►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Evening Session
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
evening,
everybody,
the
time
is
now
six
o'clock.
This
is
the
time
and
place
for
our
regular
evening
meeting
of
April
4th
we're
going
to
start
off
the
evening
with
an
invocation
which
we
Mark
with
a
moment
of
silence,
followed
by
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance,
led
by
Girl
Scout
Troop
293..
Well,
everyone
please
rise
for
a
moment
of
silence.
B
A
The
Republic
for
which
it
stands,
one
nation
under
God,
indivisible
with
liberty
and
justice
for
all,
and
then
we
have
some
special
patches
that
we're
going
to
present
to
our
Girl
Scouts
that
commemorate
that
they
joined
us
at
a
city
council
meeting,
it's
a
special
city
of
Boise,
Girl,
Scout
patch,
so
I'm
going
to
come
down
and
give
these
to
you.
Okay,.
A
D
F
G
Mirror
I
will
abstain.
I
was
not
able
to
attend
very.
D
C
D
A
We
have
no
special
business,
so
next
we
have
item
six,
which
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
so
requests
in
which
the
in
which
case
the
item
will
be
removed
from
the
general
order
of
business
and
considered
in
its
normal
sequence.
G
A
G
A
Noted
any
other
discussion,
I
was
just
going
to
note
that
resolution
172-23
is
something
that
we've
been
working
on
for
a
very
long
time.
It's
a
partnership
on
what
we
refer
to
as
our
camp,
our
Capital
campus
down
in
the
Lusk
district,
and
it's
a
partnership
between
CCDC,
Voice
or
actually.
No.
This
is
the
wrong
one.
That's
the
downtown
one!
Oh!
This
is
the
downtown
one.
Yeah.
A
Oh,
it's
resolution
177-23,
that's
what
I
meant,
which
is
a
partnership
between
Boise
State
CCDC
and
the
City
of
Boise,
to
and
JF
development
to
redevelop
our
Capital
campus,
which
will
result
in
a
net
gain
of
a
lot
of
affordable
housing
and
a
lot
of
vibrancy
for
Lusk
District,
which
is
really
exciting.
So
without
any
further
comment,
click
will
you
please
call
the
roll.
D
D
A
C
Ord-17-23,
an
ordinance
car
22-0031,
a
property
located
one
and
two
South
Mesa
Vista
Drive
and
145
West
Dover
Lane,
amending
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
of
way
from
r-2,
medium
density,
residential
to
r-1c,
single
family.
Residential
studying
for
this
reading
statement
supports
its
own
change
in
providing
effective
date.
A
B
B
The
applicant
request
to
vacate
the
Platinum
related
to
the
bridal
path,
as
well
as
vacate
the
rear
step
back.
This
would
allow
for
construction
of
a
detached
garage
in
the
rear
of
the
property
behind
the
existing
single-family
home.
The
proposed
accessory
structure
would
meet
the
30-foot
rear
setback
of
the
r1a
Zone.
Therefore,
the
planning
team
recommends
approval
and
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
E
A
D
D
A
H
Thank
you,
members
of
the
council.
The
item
before
you
is
an
appeal
of
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission's
decision
to
deny
a
waiver
request
for
the
construction
of
curb
Gutter
and
sidewalk
as
part
of
a
minorland
division
on
0.9
Acres,
located
at
4870
North
Farrow
Street
in
an
r1c
Zone.
Currently
there.
H
Currently,
there
is
one
single
family
home
on
site
administratively
approved
minoland
division
proposes
two
additional
lots
to
the
east
of
the
existing
home,
which
has
Street
improvements
that
were
installed
as
part
of
a
separate
subdivision
approval.
The
subject:
minoland,
division
application
included
a
standard
condition
to
install
curb
Gutter
and
sidewalk
along
the
remaining
unimproved
Street
section
along
Farrow
Street.
H
D
H
In
its
decision,
there
are
no
extenuating
circumstances
present
on
this
site
that
are
not
generally
applicable
to
the
rest
of
the
city.
The
planning
team
finds
a
commission.
The
commission's
decision
was
not
supported
by
my
apologies.
The
planning
team
finds
the
commission's
decision
was
was
supported
by
substantial
evidence
and
was
not
arbitrary
or
capricious
as
outlined
in
your
packet.
The
planning
team
recommends
Council
denied
the
appeal
and
uphold
the
plan.
E
I
E
Do
have
a
question
so
just
kind
of
looking
at
the
rest
of
the
areas
in
the
neighborhood.
There
are
some
areas
that
have
sidewalks
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
street,
as
well
as
some
adjoining
property
lines.
I
think
is
at
the
North
or
the
South
property
line
that
sidewalks.
H
So
that's
correct
this.
This
diagram
shows
the
sections
of
of
the
street
within
this
small
neighborhood
of
with
sidewalks
and
without
the
outlined.
The
yellow
outline
shows
the
sections
of
the
street
that
are,
and
you
are
correct
to
that.
Some
of
these
streets
only
have
sidewalk
on
one
side
and.
E
Then
my
couple
follow-up
questions.
It
looks
like
on
Cranberry
Street
the
way
that
the
Sidewalk
Ends
it
sort
of
Curves
around
set
up
to
continue
to
make
it
around
the
corner.
Is
it
and
am
I
looking
at
that
photo
correctly.
E
Yeah
great
and
during
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission,
meeting
I
read
through
some
of
the
transcript
it
looks
like
this
was
talked
about
quite
a
bit,
but
then
there
was
also
some
conversations
about
the
power
lines
and
challenges
with
the
power
lines
and
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
just
go
over
that
quickly.
Yes,.
H
Sir,
so
the
power
lines
were
measured
by
myself
and
they
were
shown
to
be
at
least
six
feet
away
from
the
edge
of
the
existing
pavement,
meaning
that
there
would
be
ample
room
for
a
sidewalk
and
curb
and
gutter
as
well,
and
then
I
should
also
add
the
fiber
optic
cables
were
mentioned
in
that
as
well
and
and
that
points
back
to
a
similar
obstacle.
That's
not
that
it's
it's
generally
applicable
to
the
rest
of
the
city.
Sure
thank
you.
G
Mayor,
yes,
so
it's
true
that
there's
already
sidewalk
on
the
other
part
of
this
lot
and
the
applicant
will
not
have
to
rebuild
That.
Sidewalk
only
add
this
section
of
sidewalk
on
the
side
street
as
well
as
the
corner.
Is
that
correct,
councilmember.
A
K
Parker
4870
North
Sparrow
and
the
last
person
that
last
picture
that
you
just
saw.
K
That
last
picture
that
you
guys
just
showed,
that
was
one
of
the
discrepancies
that
we
had
on
the
last
hearing.
They
rushed
to
the
Judgment
that
basically,
they
were,
the
only
hardship
was
that
they
that
they
focused
on
was
financial
hardship,
but
on
that
last
photo
that
you
saw
there,
that
was
the
fiber
optics
right
there
and
Mr
Dennis.
The
last
time
we
were
here.
He
said
that
I
think
he's
out
on
his
inspection.
K
The
Commissioners
asked
him
if
there
was
fiber
optics-
and
he
said
I,
don't
believe
so
I
think
they're
underground.
So
that
was
one
of
the
you
know,
discrepancies
of
hardship.
That
is
right.
You
know
right
there
and
again,
like
our
whole
subdivision.
It
is
built,
I
mean
that
the
Hickory
is
there
and
and
the
the
other
picture
that
you
guys
just
showed.
It
was
great
because
you
see
down
the
hickories
I
mean
there's
only
one
sidewalk
on
on
that
whole
in
the
whole
subdivision,
and
it
just
doesn't,
it
doesn't
to
have
one
sidewalk
there.
K
It
just
doesn't
make
sense,
and-
and
it
doesn't,
you
know,
correlate
with
the
rest
of
of
the
of
our
subdivision,
but
she
has
more
information
and
then
I've
got
a
little
to
add
on
to
that
too.
Okay,.
J
So
the
original
application
for
a
minor
land
division
provides
for
the
creation
of
2x
for
residential
lots
that
front
west
Cranberry
Court
one
approved
the
two
new
Lots
would
have
their
own
tax
slot
numbers.
The
creation
of
these
two
additional
residential
Ops
meets
the
Boise
City
comprehensive
plan
to
infill
and
provide
additional
housing
within
the
city
of
Boise.
J
The
proposed
new
Lots
front
on
West
Cranberry
Court
and
have
no
access
directly
to
Pharaoh
Street
other
than
along
West
Cranberry
Court
West
Cranberry
Court
is
a
residential
neighborhood
with
single
family
residences
and
has
existing
curb
Gutter
and
sidewalk,
including
the
side
yard
of
the
existing
residence
and
the
0.9
Acres,
including
where
the
proposed
two
New
Lots
would
be
when
our
property
was
developed
in
1973.
The
properties
along
Farrow
Street
were
designed
as
a
rural
development
with
net
densities
of
one
dwelling
per
acre.
J
In
such
cases
a
walk
would
be
constructed
along
one
side
of
the
street
to
preserve
the
rural
setting.
Farrow
Street
has
curb
Gutter
and
sidewalk
along
the
west
side
of
the
street.
The
east
side
of
North
Farrow
Street,
does
not
have
any
curb
gutter
or
sidewalks,
providing
a
more
rural
feeling
and
that's
all
the
way,
the
whole
street.
J
The
requirements
to
construct
curb
Gutter
and
sidewalk
along
a
small
portion
of
the
street
that
was
not
designed
to
have
a
sidewalk
in
is
out
of
step
with
the
overall
calm,
residential
and
Rural
setting
for
the
street
out
of
respect
for
our
neighbors
along
Farrow
Street.
It
would
be
inappropriate
to
change
the
overall
column,
residential
and
Rural
setting
by
adding
a
short
sidewalk
on
the
east
side
of
the
street.
That
has
an
abrupt
stop.
J
When
West
Cranberry
Court
began
development,
it
became
apparent
that
the
Eastern
portion
of
our
property,
which
was
is
pasture
land,
was
more
suitable
to
be
developed
in
a
manner
capable
or
compatible
with
our
neighbors
on
West
Cranberry
Court.
Currently,
the
pasture
requires
weekly
flood
irrigation
by
parsley.
Water
would
be
saved
as
well
and
out
of
respect
for
our
neighbors
and
to
assist
in
the
creation
of
two
additional
residential
lots
that
meet
Boise
City,
comprehensive
plan
to
infill
and
provide
additional
housing
within
the
city
of
Boise.
J
The
proposed
new
lots
have
existing,
curb
Gutter
and
sidewalks
on
the
front
edge,
requiring
restrictions
or
requiring
restriction
on
a
parcel
not
directly
involved
in
a
minor
land.
Division
is
not
reasonable.
Planning
and
Zoning
should
only
address
the
parcels
involved
in
the
minor
land
Division
and
not
the
adjoining
land
when
the
existing
land
use
remains
unchanged.
Out
of
respect
for
the
neighborhood,
the
waiver
for
the
requirement
to
construct
a
non-compatible
sidewalk
along
North,
River
Street
should
be
approved.
J
This
approval
would
allow
the
West
cranberry
properties
to
be
developed
in
a
manner
compatible
with
the
adjoining
land
and
here's
some
errors.
The
requirements
for
the
construction
of
a
five
foot
sidewalk
with
Kerber
and
gutter
along
4870
North
Harris
Street
in
front
of
the
existing
residence,
was
an
error
in
application
of
the
Boise
City
Planning
and
Zoning.
The
Boise,
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
further
aired
when
they
denied
the
request
for
a
waiver
to
the
subdivision
ordinance
requirement.
J
The
following
are
the
major
points
concerning
of
error
made
number
one
requiring
construction
of
a
sidewalk,
which
is
out
of
character
with
the
adjoining
neighborhood
is
not
a
reasonable
requirement.
North
Farrow
Street
can
remain
unchanged
without
impacting
the
setting
for
residential
lots
on
West
cranberry
Corps
number.
Two,
adding
a
sidewalk
to
Nowhere
in
front
of
a
single
law
along
a
street
is
not
appropriate
or
reasonable
for
the
consideration
of
establishing
an
unconnected
lot.
The
sidewalk
to
know
where
would
have
a
major
adverse
visual
impact
on
the
other
residents
along
Farrow
street.
J
The
sidewalk
to
Nowhere
would
also
create
a
hazard
on
Farrow
Street
number.
Three
District
policy
7207.57
states
that
the
standard
Street
section
be
33
foot
wide
back
to
of
curb
to
back
of
curb
a
five
foot.
Wide
sidewalk
should
be
located
a
minimum
of
16
feet
from
the
center
line
of
the
street.
Currently
there
is
23
feet
of
Street,
which
means
there
is
only
11
and
a
half
feet
from
the
center
line
of
the
street
on
trash
day.
J
J
We
just
had
a
tree
trimming
truck
there
in
our
neighborhood
this
week
and
trying
to
get
around
that
the
cars
were
backed
up
on
both
sides
and
then
number
four
300
to
400
feet,
north
of
our
property
on
Farrow
Street,
the
white,
the
road
widens
to
34.8
feet,
they're
still,
not
a
sidewalk
on
on
the
west
side
of
the
or
the
east
side
of
the
property,
and
even
when
you
turn
from
there,
you
can
turn
East
onto
Hickory
Drive.
J
J
Please,
oh
okay!
Thank
you.
Okay,
let
me
so
tonight
we
are
requesting
that
The
Voice
city
council
correct
the
areas
that
have
been
made
and
approve
our
request
for
a
waiver
to
the
subdivision
ordinance.
The
waiver
requested
would
remove
the
unreasonable
requirements
to
construct
curb
Gutter
and
sidewalk
along
North
Farrow
Street
as
part
of
a
minorland
division,
creating
two
residential
lots
on
West
Cranberry
Court
in
an
r1c
Zone.
L
K
Yeah
so
another
thing
that
came
up
there's
a
little
discrepancy
in
the
achd,
but
the
achd
between
us
and
Mr
Dennis
echd
said
that
it
was
not
that
they
were
not
requiring
sidewalks
right
here.
They
said
that
there
was
the
B
sidewalks
put
in
that
they
would
like
again
a
16
and
a
half
feet,
not
12,
and
so
basically
there
was
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
another
like
10
to
12
feet
of
of
city.
K
You
know
basically
City
space
before
that
sidewalk
and
then
connects
yeah
and
I
mean
and
then
the
other.
You
know
the
one
of
the
Commissioners
said
that
you
know
a
tight
street
is
a
safe
street,
but
it
I
mean
I,
wish
that
you
guys
could
actually
see
it
because
it's
it's
not
I
mean
I.
Also
I
sent
a
picture
to
Mr
Dennis.
K
You
know
it
was
trash
day,
so
I
put
my
trash
can
out
on
the
road
to
where
it
would
actually
be
after
we
had
a
sidewalk
and
it
just
doesn't
make
sense,
and
so
and
then
later
on
the
commission.
