►
From YouTube: City Council Regular Evening Meeting - 4/13/21
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
Hello,
everybody
welcome
to
those
of
you
who
joined
us
tonight.
Welcome
back
the
we're
going
to
start
the
meeting
with
an
invocation
which
we
will
observe
by
a
moment
of
silence,
followed
by
the
pledge
of
allegiance.
A
B
A
A
Oh
elaine,
I
think
your
microphone
is
off,
but
we
heard
you
did.
B
F
B
A
Thanks
next
up,
we
have
the
reappointment
of
craig
brasher
to
the
building
code
board
for
a
four
year
term,
and
I
thought
I
saw
craig
on
zoom
for
a
moment.
Hello,
welcome
and
thank
you
for
your
willingness
to
continue
to
serve
and
we'll
first
take
a
unanimous
consent
request
for
your
reappointment
and
then,
if
you'd
like
you're,
more
than
welcome
to
say
something.
A
G
Mayor
asked
unanimous
consent
to
reappoint
craig
brasher
to
the
building
code
board
for
a
four-year
term,
ending
in
may
of
2025
without.
A
H
Yeah
I'd
just
like
to
take
this
opportunity
to
say
thank
you
very
much
for
this
opportunity
again
to
serve
the
city.
I
think
it's
so
important
that
all
of
our
citizens
do
whatever
they
can
to
help
their
community
in
an
area
of
their
expertise,
or
at
least
where
they
can
put
in
energy
and
effort.
So
I
think
it's
such
an
important
thing.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
giving
me
this
chance
again.
G
Mayor,
yes,
craig,
I
just
want
to
say
building
code
is,
is
one
that
I
would.
I
really
appreciate,
because
it's
such
detailed
work,
and
so
thanks
so
much
for
your
service,
and
I
love
your
guitar
on
the
wall
behind
you.
Oh.
A
Next
up
we
have
our
consent
agenda.
All
items
on
the
consent
agenda
are
considered
to
be
routine
by
the
council
and
will
be
enacted
by
one
motion.
There
will
be
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
A
Promotion
and
second.
A
I
I
just
want
to
note
for
the
record
that
I
will
be
abstaining
from
resolution
167-21,
it's
just
a
an
easement
with
my
company.
I
work
for
idaho
power
thanks.
I
A
C
Ord-12-21,
an
ordnance
car
20-000-15
for
property,
located
at
3435
north
33rd
street,
amending
zoning
classifications
of
the
city
of
boise
city
to
change
the
classification
of
real
property,
particularly
described
in
section
1
of
this
ordinance
from
r-1c
single-family
residential
urban
to
r-1md
town
lot,
residential
with
design
review
overlay,
sending
forth
a
reason
statement.
Support
is
such
zone
change
and
provide
an
effective
date.
C
Ord-13-21
an
ordnance
car
20-0-0-23
for
a
properly
located
1717
south
federal
way,
amending
zoning
classifications
in
the
city
of
boise
city
to
change
the
classification
of
real
property,
particularly
described
in
section
1
of
this
ordinance
from
medium
density,
residential
r-2
to
multi-family,
residential
with
design
review.
R-3-D,
send
forth
a
reason,
statement
and
support
us
at
zone
change
and
provide
an
effective
date.
C
He
recorded
with
the
ada
county
recorder
and
filed
with
the
ada
county
assessor
and
the
idaho
state
tax
commission,
as
required
by
law
and
provide
an
effective
date,
ord-15-21
an
ordinance
repealing
boise
city
code,
title
9,
chapter
12
and
replacing
it
with
boise
city
code,
title
9,
chapter
12,
moving
deconstruction
demolition
of
buildings,
adopting
standards
for
the
moving
deconstruction
and
demolition
of
buildings,
including
material
and
waste
management
practices,
permitting
administrative
procedures
and
penalties.
Approving
a
summary
of
the
ordinance
and
providing
effective
date.
A
C
4D
dash
11-21
and
ordnance
cr20-0004
for
properly
located
at
13984
west
jasmine
lane,
boise,
idaho,
83713,
amending
zoning
classifications
of
the
city
of
boise
city
to
change
the
classification
of
real
property,
particularly
described
in
section
1
of
this
ordinance
from
open
lands
8-1
to
general
commercial,
with
design,
review
and
development
agreement.
C-2
d-d-a,
sending
forth
a
reason,
statement
and
supporters
at
zone
change
and
provide
an
effective
date.
G
Madame
mayor
just
I
know,
some
members
of
the
public
are
interested
in
one
of
these.
Our
process
will
be
that
we'll
read
them
and
then
vote
on
them,
and
so
with
that
I
would
ask.
I
would
move
that
further
reading
of
ord
8
21
excuse
me.
I
C
Ord
dash
8-21
an
ordinance
amending
boise
city
code,
title
6,
chapter
10,
article;
a
parking
regulations
to
amend
the
black
face;
definition
in
section
4.
to
amend
section
11
to
refine
vehicle,
extended
parking
prohibition
to
amend,
section
12
to
refine
non-vehicle
or
extended
parking
prohibition
to
add
a
new
section
13
that
requires
movement
from
a
block
face
after
the
expiration
of
the
metered
or
signed
parking
period.
To
remember
all
the
sections
subsequent
to
the
newly
added
section
13
and
provide
an
effective
date.
C
3-1-3-6-4-3
and
4-1,
deleting
section
4-4
and
adding
section,
1-6
and
2-7
to
add
a
legal
authority
to
provide
definitions
to
add
an
immense
scope
of
applicability
to
reorganize
and
amend
residential
collection,
container
trash
recycling
and
compost
provisions,
including
limitations
to
bulky
items
for
collection
to
add
service
accounts
for
non-property
owners
to
reorganize
and
amend
commercial
collection,
container
frequency
and
service
agreement.
Provisions
to
clarify
construction
and
demolition.
Hauling
provisions
to
amend
general
requirements
and
prohibitions
to
reorganize
and
amend
provisions
relating
to
franchise
agreements
and
permits
to
amend
provisions
relating
to
fees
and
for
services.
A
J
Madam
mayor,
yes,
thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Yes,
I
have
received
emails
from
constituents
who
are
concerned
about
this
ordinance.
I
it
sounds
like
it
has
a
lot
to
do
with
the
complaint
driven
aspects
of
enforcing
the
ordinance
when
it
comes
to
moving
the
vehicles
after
a
certain
period
of
time.
