►
From YouTube: City Council Evening Meeting - 12/1/2020
Description
Please visit the following link for information on how to testify during virtual public hearings:
https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/finance-and-administration/city-clerk/virtual-meetings/
B
E
A
D
G
G
C
We
will
take
that
as
a
yes,
but
I
cannot
hear
councilmember
thompson.
A
We
are
now
to
item
five
special
business.
First
item
on
special
business
is
findings
and
affirmation
of
pud,
19-11
and
cfh.
19-13
saline
is
here
to
present.
F
Oh,
I'm
sorry,
I
it
said
information
only
so
I
didn't
feel
like
we
needed
an
affirmation.
Madame
mayor,
I
moved
that
we
affirm
the
findings
for
pud19-11
and
cfh19-13
as
presented
in
our
packet.
D
A
F
G
G
A
A
Regulating
businesses,
individuals
face
coverings,
airport
bars,
bicycle
bars
and
public
meetings
and
to
be
enacted
if
passed,
it
acted
on
november,
19,
2020
and
providing
an
effective
date
and
to
be
consented
to
tonight.
If
city
council
so
chooses,
I
would
like
to
the
mayor
was
unable
to
be
with
us
tonight,
and
she
asked
me
if
I
would
cover
the
important
parts
of
this
particular
order.
A
A
A
Also
governor
little
announced
that
idaho
is
back
at
stage
two
of
reopening
and
that
that
order,
says
gatherings
are
limited
to
10
people
and
under
the
new
city
council
or
the
new
city
of
boise.
Public
health
order
requires
face
coverings,
limited
occurrence
of
certain
city
of
boise
boards
and
commission
meetings
when
the
boise
city,
council
and
other
boards
and
commissions
do
meet
no
more
than
10
people
can
attend
in
person.
A
A
So
beginning
on
november,
23rd
businesses
who
have
a
patron
who's
not
complying
with
the
health
order
or
have
protocols
in
place
that
are
not
being
complied
with.
A
representative
of
the
business
can
ask
our
city
officials
to
help
with
the
patron
ask
them
to
to
comply
if
the
patron
continues
to
refuse
to
comply.
A
They
can
ask
the
patron
to
leave
the
business
if
the.
If
they
do
call
the
police,
a
police
officer
will
be
be
dispatched
to
speak
with
the
individual
if
they
continue
to
refuse
to
comply
or
leave
the
premises.
The
officer
may
issue
a
trespassing,
citation
and
or
arrest
the
individual
businesses
that
are
reported
for
not
complying
will
be
inspected
by
a
boise
city
code
enforcement
officer
or
an
appropriate
central
district
health
inspector,
as
is
called
for
in
their
particular
license.
F
F
Mayor,
yes,
this
is
something
that
we
have
really
been
pushing
for
for
a
long
time,
which
is
a
call
from
our
businesses
to
help
them
have
some
backup
when
they
ask
their
patrons
to
wear
a
mask
and
comply
with
cdh's
health
orders.
I
think
this
is
a
really
important
step
and
we've
also
received
a
lot
of
emails
in
the
past
couple
of
days
from
citizens
of
boise
who
have,
I
think,
really
legitimate
concerns
about.
F
F
So
many
of
our
businesses
are
offering
alternate
delivery
options.
You
can
call
in
orders
and
have
them
delivered
to
your
vehicle
or
outside
of
the
business,
and
so
please
take
advantage
it
the
light.
We
can
see
the
light
at
the
end
of
the
tunnel.
Now
you
know
it's.
I
don't
think
that
we're
in
this
forever
anymore.
F
F
So
I
definitely
support
this
public
health
order
and
I
hope
that
it
serves
the
purpose
of
keeping
our
businesses
open,
keeping
folks,
safer
and
helping
us
get
through
this.
G
Yes,
thank
you.
I
I
I
agree
with
everything
council
pro
tem
woodings
just
stated.
I
am
very
supportive
of
the
directive
put
forward
by
the
mayor.
You
know
I
we're
all
in
this
together
and
it's
we're
facing
the
the
the
highest
rise
in
in
covet
across
this
country
since
it
began
and
we've
all
you
know,
experienced
similar
experiences
in
in
in
our
limited
daily
activities
and
how
we've
had
to
go
about
to
to
protect
our
families
and
our
friends
and
one
another.
G
I
I
firmly
believe
that
it's
our
patriotic
duty
to
to
withhold
the
the
guidelines
stand
by
the
guidelines,
wear
a
mask
socially
distance
and
this
this
practice
of
enforcing
to
some
degree.
These
measures
is
not
uncommon.
It's
across
the
entire
united
states,
it's
in
red
states
and
blue
states
in
texas
and
oklahoma.
G
It's
in
cities
that
you
would
maybe
not
expect
it
to
be
enforced,
and
we
are
certainly
not
doing
anything,
that's
uncommon.
I
think
what
we're
doing
is
extremely
the
patriotic
and
the
right
thing
to
do
to
protect
our
citizens
our
most
vulnerable
and
those
that
could
be
dramatically
impacted
and
have
been
in
many
ways
already
through
loss
of
life
or
or
loss
of
ill
or
loss
of
your
illness
and
loss
of
work
time.
G
So
I
firmly
stand
behind
it
and
I-
and
I
also
want
to
note
that
I
agree
with
another
thing-
councilmember
wooding
said
and
that's
that
we
can
see
the
light
at
the
end
of
the
tunnel.
I'm
no
medical
expert,
but
we
certainly
all
are
aware
of
the
same
information
and
that's
that
several
vaccines
are
on
the
horizon.
G
That
look
very
positive,
I'm
also
very
positive
about
the
future
of
this
country,
and
we
know
that
a
national
plan
will
go
into
place
on
on
january
20th
for
the
first
time,
and
I
look
forward
to
being
a
part
of
that
and
we're
going
to
move
forward
together.
And
so,
let's
all
do
this
as
a
team
and
support
one
another.
Thank
you.
D
Our
mayor
takes
a
lot
of
heat
and
is
in
a
really
tough
spot
with
these
decisions,
which
are
big,
and
I
know
she
takes
them
very
seriously
and
she
tries
very
hard
to
balance
all
of
the
interest
and
make
the
right
call
and
inevitably
sometimes
some
people
are
unhappy
and
some
people
are
happy.
But
I
would
remind
everybody
that
it's
not
just
the
mayor's
decision.
D
If
this
passes
tonight-
and
I
expect
it
will
it's
because
we
agree
and
we're
behind
her-
we're
behind
the
elderly
and
the
vulnerable
people
in
our
community,
some
of
whom
are
dying
and
we
we
are
unified
as
a
body
behind
this
mandate
or
this.
This
set
of
rules
as
well
we're
unified
for
the
sake
of
our
businesses,
who
really
been
struggling
to
balance
their
economic
needs
under
restrictions
and
public
health
and
unified
behind
the
mayor,
making
this
decision.
D
So
you
know
please
remember
that
we're
all
trying
we're
all
working
as
hard
as
we
can.
We
all
think
I
think
we
will
vote
tonight.
I
think
we
will
all
agree
that
this
is
the
best
thing
and
then
it's
not
it's
not
just
the
mayor.
Who
needs
to
be
the
focal
point
of
people's
input
on
this,
because
we
all
we're
all
on
board
with
our.
J
J
J
I
did
receive
an
email
from
a
concerned
constituent
who
is
an
employee
who
works
for
an
employer
who
has
really
minimized
the
enforcement
aspect
of
this
order
and
was
reaching
out
wanting
some
guidance
on
what
kind
of
protection
they
might
receive.
You
know
they're
concerned
that
this
particular
employer
is
not
complying
with
the
order.
J
And
you
know
that
brings
me
to
the
point
that
we
have
individuals
who
are
not
living
in
a
privileged
way.
As
we
council
members
are
that
we
we
have
the
option
to
do
this
part
of
our
job
via
zoom
and
remain
safe,
that
we
have
members
of
our
community
who
are
trying
to
survive,
and
they
they
have.
J
They
have
no
other
option
but
to
go
to
work,
and
we
do
have
at
least
in,
in
this
case
at
least
one
employer
who
is
choosing
not
to
comply
with
the
order,
and-
and
here
we
have
an
employee
who's
at
a
crossroads
as
to
do
they
continue
to
put
themselves
in
harm's
way.
J
What
resources
do
they
have
if
they're
let
go
from
their
job
or
if
they
choose
not
no
longer
to
work
for
this
employer
because
of
safety
concerns,
you
know.
So
that's
something
I
think
we
we
need
to.
We
need
to
look
into
as
well
is
what
about
those
employees
who
are
working
for
individuals
who
do
not
want
to
comply
and
are
in
a
situation
where
they're
choosing
between
that
paycheck
and
then
every
day
for
eight
hours
a
day,
putting
themselves
in
harm's
way.
J
These
are
all
the
things
that
we
need
to
take
into
consideration,
and
so
I'm
hoping
that
moving
forward
that
we
will
be
able
to
provide
some
answers
to
to
citizens
like
that
residents
like
that
who
are
put
in
that
situation
as
essential
workers
who,
prior
to
the
pandemic,
were
already
struggling
and
now
have
this
added
crisis
that
they
have
to
manage.
J
So
I
of
course,
would
be
supportive
of
this
tonight,
but
I
do
hope
that
we
can
come
up
with
some
answers
for
some
of
those
individuals
who
are
running
into
those
difficult
decisions.
K
There's
there's
not
a
lot
that
I
can
add
that
our
other
council
members
haven't
already
brought
it
up.
I
really
appreciate
council
member
beijing
bringing
up
our
unity
behind
our
mayor
in
this
effort,
and
you
know
the
attention
that's
put
on
her,
but
this
really
is
our
our
duty
as
council
members
to
look
out
for
the
public,
health
and
safety
of
the
people
who
live
here
and-
and
I
really
think
that
that's
what
we're
doing
here.
K
I
appreciate
that
council
member
thompson
brought
up
our
patriotic
duty
of
of
being
there
for
each
other
and
I
would
say
it's
our
duty
as
humans
really
to
each
other,
as
well
as
the
patriotic
duty
and
at
the
very
beginning,
when
we
started
talking
about
masks,
I
really
looked
at
wearing
masks
as
an
act
of
of
kindness
and
I
don't
enjoy
wearing
a
mask.
I
don't
know
that
anybody
really
does,
but
when
I
see
somebody
else
have
one
on,
I
know
that
that
person
has
my
back.
K
There
is
judgment
that
goes
on
when
people
see
somebody
not
not
wearing
one,
and
that
must
be
difficult
and
the
burden
that
they
have
to
bear,
and
I
think
that
that
just
holds
us
all
more
responsible
in
what
we
can
do
to
be
protecting
them
and
to
be
protecting
ourselves,
and
so,
of
course,
I'm
going
to
be
voting
in
favor
of
this
tonight.
I
appreciate
that
the
mayor
put
this
in
place
and
our
opportunity
to
ratify
it.
A
K
A
A
I've
been
in
touch
with
a
friend
today
who
just
today
lost
two
of
her
uncles
to
covet
two
brothers
who
died
on
the
same
day
of
this
terrible
disease
and
she's
heartbroken
and
her
family's
heartbroken,
and
these
are
deaths
that
probably
could
have
been
avoided.
Had
more
people
worn
a
mask
more
often
earlier,
and
so
I
very
much
support
this
order
tonight.
A
I
also
very
much
understand
that
there
are
people
who
have
many
concerns
about
our
government
about
the
way
things
are
working,
but
I
go
back
to
boise
kind
and
say
you
know
we're
in
this
together
we're
in
this
boat
together,
I
don't
want
to
sink,
and
I
need
you
all
to
wear
a
mask
and
I
promise
you
all
that
I
will
and
with
that.
I
very
much
am
in
support
of
this
as
well.
A
J
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
I
just
wanted
to
add
one
thing
you
know
right
before
coming
home
this
afternoon.
J
I
I
stopped
by
dmv
to
update
my
registration
for
my
vehicle,
and
I
was
in
one
of
those
situations
where,
where
someone
came
in
after
me
and
the
clerk
who
was
helping
me
very
discreetly,
called
out
to
a
colleague
to
ask
them
to
ask
this
individual
if
they
needed
a
mask
and
this
person
was
using
a
wheelchair
and
and
they
did,
they
very
graciously
asked
if
they
could
provide
them
with
a
mask
and
the
individual
said
that
that
they
could
wear
a
mask
if
they
didn't
have
to
cover
their
nose,
and
so
they
agreed
and
as
we
know
from
all
these
months
of
mask
etiquette.
J
J
I
saw
it
working.
I
saw
grace
in
action
and
I
think
that's
at
this
point,
what
we
should
be
striving
for.
Ideally
it'd,
be
great
if
everybody
had
their
mouth
and
their
nose
covered,
but
you
know
they
they
worked
with
this
individual.
They
believed
her
that
that
that's
the
best
she
could
do
with
her
situation,
so
it
is
possible.
J
I
thank
the
staff
at
dmv
before
leaving
thank
them
for
being
mindful
about
encouraging
the
public
to
wear
masks
and
for
working
with
people
when
they
said
that
they
couldn't
100
comply.
So
it
is
possible
and
it
is
happening
in
our
city.
G
A
Thank
you
next
items
on
our
agenda.
Excuse
me
is
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
with
an
asterisk
shall
be
considered
to
be
routine
by
the
council
and
will
not
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.
D
A
K
G
A
Thank
you.
Next
order
of
business
is
number
seven
ordinances.
First
reading
calendar
there
are
no
ordinances
on
the
first
reading
calendar,
so
second
reading
calendar.
C
Using
the
restrictions
on
foam
water,
fire
suppression
systems.
Providing
excuse
me,
provisions
related
to
control,
valve
and
facp
locations,
new
requirements
for
spec
warehouses,
tenant
space,
identification
for
multi-tenant,
occupancies
and
multi-family
housing,
updating
duties
and
procedures
for
the
fire
board
of
appeals,
providing
associated
penalties,
approving
a
summary
of
the
ordinance
and
providing
an
effective
date.
F
Okay,
I
move
that
all
items
on
the
third
reading
calendar
be
dispen
that
further
reading
of
all
items
on
sorry,
I'm
working
through
this
right.
Now,
it's
different
than
my
script
and
it's
hard.
F
I
G
C
Excuse
me
s
straw,
bale
construction
and
separating
the
boise
city
building
code
into
commercial
and
residential
subsections
of
provina
summary
the
ordinance
and
providing
an
effective
date;
ord-41-20,
an
ordinance
amending
boise
city
code,
title
9,
chapter
10,
boise
city
building
code
to
adopt
the
2018
international
existing
building
code,
which
establishes
alternative
methods
and
minimum
requirements
for
work
associated
with
existing
structures.
Approving
a
summary
of
the
ordinance
and
providing
an
effective
date.