There
was
a
commissioner
that
said
that
they
just
made
a
you
know.
A
couple
put
in
the
sidewalk
to
nowhere
and
it's
basically
a
sidewalk
to
Nowhere
a
sidewalk
out
in
the
street
and
it-
and
he
also
mentioned
that
as
a
sidewalk.
That's
not
even
adjacent
to
the
property
and
and.
D
K
I
I
wanted
to
thank
Miss.
I
was
hoping
Mr
Blanchard
would
be
here
because
I
didn't
know
how
all
this
worked
and
who's.
Who
is
going
to
be
here,
but
he
he
mentioned
us
and
basically
about
Boise
ethics
and
morals
and
I.
Think
it's
unethical
and
unmoral
to
have
a
hearing
and
facts
are
skewed.
I
mean
that's
just
it's
it.
It
sits
wrong
with
me
and
I
think
doc
or
commissioner
Daniel.
K
He
said
yeah
it's
a
hard
pill
to
swallow,
but
I'm
not
going
to
swallow
that
pill
when
it's
based
off
of
of
you
know
fake
basically
fictitious
stuff
facts,
not
facts,
so
you
could
tell
that
they
were
that
they
were.
You
know
they
were
not
pleased
with
it.
We
were
not
pleased
with
it.
I
think,
there's
something
in
between
the
two
that
that
needs
to
be
looked
at.
M
M
Live
yeah,
so
I'm
very,
very
familiar
with
this.
All
right
and
I
want
to
see
if
your
perception
matches
my
perception
so
you're
right
it
it's
a.
It
was
meant
as
a
rule
subdivision
at
one
point,
a
rural
area
and
so
to
the
east.
You
can
walk,
you
know
the
entire
way
down
and
you
hit
us.
You
hit
another
sidewalk
on
the
other
side.
Actually,
I've
had
that
that
crossed
it
would
be
on.
M
The
west
yeah
there's
no
sidewalk
at
all,
and
so
what
happens
is
for
this
new
infill
development
and
we
have
a
very
walking
neighborhood
people
walk
all
the
time
and
a
lot
of
people
are
outside
in
their
yards
if
they
want
to
go
into
the
infill,
they
have
to
cross
the
street
and
they
then
go
in
on
that
sidewalk
for
that
infill.
But
then,
if
they
want
to
stay
on
that
side,
without
the
sidewalk
they're
right,
they're,
basically
walking
in
the
road,
it's
unstable.
There's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
debris.
M
It's
there's
a
lot
of
potholes.
It's
it's
not
steady
for
anyone,
so
they
already
have
to
cross
the
street
to
go
so
in
your
you've
lived
there
for
a
while
in
your
experience,
do
people
stay
on
your
side
of
the
street
or
do
they
actually
cross
the
street
to
go
to
the
sidewalk,
which
is
more
stable
and
safe.
J
M
A
G
K
There
is,
but
none
of
those
kids
go
to
that
school
it
it's
not
in
our
it's
in
a
different
what
they
call
that
a
different
Zone,
but.
G
And
there's
answer
the
question
and
not
I
I
understand
that
you've
already
made
that
very
clear.
The
point
of
the
ordinance
frankly
is
that,
as
infil
happens
lot
at
a
time
you
get
the
sidewalk
completed.
So
if
we
give
you
a
waiver
and
your
neighbor
comes
in
and
asks
for
infill
on
their
lot,
they'll
say:
well,
you
gave
my
neighbor
a
waiver.
I
shouldn't
have
to
put
a
sidewalk
either.
How
would
we
ever
infill
the
sidewalks?
In
that
case,
I.
K
Don't
ever
see
those
sidewalks
being
infilled,
we
are
like
the
last
property
there
that
has
property
to
subdivide
all
the
other
properties
are
smaller
and
I,
don't
see
them
ever
ever.
Adding
to
you
well.
A
E
There
any
other
questions.
We've
got
a
couple
of
specific
questions,
so
you
mentioned
something
at
the
end
that
I
think
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
figured
out.
You
said
that
there
were
a
number
of
facts
that
were
skewed
I'm
at
the
Planning
and
Zoning
meeting,
which
is
important
because,
like
our
job
right
now
is
to
figure
out,
if
plenty
made
an
error,
a
capricious
decision.
E
K
K
E
C
E
K
I
I
sent
pictures
into
of
this,
but
I
mean
I.
Think
our
road
is
only
what
22
feet
wide
23
feet:
23
feet
wide
and
again
it's
just
it's
not
safe
I
mean
it's
just
a
very
tight
Road
and
achd
said.
If.
N
D
E
E
Okay,
the
third
one
achd
is,
is
not
requiring
a
sidewalk,
so
that's
the
other
crack
that
you're
presenting
was
there
another
one
that
I
was
missing.
I
felt
like
you
said
there
was
a
fourth
one.
J
D
E
Trying
to
look
look
at
the
the
photos
I've
seen,
and
maybe
staff
can
speak
to
this
as
well.
What
it
looks
like
to
me
is
that
the
sidewalk
isn't
extending
into
the
street
is
it's
covering
the
dirt
patch,
that's
along
the
side
of
the
street,
so
maybe
you
can
help
clear
that
up
to
me
is
it?
Is
it
covering
the
dirt
patch
or
is
it
actually?
The
dirt
patch
is
still
going
to
stay
there
and
then
the
sidewalk
moves
five
feet
further
into
the
street.
So.
K
From
what
I
from
what
I
understand,
is
Mr
venez
wanted
the
sidewalk
put
right
on
on
the
road
on
the
edge
of
the
road
and
so
it'd
be
in
between
the
power
pole
and
and
the
road?
And
but
then
there
would
be
another
probably
12
feet
of
city
of
city
property
right
there,
which
would
be
just
gravel.
K
F
Mayor
just
one
more
I,
didn't
understand
what
you
had
to
say
about
the
original
lot
not
being
associated
with
the
subdivision,
because
in
my
mind,
if
you
subdivide
a
lot
it's
associated
with
that
subdivision,
that's
how
it
all
started.
So
could
you
clarify
that
for
me
or
maybe
answer
that
confusion.
K
Well,
the
one
commissioner,
just
later
on
after
we
had
left,
he
had
mentioned
that
so
basically
yeah
I
don't
know.
Do
you
want
to
answer
this?
One.
J
Well,
so
the
property
that,
yes,
it
is
obviously
all
one
piece
of
property,
but
the
property
that
we're
subdividing
and
putting
the
two
new
Lots
on
is
at
the
back
of
the
property,
which
is
the
access
would
be
on
cranberry
corn,
not
on
Pharaoh
Street.
That
already
is
all
developed
for
sidewalk,
Curbing
and
gutter.
So
our
house
sits
at
the
very
front
of
Farrow
street,
so
the
back
property.
J
K
So
basically,
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
is
you
know
the
two
lots
that
would
be
there.
I
mean
they
would
tie
right
back
in
with
that
subdivision.
That's
there
and
Pharaoh
would
look
the
same.
I
mean
it
would
look
like
what
it
is.
I
mean
it'd,
be
the
open,
open,
feel
and
yeah,
and
then
also
Mr
Dennis
was
out.
There
he's
mentioned
that
it
doesn't
look
like
we
have
any
drainage
issues,
so
I
mean
there's
that
too
I
mean
great.
A
Sir
I
think
you
answered
the
question.
Thank
you.
Are
there
any
further
questions
for
the
appellants
all
right?
Well,
thank
you
very
much.
You
may
have
you'll
probably
have
an
opportunity
to
come
up
and
give
some
rebuttal
at
the
end.
If
that
works.
For
you
all
right,
we
have
for
the
neighborhood
association,
West,
Valley,
neighborhood
association.
Is
there
anyone
here
from
West
Valley,
all
right
and
I
am
not
expecting
any
members
of
the
public
and
we
don't
have
a
party
or
we
actually
do
have
a
couple
of
parties
at
record?
A
Is
there
anyone
here
who's
planning
to
testify
on
this
item
all
right
hearing?
None.
We
can
go
back
to
some
questions
for
staff.
If
anyone
has
some
I
think
that
there
probably
are
yeah.
E
H
America
members
of
the
council
I
think
there
is
a
discrepancy
in
the
width
of
the
right
away.
I
think
that
they're
being
unimproved
section
of
right
away,
that
gravel
kind
of
leads
to
the
misinterpretation
of
that's
still
being
right-of-way.
H
So
the
agency
comments
that
I
had
received
from
achd
listed
the
dimensions
of
the
right-of-way,
the
curb
gutter
sidewalk
that
would
be
required,
and
so
the
width
of
the
right-of-way
listed
by
achg
was
38
feet,
which
is
19
feet
from
Centerline
and
that
would
leave
with
that
would
leave
between
11
and
12,
depending
on
where
you
are
on
the
street
section
of
unimproved
right-of-way,
that's
gravel
now.
H
So
it's
really
just
kind
of
tight
around
the
corners
around
the
the
power
poles,
but
other
than
that.
There's
between
11
and
12
feet
of
unimproved
right-of-way
adjacent
to
the
to
the
site.
E
The
the
width
of
the
road
itself
are
we
near
how
much
would
we
be
narrowing
the
width
of
the
road
from
what
exists
at
this
point?
Maybe
I'm
just
asking
that
question
in
a
different
way.
H
E
E
The
travel
Lanes
themselves
so
sidewalk
to
sidewalk
edge
of
sidewalk
to
edge
of
sidewalk.
Do
we
know
what
the
width
would
be
if
we
installed
the
sidewalk
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
I.
G
Here,
yes,
as
I,
look
at
Google,
Maps
and
and
measure
this
curb
to
curb
north
of
this,
even
though
there's
not
a
sidewalk
on
the
east
side,
there
is
a
curb
on
the
east
side
and
if
you
look
curb
to
curb
it's
36
feet,
it's
true
that
the
pavement
in
this
section
is
narrower
than
that
by
a
fair
amount
and
in
fact,
there's
Landscaping,
but
I'm
certain
that,
as
this
development
goes
forward,
the
applicant
would
not
be
able
to
develop
in
that
area,
because
that
area
is
right-of-way
and
so
the
sidewalk
as
I
understand
it
would
be
in
that
area.
M
A
Thank
you
anything
further
for
staff
all
right,
Mr
and
Mrs
Parker
you're
welcome
to
come
up
and
rebut
anything
that
you've
heard
clarify
anything
that
you
would
like
clarified.
Well,.
C
G
K
F
K
K
K
J
Once
but
then,
once
we
do
put
our
garbage
can
out
there
right
now
we
keep
our
trash
can
in
the
gravel
area
when
it's
when
there
is
a
curb
there,
we'll
have
to
put
it
out
in
the
road
so
that
will
we
did
put
it
out
across
from
our
neighbor's
trash.
Can
you
know
where
the
side
where
the
curbing
would
be
at
the
time
and
it
just
it's
yeah,
it's
tight.
It's
tight.
G
D
K
Absolutely
that
and
again
our
trash
would
be
like
I
sent
I
sent
a
picture
in
in
our
trash
can
was
out.
It
would
just
that
would
choke
the
road
up.
Putting
the
trash
can
out
there
and
I
have
a
picture
of
the
car
coming
through
it.
Just
it
doesn't
make
sense.
I
wish
the
I
wish
the
Girl
Scouts
were
here
to
help
us
out,
because
I
think
that.
A
E
B
A
F
F
F
F
Moved
to
deny
the
appeal,
because.
A
F
Not
hearing
it
in
the
first
instance,
we
review
other
bodies
decisions
and
we
have
to
identify
something
that
not
just
we
disagree
with,
or
we
would
reach
a
different
conclusion
or
we
think
the
policy
doesn't
make
sense
in
this
particular
place.
We
have
to
identify
something
clear
and
specific
that
they
did
wrong,
because
they'll
then
take
that
feedback
and
incorporate
it
into
their
future
decisions.
F
So
here
the
issues
were
a
disagreement
over
whether
the
road
is
tight.
I'm
sure
it
is
that
the
street
itself
that
the
asphalt
on
the
street
itself
is
smaller
than
the
right-of-way,
it's
a
it's
a
tight
spot,
but
the
place
where
the
sidewalk
is
going
to
go
is
not
going
to
make
that
space.
Any
smaller
I
get
that
there's
issues
with
trash
cans
or
parking,
and
you
know
at
certain
times
it'll
be
tighter
because
of
that.
D
F
That's
just
kind
of
the
way
it
works.
The
fiber
hardship
issue,
I,
get
that
too.
What
we
look
for
is
an
undue
hardship,
not
just
a
you
know,
something
that
is
more
expensive
or
a
hardship,
and
so
typically
undue
hardships
are
a
lot.
That's
shaped
in
a
funny
way,
or
that
has
drainage
issues
or
something
that
is
like
really
pertinent
to
the
land
or
the
shape
of
the
parcel
that
makes
it
truly
unbearably
undo
to
comply
with
what
the
code
asked
for
and
moving
a
fiber
box
is
again
it's
a
hardship.
F
It's
a
common
hardship,
it's
not
an
undue
one,
and
that's
that
happens
all
over
the
city.
I
do
believe
your
original
parcel
is
associated
with
the
subdivision.
It's
the
personal,
it's
the
parcel
that
was
subdivided.
F
O
F
The
final
one
is
that
it's
out
of
character
with
the
neighborhood
and
you
know,
characters
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder
it's
really
tough
to
reverse
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
on
the
character
issue,
when
reasonable
Minds
can
disagree,
particularly
here
where
the
purpose
of
the
sidewalk
rule
is
councilmember.
Clegg
discussed
isn't
to
do
things
that
always
make
sense
in
the
immediate
term.
F
But
it's
to
think
about
where
your
parcel
and
your
neighbor's
parcels
and
your
streets
are
going
to
be
in
30
years,
40
years,
60
years,
80
years,
and
it's
clear
in
this
part
of
town
as
well
as
many
others.
You
know
we
want
to
move
towards
sidewalks
I,
understand
everything.
You've
said
about
the
character
and
the
feel
of
your
street,
but
we
get
it
both
ways.
F
O
G
G
Member
Clegg
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion.
I
seconded
it
because
I
I
largely
agree
with
with
what
councilmember
Beijing
said.
I
actually
agree
with
all
of
it
with
just
one
additional
comment:
these
are
always
difficult
on
infill
Lots,
where
the
city
was
allowed
to
build
without
sidewalks,
and
it's
now
urbanizing,
it's
no
longer
a
rural
neighborhood.
It's
an
urban
neighborhood,
it's
very
much,
surrounded
by
all
kinds
of
things
that
that
indicate
that
and
that
transition
period
is
very
difficult.
I,
don't
argue
with
that.
G
Whoever
put
the
sidewalk
in
on
cranberry
was
asked
to
and
did
do
exactly
what
we're
asking
of
you,
and
that
is
infill.