B
J
J
I
know
for
myself
when
I
was
a
civil
rights.
Investigator
you'd,
be
surprised
how
many
complaints
had
to
do
with
folks
using
laws
to
harass
their
neighbors.
So
that
is
something
that
the
constituents
have
brought
to
my
attention.
I
I
do
believe
we
do
need
to
make
some
changes
to
our
parking.
J
I
know
that
when
we
decided
to
increase
the
fees
at
our
parking
meters,
I
heard
from
a
lot
of
businesses
who
were
up
in
arms
about
that.
I
haven't
heard
from
any
businesses
about
this
issue
so
far.
The
only
folks
that
I've
heard
from
have
been
residents
who
are
concerned
about
what
this
means
for
them
and
bringing
them
in
closer
contact
with
neighbors
who,
unfortunately,
they
don't
have
good
relationships
with.
F
Madam
mayor,
yes,
a
couple
of
things
to
clarify,
I
think,
for
the
public.
I've
certainly
been
getting
those
emails
as
well
and
for
anybody.
Who's
reporting
on
this
idaho
code
currently
provides
that
the
streets
belong
to
the
public
and
that
the
streets
are
public
right
away
and
that
we
all
own
them
and
to
ensure
that
that
stays
that
way,
the
idaho
code
requires
that
a
vehicle
must
be
moved
every
72
hours.
F
F
Do
we
take
that
to
be
the
highest
priority
of
the
boise
police
department
and
our
parking
enforcement?
Of
course,
not
the
general
rule
that
we've
always
applied
and
will
continue
to
apply,
is
if
your
car
or
your
vehicle
is
not
bothering
anyone.
It's
probably
not
going
to
be
our
number
one
priority
to
crack
down
on
the
72-hour
rule.
F
The
first
thing
to
understand
is
that,
if
you're
not
having
problems
with
that
now,
you're
not
likely
to
have
problems
with
that
under
this
ordinance
change.
All
that's
really
changing
here
is
that
we
are
clarifying
that
moving
your
vehicle
means
moving
at
a
meaningful
distance,
because
right
now,
as
the
council
pro
tem
just
pointed
out,
people
do
take
advantage
of
the
rules
and
manipulate
the
rules
in
order
to
take
advantage
of
their
neighbors.
F
So
we
have
a
lot
of
problems
in
our
community
with
quasi-abandoned
vehicles,
quasi-abandoned,
boats,
trailers,
things
like
that
that
are
essentially
dumped
in
front
of
people's
houses,
and
then
the
owner
of
the
vehicle
will
move
it
six
inches
back
and
forth
to
take
advantage
of
the
72-hour
rule.
That
is
a
way
that
neighbors
abuse
each
other.
F
You
have
to
move
at
600
feet
and
the
purpose
of
that
is
to
number
one
make
sure
that
our
code
aligns
with
the
state
law
which
already
says
vehicles
must
be
moved
every
72
hours
and
number
two
to
ensure
that
the
public
streets
that
we
all
pay
for,
that
we
all
enjoy
aren't
being
you
know,
sequestered
for
private
use
in
this
way
now
you're
the
the
council
president,
pro
tem
is
right
that
there
may
be
unintended
consequences
here.
We.
B
F
Discover
that
certain
people
in
our
community
use
this
as
an
opportunity
to
harass
their
neighbors
or
to
you
know,
to
get
at
people
somehow
I
don't
see
that
happening
because
it's
not
happening
now.
You
could
be
harassing
your
neighbors
under
the
current
ordinance,
but
if
it
does
happen,
we
can
adjust
this
ordinance.
We
can.
We
can
come
back
and
revisit
that
problem
when
it's
concrete.
F
What
we
have
right
now
is
a
concrete
problem
of
people
taking
advantage
of
public
space,
taking
advantage
of
their
neighbors
and
taking
advantage
of
the
public
streets
to
to
store
things
where
they
shouldn't
be
stored.
So
that's
what
this
ordinance
is
aimed
at
fixing
if
these
types
of
problems
that
the
community
has
reached
out
to
to
all
of
us
about
really
do
manifest
themselves.
I
know
I've
talked
with
the
council
president
offline
about
this.
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
You
know,
I
too
have
received
those
complaints
and,
in
fact,
20
years
ago
observed
activity
in
my
own
neighborhood,
where
people
use
the
72-hour
ordinance
that
is
already
on
the
books
in
the
city
of
boise
to
harass
their
neighbors.
I
know
that
that
possibility
exists.
I
also
know
that
currently
we
have
businesses
who
are
unable
to
allow
their
customers
to
really
access
their
business,
because
other
people
are
taking
advantage
of
this
ordinance
in
other
ways.
G
Because
of
that
imbalance,
I'm
willing
to
give
this
new
ordinance
a
try
and,
as
council
member
beijing
said,
if
other
issues
arise
as
a
result,
look
at
it
and
see
what
adjustments
need
to
be
made
to
the
citizens
of
boise.
I
would
say:
don't
harass
your
neighbors
there's
just
no
reason,
for
it
be
kind,
be
nice,
that's
what
boise
is
all
about.
L
Madam
again,
like
other
council
members,
have
received
several
complaints,
I
think
that
I
got
maybe
an
extra
share
of
bicycle
commuters,
who
had
some
concerns
about
it,
for
obvious
reasons.
L
The
first
time
that
this
appeared
was
under
the
the
first
reading
of
the
ordinance,
and
I
don't
think
that
I
did
enough
due
diligence
really
looking
at
it
to
maybe
request
it
to
be
off
that
to
actually
have
a
further
discussion
right
up
front,
which
maybe
would
have
created
more
opportunity
for
public
input.
L
L
I
do
enjoy
that
the
public
profit
process
helps
make
things
that
aren't
perfect,
more
perfect
and
that
we
go
through
that
process
to
do
it,
and
I
think
that
one
of
the
reasons
we're
hearing
some
of
the
comments
now
is
because,
even
if
I
would
have
pulled
it
off
that
first
time,
it
wouldn't
have
been
listed
as
an
opportunity
for
people
to
really
see
on
the
agendas
like.
L
This
is
something
obvious
that
we're
going
to
talk
about,
and
what
I've
learned
is
that
people
in
boise
are
very
passionate
about
parking
for
a
variety
of
different
reasons,
and
you
know,
especially
when
it
comes
to
where
they're
parking
in
front
of
their
business
or
whether
parking
in
front
of
their
home.
