►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Evening Session
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
C
D
A
C
Madam
mayor,
I
ask
unanimous
consent
to
reappoint
jamie
bosiger
to
the
airport
commission
for
a
three-year
term
ending
july
2024.
A
Without
objection,
I
interviewed
jamie
she's
been
on
the
airport
commission.
She
and
I
had
a
conversation.
I
really
she
could
well
be
flying
right
now,
she's
a
pilot
by
trade
and
really
appreciate
her
willingness
to
continue
to
serve.
As
I
know,
the
commission
and
the
director
of
the
airport
do
and
next
up,
we
have
the
appointment
of
john
stevens
to
the
ccdc
board
for
a
five-year
term
and
john
is
with
us
this
evening.
A
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
john
for
his
willingness
to
serve
to
join
this
board,
and
this
item
is
before
council
now
and
then
you're
welcome
to
come
up.
C
A
E
Madame
mayor
mclean
and
council
members,
thank
you
for
the
honor
of
doing
this.
I've
lived
in
boise
for
19
years
with
my
family
and
I'm
very
excited
to
take
part
in
the
ccdc
board
and
hope
that
my
perspective
and
experience
as
a
commercial
real
estate
broker
here
is
valuable
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
being
a
part
of
the
future
of
boise.
A
G
Madam
mayor
members
of
council,
as
you
recall,
this
item
was
heard
by
council
on
june
8th
of
this
this
year.
At
that
time,
you
denied
an
appeal
of
a
planned
new
270
unit
planned
unit
development
located
at
2454
east
gallon
road.
While
no
error
was
identified
in
the
decision,
you
did
find
that
the
facts
and
evidence
in
the
record
warranted
additional
conditions
be
placed
on
the
project.
Those
were
included
in
your
packet
this
evening
identified
as
conditions
eight
through
twelve,
and
with
that
addition,
we
are
recommending
approval
of
the
the
findings
and
conditions
this
evening.
C
C
I
reviewed
the
new
reason
statement
and
the
conditions
as
presented
and
believe
they
accurately
reflect
the
discussion
and
motion
that
night
and
with
that
I
would
move
approval
of
pud
21-6
findings
and
conditions
of
approval.
H
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
council.
As
you
recall,
on
june
15th
of
this
year,
you
did
not
council
denied
a
re-zone
request
for
approximately
two
acres
located
at
2801
west
pollute
street.
That
request
was
to
change
the
zoning
from
r1c
or
single-family
residential
to
a
limited
office
zone
with
design
review.
You
did
direct
the
applicant
to
return
with
an
alternative
proposal
that
is
reflected
in
the
reason
statement
for
denial
and
we're
recommending
you
approve
the
reason
statement
this
evening.
Madam.
J
Mayor,
yes,
having
been
the
maker
of
that
motion,
I
would
now
move
that
we
adopt
the
revised
findings
for
car
21-12.
C
Just
one
comment
in
the
reason
statement:
it
does
reference
that
this
site
was
not
appropriate
for
the
higher
residential
density
of
that
zone.
However,
I
believe
the
council
found
that
evening
that,
with
the
d.a
that
was
being
proposed,
it
wasn't
the
residential
density.
That
was
the
issue
and
I
was
not
a
maker
of
the
motion.
I
did
not
vote
in
the
affirmative,
but
would
ask
the
maker
of
the
motion
if,
if
my
analysis
is
correct,.
C
Thank
you
so
with
that,
I
guess
I
I
I
went
ahead
and
seconded
asking
if
we
could
strike
the
higher
residential
density
in
the
reason
statement.
Yes,
the
maker.
B
D
I
A
K
K
During
the
workshop,
the
budget
office
presented
details
on
the
proposed
budget
and
staff
was
available
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
city
council
had
the
next
step
in
the
budget.
Approval
process
is
to
hold
about
pull
is
to
hold
a
public
hearing.
Excuse
me
that
public
hearing
is
scheduled
for
tuesday
july
20th.
K
The
source
for
the
increase
would
be
the
police
and
fire
staffing
plan
adjustment
that
was
included
on
page
53
of
the
proposed
document.
Further,
the
city
council,
strategic
planning
contingency,
would
be
displayed
as
being
available.
Fifty
percent
for
ongoing
needs
and
fifty
percent
for
one-time
needs.
K
K
The
second
item
included
in
the
packet
is
signaling
that
an
interim
budget
change
would
be
brought
forward
after
the
adoption
of
the
budget
to
advance
adjustments
related
to
animal
license
fees.
As
discussed
at
last
week's
city
council.
Meeting
costs
associated
with
those
adjustments
would
be
supported
from
the
ongoing
city
council,
strategic
planning,
contingency
line,
and
if,
in
the
course
of
evaluating
the
impacts
from
those
changes,
it
is
determined
that
costs
exceed
fifty
thousand
dollars.
The
issue
would
return
to
the
city
council
for
additional
discussion
at
this
time.
K
C
C
The
motions
that
were
published
in
the
with
the
agenda
did
have
the
strategic
planning
contingency
listed
at
225
000
in
number
c5,
and
so,
as
I
make
the
motions
should
I
should
I
first,
I
guess
preface
all
of
the
motions
with
a
couple
of
amendments
and
then
run
through
the
total
motions
and
the
first
of
those
amendments
would
be
to
amend
that
to
500
000.
As
we
stated
yeah.
C
Okay,
thank
you
and
then.
Secondly,
the
last
motion
right
now
is
a
bit
confusing
the
way,
the
the
that
it
reads.
Motion
g
talks
about
both
the
change
in
the
interim
in
the
city
council,
strategic
contingency
and
also
talks
about
the
other
budgeted
amounts.
So
I'd
also
like
to
offer
an
amendment
where
we
split
those
two
out
and
I'll
g
as
the
restatement
of
the
city,
council,
contingency
and
then
age
has
just
everything
else
in
in
the
budget
book.
Is
that
also
again,
the
appropriate
way
to
do
that.
