►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Evening Session
Description
November 9, 2021
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
D
You,
madam
mayor,
I
just
want
to
thank
april
van
de
grift
for
being
so
open
to
our
suggestions
that
she
created
this
piece.
I,
as
president,
knows
we
both
love
art,
so
very
much,
and
I
want
to
respect
people
who
have
that
particular
talent,
but
also
so
grateful
for
her
flexibility
and
being
open
to
those
suggestions.
D
One
element
of
this
piece
that
I'm
particularly
grateful
for
is
just
the
incorporation
of
of
migration
and
immigrants,
and
something
that
we're
very
proud
of
here
in
boise
is
that
we
have
so
many
people
from
different
walks
of
life
comprising
our
citizens,
and
so
I'm
so
grateful
that
she
highlighted
that
in
her
piece.
Madam.
E
E
She
was
an
oil
painter
and
have
a
great
deal
of
respect
for
art
and
artists
and
and
the
the
work
that
they
do,
and
I
encourage
you
all
to
at
some
point,
come
up
and
take
a
close
look
at
it,
because
when
you
get
closer,
you'll
see
quite
a
bit
of
detail,
there's
different
insects
and
in
particular
it
has
bumble
bees
which
are
one
of
the
coolest
things
on
the
planet,
and
so
you'll
have
to
take
a
look.
When
you
get
a
chance
thanks.
A
D
D
F
D
G
E
A
I
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
council.
As
you're
as
you'll
recall.
Back
in
october,
you
did
hear
an
appeal
of
the
planning
zoning
commission's
denial
of
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
rear
and
side
yard
setbacks
for
a
new
detached
accessory
structure
with
accessory
dwelling
unit.
At
the
end
of
that
hearing,
you
did
deny
the
appeal,
but
suggested
the
applicant
if
the
applicant
could
have
provided
additional
information
regarding,
perhaps
location
of
underground
utilities,
and
that,
with
that
information,
a
reconsideration
might
be
warranted.
I
The
applicant
has
obtained
that
information
along
with
more
detail
on
existing
landscaping
that
wasn't
presented
that
evening.
So
with
that,
they
are
asking
you
to
reconsider
the
application.
You
don't
need
to
reconsider.
The
request
today
merely
decide
if
you'd
like
to,
if
you
do
we'll
notice,
for
the
first
available
public
hearing
on
your
upcoming
schedule.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
J
F
J
The
basis
of
the
motion
is
that
this
is
information
that
we
directed
the
applicant
to
bring
to
us,
because
we
thought
it
was
material
and
might
affect
our
decision,
and
the
applicant
has
now
brought
that
information
to
us.
We've
already
said
it's
material
and
relevant
to
our
decision
and
we
would
consider
it,
and
so
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
we
grant
the
motion.
Thank.
F
B
A
You
next
on
the
agenda
is
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
with
an
asterisk
are
considered
to
be
routine
by
the
council
and
will
be
enacted
by
one
motion.
There
will
be
no
separate
discussion
on
these
items
unless
a
council,
member
or
citizen,
sell
requests,
in
which
case
the
item
will
be
removed
from
the
general
order
of
business
and
considered
in
its
normal
sequence.
Madam
mayor.
A
We're
looking
forward
to
getting
the
results
of
that
staffing
study
to
help
inform
we
hope
improvements
for
both
organizations
over
the
next
little
while-
and
I
would
note
that's
the
first
time
that
our
staff
has
actually
managed
the
rfq
process.
So
thank
you,
amanda
with
that
with
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
roll
sanchez.
A
B
Are
probably
located
at
911
north
shamrock
street,
limiting
zoning
classifications
of
the
city
of
boise
city
to
change
the
classification
of
real
property,
particularly
described
in
section
1
of
this
ordinance
and
adjacent
rights,
away
from
r-1a
single-family
residential
2.1
units
per
acre
to
r-1c
single-family
residential
8
units
per
acre
setting
forth
a
recent
statement
in
support
of
such
stone
change
and
providing
effective
date.
Madam
mayor.
A
K
L
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
council
josh
wilson,
with
planning
development
services
here
tonight
to
discuss
a
code
amendment
addressing
historic
preservation
that
we
have
proposed.
So
to
give
some
background
on
the
issue.
Unfortunately,
we've
seen
an
increase
in
unpermitted
activities
in
the
historic
districts,
including
demolitions,
removal
of
several
large
trees
that
have
certainly
caught
the
attention
of
the
neighborhood
associations
and
residents
and
brought
a
great
deal
of
concern.
L
So,
with
the
new
code
provision,
we
would
incorporate
a
delay
of
up
to
180
days
if
the
legal
work
is
performed
during
which
all
property
all
work
on
a
property
would
cease.
During
this
time,
planning
staff
will
prepare
a
premature
alterations
report.
It
will
identify
the
violations
and
include
recommended
rehabilitative
rehabilitative
measures
that
could
be
taken.
The
report
will
then
be
scheduled
for
a
hearing
before
the
historic
preservation
commission
and
they
can
approve,
deny
or
approve
with
conditions
that
report
and
require
appropriate
mitigation
of
the
actions
that
have
been
taken.
L
L
The
intent
of
this
is
to
prevent
the
historic
preservation
commission
from
being
overloaded
with
these
minor,
easily
fixable
issues.
At
their
hearing
on
september
27th,
the
historic
preservation
commission
did
recommend
approval
of
the
code
amendment.
The
biggest
issue
of
discussion
was
the
provision
for
the
waiver
by
the
planning
director.
I
think
there
was
some
concern
that
that
that
was
his
discretion
and
could
be
abused.
L
You
know
we
assured
them
that
that
is
not
the
case
that
we
do
see
minor
items
that
could
be
addressed
through
that
waiver
appropriately,
but
we
did
agree
to
bring
back
a
report
of
the
monthly
waivers
that
were
granted.
We
would
expect
that
they
would
be
a
very
small
number
and
we
would
present
those
to
them
at
their
work
session,
so
they
were
kept
apprised
of
those
waivers
that
were
granted
with
that.
We
are
recommending
approval
of
the
ordinance
amendment
and
thank
you
for
your
time
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
A
A
A
M
M
A
B
A
J
F
It
keeps
a
lot
of
really
beautiful
old
neighborhoods
whole.
It
helps
us
accomplish
some
of
our
goals,
as
brittany
said
about
climate
change
and
preservation,
and
all
of
the
benefits
that
go
with
that.
So
I'm
very
excited
that
staff
was
able
to
bring
this
to
us.
Although
I
know
that
it
was
probably
under
great
stress
to
you
all
and
thank
you
so
much,
I
think
that
this
is
going
to
help
us
all
accomplish
a
lot
more
of
what
we
want
from
our
city.
J
Madame,
madam
here,
yes,
you
may
recall
the
public
may
recall
this
issue
coming
to
a
head
with
the
removal
of
some
trees
and
some
other
issues
on
19th
street
in
the
north
end,
and
you
may
recall
that
at
the
end
of
that
meeting,
there
was
direction
from
the
council
to
two
of
us
to
go,
pursue
and
follow
up
this
issue.
So
first
I
want
to
say,
for
the
record:
we've
discharged
that
duty,
I'm
now
not
under
your
direction
anymore.
J
Second,
you
know
the
structure
and
the
purpose
here.
The
concern
that
came
up
in
that
hearing
was
that
a
fine
say,
a
thousand
dollar
fine,
for
a
violation
could
create
an
opportunity
for
people
to
essentially
buy
their
way
out
of
compliance
with
our
city
procedures
for
for
renovations
or
work
in
in
the
historic
districts
and
oftentimes
for
the
size
of
these
types
of
projects
or
for
just
you
know
the
value
of
that
real.
N
J
A
thousand
dollar
fine
may
be
very
trivial
expense,
and
so
a
rational
actor
could
make
a
decision
to
essentially
break
the
law,
pay
the
fine
and
cause
some
lasting
harm
to
our
historic
district,
and
so
the
structure
of
this
ordinance
is
in
rather
than
imposing
a
uniform
fine
for
everybody
that
obviously
affects
different
people
differently,
based
on
their
means.
It
imposes
essentially
a
stop
work
order,
which
slows
and
delays
the
development
can
cause
all
kinds
of
problems
and
is
really
cumbersome
for
everybody
in
an
equal
way.
E
O
E
On
purpose,
and
sometimes
it
was
very
difficult
to
tell,
and
at
the
same
time
as
a
council
member
of
agent
noted,
these,
these
investments
are
sometimes
very,
very
large
that
they've
made
into
their
home,
and
so
I,
like
the
solution,
a
lot.
I
appreciate
the
work
that
you
all
put
into
it,
and
and
thank
you
for
your
time
and
effort.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
great
new
approach,
as
you
were,
highlighting
a
council
member
and
I'll
be
supporting
the
measure.
Thank
you.
Thank.
D
You
mayor,
yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Yes,
I
just
want
to
echo
my
colleagues.
Thank
you
so
much
for
putting
all
this
work
into
this.
I
I
can't
help,
but
refer
back
to
our
just
recent
presentation
from
brandy
burns
I
mean
when
we
all
ood
and
odd
over
those
old
structures
and
and
to
learn
that
some
of
them
are
still
being
used
today.