I
do
believe
it
may
have
been
worth
discussing
it
earlier
on,
but
I
am
in
favor
of
it,
because
I
do
think
that
it
is
better
than
what
exists.
Now
and
again.
J
I've
been
in
that
situation
when
I
was
a
homeowner,
I
had
a
neighbor
who
there's
just
no
other
way
to
say
it
was
associated
with
a
drug
dealer
and
that
person
would
seasonally
park
their
rv
on
the
street
in
front
of
my
house,
and
that
was
not
the
view
I
wanted,
but
I
also
was
hesitant
to
report
it
because
I
was
afraid
all
around.
I
was
afraid
to
report
it
and
one
day
it
just
was
christmas
day,
and
I
just
I'm
like.
J
J
I
wanted
to
be
able
to
enjoy
where
I
live
and
not
have
an
eyesore
like
that
in
front
of
my
home,
but
I
would
say
that
right
now
we're
still
dealing
with
the
effects
of
covid
and
which
we
know
are
cascading.
It's
not
just
about
the
illness
that
people
have.
It's
also
about
the
displacement
that
people
are
experiencing
because
of
issues
of
housing,
and
I
just
feel
that
I
would
absolutely
support
this
ordinance
a
little
further
down
the
road.
J
I
think
right
now
we
are
taking
steps
to
address
those
other
issues,
but
I
think
there's
some
folks
who
are
doing
their
best
in
a
very
challenging
situation
and
you're
talking
to
somebody
who
drove
the
same
car
for
the
better
part
of
20
years,
and
there
were
times
I
was
that
person
who
I
just
ran
out
of
money
and
I
ran
out
of
car
and
I
needed
grace.
D
Madam
mayor,
yes,
thank
you.
I
also
got
the
emails
one
from
a
gentleman
who
lives
not
too
far
from
me
in
the
east
end
where
you
know
people
park
on
the
street,
they
don't
have
driveways,
they
don't
have
barrages,
they
can
park
in,
and
I
think
you
know
it's
a
very
real
concern
where
people
are
working
from
home
and
they're
not
leaving
their
homes
as
often
that
you
know
they
might
be.
In
violation
of
this.
D
So
I
think
that
there
are
ways
that
people
can
work
around
this
and
I
think
it
really
does
address
an
issue
that
I
mean
frankly
parking
at
the
curb
is
not
I
mean
it's
just
not
an
acceptable
way
to
occupy
the
public
right-of-way.
We
don't
have
a
right
to
do
that,
and
so
I
would
say
yes,
neighbors
give
neighbors
grace,
but
I
think
that
this
is
very
much
needed
right
now
and
we
can
review
it
if
it's
inhumane,
but
I
don't
think
it
will
be.
G
Yes,
go
ahead,
just
one
more
comment:
if
I
might,
we
have
access
right
now
to
a
lot
of
money
for
rental
assistance,
and
it
occurs
to
me
that
if,
in
fact
we
find
people
who
are
on
hard
times
and
that's
why
they're
in
violation
of
this
ordinance,
we
have
the
opportunity
right
now
to
help
them,
and
so
I
I
am
going
to
support
this
ordinance
I
always
have.
But
it
actually
occurs
to
me
that
in
some
ways
it
might
give
us
access
to
some
people
that
we
could
help
that.
A
I
Just
note
that
I
I'll
be
supporting
this
motion.
I
think
that
there's
been
quite
a
bit
of
thought
and
process
in
terms
of
being
a
delicate
about
the
wording
to
ensure
that
we
try
to
do
it
correctly.
First
time
out
of
the
gates
we
know.
Sometimes
we
do
have
to
go
back
and
tweak
things
and
improve
them.
This
would
not
be
an
exception,
so
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion.
I
think
it's
a
good
start.
Thank
you.
A
All
right
with
that
clerk
will
you
call
the
role.
H
G
Error,
yes,
we
still
have
two
other
ordinances
on
third
reading.
I
move
approval
of
ord
921
and
ord
1021.
B
B
A
And
we
will
move
on
now
to
new
businesses,
the
public
hearings,
so
before
welcome
cody
before
cody
gets
started.
I
think
these
are
in
order.
Doa
20,
I'm
just
checking
yes,
okay
before
tony
gets
started,
there's
nobody
in
it
that
signed
up
in
advance
on
zoom,
but
if
you're
here
for
any
of
these
items,
raise
your
hand
and
we'll
be
sure
to
call
you
miss
taylor.
We've
got
you
here
for
the
first
item.
A
So
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
have
cody
looks
like
cody
and
then
for
the
third
item
crystal
will
be
presenting
we'll
hear
from
the
applicant
and
then
in
the
event
that
they're
members
of
the
public
we'll
open
the
public
regardless
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
and
then
close
it.
But
with
that,
I'm
going
to
start
and
just
remember
that,
if
I
don't
call,
you
just
raise
your
hand
and
the
clerk
will
call
call
your
name
and
you'll
have
a
chance
to
testify
this
evening.
Welcome
cody.
M
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
council.
This
first
first
item
is
we're
proposing
an
amendment
to
the
development
code
related
to
demolition
of
select
structures
as
you're
well
aware,
there's
growing
concern
in
the
community
over
loss
of
some
of
our
buildings.
These
concerns
have
been
focused
on
three
areas:
loss
of
affordable
housing,
sustainability
and
historic
preservation.
M
The
demolition
of
existing
housing
to
accommodate
new
development
has
certainly
been
the
subject
of
some
some
rough
hearings.
Recently.
These
activities
also
send
materials
that
might
otherwise
be
used
directly
to
the
landfill.
This
wasteful
and
outdated
practice
does
certainly
inconsistent
with
some
of
the
city's
broader
goals
around
sustainability.
M
Finally,
structures
that
are
potentially
significant
from
a
historic
perspective
are
demolished
with
with
little
or
no
review
as
you're.
Well
aware,
and
we've
discussed,
the
our
ability
to
regulate
demolition
activity
outside
of
our
historic
districts
is
quite
limited
until
recently,
though,
these
permits
were
actually
issued
over
the
counter
in
days,
if
not
hours.
At
times
as
you'll
probably
recall
a
number
of
months
ago,
we
did
amend
the
code
to
require
staff
level
review
for
demolition
in
the
design
review
overlay
districts.