A
small
section
of
sidewalk
recognizing
that
at
some
point
in
the
future
it
will
connect
when,
when
the
rest
of
the
land,
redevelops
and
or
a
policy
is,
is
brought
forward
to
complete
it.
So
I
agree
not
because
I
think
it's
easier
for
you,
but
because
I
think
it's
the
right
thing.
It's
the
policy
we've
adopted
and
if
we
simply
say
gosh
in
this
case,
we
just
won't
support
that
policy.
G
M
With
respect
to
my
colleagues
I'm
going
to
be
voting,
no
I
live
in
this
neighborhood
I've
walked
these
streets,
I've
driven
them.
Thousands
and
thousands
of
times
and
I.
Think
there's
there's
something
important
to
note
here
and
first
of
all,
we
all
want
our
city
to
be
walkable.
M
It's
not
it's
for
a
good
block
and
a
half,
and
so
what
happens
is
is
that
people
walk
that
other
side
if
they
are
coming
out
of
that
infill
they're
going
to
cross
the
street,
because
even
if
you
have
this
sidewalk
because
then
there's
still
another
lot
to
get
to
the
main
road.
So
what
we're
doing
is
we're.
We
really
are
creating
one
patch
of
sidewalk
that
doesn't
connect
to
anything,
and
people
are
still
going
to
have
to
cross
the
road
now.
M
The
other
thing
to
consider
about
this
area
is
that
this
really
is
the
last
of
the
infill.
The
other
surrounding
lots
are
all
single
Lots,
they're,
all
single
family
lots
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
be
subdivided
they're,
part
of
HOAs,
and
so
we're
doing
this
for
this
one
area,
but
we'll
never
be
able
to
go
to
the
Disc
Go,
the
Distance,
so
I
I
think
in
this
case
it
just
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense,
even
though
we
want
sidewalks
everywhere.
We
want
kids
to
be
able
to
walk
to
that
Park.
M
We
want
them
to
be
able
to
cross
McMillan
safely,
but
they're,
just
not
going
to
anyway,
because
it's
not
safe
now,
because
they
have
to
just
go
that
other
way.
So
they're
going
to
be
going
to
De,
Meyer
or
they're,
going
to
be
headed
that
entire
way
on
that
one
pace
of
sidewalk,
because
that's
the
only
way
for
for
a
good
block
and
a
half
just
how
the
area
developed
I
wish.
M
E
There's
not
a
whole
lot
that
I
can
add
to
this
discussion
at
this
point.
I'll
certainly
be
supporting
the
motion.
I
agree
with
council
member
Bajan
that
we're
really
making
decisions
that
have
to
have
an
impact
40
years
down
the
road
from
now,
and
we
don't
know
exactly
how
this
neighborhood
is
going
to
develop.
40
years
down
the
road,
a
block
and
a
half
up
the
street.
There
is
sidewalk
for
a
stretch
that
was
put
in
and
bit
by
bit.
E
There
can
be
continue
to
be
more
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
have
this
in
code
and
in
ordinance
is
that
there
are
people
with
disabilities
who
don't
have
the
ability
to
cross
the
street
easily
or
who
don't
have
the
ability
to
to
move
into
gravel
type
of
space,
and
so
we
really
are
trying
to
create
a
city
for
everyone
in
the
future
and
there's
a
reason
why
we
have
this
in
in
code
and
an
ordinance
to
do
this
and
I
guess.
E
The
one
thing
that
maybe
I
would
disagree
with
is
that
if,
if
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
would
have
gone
against
this,
if
they
would
have
gone
the
other
way,
I
would
have
had
to
have
found
a
reason
that
they
decided
to
go
against
city
code
and
ordinance.
And
if
we
do
make
these
decisions
not
based
on
city
code
and
ordinance,
then
it
is
arbitrary.
Then
we're
really
picking
and
choosing
when
it's
going
to
apply
and
not
going
to
apply.
E
A
C
D
D
A
Thank
you
for
coming
out
tonight
all
right.
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
car,
22-34,
pivot,
North
architecture,
reconsideration
of
City
council's
approval
of
a
rezone,
and
our
presenter
is
Jesse.
Lyle
welcome,
Jesse.
P
Thank
you
good
evening,
Madam
Mary
counselors.
The
item
before
you
is
cr22-34
a
rezone
of
approximately
0.87
Acres
from
roddd
to
c5dda,
located
at
672
Ash
Street.
The
applicant
is
requesting
to
reason
four
Parcels
that
contain
a
total
of
16,
naturally
occurring
affordable
units.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
rezone
this
to
construct
approximately
130
residential
units
with
some
commercial
space.
P
This
item
may
look
familiar
as
it
was
first
seen
on
February
14th
at
that
meeting.
Council
voted
to
approve
the
reason
in
the
D.A.
Excuse
me,
but
during
deliberations
indicated
concerns
about
the
level
of
affordability
and
the
number
of
income
restricted
units
proposed,
as
well
as
the
contingency
of
the
income
restricted
units
on
the
CCDC
funding.
P
At
the
following
meeting
on
February
28th
Council
voted
to
reconsider
the
application
on
March
13th
CCDC
designated
this
project
for
a
type
2
general
assistance
and
will
require
the
applicant
to
dedicate
13
units
at
100
Ami
for
six
years.
Since
then,
conversations
with
CCDC
have
led
to
modifications
to
remove
the
affordability
Covenant
from
the
D.A,
because
there
is
a
separate
agreement
between
the
applicant
and
CCDC.
P
This
is
further
outlined
in
the
project
memo
and
the
da
draft
in
your
report
to
address
council's
concerns
from
the
February
14th
meeting.
The
planning
team
recommends
the
applicant
dedicate
two
additional
units
to
our
path
home
at
60
Ami
for
15
years.
Our
path
home
is
a
program
working
to
end
homelessness,
with
Partnerships
between
the
city
of
Boise
and
other
agencies.
P
This
proposal
will
be
a
separate
agreement
from
the
applicant's
agreement
with
CCDC
and
does
not
contingent
on
the
applicant's
ability
to
complete
this
project
prior
to
the
sun.
Setting
of
this
urban
renewal
District.
Additionally,
this
would
provide
deeper
affordability
for
a
longer
period
of
time.
The
D
included
in
your
packet
does
not
contain
this
affordability
clause
and
the
council
has
the
amount
ability
to
modify
the
proposed
da
associated
with
the
rezone
or
to
add
additional
conditions.
P
M
Mayor,
yes,
I
have
two
questions
and
I.
Don't
know
this
might
be
a
CCDC
question,
but
I'll
throw
it
out
to
you.
So
one
is
that
the
affordability
requirements,
weren't
included
in
the
agreement
and
I
think
that
was
because
there
was
a
concern
about
timing,
I'd
like
to
get
some
more
clarity
on
that,
and
the
second
is
I
have
one
of
the
one
question
about
the
review
of
the
green
energy
code
that
they
want
to
use.
P
America,
council
members,
so
there
was
some
timing
initially
that
was
different
on
our
side
versus
CCDC,
CCDC
and
the
city
are
pretty
new
to
partnering
with
this
kind
of
situation
in
this
area,
and
so
this
was
a
learning
opportunity
for
everyone
to
try
to
make
sure
that
our
policies
match
up
in
our
procedures
match
up.
So
that
was
part
of
it
and
then
the
recommendation
for
the
other
units
is
essentially
to
try
to
address
some
of
the
other
concerns
brought
out
there.
M
I
guess
my
the
heart
of
my
question
goes
to
whether
it's
legally
binding-
you
know
we'll
approve
it
here,
based
on
that
good
faith,
but
it's
not
actually
in
the
in
the
documentation.
So
I
just
want
to
get
clarity
on
that,
because
I
would
hate
for
us
to
go
forward
viewing
that
there
were
going
to
be
additional
units
only
to
find
out
because
it
was
in
the
documentation.
It
could
be
challenged.
M
You're
gonna
head
nod,
so
that's
good.
The
other
question
would
you,
like
others,
do
okay,
so
I
saw
in
the
agreement
that
there
was
a
requirement.
Well,
let
me
let
me
back
that
up
a
little
bit,
that
the
city
would
do
a
review
of
Energy
Efficiency,
but
none
of
those
suggestions
would
be
binding,
but
the
applicant
would
need
to
explain
why
they
didn't
do
those
and
I'm
wondering
if
something
is
non-binding.
Why
are
we
making
them
go
through
the
step
of
justifying
why
they
did
or
didn't
did
not
use
the
suggestions.
P
Madam
mayor
council
members
I
think
that
there's
two
parts
to
that
question
so
the
first
part
is
that
the
applicant
is
agreeing
to
go
by
the
Green
Building
Code
and
get
that
certification,
so
they
are
providing
some
kind
of
sustainability
measures
in
that
way.
I
think
the
other
part
of
that
question
is
for
the
items
such
as
geothermal.
I
P
M
P
G
P
Mountain
America,
council
members,
so
that's
something
that
can
be
discussed
here
tonight
as
well.
Two
is
our
suggestion,
as
that
would
basically
get
us
closer
to
that
one
to
one
replacement
which
was
spoken
about
at
the
last
meeting,
but
also
to
provide
some
different
types
of
affordability.
I
A
L
Okay,
I
appreciate
it:
Dean
Pepe,
119,
Shoreline,
Drive,
Boise,
Idaho
83702,
not
a
mayor
step
in
mayor
I
know.
The
mayor
is
dealing
with
similar
issues
that
I
am
as
I
hollowed
up
here.
Council
members
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
come
again
and
speak
to
you
about
this
project
before
I
get
started.
I
just
want
to
come
in
and
thank
all
of
you
for
what
you
do
with
this
community.
L
My
dad
spent
eight
years
on
a
city,
council
and
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
hearing
about
how
he
commiserated
how
he
had
to
think
about
what's
best
for
the
community.
How
do
we
move
forward
to
be
successful
and
how
we
move
forward
in
many
different
directions
for
what's
best
for
what's
the
future,
which
you
just
talked
about?
You
know
10
20,
50
years
down
the
road
so
again,
thank
you.
L
In
regards
to
the
affordability
covenants
in
regards
to
the
development
agreement
or
adjustments
in
the
development
agreement
and,
what's
associated
with
that
in
regards
to
what
CCBC
is
providing
in
the
project,
so
with
that
said,
really
the
decision
comes
down
to
is
the
city
council
going
to,
in
addition
to
having
supported,
what's
already
gone
through
design,
review,
Planning
and
Zoning
in
the
CCBC
board,
the
city
council
ready
to
support
the
15
units
that
were
prescribed
in
the
original
development
agreement
or
not,
if
not,
as
we
discussed
when
we
were
after
before
the
owner
of
the
property
will
hold
until
rezone,
is
completed
and
develop
the
project
at
that
time,
ultimately
losing
the
opportunity
to
include
these
affordable
units.
L
L
F
L
Communication
with
CCDC
about
what
could
be
included
in
the
project
had
started
in
July.
We
were
told
and
then
I'll
get
into
in
a
second
the
timeline
Associated
to
get
to
the
CC
board.
Our
understanding
at
that
point
needed
design
review
approval.
We
couldn't
get
design
review
approval
without
zoning
approval,
which
includes
this
body's
approval.
I'm.
F
Just
taking
new
information,
like
my
recollection,
is
that
you
told
us
all
this
that
you,
you
didn't
come
here
and
say:
CCDC
has
accrued
this.
You
came
here
and
said
we're
working
with
CCDC.
We
hope
to
get
this
approved
in
the
first
meeting.
So
what
I'm
asking
about
is
like
whether
this
slide
contains
new
information.
Frankly,.
L
This
slide
does
include
new
information.
You
are
correct.
We
worked
with
CCDC
continue
to
work
with
CCDC,
but
because
of
the
timeline
we
couldn't
engage
to
the
board
level
to
get
their
support.
Thank
you,
I'm,
sorry,
to
interrupt
you.
No
it's
fun
happy
to
have
that
engagement.
I
really
appreciate
that.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Which
we
have
approved-
and
we
have
worked
with
on
development
and
ownership
side,
which
would
allow
for
the
support
of
13
units
to
be
developed
into
the
project
and
allow
us
to
engage
with
CCDC
in
a
development
in
an
agreement,
or
you
can
move
forward
with
with
the
staff
as
presented
to
you
as
a
new
development
agreement
that
we
just
only
received
last
week
that
we
are
not
in
approval
with
that.
We
do
not
support
and
ultimately
would
stop
the
process
to
move
forward
and
remove
our
question.
L
To
that
and
the
other
context
within
that
development
agreement
correct
it's
a
whole
new
development
agreement
that
we
received
last
week,
we
haven't
had
time
to
digest
or
even
engage
City
staff
on
the
issues
we
have.
We
had
a
development
agreement
that
we
approved
in
hand
that
this
group
approved
to
move
forward
with
that
we
are
ready
to
move
forward
with.
At
this
point,.
A
Timeout,
quick
Mr
Pepe
I'm,
going
to
ask
you
when
you're
addressed
by
a
council
member,
that
you
then
address
the
mayor
and
then
the
council
member,
it
just
kind
of
maintains
a
level
of
decorum
that
I'm
sure
that
your
father
would
appreciate.
I.
L
Would
appreciate
he
would
he
would
very
much
so
thank
you
for
reminders,
sorry
about
that
mayor
and
council
members.
Thank
you
so
much
so
again.
The
other
option
would
be
then
to
proceed
with,
what's
currently
in
front
of
you
and
recommended
by
staff,
which
would
ultimately
stop
the
project,
and
we
would
go
into
a
holding
pattern
until
the
new
zoning
is
in
place
at
such
time.
L
We
will
proceed
with
already,
what's
been
entitled
by
design,
review
and
proceed
to
develop
the
project
without
the
conditions
associated
with
the
development
agreement,
I'm
happy
to
then
dive
into
what
you
guys
have
seen
before
in
the
context
of
the
timing
and
the
context
of
what
it
looks
like
and
how
it's
being
supported
and
meets
the
city's
goals
for
more
housing,
but
that's
already
gone
through
multiple
levels
within
the
city.
So
with
that
I
will
pause.
If
there's
any
questions,
Madam.
F
Member
of
agent,
my
recollection
of
the
prior
meeting,
was
I.
F
I
can't
speak
to
how
other
people
made
their
decisions,
but
what
I
came
down
to
was
you're
going
to
be
able
to
do
this
as
a
matter
of
right
without
any
affordable
units
in
short
order
at
the
end
of
the
year,
you
were
working
with
CCDC
to
try
to
finalize
an
agreement
that
would
allow
you
to
provide
affordable
units
and
that's
what
you'd
come
with
you
hadn't
finalized
that
with
CCDC,
but
you
were
working
on
that
and
you
hope
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
so
we
approved
it
with
conditions
that
made
that
possible.