You
know
I
I
I
know
that
we've
had.
D
We
have
folks
making
big
investments,
but
it's
also
fair
notice
that
you
are
entering
into
a
space
that
is
protected
for
good
reason,
and
I
know
that
a
lot
of
what
we
appreciate
in
certain
of
our
neighborhoods
is
that
old
architecture,
those
old
structures
that
really
speak
to
our
history,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
staff
putting
the
effort
into
creating
this
tool
that
will
help
all
of
us
protect
these
structures.
Moving
forward.
A
Well,
I'm
gonna
make
it
just
a
quick
comment
myself.
I
was
one
of
the
council
members
asking
that
this
be
brought
forward
and
the
staff,
I
think,
has
done
very
good
work.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
the
neighborhoods
and
the
various
interested
parties
in
historic
preservation
for
their
willingness
to
engage
in
this
and
help
figure
out
a
response
that
both
is
measured.
A
It
offers
the
opportunity
for
the
administrative
waiver,
but
also
offers
the
opportunity
to
really
make
a
difference
in
how
these
are
treated
by
ensuring
that
if
there
is
a
penalty,
that
penalty
is
meaningful
to
the
person
who's
committed.
The
act
of
moving
forward
without
permission
so
really
excited
to
see
how
this
works.
I'm
glad
that
the
historic
preservation
commission
ask
for
these
monthly
reports.
That's
always
a
good
idea
in
these
new
ordinances
so
that
we
can
get
some
measurement
of
whether
it's
working
or
not,
and
will
also
be
supported.
J
G
P
You
thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
the
council.
The
applicant
is
requesting
to
modify
the
development
agreement
associated
with
the
30th
36th
street
garden
center.
The
development
agreement
was
included
with
the
original
approval
in
order
to
restrict
commercial
uses
and
enhance
the
project's
compatibility
to
the
surrounding
residential
neighborhood,
the
mixed-use
project
included
restaurant
specialty
retail
office
town
homes
and
live
work
units.
Since
the
project's
original
approval.
P
J
P
As
seen
on
the
site
plan,
the
proposed
development
agreement-
modifications
are
listed
here
and
are
included
the
following
points
and
I'll
just
quickly
summarize.
This
is
the
highlighted
and
struck
out
version,
essentially
they're,
removing
the
use
restrictions
from
building
a
which
is
a
large
garden
center
building
and
the
future
building
e
to
and
to
apply
the
standard
use
table
of
the
c1
zone.
To
these
buildings,
it'll
also
allow
for
a
medical
office
in
building
d.
P
The
general
intent
of
the
da
modification
is
to
allow
for
a
larger
restaurant
use
in
this
case
would
be
the
sockeye
brewery
to
occupy
the
main
garden
center
building.
Please
note
that
the
proposed
development
development
group
modification
only
addresses
the
allowed
use
of
the
site
and
does
not
change
the
site
plan
or
any
of
the
building
designs.
P
Also,
there
is
a
public
transit
bus
route
and
a
bus
stop
adjacent
to
the
site,
and,
finally,
the
30th
street
36th
street
garden
center
was
intended
to
provide
an
amenity
for
the
surrounding
residential
neighborhoods,
where
people
could
walk
and
bike
to
the
site.
In
addition,
the
proposed
modifications
comply
with
all
the
required
findings.
As
for
code
and
as
such,
the
planning
team
recommends
approval.
Thank
you.
A
R
F
R
A
Thank
you
david.
I
do
have
a
question
so
if
we
remove
the
restrictions
on
building
e,
which
is
yet
to
be
built,
it
widens
the
scope
quite
a
bit
for
what
could
be
in
there.
I
just
wonder
if
you
could
give
us
some
assurance
that
that
use
would
not
overwhelm
the
existing
parking
and
the
other
I
mean
you
sure
would
be
in
your
best
interest
not
to
do
that,
but
I
would
love
to
hear
you
respond
to
that.
Absolutely.
R
Building
ea
was
originally
supposed
to
be
part
of
the
garden
center
and
they
wanted
a
larger
bulk
retail
for
it.
Once
we
opened
the
garden
center,
we
realized
we
have
more
than
enough
space
inside
this
building
for
our
garden
center
and
we
had
a
hard
time
actually
filling
it
with
as
much
retail
use.
As
we
projected.
R
We
said,
we
don't
need
to
spend
another
eight
hundred
thousand
dollars
on
an
additional
3
000
square
feet
of
retail,
that
we
have
no
need
for.
So
we
said,
let's
not
worry
about
that.
What
we
did
instead
is
put
up
a
shade
structure.
We
took
the
old
36th
street
plant
building
that
was
there.
We
cut
all
the
rotting
parts
off,
put
some
concrete
columns
up
and
there's
a
shade
structure
that
sits
there
right
now.
R
The
intent
was
to
have
something
there,
because
it
would
look
awkward
just
have
this
open
space,
and
so
we
put
that
there
it
was
great.
We
had
events
there,
we've
had
weddings
there,
we've
had
ladybug
festivals,
which
is
kind
of
a
weird
thing,
but
the
idea
behind
building
e
at
this
point
is
we
have
the
live
work
buildings
that
are
right
there
and
the
idea
would
be
to
put
another
live
work
attached
there.
There's
zero
lot
line
buildings
right
there.
We
built
that
with
the
intent
that
in
the
future,
we
could
do
that.
R
A
B
A
G
A
G
My
my
only
concern
is
straight
across
from
building
c
and
d
on
on
between
36th
and
hill
road.
There
there
is
a
public
parking
there
and
I
just
don't
want
to
see
that
I
mean
it's
first.
Come
first
serve
it's
used
for
mountain
bikers
and
skiers
for
and
commuters,
and
all
the
parents
and
stuff
that
come
from
the
school
to
pick
up
their
kids.
G
G
A
S
Hello,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
we
can
debbie
welcome
yes,
hi,
madam
mayor
and
council
members.
My
name
is
debbie
mcgee.
I
live
at
3819
north
woody
lane.
I
am
representing
myself
and
the
homeowners
that
are
in
this
area.
There
are
11
individually
owned
homes
and
we
are
not
opposed
to
the
changes,
but
we
also
have
concerns
over
parking,
some
of
us
more
than
others.
S
S
So
I
appreciate
that,
but
for
the
record
I
just
want
to
state
that
there
is
wording
that
says
removing
the
restrictions
will
not
adversely
impact
the
parking
situation
and
we
certainly
are
all
excited
to
see.
Sockeye
come
and
very
hopeful
that
that
is
true,
but
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
bistro
had
a
seating
limit
of
60,
I
believe,
and
the
garden
center.
S
S
So
just
to
summarize
again,
we
are
very
much
in
support
of
the
recommendations
here,
we're
looking
forward
to
sockeye,
but
we
just
want
to
make
note
of
our
current
concerns
and
hope
that
we
would
be
able
to
address
potentially
having
a
few
designated
residential
spaces
and
again
thank
dave
mckinnon
for
his
help
and
reassurances.
I
think
that
this
could
happen
if
needed.
Thank
you.
F
F
S
Am
speaking
about
these
shared
parking
lot
spaces?
It
is
true
that
we
all
have
two
car
garages,
but
we
do
have
friends
visit
and
there's
really
not
any
designated
spaces
for
that
and
dave.
Perhaps
you
can
help
me
with
this
woody
lane.
I
think
it's
currently
called
woody
drive,
but
I
think
it's
supposed
to
be
woody
lane.
I
don't
think
there's
actually
supposed
to
be
any
parking
on
that
which
I
will
admit
even
I'm
guilty
of
occasionally
parking
there.
S
So
we
don't,
as
homeowners,
have
any
designated
saved
spaces
at
this
time
to,
for
instance,
have
guests
or
a
child
visit,
or
something
like
that.
We
have
not
needed
them
in
the
past
and
we
are
very
hopeful
that
we
won't
need
them,
and
I
don't
think
we'll
know
until
we
see
things
see
how
things
are
going
to
pan
out.
A
A
R
David,
thank
you,
madam
air.
Again
dave
mckinnon
just
to
address
a
few
things
with
parking
that
were
brought
up.
There
is
on
street
parking
on
woody
on
woody
wayne
the
parking
lot
across
the
street
from
36th
street.
It's
got
a
long
and
funny
history
tied
to
the
peanut
roundabout.
That
was
originally
supposed
to
be
nothing
but
just
a
depression
area.
Just
like
the
one
kitty
corner
from
it,
and
I
actually
went
to
achd
and
said
this
is
stupid.
R
We're
going
to
have
a
weed
patch
and
a
weed
patch,
surrounded
by
this
really
nice
roundabout.
Can
we
do
something
else,
so
I
actually
was
the
one
that
asked
for
that.
We
did
have
a
license
agreement
for
that
when
we
did
that
with
achd
the
turtling
company
paid
for
the
landscaping
around
it
and
we
paid
for
the
water
to
be
stretched
underneath
the
street
to
go
over
there,
and
so
we
were
part
of
that
when
it
went
in
it's
owned
by
the
public.
We
have
no
problem
leaving
that
to
the
public.