M
Neither
that
amendment
or
the
one
tonight
are
designed
to
outright
prohibit
demolition
again
outside
our
historic
districts.
That
is
going
to
be
quite
challenging.
From
our
perspective,
though,
that
doesn't
mean
we
can't
be
quite
be
more
thoughtful
about
it
about
it.
This
amendment
creates
an
opportunity
to
explore
alternatives
to
surrender,
to
sending
materials
directly
to
the
landfill.
M
So
the
current
current
amendment
would
apply
to
properties
located
outside
the
historic
and
design
review
overlays.
It
will
require
administrative
review
prior
to
the
demolition
of
any
multi-family
multi-family
residential
commercial
office
or
industrial
buildings,
regardless
of
zoning
district
or
overlay.
M
We'll
also
require
the
review
of
any
single
family
residence
that
was
constructed
more
than
50
years
ago.
Again,
the
intent
with
this
amendment
is
not
to
stop
demolition
but
again
to
be
more
thoughtful
about
it.
It'll
provide
a
slight
pause
to
make
sure
there
aren't
alternatives
when
appropriate
and
simply
time
to
have
conversations
that
we
haven't
been
able
to
occur.
M
That
haven't
been
able
to
occur
previously
specifically
to
work
with
our
peers
in
housing,
community
development,
if
a
demolition
will
involve
displacement
with
our
friends
in
the
preservation
community,
if
we're
talking
about
a
historic
resource
and,
finally,
our
partners
in
the
building
department
that
are
working
on
a
reuse
and
recycling
ordinance,
and
I
would
note
actually
that
it
was
it
was
kind
of.
M
I
don't
know
that
it
was
lost,
but
in
the
ordinance
readings
tonight,
on
the
first
reading,
there
was
a
new
ordinance
around
demolition,
recycling
and
reconstruction
deconstruction
of
materials,
so
that
that,
along
with
this
amendment
from
our
perspective,
are
a
really
really
big
deal.
I
mean
it
might
seem
like
a
simple
code
change,
but
this
really
combined.
These
are
a
big
deal
in
terms
of
furthering
the
city's
goals
around
sustainability
and
housing.
I
believe
that
concludes
my
comments.
Again,
we
are
recommending
approval
of
the
amendment
this
evening
as
detailed
in
your
packet.
M
A
Thanks
just
it'll
be
just
a
second,
so
this
is
a
unique
one
in
that
it's
the
city,
so
we
don't
have
another
applicant.
But
before
oh,
we
move
on
to
a
member
of
the
public
miss
taylor's
here.
Do
people
have
questions
for
staff.
L
Madam
mayor,
just
real
quick
cody,
maybe
you
mentioned
it,
and
maybe
I
missed
it
when
I
was
taking
some
notes,
but
in
the
planning
and
zoning
meeting
I
think
that
they
also
wanted
to
include
agricultural
buildings
on
there
as
well,
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
included
in
this
version
that
were
that
we're
seeing
right
now.
M
Madam
mayor
councilmember,
halliburton,
from
from
our
perspective
that
that's
you
know,
we
would
consider,
I
suppose,
an
agricultural
building.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
them.
We
would
classify
that
as
as
a
commercial
building
based
on
the
code
language,
certainly
in
the
final
language,
if
council's
preference
is
to
to
add
the
word
agricultural
we
we
certainly
could
and.
B
M
Madam
mayor
councilmember,
halliburton,
you're
correct
it
does,
they
did
say
to
also
include
agricultural
and
religious
buildings.
Again
from
our
perspective,
we
would
consider
those
really
a
commercial
commercial
type
building,
but
we
can
certainly
add
that
language.
The
final
order
ordinance,
if
that's
your
preference.
G
Thank
you
so
cody.
I
appreciate
your
your
conversation
about
the
ordinance
that
was
on
first
reading
tonight.
I
know
that
we've
been
working
on
demolition
for
quite
a
while
in
various
different
ways,
including
the
one
before
us
tonight,
and
how
to
prevent
people
from
doing
demolitions
and
then
asking
forgiveness
how
to
make
sure
that
demolition
is
more
sustainable.
G
M
Certainly,
madam
mayor
councilmember
clay,
I
believe
you're
probably
talking
in
terms
of
forgiveness,
more
demolition,
that's
currently
regulated
and
in
those
historic
districts,
whether
it
be
structures,
removal
of
trees-
and
you
know
that
the
unfortunate
situation
there
is
if
we
get
into
enforcement
it's
too
late.
We've
we've
failed,
so
we've
we've
actually
been
working
on
a
series
of
outreach
and
education
efforts,
modeled
somewhat
closely
to
what
we
what
we're
required
to
do
with
with
fema.
M
With
the
flood
plain,
we
very
recently
sent
letters
to
property
owners
and
residents
in
the
historic
districts
we
added
a
blurb
and
a
utility
statement.
Recently,
we've
created
a
series
of
videos,
not
with
me
narrating
people,
much
more
eloquent
than
me,
but
a
series
of
videos
on
the
website
around
demolition
windows
citing
things
like
that
and
we
plan
we
have
a
letter
drafted.
M
We
plan
to
send
a
similar
letter
to
the
arborist
tree
removal
companies
that
we
have
licensed
regarding
some
of
those
standards,
with
the
hope
that,
ultimately,
I
guess
two
things
that
we
can
avoid
the
need
for
enforcement
and
if
we
do
get
to
the
point
of
enforcement
that
there's
there's
more
teeth
there
that
it
that
until
recently,
I
think
it
was
probably
a
fair
argument
in
some
cases
for
someone
to
say
well,
I
didn't
know,
and
if
we
can
go
back
and
say
well,
we've
sent
this
letter
every
year.
This
information
is
available.
M
That'll
really
help
help
close
that
loop.
So
all
of
these
factor
into
the
our
efforts
towards
demolition.
F
Nope,
the
council
president
asked
my
first
question,
so
thank
you.
The
second
question,
cody
is:
if
you
can
help
me
understand
the
process
a
little
bit,
so
someone
will
apply
for
a
demolition
permit
in
an
area
outside
of
historic
district,
et
cetera,
et
cetera
according
to
the
way
this
is
framed,
there
will
be
a
14-day
period
in
which
various
it
creates
some
flexibility
for
various
things
to
happen.