F
Should
you
be
able
to
get
there
with
CCDC,
because
one
way
or
the
other,
this
was
going
to
be
approved
with
or
without
the
affordable
units,
depending
on
whether
we
approved
it
in
that
meeting
or
whether
we
approved
it
as
a
matter
of
right
under
the
new
zoning
code.
My
question
is:
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
personal
question,
because
it's
a
business,
but
are
you
carrying
loans
and
interest
expense
such
that
the
project
will
be
much
more
expensive?
L
The
mountain
mayor
councilman
great
question:
currently
the
land
is
held
in
an
ownership
that
we
are
representing
just
for
development
purposes.
They
are
not
they're
weighing
what
happens
tonight
in
regards
to
how
they
move
forward
and
it
hasn't.
It
has
not
come
to
conversation
in
regards
to
is
there
additional
cost
impacts,
so
I,
don't
believe,
that's
an
hindrance
of
it
happening
in
the
future.
It
just
hasn't
been
part
of
conversation.
Okay,
thank
you.
Yeah
no
problem.
G
A
G
My
one
only
other
question:
there's
also
a
request
to
include
an
easement
for
the
storm,
drainage
and
sidewalk
on
11th
Street.
Are
you
in
agreement
with
that
audition
yeah.
L
That's
actually
sorry
Madam
mayor
council
numbers.
Yes,
there
is
no
concern.
We've
actually
had
great
conversations.
We
continue
to
work
with
ultimately
CCDC
in
requiring
that
the
antennas,
hopefully
as
part
of
this
development.
We
find
a
better
solution
for
that
than
what's
currently
provided
in
that
easement.
E
Thank
you
so
sort
of
a
related
question.
There
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
it
is
in
the
new
development
agreement
that
you're
opposed
to
and
as
I'm
kind
of
looking
through
here,
I
see
I
see
a
couple
different
things
highlighted
in
red
I
see
the
easement
that
you
just
addressed
with
council
member
Clegg,
which
it
seems
that
you're
on
board
with
I,
hear
the
two
additional
affordable
units
that
you're
not
on
board
with
correct.
L
Not
America,
council
members,
ultimately,
we
need
to
work
with
legal
staff
and
we
haven't
been
able
to
do
that
because
we
just
received
this
document,
but
in
regards
to
business
terms,
and
those
two
additional
affordable
units
makes
it
non-feasible
non-financially
viable
for
a
project.
Also,
the
context
of
removing
any
information
in
regards
to
CCDC
approval
would
need
to
remain
in
the
agreement.
That's
been
removed
from
the
agreement
because
we
do
not
currently
have
an
agreement
with
CCDC.
We
have
an
approval
to
engage
them
to
get
into
an
agreement
with
CCDC.
E
L
A
A
We
have
somebody
online.
Oh,
please,
state
your
name
for
the
record.
A
Yes,
sir,
we
can
hear
you,
please
state
your
name
for
the
record.
Q
Q
My
biggest
Point
here
is
that
last
time
when,
when
I
spoke,
I
spoke
about,
you
know
the
13
units
being
at
100
Ami,
and
that
is
roughly
1531
dollars
per
month,
currently
I'm
paying
1130
a
month
for
a
two
bedroom
one
bath
that
1531
dollars
does
not
include
parking
utilities
and
a
bunch
of
other
services.
Q
I
appreciate
the
two
units
from
for
our
path
home
being
at
60
Ami
for
the
15
years,
but
I'm
I'm
kind
of
confused,
also
why
that
would
be
for
only
15
years,
I'm
assuming
after
15
years,
the
the
apartments
would
be
very
profitable
or
profitable
and
and
I
would
hope
that
these
units
could
last
longer
than
you
know,
just
that
15-year
mark
last
time,
I
had
spoke
and
I
asked
for
16
units
provided
at
60
Ami
to
better
match
the
current
demographic
and
rent
of
our
Apartments.
Q
And
although
this
130
unit
apartment
May
provide
more
housing,
it's
not
necessarily
providing
more
affordable
housing
units,
and
this
is
going
to
result
in
pushing
out
individuals
and
families
who
cannot
afford
these
units
further
gentrifying
the
area
and
also
potentially
increasing
the
city's
current
homelessness
issues
that
we
are
already
facing
as
a
community.
Q
And
yeah:
that's
I!
Guess
that's
really
it!
Let's
take
a
pause,
let's
think
about
the
long-term
effects
and
let's
choose
Builders
who
who
are
going
to
support,
affordable
housing
here
and
and
not
push
out
people
who
who
may
not
be
able
to
afford
these
units.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
E
Martin,
hey,
you
may
have
said
this
and
I
missed
it.
Did
you
say
that
you
testified
at
the
last
meeting
as
well?
I.
G
Thank
you
for
being
willing
to
answer.
If
you
can,
the
letter
from
CCDC
requests
that
we
do
remove
the
affordability
Covenant,
believing
that
it
will
unduly
restrict
you
I
think
as
I
heard,
the
developers
speak,
it
actually
opens
the
door
to
the
possibility
of
those
additional
two
units
if
they
work
somehow
without
actually
requiring
them.
Can
you
maybe
enlighten
me
whether
we
should
or
should
not
remove
that
affordability
piece
from
the
development
agreement.
N
Ccdc
is
the
River
Myrtle
district
is
one
of
our
active
districts
and
at
sunsets
several
months
after
this
project
is
contemplated.
N
Being
complete,
development
can
be
unpredictable
and
there
is
confidence
on
our
end
that
this
is
an
achievable
project,
but
there
is
some
risk
there
that
if
the
project
did
not
complete
within
the
district's
time
frame,
CCDC
wouldn't
have
the
ability
to
reimburse
upon
those
obligations,
and
so
I
think
I
share
that
with
you
here
today
to
just
illuminate
that
fact,
and
that
if
the
city
is
considering
a
development
agreement
on
the
basis
of
ccdc's
performance-
and
there
is
a
bit
of
risk
there
on
whether
this
all
comes
together,
it
I
think
you
all
should
just
be
aware
of
that
in
in
your
considerations.
G
Follow
up
if
I
might
so
Doug
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
is
that,
with
that
clause
in
the
development
agreement,
if
it
were
not
to
come
together,
then
there'd
have
to
be
a
modification
of
the
development
agreement
at
the
end,
in
order
to
actually.
O
G
An
occupancy
permit
and,
in
the
meantime
it
might
make,
might
complicate
getting
to
that
end
date
in
a
way
that
that
might
prevent
it
from
happening.
Is
that
what
I'm
hearing
you
say.
N
So
a
decision
made
today
on
that
could
later
not
not
be
seen
through,
and
so
I
think
just
being
aware
of
that
in
in
the
decision
is,
is
something
to
be
thinking
about
and
is
part
of
the
reason
why
CCDC
has
requested
that
this
information,
or
this
section
be
removed
from
the
development
agreement.
Our
agency
has
worked
closely
with
the
applicant
as
as
they've
presented
tonight
and
has
dedicated
it
I
think
we're
all
represent
that
the
agency
and
and
its
board
Express
support
for
the
project
and
we're.
N
B
G
Could
if
we
remove
it
what's
to
prevent
the
applicant
from
simply
not
doing
the
agreement
with
you
other
than
that
they
would
lose
whatever
funding
you
would
provide
for
them.
N
Madam
mayor
council,
member
Clegg
yeah
that
is
correct.
Our
designation,
the
action
taken
by
our
board
in
March
designated
1.1
million
dollars
of
assistance
upon
completion
of
the
project
in
exchange
for
the
13
Workforce
housing
units
that
1.1
million
dollars
is
to
fund
public
infrastructure,
utility
relocations
and
streetscapes.
So
the
developer
would
be
facing
a
decision
of
not
receiving
assistance
with
with
public
infrastructure
if
they
chose
not
to
move
forward
with
the
workforce.
Housing.
A
L
Yes,
council
members,
mayor
appreciate
again
the
time
the
ability,
I
think
I
want
to
make
clear
a
couple
things
Doug
pointed
out
some
very
important
items
associated
with
what
we're
asking
for
in
regards
to
the
original
development
agreement.
L
It's
a
funding
structure
at
the
end
of
the
day
to
help
support
the
units
that
we're
prescribing
the
original
development
agreement.
Without
the
funding
structure,
the
project
isn't
viable
to
support
those
units
and,
ultimately,
that's
what
we
came
for
a
month
ago
and
said
if
we
were
able
to
be
successful.
L
Hopefully,
that
decision
is
supportive
of
moving
a
development
agreement
together.
It
allows
us
to
work
with
CCDC
to
build
a
great
project
and
we're
excited
to
bring
to
the
market.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
D
E
Try
to
stay
with
me
and
if
you
can
that's
fine
too,
say
that
we
leave
the
development
agreement
in
place
for
the
affordable
units,
the
way
that
it's
written
or
the
way
that
we
approve
last
time
around
the
project
doesn't
get
completed
during
the
time
and
they
lose
that
funding.
E
Do
we
know
it
at
that
point
where
that
puts
the
city
in
holding
somebody
accountable
to
keeping
that
affordable
units
in
place
when
the
funding's
gone
away,
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
like
what
happens?
If
we
just
leave
it
in
there
and
for
some
reason
things
don't
work
out
and
they
don't
they
funding
from
CCDC.
P
Not
America
council
members,
The
Way,
It
Was
Written
in
the
development
agreement
that
was
presented
on
the
14th
of
February.
There
is
a
clause
in
there
that
would
allow
them
to
move
forward.
However,
again
in
conversations
with
CCDC.
Since
that
point
in
time,
it
has
come
to
the
attention
of
both
agencies
that
it
could
be
much
cleaner
to
just
separate
those
two
agreements
and
have
CCDC
have
their
affordability
aspect
with
the
applicant
as
they
are
providing
that
funding,
and
then
the
city
understands
that
that
is
what's
on
the
table
for
the
applicant
bed.
Thank.
M
A
F
Yes,
the
the
reason
this
is
here
is
because
there
was
new
information
that
needed
to
be
considered.
I,
don't
think
the
information
was
new
I
think
we
knew
it
so
setting
that
aside,
we're
right
back
where
we
were.
We
talked
about
this
for
a
really
long
time.
We
went
through
the
affordability
we
went
through
the
pros
and
cons
of
CCDC.
We
went
through
the
lived
experience
of
all
the
residents
there.
We
worked
really
hard
and
achieved
the
final
result.
Nothing.
F
G
P
Madam
mayor
council
members
that
would
need
to
be
added
if
that
was,
if
you're,
approving
the
development
agreement
that
was
on
the
table
for
the
14th.
That
was
not
in
that
agreement.
Okay,.
G
G
M
You
and
mayor
I
have
a
clarifying
question
for
the
maker,
so
these
are
always
really
tricky
because
we've
got
reconsiderations.
So
what
I
hear
you
saying,
council
member
agent,
is
that
you're
denying
the
reconsideration,
because
we've
already
approved
that
in
February
without
all
the
additional
conditions
that
were
well
the
handful
of
different
conditions
that
were
brought
up
today,
because
in
your
mind
there
isn't
anything
substantial
enough
to
Grant
a
reconsideration.
F
M
A
A
All
right
any
further
discussion,
I
just
wanted
to
note
before
we
before
we
vote
on
this
item,
that
it
was
brought
up
a
couple
of
times
that
if
we
just
wait
until
the
modern
zoning
code
takes
effect
that
we
can
do
whatever
we
want.
One
of
the
things
we're
trying
to
build
into
the
modern
zoning
code
is
that
when
you
demolish
existing,
affordable
housing,
that's
replaced
one
to
one.
A
So,
while
the
applicant
cannot
come
back
up
and
I
get
my
soapbox
for
a
minute,
that's
going
to
be
Our
intention,
as
we
go
forward,
is
that
existing,
affordable
housing
is
preserved
even
when
land
is
redeveloped,
and
so
we're
going
to
work
really
hard
toward
getting
there
all
right
without
any
further
discussion
clerk.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.
D
P
A
I
You
good
evening,
Madam
mayor
members
of
the
council.
The
item
before
you
is
an
appeal
of
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission's
approval
of
PUD
22-63
in
2019
Council
approved
the
prominent
subdivision,
along
with
a
rezone
of
38.4
acres
to
r1cda
and
a
PUD
for
a
total
of
226
dwelling
units.
A
condition
of
the
original
approval
required
the
applicant
to
obtain
specific
PUD
approval
for
the
multi-family
Apartments
within
the
project,
which
is
the
item
before
you.
This
evening.
I
On
February
6th,
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
heard
a
request
for
a
PUD
comprised
of
96
multi-family
units
on
6.22
Acres,
located
at
8133
Bogart
Lane
in
an
r1c
da
Zone.
Following
a
public
hearing
and
deliberations,
the
commission
determined
that
the
application
complied
with
the
requirements
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
development
code
and
development
agreement
and
approve
the
Pud
on
February
15th.
The
Northwest
neighborhood
association
appealed
the
commission's
decision
based
on
the
ground
shown
on
this
slide.
I
The
appeal
centers
on
concerns
regarding
a
planned
pathway
along
the
spoil
Banks
Canal
to
the
south
of
the
project
site.
The
opponent
asserts
that
the
commission
aired
in
its
interpretation
of
the
scope
of
the
application
and
failed
to
evaluate
the
Project's
compliance
with
the
entirety
of
comprehensive
plan,
specifically
regarding
pathway,
related
policies
of
the
adopted,
Northwest
neighborhood
plan
and
Boise
Pathways
master
plan.
I
However,
the
condition
of
the
development
agreement,
which
required
the
current
application
clearly
states,
the
scope
of
the
Pud,
is
limited
to
the
multi-family
Apartments
within
phase
three
of
The
prominent
subdivision,
as
only
conceptual
plans
for
the
apartments
were
provided
with
the
original
applications
in
2019.
The
current
application
was
intended
to
provide
the
commission
with
an
opportunity
to
review
detailed
plans
for
the
apartments
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
Pud
findings
and
the
provisions
of
the
development
agreement.
I
The
pathway
referenced
by
the
appellant
in
their
appeal
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
current
application
and
is
located
over
47
feet
away
from
the
parcel
that
will
contain
the
multi-family
Apartments.
However,
the
pathway
was
proposed
and
approved
through
the
original
applications
in
2019
and
will
be
constructed
by
the
developers.
I
Part
of
the
process
of
finalizing
the
subdivision,
the
proposed
pathway,
location
and
width
is
consistent
with
the
guidelines
of
the
pathways
master
plan
and
Council
will
have
another
opportunity
to
review
the
pathway
design
in
detail
as
part
of
a
future
final
plot
application,
as
outlined
in
your
packets.
The
appellant
has
not
provided
any
evidence
to
demonstrate
that
the
commission
aired
in
its
decision
to
approve
the
Pud
for
the
multi-family
Apartments.
I
F
One
quick
question
Sabrina
and
you
may
not
know
the
answer,
because
2019
was
a
while
ago,
but
there
were
conceptual
plans
provided
back
in
2019
and
then
much
closer
to
final
detail.