C
Okay
and
if
there's
no
other
discussion,
I'm
prepared
to
make
those
amendments
the
motions
on
the
amendments
now,
if,
if
not,
we
can
have
the
other
discussion.
First,
okay,
while
madam
mayor
first,
I
would
move
that
we
amend
the
motions
for
the
budget
as
presented
by
amending,
excuse
me
c
5
to
read
strategic
planning
contingency
five
hundred
thousand
dollars.
C
As
we
stated
and
item
g
sorry,
I've
gotta
find
my
language
here
that
I
offer
an
amendment
that
item
g
will
now
say:
motion
to
restate
the
city
council,
strategic
planning,
contingency
account
to
500
000,
to
allocate
the
275
000
allocated
to
the
police
and
fire
staffing
study
on
page
53
to
the
strategic
city
council,
strategic
planning
contingency,
and
to
state
the
intent
to
bring
forward
an
interim
budget
change
after
the
approval
of
the
fy
2022
proposed
budget
to
fund
the
police
and
fire
staffing
study
from
this
city,
council,
strategic
planning,
contingency
and
further
to
restate
the
city
council's
strategic
planning,
contingency
as
250
000
for
one-time
purposes
and
250
000
for
ongoing
purposes,
and
then,
with
that
add
h,
which
will
just
be
the
first
phrase
in
the
proposed
motion.
I
Met
mayor,
I
talked
with
the
council
president
for
way
too
much
of
her
time
today
about
this
motion,
because
I
I
didn't
completely
understand
the
way
the
motion
was
written
and
the
clarifications
that
the
council
president
made.
I
think
actually
just
say
what
the
motion
is
intended
to
say
all
along
excuse
me,
and
so
I
very
much
support
the
amendments.
D
C
Now,
madam
mayor,
yes,
I
would
move
that
the
fy
2022
budget
be
moved
to
public
hearing
with
the
following
motions:
a
one:
a
through
l
and
two
through
six
b
c,
one
a
through
g
and
two
through
five
d:
major
equipment,
one
through
eight
major
repair
and
maintenance;
nine
through
12
capital
for
various
departments
13
through
35..
C
J
A
mayor,
yes,
I
think,
just
from
a
process
perspective.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
this
motion
and
what
we're
doing
right
now
is
moving
this
to
a
public
hearing
next
month,
and
so
I
implore
everyone
who's
interested
in
the
city
budget,
interested
in
where
we
invest
your
tax
dollars
in
our
city,
to
look
at
all
of
these
budget
motions
and
see,
if
there's
anything
that
you
want
to
dive
a
little
bit
deeper
into
and
share
your
thoughts
with
us.
J
It
really
has
made
a
difference
throughout
my
years
on
council
to
have
people
speak
up.
I
think
that
we've
had
some
neighborhood
parks,
that
kind
of
moved
to
the
front
of
the
line
that
were
at
the
back
of
the
line
for
amenities,
because
we
heard
from
folks
and
looked
a
little
bit
deeper
at
where
we
had
some
shortfalls
and
where
we
could
reallocate
some
resources.
C
Madam
mayor,
thank
you
just
briefly
wanted
to
thank
everyone
on
the
staff
who
worked
so
hard
on
this
budget.
Thank
everyone
in
the
public
whose
comments
I
did
get.
I
got
a
number
of
them.
Certainly
they
were
informative
during
the
discussion
at
our
budget
workshop
last
week
and
as
councilmember
whitting
stated
welcome
more
of
those.
If
you
have
them,
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
explain
the
changes
that
were
made
tonight.
C
So
we
had
this
one
step
back
on
that
staffing
study,
so
I
really
appreciate
budget
staff
working
to
clarify
that
so
that
it
was,
I
hope,
more
transparent
for
the
public.
Thank
you.
I
A
Thank
you.
Next
up,
we
have
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
with
an
asterisk
are
considered
to
be
retained
by
the
council
and
will
be
enacted
by
one
motion.
We
know
separate
discussion
on
these
items
unless
a
council,
member
or
citizen
requests
so
requests,
in
which
case
the
item
will
be
removed
from
the
general
order
of
business
and
considered
in
its
normal
sequence.
H
A
C
D
I
B
Ord-33-21
and
ordnance
car
21-007
or
properly
located
at
2222,
south
broadway
avenue
amenities,
any
classifications
of
the
city
of
boise
city
to
change
the
classification
of
real
property,
particularly
described
in
section
one
of
this
ordinance
and
adjacent
rights,
away
from
r-1c
single-family
residential
to
c-1d,
neighborhood
commercial,
with
design
review,
sending
forth
a
reason,
statement
and
support
us
at
zone
change
and
provide
an
effective
date.
Ord
is
34-21
and
norton.
A
C
Mayor
before
I
make
the
first
motion
I'll
note
that
I
expect
we
will
have
discussion
after
the
ordinance
is
read
and
before
we
vote
on
it,
and
also
note
that,
due
to
the
time
limitations
in
ensuring
that
we
can
meet
the
requirements
in
hb
413,
we
were
unable
to
have
the
public
process
that
we
anticipated
with
this.
But
will
in
fact
the
ordinance
requires
us
to
have
that
public
process
when
the
new
census
numbers
are
out
and
before
the
election
in
2023.
E
D
B
Yes,
all
in
favor
motion
carries
ord-35-21
an
ordinance,
I'm
adopting
the
city
council
seat
district
map
attached
here
to,
as
exhibit
a
providing
memo
and
accompanying
figures,
one
through
seven
setting.
Fourth
methodology
used
to
create
city
council
seat
district
map
attached
here
to,
as
exhibit
b
adopts
new
city
council
seat
numbers
amending
boise
city
code,
section
1-9-1
to
add
idaho
code
reference
amending
boise
city
code,
section
1-9-4-b
to
provide
for
city
council
seat
numbers
to
align
with
district
numbers,
adding
a
new
boise
city
code,
section
1-9-4-c
to
create
city
council,
seat
districts
and
renumbering.
B
J
A
mayor
yes
I'll,
go
ahead
and
kick
off,
I'm
sure
the
long
string
of
thoughts
that
people
have.