F
The
building
can
be
evaluated
for
potential
historic
value
mitigation,
environmental
mitigation,
other
things
can
take
place
at
the
end
of
14
days
or
perhaps
some
other
amount
of
time
as
negotiated.
The
permit
is
either
issued
or
not,
and
this
is
where
my
question
starts
in
the
event
that
a
permit
is
issued.
F
Does
somebody
anybody
in
the
community
whether
a
neighborhood
association,
a
preservationist,
a
concerned
citizen,
anyone
else
have
standing
or
the
ability
to
seek
review
of
that
permit
being
issued?
If
so,
what
is
that
process?
And
then
inversely?
I
suppose,
if
the
permit
is
denied,
is
there
an
avenue
for
appeal
or
other
remedy?
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
type
of
can
of
worms
on
process
burdening
the
staff
burdening
our
commissions
and
burdening
the
council.
We
may
be
opening
up
here.
M
Madam
mayor
councilmember
agent,
ver
very
good
question.
Any
any
administrative
decision
can
can
be
appealed
in
this
case
approved
or
denied.
The
the
decision
that
would
be
issued
would
be
a
zoning
certificate,
we've
specifically
written
into
the
code
that
we
would
send
notice
of
that
approval
to
the
registered
neighbors
neighborhood
association.
M
So
they're
well
aware
of
their
right
to
appeal.
Similarly,
obviously,
the
applicant
would
know,
if
denied
of
their
right
to
appeal.
That
appeal
would
then
go
to
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
So
I
think
it
is
this
is
this.
This
is
quite
a
departure
from
anything
we've
we've
really
ever
ever
done.
M
F
F
You
can
imagine
a
rational
homeowner
after
14
days
receiving
their
demolition
permit,
knowing
that
there's
controversy
over
their
project
and
moving
quickly
to
demolish
their
building
before
an
appeal
is
filed.
Have
we
given
any
thought
to
you
know,
does
does
that?
Will
the
permits
say
this?
This
is
permission
to
tear
down
your
building
after
the
notice
period,
for
an
appeal
has
expired,
in
which
case
we're
not
really
talking
about
a
14
day.
M
Certainly,
madam
madam
mayor
council
member
agent,
with
any
administrative
decision
well,
this
demolition
requires
a
separate
permit,
be
issued
by
the
by
the
building
department
those
permits
to
close
some
of
the
loop
on
on
demolition.
That's
that's
occurred
over
the
you
know
the
past
five
ten
years
or
whatever
we
we
now
route,
those
to
planning.
That's
something
again.
We
didn't
used
to
review,
and
so
it
was
just
an
administrative
function
at
the
at
the
counter.
F
M
F
A
E
Well,
welcome
back,
thank
you.
My
name
is
marcine
taylor
and
I'm
a
resident
of
boise.
I'm
opposed
to
this
change
in
in
three
specific
areas.
One
is
the
added
cost
to
the
to
the
owner
in
escalation.
E
Also,
the
added
cost
due
to
the
admit,
the
extra
administrative
layers
and
finally,
the
infringement
on
personal
property
rights
in
construction.
The
boise
market
has
one
of
the
highest
long-term
escalation
rates
in
the
country,
while
the
national
average
for
over
10
years
is
about
1.6
per
annum.
Boise
is
at
7.62
and
in
the
last,
in
the
both
the
three
and
a
five
year,
average
that's
over
nine
percent
per
year.
E
Basically,
these
demolition
contractors
going
to
have
to
add
a
staff
person
to
just
verify
and
document
what
is
already
the
best
practice.
Your
packet
page,
468,
there's
a
question
that
was
answered
about
specifically
these
demolition
contractors
already
typically
do
the
waste
management,
because
it's
financially
the
best
for
them.
So
we
talk
in
this
council.
You
talk
repeatedly
about
affordability
and
housing.
The
additional
administrative
functions,
such
as
the
coordinating,
monitoring
and
reporting,
add
staffing
and
cost
for
the
contractor,
which
then
in
turn
gets.
E
That
house
was
built
in
1970,
which
now
makes
my
awful
70s
split
level
have
to
go
for
historic
review.
So
the
time
we're
talking
about
adds
cost
to
us
as
a
homeowner,
and
I
have
to
ask
permission
to
do
what
I've
always
planned
to
do
with
my
property.
When
I
bought
the
property,
I
specifically
chose
an
area
without
a
homeowners
association
or
a
historic
review
component,
so
that
I
could
complete
my
long-term
plans
and-
and
you
are
changing
the
rules
after
I've
already
bought
my
property
and
that's
something
I
have
a
problem
with.
Thank
you.
M
Madam
mayor
council
count
council
member
craig,
if
there's
a
concern
there
at
all.
Yes,
I
think
that'd
be
simple.
To
add,
add
that
language.
G
And
then,
secondly,
if
if
I
might,
as
I
understand
the
concern
that
we
just
heard
both
delay
and
cost,
it's
actually
a
relatively
small
amount
of
delay
and
cost,
maybe
you
could
talk
about
that
briefly.
M
M
It's
going
to
be
very
straightforward,
but
in
other
other
situations-
and
I
just
as
an
example-
we
had
a
couple
of
the
farmhouses
one
on
youstick
road
and
I
think,
one
out
on
victory
where
we
we
would
have
preferred
to
have
that
14
days
to
we'd,
be
hard-pressed
to
deny
those
demolitions,
but
it
would
create
an
opportunity
to
go
in
and
document
some
of
the
historical
importance
of
those
structures
so
that
one
might
take
the
24
days
beyond
that.
G
And
then
one
final
one,
madam
mayor,
so
cody,
I
don't
know
if
you
can
talk
about
this
or
if
jason
can,
but
there's
also
an
external
cost
to
everyone
when
we
waste
construction
material
that
might
be
salvaged
and-
and
so
that's
another
piece
of
this-
that
I
think
will
be
helping.
M
G
L
A
L
Cody
during
our
short
public
testimony,
thank
you
for
coming
in,
by
the
way,
it's
great
to
to
see
people
in
here.
Even
if
it's
one
person
she
mentioned
the
hiring
of
additional
staff
members,
I
think
it's
a
coordinator
role,
for
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
sustainability
coordinator
or
somebody
specified
within
the
construction
company
that
they
have
to
have.
L
And
so
I've
got
kind
of
two
questions
here,
one
if
I
could
just
get
a
little
more
information
about
that.