A
I
I
have
one
quick
one,
my
memory
when
we
first
approved
this
development,
was
that
buildings,
cd,
the
big
one
and
the
two
along
36,
yeah,
they're,
b,
c
and
d-
are
mostly
daytime
uses
and
that
the
parking
that
would
be
used
for
those
is
open
in
the
evening,
which
would
be
the
primary
use
time
evening
and
weekends
for
especially
now
the
the
use
that's
being
slated
for
the
biggest
building.
Is
that
still
the
case.
R
That's
still
the
case:
building
b
is
sun
valley,
skin
care
they
close
before
five
building
c
is
horizon
dental,
which
closes
before
five
and
is
only
open
multiple
days
a
week,
but
not
consecutive
days
during
the
week,
building
b
is
also
closed
by
five
o'clock.
There's
one
tenant,
that's
typically
there
longer,
but
it's
a
single
physical
therapist.
On
the
second
floor.
A
C
C
Mayer,
yes,
you
might
be
able
to
answer
this
or
staff
might
be
able
to
chime
in
as
well
just
a
little
bit
more
about
that
that
funky
parking
lot
over
there
on
the
corner.
So
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
the
intended
use
of
that
parking
lot
was
you
all
helped
develop
that
parking
lot
and
put
it
in
place
was
the
intended
use
when
it
was
approved
by
achd,
and
I
guess
the
city
of
boise
to
be
just
general
parking
for
anyone
in
the
public
to
use
any
way
that
they
want.
Was
it.
R
Yes,
okay,
I
think
councilman
halbert.
Let
me
back
up
a
little
bit
on
that.
When
we
built
this
site
there
was
no
peanut.
In
fact,
it
was
supposed
to
be
just
a
regular
roundabout
and
then
it
changed
to
the
peanut
shape,
which
is
really
kind
of
the
unique
feature
for
this
whole
neighborhood
to
have
that
there
and
I
just
hate
the
look
of
the
depressed
weed
patches
and
we
have
one
that's
directly
across
the
street
from
our
office
didn't
want
to
have
it.
R
I
guess
bookshelf
done
or
bookended
by
that
she
said:
let's
do
something
else.
Can
we
try
something
else?
We
also
recognize
the
fact
that
we
were
having
buses
from
the
school
district
park
in
the
back
of
our
parking
lot
to
load
people.
We
still
constantly
have
people
that
bring
their
their
bikes
to
our
parking
lot
and
park.
Multiple
people
parked
in
the
parking
lot
to
go
use
hill
road
and
to
exercise
up
off
36th
street.
R
C
And
madame
mayor
just
follow
up
there,
it
does
seem
sort
of
funky
to
have
this
public
surface
parking
lot
for
nothing
real
for
for
anything.
I
guess
the
concern
that
was
brought
up
by
by
a
citizen
was
that
it
would
be
completely
full
of
employee
parking,
and
you
would
also
mention
that
you
would
make
sure
that
this
was
still
available
to
the
public,
and
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
reconcile
in
my
mind
exactly
what
that
means.
C
Does
that
mean
that,
like
there
would
be
ways
where
we
would
discourage
employee
parking
there
or
because
it's
public
and
it's
not
really
owned
or
used
by
anyone
that
really
would
just
be
available
for
anyone
who
wanted
to
use
it,
whether
it
was
an
employee
or
anyone
else?
Did
you
were
you
responding
to
his
concern,
or
were
you
saying
that
we
would
just
kind
of
let
it
do
what
it
does.
R
C
C
P
C
J
Point
of
clarification
on
that.
I
think
that's
not
as
settled
as
we
all
think
it
is
and
if,
if
we
get
to
that
point,
it's
worth
another
conversation
here,
there's
some
disagreement
among
the
agencies,
but
then
again,
maybe
not,
and
it's
something
that's
coming
up
in
another
part
of
our
city
right
now.
So
in
the
event
that
that
gets
explored,
there
may
be
some
tools
that
the
city
of
boise
has
that
we
have
not
historically
used
in
the
past,
and
we
can
follow
up
with
that
later.
If
we
have
to
okay.
A
A
I
will
have
just
a
moment
of
discussion.
I
was
on
the
council
when
this
was
originally
approved.
The
issues
haven't
changed
since
then
there
was
concern
about
parking
when
it
was
first
approved.
There's
concern
about
parking
now
and
yet
over
the
years
it
has
been,
I
think,
a
real
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
I
believe
most
people
agree
with
that.
A
N
C
Veterinary,
yes,
I
do
think
that
this
is
a
great
use
of
the
space
and
I
guess
one
comment
that
I
would
have
is
that
from
running
a
business
next
to
a
brewery
and
also
frequent
team
breweries,
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
ride
their
bikes
to
breweries,
and
so
hopefully
that
diverts
some
of
that
traffic
and
then
hopefully
that
also
encourages
you
to
have
ample
bike
parking
in
that
area.
So
thank
you.
J
P
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
the
council,
I'll
try
to
keep
presentation
short.
The
application
before
city
council
tonight
is
an
appeal
of
a
time
extension
associated
with
a
mixed-use
development
containing
304
dwelling
units
comprised
of
five
buildings,
with
a
height
exception
before
the
7.4
acre
property
is
located
at
3600,
west
americana
terrace
in
a
c3d
zone.
P
P
O
That's
correct.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
mayor
members
of
the
boise
city
council.
My
name
is
terry.
Koppel
of
the
law
firm
of
davidson
and
koppel.
My
address
is
199
north
capitol
boulevard,
suite
600
right
across
the
street
and,
as
stated
I'm
appearing
here
on
behalf
of
joe
and
jamie
scott,
who
live
on
houston
road
here
in
boise.
J
O
O
The
staff
report
says
it
hasn't,
but
we
say
it
has
and
it's
because
of
the
fact
that
there's
no
fire
protection
on
may
15
2019
before
the
hearing
in
front
of
planning
and
zoning
approved
of
this
project,
the
boise
assistant,
fire
chief,
wrote
to
the
city
and
said
that
this
project
does
not
comply
with
the
fire
code
and
specifically
the
international
fire
code
that
is
adopted
here
in
idaho.
Mr.
B
O
That
recommendation
from
the
fire
department
was
adopted
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
in
condition
number
seven
that
in
fact
they
have
to
build
an
emergency
road
and
the
only
place
it
could
go
is
through
the
katherine
albertson
park.
So
they
would
have
to
use
the
park
to
build
a
bridge
over
the
settlers
irrigation
canal
to
go
through
the
park
in
order
to
exit
in
case
there
was
an
emergency
such
as
a
fire
or
an
active
shooter,
or
something
like
that
in
the
project
that
was
granted
as
well
as
another
condition
was
put
in.
O
O
O
The
stage
for
the
fact
that
on
june
10th
2021,
the
parks
department
for
the
city
of
boise
refused
to
allow
the
developer
to
build
the
emergency
exit
through
the
katherine
albertson
park,
and
that
letter
is
in
your
packet
of
materials.
That
basically
says
the
legal
department
for
the
parks
department
says
that
it
cannot
go
through
the
park.
That
means
that
the
emergency
fire
road
that
is
essential
for
this
permit
can't
be
granted
and
can't
be
constructed.
O
That
is
a
hazardous
situation
when
you
look
at
the
purpose
of
the
ordinance,
which
is
to
allow
the
city
to
review
any
change
of
circumstance
of
material
change
in
circumstance
that
creates
a
hazardous
situation.
That
is
exactly
what's
happened
here.
In
addition,
settlers
irrigation
district
has,
of
course,
refused
to
grant
their
permission
for
a
bridge
over
the
canal
as
well.
O
It
states
that,
if
there's
opposition
to
a
matter
being
on
the
consent
agenda
and
there's
an
objection,
then
it
cannot
be
on
the
consent
agenda
and
it
goes
to
the
public
hearing
and
that's
what
we
did.
And
then
the
staff
moved
the
matter
from
the
consent
agenda
for
planning
and
zoning
over
to
the
public
hearing.
When
we
went
to
the
public
hearing
expecting
to
be
able
to
talk
about
the
fact
that
there's
no
emergency
fire
egress
from
this
property,
as
required
by
the
permit,
and
that
creates,
of
course,
a
hazardous
situation
for
the
project.
O
The
planning
and
zoning
commission
instead
took
a
vote
on
no
public
hearing
and
not
allowing
the
public
to
testify
in
front
of
them.
Then,
after
doing
that,
so
that
we
couldn't
speak,
then
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
approved
the
renewal
with
no
discussion
of
the
merits
or
of
the
relevancy
of
any
of
the
factors
that
could
apply
to
a
renewal
of
a
permit.
O
But
also
of
idaho
code,
section
67
6534
that
says
that
the
zoning
code
is
at
a
minimum.
At
public
hearings
is
to
allow
affected
parties.
The
ability
to
be
heard
at
that
hearing
doesn't
mean
you're
going
to
win,
but
you
are
entitled
to
be
heard,
and
that
is
of
course,
an
important
right,
as
we
all
know,
from
these
kind
of
hearings.
A
O
O
O
The
third
ground
was
and
I'll
I
want
to
make
sure
I
get
all
this
in
the
record.
The
developer
didn't
begin
the
development
within
the
two-year
period
of
time.