So
it
was
my
hope
that
we
were
going
to
have
a
process
that
was
going
to
really
include
the
public
and
have
so
much
opportunity
for
the
citizens
of
boise
to
show
us
what
they
wanted.
J
This
districting
conversation
is
something
that
has
been
handed
to
us
by
the
legislature.
It
was
not
our
choice.
We
had
conversations
with
the
legislators
who
sponsored
the
legislation
saying
hey.
Let
us
have
this
conversation
as
a
city
first
and
see
how
residents
of
boise
would
like
to
be
represented
by
their
members
of
council,
and
they
did
not
want
that
to
happen.
They
wanted
us
to
district
in
this
way
and
they
passed
legislation
to
force
us
to
do
that.
J
We
worked
very
hard
over
the
past
year
on
some
follow-up
legislation
that
would
have
allowed
us
to
take
a
little
bit
more
time
and
district
after
our
2020
census.
Results
are
in
and
that
legislation
did
not
successfully
make
it
through
both
bodies
based
on
based
on
some
amendments
that
were
not
in
the
spirit
of
the
original
legislation,
so
that
got
us
to
where
we
are
today
a
process
that
was
incredibly
truncated
where
we
had
to
rely
on
experts.
We
didn't
have
a
community
conversation
about
it,
and
that
was
not
what
we
wanted
at
all.
J
At
the
same
time,
we
didn't
want
to
waste.
You
know
a
lot
of
taxpayer
money.
I
don't
even
know
what
the
consultant
is
going
to
end
up
costing
us
on
this,
but
we
didn't
want
to
waste
that
amount
of
money
districting
and
then
not
actually
having
to
district
until
2023,
and
so
we
waited
to
see
if
that
legislation
would
pass
so
that
we
would
be
able
to
then
have
a
process.
But
then,
when
we
weren't
able
to
we
needed
to
go
ahead
and
hire
a
consultant
to
help
us
do
this,
it
was
not
ideal.
J
It's
not
the
way
that
any
of
us
wanted
this
to
happen.
But
here
we
are
today,
and
my
hope
is-
and
I
will
work
as
hard
as
I
possibly
can-
to
ensure
that
our
2023
district
maps
have
a
full
community
process
that
the
citizens
of
boise
are
fully
vested
in
ensuring
that
those
reflect
our
community
to
the
highest
extent
possible.
There
are
many
many
different
processes
and
models
to
look
at
when
it
comes
to
drawing
political
boundaries,
and
we
can
follow
best
practices
to
ensure
that
that's
something
that's
open
and
accountable
to
our
citizens.
J
So
while
I
didn't
support
districting
in
the
first
place
here,
we
are,
I
supported
the
process
as
led
by
council
president
clegg,
who
really
stepped
up
to
make
sure
that
this
this
was
as
good
as
it
could
be,
and
so
here
we
are
today
and
I'll
be
supporting
this
ordinance
because
it
keeps
us
in
line
with
idaho
statute,
make
sure
that
we're
not
getting
sideways
with
the
laws
that
govern
our
state
and
puts
us
in
the
place
that
we
need
to
be
to
hold
elections
in
2021.
C
C
Thank
you.
So,
as
councilmember
wooding
stated,
this
was
not
a
place
where,
frankly,
any
of
us
wanted
to
be.
I
would
have
much
preferred
to
have
a
conversation
with
the
community
about
districts
and
how,
if,
but
particularly
how
to
implement
them.
I
think
the
legislation
is
passed,
gives
us
really
very
few
choices
and
given
the
recognized
district
principles
that
have
been
vetted
through
the
supreme
court
in
the
united
states,
we
had
pretty
strict
rules
to
follow
in
terms
of
how
to
do
this
as
well.
C
I
was
chosen
to
represent
the
council.
I
am
not
running
this
year.
I
would
not
have
been
up
regardless
of
what
happened,
and
I
have
a
lot
of
experience
with
these
kinds
of
things,
and
so
the
council
asked,
if
I
would
represent
them,
so
that
it
could
be
as
unbiased
as
possible,
but
that
the
community
still
had
a
representative
looking
at
it.
C
We
worked
with
some
experts.
Those
experts
used
the
precinct
maps
that
the
county,
provided.
We
determined
that
really
our
biggest
communities
of
interest
in
the
city
of
boise
are
neighborhood
associations
and
so,
to
the
extent
we
could,
these
districts
represent
those
neighborhood
associations.
As
whole,
unfortunately,
we
weren't
able
to
achieve
population
balance,
which
is
another
requirement
and
keep
all
of
them
whole.
C
The
other
piece
of
this
that
we
had
to
recognize
was
or
that
that
we
wanted
to
recognize
frankly,
districting
principles
would
have
allowed
us
to
to
draw
very
odd-shaped
districts.
It
happens
all
over
the
country,
but
we
made
it
very
clear
to
the
consultants
that
it
was
our
intent
to
keep
geographically
contiguous
districts.
To
the
extent
we
could.
C
We've
got
some
odd
things
happening
geographically.
In
boise,
we've
got
the
river,
we've
got
garden
city.
Splitting
we've
got
the
foothills,
we've
got
the
benches,
and
so,
given
all
of
that,
we
kept
these
districts
as
geographically
contiguous
and
coherent,
as
was
possible
and
still
balance
the
population
and
recognize
the
communities
of
interest
in
the
neighborhood
associations.
C
It's
not
perfect.
I
will.
I
know
that
that's
the
case.
However,
I
also
know
having
worked
on
this,
that
it's
quite
good.
In
fact,
the
experts
told
us-
I
was
quite
surprised.
Frankly,
the
experts
stated
to
us
that
they
didn't
usually
have
elected
officials
or
representatives
of
elected
officials
who
were
willing
to
draw
districts
that
were
simply
based
on
those
districting
principles
and
not
based
on
other
things
like
incumbency.
C
However,
incumbency
is
something
that
you
can
recognize
had
this
law
not
passed.