Plans
provided
relatively
recently,
and
the
question
is
like
way
back
at
what
was
being
approved
in
2019-
were
conceptual
plans
even
required
at
all.
I
Madame
mayor
council
member
agent-
typically,
we
do
require
that
as
part
of
the
submittal
checklist
just
to
get
an
idea
of
what
we're
actually
approving
and
then
the
condition
required
them
to
come
back
with
specific
plans
to
show
exactly
what
would
be
constructed
on
the
site.
Perfect.
G
Thank
you
there's
a
fair
amount
of
conversation
about
the
pathway
along
the
Canal
Bank
in
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
hearing
and
in
the
appeal
as
I.
Look
at
that
there's
really
not
been
any
kind
of
process
to
determine
what
that
pathway
might
look
like
how
it
will
best
serve
the
neighborhood.
Should
it
be
paved,
should
it
be
gravel,
so
it
can
provide
for
equestrians
those
kinds
of
things.
G
I
Sorry
so
Madam
mayor,
councilmember
Clegg,
the
applicant
for
the
overall
subdivision,
is
currently
in
the
process
of
finalizing
those
plans
in
preparation
for
the
final
plat
application.
So
we
would
see
those
more
detailed
plans
with
the
final
plot
application
in
the
future.
From
what
we've
seen
currently,
the
proposed
path
would
have
a
minimum
width
of
10
feet
and
would
be
paved
with
landscape
buffers
between
and
the
adjacent
Street,
as
well
as
between
it
and
the
pathway
or
the
canal.
A
A
We're
then
going
to
hear
from
the
applicant,
then
the
neighborhood
association
we'll
hear
from
the
public
and
those
are
limited
to
two
parties
of
record.
So
folks
who
have
provided
input
on
this
before
I,
have
a
list
of
who
all
of
those
folks
are
and
then
we'll
have
a
rebuttal
by
the
applicant
and
then
a
rebuttal
by
the
appellant.
We're
going
to
keep
our
commentary
respectful
and
on
topic
and
we're
going
to
be
respectful
in
the
audience
as
well
is
my
request.
So
Northwest
neighborhood
association
or
whoever's,
representing
as
the
appellant
you're.
G
Up
I've
had
a
mayor
before
Richard
starts,
I
meant
to
note
one
thing
in
the
staff
report:
it
references
fire
station
16
rather
than
fire
station
13.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
development
will
go
forward
after
fire
station
13
is
underway.
R
Madam
mayor
council
members,
Richard
Llewellyn
9170
Hill
Road,
looking
for
the
presentation
up
there.
R
Okay,
thank
you.
I
will
not
proceed
with
the
first
request.
I
see
that
councilmember
Clegg
is
here.
We
were
concerned
that
there
might
just
be
a
very.
R
And
so
we
had
hoped
that
we
would
have
it
a
a
full
seat,
but
good
enough,
we'll
move
forward.
This
is
the
spoils,
Bank,
Canal
or
Eagle
drain,
as
it
exists.
Well
as
it
existed
a
few
years
ago.
R
This
was
a
bird
watching
tour
that
our
local
bird
watcher
Gary
Worthington,
gives
occasionally-
and
this
is
one
of
the
highlights
of
the
trip-
we
see
a
lot
of
birds
here-
there's
a
list
of
birds
in
the
appendix
for
what
we
submitted
to
plan
and
Zoning.
This
is
an
open
house
for
our
neighborhood
plan.
R
The
pink
dots
are
proposed
where
people
think
Pathways
should
go.
The
lower
pink
dots
they're
about
Center
are
the
spill.
Banks
Canal
pathway
proposed
pathway
that
was
in
2019..
R
The
blue
is
open,
desired,
open
space
this.
This
is
all
in
this.
This
at
least,
is
in
your
packet,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
there's
nothing
new
that
we
are
springing
on
anybody
here.
R
The
pathway
was
always
a
shared
agreed
amenity
of
this
project,
so
both
Jane
Suggs,
Leon,
letson,
Deborah,
Nelson,
all
discussed
it
multiple
times
in
the
project
at
the
well
throughout
the
project.
I
guess
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that,
and
it's
it's
described
as,
as
a
you
know,
a
peaceful
nature
trail.
R
For
instance,
it's
talked
about
as
mitigating
for
some
of
the
loss
of
open
space
and
wildlife
habitat.
So
it's
not
just
a
sidewalk.
For
example.
R
Here
is
the
Master
Pathways
plan.
It
is
in
the
top
10
priorities
on
the
right.
It's
shown
there
that
segment
on
the
left,
just
noting
that
there
are
many
ways
to
make
up
a
viable
good
pathway,
and
that
is
something
I
hope
that
can
be
discussed
at
some
point
so
to
step
back
a
little
bit
now.
R
Neither
of
these
two
diagrams
were
in
the
project
report
that
Planning
and
Zoning
saw
to
the
left.
The
project
overview
revised
is
what
was
before
City
Council
in
2019,
in
which
they
based
their
two
October
1st
decision
on.
As
you
can
see,
the
phases
are
broadly
blocked
out
phase
one
phase
two
and
phase
three
phase:
three
is
everything
to
the
in
the
southeast
part
of
the
property
and
note
that
it
goes
all
the
way
it
encompasses
the
entire
property
and
that
property
goes
all
the
way
to
the
south
side
of
the
spoilsbank
canal.
R
R
No,
there
wasn't
just
the
map
that
showed
phase
three
as
being
simple
and
contiguous
phase
three
conditions
here
in
the
packet
before
playing
end
zones,
zoning
says:
Street
improvements
for
the
new
public
roadway,
exchanging
from
Bogart
Lane
to
Hill.
Road
Parkway
shall
include
five
foot
detached
sidewalks
and
eight
foot
landscape
puffers,
in
other
words,
that
road
here
is
considered
part
of
phase
three
and
the
sidewalks
along
the
road
are
considered
part
of
phase.
Three,
this
is
what
it
looked
like
today
when
I
took
a
photo,
the
power
line
is
new.
R
That
power
line
is
runs
underground
and
then
comes
up
there
in
that
first
power
line,
and
that's
more
or
less
where
we
had
always
expected
the
pathway
to
go
so
I'm,
going
to
step
back
here
a
little
bit
to
the
transcript
of
the
discussion
and
I
really
hope
that
you
all
have
a
chance
to
review
that
refresh
the
conversation
that
we
had,
especially
the
Commissioners
had
during
the
hearing.
I'm
I
can't
go
over
all
of
it,
obviously,
because
of
time,
I've
pulled
out
a
few
things.
R
First
of
all,
commissioner
Mooney
asks
what
about
this
aerial
map?
You
know
we
haven't
seen
it
before.
Is
this
part
of
the
record
now
he's
he
speaks
to
his
confusion
regarding
the
canal,
commissioner,
Schaefer.
R
Does
anyone
have
a
copy
of
this
phase
three
site
plan
on
the
aerial
or
give
us
a
sense
of
the
width
of
the
right-of-way?
That's
south
of
this
proposed
development
to
the
canal
again
that
right-of-way
well,
I'm,
not
sure
if
he's
speaking
to
the
canal,
easement
or
the
power
line
easement
or
the
right-of-way
for
the
street,
the
applicant
I
don't
have
anything
that
shows
sorry.
R
I,
don't
have
any
of
the
shows
that
but
phase
three
is
to
the
property
line.
So
I
think
that's
really
key
here
to
the
applicant
believes
that
phase
three
is
what
they
say:
the
property
line,
I
believe
that
means
their
property,
but
the
property
of
the
entire
project
extends
South
across
the
canal
and
up
to
some
of
the
people's
properties
here
that
are
in
the
audience.
So
I
think
this
speaks
the
general
confusion
so
and
again
in
phase
three.
R
So,
commissioner,
Mooney
I
was
trying
to
get
some
background
for
the
decisions
made
back
in
2019,
and
that's
really
what's
going
on
here.
It
was
a
long
time
ago
and
we've
kind
of
lost
sight
of
the
big
picture,
so
staff
asserts
that
this
pathway
is
not
part
of
phase
three,
which
we
of
course
disagree
with.
We
think
it
is
commissioner
frinfrock.
R
So
how
are
the
paths
actually
addressed
in
the
development
agreement?
You
said
they
were
in
Phase,
One
and
phase
two,
so
staff
says
that
for
phase
one
there's
a
condition
that
reads:
password,
Pathways,
sorry,
Pathways
associated
with
this
portion
of
the
development
shall
be
publicly
accessible
Etc,
in
other
words,
pathways
are
associated
with
portions
of
the
development,
with
the
larger
properties
that
are
part
of
phase
one
phase
two
and
phase
three
note
also
that
phase
three
is
not
spoken
of
here,
but
neither
is
the
East-West
pathway
along
the
wells,
Bank
Canal.
R
I
thought
I
drink
a
lot
of
water
to
avoid
this,
but
so
he
had
he
expresses
confusion.
R
He
wants
to
make
sure
he's
getting
it
right.
He
with
the
relationship
between
this
new
inserted
map,
which
she
calls
it
Ariel
and
the
site
plan.
So
he
says,
there's
some
a
big
chunk
of
ground.
That
seems
to
be
missing
from
this.
R
The
big
picture
is
it's
a
spoils.
Bank
Canal
is
definitely
clearly
in
a
different
phase
than
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
tonight,
which
is
a
cup
because
the
plan
unit
developed
development
aspect,
and
this
is
where
we
really
feel
the
fundamental
error
lies
staff
or
Planning
and
Zoning
was
rewind
on
the
assertion
that
phase
three
is
different
from
what
city
council
approved.
R
Commissioner
said:
if
we're
only
looking
at
Phase
the
property,
the
land
that
phase
three
is
highlighted
in,
it
doesn't
touch
the
canal
in
that
aerial
map
that
they
saw.
I
have
concerns
about
the
pathways
as
well,
but
it
doesn't
based
on
what
we're
looking
at
tonight.
It
doesn't
look
like
we
have
control
over
the
land
along
the
canal
in
tonight's
project.
R
She
goes
on
to
say
so.
I'm
sure
we'll
see
a
future
project
that
will
include
what
we
need
to
know
about
the
pathway
space
and
we
can
at
that
point
add
whichever
conditions
are
appropriate
to
preserve
the
space
around
the
canal.
Now
this
is
where
the
hammer
really
hits
the
Anvil
in
terms
of
harm
and
in
terms
of
air
and
in
terms
of
the
repercussion
of
the
air.
R
R
This
is
the
this
is
how
the
decision
is
being
made
here,
commissioner,
Mooney
again
asserting
that
this
aerial
map
that's
been
inserted.
It's
first
time,
they've
seen
it
in
the
record.
We
didn't
get
a
chance
to
review
it
until
now.
So
that's
why
we're
all
confused?
There
is
clear
confusion
expressed
by
multiple
parties
here,
that's
the
challenge
and
then
we're
talking
about
a
future
phase
or
a
different
phase
of
the
project.
Again
in
which
they
believe
now
that
they
can
weigh
in
on
this
pathway.
Well,
it's
not
a
future
phase.
R
It
is
phase
two
which
was
approved
in
2019..
There
is
no
new
phase
or
new
development
application
that
will
come
before
Planning
and
Zoning,
in
which
they
can
ensure
that
this
Pathway
conforms
to
both
what
they
believe
it
it
should
conform
to.
Master
Pathways
plan
would
have
recommended
Etc
so
again
same
same
thread,
commissioner
stead
we
will
do
what
we
can
when
the
time
comes,
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
we
review
the
land
being
developed
along
the
pathway
there
along
the
proposed
pathway.
Again,
this
is
the
application.
There
will
be
no
other
application.
R
So
this
is
the
air
commissioner
Danley.
Unfortunately,
the
map
is
in
front
of
us
up
here
simply
just
was
not
included
in
our
packet,
and
that
was
the
confusion.
I
think
all
of
us
had
we
worked
through
the
process
and
I
think
we
have
the
answers
we
need,
but
that's
the
air
they
don't.
That
is
not
be
correct.
R
R
And
here
it
really
comes
to
this
commissioner
Schaefer,
when
phase
two
does
come
around
for
this
body
to
review
I
think
we'd
like
to
see
phase
three
boundaries
included
in
that
application.
So
we
have
a
clear
picture
of
how
all
these
pieces
get
put
together.
Okay,
that's
not
going
to
happen!
Phase
two's
already
gone
through
approval
in
2019
.,
so
that
is
the
air
again.
R
Let
me
assure
you
there's
other
opportunities
as
this
development
moves
through
the
process.
Well,
that's
just
not
going
to
be
the
case
in
terms
of
right
now.
This
is
the
conditional
use
permit.
This
is
the
time
to
ensure
that
phase
three
as
city
council
voted
on
phase
three
fits
with
the
larger
plans
and
amenities
that
were
always
part
of
the
prominence
proposal.
R
R
I
think
it
was
entirely
in
order,
but
it's
I
I
hope
you
can
read
it
if
you
haven't,
if
you
it
can
take
a
moment
to
refresh
yourselves,
it's
just
very
clear
that
overall,
the
entirety
of
what
plan
zoning
believe
they
were
making
their
decision
on
was
that
they
were
going
to
see
this
another
application
here
for
another
development
or
something
else,
phase
two
come
around
before
them
in
a
situation
like
a
cup
or
a
PUD
in
which
they
could
actually
have
the
legal
authority
to
ensure
that
this
path
is
created
here.
E
E
Good
to
see
you
thanks,
I
did
read
through
the
transcript.
I
was
expecting
you
to
bring
up
that
big
fish
that
you
didn't
catch.
R
Thank
you
for
asking.
You
know,
there's
a
few
errors
in
the
transcript,
because
it
was
actually
a
crawdad
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
that
fish
I
think
maybe
some
of
this
artificial
intelligence,
yeah.
F
E
So
I
agree
with
you
that
there
was.
There
was
certainly
some
confusion
reading
through
the
transcript
the
way
that
I
read
it
at
the
end,
though,
is
that
they
got
to
the
point
where
they
realized,
where
the
confusion
was
and
I've
experienced,
that
before
on
Council,
where
you
kind
of
had
to
walk
through
a
variety
of
different
things.
E
Until
you
got
to
the
point
where
there
was
some
clarity,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
when
they
got
to
the
end
that
they
found
the
clarity
that
that
pathway
is
indeed
planned
and
going
to
be
put
in,
which
I
think
we
also
heard
from
staff
earlier
tonight.
So
tell
me
if,
if
you
read
that
differently
that
at
the
end
that
they
didn't
get
past
that
confusion
and
got
to
the
point
where
they
had
arrived
at
like
yes,
there
was
some
confusion
that
we
had
earlier
this
evening.
But
now
we've
got
it
straight.
E
R
Thank
you,
there's
kind
of
two
components
of
that
and
the
first
again
is
I
believe
that
they're
they
did
not
arrive
at
the
correct
conclusion
because
they
did
never.