C
Ord-44-20,
an
ordinance
car
20-000
for
property
located
at
1976
south
century
way,
emitting
zoning
classifications
of
the
city
of
boise
city
to
change
the
classification
of
real
property,
particularly
described
in
section
one
of
this
ordinance
from
limited
office,
with
design
review
l-o-d
to
light
industrial
with
design
review.
M-1D,
setting
forth
a
reason,
statement
in
support
of
such
zone
change
and
providing
an
effective
date
ord-45-20.
C
Ord-46-20,
an
ordinance
amending
boise
city
code,
title
1
chapter
16
to
allow
for
the
inclusion
of
temporary
expansions
of
alcohol
licensed
premises
to
be
included
on
license
renewal
applications,
as
directed
by
abc,
to
clarify
the
city's
authorization
to
temporarily
expand
alcohol.
License
premises
shall
end
at
the
sunset
date
or
upon
notification
from
abc.
A
K
A
H
Yes,
madam
mayor
council
members,
the
subdivision
before
you
tonight
is
for
a
preliminary
and
final
plot
on
10.54
acres
in
harris
ranch.
It's
comprised
of
four
buildable
lots
which
comply
with
the
harris
ranch
specific
plan.
H
The
lower
block
of
six
acres
are
for
a
mix
of
uses
with
neighborhood
retail
commercial,
on
the
ground
floor
and
residential
uses
on
the
upper
floors.
You
can
see
here
with
the
three
different
block
prototypes
within
the
specific
plan
that
the
buildings
are
placed
along.
The
street
and
vehicular
access
is
limited
on
just
woodcutter
street.
H
H
H
The
build-out
of
this
subdivision
won't
require
any
improvements
to
warm
springs,
yet
specifically
the
roundabouts,
but
there
are
rrfbs
proposed
at
the
intersections
of
old,
hickory
and
millbrook
for
an
interim
safety
measure.
Also,
it's
important
to
add.
The
achd
commission
approved
the
recent
request
from
the
city
to
reduce
warm
springs
avenue
from
five
lanes
to
three
lanes
in
the
master
street
map.
The
planning
team
is
now
evaluating
the
next
steps
in
order
to
have
this
reflected
in
the
specific
plan.
A
We
do
have
one
person
in
the
audience
signed
up
for
this,
just
a
reminder
on
agenda
items.
General
speakers
are
limited
to
three
minutes.
L
Thank
you
councilwoman.
I
had
a.
I
didn't,
get
a
zoom
link
back,
so
I
ended
up
coming
in
person
in
regards
to
the
harris
ranch
subdivision.
I
have
previously
worked
in
that.
L
My
name
is
leland
j
lay
7109
northview
street
boise,
idaho,
I'm
a
heavy
construction
foreman,
the
previous
in
harris
ranch,
the
actual.
E
L
Worked
in
that
as
a
in
that
subdivision
previously
and
harris
ranch
has
done
a
good
job
with
sediment
erosion,
control
and
things
of
that
nature
and
cooperating
with
the
city
on
those
natures,
I
would
like
to
bring
it
to
the
city
council's
awareness
of
idaho
code,
title
18.,
the
s.
L
Regarding
extortion,
section
e
the
previously
keeping
in
mind,
I
have
just
lost
someone
to
covet
in
alaska
who
used
to
work
for.
L
And
I
am
testifying
as
to
extortion
by
the
city
council
and
this
ordinance
you
just
passed.
It
qualifies
as
extortion
to
ex
to
take
this.
Take
this
mandate
and.
L
But
the
point
being
the
point
of
boise
kind,
and
these
sorts
of
things
is
to
protect
the
rights
of
an
individual.
F
Madam
mayor,
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
have
heard
from
the
applicant
what's
up
if
we
should
have
heard
from
the
applicant
as
well,
for
the
subdivision.
A
B
A
M
Madame
mayor
heath,
clark's
here
and
I'm
very
flexible,
so
we'll
go
whatever
order.
You
want
to
go
with
so
heath
clark
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
251
east
front
street
in
boise
saline,
as
always
did
a
great
job
with
the
presentation
this
I
I
think
the
thing
that
I
would
just
emphasize
here
is
that
this
is
setting
the
stage
for
some
of
the
work
that
will
be
to
come
with
regard
to
the
school
application,
which
is
a
separate
process.
M
This
does
create
the
blocks
that
will
essentially
be
the
palette
for
that
work
to
occur
on.
It
is
completely
within
all
of
the
requirements
of
sp01,
so
there's
no
modifications
that
are
being
requested
here
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
that.
But
we
appreciate
your
your
review
of
this.
In
the
meantime,.
L
No
thank
you
all
right.
President
clay.
A
Questions
for
the
applicant
he's
doug.
I
guess
I
have
a
question
the
correspondence
we
received
from
the
neighborhood
association
and
john
may
address
this
have
to
do
with
the
ultimate
design
of
the
bike
network,
which
we
know
has
been
an
ongoing
work
in
progress.
A
M
Madam
mary,
absolutely-
and
you
know
john-
I
can
see
john's-
got
the
best
background
tonight.
He
wins
that
award.
Well,
maybe
saleen,
I
don't
know,
saleen
might
have
it
today,
but
yes,
we
we've
appreciated
working
with
john
mooney
and
the
rest
of
bbna.
This
has
been
a
conversation.
That's
been
going
on
for
more
than
a
year.
M
At
this
point
I
would
say
john
and
one
point
that
I
would
make
is
that
saline
pointed
to
the
street
sections
that
are
were
approved
with
sp01,
so
these
street
sections
in
this
area
include
some
two-lane
collectors
with
urban
sidewalks
that
do
have
parking
lanes
that
could
be
repurposed.
M
They
also
include
the
when
I
mentioned
the
urban
sidewalk
we're
talking
about
a
15-foot
urban
sidewalk
and
all
of
this
in
the
context
of
a
gridded
area,
and
so
yes,
certainly
things
can
be
tweaked
and
can
be
modified
to
be
improved.
You
know,
we've,
we
think
we've
always
had
an
open
door
policy
with
bvna
and
we've
appreciated
them.
You
know
working
with
us,
but
we
do
think
that
what's
there
does
set
the
stage
for
a
a
good
collaborative
effort.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
all
right
with
that,
madam
clerk
will
go
to
those
online.
I
see
john
mooney
from
the
barber
valley,
neighborhood
association,.
E
N
Council
president,
craig
john
mooney
council
members,
john
mooney,
7153,
east
highland
valley,
road
on
behalf
of
our
our
neighborhood
and
our
board,
thanks
to
saline
for
getting
this
into
your
packages
at
the
last
minute.
I
hope
you
had
a
chance
to
review
our
comments
briefly,
but
as
as
doug-
and
he
said
this
is-
this
is
a
great.
This
is
a
good
streetscape.
N
Our
letter
is
kind
of
it's
intended
to
primarily
poke
at
the
bear,
which
is
you
didn't,
get
a
whole
lot
of
quality
feedback
from
achd
on
what
bike
infrastructure
should
be
surrounding
a
school
as
we
build
it.
Obviously
this
will,
as
as
heath
just
said,
this
the
streets
that
are
on
the
side
they're
the
two
sides
without
bike
lanes,
those
will
be
repurposed,
but
the
question
is
we're
building
it
now.
So
why
not
consider
some
best
practices-
and
I
agree
with
mr
fowler
doug-
and
I've
talked
about
this
many
times
you
can't.
N
You
can't
expect
a
developer
to
take
every
johnny,
come
lately
good
idea
and
incorporate
it
into
a
plan,
but
we're
hoping
that
the
planning
staff
can
expect
more
out
of
their
partners.
In
this
case,
the
school
district
and
achd
to
look
at
an
application
and
then
recommend
quality
improvements,
even
though
they
might
be
beyond
what
the
specific
plan
says
in
the
case
of
harris
ranch
and
the
and
the
harris
family.
N
We
think
our
impression
is
that
if
someone
had
recommended
a
higher
quality
bicycle
facility
in
the
area,
this
elementary
school,
the
applicant
probably
would
have
gone
and
done
it
even
if
it
was
beyond
what
was
required
by
your
ordinance
and
and
that's
that's
a
quality
developer,
and
we
appreciate
that
and
and
the
partnership
we've
had.
The
school
district
didn't
basically
signed
off
on
this
without
any
input,
and
that's
seems
very
short-sighted,
because
they
know
they're
going
to
build
something
there.
N
N
But
we're
concerned
about
the
rigidity
of
those
plans
and
and
specifically
for
future
plans,
spo3
and
anything
beyond
that,
and
how
maybe
we
can
develop
a
process
where
best
practices
can
evolve
within
a
specific
plan
and
not
be
your
hands
not
be
tied
by
the
ordinance.
So
it's
a
great
plan
and
we
support
it.
We
know
we
can
get
this
right
later,
but
we're
hoping
that
there's
some
lessons
learned
from
our
experience
living
through
sp01
and
spo2.
A
K
John,
this
is
a
council
member
holly
burton.
I
know
that
in
the
in
the
letter
that
you
sent
over
you
had
one
specific
example
that
you
included
on
there.
I
was
wondering
if
you
had
any
other
specific
things
that
you
would
like
to
either
have
on
record
or
would
like
to
have
us
know.
So,
as
we
begin
conversations
with
achd
that
we
can
mention
those
things
as
well.
N
N
One
of
the
questions
I've
been
asking
for
quite
a
while
within
achd
is:
why
can't
the
project
reports
that
achd
rights
for
the
jurisdictions
boise
meridian,
cuna
eagle?
Why
can't
they
provide
the
applicant
or
the
land
use
agency?
In
this
case
you
guys
city,
some
recommended
best
practices,
and
we
we
don't
achid,
doesn't
do
that
and
it's
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
process
issue
internally
with
achd,
but
I'm
trying
to
work
that
with
just
from
a
bicycle
advisory
committee
perspective.
A
Any
other
questions,
john
I'll,
just
comment
on
that
real
quickly.
The
master
streets
map
is
based
on
the
livable
streets,
design
guide
and
I've
long
thought
that
it's
time
to
take
a
look
at
that
guide
and
make
some
amendments.
So,
as
the
bicycle
advisory
committee
does
their
work,
you
might
take
a
look
at
that
all
right.
Thank
you
anything
further.
D
G
O
A
You
now
we
are
to
public
hearings
number
one
on
the
public
hearing
calendar
is
a
proposed
exchange
of
city-owned
real
property
located
at
5357,
north
collister
drive
in
boise,
idaho,
ada,
county,
idaho,
0.4,
acres
for
adjacent
real
property,
3.17
acres
and
a
resolution
5720..
A
Sarah-
are
you
sarah
arkle
is
here
to
present.
Yes,.
P
Good
evening,
thank
you,
madam
mayor
council
members.
So
the
public
hearing
that
we
are
opening
tonight
and
I'll
provide
a
little
context
here
from
an
open
space
and
trails
perspective
is
a
second
in
a
two-part
process
to
surplus
property
that
quarter
acre.
That
madam
mayor
mentioned,
is
adjacent
to
north
carlster
road.
P
P
So
I
am
happy
to
provide
some
context
as
to
why
we
believe
this
is
in
the
public
interest
to
exchange
this
property
and
then,
if
you
have
any
questions
related
to
the
planning
and
development
side
of
this
process,
I'm
hopeful
that
cody
will
be
able
to
to
provide
the
answers
for
that.
P
So
just
to
orient
you
very
quickly.
The
project
area
so
to
speak,
is
in
between
the
the
intersection
of
hill,
road
and
collister
drive
and
the
existing
trailhead
at
the
end
of
callister
drive.
P
P
The
surplus
that
would
facilitate
the
exchange
would
allow
us
to
build
a
neighborhood
trail
connection
closer
to
the
communities
that
we
are
serving,
and
that
is
what
this
yellow
line
depicts
is
just
a
conceptual
trail.
At
this
point,
we've
been
working
with
briar
hill
and
quail
ridge,
neighborhood
associations
to
try
and
address
increased
trailhead
use
and
increased
traffic
on
the
collister
road.
A
Questions
for
sarah
sarah,
I
actually
do
have
a
question.
We
received
late
correspondence
and
I'm
sorry
I
only
saw
it
after
I
got
here
tonight,
so
I
couldn't
talk
to
you
beforehand
about
it,
but
it
makes
the
point
that
the
parcel
a
was
originally
purchased
with
foothills,
open
space
levy
funding
and
that
there's
a
fear
that
there's
a
precedent
of
exchanging
levy,
funded
property
for
other
property.
A
If
we
don't
note
what
the
public
purpose
is,
it
just
says
that
it's
in
the
public
purpose,
and
I
wondered
if
you
had
any
comment
on
that
or
if
you
thought
about
anything
we
might
add
to
the
resolution
that
would
clarify
why
we
think
that
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
public
to
make
this
kind
of
an
exchange.
P
Madam
mayor
council
members,
yes,
I
can,
I
can
write,
provide
a
little
bit
of
information
and
I
think
the
subsequent
exchange
agreement
that
would
be
before
you
this
month
would
provide
additional
context.
P
P
The
one
that
comes
up
to
my
most
recent
memory
was
in
2016
at
military
reserve
and
mayor
and
council
have
decided
in
that
case,
and
potentially
again
in
this
case,
that
the
public
benefit
is
greatly
enhanced
by
that
exchange
and
when,
when
we
talk
about
specific
two
criteria,
it
really
is
to
the
letter
of
the
levy,
language
both
for
the
2001
foothills
levy
and
the
2015
open
space
and
clean
water
levy.
P
If
we
are
improving
the
open
space,
conservation
and
trails
opportunities
with
an
exchange
of
this
sort,
mayor
and
council
have
decided
that
it
is
worth
doing
so.
We
can
definitely
look
at
the
exchange
agreement
and
make
sure
that
we
are
articulating
clearly
what
conservation
benefits
are
enhanced
through
this
exchange,
and
you
would
see
that,
hopefully,
within
the
next
few
weeks,.
A
Thank
you.
Would
you
object
if
we
added
a
phrase
at
the
end
of
section
2
that
just
says
that
exchanging
the
property
for
the
adjoining
property,
as
it
is
depicted,
is
in
the
public
interest
and
in
keeping
with
the
interest
of
the
serial
levy,
funding.
A
A
I
E
A
D
Sarah,
I
just
wanted
to
know
what,
if
anything,
we
would
be
able
to
do
with
the
land
we're
proposing
swapping
away
it's
down
on
the
road.
It's
tight,
it's
narrow!
We
would
we're
looking
at
trading
it
for
a
much
more
sizable
piece
in
the
foothills
that
you
know,
just
just
by
area
is
more
preservation,
it's
also
probably
more
suitable
for
trails.
But
what
what?
If
anything,
would
we
be
able
to
do
with
that
piece
down
on
the
road.
