
review
committee
made
that
decision
on.
J
Ultimately
the
plans
doing
commission
empathize
with
the
residents
and
the
disruption
that
this
is
but
felt
that
it
was
a
Justified
and
necessary
exception
to
the
work
hours
and
therefore
denied
the
appeal,
as
evidenced
by
the
the
by
the
record,
the
designer
view
committee
was
within
its
its
jurisdictional
authority
to
change
the
conditions
of
approval
on
the
designer
view,
commit
or
permit.
J
We
do
not
have
standards
in
ordinance
regarding
construction
hours,
so
it
is
discretionary
and
it
is
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
the
design
Review
Committee
was
certainly
within
their
again
purview
and
authority
and
making
that
decision.
We
recommend
that
the
Deni
that
city
council
deny
the
appeal
upholding
the
design
review
committee's
decision
and
their
modified
conditions
of
approval.
Again
we
would.
H
Yes,
we
have
a
standard
condition
that
gives
hours
in
which
construction
can
take
place.
It
feels
like
that
condition
exists
to
balance.
Some
harms
harms
to
the
neighbors
on
one
hand,
burden
to
the
construction,
on
the
other
hand,
and
the
request
that
we're
reviewing
had
to
do
with
changing
those
conditions.
In
my
mind,
that
means
that
our
job
or
planning
and
zoning's
job
was
to
rebalance
the
Harms.
In
other
words,
look
at
well,
here's
the
nature
of
what's
going
on
in
the
construction.
This
is
why
it's
even
more
necessary.
H
It's
obviously
going
to
be
more
harmful
to
start
earlier
to
the
neighbors.
But
here's.
Why,
like
in
my
mind,
that's
the
test
to
be
used,
but
nobody
seems
to
really
clearly
be
articulating
that
test
anywhere
here,
the
applicant's,
not
the
appellants.
The
appellant
is
not
like.
What
is
the
framework
that
that
decision
was
supposed
to
have
been
made
in.
J
Madame
mayor
council,
Pro
Temp
agent,
the
framework
for
any
design
review
decision
is
number
one,
the
design,
review
standards
and
guidelines
and
then
number
two
Boise
Sydney
ordinance
in
terms
of
the
required
findings
for
the
design.
Review
Committee.
Neither
one
of
those
really
addressed
this,
so
it
is
very
much
a
difficult
area
to
decide.
You
know
conditional
use
permits
certainly
have
standards
about
impacts
on
adjacent
properties
and
that
review
process
takes
those
into
account.
J
Design
review
is
very
much
focused
on
how
projects
comply
with
the
design
review
guidelines,
which
again
do
not
mention
construction's
hours
at
all.
So
you
know
this
standard
condition
of
approval
is
an
attempt,
I
think,
as
you
said,
to
mitigate
some
of
these
impacts
on
adjacent
properties,
and
it
I
think
it's
a
difficult
one
to
articulate
about.
How
do
we
review
this?
What
is
the
standard
for
review
I
think
is,
is
a
little
bit
up.
Q
Just
by
way
of
quick
introduction
to
our
our
proposal
here
so
that
the
Appellate
is
the
broil
Master
Owners
Association,
it's
it's
not
me
and
and
I
as
as
a
as
a
owner
and
a
board
member
and
Tiffany
also
is
a
board
member
and
like
the
previous
protest
or
appellant,
we
would
like
to
split
our
testimonial
and
have
Tiffany
speak
just
a
little
bit
and
then
I
will
speak
a
little
bit
as
well.
If
that's,
okay,
oh.
A
R
Good
evening
my
name
is
Tiffany:
penicard
I
live
at
1112,
West
Main
Street
in
Suite
603
at
the
Royal
Plaza.
Thank
you
for
having
me
Madame,
mayor
and
council
members
I.
We
were
here
a
couple
months
ago
and
we
heard
the
applicant
talk
about
having
to
be
here
or
having
to
work
at
four
in
the
morning.
One
day
a
week
number
one:
it's
not
one
day
a
week.
It
was
at
three
o'clock.
It
was
at
3
30..
R
R
But
I
just
want
you
to
put
yourselves
in
our
shoes
and
I'm
gonna
play
you
the
noise
that
I
get
woken
up
by.
D
R
Husband
and
I
ever
I
don't
need
an
alarm
clock.
It's
6,
15,
sometimes
six,
sometimes
6
30
every
single
morning
and
I
just
want
to
play
that
for
you
and
then
I
want
you
to
think
about
your
parents
being
there,
because
my
next
door
neighbor
has
a
very
ill
husband,
that's
home
all
day
long
and
we
get
it
from
6
30
to
6..
R
We're
gonna
hear
this
all
day
long
I
get
to
leave.
My
husband
has
to
stay
home
and
work,
but
our
the
neighbors
below
me,
the
neighbors
beside
me.
One
has
dementia
the
other
one
Alzheimer's
and
has
they
have
to
listen
to
this
and
be
woken
up
all
day,
long
and
they're
requesting
four
in
the
morning
and
it's
more
than
one
day
a
week.
So
I
just
want
to
play
this.
D
R
And
that
is
what
we
get
to
listen
to
at
four
in
the
morning.
That's
what
they're
wanting
to
do,
but
we
do
get
woken
up,
no
matter
what
every
single
morning
at
between
6
30
around
that
time
frame,
and
we
hear
that
and
hear
it
and
my
neighbors
and
the
elderly
in
our
community
in
our
in
the
Royal
Plaza,
it's
tough
and
at
the
four
o'clock
time
frame.
We're
only
allowed
10
hours
of
peace,
10
hours
of
Peace,
even
at
the
four
o'clock
time
frame,
and
that's
just
not
it's
not
fair.