Three
people
would
have
been
up
for
election
this
year
and
while
we
didn't
number
the
districts
based
on
where
those
people
live,
as
it
turned
out,
based
on
the
geography,
those
three
people
are
in
separate
districts,
and
so
we
did
make
an
accommodation
which
is
not
only
allowed
but
actually
preferred
under
law
to
elect
to
give
those
incumbents
a
chance
to
run
this
year.
However,
those
seats
are
for
two
years
and
in
two
years
after
the
2020
census,
numbers
are
released.
C
After
we
have
a
public
process,
all
six
city
council
district
seats
will
be
up
for
election.
The
other
three
will
be
for
two
years
at
that
point,
so
that
we
can
reestablish
a
staggered
four-year
four-year
three
and
three
terms
within
the
districts.
Again,
certainly
not
perfection,
but
certainly
from
my
understanding
from
the
experts.
C
From
the
my
commitment
to
doing
this,
I
told
the
sponsor
of
this
bill
that,
although
I
didn't
support
the
bill,
I
didn't
agree.
It
was
the
right
way
to
do
this.
My
job
at
this
point
was
to
uphold
the
law
in
the
very
best,
unbiased
ethical
way.
I
could-
and
I
feel
good
that
that's
the
outcome
of
this.
I
know
not
everyone
will
agree.
I
know
not.
Everyone
will
like
these,
but
we
are
at
a
point
where
we
can
have
an
election
this
year.
C
We
will
not
create
due
process
issues
with
the
three
people
who
do
get
elected
this
year,
because
they
will
have
two-year
terms
not
four-year
terms
in
in
four
years.
All
six
city
council
districts
can
be
up
for
election.
C
I
believe
that
the
citizens
of
boise
have,
in
the
past
chosen
representatives
that
were
very
representative,
I'm
confident
that
the
citizens
of
boise
going
forward
will
do
the
same
thing,
and
I
look
forward
to
boise
continuing
to
be
a
well-governed
city
and
not
one
that's
governed
by
small
issues
or
divisive
issues,
but
one
that's
governed
by
people
who
want
this
city
to
be
the
best
city.
It
can
be
for
everyone
which
is
the
mayor's
fondest
wish.
C
As
as
we
look
at
the
values
that
we
put
forward,
and
so
for
all
of
those
reasons,
I
believe
that
we
have
presented
an
ordinance
and
a
map
that
will
move
us
forward
in
the
best
way
that
we
could
have
found
in
this
short
time
frame.
Given
the
rules
that
were
imposed
on
us
by
another
legislative
body.
Thank.
M
You
so
much
has
been
said
already
that
I
just
100
agree
with,
and
so
I'm
going
to
try
to
keep
this,
as
as
brief
as
I
can,
I
do
want
to
thank
council
president
clegg
and
the
folks
who
worked
on
putting
this
together.
M
I
don't
know
if
I
think
that
districts
are
a
good
thing
or
a
bad
thing.
You
know.
That's,
that's
not
really
for
me
to
decide
it's
my
job
up
here,
to
listen
to
you
all,
to
get
your
input
and
to
do
the
best
that
I
can
to
represent
your
voices,
and
there
are
certainly
some
people
who
really
wanted
districts
and
there
were
other
people
who
didn't.
I
think
that
we're
going
to
get
to
this
next
election.
M
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
people
who
go
to
the
polls
and
they're
going
to
be
surprised
that
they
don't
get
a
vote
for
a
city
council
member
this
year.
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
other
people
who
are
really
excited
to
maybe
have
a
city
council
member
running
a
little
bit
closer
to
maybe
where
they
live
and
so
again.
Well,
I
think
it's
really
unfortunate
that
we
weren't
able
to
put
this
decision
more
in
your
hands
to
make
sure
that
your
voices
were
heard.
M
I
think
that
we
are
doing
the
best
that
we
can
with
what
we've
got
to
move
forward
with
this,
and
now
I'm
interested
to
see
where
it
would
go,
and
I
hope
that
the
people
in
boise
you
know
continue
to
show
up
to
vote
and
make
sure
that
they're
represented
the
best
that
they
can.
H
Go
ahead.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Thank
you,
council,
president
clegg
for
your
work
on
this
and
for
taking
into
consideration
the
folks
who
are
running
this
year
and
how
this
would
affect
us.
I
ran
for
office
because
I
felt
called
by
god
to
do
it
and
if
you
look
at
my
resume,
it
shows
that
I
didn't
tick.
The
mark
didn't
mark
the
boxes
that
were
clearly
setting
me
up
to
run
for
office
someday
and
but
along
the
way
we
made
history.
H
H
It's
about
the
way
you
move
through
this
world
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
people
from
different
walks
of
life
sitting
up
here
being
a
part
of
the
decision-making
process
that,
when
it
comes
down
to
it,
affect
the
most
vulnerable
members
of
our
community,
the
most
harshest,
and
if
we
don't
have
people
like
that
at
the
table,
it's
difficult
for
decision
makers
to
make
those
decisions
that
are
going
to
take
those
people
in
mind.
H
For
example,
I
was
the
only
person
to
vote
against
the
parking
ordinance
amendment
that
we
made
for
one
very
important
reason,
and
that
is
because
I
am
somebody
who
has
over
the
past
10
or
12
years,
flirted
with
homelessness.
H
H
H
They
they
have
a
lot
to
support
them.
Moving
forward,
I
did
not
have
that
so
for
me,
it's
it's
a
miracle
that
I'm
sitting
here
amongst
these
folks,
but
I
also
think
it's
important
that
someone
like
me
be
here
and
I
think,
a
big
part
of
what
made
it
possible
was
being
able
to
run
as
an
at-large
member.
H
I
was
able
to
pull
from
all
over
the
city,
which
means
that
anybody,
prior
to
the
passage
of
this
law
and
now
this
ordinance
anybody
who
felt
compelled
that
they
had
something
to
offer
our
citizens
as
a
member
of
the
boise
city
council,
as
long
as
they
were
within
the
city
limits
of
boise
idaho.