P
Madam
mayor
council,
member
bajan,
thank
you.
We
when
we
originally
conceived
of
this
potential
exchange
two
years
ago,
we
looked
at
at
whether
or
not
that
strip
of
land
was
serving
any
current
public
purpose
or
whether
it
could
serve
future
public
purpose
and
the
grade
and
topography
and
ownership
in
that
area.
Wouldn't
allow
us
to
build
a
trail
connection
from
that
spot.
P
D
A
L
Leland
lay
I
recently
surveyed
that
whole
area
of
the
pole
cat,
the
recent
polecat
subdivision
that
was
just
put
in
and
my
question
is
to
us:
what's
her
name,
sarah,
sarah,
the
the
parcel
a
which
the
city
currently
owns
the?
What
do
you
see
the
owner's
future
purpose
for
that
parcel
being?
L
It
appears
that
it
would
most
likely
become
an
earth-moving
project
for
me,
and
I
would
put
new
houses
on
there
and
in
trade
for
the
the
lots
up
above
again
that
whole
area
is
wildly
steep
and
the
section
which
the
city
is
trading
for
is
undevelopable
undevelopable
land
due
to
the
steepness
of
the
terrain,
so
it
would
seem
he's
getting
he's
giving
away
nothing
for
something
there
must
be
a
benefit
to
him.
What
do
you
see
happening
there?
Sarah.
A
Thank
you.
We,
we
typically
don't
address
questions
to
staff,
but
I
think
in
this.
P
Madam
mayor,
I'm
happy
to
the
the
portion
of
property
that
the
city
is
proposing
to
exchange
a
small
area
of
it
will
be
used
to
enhance
access
to
the
proposed
development,
all
of
which
is
lined
out
in
the
approved
preliminary
plat.
It
was
mainly
a
condition
requested
by
the
fire
department
to
make
sure
that
they
had
adequate
access,
egress
and
ingress
should
a
fire
should
fire
access
be
needed.
P
P
And
yes,
it
will
have
a
number
of
switchbacks
and
we
are
going
to
have
to
work
with
the
developer
on
some
potential
hardscaping
in
steps
to
make
sure
that
we're
building
things
that
are
sustainable
and
they
are
willing
to
put
that
infrastructure
in
all
of
which
would
be
part
of
the
exchange
agreement
that
will
come
to
you
in
the
subsequent
weeks.
P
So
it's
it's
sort
of
a
a
partnership
where
we
get
an
opportunity
to
provide
this
additional
neighborhood
access,
which
I
can't
really
underscore
how
crucial
that
is,
especially
at
a
time
when
we're
seeing
trail
use
triple
having
an
opportunity
for
folks
to
sort
of
diversify.
Their
access
points
really
helps
with
communities
that
are
living
next
to
trailheads
and
also
helps
with
the
pressure
that's
on
our
current
trail
heads
to
to
meet
the
demand.
P
So
we
wouldn't
have
an
opportunity
to
pull
a
trail
down
to
collistor
road,
closer
down
to
the
intersection
of
hill
and
callister.
If
it
wasn't
for
this
potential
exchange,.
L
A
E
I
A
Interest,
thank
you
all
right.
We
have
no
one
else
in
the
room,
no
one
else
online.
So
with
that
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
and
what's
the
pleasure
of
counsel.
Madam.
F
Mayor,
I
move
that
we
approve
res
570-20
resolution
declaring
certain
city-owned
real
property
at
5357.
North
collister
drive
as
underutilized
and
exchanging
the
property
and
with
the
addition
of
section
in
section
two
referencing,
the
funding
source
of
the
foothills
cereal
levy,
and
that
this
exchange
has
benefit
for
the
public
good.
Q
G
A
G
Okay,
I'll
go
yeah.
I
might
not
be
quick.
I
I
just
wanted
to
thank
sarah
for
the
hard
work
she's
put
into
this,
as
well
as
other
members
of
the
department
and
staff.
It's.
This
is
a
really
great
job,
sir,
and
that
last
response
you
gave
to
the
citizens.
Question
was
was
really
spot
on
and
I
think
we
could
just
use
that
video
clip
to
explain
it
this
this
swap
going
forward.
G
It
was
outstanding,
but
mostly
trail
system.
K
I
just
wanted
to
chime
in
on
on
some
of
the
public
good
that
we're
looking
at
here.
One
of
the
great
advantages
to
this
is
that
people
have
the
ability
to
leave
their
houses
and
go
for
a
run
or
go
for
a
bike
ride
without
having
to
get
in
their
car,
which
is
such
a
great
amenity
that
so
many
folks
don't
have
the
opportunity
to
do
and
those
who
do
not
have
to
drive
to
go
for
a
run
or
drive
to
go
to
a
bike.
K
F
So
thank
you
so
much
sarah,
and-
and
I
think
that
this
is
this
seems
like
a
really
good
deal
to
me.
We
get
a
really
great
trail
access.
We
get
some
additional
land
where
we'll
have
permanent
trail
that
city
owned
and
I
think
it's
a
win-win.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Madam
mayor
councilmember,.
J
Sanchez,
thank
you,
madam
mayor,
so
I
just
received
a
text.
R
A
C
Council
president,
there
was
no
hand
up
when
you
asked
there
is
now
a
hand
up
after
we
had
closed
the
public
hearings.
If
you
would
like
to
reopen.
S
Sorry,
I
am
I
logged
on
and
I
raised
my
hand
before,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
happened.
Thank
you
for
reopening
the
public
hearing.
My
name
is
esther
seha
I
reside
at
31,
I'm
sorry
3901
north
cambria
way,
boiste.
I
reside
within
the
boundaries
of
the
calister
neighborhood
association.
S
Today
I
am
providing
comment
as
a
long-time
resident
of
the
calister
neighborhood.
So
I
just
wanted
to
thank
the
city
for
this
opportunity
in
creating
a
trailhead
access
closer
by
by
at
least
a
half
mile
or
so
to
residents
that
live
down
on
the
flat
end
of
collister.
However,
I
must
say
that
in
looking
at
the
city
council's
agenda,
yesterday
was
the
first
time
I
knew
of
this
proposal.
S
I
I
do
want
to
point
out
a
couple
of
things.
Sarah
mentioned
that
the
city
that
she
had
been
working
with
briarhill
and
quail
ridge.
Those
are
homeowner
associations.
S
Those
homeowner
associations
lie
within
the
boundaries
of
the
caulister
neighborhood
association,
and
so
I
would
just
encourage
the
city
as
you
work
on
this
proposal
and
any
other
future
proposals
adjacent
to
or
within
the
boundaries
of
the
calister
neighborhood
association
that
you
reach
out
to
the
other
residents
that
live
within
those
boundaries
as
well,
so
that
that
all
residents
close
to
that
area
have
an
opportunity
to
participate
in
this
process,
and
that
is
it.
Thank
you.
A
J
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Just
for
the
record,
I
will
be
forwarding
the
text
messages
that
I
received
from
ms
saha
to
our
admin
for
record
keeping.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that.
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
reclose
the
public
hearing.
Unless
we
see
another
hand,
we
have
no
other
hand.
Okay,
thank
you
and
we
do
have
a
motion
on
the
floor.
I
won't
restate
it.
We've
had
a
second
and
discussion
on
the
motion,
any
further
discussion
hearing,
none
with
the
clique
clerk,
please
call
the
roll.
A
K
O
A
T
And
you
can
see
that
you
can
see
the
screen.
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
kind
of
in
a
little
different,
different
format
again
here,
but
aren't
we
all
this
item
before
you
this
evening?
Is
a
request
for
approval
of
a
special
exception
to
construct
an
85-foot
tall
wireless
communication
facility.
The
installation
is
proposed
on
a
five-acre
parcel,
that's
located
at
1500
east
right
street
in
an
r1c
or
single-family
residential
zone.
T
This
is
actually
not
a
new
facility
for
this
property.
Rather,
it's
it's
a
request
to
replace
an
existing
80
foot
tall
pole
with
the
one
with
one
design
as
a
pine
pine
tree.
As
you
can
see
in
the
site
plant,
it
will
actually
be
relocated
to
the
center
of
the
site,
which
allows
it
actually
to
be
better
concealed
with
landscaping
and
existing
trees.
T
T
It's
actually
very
similar
to
one
that
council
approved
on
this
very
site
in
2009,
as
you
can
see
from
the
coverage
coverage
maps,
the
installation
of
this
this
poll
will
result
in
measurable
improvement
in
service.
I
would
also
note
that
the
exchange
of
these
towers,
the
new
facility,
will
be
able
to
support
an
additional
three
k.
Three
carriers
on
the
site,
which
is
certainly
always
encouraged.
T
The
planning
commission
did,
did
unanimously
recommend
approval
of
this
installation
without
opposition.
At
that
time.
Since
then,
we
did
receive
a
letter
expressing
expressing
concerns
from
a
nearby
a
resident.
I
believe
their
concerns
were
primarily
associated
with
impacts
on
their
views
to
the
foothills.
T
G
Thanks
cody,
I
I
really
really
like
that.
This
is
one
of
those
pine
tree
designs.
I
there's
one
of
those
out
here
my
way
it's
come
up
before
and
I've
I've
expressed
my
my
big
support
for
the
this
type
of
pull-
and
I
just
was
wondering-
is
this
something
that
is
optional
and
just
the
individual
installing
it
decides
hey.
This
is
some
something
I'm
going
to
do
and
make
it
one
of
these
tree.
G
Looking
holes
or
is,
and
also
is
it
I,
I've
always
wondered
if
this
is
something
that
we
could
consider
looking
at
at
some
point
as
a
council
mayor
making
it
more
of
a
mandate,
it's
just
such
a
such
a
different
insightliness
and
again
I'm
a
big
proponent
of
these,
and
I
don't
see
enough
of
them
thanks.
T
Madam
mayor
councilmember
thompson
to
answer
your
question:
is
it's
not
it's
not
required
in
these
these
situations?
You
know,
especially
in
areas
where
you
kind
of
have
a
gap
in
service
or
coverage,
and
it's
a
residential
setting.
We
work
with
the
carriers
and
encourage
this
this
sort
of
thing,
but
you're
right,
we
haven't
seen
many
of
them.
I
would
I
would
note
that
we
are
just
starting
to
to
look
at
changes
or
updates
to
our
wireless
communication.
T
Ordinance
technologies
have
changed
a
lot
frankly
since,
since
the
code
was
drafted,
and
so
this
sort
of
thing,
along
with
you
know
some
of
the
advances
in
technology
that
you're
all
you've
all
heard.
A
lot
about
lately
with
with
the
5g
technology,
is
an
opportunity
to
look
at
that,
and
that's
certainly
something
we
could.
We
could
take
into
account
when
we
we
explore
that
amendment.
F
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
cody.
This
is
not
completely
related
to
the
cell
tower
that
we're
looking
at,
but
I
just
had
a
question
about
the
tax
revenue
side.
So
since
this
is
in
a
church
parking
lot,
I'm
wondering
how
this
facility
is
treated
for
taxes.
F
T
A
All
right,
we'll
we'll
ask
the
applicant
to
address
that
if
they
can
any
further
questions
for
cody,
if
not,
we
will
go
to
the
applicant,
who
is
andy
cocco
from
maverick
tower
andy.
O
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
mayor
council
members.
Thank
you
for
your
time
tonight.
My
name
is
andy
cockle
1815
north
11th
street
boise,
idaho.
Yes,
we
are
proposing
an
85
foot,
monopine
type
wireless
telecom
facility
at
1500,
east
right
street,
and
we
started
this
process
by
notifying
163
surrounding
property
owners
in
early
september.
O
The
one
connected
an
outdoor
meeting
on
september
15th.
We
had
two
participants
show
up
out
of
the
163
people
that
were
notified.
O
O
O
I
did
not
get
a
chance
to
speak
with
the
neighbor
that
responded,
I
believe,
to
city
staff
ethan.
She
did
not
contact
me
directly.
I
believe
she
was
outside
of
the
notice
radius.
I
did
take
a
look
at
her
address.
She's
approximately
665
feet
away
from
the
location
we're
proposing
the
tower,
so
there
was
ample
time
I
guess
to
get
involved.
I
didn't
I
didn't
hear
from
her.
If
I
had,
I
would
have
addressed
her
concerns
up
front.
O
O
O
A
lot
of
people
ask
me
why
this
can't
be
covered
through
small
cells,
I'd
like
to
just
state
that
they
they
work
in
conjunction
with
these
macro
sites,
the
macro
sites
provide
kind
of
a
larger
area
of
coverage,
and
then
the
small
cell
5g
sites
come
in
and
kind
of
fill
in
the
nooks
and
crannies,
with
the
density
for
all
the
new
technologies
that
we're
seeing
come
out
these
days.
So
we
agree
with
planning
staff
recommendations,
our
planning
commission's
recommendation
for
approval.
O
O
You
know,
in
my
experience,
each
jurisdiction
is
different
when
it
comes
to
taxing
cell
towers.
I
have
been.
I
have
received
tax
notices
in
different
counties
and
cities.
It
doesn't
usually
fall
on
the
property
owner
that
we
have
an
agreement
with.
It
usually
falls
on
my
company
maverick
towers
to
be
responsible
for
those
taxes,
so
any
increase
to
the
property
taxes
which
are
tied
to
fall
to
me
to
pay
those
taxes.
A
Thank
you
so
cody.
I
guess
back
to
you.
The
question
would
be
do
we
have
a
way
to
record
these
kinds
of
carve
outs
in
otherwise
tax-exempt
properties
to
notify
the
assessor
that
this
880
square
feet
exists.
T
Madam
mayor,
that's
that's
something.
I
guess
that
that's
a
new
one
on
me
this
evening.
That's
something
we'd
we'd
have
to
research,
and
I
could
certainly
report
back
to
council
on
on
what
we
find.
A
A
Okay,
no
one
in
the
room
has
signed
up
so
we'll
go
to
those
online.
First,
we
have
a
bryant
burke.
C
A
I
G
A
I
A
Thank
you,
looks
like
everyone's
back,
at
least
from
the
city
council
perspective.
We
are
now
on
public
hearing
number
three,
which
is
drh
20-4
34,
robin
gates.
2115
heights
drive
a
request
to
remove
the
property
from
the
historic
district
boundary
in
the
r1ch
overlay
zone
and
josh.
I
think
you're
here
to
present.
U
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
council,
the
subject
property
that
has
requested
removal
from
the
boundaries
of
the
north
end
neighborhood
association
is
located
at
the
intersection
of
north
heights
drive
and
8th
street
near
the
eastern
edge
of
the
north
end
historic
district.
U
The
property
itself
does
not
have
frontage
on
8th
street,
but
rather
is
tucked
away
on
heights
drive
away
from
the
other
properties
they're
generally
located
within
the
north
end.