R
We
again
I
get
to
leave
in
the
in
the
daytime,
but
the
majority
of
the
owners
of
the
Royal
Plaza
are
there
and
we
promote
growth
I'm
a
real
estate
agent,
I,
promote
it
I
love
it
I,
love
downtown!
That's
why
I
moved
here,
but
I'm
just
begging
you
to
please
please.
Just
it's
not
a
safety
issue.
It's
not
a
one
day
a
week.
It
is
every
day
and
if
the
PNC
meeting
they
did
promise
to
keep
the
rules
and
the
first
couple
months,
I
emailed
the
planning
and
zoning
person.
R
I
was
kind
of
put
in
charge
of
emailing
every
time
we
heard
something
in
behalf
of
our
neighbors
and
and
it
was
difficult
just
to
get
a
response
on
I.
Don't
think
anybody
like
he
said:
I,
don't
it's
such
a
gray
area
but
I'm,
just
I'm
begging
you
to
listen
to
us
and
listen
to
what
we
have
to
hear
and
we
deserve
some
peace
just
a
few
hours,
a
piece
and
some
sleep.
So
thank
you.
Q
Q
I
I
appreciate
very
much
what
council,
Pro
Tim
badgett
had
to
say
in
terms
of
kind
of
wrestling
with
what
what
x
actually
are
we
doing
here
this
evening
and
how
do
we
do
it
and
I
think
Tiffany
did
a
good
job
of
explaining
one
interest,
which
is
the
homeowner's
interest
which
is
wanting
to
peacefully
enjoy
our
homes
at
some
level.
Now
we
we
all
understand,
there's,
there's
construction,
we
live
downtown
and,
as
Tiffany
said,
we
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
downtown
and
recognize.
Q
There's
some
externalities
that
go
along
with
that
and
we
appreciated
and
did
not
oppose
that
6
30
start
time.
The
6
30
a.m
to
6
p.m,
window
of
construction,
which
you
know
if
we
could
have
our
way.
We
wouldn't
have
that,
but
we
get
that
that's
reasonable
and
we
think
that
did
the
the
appropriate
job
of
balancing
the
interest
between
homeowners
enjoying
their
existing
homes
and
contractor
needing
to
get
a
building
built.
Q
The
current
request
is
something
new:
it's
it's
to
take
the
existing
balance
and
change
it
and
ask
the
homeowners
or
ask
the
council
to
to
put
the
homeowners
into
position
where
at
least
once
a
week,
the
start
time
would
be
4
a.m,
as,
as
has
been
stated
and
as
I
hope,
the
record
makes
clear
the
the
impact
of
that
4
AM
start
time
with
the
amount
of
noise.
Q
This
project
generates
is
significant
to
the
to
the
to
the
point
where
the
people,
particularly
on
the
north
side
of
the
building
that
are
really
an
Alleyway
adjacent
from
this
construction
project.
Really
you
just
can't
sleep,
it's
it's!
So
it's
so
noisy
and
again,
6
30,
that's
early
enough,
but
so
be
it.
Q
Well,
as
the
record
is
developed,
it's
clear
that
that's
actually
not
going
to
happen
in
the
sense
of
starting
at
four
is
not
going
to
keep
heavy
trucks
off
the
roads
because,
as
the
testimony
is
has
played
out
what
happens
is
during
these
concrete
pours.
The
trucks
come
in
every
10
minutes
or
so
for
hours
on
end
to
keep
a
constant
flow
of
concrete
going,
and
so
you
start
at
four,
but
you
have
concrete
trucks
on
the
streets
all
through
the
rush,
the
heavy
rush
hour
traffic.
Q
Is
this
idea
that
well,
it's
actually
more
convenient
for
us
to
build
our
building
the
way
we're
building
it?
If
we
can
pour
a
single
floor
at
a
time
and
on
some
occasions
it's
unclear
to
me,
if
it's
hot
weather
or
cold
weather
we've
heard
both
on
some
occasions,
they
can't
get
a
full
pour
done
on
a
single
day
and
and
when
that
happens,
the
the
remedy
is
that
you
take
a
floor
and
you
pour
it
over
two
days,
nothing
structurally
wrong
with
that.
Q
We've
heard
nothing
other
than
just
a
little
less
convenient,
maybe
a
little
more
costly,
and
so
what
we
have
is
we
have
these
two
competing
interests.
On
the
one
hand,
what
you
really
have
is
a
as
a
developer,
a
contractor
who
wants
to
appropriately
build
this
building
as
fast
as
they
can
as
economically
as
they
can,
but
there's
nothing
about
what
they've
proposed
that's
necessary.
It's
just
convenience
and
we're
on
floor
14.
Q
and,
as
as
we've
talked
about
a
little
bit
tonight,
the
the
start
time
is
6
30.
and
during
this
appeal
the
start
time
is
held
at
6.
30.,
there's
been
a
little
ambiguity
this
summer
with
whether
or
not
we
actually
got
to
go
to
four,
and
we
had
to
work
that
out
and
it's
it's
been
made
clear
that
it's
6,
30.
and
so
of
the
14th
floor.
Q
That
I
couldn't
tell
you
how
many
got
built
during
that
window
when
they
maybe
were
able
to
start
at
four
actually
a
little
earlier
than
four
as
it
turns
out,
but
for
the
most
part,
it's
clear
just
from
the
just
from
the
reality
of
what
we
see
out
there.
These
folks
are
able
to
build
this
building
with
a
6
30
to
6
PM
window
4
a.m
is
convenient
but
not
necessary.
It's
not
necessary
for
Public
Safety,
nor
is
it
necessary
for
building
Integrity,
it's
just
a
matter
of
convenience
and
again
on
balance.
Q
What
you're,
asking
for
or
what
or
the
the
the
the
the
the
opposing
interest
is
homeowners
of
existing
homes,
who
can't
get
a
good
night's
sleep
on
those
days
because
the
banging
and
the
loud
noises
and
the
beeping
all
starts
at
at
4
a.m,
which
is
in
our
in
our
opinion
in
in
our
requesty,
was
to
say:
that's
not
an
appropriate
balancing
of
Interest
the
existing
standards,
6
30
to
6
p.m.