As
long
as
they
met
all
the
other
requirements
to
run
for
office,
they
could
have
there's
nothing
special
about
the
fact
that
a
number
of
us
are
located
in
in
a
similar
part
of
the
city.
H
H
H
My
worry
is
that,
with
this
districting
that
we're
gonna
be
adopting,
is
it's
gonna
make
it
harder
for
us
to
have
a
diverse
perspective
sitting
at
this,
and
sitting
at
this
dais
is
only
part
of
part
of
the
work.
There
are
meetings
that
happen
that
people
need
to
be
a
part
of
that
people
need
to
give
their
lived
experiences,
because
I
don't
think
that
people
get
up
in
the
morning
wondering
how
they
can
make
life
hard
for
another
individual.
H
H
H
They
were
people
who
already
have
privilege
people
who
don't
have
privilege.
Quite
honestly,
don't
have
time.
They
don't
have
the
resources,
they
don't
have
the
channels
here,
except
for
the
past
four
years.
They
did
with
me
and
I'm
hoping
that
that
will
continue,
but
I'm
also
used
to
having
to
deal
in
a
system
that
wasn't
built
for
my
success
that
wasn't
built
for
me
to
be
a
part
of
so
I
will
give
it
my
all
and
so
welcome
to
districts
in
the
city
of
boise.
D
Madam
mayor,
just
when
I
had
one
point
that
I
think
didn't
get
touched
upon,
I
appreciate
my
colleagues
telling
this
story
about
how
we
got
here
very
accurately
and
also
want
to
thank
councilmember
clegg
for
taking
the
lead
on
this
and
doing
an
outstanding
job.
D
I
I
was
only
gonna
add
that
by
no
means
does
do
the
these
districts
set
a
precedent
for
what
the
districts
could
look
like
next
year
and
that's
going
to
involve
all
of
you
and
your
thoughts
and
a
completely
different
set
of
population
figures
that
are
a
decade
later
10
years
later,
and
I,
while
I
won't
be
here,
my
district
is
up
this
year
and
I
won't
be
seeking
a
fourth
term,
but
I
trust
my
colleagues
are
going
to
do
an
outstanding
job
as
they
always
do
to
integrate
the
thoughts
of
all
of
you
in
making
up
those
new
districts
that
will
last
for
another
10
years.
E
A
A
So
we're
in
this
hybrid
mode
now
so
we'll
be
working
both
through
the
room
for
people
that
are
here
that
want
to
testify,
but
also
still
with
zoom.
That's
why
I'm
checking
on
this,
so
I
had
one
person
from
sign
up
in
advance.
I
believe
to
be
online
is
that
teja
or
tasia.
A
O
South
cal
council
springs
road
and
the
harris
ranch,
specific
planner,
spo
one
zone
and
the
property
highlighted
here
is
located
on
the
eastern
edge
of
the
harris
ranch
pacific
plain
area
and
includes
that
first
ridge
line
of
foothills,
overlook
in
the
valley
properties
to
the
north
and
east
are
owned
by
the
idaho
department
of
fish
and
game
as
a
wildlife
management
area
and
harris
ranch
north
is
to
the
northeast
and
the
peace
valley.
Overlook,
reserve
owned
by
the
city
is
to
the
southeast.
O
As
I'm
sure
you
all
know,
the
harris
ranch,
specific
plan
or
sbo1
was
adopted
back
in
2007
and
included
this
land
use
map.
You
see
here
on
the
left
two
areas
shown
there
in
brown
were
identified
as
residential
foothills
developments,
so
the
harris
ranch
north
subdivision
and
this
property
with
sb01
up
to
350
residential
lots,
were
envisioned
for
these
two
areas
and
then
in
2015
the
harris
ranch
north
subdivision
was
plotted
with
173
of
those
lots
and
with
tonight's
application
an
additional
59
lots
are
proposed.
O
The
design
of
the
subdivision
itself
has
been
dictated
by
the
only
access
point
available
at
the
end
of
council
springs
road
and
the
topography
of
the
property
itself.
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
local
road
which
follows
the
back
side
of
the
ridgeline,
allowing
the
majority
of
the
lots
to
have
backyards
facing
the
valley.
O
I
won't
spend
too
many
too
much
time
going
over
those
details,
but
it
is
worth
noting
that
the
applicant
is
planning
to
grade
all
the
individual
patents
to
better
integrate
the
drainage
and
condense.
The
time
frames
related
to
the
grain
trading
grading
work
itself.
O
This
should
result
in
pads
which
are
terraced
up
the
hillside
generally
following
the
contour
of
the
ridgeline.
For
the
most
part,
the
ridgeline
itself
is
being
minimally
altered
as
the
road
and
pad
sites
are
set.
Backways.
O
One
thing
to
note
is
that,
as
part
of
this
application,
a
new
trail
connection
is
being
proposed
shown
here
on
the
right
which
would
connect
the
existing
homestead
trail
at
the
end
of
council
springs
road
to
the
city-owned
peace
valley,
overlook
reserve
to
the
south,
the
parks
department
and
our
rich
rivers
folks
are
working
with
the
applicant
right
now
on
designing
a
sustainable
route
which
would
become
part
of
the
ridge
river
system.
The
applicant
would
construct
the
trail
itself
once
a
route
has
been
finalized.
O
Parking
for
these
trails
would
be
located
at
the
base
of
the
subdivision
along
council
springs
where
roughly
26
spaces
shown
in
green
fit
along
both
sides
of
the
road.
No
parking
would
be
allowed
in
the
areas
highlighted
in
red,
including
past
the
entrance
of
the
subdivision
to
allow
for
sufficient
turnaround
space
for
trail
users.
O
So,
on
that
topic
of
the
the
turn
around,
there
has
been
some
very
recent
discussions
about
other
possible
options
for
what
this
turnaround
area
could
look
like
at
this
point.
In
time,
nothing
really
has
been
nailed
down,
but
we
are
following
up
with
achd
our
parks
team,
the
barber
valley,
neighborhood
association
and
the
fire
department
on
other
possible
configurations,
and
you
know
if
there
is
a
better
alternative
that
could
be
found.