They
never
saw
the
image
on
the
left
here.
Okay,.
D
R
We
had
no
reason
to
bring
that
forward
ahead
of
time.
We
submitted
our
comments
several
weeks
in
advance
to
make
sure
they're
getting
the
project
report,
because
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
weren't
surprising
anybody
with
anything.
We
based
our
comments
on
the
image
on
the
left,
because
that
was
the
image
that
was
in
the
record,
so
there
is
that
which
I
will
still
maintain
as
an
heir.
R
Now,
if
the
applicant
wishes
to
say
that
the
sidewalk,
for
example
along
this
new
road,
is
the
path,
then
they
had
an
opportunity
to
say
that
before
planning
and
zoning,
I
did
note
in
the
diagram
that
was
shown
here
before
you
a
moment
ago
by
staff
staff
noted
that
the
sidewalk
there
was
a
little
thing
that
said,
planned
path
on
that
sidewalk
now
plan
zoning
should
have
been
told.
This
is
the
planned
path
this
sidewalk
here
and
then
they
could
evaluated.
Is
that
an
adequate
path?
Does
this
meet
the
expectations?
R
E
And
metamere
just
I
think
you'd
probably
answer
this
one
in
a
yes,
no,
so
I
think
that
what
you
feel
like
happened
is
that
Planning
and
Zoning
still
doesn't
have
a
adequate
idea
of
what
that
pathway
is
going
to
look
like
at
the
end
of
that,
and
you
also
believe
that
they
will
never
have
a
chance
to
look
at
that
again.
That's
what
you're
saying.
R
If
phase
three
is
now
truncated
to
these
new
boundaries
and
developed
as
such
may
or
may
not,
we
don't
know
is
a
problem.
We
don't
know
the
size
of
the
easement.
A
F
G
G
R
G
Sometime
in
the
future-
and
this
is
a
question
I
think
for
staff
at
this
point-
the
phase
two
that
I
assume
is
approved
because
the
blue,
showing
on
this
map,
does
not
include
a
fair
amount
of
the
land
that
was
originally
approved.
I'm
I
know
the
land
on
the
north
side
of
Hill.
Road
Parkway
was
preserved
as
open
space,
but
what
about
the
rest
of
the
land
on
the
south?
What's
happening
to
it?.
I
Madam
mayor
council
member
Clegg,
what's
shown,
is
phase
two
in
blue
in
that
image
in
front
of
you
is
what
we
haven't
received.
A
final
plot
application
for,
but
the
developer
has
submitted
utility
plans
to
the
public
works
department
for
review,
which
is
why
those
preliminary
lot
lines
are
showing
on
the
map
currently.
I
So
that
would
be
at
this
point
what
we
expect
to
see
in
phase
two
for
a
final
plot
and
then
the
remaining
section
of
what
was
originally
phase.
Two
would
come
back
in
a
future
final
plot.
I
I
G
G
S
S
Okay,
good
evening,
Madam,
mayor
and
members
of
the
council,
Jeff
Bowers
601
West
Bannock
in
Boise
here
tonight,
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
and
landowner
bear
with
me.
I've
got
a
little
cold,
so
I
didn't
want
to
come
in,
but
I
might
I
might
be
coughing
a
little
bit
so
I
apologize.
S
We
did
submit
written
comments
and
opposition
to
this
appeal,
showing
that
the
commission
did
not
commit
any
errors
and
that
all
of
the
Pud
criteria
have
been
properly
analyzed
and
the
commission's
decision
approving
this
project.
We
did
fully
agree
with
planning
staff's
analysis
of
the
appeal
in
this
case.
We've
gone
through
it
Page
by
Page,
We
Believe
planning
staff
did
a
great
job
discussing
each
of
the
alleged
errors
and
showing
why
those
are
not
in
fact
errors.
So
we
would
agree
with
planning
staff
that
this
appeal
should
be
denied.
S
It
I'm
happy
to
stand
for
any
questions
on
those
errors,
but
I
think
I'm
going
to
take
a
more
high
level
approach
tonight
and
and
talk
big
picture.
So
really
this
application,
and
this
appeal
can
be
boiled
down
to
one
issue:
will
the
prominence
developer
construct
a
pedestrian
pathway
on
the
north
side
of
the
spoilsbank
canal?
The
answer
to
that
question
is
unequivocally
yes.
S
The
future
pathway
along
the
canal
is
not
at
issue
in
this
application.
As
noted
by
planning
staff,
all
of
the
prominence
project
is
subject
to
an
approved
preliminary
plaque
that
approved
preliminary
plot
is
displayed
on
this
slide.
This
plot
will
guide
all
future
development
of
the
prominence
project.
S
The
application
at
issue
in
this
case
relates
to
Lot
2
block
2,
as
shown
on
the
preliminary
plat
and
highlighted
in
red
on
the
slide.
This
is
a
6.22
acre
area
on
the
southwest
corner
of
Hill
Road
Parkway
in
Bogart.
This
figure
shows
the
separation
from
the
current
project
and
the
canal
and
future
pathway
planned
along
the
canal.
The
canal
Center
Line
is
shown
in
blue
and
the
future
pathway
is
depicted
in
line
just
north
of
the
blue
line,
because
the
canal,
nor
the
future
pathway,
are
part
of
this
application.
S
S
S
In
fact,
the
commission's
approval
of
this
application
included
a
site-specific
condition
requiring
that
all
underlying
conditions
from
the
prominence
project
be
continued
to
be
complied
with
again.
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
we're
here
on
an
application
for
a
PUD
for
a
use
on
the
red
area
and
and
because
we
have
kind
of
an
unusual
procedure
here,
I
I'm,
going
to
run
through
some
of
the
questions
from
the
council
and
respond
to
some
of
the
appellant's
initial
comments.
S
So,
commissioner,
I'm
sorry,
council,
member
Beijing
good
question
about
the
conceptual
nature
of
this
multi-family
area
in
2019.
This
project
did
not
have
conceptual
plans
that
were
approved
for
the
multi-family.
It
was
always
agreed
that
that
planning
process
would
occur
in
a
second
cup
hearing.
That's
what
this
was.
The
council
in
2019
did
put
some
parameters
on
the
multi-family
use,
though
they
said
no
more
than
96
units
and
that
it
had
to
be
a
two-story
structures.
S
Commissioner,
Hallie
Burton
I
I
believe
that
your
statement
was
spot
on
as
to
the
evolution
before
the
commission
and
I
think
the
appellant
you
know
was
cherry
picking
some
questions
to
make
it
sound
like
there
was
lingering
confusion,
but
ultimately
we
believe
that
the
pnz
you
know
with
some
hand-holding
from
staff,
ultimately
figured
out
where
this
project
was
located
and
came
to
the
conclusion
that
the
pathway
was
off-site
and
already
required
by
the
underlying
approvals
and
I.
S
Think
I'd
point
you
to
one
specific
quote
from
the
chairman:
that
sort
of
wrapped
up
the
deliberations
and
he
says
quote:
we
were
able
to
get
assurances
from
staff,
but
the
space
is
there
within
the
pre-plat
and
the
previous
approvals,
and
that
the
pathway
will
certainly
be
a
reality
and
will
happen,
and
so
just
turning
to
some
of
the
comments
from
the
applicant
first
as
it
relates
to
the
power
line
that
was
recently
installed
along
the
canal.
I
want
to
highlight
that
this
is
a
temporary
facility.
S
S
S
There
will
be
a
future
final
plot
application
submitted
that
will
provide
construction,
drawings
and
plans
for
this
pathway
and
and
council
member
Clegg.
We
do
anticipate
filing
that
final,
plaid
application
in
in
this
in
this
calendar
year,
so
we
would
expect
that
the
bulk
of
the
pathway
will
be
constructed
with
phase
two
in
this
calendar
year
and
it
will
be
constructed
in
accordance
with
the
preliminary
plaid
approval.
You
can
see
the
the
pathway
coming
off
of
bogart
traveling
to
the
west
and
then
intersecting
with
this
more
substantial
pedestrian
facility.
S
That
also
doubles
for
a
fire,
a
fire
safety
connection
as
well.
S
G
Thank
you
thank
you
Jeff,
so
it
would
seem
like
you
could
certainly
understand
why
there
would
be
confusion
when
the
original
conceptual
plan
showed
that
this
portion
of
the
pathway
and
not
the
more
substantial
pedestrian
way
to
the
West
would
be
part
of
phase
three
and
not
part
of
phase
two,
and
certainly
understanding
that
should
have
happened
when
phase
two
came
through
as
a
preliminary
plot
and
as
I'm
understanding
it
I'll
ask
the
appellant
when
they
get
a
chance
to
rebut
if
they
brought
it
up,
then
or
not
so,
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
you
tell
me
is
that
the
preliminary
platform
phase
two
is
in
and
that
design
on
the
final
plate
is
underway,
and
you
expect
to
bring
that
forward
soon
and
begin
Construction
in
this
calendar
year
and
am
I
hearing
you
correctly.
S
Madame,
mayor
council,
member
Clegg,
that's
correct
and,
and
I
would
only
add
one
small
Nuance
to
that
which
is
you
know
this
application
again
is
a
is
a
PUD
for
a
multi-family
use
on
a
specific
piece
of
property.
It
is
not
a
an
application,
for
you
know,
quote-unquote
phase
three
and
just
to
kind
of
highlight
that
that
their
while
I
agree
during
the
2019
prominence
project.
We
we
did
talk
about
conceptual
phasing
of
this
project.
S
There
is
not
a
phasing
plan,
that's
approved
or
required
for
this
project,
like
any
other
preliminary
plot,
but
the
developers
taking
down
these
phases
in
an
order
that
makes
sense
for
the
market
and
based
on
infrastructure
and
access
requirements.
G
Madam
mayor
I,
actually,
I
have
another
question
that
didn't
come
up
in
the
other
discussion,
but
is
follow-up
for
some
of
the
conditions
in
the
original
plaid,
and
that
is
the
edible
plants
and
while
they're
certainly
noted
on
here
as
I,
look
at
the
Landscaping
plan,
there
are
awfully
sparse
and
I,
don't
see
any
of
those
shown
on
the
tree
schedule.
I
showed
a
crab
apple,
but
not
a
real,
edible
tree
and
I
wonder
if
you
could
illuminate
why
you
made
those
choices.
S
Madame
mayor
councilmember,
Clegg
you're,
you
caught
me
a
little
off
guard
with
that
question
because
it
hasn't
been
an
issue,
but
I
do
know
that
I'm
trying
to
find
the
right
page
in
your
packet
there.
There
are
significant
areas
on
the
west
side
of
the
property
that
are
that
are
reserved
in
our
site
plan
for
edible
plants
and
specifically
the
the
idea
that
there
would
be
an
orchard
concept.
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
specific
plant
species
that
are
called
out
are.
I
could
probably
find
that
or
maybe
planning
staff.
D
G
Well,
I'll
just
note
that
we
discussed
it
tonight
and,
as
the
final
plaque
comes
forward,
I'll
expect
you
and
staff
to
make
sure
and
ensure
that
those
are
there.
S
G
F
Bauer,
could
you
refresh
us
on
my
understanding
is
we're
here
on
the
narrow,
conditional
use
appeal
of
the
multi-family
units?
That's
really
it,
and
can
you
refresh
us
on
why
the
multi-family
units
were
subject
to
a
conditional
use
requirement
in
the
first
place.
S
Well,
number
one:
we
are
zoned
r1c
in
this
case
and
multi-family
is
a
conditional
use
in
that
zone.
So
that's
the
easy
answer.
S
S
Do
the
fire
safety
issues,
other
infrastructure
issues
it
the
the
density
proposed
for
this
portion
of
the
project
wasn't
yet
viable,
and
you
see
that,
in
the
conditions
of
approval
that
that
require
the
fire
station
to
be
under
construction
before
we
can
start
construction,
and
so
that's
why
we're
still
that's
why
this
portion
of
the
project
didn't
get
approved
in
2019
and
why
we're
going
to
a
cup
or
PUD
today.
F
Thank
you
and
a
quick
follow-up.
So
that
was
my
understanding
and
in
my
mind
that
means
the
heart
of
our
inquiry
should
be
directed
towards
those
issues,
in
other
words,
the
issues
that
held
this
up
from
being
approved
back
in
2019
the
infrastructure,
the
fire
access,
the
ability
to
support
the
density
that
those
are
the
heart
of
the
issues
on
this
conditional
use
permit,
but
maybe
I'm
wrong,
and
maybe
there's
something
either
in
the
record
or
in
the
prior
discussion
in
2019.
That
I'm
overlooking.
S
Council
member
of
agent
couldn't
agree
more
I
think
we've
tried
to
focus
our
briefing
on
the
Pud
approval
criteria
and
that
the
council
I'm
sorry,
the
commission
carefully
evaluated
those
and
issued
a
well-reasoned
decision
and
found
that
all
of
the
underlying
conditions
from
prominence
would
still
need
to
be
complied
with
and
so
I
agree.
I
believe
we
have
tried
to
to
deflect
this
appeal
in
that
direction
and
I
believe
that
all
of
the
appropriate
criteria
have
been
satisfied
and
again
those
underlying
conditions
are
still
in
place
as
as
a
protection.
S
A
Thank
you
all
right.
We're
going
to
move
on
to
the
neighborhood
association
is
someone
here
to
represent
Northwest
neighborhood
association.
R
R
R
Excellent,
thank
you.
Well,
I
will
just
respond
to
a
few
of
the
comments
we
just
heard,
which
I
believe
is
germane
to
the
entire
project.
First
of
all,
most
importantly,
you
were
just
entirely
misled.
There
is
no
development
agreement
specifying
the
pathway
along
the
Spells
Bank
Canal.
It's
an
easy
mistake
to
make,
because
there
was
a
development
agreement
to
specify
that
lateral
number
34.,
which
runs
north
south
and
is
on
the
west
side
of
the
project,
remain
open
and
that
there
is
a
pathway
along
that
that
was
a
development
agreement.
R
This.
What
we
are
talking
about,
this
pathway
that
goes
through
the
phase
three
property
is
not
called
for
in
a
development
agreement.
So
this
is
the
chance
to
do
it
and
we're
talking
about
we're
trying
to
narrow
so
make
this
such
a
tiny
project
and
yet
we're
talking
about
multi-family
on
r1c
and
are
we
setting
a
precedent
here
in
which
we
are
saying?
R
We
can't
have
a
pathway
associated
with
an
apartment
complex
on
r1c,
because
that
would
be
two
broadly
considering
a
cup
for
an
apartment,
complex
I,
don't
think
so
we
do
it
on
State
Street
all
the
time.
Fortunately,
or
else
we
wouldn't
have
a
chance
of
getting
that
multimodal
path
along
State
Street,
we
haven't
always
been
consistent,
but
we
have
moved
that
way
and
planning
and
zoning,
and
this
Council
consistently
at
this
point,
require
that
Pathways
adjacent
to
multi-family
apartment
complexes.