Q
Weekdays
is
a
really
good
balance
between
getting
this
project
built
a
great
project
for
Boise
and
also
respecting
the
interests
of
the
existing
homeowners
and
their
ability
to
want
to
sleep
through
the
night
and
just
enjoy
their
homes.
I,
don't
think
I
need
to
add
anything
else.
At
this
point,
I'll
stand
for
any
questions
or
reserve
the
rest
of
my
time
for
rebuttal.
F
Question
and
comment:
I
guess:
I'll
start
with
comment:
sorry
about
the
loud
noise
that
is
terrible,
my
partner,
her
cell
phone
in
the
morning.
It
goes
off
because
she
always
wants
to
wake
up
early,
and
then
she
hits
snooze
like
10
different
times,
and
if
I
didn't
love
her,
so
much
I
would
lose
my
mind
and
it's
nothing
compared
to
remotely
to
the
sound
that
you're
going
through.
It
sounds
absolutely
terrible.
F
I
get
one
of
the
things
I
guess
I'm
hearing
you
say
is
that
Maybe
I
think
I'm
hearing
you
say
that
you're
not
opposed
to
them
starting
early
as
long
as
it's
as
long
as
it's
quiet
so
like
if
they're
at
their
four
a.m
in
the
morning,
and
it
is
painting
walls
and
it's
not
pouring
concrete
or
hammering
spikes
on
the
ground
you're,
not
necessarily
opposed
to
that
you're
opposed
to
any
loud
noises
that
are
starting
at
6,
30
and
you're
kind
of
saying,
I'm
willing
to
deal
with
the
terrible
noises
starting
at
6
30.
F
Q
Yeah,
so
so
Tiffany
was
speaking
and
echoing
exactly
what
I
would
have
said
in
answer
to
that
question,
which
is
it
it?
It's
not
an
it's,
not
a
philosophical
issue
about
starting
at
four,
it's
purely
the
noise
issue
and
when
Mr
Wilson
was
was
talking
about
how
there's
some
flexibility
in
the
in
the
new
way,
the
ordinance,
not
the
ordinance,
but
the
that
condition
is
written
where
there's
flexibility
to
do
things
inside
a
shell
great
like
no,
no
opposition
to
to
people
being
there
at
four
working
at
four.
Q
F
Q
Question
I
apologize
for
it,
I
apologize
as
well,
I'm,
not
feeling
the
formalities
in
terms
of
addressing
you
following
questions
but
and
and
my
experience
with
heavy
concrete
based
steel
construction
is
is
six
months
and
there
is
absolutely
no
way
you
can
do
what
they're
doing
and
be
quiet
and
there's
no
way.
Okay,.
I
Is
that
a
mayor
I
had
a
question
about
the
six
six
o'clock
in
time,
I
mean
I'd
much
rather,
construction
go
until
eight
than
start
at
four.
Has
that
been
a
discussion
at
all.
Q
Council
Madam
mayor
council
members,
there
was
some
discussion
about
that
at
the
pnz
deliberation.
It's
never
been
proposed
to
us.
In
fact,
nothing's
been
proposed
to
us,
either
by
staff
or
or
by
the
applicant,
which
I
guess
it's
a
little
frustrating,
but
but
we're
not
saying
that's
required
or
anything.
But
yes
to
directly
answer
your
question.
Would
we
rather
have
the
the
work
go
later
versus
earlier?
Q
F
Man,
mayor
I've,
got
a
question
for
staff.
If
I
could
real
quick
Josh,
do
you
have
it?
Thank
you
so
I
guess
my
question.
When
you
were
presenting
sort
of
at
the
beginning,
you
sort
of
explained
why
there
was
maybe
some
changes
that
would
allow
an
earlier
start
time
and
I
guess
when
you
were
saying
it
I
think
you
mentioned
something
specifically
like
painting,
but
I
think
that
you
also
had
mentioned
other
kind
of
construction
duties
that
aren't
interruptive
or
have
loud
noises,
maybe
I'm
putting
words
into
your
mouth.
J
Absolutely
Madame
mayor
council,
president
Hallie
Burton,
so
we
have
we've
had
a
few
of
these
issues
come
up
over
the
past
24
or
so
months.
One
went
to
playing
a
zoning
commission
that
didn't
get
appealed
to
council
and
then
also
you'll,
probably
wear
St
Luke's
had
a
major
concrete
pour
that
got
some
extended
hours.
So
this
is
something
that
we've
been
aware
of
and
working
on,
I've
thrown
on
the
screen
here.
J
The
new
condition
that
we
use
so
I'll
and
I'll
just
read
it
for
verbatim
so
to
reduce
the
noise
impact
of
construction
activity
or
construction
on
nearby
Residential
Properties.
All
exterior
construction
activities
shall
be
limited
to
hours
between
7
A.M
and
7
P.M
Monday
through
Friday
and
8
A.M
to
6
p.m,
for
Saturday
and
Sunday,
unless
otherwise
approved
by
the
planning
director
for
temporary
construction
activity.
Low
noise
impacts
such
as
surveying
layout
and
weather
protection
may
be
performed
at
any
time
after
each
further
structure
or
building
is
enclosed
with
exterior
walls
and
windows.
J
Interior
construction
of
the
enclosed
floors
can
be
performed
at
any
time.
So
that
was
our
attempt
and
we've
been
again.
You
know
this.
This
design
review
was
approved
in
2021.
We've
been
using
this
condition
for
about
a
year
now,
in
response
to
some
of
the
problems,
we
ran
into
the
old
condition,
so.
A
Did
you
have
a
follow-up
go
for
it?