Historic
district
you'll
see
that
those
properties
along
8th
street
do
all
have
some
sort
of
presence
or
frontage
on
8th
street
and
are
part
of
that
district.
This
subject,
property
is
more,
is
more
naturally
part
of
that
heights
drive
neighborhood
that
extends
to
the
east
along
heist,
drive
creating
somewhat
of
an
irregular
protrusion
of
the
historic
district
to
the
east,
encompassing
this
property.
U
The
applicant
has
provided
some
visuals,
which
demonstrate
the
disconnect
from
8th
street
and
the
rest
of
the
historic
district
in
the
area.
This
photo
is
at
the
intersection
of
8th
street
and
heights
drive.
U
The
subject
home
is
in
is
circled
in
blue
and
is
is
a
ways
up
the
hillside
again
another
view
from
8th
street
showing
the
property
set
back
distinctly
from
8th
street
up
the
hill,
not
really
having
a
presence
or
a
front
on
eighth
street,
like
the
other
properties
in
the
district.
U
So
this
is
the
subject
house.
The
applicant,
as
discussed
in
the
project
report,
did
apply
to
renovate
and
expand
the
home
with
the
historic
preservation
commission
a
couple
of
years
ago
and
received
approval
during
that
process.
It
was
really
brought
to
their
attention
the
irregular
irregularity
of
this
home
being
included
in
the
historic
district.
You
know,
and
ultimately,
the
the
property
owner
decided
to
move
forward
with
an
attempt
to
remove
the
property
from
the
historic
district.
The
home
is
non-contributing.
U
So,
in
summary,
the
historic
preservation
commission
did
approve
the
application
for
removal
from
the
historic
district
at
their
october
26
hearing.
If,
if
city
council
were
to
approve
the
application
tonight,
and
the
free
zone,
ordinance
would
be
required
which
would
then
be
placed
on
the
council
reading
calendar
for
formal
adoption,
and
with
that
I
would
stand
for
any
questions.
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you
thanks
josh
I
used
to
actually
live
on
heights
drive,
it's
a
neat,
little
neighborhood
and
all
built
kind
of
in
the
middle
of
the
century.
I'm
curious
on
a
property
like
that
that
wasn't
built
during
the
period
of
significance.
F
U
Madam
mayor
council,
member
woodings,
so
we
in
historic
districts
don't
like
to
replicate
history.
There
are
a
number
of
findings
in
the
residential
historic
guidelines
that
talk
about
compatibility
in
terms
of
massing
placement
of
the
building
on
the
lot
height.
Things
like
that.
That
generally
would
make
the
property
compatible
and
and
integrate
into
the
historic
district,
but
in
terms
of
specifying
a
style
that
would
have
to
you
know,
replicate
some
sort
of
historic
structure
that
would
actually
be
discouraged.
New
construction
should
be
separate
and
distinct
from
the
historic
properties.
K
Yeah,
thank
you
josh.
You
said
that,
if,
if
we,
if
it
was
taken
out
of
the
historic
overlay,
then
there
would
have
to
be
another
vote
for
the
rezone,
would
the
rezone
just
be
whatever
it
is
now
single-family
residential
without
the
historic
overlay,
or
would
it
be
up
for?
U
U
K
A
A
What
would
be
the
regulating
ordinance
if
any,
for
how
that
would
integrate
with
the
structures
on
8th
street.
U
Madam
mayor,
that
would
just
have
to
comply
with
setbacks
and
height.
This
is
a
little
bit
of
a
tricky
lot
in
terms
of
measuring
setbacks,
but
there
are
some
standards
and
ordinance
for
properties
where
the
rear
property
line
is
not
a
single
line
that
is
parallel
to
the
street.
U
So
we
would
use
those
measurements
to
determine
a
rear
lot
line
and
then
the
home
would
have
to
comply
with
the
setback
standards
of
the
r1c
zone,
which
would
be
15
feet
in
the
rear
and
then
five
feet
on
that
side,
property
line
which
would
be
the
south
and
then
it
would
have
to
comply
with
the
you
know,
height
limit
of
the
r1c
zone,
which
is
35
feet.
A
Okay,
so
the
fact
that
it's
a
long
heights
drive
and
also
on
two
sides,
the
the
back
side
of
it
is-
is
still
considered
a
rear
setback
and
would
only
require
a
15-foot
setback.
A
A
V
So
I'm
just
here
hoping
that
you
guys
will
support
planning
in
sony's
recommendation
that
we
be
approved
to
be
removed
from
the
historical
boundary
and
the
historical
committee
actually
in
the
last
hearing
said,
and
it
might
not
be
the
exact
words
but
said
this
property
should
have
never
been
included
in
that
boundary
and
all
we're
asking
for
is
to
be
zoned
compatibly
with
our
neighbors
on
heights
drive
we're
not
asking
for
anything
different
we're
just
wanting
to
be
held
to
the
same
design
standards
as
everybody
around
us
and
otherwise
I
think
josh
covered
everything,
and
I
know
it's
been
a
late
night.
A
Oh
wait
here
we
go
councilmember
hallie
burton.
K
Yeah
sorry,
just
one
one
quick
question:
I
saw
in
the
in
the
packet
that
there
had
been
a
approved
plan
for
the
building
once
already
and
approved
in
the
historic
overlay
zone.
Is
it
that
same
plan
that
you're
wanting
to
put
forward,
or
is
the
reason
to
get
off
of
that
historic
overlay,
because
there's
a
different
plan
that
you're
wanting
to
put
forward
now.
V
It's
basically
what
happened
is
the
appraiser
wants
us
to
have
a
garage
as
opposed
to
parking,
so
we
need
to
modify
it
a
little
bit,
which
is
a
reason
to
go
forward,
but
I've
been
approved
for
my
original
design.
I'm
I
happen
to
be
an
architect,
so
I
I
got
approved
for
the
design
through
planning
and
zoning.
It
got
appealed.
It
got
approved.
V
I've
been
approved
for
the
adu
that
I
wanted
to
have
in
there
and
approved
for
hillside
and
then
had
the
appeal
for
hillside
got
that
approved
at
the
same
week
that
the
bank
came
back
and
said
you
need
to
put
a
garage
in
there,
so
judges,
that's
where
I'm
at
right
now.
So
I
know
that
you
guys
have
seen
this
coming
through
your
paperwork
quite
a
bit
over
the
years,
but
hopefully
this
is
it.
K
Yeah,
absolutely
so,
just
the
the
ability
to
put
in
the
garage
if
it
was
not
in
the
historic
overlay
would
make
it
much
simpler
and
easier
to
do.
That
is
that
correct.
V
Perhaps
but
more
so,
it's
just
to
be
held
to
the
same
design
standards
as
our
neighbors.
We,
our
house,
is
not
historical
by
my
by
anybody
that
I've
heard
talk
about
our
house
and,
as
you
saw
from
the
picture,
it
really
doesn't
have
any
redeeming
qualities.
So
I
just
like
to
be
held
to
the
same
design
standards
as
everybody
else
in
the
neighborhood.
V
A
Any
other
questions
all
right
standby
robin.
If
I
guess
there's
no
no
rebuttal
on
this,
but
if
there's
other
questions
I
don't
have
anyone
signed
up
in
person,
so
we
will
go
to
those
who've
signed
up
online
and
the
first
person
listed
is
eric.
Stormer
is
eric
here.
W
Yeah,
I'm
sorry
about
that.
Let
me
let
me
get
a
little
closer.
Let's
drive,
I'm
an
immediate
neighbor
to
this
project,
I'm
one
of
five,
immediate
neighbors
of
which
oppose
the
project.
We
oppose
both
the
project
and
the
removal
of
this
site
from
the
historic
district.
You
know
we
all
share
the
belief
that
the
historic
district
is
something
one
should
contribute
to
not
try
to
figure
out
how
to
financially
benefit
from.
W
So
I
apologize
that
we're
having
this
discussion
this
evening.
I
follow
most
of
you
on
social
media
and
I
realize
you've
been
dealing
with
some
really
pressing
issues
this
year,
far
more
important
than
that
of
a
single
family
home
issue
in
the
north
end.
But
since
we're
here
and
you're
going
to
make
a
critical
decision,
I
thought
it
prudent
to
share
some
facts.
So,
let's
talk
about
the
facts.
Miss
robin
gates
is
a
known
architect.
W
She
was
quick
to
point
out
that
she's,
an
architect
who
knows
the
system
well
and
is
one
that
has
spun
the
facts
to
her
benefit
over
the
years.
She's
been
working
on
this
project
for
many
many
years
and
what
she's
trying
to
build
is
a
three-story
unit
with
three
separate
entrances
with
three
separate
kitchens
she
proposed
this.
It
was
rejected.
She
was
required
to
revise
this
in
2018
and
what
she
got
approved
was
a
three-story
unit
with
two
kitchens.
Now
she
never
built
this,
the
permit
expired
over
the
summer.
W
So
what
she
did
was
she
resubmitted
revised
drawings
this
past
summer,
yet
again,
including
in
those
drawings,
a
third
kitchen.
On
the
third
floor
with
a
separate
entrance,
I
don't
think
it's
unreasonable
to
call
what
ms
gates
has
proposed
is
a
multi-family
triplex
three
floors,
three
kitchens,
three
separate
entrances.
W
So,
while
this
project
will
not
only
be
a
multi-family
triplex,
it
will
also
raise
the
roof
of
her
structure
over
the
height
of
the
telephone
pole
in
her
yard.
This
will
effectively
block
the
views
of
all
five
direct
neighbors.
Now
the
character
of
this
neighborhood,
the
character
of
this
neighborhood
is
single-story
houses
tucked
into
the
hillside,
so
that
we
can
all
share
in
the
views.
My
immediate
neighbor
directly
uphill
looks
clear
over
my
roof
straight
onto
the
city
of
trees
and
while
we're
talking
about
trees,
I
get
to
watch
my
neighbors.
W
They
plant
native
trees,
with
the
goal
of
enhancing
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
and
then
I
look
down
to
miss
gates
property
where
she
has
systematically
removed
every
single
tree
from
her
yard.
I
I
don't
even
know
if
there's
another
house
in
the
north
end
that
has
removed
every
single
tree,
not
the
kind
of
decision.
You
want
unfettered
in
this
environment.
W
So
while
this
may
be
legal
in
idaho,
if
we've
learned
anything
this
past
year,
what
is
legal
and
what
is
in
the
interest
of
the
greater
good
are
not
always
in
alignment.
Sometimes,
our
leaders
need
to
provide
a
guiding
hand
for
those
less
inclined
to
think
of
the
wellness
of
others.
Mayor
mclean
members
of
the
city
council,.
A
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
messed
up.
I
forgot
to
get
the
neighborhood
association
first
and
sherry,
but
tazzo.
I
believe,
you're,
on
the
line
for
the
north
end
neighborhood
association.
X
No
problem
at
all,
madame
mayor
and
council
members,
my
name
is
sherry
batazo,
I'm
here
as
the
designated
representative
for
the
north
and
neighborhood
association.
My
address
for
the
record
is
311
north
23rd
street
in
boise
83702.
X
A
Josh,
I
guess
a
question
of
you:
if
a
building
were
proposed
for
this
site,
regardless
of
whether
it
was
in
the
historic
district
or
not,
that
would
in
fact
be
a
triplex.
Would
it
be
approved.
U
Madam
mayor,
regardless
of
the
historic
designation,
a
triplex
in
this
zone
would
require
a
conditional
use
permit.
There
is
an
approved
adu
on
the
property,
so
there
are
two
approved
dwelling
units,
but
not
three,
and
that
would
require
a
public
approval
process.
A
Y
Y
Y
Y
A
Thank
you,
brevity
is
always
welcome
any
questions
for
roberta.
F
Yes,
just
in
response
to
one
of
roberto's
questions,
josh
you
mentioned
earlier
that
this
lot
would
require
a
hillside
building
permit,
regardless
of
its
historic,
designation
or
not.
K
So
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
as
far
as
the
decision
that
we're
making
right
now,
it's
being
asked
to
take
off
of
the
historic
overlay,
and
I
guess
what
I'm
wondering
is:
are
we
basing
100
of
our
decision
on
whether
or
not
this
belongs
in
the
historic
overlay
or
is
part
of
our
decision
based
off
of
what
this
opens,
the
doors
to
in
the
future
or
what
the
development
is
going
to
look
like,
because
my
understanding
is
that
if
there
is
a
proposal
going
forward
for
a
triplex
or
whatever
it
would
be,
that
would
actually
be
heard
in
a
different
in
a
different
city
council
session.
K
U
Sorry,
madam
mayor
councilmember,
haley
bird,
now
absolutely
the
matter
before
you
is
whether
or
not
the
property
belongs
in
the
historic
district.
You
know
any
other
entitlements,
including
what
is
ultimately
built
on.
The
lot
has
to
follow
the
zoning
code
in
order
to
be
approved.
A
U
Madam
mayor,
you
are
correct
in
that
the
project
that
the
neighbors
have
referenced
was
approved
while
the
property
was
within
the
historic
district.
It
was
found
to
comply
with
those
residential
guidelines
and
was
approved
while
the
property
was
part
of
the
historic
district,
correct.
A
Thank
you
all
right,
you're,
fine,
other
questions
with
that,
we'll
go
on
to
danielle
tominga
tamina.
Q
So
one
thing
that
I
wanted
to
point
out
is
that
I
support
sustainable
neighboring
friendly
development,
which
maintain
and
enhance
the
quality
of
living
and
belonging
to
the
north
end
reviewing
the
the
plants
or,
where
the
properties
located.
Q
I
feel
alike
that
when
the
planet
decided
that
that
this
property
belonged
to
the
historic
distance,
for
several
reasons
which
some
of
them
may
include,
the
side
is
highly
visible.
Within
the
historic
district.
Looking
toward
the
destroyed
district
from
outside
the
historic
district
and
from
camels
back
park,
a
popular
and
iconic
public
location,
it
is
located
right
at
the
gateway
from
the
north
end
to
the
trails
of
8th
street
guys.
I
believe
that
the
property
should
remain
in
the
as.
A
Q
Yeah,
that
was
the
point
that
I
want
to
make.
I
think
one
of
the
reason
that
the
property
is
a
part
of
the
north
of
the
historic
district
is
because
it
has
a
prominent
visibility,
is
a
little
bit
raised
up
to
a
street,
but
you
can
see
that
a
lot
from
a
lot
of
oppositions
within
the
historic
district,
both
coming
down
from
a
street
to
coming
up
from
a
street,
but
also
from
a
lamp
which
is
a
one
of
the
road
that
I
connect
history
to
camel's
back.
A
Z
Z
Z
I'm
opposed
to
approval
the
applicant's
request
to
be
removed
from
the
historic
district.