One
of
the
conditions
that
set
forth
in
the
in
the
letter
of
approval
is
that
the
developer
is
required
within
two
years
of
the
granting
of
the
permit
to
apply
for
a
building
permit
and
start
foundations
or
footings
in
the
project.
O
They
can
also
start
using
it
for
the
purposes
if
they
do
that
within
the
two
years
and
they've
perfected
their
permit,
and
then
the
idea,
of
course,
is
to
make
developers
proceed
with
the
development
and
just
hold
on
to
the
rights
to
either
sell
or
to
do
nothing
with.
So
in
our
situation,
the
developer
did
none
of
that
during
the
two-year
period
of
time,
and
even
though
the
the
staff's
position,
the
developer's
position,
we
don't
have
to
give
you
any
reason
why
we
didn't
do
anything
on
that
project.
O
O
Requires
a
reasoned
decision
so
and
and
what's
appearing
in
front
of
you
now
as
an
appellate
body,
you're
supposed
to
review
whether
planning
and
zoning
made
an
error
in
what
they
did
on
this
renewal.
But
you
as
a
body
you
don't
know
what
the
opposition
could
have
said.
You
don't
have
a
reasoned
decision
for
planning
and
zoning
through
the
help
of
staff,
would
prepare
a
decision
that
you
can
review
that
actually
makes
sense.
So,
for
example,
here
if
this
was
appealed
to
court,
a
judge
would
be
looking
at
this
and
saying.
O
The
courts
say
at
a
minimum
at
least
tell
us
what
standards
you
applied,
apply
them
to
the
facts
and
how
you
rule
it's
the
only
way
an
appellate
body
can
do
it
you're
sitting
in
an
appellate
body
today,
because
it's
an
appeal,
you're,
not
the
original
deciding
body,
and
so
that's
why
we're
asking
that
you
at
least
refer
it
back
to
planning
and
zoning
and
say
because
the
park
department
will
not
allow
a
fire
road
to
this
project,
and
this
is
a
huge
project.
Remember.
This
is
304
units.
O
O
O
O
The
city
council
in
december
of
2020
reaffirmed
the
june
12th
letter
and
did
not
change
the
fact
that
it
had
to
be
they're
going
to
renew
it
has
to
be
two
years
from
the
date
of
this
decision.
They
didn't
talk
about
the
appeal.
There
was
no
stay.
The
applicant
didn't
ask
for
any
extra
time
or
an
amendment
to
the
letter.
C
Vladimir,
I
think
I
might
have
a
question
and
I'm
sorry
will
you
remind
me
of
your
name,
terry
koppel,
terry,
thank
you.
So
what
I
feel
like
I'm
hearing
from
you
is
that
a
new
hazard
has
been
presented
in
that
they
haven't
been
able
to
address
the
emergency
access
solution
going
over
settlers
canal,
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
was
that
discussed
and
brought
up
in
any
of
the
other
hearings
that
there
was
an
emergency
access
issue
that
had
to
be
resolved?
O
This
is
a
new
hazard
because
of
the
fact
that
the
parks
department,
after
looking
at
the
deed
to
the
albertson
park
and
realizing
that
it
is
so
strict
that
it
has
to
be
used
as
a
nature,
walking
park
that
it
would
be
forfeited.
The
city
would
lose
the
park.
This
is
and
this
this
letter
from
doug
holloway,
the
director
of
parks
and
recreation,
is
in
your
file.
This
is
dated
june
10th,
2021.,
that's
a
new
fact.
O
O
People
are
going
to
be
running,
it's
going
to
be
a
mess,
so
this
is
a
new
fact,
a
new
factor
that
at
least
the
planning
and
zoning
should
have
allowed
us
to
bring
this
to
the
attention,
so
they
could
decide.
Well,
we
have
a
big
issue
here.
What
are
we
going
to
do
about?
It
doesn't
mean
I'm
going
to
win,
but
it
should
be
have
been
considered
and
that's
heir,
and
I
think
it's
my
opinion
that
on
appeal,
I
believe,
a
court
would
say
you're
right.
O
J
Couple
questions:
first,
on
the
hazardous
situation
I
mean
the
hazardous
situation
is
a
lot
of
people
in
the
park
and
no
fire
ingress
or
egress,
which
is
why
at
the
original
public
hearing
and
the
original
application
required
a
letter
from
the
fire
department
and
that
access
right,
so
the
hazard
is
the
people.
The
issue
is
that
that
access
road
is
a
problem.
The
hazard
hasn't
changed
right.
It's
not
a
new
hazard.
It's
the
old
hazard
of
a
lot
of
people
around
the
potential
development
without
fire
access.
J
O
Madam
mayor
and
councilman,
I
disagree
with
your
analysis.
Fire
is
always
a
hazard.
It
was
mitigated
by
the
fact
that
they
had
an
egress
road.
They
were
going
to
build
another
road
that
would
go
into
the
park
and
exit
out
the
park
and
they
had
to
do
the
bridge
over
settlers
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
that
risk
that
problem
was
mitigated
or,
as
the
fire
department
would
say,
was
dealt
with
in
the
way
that
would
have
no
risk.
O
Since
that
time,
the
parks
department
has
withdrawn
any
support
whatsoever
for
that
road
going
through
the
park.
Now
that
risk,
which
was
mitigated
or
didn't
exist
or
was
gone,
is
now
present.
So
fire
is
always
a
risk,
no
matter
at
all
times,
but
you
can.
You
can
mitigate
it
and
that's
what
they
did
in
this
particular
situation,
and
that's
why
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
should
have
been
should
have
made
the
decision
to
allow
us
to
talk
to
him
about
it.
A
J
Second
question
I
had
for
you,
sir:
I
think
you
were
probably
just
about
to
get
to
it
when
you
ran
out
of
time,
which
is
that
on
your
third
argument,
you
need
to
deal
with
the
provision
of
the
statute
that
says
an
approval
shall
become
final
upon
the
issuance
of
a
written
decision
or
order.
You
made
that
argument
after
10
days
of
elapse,
provided,
however,
that
such
effective
date
shall
be
stayed
by
the
filing
of
an
appeal.
You
of
course
filed
a
number
of
appeals
and
got
the
benefit
of
them
here.
O
So
I
would
say
there
is
no
provision
in
the
law
that
allows
that
and
also
the
developer,
I'm
sorry,
the
developer.
All
they
had
to
do
was
go
down
and
apply
for
a
building
permit
and
do
some
footings
or
do
something
remember.
Nothing
has
acquired
for
two
years.
Yes,
there
was
appeal
there
was
a
temporary
state,
but
that
was
lifted.
O
So
these
are
factors,
and
I
guess
we
are
arguing
the
merits.
But
my
point
is:
is
that
planning
and
zoning
should
have
had
a
public
hearing?
The
public
should
have
been
heard.
We
should
have
been
hurt.
We
didn't
have
this
kind
of
discussion
with
planning
and
zoning.
It
was
okay,
we've
got
to
move
it
from
the
consent
agenda.
We
put
it
on
the
public
hearing.
We
show
up
to
have
a
public
hearing
like
this
and
talk
seriously
about
the
issues
and
they
say
well,
we've
we're
going
to
have
a
vote.
O
J
O
J
O
O
A
Joanne
before
you
start,
I
just
want
to
let
the
council
know
that
I
ask
you
had
made
an
argument
in
one
of
your
letters
that
this
perhaps
was
not
something
that
should
be
appealable
to
a
city
council,
and
I
have
been
told
that
the
development
code
provides
that
review
body
decisions
may
be
appealed
to
council.
It's
a
very
broad
statement,
so,
at
least
in
our
perspective,
just
about
anything
is
appealable
to
us.
If
it's
a
decision
by
a
lower
body.
K
Okay,
thank
you,
joanne
butler
967,
east
park
center
boulevard,
and
I
appreciate
your
comment
and
I
I
heard
a
number
of
questions
from
council
members,
especially
councilman
bagnet.
So
I
would
like
to
answer
those
questions.
I
asked
for
a
little
leeway
when
I
answer
them
from
on
my
time,
but
I'll
try
to
keep
it
to
three
minutes.
K
I
again
gave
you
my
j.o
holdings.
There
was
no
error
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
and
granting
the
timely
request
for
a
time
extension
on
the
permit
boise
city
code.
110303.7
says
that
a
decision
shall
be
stayed
by
the
filing
of
an
appeal.
That
statement
is
also
on
the
first
page
of
the
permit
that
was
granted
by
this
city
to
our
client.
K
K
It
is
completely
completely
within
boise's
police
power
to
allow
a
permit
extension
on
a
two-year
basis
not
to
exceed
six
years
for
projects
such
as
trappers,
island
that
are
complex
and
for
two
people
contentious.
There
is
nothing
arbitrary
in
the
commission's
respect
for,
and
adherence
to
the
city's
code
and
the
permits
conditions.
K
Mr
pappal's
clients
actually
had
the
ability
to
appeal
the
time
extension
condition
when
he
appealed
the
2019
permit
and
other
conditions,
such
as
the
height
condition
contained
in
that
permit.
He
did
not.
He
has
sat
on
his
rights
to
he
might
have
had
to
appeal
the
time
extension
condition
of
approval.
K
There
was
no
right
to
a
public
hearing
commission
public
hearing
before
the
commission.