So
I've
got
a
question
about
that.
So
this
one
is
6
30
to
6.
the
language
up.
There
says
seven
to
seven
is
but
I
also
see
that
the
planning
director
can
provide
can
approve
changes
for
temporary
activity.
So
if,
if
the
planning
director
were
to
approve
a
change
say
from
seven
to
seven
to
four
to
six,
would
that
then
come
back
to
us
or
is
that
is
this
new
language
that
gives
the
planning
director
more
oversight
than
he
has
currently
mad.
J
Mary,
yes,
it
does
give
the
plan
director
more
oversight
than
currently
and.
A
Then
what
do
we
do
for
for
weather?
So
I
I
hear
you
on
the
noise
like
we
live
next
to
Longfellow
School.
That
was
under
construction
for
two
years.
It
just
finished
and
I
got
to
tell
you
now
that
it's
over
and
we
hear
the
sounds
of
kids.
We've
all
forgotten
what
it
was
like
to
live
through
it
memory
short,
but
you
know
it.
It's
rough
to
our
Windows
face
right
on
to
where
all
the
trucks
would
show
and
everything
and
I
get
it.
A
It's
it's
a
lot
and
the
longer
it
goes
on
the
harder
it
gets
to
tolerate.
But
you
know
one
of
the
reasons
they
that
folks
would
show
up.
So
early
was
the
heat
issues,
so
does
that
become
with
this
language?
The
planning
directors
discuss
discretion
in
conversation
with
contractors
for
weather,
because
I'd
much
rather
it
be
at
the
end
of
the
day
too,
but
in
the
summer
I
mean
it's
hellaciously,
hot
and
I.
Think
that's
why
at
least
the
site.
J
The
the
heat
issue
I
think
the
way
that
this
condition
is
worded
does
specifically
speak
to
a
contemporary
construction
activity.
J
J
A
C
Mayor,
yes,
I
have
a
question
for
Josh
Josh
I'm,
looking
through
on
the
condition
of
approval
that
the
activities
May
begin
at
4
am,
but
that
the
applicant
had
to
provide
a
monthly
schedule
on
the
poor
days
to
planning
and
service
planning
and
development
and
to
the
stakeholders
did
that
occur.
J
F
Man,
mayor
one
one
follow-up
question
just
to
make
sure
that
I'm
reading
this
right.
The
first
part
of
this
statement,
basically,
is
what
has
given
our
director
the
ability
to
approve
that
temporary
construction,
and
that's
both
the
you
know
6
30
time
period,
but
then
also
maybe
this
additional
earlier
start
time
on
other
days.
The
second
part
of
this,
the
low
noise
impact
activities
all
those
types
of
things.
Those
can
happen,
no
matter
what
at
any
time
without
actual
approval
or
those
need
approval
as
well.
J
S
I
appreciate
this
language:
I
really
do
but
I
guess
I'm,
maybe
wanting
to
Circle
back
to.
We
have
to
look
at
the
reason
for
the
decision
that
was
made
in
this
particular
case
and
as
I
understand
it,
it's
really
been
focused
on
the
traffic
issue
that
I
think
was
raised
and
then
also
the
ability
to
pour
in
one
stage
single
slabs,
as
opposed
to
two
pores
and
I
guess:
I'm,
just
curious
about
you
know
what
has
been
and
and
I
guess.
S
S
J
S
T
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I'm
the
superintendent
for
the
subcontractor
performing
all
of
the
concrete
activity
at
the
12th
and
Idaho
project.
We've
requested
an
earlier
start
time
than
what's
prescribed
in
the
building.
Permit
we've
requested
4
AM
starts
with
the
intent
to
use
the
early
hours
for
large
placements
I
understand
the
current
start.
Time
is
6
30
and
the
4
30
start
would
only
be
for
placing
concrete
on
large
concrete
placements.
T
So
once
a
week
for
the
next
three
or
four
months,
or
so,
we
have
about
500
yard
concrete
placements.
We
pour
the
deck
the
core
and
all
the
columns
in
one
day,
and
then
we
move
on
to
the
next
deck
and
then
each
week
we're
going
up
one
level
if,
with
the
50
trucks
or
more
going
in
and
out
of
the
job
site,
40
ish
of
those
are
coming
in
at
like
a
five
to
eight
minute,
spacing
so
they're
in
they're
dumping,
their
concrete
and
they're
out.
T
It's
chaos.
There's
it's
a
lot
of
like
coordinated
Chaos
on
a
concrete
pour
the
truck.
The
larger
truck
traffic
will
dissipate
earlier
in
the
day,
usually
takes
four
to
five
hours.
To
pump
out
at
the
deck
which
is
taking
that
that's
when
you
get
a
lot
of
those
mixer
trucks
coming
in
filing
in
and
so
I
apologize
for
the
loud
activity
we
have
we've
had
issues
with
some
of
our
subcontractors
I.
T
Don't
not
aware
of
our
employees
working
at
3
30
in
the
morning,
but
we've
we've
made
changes
with
the
subcontractor
and
I
I
apologize
for
all
the
noise
you
make
outside.
T
We
put
it
into
it
as
best
we
could
yeah
I,
hope,
I,
hope,
there's
been
some
changes.
I
understand
that
the
Royal
Plaza's
concern
for
the
noise
earlier
in
the
day,
but
our
requested
start
early.
It
reduces
an
impact,
the
impact
on
neighboring
businesses,
it
it
improves
Public
Safety
and
it
reduces
the
risk
of
poor
Quality
Concrete.
T
Poor
quality,
with
lack
of
concrete
service
enabling
enabling
us
to
start
early
placements
in
the
day
will
alleviate
traffic
congestion
caused
by
construction
activity.
So
I
mean
the
the
appellant
alluded
to
the
fact
that
we're
going
on
I
mean
we're
we're
taking
four
or
five
hours
or
I
guess
12
hours
to
pour
out
all
these.