Although
the
driveway
to
the
house
does
enter
from
high
stride
from
many
vantage
points
around
the
heights
dive,
denver,
neighborhood
and
the
foothills,
including
views
from
camelsback
park,
the
house
is
highly
visible
and
therefore
the
property
should
remain
part
of
the
historic
district.
Z
My
concerns
and
those
of
our
neighbors,
such
as
the
mask
and
the
proposed
house,
are
documented
in
a
letter
protest.
I
emailed
the
plan
development
services
director
levine
on
june
29,
2020
to
copies
to
council
president
clint
and
the
mayor's
office
more
recently,
on
october
5th,
I
also
testified
planning
joining
commission
against
approval.
The
hill
soap
permit
due
to
inadequate
geotechnical
analysis.
R
Z
Z
For
example,
the
first
public
notice
described
the
design
changes
is
increasing
the
house
to
1.5
stories.
Only
next
submitted
drawings
lack
details
showing
the
elevations
and
heights
of
the
structure
and
subsequent
renderings
suggested
the
structure
will
not
be
as
tall
and
massive
as
the
drawing
suggests.
Now
I
understand
still
more
challenge.
Changes
are
planned
in
recent
testimony.
Z
The
commission,
the
applicant,
stated
there
was
going
to
be
no
effect
of
neighbors
in
the
north
end
that
we're
asking
in
the
neighborhood
we're
asking
it
removed
from
this
misleading
half
truth
fails
to
acknowledge
the
significant
and
lasting
direct
effects.
This
project
will
cause
the
high
stride,
neighborhood
and
indirect
effects
to
larger
north
end,
including
historic
district.
Z
Furthermore,
if
one
reads
the
hearing
minutes,
the
applicant
fails
to
directly
answer
questions
of
the
commissioners
and
the
north
hood
neighborhood
association
president.
Regarding
a
reason
for
wanting
to
be
room
for
next
orchestra.
As
we
discussed
tonight,
if
the
applicant
has
already
been
removed,
hazard
has
already
has
these
been
through.
The
process
has
approved
permanence
in
hand.
Why
is
that
applicant
want
to
be
removed
from
this
org
district?
A
L
Leland
lay
7109
northview.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
The
I
see
the
property
in
question
on
my
google
map.
There
are
many
properties
next
to
it
that
are
multi-uh
multi-dwelling
and
much
older
than
what
would
be
considered
historic.
L
So
I'm
wondering
as
a
as
a
part
of
the
historic
district,
what
role
it
has
significantly
as
a
historic
district
member,
I
see
the
house
itself
probably
looks
like
it
was
made
in
the
20s,
but
if
that
has
already
been
approved
to
go
away.
I
A
All
right,
so
this
is
not
an
appeal.
There's
no
rebuttal
are
there
any
further
questions
of
staff.
K
So
this
is
probably
for
staff,
so
this
was
it's
considered
a
non-contributing
building
that
was
done
in
a
survey
in
1999.
Is
that
why?
Because
it's
non-contributing,
the
plans
have
already
gotten
approved
in
the
past
that
there's
nothing
really
since
it's,
since
it
isn't
contributing,
there's
nothing
presenting
preventing
it
from
getting
these
things
approved.
U
Madam
mayor
councilmember,
hallie
burton
in
in
essence.
Yes,
so
there
are
differing
rules
in
terms
of
what
can
be
done
to
a
non-contributing
structure.
U
So
when
we
look
at
contributing
versus
non-contributing,
you
know
a
contributing
structure,
the
character
defining
facade
would
have
to
remain
intact
and
we
would
have
to
keep
the
characteristics
of
that
home
where
this
one
is
non-contributing,
the
rules
are
much
less
strict.
You
know
the
home
can
be
significantly
altered
and
not
be
required
to
keep
those
historic
elements.
Yes,.
K
U
Madam
mayor
council,
member
hallie
burton
there
are
processes
that
do
add
some
time
and
application.
So
you
know,
even
though
it's
non-contributing
when
the
new
home
is
proposed,
that
does
require
approval
by
the
historic
preservation
commission.
U
If
this
was
a
standard,
r1c
property
outside
of
this
historic
district
and
the
proposed
structure
complied
with
all
setbacks,
height
limits,
you
know
all
the
components
of
the
zoning
code,
then
it
would
just
be
a
building
permit
application.
So
the
historic
designation
does
add
some
process
and
and
required.
Public
hearings.
K
E
F
I'm
gonna
put
emotion
on
the
table
and
I'm
I'm
guessing
that
if
people
are
feeling
the
same
way
that
I
am
we're,
gonna
have
some
discussion
here.
I'm
going
to
move
that.
J
F
Met
a
mayor
I
was
pretty
torn
on
this
one
and
in
addition
to
having
lived
on
heights
drive,
while
I
was
a
senior
in
college
which
were
some
pretty
fun
times,
I've
also
lived
in
about
10
different
rentals
within
about
a
mile
of
that
spot,
and
I
I
see
both
sides,
I
see
how
that
lot
is
perceived
to
really
connect
with
the
heights
neighborhood,
but
I
also
appreciate
that
lots
prominence
from
the
8th
street
side,
particularly
from.
F
Design
requirements
which
josh
has
outlined,
you
know
there
wouldn't
be
a
requirement
to
make
it
look
period
appropriate
for
the
historic
district
there's
an
appreciation
for
you
know,
adding
interest
and
adding
more
modern
buildings
in
a
historic
district.
D
I
see
two
different
questions
here.
The
first
is:
does
this
property
belong
in
the
historic
district
according
to
the
historic
district
criteria,
and
the
second
is:
does
what
the
applicant
proposes
to
do
with
the
property
fit
with
the
neighborhood
unduly
burden,
the
neighbors
in
terms
of
their
views,
etc.
Those
are
the
two
different
issues
that
the
the
testimony
has
brought
up.
Only
one
of
them
is
before
us,
the
one
that's
actually
before
us
is
does
this
property
belong
in
the
historic
district?
D
So
on
those
criteria
it
doesn't
appear
that
this
property
belongs
in
the
historic
district.
The
separate
set
of
questions
you
know
does
what
the
applicant
proposes
to
do
with
this
property
comply
with
the
character
or
the
feel
of
this
neighborhood
neighbors
is
a
planning
and
design
question.
It's
a
zoning
question
and
it's
not
really
the
historic
preservation
question
the
way
that
I'm
thinking
about
this
is
what
historic
character
are
we
trying
to
preserve?
D
Unfortunately,
it's
not
the
neighbor's
views,
that's
not
a
criteria
for
historic
preservation.
It's
not
the
density
or
the
use.
It's
it's.
That's
not
really
a
criteria.
It's
more.
L
D
D
K
A
Remember
hallie
burton
my
understanding
is
that
that's
only
in
an
appeal
hearing,
we're
double
checking
that.
E
K
I
can
I
can
comment,
while
we're
figuring
that
out
yes
great,
so
I
think,
like
council
member
beijing,
I
definitely
see
two
separate
issues
on
the
table
here.
One
being
does
it
belong
in
the
overlay
district,
you
know
historic
commission
told
us,
no,
it
doesn't.
It
is
non-contributing.
A
E
B
A
A
A
I
A
So
the
the
clarification
is
not
very
clear
code
does
not
require
a
rebuttal
on
a
non-appeal.
However,
the
applicant
was
allowed
rebuttal
at
the
lower
level
and
just
to
ensure
that
we
are
not.
A
A
A
V
You
so
can
you
hear
me
robin
gates,
2115
heights
drive.
Thank
you
very
much
for
letting
me
speak.
I
will
try
to
be
concise.
A
few
items,
this
one's
kind
of
trivial,
but
it
made
me
sound
like
an
awful
person
saying
we
cut
down
all
our
trees,
we
had
two,
they
were.
They
were
breaking
down
part
of
our
rock
wall,
and
that
was
the
only
way
to
save
the
rock
wall.
So
I
like
trees.
I
don't
typically
go
around
doing
that.
V
V
V
It
is
it's
all
about
the
view
so
and
I
wasn't
going
to
go
there
initially,
because
I
thought
this
was
only
about
historical,
but
they've
appealed
everything
which
is
fine,
that's
their
right,
but
when
the
city
planning
and
zoning
historical
everyone's
seen
the
design
along
the
way,
what
I'm
actually
proposing
they've
approved
it.
As
far
as
the
triplex
goes,
I
have
a
single
family
home
with
an
adu
which,
by
the
way,
is
what
eric
has.
V
I
have
a
home
office,
so
I
had
a
door
to
go
to
the
third
floor
so
that
if
I
have
a
client
come
by
that
it's
there's
no
kitchen
up
there,
I
was
gonna
make
coffee.
While
I
worked
it's
on
the
plans,
a
lot
of
what
they're
saying
is
just
fake
news,
and
I
found
out
yesterday
they
sent
an
email
out
to
the
entire
neighborhood
and
excluded
me
from
it.
Saying
show
up
to
the
hearing
tonight.
She's
doing
a
three-story
house,
a
try
or
multi-family
is
what
it's
called.
V
I
I
mean
I
feel
petty
going
there
and
I
wasn't
even
going
to
mention
any
of
this,
but
they've
been
bullying
and
just
rallying
people
with
fake
information.
Again,
all
the
actual
information
that
I
have
presented
to
all
the
agencies
has
been
approved
every
single
time
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say
thank
you.
K
Yeah
that
that
would
be
great,
I
g
josh,
just
to
kind
of
reiterate
this
one
was
originally
put
in
the
historic
overlay
district
is
the
only
reason
that
it
could
be
put
into
the
historic
overlay
district,
because
it
bordered
eighth
street
or
there
are
potential
other
criteria
that
it
met
that
helped
it
fall
into
the
historic
district.
Originally.
U
Madam
mayor
council,
member
hallie
burton
so
we
don't
have
any
direct
information
about
why
it
was
included.
You
know
there
was
some
speculation
report
that
may
have
been
erroneously
included.
I
think
the
fact
that
it
is
generally
relatable
to
8th
street,
even
though
it
doesn't
have
direct
frontage,
is
probably
the
reason
for
inclusion.
U
You
know
it
probably
made
a
nicer
boundary
than
jogging
around
this
property.
But
again
we.
K
U
Madame
mayor
councilmember,
hallie
burton
not
that
I'm
aware
of,
but
when
a
consultant
takes
a
look
at
creating
this,
the
new
historic
district
and
doing
historic
surveys,
they
look
at
the
area
that
is
going
to
make
the
district
the
most
sound
the
most
whole,
with
contributing
properties
in
a
district.
That's
largely
intact,
so
you
know
it
if
this
was
a
very
of
outside
of
you
know
the
period
that
contributed
to
that
district.
They
probably
wouldn't
have
included
it,
but
it
was
close,
so
they
concluded
it
as
non-contributing.
U
But
but
beyond
that,
you
know
I
don't
know
specifically
of
any
special
qualities
of
this
structure
that
would
qualify
it
for
inclusion.
Sure
all
right,
thanks,
josh
yep.
F
Thank
you.
I
have
a
question
for
josh,
also
so
josh
the
applicant
had
stated
that
she
needed
to
add
a
garage
to
her
previously
approved
application.
What
would
that
process
look
like
in
on
a
property
that
is
included
in
a
historic
district.
U
Madam
mayor
councilmember
wedding,
so
a
gara,
a
single
story
garage
without
an
adu
can
be
reviewed
at
staff
level
in
the
historic
district.
If
it's
two
stories
or
has
an
edu,
it
would
go
to
the
historic
preservation
commission.
F
Madam
mayor,
I
appreciate
the
applicant
giving
some
clarification,
but
I'm
going
to
stick
with
my
original
motion,
which
is
that
we
deny
drh20-434
a
request
to
remove
a
property
at
2115
heights
drive
from
the
historic
district
boundary
in
an
r1ch.
A
D
D
E
D
My
comments
would
be
the
same
as
the
ones
I
made
earlier
that
that
I
perceived
there
being
two
different
issues.
One
is
the
future
use
of
the
property
and
the
second
is:
does
the
current
property?
That's.
There
belong
in
the
historical
overlay
district
for
the
reasons
that
are
in
our
packet
and
the
reasons
that
we've
heard
tonight.
I
don't
think
it
does
it's
non-contributing,
it
wasn't
built
during
the
period.
It's
not
you
know
it's
on
that
kind
of
horn
peninsula.
D
It's
not
really
contiguous
for
the
district
at
all,
and
so
it
makes
sense
to
me
to
remove
the
historical
overlay,
and
I
would
just
reiterate
that
I
do
think
that's
separate
and
very
distinct
from
what
is
eventually
built
there.
D
We
have
a
separate
set
of
processes
and
a
separate
set
of
approvals
for
that,
but
the
function
and
purpose
of
the
historical
overlay
district
is
to
protect
interest
and
to
protect
things
of
value
that
are
different
than
the
issues
that
were
raised
with
the
proposed
construction
and
so
on
the
narrow,
specific
question
of.
Does
this
property
belong
in
the
historical
overlay
district?
I
think
the
answer
is
no.
G
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
As
a
secondary,
I
will
note
that
I
agree
with
everything
the
council
member
of
agent
just
noted.
What
I
will
add,
in
addition,
is
that
I
I
do
share
the
same
concerns
as
the
citizens
in
this
area
and
what
they
brought
up
and,
but
I
also
believe
in
and
will
note
that
that
will
come
through
in
a
second
process.
G
If,
if,
in
fact
it
requires
one,
many
of
the
same
afforded
rights
to
this
property
owner
will
remain,
even
if,
if
it's
removed
from
the
historic
district,
but
if
efforts
are
made
to
go
beyond
what
is
required
by
zoning
code,
then
that
will
require
special
certain
special
meetings
and
will
involve
us
at
that
time
and
I'll
certainly
be
listening
to
those
concerns
at
that
time.
G
The
reason
tonight,
I
don't
think
that
they're
necessarily
valid
is
because
they
again,
as
council
member
beijing
pointed
out,
don't
specifically
apply
to
the
historical
context
of
this
property,
which
I
believe
has
been
shown.
It
does
not
belong
in
the
historic
district.
K
Yeah
my
comments
are,
for
the
most
part
the
same.
I
think
that
these
are
two
separate
issues
and,
if
you're
looking
at
it
strictly
from
a
historic
overlay
position,
I
don't
see
it
as
well.
It's
not
contributing
it's
already
been
classified
as
that,
but
I
don't
see
it
belonging
in
there,
so
I
think
it
does
make
sense
to
remove
it.