Boise
code
establishes
only
limited
situations
where
a
public
hearing
is
required
in
connection
with
a
time.
Extension
staff
pointed
out
that
those
situations
do
not
exist.
Mr
koppel
is
creating
a
hazardous
situation
where
none
exists.
There
is
nothing
on
that
property
that
has
changed.
K
K
It
is
not
mr
coppell
cites
to
sections
of
boise
code
regarding
public
hearing
provisions
for
hearings
and
decisions
like
a
reasons
that
reason
decisions
that
only
occur
when
an
application
is
before
the
commission.
That
was
not
the
case
here.
We
are
well
past
the
2019
application
stage,
where
mr
koppel's
clients
absolutely
did
receive
process
in
the
hearings.
K
K
Time
will
tell
whether
travers
island's
applicant
will
need
to
make
either
a
minor
or
a
major
or
maybe
no
revision
to
their
application.
It
is
that
relatively
short
time
frame,
two
years
after
a
a
year,
was
sucked
up
by
the
district
court.
It
is
that
relatively
short
period
of
time
and
a
two-year
extension
that,
in
all
fairness,
we
argue
to
the
commission
should
be
provided
they
did
provide
it,
and
rightly
so.
K
K
J
Right.
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Yes,
just
to
ask
that
question
again
I
mean
why
isn't
the
appellant
wrong
or
why
isn't
the
appellant
right?
I'm
sorry
that
a
hazardous
situation
has
developed
or
has
been
discovered
in
the
area,
because
fire
access
won't
be
able
to
take
place
through
the
park,
as
everybody
had
envisioned
at
the
time
of
the
hearing.
K
That
is
his
speculation.
Purely
the
applicant
has
the
vested
right
to
continue
to
work
with
boise
city's
departments
and
adjacent
agencies
such
as
settlers
canal
to
try
to
work
out
those
conditions
of
approval.
So
it's
speculative
as
to
whether
or
not
that
letter
will
remain
the
position
of
parks
district
as
we
come
forward
if
it
does,
and
we
cannot
present
the
application
or
perfect
the
application
and
the
conditions
is,
we
are
going
to
have
to
change
that
application,
but
as
yet,
we
are
still
working
through
those
with
the
departments.
K
B
A
A
K
K
A
L
O
A
C
P
If
you're
in
a
hillside-
and
you
had
a
landslide
situation,
land
started
moving
after
the
application,
that's
clearly
a
hazard
or
if
there
was
some
or
if
the
floodplain
had
been
changed
by
fema
and
the
new
maps
show
that
there's
some
additional
floodway
or
some
fl
or
some
hazard,
such
as
that
that
would
that
came
in
that.
Wasn't
there
during
the
during
the
original
hearing.
It's
those
type
of
things
that
we're
looking
at.
A
F
F
Clearly,
spelling
out
their
decision
making
on
the
granting
of
this
extension
is
clearly
represented
in
the
staff
memos,
and
I
think
that
all
of
the
necessary
analysis
is
there
as
far
as
this
goes
so
I'm
supporting
the
motion
and
if
the
fire
hazard
is
not
mitigated
by
the
developer,
the
project
doesn't
go
forward.
So
I
don't
think
that
that
changes,
the
conditions
that
currently
exist
and
it
certainly
doesn't
change
the
conditions
by
which
the
development
would
ultimately
be
built.
So
I'm
comfortable
with
the
extension.
J
Our
code
does
not
require
a
justification
for
a
request
to
approve
a
time
extension.
Our
code
does
require
a
public
hearing
on
those
requests
in
limited
circumstances,
and
I
think
the
appellant
agreed
impliedly
agreed
with
that
by
arguing
the
hazard
issue.
So
one
provision
of
our
code,
1103
03
10b,
says
that
a
public
hearing
may
be
required
if
there
are
hazardous
situations
which
have
developed
or
have
been
discovered
in
the
area.
J
That
was
pointed
to
here
was
the
loss
or
potential
loss
of
fire
access
due
to
a
parks
decision,
changing
that's
a
hazard
to
the
application,
but
that's
not
a
hazard
in
the
area.
The
hazard
in
the
area
is
the
potential
fire
risk
which
came
up
was
addressed,
was
discussed
at
great
length
in
the
original
planning
and
zoning
hearings.
J
Not
hold
the
public
hearing
in
this
case
was
proper.
It
is
appropriate.
We
don't
hold
public
hearings
on
everything.
It's
not
a
question
of
due
process.
It's
a
question
of
how
much
process
is
due
and
in
something
like
this.
The
amount
of
time
that
you
have
to
prosecute
or
try
to
perfect
your
application.
J
Where
the
appellant
filed
the
appeals
in
this
case
and
obtained
benefits
from
them
by
having
the
application
changed
materially
from
what
the
council
had
approved.
All
of
that
both
legally
and
procedurally
under
our
code
says
the
deadline
was
stayed
but
also
just
equitably.
It's
a
matter
of
fairness.
E
Briefly,
I
have
nothing
to
add
to
that.
I
I
agree
with
everything
that
council
member
bajan
and
my
fellow
colleagues
have
stated
on
this
matter.
I
do
appreciate
that
the
dueling
that
occurred
between
the
applicant
you
both
came
extremely
well
prepared
with
your
your
legally
stated
arguments,
and
I
commend
you
on
that,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
I
do
agree
with
the
points
that
were
just
summed
up
by
councilmember
beijing.
C
C
What
I
feel
like
are
pretty
crystal
clear
aspects
of
city
code,
in
reasons
that
we
cannot
find
air
with
what
planning
and
zoning
did
and
as
I've
mentioned
already
in
the
questioning
that
I've
already
brought
forward
in
the
one
area
where
I
felt
like
there
could
have
been
the
slightest
bit
of
gray
area.
I
think
council
member
woodings
described
really
well
and
that
this
project
will
not
go
forward.
If
there
is
a
fire
hazard
and
the
fire
hazard
has
already
been
discussed,
and
there
is
no
way
that
it
can
move
forward.
C
D
Adam
mayor,
yes,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
council
member
hallie
burton's
consistent
questioning
about
what
is
a
new
hazard.
I
think
that
helped
clarify
a
lot
for
me
in
terms
of
how
to
view
that
and-
and
I
appreciate
miss
butler
saying,
there's
they're
they're
not
done
figuring
out
a
way
to
address
that,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
everyone's
questions
in
helping
us
to
understand
how
to
navigate
this
twisty-turny
issue.
So,
yes,
obviously
I
will
be
voting
in
support
of
my
own
motion.
Thank.
A
You
I'm
just
going
to
say
a
couple
of
quick
items.
First
of
all,
I
think
councilmember
beijing
did
a
great
job
of
outlining
the
legal
issues
before
us.
Just
to
add
slightly
to
that
section,
11030310b
has
three
tests
for
when
there
should
be
a
public
hearing
on
a
time
extension,
none
of
those
three
tests
are
met.
A
If
a
citizen
or
a
review
body,
member
so
requests
in
which
the
item
will
be
removed
from
the
general
order
of
business
and
considered
in
its
normal
sequence,
normal
sequence
would
be
a
discussion
and
a
decision
separately
from
the
consent
agenda
without
a
public
hearing.
As
this
item
doesn't
meet
the
test
for
public
hearing,
so
I
believe
that
that
was
done
correctly
and
that
the
review
body,
in
this
case
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
correctly-
ruled
that
none
of
the
tests
requiring
the
public
hearing
had
been
met
and
they
didn't.
A
It
wasn't
appropriate
to
have
one.
Having
said
that,
I
will
say
that,
if
that
fire
hazard
cannot
be
met
in
the
way
that
is
currently
proposed,
this
will
likely
come
back
for
a
new
hearing
based
on
a
new
solution
to
providing
that
fire
mitigation
and
or
a
new
design,
based
on
the
fact
that
they
can't
mitigated
in
its
current
form
in
either
case
the
two-year
extension
is
necessary
to
allow
the
applicant
the
opportunity
to
do
one
or
the
other
and
bring
it
back
to
us
and
bring
it
back
to
the
public.
B
A
J
B
A
Item
for
on
our
public
hearing
schedule
and
sorry,
I've
got
to
turn
my
paper
back
over
now
because
I
had
it
turned
to
the
consent.
Reading
we
are
at
czc
21
245,
an
appeal
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
approval
for
co-location
of
wireless
communication
facility
and
r2d
by
marcia
franklin
at
2606,
west
stewart
avenue
and
sailing.
A
N
N
The
proposed
pole
is
35
feet,
tall,
which
is
still
below
or
at
the
base
height
of
the
zone
of
the
r2,
which
is
a
max
height
limit
of
35
feet
so
per
code.
This
can
be
reviewed
administratively,
since
it's
not
deemed
visually
obtrusive,
since
it
is
a
replacement
of
the
existing
pole
and
it's
not
a
new
pole
drop
in
the
area
and
it
does
not
increase
the
overall
height
of
the
zone.
N
The
administrative
application
was
approved
in
july
and
then
appealed
and
heard
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
In
september,
the
commission
held
the
public
hearing
and
then
denied
the
appeal
and
upheld
the
planning
director's
approval
of
the
request
and
now
we're
before
you
tonight
on
an
appeal
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
decision.