T
These
levels
with
the
the
decks
and
then
the
elevated
columns
and
core
it
does
take
about
12
hours
to
pour
the
whole
thing,
but
the
large,
the
the
big
like
heavy
traffic
time
it
takes
about
four
hours,
four
to
five
hours.
T
Getting
trucks
off
the
road
as
soon
as
possible
is
the
best
like
the
best
thing
we
can
do
for
everybody
in
the
neighborhood,
including
businesses
nearby.
That
I
mean
the
construction,
is
a
nuisance
and
mixer
trucks
and
pedestrians
and
public
traffic.
Don't
mix
well
like
the
especially
when
they're
backing
out
and
trying
to
trying
to
drive
down
the
road
as
fast
they
can,
so
they
can
go,
get
their
their
truck
filled
up
again
to
come
right
back.
T
T
That
afternoon,
in
the
summer,
there
was
usually
the
concrete,
like
concrete,
takes
off
fast
enough
that
you
can
continue
work
like
you
can
work
on
it
by
like
noon
ish.
If
you
started
at
6
30
as
we
get
into
the
cooler
months,
the
that
that
time
that
it
takes
for
that
concrete
to
get
its
initial
cure,
so
you
can
keep
going
and
and
work
the
the
schedule
that
that
we've
been
given
by
an
owner
it.
T
It
requires
us
to
start
earlier
in
the
day
to
get
on
it
within
enough
time
to
to
start
the
next
forming
operation
and
I
I
guess
the
the
early
morning
start
later
morning
starts.
They
impede
the
delivery
of
concrete
with
traffic
on
the
road,
our
suppliers,
they
they
tell
us
it's
hard
hard
to
get
concrete
to
us
and
it's
hard
to
get
the
building
built
without
without
getting
service
we've
lined
up
I
mean
we
have
our
our
placements
scheduled
with
our
supplier.
T
Probably
at
this
point
well,
I
mean
or
three
or
four
months
in
advance.
Right
now
and
they're
always
asking
us:
can
you
go
earlier?
Can
you
go
earlier?
Can
you
go
earlier
because
their
driver's
timeout
and
and
then
we
can't
get?
We
can't
get
service
I.
Think
the
there
was
a
question
that
the
whole
building
could
be
done
in
two
pores.
That
is,
that's
that's
possible
yeah,
but
it's
not
I,
guess
with
a
floor
plate
that
size
it
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
do
it
in
two
ports.
T
We
didn't
like
in
the
ramping
the
garage
parts
you've
noticed.
We
we
pour
up
to
the
adjacent,
pour
adjacent
the
previously
poor
deck,
and
it
was
that's
just
because
you're
you're,
following
yourself
up
the
ramp
Cork's
screwing
up
a
ramp
with
the
these
just
flat,
elevated
decks,
just
the
floor,
the
floor
plate
the
size.
Doesn't
it
doesn't
really
it's
not
cost
effective
and
then
it
would
take.
It
would
add
more
time
to
our
schedule,
which
is
not
not
cost
effective.
T
That's
that's
about
all
that.
I
have
I
appreciate
your
time
and
with
hope
that
you
guys
allow
us
to
alter
our
work
hours.
S
E
S
F
F
F
Days
and
you're
doing
it
once
a
week,
man
and
you're
doing
it
once
a
week,
yeah
so
and
Madame.
The
last
follow-up
question
there.
So
we
might
expect
then,
and
I
know
that
construction
doesn't
always
go
exactly
the
way
that
timing
is
supposed
to
be
I
used
to
do
construction.
F
Somebody
might
expect
that
once
a
week
for
the
next
14
weeks,
that
there'll
be
a
4
a.m,
start
date
and
probably
be
pouring
for
12
straight
hours
and
that's
a
realistic
expectation.
Yes,.
F
A
T
I
Sounds
like
you
need
12
hours.
You
prefer
the
morning
hours.
Can
you
do
an
entire
floor?
If
you
had
14
hours
between
6
a.m
and
8pm.
T
What
what
the
problem
is
for
us
generally
is
the
truck
service
later
in
the
day,
if
you're,
if
like
building
this,
this
kind
of
this
bigger
building
there
were
in
in
doing
a
deck
a
week
that
basically
the
drivers
time
out
later
in
the
day,
it's
usually
around
4
30
or
5
o'clock,
so
that
they're
they're
always
asking
us.
Can
you
go
earlier
because
they've
got
other
I
mean
they've
got
other
smaller
jobs?
They
try
to
do
in
the
afternoons,
but
it's
it's
always.
T
Can
you
go
earlier
from
the
from
the
supplier
and
for
us
it
it
helps
so
that
we
can
get
on
the
deck
earlier
in
the
day
during
the
summer
months,
safety,
like
heat
heat
illness,
that's
a
big
concern
in
the
construction
industry
is
heat
illness,
so
starting
early
in
the
morning,
makes
sense.
A
lot
of
guys
would
rather
work
from
four
till
three,
instead
of
like
eight
or
six
thirty
to
five,
because
after
two
o'clock,
it's
extremely
hot
and
then
I
guess
the
other,
the
other
early
work.
T
We
started
this
in
May
I.
Think
this
appeal
this
process
and
we
were
looking
forward
to
extreme
summer.
Temperatures
starting
earlier
in
the
day
pouring
concrete
it
reduces
the
amount
of
well.
It
helps
control
the
curing
time
of
the
decks
or
pouring
concrete
we're
pouring
and
provides
a
better
better
quality
product
for
for
an
owner,
I
think
starting
at
sick.
Going
from
six
to
eight.
We
would.
We
would
much
appreciate
that
if
the
4
am
I
mean
I
I,
don't
envy
you
I.