K
I
do
continue
to
have
pause
just
in
that
if
it
is
non-contributing
already,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what
it
is
that
what
the
exact
purpose
and
the
reason
for
removing
it
is
what's
not
able
to
be
done
now
that
will
be
after
you
know,
this
potentially
is
removed,
and
so
I
I
do
look
forward
to
that
process,
and
I
know
that
some
of
those
things
can
happen
without
city
council
approval,
but
I
do
know,
there's
an
appeal
process
as
well
and
so
that
there
is
a
chance
that
you
know
regardless
to
us
or
another
commission
will
end
up
seeing
this.
F
F
You,
madam
mayor,
I'm
I'm
not
going
to
be
supporting
this
motion
and
I
think
that
I
think
that
the
issue
for
me
is
that
you
know
this
house.
The
structure
that's
on
this
lot
is
definitely
not
contributing
it's
not
within
the
period
of
significance,
but
I
don't
believe
that
the
consultants
who
helped
us
develop
our
historic
overlay
were
arbitrary
in
their
decision
to
include
this
lot
in
the
historic
overlay
district.
F
J
I
would
just
like
to
thank
all
my
colleagues
for
asking
great
questions
tonight.
This
is
hard.
The
reason
I
I
didn't
renew
my
second
to
council
pro
tem
woodings
motion
was
based
on
the
questions
that
my
fellow
colleagues
asked
and
one
thing
I
noted,
and
I
hope
there's
a
way
we
can
do
this.
You
know
I
agree
with
council
pro
tem
woodings.
I
think
probably
the
reason
that
that
property
was
included
was
was
because
it
is
so
significant
and
I
I
think
probably
it
was
to
protect
the
views.
J
I
think
that
might
have
been
part
of
it,
but,
as
council
member
beijing
pointed
out
in
order
to
be
included
in
that
preservation
district,
it's
got
to
be
about.
What's
on
it,
and
so
I
this
is
an
area
that
I
think
we
should
look
into
a
little
bit
more
deeply
moving
forward,
but
I
also
think
it
would
be
great.
J
Whatever
decision
was
made
to
include
this
property
in
that
in
the
district,
it
wasn't
made
clear
what
the
reason
was,
and
I
I
I
feel
for
anybody
who
loses
their
view,
but
unfortunately,
that's
not
something.
That's
not
a
protection
that
we
offer
in
the
city
of
boise,
and
I
was
one
of
those
people
who
lost
their
view.
When
I
was
a
homeowner,
I
lost
it
to
the
stucco
skybox
put
up
by
boise
state
and
I
lost
it
to
the
norco
nursing
building
that
was
put
up
by
boise
state.
J
So
I
completely
understand-
and
my
heart
goes
out
to
neighbors-
who
feel
that
they're
going
to
be
missing
out
on
that,
and
so
I
hope
that
the
property
owner
continues
to
be
mindful
of
relationships,
and
I
for
myself
I
love
living
in
the
north
end,
but
beyond
loving
the
views
and
the
amenities,
it's
the
people,
and
so
I
hope
that
after
tonight
that
the
people
will
remember
that
relationships
are
important
moving
forward.
So
I
will
be
supporting
the
motion
tonight.
A
Thank
you.
I
am
voting
because
I'm
not
officially
the
mayor,
I'm
here
acting
as
the
mayor
tonight
and
so
I'll
comment
briefly.
A
A
The
particular
layout
of
this
lot
means
that
part
of
it
presents
on
to
the
historic
district,
but
for
me
the
fact
that
the
historic
preservation
commission
was
unanimous
in
their
assessment
that
it
did
not
belong
in
the
historic
overlay
zone
tells
me
that
that
the
judgment
should
be
based
on
whether
or
not
this
particular
property.
This
particular
building
belongs
in
the
historic
overlay
zone
and
not
the
impact
that
it
could
have
or
might
have
on
the
other
parts
of
the
historic
district.
A
When
that
was
not
made
clear
at
the
time
of
the
survey
that
included
it
in
the
in
in
the
zone
itself.
A
In
terms
of
what
might
happen
on
this
lot,
the
rules
are
just
about
the
same,
whether
it's
a
non-contributing
structure
in
a
historic
overlay
or
whether
it's
in
an
r1c
zone.
A
But
if
those
changes
follow
the
rules
providing
more
hurdles
between
the
applicant
and
those
changes
isn't
really
in
the
best
interest
of
a
regulatory
body,
I
don't
think
so.
For
those
reasons
I
will
be
voting
for
the
motion,
though
I
certainly
understand
the
impact
this
particular
property
may
indeed
have
on
the
significant
historic
properties
near
it
anything
further
with
that
with
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll.
A
E
AA
A
Let's
see
if
we
can
get
done
here,
number
four
in
public
hearings
is
drh
20-398,
ken
litzinger
1521,
north
fifth
street
and
appeal
of
the
historic
preservation
commission's
denial
of
the
request
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
construct
a
partial,
two-story
single-family
structure
in
an
r1ch
zone
cody.
I
think
you're
here
to
present.
T
T
T
T
In
march
of
of
this
year,
we
received
the
city
received
a
complaint
that
the
house
had
been
demolished.
Site
visit
from
staff
confirmed
that
that
was
the
case,
and
we
immediately
issued
a
stop
work
order.
According
to
the
applicant,
they
did
discover
in
the
construction
process,
significant
deer
deterioration
in
structural
components
and
did
proceed
to
demolish
the
home.
Unfortunately,
that
was
done
without
the
necessary
permits,
but
the
question
of
demolition.
T
I
think
it's
important
isn't
what's
before
you
this
evening
and
really
wasn't
before
the
commission
when,
when
they
heard
heard
this
item,
as
you
can
see
in
the
record,
the
record
the
applicant
has
since
requested
approval
to
construct
a
new
two-story
home.
The
historic
preservation
commission
conducted
three
hearings.
I
believe
on
this
item
in
june
july
and
against
in
september
of
this
year,
that
denial
has
been
appealed
which
brings
us
to
you
this
evening.
T
I
think,
if
you
saw
on
the
record,
the
applicant
did
include
six
grounds
in
their
appeal,
rather
than
walk
through
each
of
those
individually.
I
think
I
can
briefly
summarize
things
and
then
let
you
I
think
it's
important
we
hear
hear
from
them.
They
do
believe
that
their
proposal
to
construct
that
home
is
consistent
with
the
historic
guidelines
and
should
have
been
approved.
T
T
As
you
can
see
in
the
record,
the
commission
was
understandably
upset
about
the
unpermitted
demolition
in
this
case.
Their
motion
and
deliberation
did
did
focus
somewhat
on
on
perhaps
punishing
the
applicant,
and
there
was
only
minimal
evaluation
of
the
actual
proposal
for
this
new
home,
we're
not
suggesting
for
a
second.
What
occurred
was
acceptable.
It's
not
contrary
to
what
I
think
you
might
hear
this
evening.
It's
not
demolition
like
this
isn't
a
widespread
problem.
We
have
had
a
few
isolated
incidents
in
recent
years,
regardless
of
how
isolated,
though
it
doesn't
make
it.
T
Okay,
even
one
case
does
have
an
impact,
and
something
like
this
just
can't
be.
Undone,
however,
how
aggressive
we
want
to
be
in
punishing
an
owner
or
a
contractor
is
really
a
separate
conversation.
The
commission,
in
this
case,
was
charged
with
evaluating
a
proposal
for
a
new
home,
as
the
record
reflects
from
our
perspective.
They
really
didn't
do
do
that,
and
there
probably
was
an
error
in
this
case.
T
You
know
unpermitted
demolition
of
a
contributing
structure
like
this
beyond
beyond
frustrating
for
all
of
us
again.
It's
simply
not
the
role
of
the
historic
preservation
commission
to
impose
punishment
on
a
property
owner
using
the
public
hearing
hearing
process
to
do
so
probably
did
exceed
their
statutory
authority
and
the
absence
of
facts
and
evidence
in
the
record
justifying
denial
for
construction
of
that
home
could
be
perceived
as
arbitrary.
T
Based
on
that,
we
are
recommending.
The
council
approve
the
appeal
and
overturn
the
decision
this
evening.
We're
suggesting
you
adopt
the
findings
originally
proposed
by
staff
and
allow
that
home
to
be
built
and,
from
our
perspective,
an
appropriately
designed
home
in
this
location
rather
than
a
vacant
construction
site,
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
neighborhood
and
where
we're
at
at
this
time.
T
Finally,
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
my
comments
aren't
intended
in
any
way
to
reflect
poorly
on
the
commission
and
certainly
not
to
downplay
the
concerns
of
our
friends
in
the
preservation
community
on
the
staff
as
a
staff.
We
gener
genuinely
appreciate
the
work
they
all
do.
They
have
a
right
to
be
upset
and,
frankly,
it
from
a
staff
perspective,
we're
upset
too
this,
isn't
this
isn't
fun
for
any
of
us.
T
F
Thank
you
cody.
I
reviewed
all
of
the
materials,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I'm
thinking
about
this
correctly,
so
the
the
homeowners
applied
to
renovate
the
existing
home
got
in
there
figured
out
that
it
wasn't
structurally
sound
and
that
couldn't
be
done
and
are
basically
rebuilding
the
original
plan
that
they
were
going
to
use
for
renovation.
Is
that
correct.
T
Madam
mayor
councilmember
whittings
that
that
was
what
they
originally
took
back
to
the
historic
preservation
commission.
After
the
stop
work
order
occurred,
they
came
back
and
were
proposing
essentially
to
construct
that
same
home.
The
historic
preservation
commission
didn't
did,
did
push
back
and
and
right
rightfully
so
that,
given
the
situation,
they
should
be
looking
at
a
at
a
home
that
they
shouldn't
be
looking
at
trying
to
exactly
mimic
that
historic
structure
and
you
should
be
able
to
tell
tell
the
difference.
A
I
turned
my
mic
off
sorry
cody,
I'd
like
to
follow
up
on
that
before
I
ask
for
other
questions
yeah.
I
guess
not
dissimilar
situation
in
the
east
end
with
a
commercial
building
the
roosevelt
market
and
that
building
was
allowed
to
be
reconstructed
as
it
was
historically.
What
was
the
difference.
A
T
Madam
mayor,
it
wasn't
on
contributing,
and
if
I
recall
they
did,
they
did
maintain
a
number
of
the
the
studs
on
that
wall,
and
so
the
walls
weren't
completely
removed.
Although
quite
quite
significantly,.
A
F
So
cody
there
have
been
actually
been
a
couple
of
examples
of
this
happening,
one
that
I'm
thinking
of
is
on
seventh
and
resigue,
and
that
was
several
years
back
where
there
was
a
home
that
was
approved
to
be
taken
down
to
studs.
F
There
was
a
windstorm
that
ended
up
blowing
over
one
of
the
remaining
stud
walls,
and
then
the
house
was
basically
reconstructed
to
its
original
plan
with
an
addition-
and
I
guess
my
question
is-
and
I
mean
the
results
were-
are
beautiful,
you
can't
tell
the
difference
between
a
home,
that's
been
substantially
remodeled
and
this
new
construction
house.
So
I
guess
my
question
is
what
is
the
what's
the
thinking
behind
not
wanting
to
substantially
reconstruct
historic
homes
to
modern
codes
in
a
historic
preservation
overlay?
T
Madam
mayor
councilmember
weddings,
I
think
I
think,
and
and
some
of
the
folks
you'll
hear
from
this
evening,
can
probably
speak
better
better
to
that
than
than
myself.
I
think
I
think
where
the
rub
here
is,
is
that
you
know
we
were.
We
were
to
maintain
significant
portions
of
this
this
structure,
and
rather
than
just
completely
complete,
completely
look
at
the
photos
completely
demolish
it
in
any
sense
of
that
historic
structures,
then,
is
then
gone
so
building
it
back.
T
F
I
guess
I'm
going
to
take
this
a
step
further
cody.
If
you're
taking
a
structure
down
to
the
studs,
you
don't
see
the
studs
in
a
constructed
home,
and
so
that's
where
that's
where
this
disconnect
is
happening.
For
me,
you
don't
actually
see
anything
of
the
of
the
home
that
was
constructed
in
you
know,
1908
or
whenever
once
it's
renovated.
So
I
don't
know.
Maybe
I'm
just
not
thinking
right.
I
I
just
I
don't
get
it
and
I
grew
up
and
for
the
record
I
grew
up
in
house
that
was
built
in
1898..
T
Yeah
and
and
madam
mayor
councilmember
woodings,
that's
a
very,
very
fair
question
and-
and
I
guess
to
be
completely
honest-
I've
had
this
debate
with
ted
josh
and
before
ted
with
with
sarah.
On
that
that
very
question,
I
think
I
think
our
preference,
or
maybe
maybe
the
approach
is
that
we
should.
We
should
really
consider
something
like
this
than
you
know,
effectively
a
demolition
from
the
beginning
or
be
be
very
clear
in
just
how
we're
communicating
that
up
front
and
not
create
false
expectations.
T
K
Yeah
cody,
I
don't
want
to
get
stuck
in
the
weeds
with
the
discussion,
because
I
know
that
that's
kind
of
not
that's
our
goal
tonight
not
get
stuck
in
it
at
this
point
they're
not
wanting
to
put
forward
the
old
plans.
These
are
the
new
plans,
and
so
the
builder
and
the
owner
don't
have
a
desire
to
rebuild
backup,
even
if
that
weren't
option
for
them
is
that
correct?
These
are
the
plans
that
they're
wanting
to
push
going
forward.
A
Other
questions
all
right
now
we
will
go
to
the
appellant,
who
is
also
the
applicant
ken
litzigner
and
steve
bott,
who
is
the
owner?
I'm
going
to
ask
you
both
if
it's
possible
to
keep
this
to
15
minutes
instead
of
20
and
we'll
go
from
there.
R
R
R
For
the
historical
district
commissioner
kuski,
to
make
a
motion
for
denial
to
remove
a
stock
work
order
due
to
an
illegal
demolition
asking
help
from
the
city
council
is
simply
capricious
and
an
unauthorized
decision
action
performed
by
the
historical
district
when
the
matter
was
handled
in
two
prior
meetings
with
them.
Those
concerns
and
issues
simply
have
nothing
to
do
with
this
application.
R
Any
testimony
given
in
the
past
or
tonight
speaking
in
relation
to
a
demolition
is
simply
noise
and
a
waste
of
everyone's
time.
The
application
before
you
is
for
construction
of
a
new
home
on
a
non-contributing
lot
in
the
historical
district.
It
must
be
reviewed
on
its
own
merits,
with
the
plans
presented
before
you.
R
The
previous
action
of
a
demolition
had
been
heard
and
closed
in
prior
meetings
with
the
historical
commission
back
in
june
of
twenty
twenty.
At
that
time,
the
commissioners
elected
to
defer
their
final
decision
until
the
july
twenty
twenty
meeting,
because
they
specifically
wanted
to
consult
the
city's
city's
attorney
and
judicial
arm
to
see
how
to
handle
the
situation.