N
N
The
second
grounds
was
concerned
with
the
obtaining
of
preliminary
approval
through
the
workflow
prior
to
the
application
being
filed.
Like
many
projects.
Many
of
many
applicants
must
go
through
a
due
diligence
before
proposing
a
project
and
with
the
workflow
for
this
small
technology,
especially
for
a
city
of
boise
street
light
in
question.
N
N
The
third
was
that
the
commission
to
dismiss
the
opponent's
testimony
during
the
planning
and
zoning
hearing.
It
is
shown
in
the
minutes
that
the
commission
reviewed
the
record,
took
public
testimony
by
the
applicant,
the
opponent
and
neighbors,
and
then
deliberated
and
followed
a
sound
process
for
the
that
public
hearing
and,
lastly,
that
the
commission
didn't
ask
for
more
information
from
the
applicant
or
staff
for
the
need
of
the
technology
in
the
area.
N
N
So
in
conclusion,
the
applicant
and
both
the
applicant
and
the
appellant
are
here
obviously
I'll
be
hearing
from
both
of
them
this
evening.
But
in
the
conclusion,
planning
team
recommends
that
council
deny
the
appeal
and
uphold
the
commission's
decision
to
approve
the
wireless
communication
facility
here
for
questions.
A
T
T
I
first
want
to
make
it
clear
that
I'm
not
part
of
any
national
or
local
anti-5g
group,
nor
did
I
use
quote
boilerplate
language
from
any
such
group
as
the
basis
for
my
appeal,
as
was
stated
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commissioner,
who
made
the
motion
to
deny
my
appeal.
My
thoughts
and
words
are
my
own
and
they
are
those
of
a
concerned
citizen
who
strongly
believes
that
there
were
substantive
breaks
with
procedure
in
this
matter,
as
well
as
errors
in
the
staff
report.
T
It's
actually
not
easy
for
me
to
be
here
before
you
as
it
is
not
in
my
nature
to
do
this.
Also.
I
understand
that
the
council
gives
deference
to
decisions
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
when
considering
an
appeal
from
that
body.
The
applicant
contends
that,
as
such,
any
decision
by
that
body
is
quote
presumptively
valid.
T
T
I
will
need
to
set
the
stage
a
little
bit,
I'm
not
going
to
go
back
over
the
whole
record.
On
april
23rd
2021,
I
came
home
to
find
that
significant,
boring
entrenching
of
my
yard
was
going
on.
The
boring
was
happening
in
yards
all
the
way
down
26th
street.
It
was
extensive.
It
lasted
a
month
and
to
this
day,
actually
my
yard
hasn't
been
fully
repaired.
T
When
I
inquired
about
it,
I
was
told
it
was
for
5g
fiber
for
a
verizon
tower.
However,
there
was
no
tire
tower
there,
nor
had
one
been
approved.
There
was
simply
a
light
pole.
When
I
called
the
city
light
pole
office,
I
was
told
that
pre-approval
had
been
given
via
telephone
and,
as
was
mentioned,
the
city's
memo
concedes
that
this
occurs
in
order
for
the
applicant
to
have
confidence
in
the
site
location.
T
I
question,
however,
why
this
is
done
orally
and
is
not
in
the
public
record.
That
is
not
proper
procedure.
It's
my
understanding.
That
one
reason
is
that
when
this
is
done
in
this
matter
manner,
it
also
means
that
competitors
won't
know
the
location
of
prospective
towers
for
whatever
the
reason
pre-approval
should
be
in
the
public
record,
with
pre-approval
verizon
proceeded
to
lay
all
its
fiber
and
dig
a
hole
for
utilities.
T
Next,
to
light
pole,
then,
a
month
and
a
half
later,
it
finally
filed
its
application
for
the
tower
now
as
part
of
that
process,
boise
city
code
requires
that
applicants
for
wireless
communications
facilities
show
quote
a
written
analysis,
demonstrating
why
the
proposed
site
is
the
most
appropriate
within
the
immediate
area.
That
includes
quote
a
detailed
explanation
as
to
why
co-location
is
not
possible
on
buildings
or
antennas
in
the
proposed
coverage
area.
T
However,
the
applicant
gave
only
the
barest
of
descriptions
of
other
potential
sites.
Just
a
few
words
one
location
was
described,
inaccurately
the
other
should
never
have
been
considered
as
it
was
on
a
high
voltage
power
line.
There
actually
are
viable
locations
on
the
same
street
that
the
applicant
mentioned,
but
none
were
set
forth.
T
Only
two
weeks
after
I
filed
my
appeal.
Did
the
applicant
modify
its
application
and
say
that
it
had
looked
at
another
location?
However,
there
was
only
a
vague
description
of
where
that
was
150
feet.
South
I
could
not
find
the
location.
There
was
no
date
as
to
when
the
applicant
made
this
survey,
and,
as
mentioned
all
the
fiber
had
already
been
laid
to
the
current
location
by
then
and
the
application
had
been
submitted,
the
applicant
said
there
were
no
buildings
onto
which
an
antenna
could
be
attached.
That
is
also
incorrect.
T
It
stands
to
reason
that
there
was
no
incentive
to
look
for
alternative
locations,
because
the
site
already
had
been
pre-approved
and
all
the
fiber
in
the
neighborhood
had
already
been
laid.
Most
importantly,
though,
there
was
no
analysis
showing
quote
why
the
requested
site
is
the
most
appropriate
which
is
required.
T
T
T
T
T
T
On
a
related
note,
the
applicant
says
I
didn't
call
their
propagation
study
into
question,
but
I
did,
as
evidenced
in
the
transcript
since
that
map
had
only
been
submitted
into
the
record
hours
before
the
hearing.
I
had
no
time
to
respond
to
it
in
my
written
materials
which
had
been
submitted
on
time
the
week
before.
T
Moreover,
it
is
still
my
contention
that
the
facility
would
be
installed
on
a
completely
new
poll
and
is
not
a
co-location
on
an
existing
pole,
as
stated
by
the
application
in
the
permit,
the
structure
is
made
of
very
different
material
than
the
existing
wooden
existing
wooden
light
pole.
It's
much
higher
and
wider
than
the
current
light
pole.
It
will
have
a
concrete
pedestal,
underground,
vaults
and
noisy
cooling
fans.
T
There
are
wooden
light
poles
that
have
antennas
co-located
on
them,
those
fall
under
an
administrative
hearing
process.
This
installation
involves
ground
disturbance
and
a
completely
new
and
different
poll.
Therefore
it
is
subject
to
conditional
use
permit
and
a
public
hearing
process
in
its
memo.
For
this
hearing,
the
city
maintains
that
the
design
standards
in
section
11,
6
11-6-04
2a4,
allow
the
administrative
process
to
be
used
for
quote
replacement
of
existing
utility
poles
with
polls
that
are
structurally
capable
of
supporting
wcf
equipment.
T
That
is
the
language
that
will
be
up
for
consideration
in
a
proposed
update
to
this
ordinance,
one
that
will
be
before
you
at
a
later
date,
and
indeed,
as
expressed
in
the
background
paper
for
that
proposed
ordinance.
That
language
is
designed
to
blunt
appeals
like
this
one,
but
that
is
not
the
current
language
in
the
code.
I
continue
to
maintain
that
per
code.
This
new
poll
should
have
had
a
conditional
use
permit
by
not
granting
it
the
report
and
the
commission's
decision
are
deficient.
T
T
The
commission
never
engaged
with
the
real
substance
of
my
appeal:
there's
no
evidence
that
it
considered
the
full
record
prior
to
rendering
its
decision
for
that
and
for
the
other
reasons
I
have
just
enumerated,
I
believe
that
body's
decision
was
not
supported
by
substantial
evidence,
which
is
one
of
the
grounds
on
which
a
denial
of
an
appeal
can
be
overturned.
Therefore,
I
respectfully
request
that
the
council
overturn
the
decision
of
the
commission
and
grant
my
appeal.
T
J
A
J
J
T
A
C
Guess
one
quick
question:
marcia
you
mentioned
that
you
didn't
feel
like
there
was
adequate
deliberation
and
I
think
that
maybe
you're
specifically
talking
about
when
the
motion
was
made
or
immediately
after
the
close
did,
you
feel
like
there
was
questioning
that
took
place
among
the
commissioners
throughout
the
meeting.
I
guess
and
the
reason
why
I
asked
that
question
to
be
transparent
is
like
looking
at
the
media.
The
minutes
of
the
meeting
to
me.
C
T
That,
council,
member
and
mayor
sorry,
I'm
usually
on
the
other
side.
I
it's
a
fair
question
both.
I
think
that,
certainly
after
the
motion
was
made,
in
my
view,
there
was
not
any
deliberation
prior
to
that.
I
was
asked
one
question
which
was:
what
is
it?
What
is
behind
all
of
this,
and
I
believe
there
might
have
been
one
question
asked
about
noise.
I
tried
to.
I
had
a
video
where
I
could
play
the
noise,
but
that
was
not.
I
was
not
allowed
to
do
that,
so
I
feel
it
is
both.
T
I
feel
that
there
were
no
substantive
there
and
there
were
no
substantive
questions
asked
of
the
applicant.
You
know
the
the
core
of
my
argument
was
that
they
hadn't
proven
that
this
is
the
most
the
highest.