M
T
H
A
lot
of
times
when
we
change
conditions,
it's
because
a
condition
out
in
the
world
has
changed.
You
might
say
you
can
build
an
addition
to
your
house,
but
you
have
to
preserve
this
tree
and
then
lightning
strikes
the
tree
and
it
falls
down
and
somebody
will
come
back
and
say:
hey,
maybe
get
rid
of
the
condition
about
preserving
the
tree,
because
the
conditions
have
changed
here.
It
doesn't
sound,
like
any
condition,
has
changed.
D
T
Yeah
I
guess
I
guess
you're
right
there
there's
we
we
appealed
for
so
we
appealed
made
this
appeal
to
change
the
work
hours
based
on
our
mine
and
several
of
my
co-workers
experience
working
in
larger
metropolitan
areas
where
there
is
an
opportunity
to
go
to
the
it's,
usually
not
planning
and
zoning
I.
Think
it's
been
the
building
department
but
or
no
it
was,
it
might
have
been
the
roads.
I
can't
remember
who
who
did
the
noise
ordinance,
but
it
was.
T
It
was
not
through
planning
and
zoning
and
we
definitely
didn't
do
appeals
processes.
It
was
like
we
gave
a
piece,
we
turned
in
a
piece
of
paper
and
200
bucks
and
said:
can
we
before
at
six
o'clock
and
usually
I
mean
the
the
Concrete
service
in
a
larger
metropolitan
area,
is
much
better
than
it
is
here?
So
we
didn't
ever
really
have
to
start
earlier
than
six
and
it
was
much
more
mild.
It
was
in
Seattle,
much
more
mild
climate
yeah.
H
I
guess
my
question
and
I
think
you
answered
it,
but
it's
not
so
much
that,
for
instance,
a
bunch
of
streets
have
closed
and
now
it's
really
hard
to
get
into
the
site
or
lightning
struck.
Your
building
you've
got
to
do
like
nothing
has
actually
changed.
It's
just
that
throughout
working
on
this
job,
you
and
your
colleagues
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that
it'd
be
much
better
to
do
it
in
a
different
way
and
you're
asking
for
permission
to
do
that:
correct,
okay,
yeah!
Thank
you.
S
Manamere
last
question:
I'm
just
curious:
if,
if
we
are
comfortable
with
a
4
AM
start
once
a
week,
is
there
another
compromise
with
the
residents
to
limit
the
noise
on
other
days
like
later
starts
for
a
couple
of
days,
I
mean:
is
there
something
else
once
you
pour
you've
got
other
work
that
you
have
to
do?
Is
there
something
else
that
limits
that
noise?
If
they're
gonna
do
an
early
start
once
a
week?
Is
there
something
else
so
that
they're
not
just
adding
to
another
two
hours
or
any
alternatives
that
were
brought
forth.
T
We
didn't
bring
any
alternatives.
Reasoning
is
we.
We
want
to
get
these
these
placements
done
and
over
with
early
in
the
day,
so
that
we
don't
have
vehicles
and
pedestrians.
It
was
the
quality
issue
and
then
I
mean
our
impact
on
neighboring
businesses.
T
That
was
that
was
kind
of
the
reason
for
the
4am
and
start,
and
there
was
there
was
no
other.
This
would
seem
like
the
the
best
venue
that
we
could
find
through
like
through
through
trying
to
alter
the
work
hours
because
they're
prescribed
in
the
permit,
but
we
could
I
mean
I
I
would
like
to
if
a
4
AM
start
is
not,
is
not
something
that
I
mean
it
sounds
like
people
can't
get
behind
I'd
like
to
find
something
that
we
can
get
behind
something
better
than
6
30
to
6..
A
Right
we've
got
some
members
of
the
public
here
to
testify.
Just
here
to
watch
should
have
brought
some
popcorn
and
next
time
next
time.
All
right,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
nobody
is
here
or
online
to
testify
all
right.
Let's
go
ahead
and
hear
rebuttals
you've
heard
the
questions
councils
asked
some
proposals
on
the
table.
Q
A
couple
of
just
quick
things
to
just
to
kind
of
wrap
up
I,
don't
need
to
repeat
what
I
think
everyone's
probably
got
a
pretty
good
handle
on
this
now
and
the
competing
interest,
I
think
are
are
very
well
stated.
I
do
want
to
say,
I
appreciate
the
apology.
That's
that's
well
received.
Thank
you,
and
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
two
things.
One
is.
Q
It
has
gotten
better.
There
was
a
time
this
summer
where
there
was
work
starting
before
for
even
though
the
4
a.m
hadn't
been
approved,
and
there
was
some
tension
there
and
that's
all
gotten
better
as
indicated.
So
we
appreciate
that
I
also
want
to
make
it
clear
that
we
are
was,
from
the
association
perspective,
a
fan
of
this
building
of
this
project.
Q
We
think
it's
going
to
be
a
wonderful
addition
to
Boise,
so
we're
not
against
the
construction,
we're
not
against
mcilvane
we're
not
against
Power
Construction
we're
just
we
just
don't
want
to
have
that
4am
start
time.
One
one
thing
I
did
want
to
to
at
least
address
on
this.
This
question
council
member
Keith
you
had
raised
with
regard
to
kind
of
getting
at.
Q
Would
it
be
faster
getting
this
over
with
by
having
4
AM
start
times?
What
I'm
hearing
from
the
testimony
is
is
there's
some
days
when
they
can
get
it
done
with
6
30
to
6.
some
days?
Maybe
it's
when
it's
cooler,
they
need
a
little
longer
window
from
our
perspective,
if,
if
it's
a
few
more
days
of
concrete
pours,
so
they
have
to
split
one
into
two
or
or
let's
stay
there.
For
now
they
split
one
into
two.
Q
We
we
would
much
rather
have
five
ten
extra
days
of
construction
on
a
two-year
project
than
4
AM
start
times
during
the
the
build
of
the
actual
structure.