R
At
the
july
2020
meeting,
the
commission
denied
my
application
after
it
was
reviewed
by
the
city
attorney
for
the
reason
that
the
plans
at
hand
were
for
a
replica
which
was
prohibited
by
law.
No
other
discussion
was
given
from
the
commission,
nor
any
reason
stating
any
future.
Approval
was
contingent
on
future
prop
fines
or
penalties
imposed
against
me.
Furthermore,
commissioner
montoto
stated
at
the
in
the
june
2020
meeting
that
they
wanted
to
be
able
to
give
me
clear
guidance
to
move
forward
with
this
project.
R
The
commission's
specific
guidance
of
direction
was
for
me
to
redraw
the
plans
to
comply
for
another
approval
at
the
historical
district's
request.
I
redrew
the
plans
so
that
they
complied
for
a
new
submittal
before
the
historical
district.
At
the
september
2020
meeting,
I
complied
with
all
facets
of
approval
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
for
them.
R
Two
commissioners
supported
the
application's
approval
after
mr
mr
vanegas
informed
him
that
they
had
to
give
a
specific
reason
for
denial,
not
just
simply
a
motion
that
they
wanted
me
to
appear
before
city
council
and
the
mayor
based
on
something
that
is
not
relevant
to
the
decision
at
hand.
What
guidance
and
help
does
the
historical
district
need?
After
the
city's
judicial
arm
has
reviewed
those
matters
and
given
them
their
input
at
prior
meetings,
historic
historical
district,
commissioner
kuski
is
simply
angry
that
it
as
an
appointed
commissioner
by
the
mayor.
R
R
R
This
is
more
costly
than
any
fine
that
could
have
been
imposed
on
me
the
day
of
the
stock
work
order,
which,
at
that
time
I
was
ready,
willing
and
able
to
pay
months
ago.
If
that
is
what
the
commission
needed
done
to
get
the
project
moving
again,
the
holding
cost
increased
building
prices
over
the
last
nine
months
has
resulted
in
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
added
cost
to
this
project.
R
How
do
these
actions
support
the
city's
vision
for
diversity
and
affordability
in
the
boise
when
it
has
narrowly
interpreted
the
rules
and
guidelines
set
forth
before
them
to
provide
affordable
housing
in
the
area
leading
to
a
narrow
demographic
of
the
population
who
are
able
to
afford
these
homes?
I
think
derek
heard
an
architect
who,
ironically,
shares
the
office
space
with
commissioner
richter
testified
in
the
previous
two
meetings
at
several
projects
illustrating
the
ignorance
set
forth.
R
These
ignorant
statements
only
solidify
the
narrow
demographics
that
the
historical
district
presently
caters
to
help
further
drive
the
cost
size
scale
of
these
projects
within
the
district
to
escalate.
With
no
end
in
sight,
no
immediate
neighbors
have
ever
testified
in
distinct
dissent
to
the
approval
of
the
application
at
any
prior
meetings.
I
have
spoken
with
many
of
my
immediate
neighbors
and
they
are
anxious
for
the
project
to
get
off
dead
center
and
be
completed
as
they
are
tired
of
seeing
the
project
in
its
current
state.
R
Since
the
stop
work
order,
we
have
continued
to
comply
and
follow
the
city's
direction
on
how
to
move
forward
for
nine
months,
which
leads
me
here
today.
The
fact
will
always
remain
that
this
is
a
building
lot
within
the
city
and
eventually
a
home
will
be
built
here.
We
have
started
on
a
path
to
build
a
beautiful
home
that
fits
within
the
district,
whereas
the
garage
is
almost
complete.
In
addition
to
the
basement,
it's
rough
and
plumbing
and
the
window
wells
are
installed.
R
I
ask
that
you
reverse
the
historical
district's
decision,
so
that
I
can
finish
this
home
mayor
and
commissioners.
I
am
certain
you
will
hear
testimony
from
many
patrons
and
organizations
such
as
nina
as
to
an
act
of
an
illegal
demolition
being
performed.
Like
I
said
before,
all
this
testimony
should
be
ignored
and
disregarded
tonight,
as
it
will
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
application
before
you
now
I'll
answer
any
questions
and
or
hear
from
the
public
comments
that
you
may
need
to
address.
D
Mr
vaughn,
you
testified
to
the
historical
preservation
commission
that
essentially
that
this
was
the
demolition
part
which
you
know.
I
understand
your
view
that
it's
not
what's
in
front
of
us
is
something
that
your
builder
had
done
and
that
in
one
sense
you
were
a
victim
of
the
builder
as
much
as
anything
else,
and
so
my
question
for
you
is,
are
you
still
using
the
same
builder,
and
will
you
be
using
this
builder
going
forward.
R
R
A
A
X
Good
evening
again,
madam
mayor
and
council
members,
as
stated
earlier,
my
name
is
sherry
batazo
and
I'm
here,
as
the
designated
representative
for
the
north
end
neighborhood
association.
My
address
is
311
north
23rd
street
boise
83702,
and
I
believe,
if
we
have
20
minutes,
we'll
keep
it
to
15..
I'm
sharing
my
time
this
evening
with
incoming
president
chris
wagner
a
few
points
of
clarification
to
provide
some
context
of
the
neighborhood
association's
position
at
the
original
historic
preservation
commission.
X
Hearing
the
testimony
by
the
applicant
was
that
they
thought
they
were
allowed
to
take
apart
the
structure
and
put
it
back
together
as
long
as
they
reused
the
materials.
This
resulted
in
the
roof
and
walls
being
removed
and
the
structure
effectively
demolished,
as
stated
by
the
city
when
they
issued
the
stop
work
order.
The
applicant
then
came
before
historic
preservation
commission
presenting
a
replication
of
the
demolished
home.
The
commission
then
denied
that
plan
with
merited
findings
and
how
we
say
it
is
replication
is
not
preservation
at
that
time.
X
I
want
to
say
that
the
north
end,
neighborhood
association,
does
not
oppose
the
appeal
being
made
by
the
applicant
due
to
the
lack
of
findings
specific
to
the
proposal
in
the
application
that
came
before
the
commission
on
september
29th.
Nor
are
we
here
to
keep
the
appellant
from
building
his
house.
That
said,
review
reviewing
this
appeal
on
its
own
merits
and
recommending
approval
steps
over
the
actions
taken
that
led
up
to
the
new
application,
and
it
sets
a
dangerous
and
clear
precedent
for
future
demolition
of
historic
buildings
as
well
as
minimizes.
X
The
protection
set
forth
for
the
sake
of
preservation.
Staff's
report
states
that
any
discussion
on
demolition
should
occur
outside
of
a
public
hearing
on
a
specific
application,
but
demolition
and
illegal
demolition
of
a
contributing
structure
are
two
different
things.
These
types
of
permit
violations
are
misdemeanors
and
the
code
allows
for
penalties
and
fines
at
a
minimum.
They
should
be
enforced.
X
Lack
of
enforcement
not
only
leaves
zero
incentive
to
follow
the
laws,
but
also
results
in
a
de
facto
punishment
to
those
who
choose
to
honor
the
protections
afforded
to
historic
structures
and
what
it
takes
to
preserve
them.
We
acknowledge
that
the
appellant
vehemently
denies
he
purposely
demolished
the
structure,
yet
the
facts
remain.
A
contributing
structure
which
was
permitted
to
be
preserved
was
illegally
demolished
and
the
city
did
not
enforce
a
penalty.
X
X
If
the
city
has
adopted
a
policy
for
historic
preservation,
asked
volunteers
to
staff,
a
commission
to
uphold
historic
preservation,
had
citizens
vote
their
desire
to
adopt
specific
historic
districts
and
hire
a
staff
for
the
purpose
of
administering
these
historic
districts.
What
possible
justification
could
come
could
be
offered
for
the
lack
of
enforcement
that
this
has
become
the
norm.
X
We
fear
that,
at
the
rate,
the
city
is
allowing
for
demolition,
either
intentionally
or
unintentionally,
of
the
contributing
structures.
It
will
not
be
long
before
there
are
no
longer
sufficient
contributing
inventory
to
justify
maintaining
the
facade
of
having
historic
districts
again
without
enforcement.
It
breaks
down
the
integrity
of
the
system.
We
look
to
you
tonight
to
uphold
that
integrity
and,
in
the
wake
of
the
hearing
you
heard
before
this
one,
the
one
on
heights
drive
you've
all
demonstrated
a
real
regard
for
historic
districts
and
the
properties
located
there.
X
AB
Hi,
I'm
chris
wagner,
I'm
the
act.
The
current
president
of
the
north
end
neighborhood
association,
and
we
do
have
concerns
madam
mayor
and
members
of
council,
and
we
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
speak.
The
growth
in
boise
has
created
an
overwhelming
increased
need
for
housing,
and
if
we
allow
illegal
demolition
of
historic
homes
to
go
unpunished,
we
risk
more
demolition
as
a
way
of
skirting
requirements
and
proceeding
with
new
construction.
AB
As
we've
heard
this
evening,
there
are
added
layers
to
approval
within
the
historic
districts
and
if
homeowners
are
just
allowed
to
just
demolish
their
homes
and
proceed
with
new
construction,
we
we
skirt
the
the
need
for
the
historic
districts,
and
so
it
leaves
the
question:
why
do
we
have
historic
districts
if
we
do
not
punish
those
who
illegally
demolish
homes?
AB
It
is,
is
the
position
of
nina
that
we
need
to
preserve
the
historic
homes
within
our
district
within
our
neighborhood,
and
we
ask
that
council
deny
this
until
the
issue
of
or
I
guess
we
don't
oppose
the
project.
We
ask
that
that
the
city
council
addressed
the
appropriate
punishment
for
this
illegal
demolition.
A
Seeing
none
we'll
go
to
the
list,
we
have
no
one
in
the
audience
signed
up.
This
is
an
appeal
hearing.
You
must
have
been
a
party
of
record
at
the
original
hearing.
In
order
to
testify
we
do
have
six
or
seven
people
signed
up
online,
we'll
go
to
those
starting
with
mark
baltas.
C
A
AC
AC
In
this
case,
a
contributing
home
and
a
protected
local
historic
district
was
demolished
without
a
permit
application
being
submitted
to
the
city.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
owner
and
the
contractor
to
understand
that
a
permit
is
required
to
model
the
exterior
of
a
home.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
city
to
enforce
the
laws
that
it
has
passed
and
to
enforce
consistent
consequences
when
those
laws
are
broken.
AC
If
the
historic
preservation
commission
is
not
allowed
to
administer
punishment
or
penalty,
then
we
all
need
to
rely
on
the
city
to
serve
that
function.
I
believe
hpc
denied
it
because
they
asked
for
help
from
the
city
on
that
point
of
how
to
enforce
the
law.
I
hope
you
can
all
see
the
clear
precedent
that
this
sets
for
an
open
path
to
demolition
of
historic
buildings.
AC
Lack
of
understanding
about
the
existing
laws
for
work
done
at
a
contributing
building
in
a
protected
local
historic
district
should
not
result
in
approval
for
a
new
build
with
no
penalty
attached.
The
city's
legal
department
needs
clear
direction
from
mayor
and
council
as
to
whether
protection
of
established
local
historic
districts
is
a
priority
or
not.
We've
been
told,
they're,
hesitant
to
prosecute
these
cases
and
we'd
like
to
understand,
if
that's
true,
and
why
it's
not
punishment
in
our
eyes.
AC
It's
law
enforcement
owners
in
local
historic
districts
need
and
deserve
clear
understanding
of
how
the
process
works,
and
they
need
a
clear
understanding
of
the
consequences
when
the
law
is
broken.
East
end
neighborhood
association,
the
north
end,
neighborhood
association
and
preservation.
Idaho,
are
all
looking
to
you
to
establish
whether
the
laws
in
place
must
be
followed
and
then
give
direction
to
city
legal
staff
when
those
laws
are
broken.
What
we
have
now,
we
feel,
are
signals
that
apologies
or
appeals
for
forgiveness
will
result
in
a
well.
AC
We
can't
undo
it
so,
let's
move
on
kind
of
scenario
and
that
owners
and
contractors
are
being
inadvertently
encouraged
to
take
advantage
of
this
city
needs
to
send
a
clear
message
that
it
will
enforce
the
laws
it
has
enacted.
Whether
you
approve
this
new
build
tonight
or
not,
discussion
and
clear
guidance
for
city
staff
on
protection
of
our
local
historic
districts
is
in
order
and
we'd
appreciate
being
part
of
it.
Thank
you.
A
A
I
think
illuminated
that
potentially
we're
allowing
what
are
essentially
demolitions
when
we
allow
a
building
to
be
taken
down
to
the
studs
and
then
rebuilt,
and
if
you
get
it
to
that
state
which
happened
with
the
roosevelt
market,
which
happened
here,
and
you
find
out
that
those
structural
ailments
are
not
sound.
A
What
what
would
you
suggest
we
do?
Do
you
agree
with
staff
that
perhaps
we
should
call
that
a
demolition
to
begin
with,
or
do
you
have
another
solution?
I.
AC
Think
that
my
understanding
of
how
the
process
is
supposed
to
work,
the
applicant
takes
out
a
permit
with
specific
requests
for
specific
actions
if
they
get
into
construction
or
deconstruction
and
they
find
something
different
than
they
expect,
and
they
feel
that
there
is
deterioration
that
prohibits
further
further
application
of
what
they
have
on
application
file.
Forgive
me
for
that
stumbling
of
words
there,
but
if
they
find
that
they
feel
that
they
need
to
go
further
their
job
and
their
requirement
is
that
they
go
back
to
the
city
they
stop.
AC
AC
They
find
things
that
weren't
expected,
but
we
feel
really
councilman
clay
should
be
expected
when
you
take
apart
a
house
from
1908
or
1920
or
1870.
If
you
think
you're
going
to
find
a
foundation
and
walls
and
ceilings
tied
together,
like
you
would
in
in
2010
or
2020,
then
you
really
aren't
prepared
to
do
that
job.
So
if
I'm
answering
your
question
correctly,
what
needs
to
happen?
Is
they
apply
for
a
specific
permit
if
they
find
they
need
to
exceed
that
permit?
AC
There
is
a
way
to
manage
these
things
and
allowing
people
to
do
demolition
and
to
exceed
permits
without
any
kind
of
of
a
consequence,
really
just
encourages
them
to
do
the
work
and
then
ask
for
forgiveness,
and
I
I
don't
disagree
with
cody.
We
work
very
well
with
he
and
with
ted,
but
we
are
finding
more
and
more
permit
violations
that
result
in
actions
being
taken,
and
then
forgiveness
asked
that.
Well,
we
didn't
mean
to
do
that.
We
didn't
know
that
would
happen.
AC
A
Yeah
yeah
it
did,
I
just
wanted
you
know
going
forward.