O
So
in
conclusion,
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
found
that
the
applicant's
proposal
was
consistent
with
the
standards
of
approval,
including
the
development
code,
blueprint,
boise,
the
harris
ranch,
specific
plan
and
all
requirements
of
the
reviews
and
reviewing
agencies
and
departments.
So
therefore,
they
recommended
approval
of
the
applications.
O
N
O
P
P
We
think
we've
gotten
off
to
a
good
start,
the
last
15
years,
but
we
still
have
a
long
way
to
go.
It
was
the
city's
first
specific
district
ordinance,
the
short
way
to
get
to
it
is
there
used
to
be
22
chapters
where
chapter
23.
P
When
we
started
in
in
2006
2005,
which
the
next
slide
you'll
see,
was
what
was
originally
on
the
drawing
board
and
as
you
can
see,
the
the
development,
the
foothills
went
all
the
way
up
to
wild
horse.
P
We
we
got
a
bunch
of
people.
Together,
we
got
the
southeast
neighborhood
association,
the
east
end
neighborhood
association
icl.
We
had
about
70
people
and
we
did
charette
for
four
days
and
four
evenings
a
month
later.
Did
it
for
two
days
and
two
evenings,
and
then
we
did
it
every
month
after
that,
until
we
submitted
the
plan,
it
was
unanimously
approved
by
the
city
council
and
we
were
given
a
standing
ovation
by
the
city
council
at
the
time,
not
just
for
the
project,
but
for
the
process
we
went
through.
P
Out
of
that
came
the
next
slide,
which
is
spo1
that
you
looked
at
earlier,
that
clustered
the
development
down
lower
in
the
foothills
and
resulting
in
allowed
350
single-family
residential
lots.
So
far,
we've
used
172
of
that
allotment
today,
we're
asking
for
another
59..
P
P
Fortunately,
the
harris
family
believed
in
the
economics
of
amenities
plan
that,
if
you
protect
the
amenities
that
are
bringing
people
to
your
community,
your
values
won't
be
just
sustained
they'll
be
enhanced.
Has
this
plan
been
perfect?
No
we've
omitted
it
from
time
to
time,
but
we
have
stayed
the
course
on
the
core
values
of
the
plan.
P
Q
Clark,
doug
heath,
clark,
251
east
front
street
in
boise,
so
doug's,
giving
you
a
little
bit
of
context
about
where
we've
come
from.
I'm
gonna
set
this
up
a
little
bit
procedurally
here
for
everyone.
So
as
as
has
been
mentioned
repeatedly,
this
is
part
of
the
harris
ranch
specific
plan.
It's
kevin
next
slide,
if
you
would,
of
course,
that's
section
11-0
301
of
boise
city
code
and
as
doug
has
mentioned
we've.
Q
This
is
something
that's
been
vetted
over
the
course
of
many
years
when
I'm
feeling
really
melodramatic
I'll
bring
in
the
giant
volume,
1
and
volume,
2,
binders
and
plop
them
down
here.
So
everybody
can
see,
but
all
of
that
work
led
to
approvals
of
the
densities
uses
street
sections
and
unit
counts
throughout
the
what
we
now
know
as
harris
ranch,
let's
go
to
the
next
one.
Q
So
again
that
now
that
comes
to
the
question
of
what's
before
us
tonight.
As
has
been
mentioned,
harris
north
was
done
a
few
years
ago.
That's
the
area
on
the
left
and
what
we're
talking
about
is
harris
east
on
the
right,
and
I
just
pointing
out
the
the
comment
as
to
what
densities
are
still
available
in
sp01.
You
can
see
the
350
units
that
were
originally
approved
for
the
foothills
area.
Q
Q
We
want
to
make
sure
that
the
site
can
actually
handle
the
development
that's
been
proposed,
so
that
analysis
has
been
done
with
with
the
public
works
department,
and
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
has
approved
that
so
now,
we're
here
at
the
pre
at
the
pre
preliminary
plat
and
the
question
for
us
is
whether
this
is
in
conformance
with
spo1
and
as
we
work
through
this,
the
densities,
the
location
of
the
development.
All
of
this
is
consistent
with
what
was
approved
in
2007..
Q
Q
Q
This
is
I've,
got
this
a
little
bit
out
of
order,
because
I'm
here
talking
to
you
about
conclusions
and
we
are
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report,
but
todd
tucker.
Our
planner
is
next
going
to
talk
to
you
about
why
and
how
we
got
there
in
all
of
the
the
neighborhood
conversations
that
led
us
to
that
point.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
todd
and
then
we'll
wrap
it
up.
R
Thank
you
heath,
madam
mayor
council.
My
name
is
todd
tucker
I
represent
boise
hunter
homes.
Our
business
address
is
729
south
bridgeway
place
in
eagle,
idaho,
kevin
next
slide.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
project
overview
we've
gone
over
it
before,
but
just
restate
59
units
on
119
acres
a
little
bit
over
half
a
dwelling
unit,
an
acre
we're
only
developing
approximately
19
of
the
site
and
leaving
93
acres
as
open
space.
R
We're
not
requesting
any
waivers
of
any
of
the
standards
in
the
la
the
layout
sorry
is
is
in
conformance
with
the
proposed
specific
plan.
R
Again
we
had
a
hillside
permit
that
was
approved
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
We
went
through
you
know
extensive
review
process
on
that
and
per
the
staff.
The
land
is
capable
of
the
volume
and
type
of
development
proposed
for
for
this
subdivision.
R
I
won't
go
through
all
of
these,
but
just
I
wanted
to
show
you
know:
we've
been
at
this
for
almost
a
year
now,
meeting
with
public
agencies,
city
staff,
various
departments
within
the
city
and
governmental
agencies,
the
neighborhood
association
and
residents
in
the
area
to
end
up
with
the
product
that
we
have
before
you
tonight.
R
A
few
comments
from
barbara
valley,
neighborhood
association.
I
wanted
to
address.