So,
from
our
perspective,
very
much
would
prefer
no
4
AM
start
time.
A
few
more
extra
days
of
work.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
address
is
is
as
we're
talking
through
this
a
little
bit
hearing
the
testimony
from
the
applicant.
Q
We
want
to
be
good
neighbors,
just
like
we
want
McLean
to
be
good
neighbors
to
us
and
if,
if
there's
a
proposal
that
we
can
work
out
collectively
here
to
say,
6
30
to
8
once
a
week
to
give
them
the
time
frame
they
needed
I
get.
You
know
again,
it's
not
ideal
from
what
they're
saying,
but
you
know
on
balance
it
seems
like
that
would
be
a
pretty
good
compromise
where
we're
not
having
to
get
woken
up
at
four.
Q
Q
Yes,
so
just
just
to
emphasize
the
the
the
the
the
actual
appeal
is
a
4
AM
start
time
for
concrete
pours.
That's
that's
a
one
day
event
on,
but
the
background
is
that
every
single
day,
starting
at
6,
30,
the
bang,
bang,
bang
lights,
it's
it's
very
noisy.
So
it's
it's
an
added
burden
and
again
the
burden
from
6
30
to
6.
We
get
it.
That's
that's
the
way
it
goes,
but
it's
that
4am
start
time
that
we're
asking
you
to
say
no
to
happy
to
answer
any
further
questions.
If
anyone
has
any.
F
So
in
the
in
the
memo
that
we
got
from
staff,
there's
kind
of
a
bunch
of
different
grounds
where
they
appealed
the
second
one.
The
rationale
for
approving
the
request
and
denial
of
the
peel
are
inconsistent
with
apple
applicant's
testimony
and
then
the
response
is
that
about
the
shorter
hours
I
guess
you
know
one
thing
that
I
couldn't
quite
wrap.
My
head
around
as
far
as
consistency
goes,
is
it
kind
of
seemed
like
we
were
pouring
for
12
hours
right
now.
F
F
You
know
heat
being
one
of
those,
that's
kind
of
not
where
we're
at
right
now,
and
so
that's
I,
guess,
sort
of
a
response
that
I'm
I'm,
seeing
that
there
are
PR
there
are
perhaps
some
inconsistencies
in
that
we
are
saying
that
yes,
a
shorter
time
would
be
a
challenge,
but
it's
not
necessarily
saying
a
specific
time
frame
has
to
happen
whether
it's
12
hours,
it
starts
at
4,
AM
or
6
a.m.
J
Madam
mayor
council,
president
Halliburton
I
I
would
say
that,
with
the
heat
of
the
Summer
Past
I
think
circumstances
have
certainly
changed.
You
just
point
that
out
I
think
in
the
applicant
address
that
as
well.
I
think
we're
looking
at
a
different
scenario
now
in
terms
of
working
later,
possibly
working
I
think
he
also
admitted
that
maybe
they
weren't
stopping
at
6
00
PM.
So
you
know
cheating
hours
a
little
bit
that
way
to
accomplish
it
so
far
so
correct,
yes,
I
think
there
has
been
some
inconsistencies
about.
J
How
long
does
this
actually
take?
I
think
you
know
really
dialing
into
it
tonight
about
like
well
now
that
the
heat
of
Summer
has
passed
these
later
hours
could
be
something
they
could
work
with.
I
think
is
helpful,
clarification,
I,
think,
certainly
for
staff
and
for
Council
as
well
and.
F
Then
mayor
I
have
kind
of
a
process-
follow-up
question
here,
so
we've
got
an
an
appeal
in
front
of
us
and
I'm
wondering
as
far
as
paths
forward.
If
we
were
going
to
change
time,
is
that
something
that
we
have
the
authority
to
do
up
here?
That
says
that
the
planning
director
has
the
authority
to
do?
Do
we
direct
the
planning
director
to
do
something?
Do
we
like
what
are
our
options
here?
If
you
were
wanted,
if
we
were
wanting
to
explore
a
different
time
period,.
J
Of
Mountain
America
council
president
Hallie
Burton
I
would
direct
you
to
the
last
page,
the
staff
member
talks
about
the
grounds
for
appeal
and
then
council's
ability
to
change
the
decision.
So
it
says
if
error
is
found,
the
review
body
decision
may
be
reversed
or
modified.
That
modification
could
include
a
change
to
conditions
of
approval,
as
we
as
we've
talked
about
tonight,.
J
F
F
You
do
you,
even
if
you're
one
of
those
folks
who
get
up
in
the
morning
like
the
mayor
and
go
for
a
run
or
go
to
the
gym
like
nobody's
getting
up
at
4am
in
the
morning
like
that.
That
is,
that
is
pure
punishment.
F
Yeah
the
workers
absolutely
well
in
so
many
workers,
but
I
guarantee
that
they
don't
want
to
and
given
a
choice,
they
would
probably
choose
to
not
be
getting
up
at
4am
in
the
morning
and
so
I
think
that
there's
a
work
around
here,
I,
don't
know
that
it's
6
a.m.
F
Instead
of
you
know,
5
30
a.m
or
like
how
you
actually
get
to
the
point
where
you
find
that
that
period
of
time
but
I'm
not
at
a
spot
where,
for
you,
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
any
Resident
to
be
interrupted
by
Construction.
H
F
I
think
the
error
that
I
would
identify
was
that
the
yes
I
can
find
it.
F
On
the
appeal
grounds
of
number
two,
the
rationale
of
proving
the
requests
are,
and
the
deniable
appeal
are
inconsistent
with
the
applicant's
testimony.
I
do
think
the
applicant
was
inconsistent
with
the
testimony
saying
that
here
it's
saying
that
they
only
really
considered
the
shortening
of
the
period
of
time,
but
not
necessarily
the
different
times
throughout
the
day
and
I
think
that
we
heard
you
know
a
couple
of
different
points
saying
that,
like
yes,
we
might
be
able
to
do
it
later
in
the
day.