We
clearly,
I
think,
probably
need
to
address
it.
Somehow,
I'm
also
going
to
ask
our
legal
staff
to
address
the
issue
of
enforcement
versus
the
application
decision-making
process
that
commissions
and
councils
are
involved
in.
If
we
could
turn
to
our
legal
staff.
AA
So
in
this
instance,
if
staff
did
refer
this
for
some
sort
of
enforcement
action
that
would
need
to
be
independently
reviewed
outside
of
the
land
use
decision
making
process.
I
A
You
I
appreciate
that
and
paula.
We
did
not
get
your
address
for
the
record.
Could
you
come
back
and
give
us
that.
A
You
all
right
with
that.
Are
there
any
other
questions
apollo
or
of
the
legal
of
rob
about
the
legal
opinion?
He
just
stated.
K
AC
AC
I
think
a
home
needs
to
be
approved.
I
think
the
the
historicism
might
be
somewhat
overplayed
is
the
word
I
might
use
it
shouldn't
be
an
exact
replica
of
the
house
that
was
there,
but
it
should
absolutely
be
of
massing
and
style
that
is
consistent
with
what
was
there
and
what
is
consistent
with
the
neighborhood.
So
I
don't
think
it's
inappropriate
that
you
approve
whether
this
plan
or
something
else,
overriding
issue
that
we
have
and
in
working
with
the
neighborhood
associations.
The
overriding
issue
we
all
have
is
how
this
process
is
managed.
AC
We
also
feel
that
demolition
is
overused
in
terms
of
houses
being
unsafe,
because
they're
older
they
were
built
consistent
with
the
style
of
their
time
and
they've
lasted
for
a
hundred
years.
So
tonight
I
guess
I'd
look
at
if
you
want
to
approve
this
plan.
I
will
leave
that
up
your
judgment,
but
what
really
needs
to
happen.
Councilman
halliburton,
is
that
we
need
to
sit
down
with
the
city
and
we
need
to
have
a
clear
understanding
of
what
the
process
is
and,
even
more
importantly,
what
the
enforcement
options
are.
AC
If
city
legal
staff
said
that
they're
not
comfortable
prosecuting
these
cases,
we
want
to
understand
why
if
the
law
is
on
the
books-
and
it's
not
enforced,
it's
really
just
an
enticement
to
ignore
the
law.
So
we'd
like
to
be
clear
on
that,
and
my
understanding
is
that
historic
preservation
commission
felt
that
they
couldn't
take
that
on
and
they
needed
to
turn
to
city
council
for
help
with
that
bigger
issue.
K
Yeah,
thank
you,
paula.
That
was
really
helpful
and
I
think
a
lot
of
those
things
are
certainly
worth
considering
just
one
quick
follow-up
to
you,
the
what's
being
proposed
with
this
with
this
building,
that's
in
front
of
us
right
now:
you're
not
opposed
to
this
exact
building.
If
it
wasn't
for
the
history,
if
it
wasn't
for
the
background,
you
think
that
this
fits.
What
would
need
to
happen
and
look
like
for
a
complete,
rebuild
or
a
build-up.
Is
that
correct.
AC
K
And
then
rob
just
to
make
sure
that
I
understood
what
you
said
earlier
and
cody,
I
think
probably
said
it
earlier
as
well.
The
decision
that
we're
making
tonight
we
can't
factor
in
any
of
the
process
that
took
place
before
this
as
far
as
the
demolition
goes
we're
strictly
looking
at
a
building
proposal,
and
we
can't
take
that
other
stuff
into
account.
Is
that
correct?
Is
that
what
I
understood.
AA
Madam
mayor
council,
member
hallie
burton
that's
essentially
correct,
you're
limited
tonight
on
an
appeal
to
evaluate
the
appeal
based
upon
what
is
set
forth
in
boise
city
code,
and
you
really
shouldn't
really
deviate
beyond
that
or
into
the
the
area
necessarily
of
enforcement.
K
T
Madam
mayor
council,
member
hallie
burton
that
that's
correct
just
if,
if
there
was
a
desire
by
by
mayor
and
council
to
have
further
discussion
on
you
know,
we
we
have
a
whole
series
of
thoughts
on
education
and
outreach
and
then
just
general
direction
on
how
how
heavy-handed
we
want
to
be
in
in
imposing
fines.
We
we'd,
certainly
from
a
staff
perspective,
appreciate
that
that
discussion.
A
All
right,
thank
you
other
questions,
I
guess
just
for
process.
I
would
note
that
it's
not
out
of
the
question
for
a
council
member
after
we've
made
our
decision
to
make
a
unanimous
consent
request
that
we
request
such
a
work
session
and
that
way
we
get
it
on
the
record.
A
A
AA
A
A
Since
you
are
not
the
applicant
and
the
appellant
are
the
same,
they
are
the
ones
that
do
get
the
rebuttal,
and
I
do
know
that
you
forgave
a
little
more
than
five
minutes.
If
you
have
something
that
you
would
like
to
add
that
can
fit
within
that
time.
I'll,
let
you
add
it,
but
this
is
not
a
rebuttal.
It
has
to
be
new
information.
A
A
X
Madam
mayor
and
council
members,
it
is
not
a
rebuttal.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
sheila
grisham
from
the
east
end
neighborhood
association,
actually
is
a
party
of
record.
She
did
testify
at
the
original
hearing
and
she's
the
person
that
has
her
hand
raised.
That
just
wanted
to
add
some
comments
if
she
so
be
allowed
and
with
that
I'll
mute
myself.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that.
Yes,
clerk
is
checking.
We
did
have
brittany
sigliano
listed,
I
don't
know
if
she
was
listed
as
a
representative
of
eastham.
I
A
A
And
I
think
with
that
we
will
go
back
to
the
applicant
appellant
for
no
more
than
five
minute
rebuttal.
A
R
I
just
want
to
restate
and
thank
everybody
for
their
time
tonight,
and
I
do
hope
that
you
will
approve
this
application
based
on
the
merits
of
the
application,
so
that
we
can
move
forward
with
construction,
because
a
long
time
has
went
on.
I
feel,
like
I've
been
punished
long
enough
with
the
long
delays,
the
increased
business
cost
and
things
of
that
nature.
R
So
with
that
I'll
rest
with
that,
but
in
regards
to
nina
and
the
idaho
preservation
district,
I
do
want
to
let
them
know.
As
far
as
if
I
was
sitting
in
their
shoes
and
some
of
the
frustrations
and
things
I
I
went
through
that,
I
think
city
council
needs
to
address
in
perhaps
the
workshop
and
things
going
forward
is
obviously
public
safety
will
always
prevail.
So
how
does
that
affect
the
decisions
of
these
demolitions
and
at
what
stopping
point?
And
what
should
be
done?
And
things
of
that
nature?
R
And
I
do
think,
there's
a
lot
of
issues
with
the
bifurcated
process
between
the
city
of
boise
and
their
definitions
with
construction
and
the
working
drawings
building
permits
that
get
approved
through
the
building
process
and
the
historical
districts
rules.
Regulations
and
guidelines,
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
revisit
to
where
that
bifurcated
process
perhaps
needs
to
work
better
together
and
that
these,
if
you
look
at
demolition
and
things
of
that
nature,
specifically
the
historical
district,
I
believe,
if
over
50
percent
of
the
structure
is
gone,
then
there
needs
to
be
a
demolition
permit.
R
So
I
would
make
the
argument
that
homes
that,
like
mine,
that
were
approved
have
a
de
facto
demolition
permit
in
the
city's
working
drawings.
Because
of
the
fact
that
it's
self-evident
that
the
working
drawings
over
50
percent
of
the
home
will
be
gone
and
just
to
let
the
council
members
know
when
we
did
take
this
home
down
to
the
studs.
We
cut
sections
of
the
walls
off
laid
them
on
the
ground
to
reuse
them,
because
the
subfloor
was
breached
broken
and
we
had
to
replace
it.
R
R
So
it's
kind
of
like
things
that
make
you
go.
Is
it
really
a
historical
structure
when
you
can't
see
anything?
The
essence
of
it
is
there,
but
I'm
just
saying
that
we
shouldn't
make
knee-jerk
reactions.
We
should
have
some
kind
of
policy
in
place
to
where
going
forward.
People
don't
have
to
be
in
a
situation
like.
R
I
am
10
months
down
the
road
of
these
delays
to
where
perhaps
there's
a
protocol
to
follow
that
can
get
projects
moving
again
and
preservation
can
be
done
in
other
ways
to
keep
projects
contributing
status
and
homes,
historic,
historical
going
forward,
and
with
that
I
rest-
and
I
hope
you
approve
my
project
tonight-.
A
F
My
motion
is
that
we
uphold
the
appeal
drh20-398
at
1521,
north
fifth
street,
on
the
grounds
that
the
commission's
decision
was
arbitrary,
since
the
merits
of
the
application
of
the
new
construction
were
not
addressed
in
the
motion
or
the
associated
findings.
K
F
Madam
mayor,
yes,
this
is
the
second
time
now
in
my
lifetime
that
I've
seen
a
substantially
similar
situation
and
the
first
time
I
saw
it
was
as
the
president
of
the
north
end
neighborhood
association,
and
we
asked
these
very
same
questions
of
the
city
at
the
time.
F
So
I
think
that
I
mean
by
all
accounts,
this
application
looks
appropriate
for
the
site,
while
it's
unfortunate
borderline,
tragic
that
we
lost
a
historic
structure
in
the
process.
This
particular
application
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
that.
We're
really
looking
at
the
appropriateness
of
this
particular
home,
and
I
think
that
it
will
be
a
great
contribution
to
that.
Neighborhood.
E
D
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion,
although
I
want
a
flag
that
there
were
general
conditions
and
site-specific
conditions
in
the
september
report
from
from
our
staff
that
we
may
wish
to
attach
as
well,
if,
if
we're
going
to
be
reversing
and
modifying
the
ruling
to
an
approval,
the
reason
that
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
is
that
this
is
one
of
the
relatively
rare
cases
that
compels
us
to
reverse.
We
can
find
error
on
various
grounds.
One
is
a
violation
of
our
city
law.
D
D
It's
clear
that
the
review
body's
decision
exceeded
its
statutory
authority
and
that
what
the
review
body
wanted
to
do
was
seek
to
punish
the
applicant
and
the
the
way
that
they
they
sought
to
achieve.
That
objective
was
to
send
it
to
us,
and
the
record
refers
to
you
know
having
to
explain
themselves
to
the
city
council:
that's
not
approval
or
denial
of
an
application.
That's
adjudication
and
punishment.
That's
outside
of
its
authority.
D
The
decision
was
made
on
an
unlawful
procedure.
The
basis
of
the
decision
was
essentially,
we
don't
want
to
decide.
We
want
the
council
to
decide
so
we'll
issue
whatever
ruling
it
takes
to
get
it
in
front
of
the
council.
That's
not
the
correct
procedure,
and
I
would
note
the
irony
that
the
frustration
in
the
record
here
is
over
an
applicant
and
a
builder
who
did
not
follow
the
correct
procedure
for
the
demolition,
so
the
irony
is,
of
course
we
haven't
followed
the
correct
procedures
to
get
this
to
council
either.
D
Finally,
I
think
the
decision
is
arbitrary
and
capricious
and
abusive
discretion,
and
that
you
know
not
only
was
it
not
made
based
on
facts
in
the
record
about
the
application,
but
the
transcript
of
the
historical
preservation
commission
shows
that
the
movement
actively
sought
to
exclude
the
facts
in
the
record.
From
the
basis
of
the
motion,
the
motion
was
made
simply
to
get
in
front
of
city
council.
So
under
our
standard
of
review
for
appeals,
I
think
we
have
to
reverse
that's
on
this
application.
D
The
separate
issue
of
what
to
do
about
unpermitted
demolitions
and
about
the
the
seek
self-help
and
and
ask
for
forgiveness
later
problem
is
real.
It's
a
serious
problem.
It
may
only
happen
occasionally
or
only
happen
a
few
times
a
year,
but
it
is
a
flagrant
disregard
of
the
law.
It
is
it's.
It's
bulldozing
a
home
in
violation
of
city,
permitting
processes
and
rules
is
it's
against
the
rules
in
a
particularly
egregious
way
and
that
it
is
in
your
face.
It's
in
your
face
to
the
neighborhood.
D
It
deserves
punishment
and
not
education.
It
you
know
I
I
would.
I
would
hope
that
someone
does,
and
if
no
one
does,
I
will
ask
for
unanimous
consent
on
a
work
session
from
this.
My
point
of
view
is
that
contractors
who
are
involved
in
this
should
lose
their
license
of
their
ability
to
do
business
in
boise.
That
homeowners,
who
are
involved
in
this
knowingly,
should
have
to
pay
a
statutory
fine.
That
is
meaningful,
it's
no
joke
and
it's
impossible
to
tell
from
the
record
here
who
is
at
fault
or
who
is
to
blame.
D
I
know
that
if
the
builder
did
this
to
me
and
subjected
this
applicant
to
the
type
of
jungle
punishment
that
he's
received
in
our
administrative
processes,
I
would
fire
the
builder.
He
hasn't
done
that
and
that
causes
me
to
to
wonder
if
somebody
took
this
bet.
None
of
that
is
before
us.
Everybody
in
the
record
is
angry
about
this
and
for
good
reason.
We
owe
it
to
the
public.
We
owe
it
to
our
builders.
E
K
I
second
into
the
motion
for
all
the
reasons
that
have
already
been
mentioned,
and
you
know
I
won't
dive
into
those
too
much,
and
I
do
anticipate
that
where
there
will
be
a
motion
to
address
a
lot
of
the
other
issues
that
have
already
been
brought
up,
not
only
by
the
folks
that
are
here
tonight,
but
at
really
the
request
of
the
preservation
commission
as
well.
So
I'm
in
favor
of
the
motion.
G
Yes,
madam
mayor
councilmember
thompson
here,
I
also
support
the
motion.
I
think
it
was
well
stated
by
my
colleagues
here
ahead
of
me
and
also
support
the
unanimous
consent
to
make
it
terrifying
for
this
to
happen
again,.
A
Well,
I
you
know,
I,
you
have
all
stated
the
reasons
that
we
need
to
hold
this
appeal
tonight,
but
also
the
reasons
that
we
need
to
act,
and
so
I
won't
add
any
more.
F
Madam
mayor,
yes,
I'd
like
to
also
tag
on
to
my
original
motion
that
the
staff
return
to
us
with
with
findings
on
the
appeal
all.
A
Right,
thank
you
with
that.
I
will
pass
the
clerk.
K
G
W
F
In
really
coming
up
with
some
guidelines
and
some
real
policy.
That's
enforceable
around
historic
structures
and
illegal
demolitions
so
that
we're
not
facing
this
situation
again
in
five
years
or
10
years.