You
know
the
location
that
should
be
used
and
I
had
submitted
alternate
other
locations,
but
there
were
no
questions
asked
of
the
applicant,
so
I.
K
A
Q
Q
A
Q
The
city
council
must
give
significant
deference
to
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
here
because
they
are
the
ones
with
the
with
the
expertise
and
they
themselves
relied
on
the
planning
department's
expertise
in
reaching
their
decision.
The
boise
city
council
cannot
grant
miss
franklin's
appeal
unless
the
planning
and
zoning
committee
committed
a
specific
error.
Q
I'm
going
to
defer
to
my
colleague
mr
evans,
to
talk
about
the
alternate
alternate
sites
that
were
considered
and
the
viability
of
those,
but
I
will
state
that
verizon
submitted
with
its
memorandum
a
detailed
analysis
of
potential
alternative
locations.
It
was
not
submitted
with
its
initial
application,
but
it
was
submitted
in
advance
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
hearing
and
the
boise
city
code
allows
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
committee
to
hear
all
evidence
submitted
up
to
the
date
of
the
hearing.
Q
Q
Finally,
one
of
the
other
grounds
for
appeal
is
that
the
planning
and
zoning
commission's
decision
was
arbitrary
and
capricious
and
an
abuse
of
their
discretion.
But
the
boise
city
code
expressly
states
that
a
disagreement
or
more
than
one
opinion
about
something,
does
not
make
a
decision
arbitrary
or
capricious.
It's
just
a
disagreement,
and
I
think
that's
a
better
explanation
for
miss
franklin's
thoughts
on
the
process
that
it's
more
of
a
disagreement
with
the
way
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
came
out
in
their
decision
than
a
true,
truly
arbitrary
decision.
H
H
Perfect,
so
I
wanted
to
discuss
the
other
locations
that
were
originally
discussed
and
reviewed
along
the
alleyway
of
26
between
west
stuart
and
west
regan.
There
is
a
power
pole
line
that
runs
through
that
alleyway.
Those
lines
were
the
one
of
the
alternative
locations
that
were
viewed
were
reviewed
due
to
the
proximity
to
residential
structures.
We
are
required
to
meet
achd
standards
and
part
of
those
standards
were
not
be
able
to
be
met
just
because
of
the
proximity
to
the
residences
and
the
homes,
so
one
of
the
other.
H
A
So
if
what
I'm
referring
to
is
the
map
that's
on
page
237
or
264
of
our
packet,
I'm
assuming
that's
the
propagation
study
map
and
what
it
shows
is
an
area
that
you're
trying
to
cover.
But
what
I'm
unclear
on
is
what
is
the
gray,
the
area
that
is
not
covered
today
and
the
bright
yellow
the
area
that
will
be
covered?
If
this
is
added.
A
H
H
Be
happy
to
the
the
coverage
that
you
see
on
the
upper
right
corner
that
is
in
yellow
is
coverage
from
another
site
is
from
a
previous
site
or
an
existing
site
that
is
further
to
the
east
or
to
the
west.
Excuse
me,
it's
a
strong
signal.
Gray
is
a
lighter
signal,
so
these
are
our
areas
of
best
coverage.
A
H
This
just
happened
to
be
the
site
location
that
covered
this
portion
of
this
neighborhood.
There
are
other
sites,
you
know
within
a
short
distance,
there's
another
one
at
27th
and
state,
for
example,
there's
another
one
at
27th
and
pleasanton.
I
believe
so
they
do
cover
this.
They
cover
neighborhoods,
just
one
at
a
time,
but
but
this
current
project
just
covers
this
one
sql
site.
F
H
Mod,
my
council
members,
this
this
is
specific
to
to
just
the
5g
coverage
at
this
point
now.
This
this
variable
could
turn
into
an
lte
service
in
the
future,
but
the
overall
goal
is
to
continuously
bring
better
coverage
to
our
to
our
customers,
and
sometimes
that
means
going
into
these
more
residential
areas
and
these
areas
that
are
more
dense,
where
you
typically
don't
have
a
lot
of
commercial
development.
J
H
J
H
I
believe
that
there
may
have
been
some
work
done,
but
it
wasn't
it
wasn't
for
this,
but
the
fiber
would
have
been
done
independent
of
this
approval
whatsoever,
so
it
wasn't
specifically
verizon
doing
this.
The
fiber
optics
company
may
have
pulled
the
trigger
to
do
that
earlier,
but
verizon
did
not
do
that
whatsoever.
J
Okay,
my
question:
what
I'm
kind
of
trying
to
figure
out
is
whether
the
fiber
optic
cable
was
laid
such
that
your
site
location
was
determined
before
anything
was
approved,
because,
if
that's
the
case,
then
it's
not
really
credible
to
say
that
there
were
alternate
locations.
The
cable
was
already
in
the
ground
and
it
was
going
to
be
where
it
was
going
to
be,
and
I'm
just
trying
to
suss
out
whether
that's
the
case
or
not.
H
J
H
H
You
know
they
put
their
plans
together,
just
kind
of
like
what
we
do.
We
work
in
a
year
in
advance.
You
know,
I
think
very
well
could
have
been
that
there
was
a
quote
or
there
was
a
contract
or
something
that
was
approved
for
that
bible
just
company,
and
it
could
have
been
done
that
they
kind
of
got
ahead
of
themselves.
H
So
I'll
defer,
I
know
that
one
when
the
fiber
optics
is
laid
the
companies
secure
approvals
and
achd
permits
for
working
within
the
right-of-way,
and
my
understanding
was
that
those
permits
were
approved
prior
to
our
even
knowledge
that
they
were.
They
had
happened,
so
any
permits
or
any
work
within
the
right
of
way
would
have
been
approved
by
achd
prior
to
that
work
being
done.
J
J
My
last
question:
this
is
my
last
question,
which
was
my
first
question.
Was
that
approval
the
preliminary
one
that
you
received
over
the
telephone
or
was
that
final
approval
after
going
through
achd's
process-
and
I
understand
you're
speaking
in
part
on
behalf
of
the
fiber
optics
company
and
that's
different
from
you?
But
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
when
that
cable
went
in.
H
Right,
that's
the
question:
I'm
not
positive
that
we
would
have
to
find
out
a
date
of
when
that
actually
happened.
I
mean,
as
far
as
as
the
approval
you
know,
which
we're
saying
is
over
the
phone.
It's
actually
not
an
over
the
phone
approval.
It's
a
it's!
A
applicator
of
email,
that's
forwarded
between
public
works!
That
comes
back.
That
says,
you
know
your
your
preliminary
location
is
approved
and
basically,
once
public
works
says
your
preliminary
pro
location
is
approved.
H
Then
we'll
start
our
engineering
services
we'll
start
surveys
we'll
start
that
process
before
we
even
submit
to
planning
and
zoning.
So
at
what
point
in
time
that,
like
that
any
fiber
optics
work
would
have
happened
between
that,
I'm
not
positive,
but
you
know
because
again
I
can't
speak
at
the
fiber
company
and
their
schedule
and
what
they
did.
All
I
can
speak
to
is
the
process
that
verizon
went
through
with
the
city
with
public
works,
and
you
know
we
would
not
have
done
any
of
that
work
from
a
construction
or
real
estate
standpoint.
J
G
H
A
A
Q
I'm
not
sure
we
have
anything
extensively
to
say.
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
the
fiber
laying
process
is
separate
and
independent
from
the
the
administrative
approval
zoning
certificate.
That
verizon
applies
for
for
this
specific
site.
So
a
third-party
company
lays
that
fiber
probably
dictates
where
verizon
chooses
to
try
and
get
permits
to
put
its
sites,
but
that's
a
separate
process
that
somebody
undertakes
at
their
own
risk
that
the
verizon's
application
won't
be
granted.
Q
A
J
You
allison
that's
what
I
was
getting
to
my
my
concern
and
my
question
is
really,
to
put
it
really
bluntly,
whether
you
credibly
presented
alternate
sites,
given
that
the
fiber
was
already
there.
I
understand
that
you're,
not
the
company
that
lays
it.
I
understand
that
that
other
companies
use
it.
I
understand
that
that's
all
very
much
beyond
your
control,
but
I'm
trying
to
suss
out
whether
your
alternate
sites
were
credible
or
whether
they
were
cobbled
together
after
the
fact,
because,
given
where
the
fiber
was,
you
had
to
put
it
where
you
had
to
put
it.
Q
H
T
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
and
members
of
the
council.
I
want
to
say
unequivocally
and
I'm
sorry-
I
don't
have
it
right
in
front
of
me,
but
it
is
in
your
packet
that,
through
a
freedom
of
information
act
request
to
achd,
there
is
correspondence
between
mr
evans
and
the
achd
for
right
of
way
in
which
he
clearly
says
the
number
of
the
poll
to
which
this
fiber
will
be
going
and
says
that
it
is
likely
that
it
will
be
a
replacement
pole.
I
have
included
that
in
my
packet
I
did
a
screenshot
of
that
foia
request.
T
When
I
talked
to
anyone
laying
the
fiber,
they
said
they
were
doing
it
for
zao
zio
is
the
name
of
the
company
subcontracted
to
3c
subcontracted
to
gem
state.