F
It'd
be
different
to
do
earlier
in
the
morning,
but
nothing
that
would
say
that
we
actually
you
know
nothing-
that
we
can't
actually
get
done
in
a
12
hour
period
of
time,
depending
on
if
it
starts
in
different
spot
and
so
I.
Don't
think
that
that
is
consistent
with
applicants.
Testimony
so
I
think
that
that
would
be
the
grounds
where
we
would
find
the
error.
F
Better
mirror
I
move
that
we
uphold
the
appeal
and
that
we
direct
staff
to
different
hours,
starting
at
5
30
a.m,
and
not
exceeding
over
12
hours
in
a
day.
I
F
Yeah
I
think
that,
like
constraining
it
to
12
hours
and
14
hours
makes
sense,
I
do
think
that
giving
them
an
earlier
start
time
does
give
them
some
advantages
to
getting
things
done
a
little
bit
earlier,
but
yeah
I
would
say
no
earlier
than
5
30
and
no
more
than
14
hours
a
day.
I
I
feel
like
we're
negotiating
on
the
price
of
a
house
yeah
14
hours
that
put
them
at
7
30.
I
F
I
think
I
said
all
the
things
that
you
know
has
kind
of
had
on
my
mind
earlier.
I
want
to
get
this
construction
project
done
as
soon
as
possible
and
I
think
that
that's
important
I
don't
want
to
add
extra
obstacles
to
the
construction
company.
I
want
to
give
them
a
window
of
time
to
get
those
things
done.
I
think
if
it
was
the
summer
time,
certainly
there's
a
really
hard
argument
to
be
made
for
getting
things
started
earlier
in
the
day.
F
I,
don't
know
that
we're
at
that
same
spot,
so
those
are
some
of
the
conditions
that
have
changed
I,
also
like
completely
understand
like
even
at
6
30
a.m
or
6
a.m.
F
You
know
we
we
certainly
have
you
know
an
issue,
that's
really
really
hard
for
the
neighbors
neighbors
to
deal
with,
but
we
do
want
to
get
it
done
as
fast
as
we
possibly
can
I
think
5
30
a.m,
given
the
proper
notice
that
is
required
in
here
one
day
a
week,
you
know
is
something
that
if
it
can
help
it
move
along
a
little
bit
faster
that
you
know
it's
something,
that's
better
than
nothing
and
something
that
can
get
the
project
done
at
the
same
time
period
that
we
want
to
I
do
think
that
there
was
an
error
that
was
made
really
not
considering
the
ability
to
go
to
a
different
time,
but
really
only
looking
at
from
a
point
of
view
of
like
we're,
either
going
to
go
for
a
smaller
window
or
a
4
AM
start
time
and
I,
don't
think
it
was
adequately
considered
that
we
actually
look
at
a
slightly
later
start
time
that
incorporates
the
longer
the
longer
hour
of
reporting
that
actually
achieves.
A
So
a
couple
things
did
your
motion:
direct
staff
to
return
with
findings.
F
And
to
return
with
findings,
including
a
5
30
a.m,
start
time
in
no
later
than
14,
with
the
reasons
discussed
and
to
come
back
with
those
for
Council
approval
and.
A
Did
your
are,
is
the
are
the
other
elements.
J
F
Amend
the
hours
from
4
AM
to
5
30
a.m,
to
also
include
a
maximum
limit
of
14
hours
per
day
and
to
include
everything
else
that
is
in
the
conditions,
including
the
notification
three
days
prior.
A
S
A
F
Are
those
are
on
the
days
of
concrete
poor
and
the
days
that
will
be
notified
to
Neighbors
that
was
listed
in
the
existing
condition?
That's
on
here
really,
the
time
being
modified.
E
H
Modify
if
we
have
an
error,
conflicting
testimony,
isn't
in
the
appeal
standards
we
have
to
find.
It
was
either
made
without
a
rational
basis,
which
there's
a
rational
basis
here
or
in
disregard
of
the
facts
and
circumstances.
I
think
the
commission
did
regard
them
or
that
the
decision
is
not
supported
by
substantial
evidence,
even
if
their
risk
parts
of
the
presentation
that
conflict
that
there's
still
substantial
evidence,
so
I
can't
get
there
on
that
one.
H
The
second
point
that
there
wasn't
adequate
consideration
of
an
alternate
time
window
is
tempting
to
me,
but
if
I
adopt
that
kind
of
thinking,
I
can
just
propose
my
own
compromise
announce
that
Planning
and
Zoning
didn't
consider
it
and
find
error
on
that
basis.
That's
not
I.
Don't
think
the
right
way
to
go
about
it,
because
that
essentially
debts
the
appeal
standard,
so
not
being
able
to
find
an
error
I,
don't
find
a
way
to
come
up
with
a
compromise
or
alternate
time
frame.
D
S
F
I
understand
that
concern
I,
think
where
I
find
is
you
know
when
we
look
at
section
five
here,
the
decision
is
arbitrary,
capricious
or
an
abusive
discretion,
in
that
it's
circum
in
that
it
was
made
without
a
rational
basis
or
disregard
of
the
facts
and
circumstances
presented
and
I.
Think
what
we're
talking
about
there
is.
The
circumstances
that
were
presented
were
really
only.
It's
either
starts
at
4
AM
or
it's
a
shorter
time
period.
F
And
I
think
that
there
was
disregarding
of
the
facts
that
we
actually
could
still
achieve
the
longer
time
period
at
a
longer
basis.
That's
where
I'm
getting
to
this
point
here
is
that
there
was
a
disregarding
a
facts
that
there
was
a
different
time
period
that
we
could
be
looking
at
and.