R
R
When
you
add
you
know
96
apartment
units
in
r1c,
we
need
to
go
the
extra
step,
especially
if
we
need
to
go
to
the
extra
step
when
it's
called
for
in
multiple
planning
documents,
this
pathway.
So
you
know,
we've
been
hearing
now
that
it's
the
sidewalk,
that
is
the
multi,
well,
the
pathway,
that's
called
for
in
as
one
of
the
top
10
priority
Pathways
in
the
Boise
Master
Pathways
plan
plan
and
Zoning
did
not
have
the
opportunity
to
that.
R
Whether
that
was
an
adequate
pathway
or
as
a
council
member
Clegg
brought
up
what
kind
of
surface
it
might
have.
Might
it
be
appropriate
for
equestrians?
How
would
it
interact
with
wildlife
habitat
along
the
spoilers
Bank
Canal?
All
of
these
are
part
of
Designing,
a
good
pathway.
Right,
that's
just
been
ignored.
Now
the
applicant
could
have
said
no.
We
want
you
to
consider
the
sidewalk
as
we're
hearing
now
to
be
part
of
the
pathway.
That's
called
for.
R
So
it
is
not
overly
broadly
expanding
the
power
that
the
city
has
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
multi-family
to
discuss
a
a
pathway
that
is
on
the
larger
applicant
property.
We're
not
talking
off-site
here.
We
keep
hearing
this
off
site.
I
showed
you
at
one
point
already.
Could
I
have
my
original.
A
R
And
this
aerial
map
you
see
on
the
right
was
not
councilmember
Clegg.
It
is
in
the
packet
now
for
the
appeal,
but
it
was
not
before
planning
and
zoning
phase.
Three
conditions:
Street
improvements
for
the
new
public
roadway
extending
from
Bogart
Lane
Hill
Road
Parkway,
shall
include
five
foot
detached
sidewalks
all
right,
so
this
does
have
what
they
are
now
calling
the
pathway
in
this
application
in
phase
three
and
now
they're
saying
it's
not
there,
so
we're
either.
If,
if
counsel
is
directing
me
not
to
speak
on
the
pathway,
I.
F
R
You
very
good
so
then,
to
answer
your
question:
if
it
was
a
question
count
Madame
mayor
the
larger
we're
really
trying
to
get
at
the
larger
context
here
of
the
entire
project.
This
is
one
aspect
of
a
larger
process
project
part
of
what
we
brought
up
in
the
in
the
plan.
Zoning
commission
hearing
as
well
was
the
fact
that
the
development
agreement
for
the
pathway
that
is
required
is
already
being
not
really
followed,
certainly
not
followed
in
spirit,
and
that
can
be
seen
on
my
last
slide
here.
R
R
Today
it
might
be
open
for
a
few
yards
I
couldn't
walk
and
see
because
it's
posted
private
property
now,
but
the
point
being
we're
losing
the
Integrity
of
this
larger
application
and
we're
doing
so
because
we're
seeing
these
as
piecemeal,
if,
indeed,
this
entire
irrigation
lateral
number
34
is
going
to
be
buried.
Now
on
the
on
the
applicant
property
on
the
prominence
property,
then
we
do
need
to
think
about
how
that
affects
the
pathways.
R
The
other
Pathways
that
were
approved
or
discussed,
but
not
part
of
the
development
agreement,
and
that
is
Germaine
to
this
phase.
Three
so
again
we're
losing
the
Integrity
of
the
project,
and
this
is
the
time
to
just
like
along
State,
Street
or
anywhere
else,
where
we've
put
a
pathway
into
the
Master's
plan.
This
is
the
time
to
address
it.
R
R
This
is
the
first
time
we've
heard
that
the
power
line
is
temporary.
We
asked
City
staff
earlier
and
we
were
told
no,
it
wasn't
temporary.
That
is
an
there's,
a
power
line,
easement
that
goes
through
there
and
it
will
be
permanent.
So
if
it's
going
to
be
temporary,
that
could
be
a
potential
place
for
a
pathway
again,
Planning
and
Zoning
should
have
had
the
opportunity
to
vet
that
and
see
if
that
actually
works
and
then
perhaps
get
an
agreement
that
that
will
be
a
temporary
power
line.
R
You
know
we
do
have
a
lot
of
time
here.
We
have
until
the
sign
out,
at
least
in
in
on
Bogart
Lane,
now
says
2024
for
the
fire
station.
So
it's
all
it's
reasonable
to
take
the
time
to
do
this
right.
R
Let's
see
so
again,
I
think
the
most
critical
thing
is
we
just
heard
from
applicant
representative.
The
pathway
in
question
here
is
in
the
develop
in
a
development
agreement.
It
is
not,
it
is
not.
It
is
not
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
made
their
decision,
believing
that
there
was
some
other
mechanism
that
they
were
going
to
be
able
to
use
to
ensure
that
the
pathway
was
created.
A
Richard
all
right
we're
going
to
go
to
public
testimony.
We
have
several
people
signed
up
in
person
and
we
may
have
some
people
online
as
well.
So
if
you
are
online
and
you're
planning
to
speak
on
this
item,
please
raise
your
hand
on
Zoom
so
that
our
clerk
is
aware
of
that.
But
right
now
we're
going
to
start
with
people
in
order
that
they
signed
up
in
the
first
party
of
record,
who
has
also
signed
up
to
testify,
is
Kathy
Buchanan.
T
Madam
mayor
council
members,
my
name
is
Kathy
Buchanan
I
live
at
7565,
North
Misty
Cove
Avenue,
which
is
right
close
to
this
project
of
our
property
in
the
neighborhood
at
the
end
of
2018,
for
its
proximity
to
Foothills,
hiking
trails
and
I
walk
in
the
area
of
the
spoils,
Bank
Canal
daily,
which
draws
Wildlife
to
it.
T
I
wonder
with
all
this
development.
That's
coming.
If
we'll
see
wild
turkeys
or
other
birds
once
phase
two
and
three
of
the
project
are
complete,
but
the
pathway
will
at
least
provide
a
buffer
which
will
hopefully
allow
them
to
continue
to
utilize
the
area
and
for
the
neighbors
to
enjoy
them.
T
It
sounds
to
me
like
you've,
taken
the
pathway
as
an
issue
for
this
project
off
the
table,
so
I
I
don't
want
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
that.
If
that's
the
case,
but
I,
just
I
did
take
a
look
at
the
pathways
plan
and
there
were
some
statements
in
there
that
are
important,
I,
think
and
maybe
just
a
refresher
for
some,
but
it
states
the
plans.
Implementation
should
be
the
plan
and
its
implementation
should
be
informed
and
influenced
by
members
of
the
community.
T
T
I
think
we
view
this
as
really
important
to
have,
because
it
will
help
to
not
only
maintain
some
of
this
open
space
in
the
area
which
we're
losing
a
substantial
majority
of,
but
also
to
connect,
are
part
of
the
neighborhood
to
other
parts
of
the
neighborhood,
as
envisioned
in
the
pathways
plan
and
in
the
Northwest
neighborhood
association
plan.
T
So
anyway,
I
just
hope
that
everybody
would
really
do
their
homework.
I
mean,
obviously
this
Project's
been
going
on
for
a
long
time
so
to
take
into
full
consideration
the
record,
all
of
which
I
can't
keep
up
with
either
as
an
individual
moving
into
the
neighborhood
late
and
still
working
a
70
hour
a
week.
Job
councilman,
Clegg
I
was
interested
in
your
question
about
edible
plants,
because
I
did
read
the
development
agreement.
T
It's
now
been
over
a
year,
but
when
I
went
to
the
developer
meeting
that
was
held
on
site
I
had
read
that
in
advance
and
noticed
that
the
you
know
the
whole
site
was
rearranged
and
I
suppose.
Maybe
that's
preliminary,
but
I
expected
to
see
that
particular
feature.
I
can
understand
why
developer
made
some
of
the
other
changes
that
they
did,
which
were
probably
beneficial,
but
that
area
was
was
closest
to
the
orchard
area
was
closest
to
the
spoil
Banks
Canal
Kathy.
O
Madam
mayor
council
members,
my
name
is
Chris
May,
Union
and
I
live
at
8783,
West,
Sloan
and
I've
been
at
this
address
since
2014.
O
I'm,
a
member
of
the
Northwest
neighborhood
association
and
currently
I'm
a
board
member
at
large
for
the
planning
Council.
Several
of
my
comments
were
to
address
the
issue
of
the
pathway
and,
if
that's
no
longer
on
the
table,
maybe
some
of
my
comments
are
moot,
but
I
would
still
like
to
express
myself
as
a
property
owner
and
a
member
of
this
neighborhood.
O
If
that's
agreeable
to
you,
thank
you
from
my
driveway
I
can
see
through
to
Hill
Road
directly
to
the
prominence
development
when
the
structures
are
built
and
without
exaggeration
I
can
say
that
every
aspect
of
this
development
has
a
direct
bearing
on
my
quality
of
living
in
December
2019.
The
developer
and
I
was
at
this
meeting
the
developer
held
the
required
neighborhood
meeting
I
distinctly
recall
the
developers
representative,
emphasizing
that
care
would
be
taken
to
preserve
the
feel
and
the
accessibility
to
the
natural
habitat
are
along
the
South
Boundary
the
borders,
the
spoils
Bank.
O
Clearly,
the
original
commitment
from
the
developers
representatives
are
not
consistent
with
the
recent
placement
of
utility
poles,
the
permanent
nature
of
which
has
been
in
question
here
along
the
same
area
that
was
understood
to
be
part
of
the
nature
path
as
much
as
I
grieved.
The
impact
of
the
development,
at
least
I
thought
there
was
an
assurance
that
this
natural
wildlife
habitat
would
be
preserved
and
enhanced,
with
environmentally
congruent
Landscaping
along
the
walkway
to
be
enjoyed
by
both
residents
of
prominence
and
the
neighbors
who
wish
to
access
Green,
Space
and
wildlife
habitat
near
our
homes.
U
Okay,
great
Madame,
mayor
and
City
Council
Members,
my
name
is
Jennifer
swek
I
live
at
8955,
Duncan
Lane,
Boise,
Idaho
I'm,
a
member
of
the
Northwest
neighborhood
association
and
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
this
appeal.
U
We
moved
here
to
this
part
of
Boise,
specifically
for
its
geographical
location,
at
the
base
of
the
Foothills
or
the
Boise
front,
as
is
called
by
Audubon
Society
and
others.
We
wanted
to
live
in
an
area
that
had
clean
water
nearby
in
the
canals
and
the
ditches,
thus
supporting
the
wildlife
that
comes
with
it.
U
I
feel
it
is
essential
to
my
physical,
mental
and
spiritual
health
to
be
able
to
enjoy
nature
daily
in
my
yard
and
my
neighborhood.
This
is
therapeutic
to
myself
and
many
others
who
walk
in
the
neighborhood
daily
to
distress
from
the
pressures
of
the
modern
day.
Work
World
in
the
office,
as
well
as
all
the
congestion
of
high-rise
apartments
and
the
traffic
I
prefer
mature
trees,
large
shrubs,
grasses,
flowers
and
all
of
the
wildlife
it
supports.
U
U
We
have
now
lost
our
swainson's
Hawks,
who
are
yearly
migratory
birds
from
South
Africa
as
they
have
lost
their
habitat
as
a
bird
Enthusiast.
I
find
this
very
distressing.
I
am
looking
forward
to
this
path
along
the
spoils.
Bank
Canal,
as
it
was
drafted
and
agreed
to
in
2019,
where
we
discussed
six
foot
weather
surface
path
along
the
spoils.
U
While
the
applicant
consistently
agreed
throughout
the
process
that
such
a
plan
would
be
created,
the
latest
verbal
confirmation
that
the
developer
neighborhood
meeting
in
August
2023
22
the
path
is
not
shown
on
the
site
plan
nor
a
buffer
on
the
landscape
plan.
Rather,
a
sidewalk
appears
to
function
as
the
path
along
the
part
of
the
development
adjacent
to
the
new
road
without
any
vegetative
buffer.
This
buffer
is
essential
to
protecting
the
riparian
habitat
for
the
birds.
Again,
please
refer
to
appendix
C.
We
also
need
the
shade
for
cooling
the
water
for
the
trout
time.
A
G
Either
you
or
the
staff
please
clarify
where
those
sidewalks
going
to
be
on
the
south
side
of
this
particular
application.
Thank
you
thank.
S
You
Madame
mayor
and
council
member
Clegg.
That
was
one
of
the
items
I
was
planning
to
to
address.
S
Madam
mayor
council,
Jeff,
Bauer,
601,
westbanic
I
will
be
brief
in
rebuttal,
I
I,
don't
think.
There's
too
much
more
I
need
to
State.
I
do
want
to
assure
you.
I
have
I,
have
not
misled.
You
I
think
the
characterization
of
this
pathway
in
the
appellants
memo
is
accurate.
All
along
we've
shown
this
pathway.
We've
agreed
to
this
pathway
and
it's
been
in
the
plans
for
this
project
because
of
that
they
are
correct.
S
It
says
that
the
development
and
site
work
shall
be
constructed
in
accordance
with
the
preliminary
plot
which
I
just
which
I've
shown
you
previously
and
shall
be
consistent
with
the
development
standards
set
forth
below,
as
well
as
all
the
conditions
of
approval
from
the
letter
dated
October,
22nd,
2019,
Exhibit,
C,
and
so
that's
Exhibit
C
is
the
the
standard
decision
letter
that
the
city
issues
and,
and,
as
is
typical,
it
says
project
must
be
constructed
in
accordance
with
the
plans
and
specifications,
and
so
those
two
things
taken
together
I
would
submit
to
you
that
do
ultimately
create
a
condition
that
requires
this
Pathway
to
be
constructed.
S
One
of
the
ironic
things
I
think
about
the
appellant
challenging.
This
is
that,
if,
if
we
were
to
try
to
tie
this
Pathway
to
you
know,
quote
unquote
phase
three,
it
would
be
here
later
in
time.
It
would
be
three
probably
three,
two
plus
years
three
years
before
the
pathway
were
to
be
constructed
so
really
by
by
allowing
this
phase
two
to
continue
out
to
Bogart,
we
will
be
constructing
this
pathway
sooner.
S
That's
something
we
want
to
do
both
for
the
Northwest
neighborhood
at
large
and
for
our
residents
as
well
sidewalks,
so
sidewalks
along
the
future,
local
Road
are
independent
from
the
pathway.
That's
proposed
along
the
canal.
This
is
probably
the
best
figure
council
member
Clegg
to
illustrate
that.
But
you
see
the
new
local
Road
and
the
adjacent
sidewalks
and
then
in
the
common
lot
to
the
South,
is
the
canal
and
the
future
pathway.