I
tried
to
read
through
the
minutes
for
the
the
building
code
board
and
they
were
speaking
a
language
that
I
didn't
quite
understand,
but
it
sounded
like
they
could
appoint
anyone
at
the
company
to
that
position.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
correct
and
then
the
other
thing
I
guess
just
to
make
clear,
is
that
this
public
hearing
that
we're
hearing
right
now
actually
isn't
related
to
that
position.
K
Correct,
madam
mayor
council,
member
hallie
burton
jason
blais,
a
building
official,
the
the
key
thing
that
on
the
recycle
reuse
coordinator,
is
just
to
have
a
designated
responsible
person
to
communicate
the
recycle
reuse
activities
to
the
owner
to
the
subcontractors
to
any
workers.
It's
just
a
and
they
would
fill
out
that
recycle
reuse
form
that
we
get
at
the
end.
That
tells
us
the
materials
that
they
did.
Recycle
reuse,
there's
no
certification
or
nothing
like
that.
It's
just
designating
a
responsible
person
that
we
have
to
work
with.
L
And
madam
mayor
just
to
be
perfectly
clear,
so
that
person
could
already
exist
there,
they
assign
them
that
role
at
the
company
and
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
hire,
bring
anybody
else
on
correct,
okay,
and
that
again,
the
second
part
was
the
that's
the
first
ordinance,
not
this
one
correct.
Okay,
thank
you.
F
Question
for
cody,
I
have
to
admit
I'll,
be
really
candid,
I'm
on
the
fence
about
this.
Can
you
help
me
understand
what
the
basis
for
the
50-year
cutoff
was?
I
know
we
changed
it
from
a
date
to
sort
of
a
50-year
trailing
period
of
time,
but
where
do
we
get
the
50-year
number.
M
F
My
my
question
is
considering
all
of
the
administrative
burden,
the
potential
expense,
the
burden
to
the
public,
the
building
public
or
to
to
the
homeowning
public.
F
Is
it
is
this
the
most
efficient
way
to
address
people
or
properties
that
are
not
registered
through
the
mechanism
that
we
have,
which
is
historic,
designation
of
properties?
And
it
may
be
because
there's
some
structural
inefficiency
with
registering
or
identifying
historic
homes
that
I'm
not
aware
of,
but
it's
what
I'm
struggling
with?
M
Madam
mayor
council,
member
beijing,
I
think
I
think
in
in
short,
everything
outside
of
our
historic
districts
aren't
they're
not
protected
at
all,
there's
no
opportunity
for
for
review
and
and
and
honestly
over
the
last
few
years
we've
been
receiving
and
I'm
sure
all
of
you
increasingly
a
number
of
complaints
about
you
know
these
permits
are
issued
over
account
over
the
counter
and
a
bulldozer
shows
up
backhoe
on
friday
and
a
structure
is
gone
saturday.
M
This
won't
necessarily
stop
that,
but
it
will
will
provide
an
opportunity
for
some
thoughtful
conversation
before
that
before
that
occurs,
I
acknowledge
it's
it's
it's
certainly
not
perfect,
and
our
tools
again
outside
the
historic
districts
are
very
limited,
and
it's
sort
of
it's
really
to
capture
those
very
isolated
structures.
Like
the
like.
The
two
I
mentioned.
A
A
B
F
F
I
don't
understand
there
to
be
any
procedure
for
me
to
drive
around
town
and
submit
properties
for
consideration
as
historic
structures,
at
least
not
in
a
way.
That's,
you
know
binding
on
the
homeowner
and
I
could
be
wrong,
but
now
we're
creating
a
procedure
where
the
public
has
the
opportunity
to
intervene
and
sort
of
force
that
review
right
at
the
time
that
the
homeowner
is
least
equipped
to
bear
that
expense.
But
I
don't.
I
don't
feel
very
comfortable
with
that.
F
On
the
flip
side,
waste
environmental
waste
of
usable
building
materials
is
a
problem
in
our
community
right
now
we
essentially
haul
everything,
downhill
road
and
up
siemens
gulch
and
dump
it
in
a
landfill
there's
not
a
particularly
efficient
way
to
really
incentivize
builders
to
use
other
procedures.
I
know
that
we're
working
on
that
and
that's
some
of
what
cody
talked
about
earlier-
and
I
am
you
know-
I
fully
acknowledge
that
the
destruction
of
usable
properties
has
a
carbon
and
a
planet
effect.
F
I'm
leery
of
50
years
as
a
cut
off.
I
understand
the
basis
of
it.
It
makes
sense,
but
it
doesn't
strike
me
as
particularly
reasonable
for
the
problems
that
we're
facing
the
problem
that
we're
facing
is
that
we
have,
admittedly
historic
structures
that
have
been
demolished
under
the
old
system.
50
years
is
kind
of
arbitrary.
F
You
know
a
1970s
home
may
have
historic
value
in
certain
respects,
and
I
think
there
are
arguments
that
1970s
homes
do
have
historic
value
as
showing
a
time
period
in
the
development
of
our
community,
but
I
don't
think
they're,
presumptively
historic
and
I
think
most
of
them
probably
aren't
most
of
them
probably
won't
stand
for
100
years.
So
I'm
really
uncomfortable
with
this,
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
hearing
the
rest
of
the
discussion
because
right
now,
I'm
not
sure
how
I'm
going
to
vote.
B
G
G
I
have
been
here
through
a
period
when
many
buildings,
more
than
15
or
50
years
old,
that
were
not
in
historic
districts,
were
demolished
without
thought,
without
salvage,
without
documentation
of
their
historic
value.
That
includes
two
of
the
schools
in
this
city.
L
Just
a
couple
of
things,
I
guess
to
add
one:
I
think
that
there's
an
important
aspect
to
when
it
comes
to
to
displacing
people
and
potentially
the
ability
to
have
a
waiting
period
where
there's
solutions
that
might
be
able
to
thought
be
found
when
somebody
might
be
displaced
when
a
residential
unit
is
being
demoed.
When
I,
when
I
read
through
the
the
first
ordinance
that
we
refer
to
earlier
today,
when
I
read
you,
the
the
media
minutes
there
from
some
people
who
know
a
lot
more
about
building
construction
than
I
do.
L
I
think
that
there's
so
many
positive
aspects
to
it,
and
I
don't
think
that
this
is
necessarily
going
to
prevent
tons
and
tons
of
things
from
from
from
potentially
being
demolished.