It
was
a
whole
shell
of
companies
involved,
but
the
ultimate
determinant
was
that
mr
evans
had
secured
from
achd
right
of
way
and
preliminary
approval
from
the
city
for
the
poll
itself.
He
states
very
clearly
to
achd
the
actual
number
and
the
gps
coordinates
of
the
poll,
so
there
isn't
there
is
a
nexus
there.
T
T
What
it
does
not
show
is
that
there
are
already
facilities
at
23rd
and
state
24th
and
madison
21st
and
madison
fairview
and
27th
and
another
one
that
has
been
approved
at
27th
and
pleasanton
and
then
a
facility
on
davis
and
I'm
always
confused
by
these
propagation
studies
as
well,
because
they
only
give
you
this
really
micro
view.
They
don't
show.
What
else
is
there
and,
as
he
said,
this
is
going
to
be
not
just
5g
but
but
lte.
T
T
As
far
as
one
thing
I
did
want
to
say
is
that
he
mentioned
that
this
is
the
first
time
in
all
my
months
of
doing
this,
that
he
mentioned
something
on
25th
street
that
he
had
looked
at.
I've
never
heard
that
before
and
then
on
his
thing
that
he
submitted
the
day
of
the
actual
appeal
hearing
where
he
just
said
it
was
150
feet
south
I
paced
it
off,
and
I
assumed
it
was
the
alleyway,
and
I
hear
today
that
it
was
an
alleyway.
T
T
They
got
and
I'm
just
curious.
I
really
would
like
them
to
do
the
due
diligence
to
explain
why
this
is
it.
I
do
believe
that
on
27th
in
stuart,
which
is
a
major
thoroughfare
and
where
they've
put
their
other
some
of
their
other
facilities,
the
fiber
can
be
easily
extended
half
a
block
to
there.
Thank
you.
A
T
C
C
What
I'm
wondering
is
that
this
one
does
feel
different
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
why
that
does
feel
different
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
if
this
has
followed
the
exact
same
timeline
and
the
approved
timeline
and
the
approved
methods
that
we
have
in
place
and
that
we
have
used
for
our
other
approvals
as
well.
Is
there
anything
that
deviates
from
our
approved
timeline
or
our
approved
sequence
that
we
usually
follow
for
these
types
of
projects.
A
Celine,
so
I
do
have
a
question
and
and
whether
it's
germaine
to
this
particular
decision
I
haven't
concluded.
But
the
question
is
this:
do
we,
as
a
city
have
a
good
understanding
of
what
this
full
network
is
going
to
be
like,
or
are
we
being
asked
to
respond
one
by
one
by
one
to
micro,
locations
of
specific
antennae?
A
N
We
certainly
know
that
there
is
a
lot
coming,
we've
seen
a
lot
over
the
last
few
years,
but
we
do
receive
them
one
by
one.
Sometimes,
we've
been
asking
to
see
them
in
clusters,
so
we
see
five
or
ten
at
a
time
just
to
be
able
to
have
conversations
about
multiple
items
at
once,
rather
than
just
one-on-one
but
past
that
it
is,
it
is
just
one
one
location
at
a
time
for
the
most
part.
N
Madam
mayor,
not
at
this
time
there's
you
know
obviously
a
wireless
ordnance
amendment
coming
before
you,
which
is
a
good
start
to
help
with
the
bandwidth
and
just
the
number
of
applications
we've
seen.
So
I
I
mean
we
can
talk
more
about
that
during
the
ordinance
hearing.
Of
course,
you
know
there
is
especially
with
city
assets
for
city
street
lights.
N
N
K
C
A
J
J
There
is
something
uncomfortable
about
the
preliminary
approvals
they
are
preliminary
and
when
a
company
undergoes
to
take
risk
based
upon
them,
the
company
bears
that
risk.
I
didn't
feel
like
I
got
a
clear
answer
as
to
whether
the
ground
was
broken
here,
based
on
a
preliminary
approval,
but
at
any
rate
the
company
bears
that
risk
and
and
if
the,
if
the
result
of
the
hearing
is
different,
they're,
the
ones
who
are
out
as
alternate
sites,
I
agree
with
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
to
the
extent
that
it
said
alternate
sites
were
presented.
J
J
Ask
questions
chew
on
it,
get
the
information
they
needed
and
there
was
a
record
to
support
their
decision
and
for
the
same
reason,
I
think
the
decision
was
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
The
applicant
did
provide
all
the
documentation
that
it
was
required
to
so.
For
those
reasons
I
would
deny
the
appeal.
C
I
do
understand
that
this
is
frustrating.
I
do
see
some
issues
I
do
see
some
needs
for
clarity
and
better
long-term
planning,
but
I
also
don't
see
any
error
in
the
planning
and
zoning's
commission
or
that
the
way
that
this
process
moved
forward
or
that
it
was
done
in
any
sort
of
way
that
wasn't
by
code
or
wasn't
legal,
and
so
for
those
reasons,
I'm
supporting
the
motion.
F
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Yes,
I
just
want
to
thank
ms
franklin,
for
I
think
a
very
well
thought
out
appeal.
She
brought
up
some
things
that
I
hadn't
thought
about
in
this
discussion
and
really
brought
some
things
to
light,
and
I'm
in
while
I
agree
that
planning
and
zoning
didn't
error
in
their
decision.
F
I
disagree
with
the
commissioner
who
said
that
these
are
boilerplate
arguments.
I
actually
feel
exactly
the
opposite.
I
think
that
this
was
a
really
well
thought
out
appeal.
It
was
thoughtful.
It
presented
new
information
that
maybe
we
haven't
thought
about
before,
but
I
don't
think
the
planning
and
zoning
made
any
error
at
the
same
time.
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that
and
thank
you
for
all
of
the
time
that
you
put
into
it,
and
hopefully
we
can,
in
our
new
ordinance,
prevent
some
of
these
same
heartburn
issues
in
the
future.
E
Madam
mayor,
yes
just
know
that
I
I
would
agree
with
what
councilmember
wooding
said
and
I
was
going
to
say
something
somewhat
similar
in
that
I
I
appreciate
the
points
you
brought
up
there.
They
were
unique
and
extremely
different
than
any
of
the
points
that
I've
heard
on
any
of
these
polls
or
these
antennas
that
have
come
before
us
in
in
the
past,
which
is
much
more
oriented
around
a
certain
group.
That's
opposed
to
5g,
as
opposed
to
the
reasoning
behind
the
selection
process
and
how
how
that
process
is
handled.
E
I
would
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
agree
with
the
points
that
my
colleague
council
member
bajan
made,
but
I
I
think
that
we
have
some
fodder
here
for
a
future
ordinance
and
future
improvements
within
our
own
city,
whether
that's
grouping
together
some
of
these
in
the
future.
When
we
see
them,
I'm
not
sure.
If
that's
the
answer,
I
think
there
probably
is
some
proprietary
aspects
to
these
polls
and
that's
probably
the
reason
they
shoot
them
to
us
one-on-one,
which
is
a
big
pain
in
the
two.
E
A
D
D
The
vote
may
not
go
their
way,
but
when
they
do
work
like
you
do,
which
is
very
thorough,
it
ends
up
benefiting
the
entire
community
as
we
move
forward.
It
highlights
some
issues
that
that
we
can
address,
perhaps
not
in
this
moment,
but
moving
forward,
and
so
I
just
want
to
thank
you
so
much
for
bringing
this
issue
forward.
The
way
that
you
did.
J
I
J
Expect
that
discussion
caused
at
least
one
telephone
to
ring
an
alarm
that
the
city
of
boise
may
be
demanding
your
proprietary
maps
or
proprietary
plans
for
how
you're
going
to
implement
the
next
level
of
5g
or
whatever
in
the
city,
and
I
think
we're
all
sensitive
to
that.
I
don't
think
anybody
in
boise
wants
to
demand
that
anybody
turn
over
their
most
sensitive
business
information
in
a
way
that
their
competitors
would
get
a
hold
of
it's
an
issue.
J
A
Thank
you.
I
will
just
say
this
briefly.
Also
thank
you
marsha
for
bringing
this
forward
in
the
way
that
you
did
to
me.
This
points
out
the
issue
that
we
hear
most
often
at
city
council,
that
when
things
happen
in
neighborhood
that
are
unpredictable
and
uncertain
and
happen
in
ways
that
are
unexpected
and
without
prior
knowledge,
they
do
create
problems
in
the
neighborhood,
and
so
our
processes
should
address
that.
I
think
you've
brought
forward
some
issues
that
will
allow
us
to
do
that,
and
I
appreciate
you
doing
that.
A
Like
my
fellow
council
members,
I
can't,
in
this
particular
decision
find
error
in
the
decision
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
But
do
you
believe
that
the
city,
despite
the
proprietary
information
that
may
be
involved,
does
deserve,
as
do
the
citizens,
some
certainty
about
what
the
deployment
of
this
5g
will
mean?
It
is
a
public
infrastructure,
it
does
serve
the
public
and
we've
got
to.
I
hope,
come
to
some
some
understanding
that
will
help
everyone
not
feel
like
every
single
one
of
these
is
a
one-off,
but
that
there
is
some
reasonable
plan
behind
it.