First
of
all,
we
wanted
to
thank
the
thank
the
bvna
for
their
their
recommendation
of
approval,
as
you
know,
that
doesn't
happen
too
terribly
often
and
we're
grateful
for
for
their
support
of
this
project.
Their
letter
of
recommendation
did
come
with
a
couple
of
additional
suggestions
and
I
wanted
to
run
through
those
quickly
for
you
now.
R
As
far
as
trailhead
parking,
we
understand
the
neighborhoods
desire
for
trailhead
parking
in
this
area.
We
simply
don't
have
the
room
to
accommodate
a
full
parking
lot,
but
we
do
have
a
solution
that
we
think
is
is
beneficial
to
the
area.
We've
designed
the
extension
of
council
springs
road
to
be
wide
enough
to
accommodate
on-street
parking
on
both
sides
of
the
road,
and
we
estimate
we
can.
We
can
fit
approximately
26
vehicles
in
this
in
this
area.
We
showed
this
to
the
parks
department
and
they
they
seem
to
like
this
option.
R
In
addition,
we
understand
the
neighborhood
association's
desire
for
a
turnaround
at
the
northern
end
of
council
springs
road.
We
had
an
engineer,
lay
out
a
modified
intersection
where
prominence
road
intersects
with
council
springs
road.
It's
it's,
it's
basically
a
cul-de-sac.
It
makes
all
the
dimensions
of
a
cul-de-sac.
However,
prominence
extends
off
of
that.
I
did
send
this
to
achd
to
see
what
their
thoughts
were
after
their
their
department
discussed
it.
They,
they,
you
know,
returned
with
an
answer
that
they
they
couldn't
support
it
at
this
time.
R
R
We
wanted
to
show
you
this
potential
solution
tonight,
so
that
you're
aware
that
we're
continuing
to
work
with
the
neighborhood
association
and
achd
to
come
up
to
it
with
a
solution.
We
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
if
the
project
is
approved
tonight,
as
is
now,
we
didn't
need
to
come
back
before
the
city
council
for
a
modification
to
this
plot,
as
we
if
we
do
get
achd
to
sign
off
on
a
modified
intersection
here.
That
would
allow
for
a
turnaround
so
that
residents
don't
have
to
drive
up
into
the
subdivision
to
turn
around.
R
R
As
you
know,
from
the
written
correspondence
in
the
minutes
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
hearing,
there
are
four
homes
that
back
onto
the
extension
of
council
springs
road.
There
were.
We
were
conditioned
by
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
to
formulate
a
solution
which
we're
happy
to
announce
that
we
we
had
several
meetings
with
the
neighbors
that
were
affected
and
we
provided
them
with
the
solution
that
they
are
all
pleased
with.
We
think
it
we
think
it's
a
good
solution.
R
It
will
work
to
to
provide
a
barrier
or
a
berm
for
both
light
and
sound
from
those
neighbors
rear
yards,
and
we
think
it
will
add
a
nice
entry
road
amenity
to
the
subdivision
as
well.
R
As
far
as
hillside
restoration
goes,
we
will
be
revegetating
the
site,
as
required
by
the
code.
The
neighborhood
association
wants
us
to
revegetate
the
entire,
the
entire
slope.
We
don't
think
that
that's
really
prudent
to
have
people
walking
on
the
slopes
that
that
are
that
steep
to
revegetate
it.
R
So
we're
we're
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
we're
we're
committed
to
to
the
foothills
and
restoring,
and
we
have
you
know
we're
part
of
the
the
wildlife
mitigation
fund
as
far
as
harris
ranch
we're
committed
to
continuing
to
participate
in
that
we
just
don't
think
it's
prudent
to
to
restore
the
entire
slope,
the
ones
that
were
not
disturbing.
We
went
to
great
measures
to
not
disturb
a
great
portion
of
the
slopes.
R
We
will
re-vegetate
those
that
are
required
and
that
we're
disturbing,
but
we
don't
think
it's
wise
to
re-vegetate
the
instar,
the
entire
slope,
with
that
thanks.
J
Mayor
I
had
a
question
about
that
proposed
intersection
design,
so
council
springs
road,
isn't
because
right
now
it
looks
like
it's
just
kind
of
stubbed
off
or
is
this
an
existing
road
or
is
this
a
road
that
is
still
to
be
built.
R
Sure,
madam
mayor
councilmember,
weddings,
so
council
springs
road
ends
right
now,
as
a
public
right-of-way
and
the
homestead
trail
continues
on
the
end
of
it.
We
will
be.
Extending
council
springs
road
past,
where
the
gate
is
where
it
ends
now
up
to
the
entrance
where
prominence
extends
into
the
subdivision
so
we'll
be
we'll
be.
Extending
council
springs
road
from
where
it
ends
right
now,
as
a
public
public
right-of-way.
J
So
just
to
follow
up
madam
mayor
so
you're
proposing
originally
that
it
was
just
going
to
be
stubbed.
So
there's
no
plan
to
need
to
extend
that
even
further
and
so
you're
able
to
propose
this
alternate
intersection.
R
Madam
mayor
council,
member
woodings,
yes,
so
so,
as
you
see
on
the
exhibit
what
you
see
in
black
those
lines,
that's
what's
on
the
preliminary
plot
achd
it
meets
their
standards.
They're!
Okay,
with
it
planning
commission
was
okay
with
it.
The
planning
staff
is
okay
with
it
fire
department,
police.
Everyone
is
fine
with
that
configuration.
R
The
neighborhood
association
just
has
concerns
that,
since
there
will
be
on-street
parking
on
council
springs
road
that
those
residents
once
they
drive
down.
There
won't
have
a
way
to
turn
around
on
council
springs
road
to
get
back
out,
they'll
have
to
drive
up
into
the
subdivision,
and
so
we're
just
trying
to
provide
a
solution
to
satisfy
the
neighborhood
association
that
has
a
concern
about
vehicles.
R
Turning
around
on
council
springs
road
and
not
heading
into
the
subdivision
right
now,
it's
a
it's
a
hammerhead
that
meets
the
fire
department's
standards,
so
you
could
pull
straight
back
and
then
and
turn
around
within
it.