I
I
I
think
it
was
quite
powerful
and
certainly
got
me
thinking
about
some
points
that
I
hadn't
considered
prior
to
this
evening,
especially
considering
the
loans
and
the
delay
of
the
impact
on
those
loans
that
a
homeowner
might
intel
in
terms
of
the
interest
rates
and
such
during
that
time.
I
So
it
does
give
me
some
concern
and
I
won't
attempt
to
be
as
eloquent
as
council
member
beijing
and
just
instead
say
that
I
agree
with
his
concerns
that
he
noted
just
the
same,
and
I
do
have
some
concern
that
this,
while
there's
quite
a
bit
of
work
that
was
done
here
and
I
greatly
appreciate
it.
I
I
I
do
have
concern
that
this
is
a
bit
of
a
shotgun
approach
and
to
address
the
the
problem,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
I'll,
be
able
to
support
the
motion
in
its
current
state
but
I'll,
listen
to
the
rest
of
the
testimony.
Thank
you.
D
When
I've
only
been
through
the
process
to
get
to
get
an
exception,
how-
and
I
know
that
that
once
I
was
granted
that
I
had
a
year
to
do
my
project,
how
far
in
advance
can
a
resident
or
building
owner
pull
a
permit
for
demolition.
D
D
And
madam
mayor
one
more-
and
I
know
that
with
the
with
the
permit
that
I
had,
I
could
then
extend
it
by
paying
a
small
administrative
fee.
Is
that
the
same
for
a
demolition
permit.
A
G
A
And
I'd
ask
in
that
cody.
Would
you
please
follow
up
with
the
council
for
clarification
regarding
councilman
beijing's
concerns
or
actually
you?
Why
don't
you
address
that
now,
so
that
the
public
is
able
to
hear
it
as
well,
because
I
think
that
there's
some
misunderstanding
there,
the
council
president
brought
it
up,
but
I
think
it'd
be
powerful
to
hear
from.
B
A
And
then
did
you
say:
you've
got
something
more:
oh
great.
Okay,
all
right
I'll
have
cody
jump
in,
and
then
council
member
agent
jump
on
in.
M
Yeah,
madam
mayor
council,
member
of
agent,
is
some
of
your
comments
regarding,
I
guess,
a
concern
with
neighbors
going
around
and
filing
applications
or
or
trying
to
designate
other.
You
know
other
properties
as
as
historic.
That's
not
that's
not
the
way
this.
This
is
structured.
Any
any
application
would
come
from
either
the
owner
themselves
or
from
some
or
would
require
an
affidavit
of
legal
interest
to
file
for
that
zoning
certificate.
M
A
A
If
I
read
the
record
correctly
and
heard
you
tonight
wasn't
arbitrary,
we
weren't
saying
1970,
because
then
that's
forever
frozen
in
time,
and
it
was
suggested
that
we
just
have
a
date
that
would,
you
know,
always
be
reflected
as
we
move
forward.
But
when
you're
trying
to
come
up
with
that
date,
it
was
looking
at
from
a
historic
perspective.
A
What
might
be
considered
applicable
for
an
application.
However,
we
don't
have
a
practice
of
the
city
or
citizens
filing
requests
to
deem
structures.
That
aren't
is
historic
and
we
have
an
app
a
process
for
developing
historic
districts,
but
is
not
on
a
piece
property
by
property
piece
by
piece
basis
in
the
city.
That's
correct,.
F
Madam
mayor,
yes,
thank
you
cody
and
mayor
for
that
clarification
because
it
sounds
like
I
didn't.
Do
a
very
good
job
of
asking
my
question.
F
My
concern,
which
I
still
have,
is
that
we
don't
have
a
practice
of
people
being
able
to
drive
around
and
designate
properties,
historic
and
nobody
has
that
kind
of
power
as
it
should
be,
but
a
citizen
who
objects
to,
for
instance,
a
proposed
development
that
will
involve
demolishing
a
building
who
is
motivated,
will
now
effectively
have
or
could
effectively
have
that
power
by
opposing
the
demolition
permit,
and
they
would
oppose
it
on
the
grounds
of
historic
significance
or
whatever,
and
that
person
could
force
a
great
deal
of
process
around
the
building.
F
I
am
very
aware
of
the
irony
that
you
know
what
I'm
hearing
from
my
colleagues
is.
This
is
a
smaller
change
than
it
seems,
and
you
council
person
page
and
are
talking
about
abstract
potential
problems
and,
of
course,
that's
exactly
what
I
just
said
about
the
parking
ordinance
and
that
irony
is
not
lost
on
me.
F
Assuming
that
this
passes
for
that
type
of
abusive
process
and
for
that
type
of
one-sided
imposition
of
expense
and
burden
on
on
members
of
our
community
who
are
trying
to
build
things,
I
really
appreciate
what
a
wonderful
discussion
we've
had.
This
is
the
way
it's
supposed
to
be,
and
I
I
was
frank
about
my
questions
and
concerns
and
I
got
frank
answers
and
input
from
my
colleagues
and
I
just
would
close
my
little
comment
by
saying
what
a
wonderful
meeting.
Thank
you.
Everybody.
C
F
B
B
E
A
All
right
go
ahead.
Cody
next
up
we
have
another
cities,
applicant
zoa21-1,.
M
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
council.
Hopefully
this
one
is
a
little
a
little
a
little
smoother
this.
This
simple,
this
item
is
a
simple
clean
up
to
the
floodplain
ordinance.
As
you'll
recall,
you
actually
did
a
is
the
city
actually
did
a
significant
update
to
this
code
that
involved
a
lot
of
work
that
culminated
about
a
year
ago.
One
of
the
most
significant
changes
in
that
amendment
was
to
increase
the
the
free
board
requirements
in
the
floodplain
code.
M
As
a
reminder,
freeboard
is
required
elevation
for
the
lowest
floor
of
the
building
to
be
above
flood
level.
As
you
recall,
we
increased
that
requirement
in
most
instances
from
one
to
two
feet
in
practice,
we've
actually
always
required
that
that
that
apply
to
all
mechanic
that
all
mechanical
equipment
always
met
that
requirement.
M
We
did
work
with
fema
in
drafting
that
code
a
couple
years
ago,
actually
a
couple
of
their
representatives,
and
there
were
no
concerns
expressed
at
that
time.