S
S
I
would
submit
again
I
think,
as
the
council
has
acknowledged
this
this
site,
all
38
acres
have
been.
You
know,
planned
comprehensively.
That's
what
this
preliminary
plot
does,
and
the
application
before
you
tonight
is
is
narrowly
focused
on
the
multi-family
use
on
Lot
2
block
2.
E
Jeff,
thank
you
for
answering
some
of
the
questions
proactively
and
for
bringing
up
the
the
sidewalk,
because
I
think
I
had
some
confusion.
There
was
the
pathway,
the
sidewalk
or
those
two
separate
things
and
I
think
what
I
heard
you
say
is
that
those
are
indeed
two
separate
things.
The
sidewalk
in
the
pathway
aren't
being
shared
as
the
same
use.
E
They
don't
see
like
a
great
image
of
a
pathway.
They
see
a
sidewalk,
they
don't
necessarily
see
trees
and
so
I
think
that
that's
some
one
of
the
issues
here
is
that
there
isn't
a
a
vision
that
people
can
kind
of
think
about
of
what
it's
going
to
look
like.
So
the
sidewalk
that
you've
got
there
is
their
Landscaping
along
the
sidewalk
as
well.
S
S
This
is
again
as
a
component
of
the
2019
prominence
project
and
I
think
this
does
a
good
job
illustrating
the
Landscaping
along
the
sidewalk,
as
well
as
the
The
Pedestrian
pathway,
intended
to
to
run
adjacent
to
the
canal.
E
I
guess
one
final
question
here:
I,
don't
believe
it's
related
to
this
application,
but
I
feel
like
I
should
ask
this
question
anyway,
because
I
I
don't
know
that
there'll
be
another
opportunity
to
ask
it
as
far
as
the
design
of
the
pathway
outside
of
the
application.
S
And
again,
the
the
portion
of
the
of
the
pathway
on
the
west
side
of
this
project
does
serve
a
dual
purpose
as
being
emergency
access.
So,
with
those
caveats,
we're
happy
to
work
with
staff
to
amend
the
design
and
and
take
input
to
to
try
to
tailor
it
as
best
as
possible
to
to
see
the
city's
Vision
through.
A
R
North
I'm,
the
president
of
Northwest
neighborhood
association,
9170
Hill
Road,
so
the
big
picture
here
is
this
is
the
perfect
reason
that
we
have
the
appeal
process.
There
was
clearly
confusion.
R
R
The
path
is
on
the
sidewalk,
as
was
shown
by
the
staff
report
or
diagram
earlier
and
as
argued
by
the
memorandum
in
response
to
our
appeal.
The
applicant
attorney
in
that
memorandum
says
that
the
path
is
part
of
that
sidewalk
now
we're
hearing
that
it
isn't
part
of
the
sidewalk
it's
somewhere
down
in
the
easement
along
the
spoilsbank
canal.
That
was
our
original
concern.
R
The
easement
was
not
shown
on
the
diagrams
staff
did
not
know
the
size
of
the
easement
and
planning,
and
zoning
could
not
determine
whether
or
not
there
was
room
for
a
pathway
based
on
the
information
they
were
given.
We
still
don't
have
that
information.
We
just
heard
two
conflicting
things.
I
believe,
one
that
the
dimensions
of
the
pathway
had
already
been
determined.
R
You
did
just
hear
that
from
the
applicant's
attorney
and
yet
the
pathway
is
to
be
yet
to
be
determined
somewhere
south
of
this
path
of
the
sidewalk
that
is
shown
so
I'm
just
hearing
all
sorts
of
confusing
issues,
and
this
is
the
reason
that
Planning
and
Zoning
needs
to
be
able
to
weigh
in
and
vet
this,
according
to
the
comprehensive
plan
and
according
to
all
of
the
entire
body
of
evidence
and
I'm
I'm
confused
at
direction
or
comments.
R
What
is
the
legal
Authority
for
taking
what
city
council
saw
as
phase
three
as
this
large
entire
piece
of
land
in
the
south
east
corner
and
then
taking
parts
of
that
out.
Essentially,
as
we
saw
in
the
aerial
photo
and
saying
no,
those
are
part
of
phase
two
allowing
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
to
believe
that
they
would
still
be
able
to
weigh
in
on
phase
two.
As
the
record
shows,
the
transcript
shows.
R
So
you
see
just
the
basic
legal
problem
that
we
have
here:
the
basic
fairness
problem,
basic
due
process
problem
and
that's
where
all
of
our
errors
stem
from
that's
why
it
is
an
arbitrary
and
capricious
decision
when
the
legal
Authority
is
confused.
That's
why
it
it.
The
statutory
Authority
has
been
exceeded
when
playing
zoning
rules
on
something
different
than
than
city
council
had
reeled
on,
and
you
can
see
that
if
you
read
the
transcript,
you
can
see
they're
doing
their
best
they're
trying
to
ensure
that
there
is
a
pathway
here.
R
That
is
a
good
pathway
that
fulfills
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan
and
yet
they're
being
denied
that
and
that's
that's
the
entire
reason
for
having
the
appeals
process
and
I
think
it's
just
very
clear
that
the
decision
was
made
in
error
and
I
believe
if
you
had
them
up
here
today
in
front
of
you,
they
would
say.
Yes,
we
thought
that
we
could
not
that
the
phase
three
boundaries
were
different
than
what
than
what
we
were
shown.
R
R
R
A
A
E
I'm
going
to
move
that
we
deny
the
appeal
and,
if
I
get
a
second
I've,
got
some
comments
and
I
think
some
additional
direction
for
staff.
Second,.
E
Madame,
first
of
all,
you
know
all
apologize
I
think
that
there
has
been
some
confusion
about
this
specific
application
and
reading
through
the
transcripts
in
detail.
I
read
every
single
word,
including
your
your
trout
or
crawdads
as
they
were.
There
was
some
confusion
where
I
disagree
is
I,
do
believe.
E
At
the
end
of
the
conversation
they
got
to
the
point
where
they
realized
that
we
are
approving
something
very
specific
and
very
narrow,
and
that
it's
this
planned
development
plan,
residential
development
on
a
very
specific
piece
of
property
and
I
believe
that
they
did
get
to
that
at
the
end
and
that's
what
they
based
their
decision
on
and
I
believe
that
that
is
the
application.
That's
in
front
of
us
as
well,
so
I
don't
believe
that
they
made
an
arbitrary
or
capricious
decision
or
that
they
aired.
E
However,
I
believe
myself,
the
city
has
done
a
disservice
to
the
pathways
master
plan
and
neighborhoods
in
their
ability
to
be
involved
in
what
that
really
looks
like
as
a
long-term
vision
and
I
believe
Kathy
Kathy
Kathy
brought
that
up
in
the
past,
Pathways
master
plan
notes.
It's
the
intention
of
the
pathways
master
plan
that
we
look
at
these
similar
to
the
ways
that
we
look
at
parks
and
other
open
space
in
that
they're,
going
to
be
different
in
different
areas.
E
The
same
way
that
you
all
recently
weighed
in
on
primrose
Park
and
how
that
was
going
to
look
the
amenities
that
you
wanted
to
see
immediately
and
and
some
of
the
visioning
for
the
future.
We
should
be
doing
the
same
thing
for
our
Pathways
master
plan
and
when
we
are
working
with
developers,
those
conversations
should
exist
already
between
neighborhood
associations
and
the
city.
So
we
have
an
idea
of
what
those
those
pathways
are
going
to
look
like.
So
I.
E
Don't
blame
anybody
for
being
frustrated
in
that
they
don't
have
that
Clear
Vision
and
something
that
is
so
important
to
you
so
important
to
me
so
important
to
other
council
members
and
across
the
city
that
we
get
these
these
Pathways
in.
And
we
do
it
right
that
we
make
sure
that
there
is
a
shared
Vision
on
how
they're
going
to
look
so
that
when
there
is
the
development
that
goes
into
place,
that
we're
accomplishing
that
shared
vision
and
we're
not
doing
it
in
a
patchwork
pattern
that
isn't
that
isn't
this!
E
Is
that
we're
doing
a
great
job
at
getting
some
of
these
sections
in
piece
by
piece
by
piece,
but
we
need
to
start
looking
at
this
as
a
long-term
Vision
and
I
really
think
that
our
staff
is
especially
in
some
of
these
top
10
areas
that
you
brought
up
Richard
that
we
start
to
say:
okay,
which
of
these
are
actually
feasible,
which
are
we
going
to
start
working
on
and
which
ones
do
we
know
there's
going
to
be
development
around
so
that
we
can
have
those
conversations
before
it
actually
gets
to
this
point,
and
so
that's
that's
my
direction
to
staff.
E
That's
my
commitment
with
the
rest
of
the
council
members
that
I'll
be
working
on
as
well
that
we
try
to
get
this
Vision
in
place
first,
and
so
that
way,
as
the
development
happens,
you
know
you
all
will
know
what
that
will.
Look
like
and
you'll
have
that
that
opportunity
to
weigh
in,
but
as
far
as
this
particular
application
that
we're
hearing-
and
this
appeal
I-
think
that
the
commission
got
it
right
when
they
finally
got
to
the
point
where
they
realized.
E
This
was
the
decision
that
they
were
supposed
to
be
making
not
the
larger
conversation
of
Pathways,
but
I.
Don't
blame
people
for
wanting
to
go
there,
because
it's
it's
going
to
be
an
amazing
thing
and
we
have
an
opportunity
to
do
it
right,
I,
don't
think
it's
too
late
to
get
it
right
at
this
point.
F
D
F
F
Second,
there
was
confusion
in
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
and
it
largely
came
from
irrelevant
confused
arguments
being
made
that
didn't
go
to
the
heart
of
what
the
application
was.
This
pathway
is
not
part
of
the
conditional
use
permit
before
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission,
so
they
were
very
confused
to
talk
about
it
and
discuss
it.
As
the
council
member
Halliburton
said
they
got
to
the
right
result.
F
F
It's
not
helpful
to
us
when
we
hear
from
the
parties
either
party
in
any
application
who
we
rely
on
and
have
to
trust
statements
that
are
just
demonstrably
false.
There
is
a
development
agreement
here.
It
says
as
clear
as
can
be
that
final
approved
approval
shall
be
subject
to
the
preliminary
plot,
and
the
preliminary
plot
includes
a
pathway
so
to
say
that
there's
no
development
agreement
here
that
requires
a
pathway
is
false.
F
You
have
everybody
scrambling
to
try
to
find
the
development
agreement
trying
to
rely
on
the
applicant
and
when
we
get
there-
and
we
see
that
it's
false,
we
get
to
the
end
of
the
confusion
and
then
we're
asked
to
reverse
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission,
because
they're
confused
it
makes
a
mess.
We
really
depend
on
the
parties
to
be
straight
and
clear
with
us
because
believe
it
or
not
we're
essentially
volunteers
as
well,
so
on
the
merits
of
the
narrow,
conditional
use
application
that
was
proposed
here.
It's
pretty
straightforward.
F
F
There's
no
way
to
finish
this
project
without
building
the
pathway
we
spent
most
of
the
time
discussing
it
tonight,
but
it's
just
not
relevant
and
so
indications
to
to
the
appellant
or
to
other
parties
that
we
would
like
to
move
on
for
that
or
try
to
obtain
more
information
on
other
issues.
Really
is
an
effort
to
help
it's
an
effort
to
hear
the
things
that
we
think
are
most
Humane
to
try
to
get
to
the
right
result
and.
G
I
I
also
found
the
transcript
and
the
process
to
be
a
bit
confusing
I
think
in
the
end,
I
conclude
that
the
applicant
actually
was
trying
to
ensure
that
the
pathway
got
done
more
quickly
and
comprehensively
by
putting
it
all
in
phase
two,
rather
than
splitting
it
between
phase
two
and
phase
three,
as
was
originally
shown
on
the
concept
plan
concept
plan,
is
just
that
a
concept
and
the
time
to
talk
about
the
Canal
bank
pathway
frankly,
would
have
been
during
the
preliminary
plot
hearing
for
phase
two,
which
is
where
the
pathway
is
included.
G
All
of
us
missed
that
I
don't
know.
Frankly,
I
I
can't
remember
whether
I
noticed
that
it
was
part
of
that
I
agree
with
council
member
Halliburton
that
the
other
thing
we
can
do
better
is
ensure
that,
as
these
Pathways
go
forward,
they're
looked
at
comprehensively
and
not
piece
by
piece
and
that
they're
looked
at
conceptually
again.
I,
don't
know
what
kind
of
pathway
you
all
prefer
here.
Is
it
an
equestrian
one?
Is
it
a
paved
one?
G
M
G
G
I
believe
the
end
result
of
this
is
going
to
be
quite
good,
I
think
by
this
summer
the
developer
is
intent
on
having
a
final
plot
that
will
include
the
pathway
and
get
the
pathway
built
in
this
year,
which
will
give
all
of
you
that
place
that
you
long
for
to
walk
along
this
canal
sooner
than
you
would.
If
it
were
included
in
this
phase,
it
will
require
some
work
by
everyone.
The
developer,
who
I'm
sure
is
still
online
and
listening
needs
to
work
with
staff
needs
to
work
with.
G
Having
said
all
that,
what
we're
deciding
tonight
is
a
very
narrow
conditional
use
permit,
based
on
the
fact
that
this
land
was
not
known
for
multi-family
because
of
the
lack
of
a
fire
station
that
they
were
allowed
to
bring
forward
a
conditional
use
for
multi-family
when
the
fire
station
was
planned
with
an
understanding
it
couldn't
go
forward
until
the
fire
station
is
under
construction,
and
that's
exactly
what
they've
done
as
I
look
at
it.
They
have
met
all
of
the
conditions.
G
I
have
some
concerns
still
about
the
landscaping
and
the
edible
plants
in
the
Orchard
and
I
am
quite
confident
that
staff
will
review
those
very
diligently
and
make
sure
that
they're
done
correctly
I'm
sure
all
of
you
will
also
keep
an
eye
on
those
as
it
comes
forward,
but
other
than
that
very
small
concern.
I
didn't
see
anything
in
this
application
that
didn't
meet
the
original
conditional
use
permit
or
the
original
condition
on
the
on
the
full
concept
plan,
and
so
I
will
be
supporting.
O
A
A
I.
Think
it's
much
improved
from
the
concept
that
we
saw
in
2019
and
I
think
that
it's
going
to
be
really
beautiful
out
there
and
so
I
definitely
am
supportive
of
Planning
and
Zoning
commissions
decision
in
this
one.
They
definitely
you
know,
got
to
the
right
place
by
the
end
of
that
hearing,
even
though
it
started
out
a
little
bit
chaotic
the
chaos
settled
out,
they
knew
what
they
were
deciding
on.
A
They
knew
the
facts
around
it
and
they
made
a
sound
decision,
so
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion
without
anything
further
clerk.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.