As
we
prepare
for
another
audit
with
fema
this
summer,
a
new
representative
made
a
fairly
strong
suggestion
that
we
strengthen
or
clarify
that
language
and
be
more
specific,
that
the
requirement
is
to
elevate
mechanical
equipment.
So
that's
all
this
amendment
does
in
practice
it
won't
change
the
way.
M
G
For
yes,
madam
mayor
cody,
I
do
have
one
question.
So
if
an
existing
home
has
electrical
heating
ventilation,
plumbing
equipment
that
is
below
flood
below
this
level
today
and
they
buy
a
new
furnace,
they
have
to
relocate
the
furnace
and
relocate
all
of
the
ducting.
M
Madam
mayor
councilmember
clay
those
requirements
come
into
play
when,
when
it
reaches
a
level
of
substantial
improvement,
fifty
percent
of
the
appraised
votes.
A
G
A
mirror:
yes,
I
move
that
remove
zoa
21-1,
my
minor
amendment
to
chapter
1108,
flood
hazard
regulations
of
the
development
code
to
the
first
reading
calendar.
Second,.
C
A
Thank
you
and
next
up
we
have
car
21-2.
We
have
crystal
rain
joining
us
who
I
welcomed
her
this
evening,
because
I
haven't
seen
her
in
person.
It
seems
like
probably
in
a
year,
so
it's
great
to
have
you
I'm
here
with
us
tonight,
presenting
for
the
city
and
we
have
avar
kaydich
katich
as
applicant
and
then
it's
the
south
cole
neighborhood
association
that
we
don't
expect
them
to
be
here.
But
let
us
know
if
you
are
and
with
that
crystal
welcome.
N
Madam
mayor
members
of
the
council,
this
item
before
you
is
a
rezone
of
0.96
acres
at
8410,
west
vincent
street,
from
r1a
single-family
residential
at
2.1
units
per
acre
to
r1bda
single-family
residential
with
development
agreement
at
4.8
units
per
acre.
The
property
is
located
at
the
corner
of
vincent
and
vanilla
streets,
approximately
340
feet
south
of
overland
road.
The
lot
currently
has
one
single
family
residence
on
the
south
side
adjacent
to
vincent
street.
N
N
In
order
to
comply
with
the
b1
airport
influence
area.
A
development
agreement
has
been
submitted
with
the
rezone
application
to
keep
residential
density
within
the
five
units
per
acre
allowed
within
the
airport
interim
policy
for
parcels
within
the
b1
overlay,
but
outside
the
65
dnl
noise
contour,
the
boise
airport,
has
indicated
no
objections
to
the
density
maximum
of
4.8
units
per
acre
on
the
property,
provided
that
a
navigation
easement
is
recorded.
N
N
G
Adam
mayor,
yes,
so
I
apologize
for
having
this
question
tonight.
I
really
did
not
think
about
it
until
later
this
afternoon,
as
I
was
reviewing
this
for
the
second
time,
but
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
driveway
mid,
mid
block
along
this
piece
of
property,
and
it
occurs
to
me
that
everything
to
the
north
is
commercial
and
that
everything
that
is
facing
onto
that
northern
boundary
of
this
lot
and
all
of
the
lots
to
the
west.
G
Is
commercial
and
I
wondered
if
the
applicant
had
considered
putting
that
driveway
at
the
very
far
north
lined
up
with
the
other
drives
so
that,
ultimately,
if
the
other
lots
also
were
to
redevelop,
there
would
be
access
to
them.
We
could
do
a
cross-access
agreement.
I
just
wondered
if
you
guys
had
talked
about
that
or
thought
about
that,
because
it
looks
to
me
like
the
other
four
lots
in
this
particular
neighborhood
are
also
ripe
for
redevelopment.
N
Madam
mayor
council,
president
clegg,
that
has
not
been
discussed
in
depth.
We
are
aware
that
the
other
parcels
along
vincent
are
likely
to
rezone
and
do
something
similar.
O
Yes,
hello,
sorry,
I
was
in
a
meeting
for
work
there
I
am
with
you.
I
did
hear
the
last
statement
about
adding
the
driveway
in
the
north
side.
This
is
a
really
old
property.
I
don't
know
it's
been
a
field
for
about
70
years,
so
there
is
a
small
orchard
of
trees
on
the
north
end
and
also
an
open
irrigation
that
runs
along
the
entire
property.
An.
O
And
a
telephone
pole
right
there,
so
as
far
as
putting
in
a
driveway
in
the
north
side,
we
could
wipe
out-
I
don't
know,
probably
20
or
30
trees
and
do
that,
but
I
don't
think
that'd
be
in
the
best
interest
of
our
city,
because
we
are
the
city
of
trees.
O
I'm
hoping
you
all
can
hear
me
right
now.
Yes,
I
can
hear
you
okay.
What
was
I
supposed
to
state
to,
though?
I'm
sorry.
A
Oh
no
you're
great
I'm
so
I
mean
that
was
the
this
is
seems
rather
straightforward.
Sir,
there
was
no.
There
was.
There
was
nothing
from
council
other
than
the
one
question
which
you
did
a
great
job
of
answering.
So
what
we'd
like
to
know
otherwise,
is
if
you're,
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report.
O
A
G
Thank
you
for
being
here
and
thank
you
for
your
comment.
Like
I
said
I
didn't
even
think
about
this
until
tonight,
or
I
would
have
asked
the
question
earlier
and
gotten
that
answer.
I
appreciate
working
around
irrigation
structures
and
and
existing
trees
that
don't
show
on
the
aerial
that
I
have
something
that
I
appreciate
you're
doing
so
with
that
I'll
withdraw
my
concern.
O
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you.
A
Wonderful,
I
think
that's
it.
Then
okay
is
the
neighborhood
association
here,
south
coal,
no.
A
Online,
all
right,
so
nobody
is
online
to
testify
on
this.
Would
you
like
to
testify
on
this?
Okay,
it's
just
a
practice
of
asking,
because
anybody
can
it's
so
nice
to
have
you
here.
So
I'm
just
going
to
keep
asking
if
you
want
to
talk
some
more
there's
one
person
with
us
this
evening,
and
so
with
that,
if
no
further
questions
do
you
have
anything
to
wrap
up
with
before
I
close,
madam
mayor,
no,
all
right
well
without
the
public
hearing
is
closed.