Now
we're
just
trying
to
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
for
people
to
turn
around
there.
J
M
I
want
to
preface
this
by
saying
that
I'm
not
advocating
for
more
housing
in
the
foothills,
but
my
question
is
so:
there
was
originally
350
spots
approved
north
got
173.,
there's
59
going
into
east,
so
there's
about
118
units
left
over
of
what
was
originally
approved
for
the
plan,
and
so
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
is
the
decision
for
less
housing?
Does
it
have
to
do
with
the
amount
of
space?
That's
developable?
Is
it?
Is
it
the
choice
to
have
93
acres
of
open
space?
M
Is
it
a
decision
to
have
larger
houses
instead
of
smaller
houses?
What's
the
decision
to
do
fewer
houses
than
what
would
be
allowed
in
the
area?
Sure.
R
Madam
mayor
council,
member
halliburton,
there
several
things
went
into
it.
We
we
do
support
open
space.
So
we
like
that
we're
able
to
provide
quite
a
bit
of
open
space
in
the
area.
We
like
the
size
of
lots
being
able
to
provide
larger
lots.
One
of
the
one
of
the
to
be
honest.
One
of
the
driving
factors
is
access.
We
only
have
one
access
into
this
site.
R
We
looked
at
numerous
different
options
to
get
other
access
in
and
out,
and
we
we
just
couldn't
find
one
where
we're
you
know
we're
bounded
on
the
the
north
and
the
east
by
public
lands.
The
city
owns
a
piece
of
ground
to
the
south.
There
just
wasn't
another
way
to
get
another
secondary
access
out
of
there,
and
so
with
the
fire
department
standards.
We're
limited
to
59
lots,
because
we
have
one
point
of
access.
These
homes
will
be
fire
sprinklered.
R
It
meets
the
the
the
fire
code
that
was
recently
adopted
in
in
january
of
this
year,
and
so
that
was
one
of
the
driving
factors
of
why
the
the
the
lock
count
is
low
is
really
fire
department
access.
However,
we
see
it
as
an
amenity.
We
think
these
are
going
to
be
great
lots.
We
love
that
we
are
able
to
preserve
this
much
open
space
and
area
for
for
a
trail
connection.
We
just
think
it's
great,
so
it
kind
of
worked
out
into
our
advantage.
R
S
S
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
to
you
tonight
and,
as
an
aside,
thank
you
for
all
of
your
dedicated,
dedicated
and
often
difficult
work
to
represent
our
neighbors
and
our
city
as
a
means
of
background.
The
barber
valley,
neighborhood
association,
has
been
working
closely
with
todd
tucker
of
boise
hunter
homes
since
december
of
last
year
to
understand
and
evaluate
the
development
proposal
for
heresies.
S
S
Cutting
to
the
chase
bbna
supports
this
application.
Our
support
is
based
on
it
being
in
compliance
with
sp01.
It
meets
previous
entitlements
for
development
in
the
foothills
and
will
allow
for
an
exciting
connection.
A
piece
peace
valley
overlook
to
the
homestead
trail
that
we
are
very
excited
about.
Despite
these
benefits,
we
continue
to
have
several
small
concerns
that
weren't
your
consideration.
S
S
We
are
very
pleased
to
learn
and
personally
confirm
with
one
of
the
affected
neighbors,
that
they
have
resolved
this
issue
working
with
doug
fowler,
given
that
the
solution
will
take
place
on
a
sliver
of
harris
family
property.
Bravo
for
hands-on
collaboration
to
resolve
these
concerns
satisfactorily.
S
S
This
would
be
in
addition
to
the
required
re-vegetation
of
areas
of
where
earthwork
took
place,
which
is
currently
a
condition
we
feel
developers
should
improve
and
restore
their
parcel
for
the
benefit
of
the
greater
community
to
reduce
the
potential
for
wildfires,
like
we
saw
with
the
table
rock
fire
in
our
valley
several
years
ago.
S
The
last
thing
we
want
is
recreationalist
use
of
residents
driveways
to
turn
around
to
access
this
parking.
The
same
goes
for
those
that
are
parked
on
the
uphill
side
and
are
leaving
after
recreating
right
now.
These
driveways
are
the
closest
point
above
the
parking
to
turn
around.
S
S
This
is
a
traffic
flow
concern.
We
feel
achd's
position
is
extremely
short-sighted
and
lacks
practical
understanding
of
what
is
being
proposed.
We
were
really
excited
to
hear
of
boise
hunter
homes.
Willingness
to
address
the
concern
by
proposing
a
cul-de-sac,
as
you
saw
earlier
at
the
end
of
council,
springs
at
its
intersection
with
prominence
tribe.
S
S
Bbna
has
had
several
discussions
with
achd
and
their
concern
is
the
additional
1700
square
feet
of
paving
that
will
require
maintenance
and
the
fact
that
the
these
additional
these
trips
are
being
caused
by
the
city's
use.
S
It
is
absolutely
beyond
me
to
understand
why
they
would
refuse
to
do
the
right
thing
for
a
neighborhood
for
such
a
small
incremental
maintenance
cost.
As
an
analogy.
Achd's
position
is
no
different
than
the
recent
challenges
bbna
and
the
neighbors
had
at
barber
junction
due
to
floater
parking
like
robert
junction
there's
an
existing
use
that
generates
traffic
and
there
are
future
neighbors
that
will
purchase
homes
likely
not
realizing
what
they
are
in
for
the
first
spring.
S
S
At
that
point,
the
neighbor's
natural
recourse,
as
it
has
been
in
the
past,
is
to
ask
bbna
for
help
in
in
resolving
the
impact
exactly
like
barber
junction.
All
this,
because
today,
ac
achd
won't
acknowledge
an
easily
recognizable
recognizable
impact
and
do
the
right
thing
to
allow
a
turnaround
below
the
residential
lots.
S
S
If
we
don't
address
it
now
and
the
solution
after
the
fact
is
never
as
easy
or
cheap
as
doing
it
right
the
first
time,
please
do
what's
right
for
these
future
neighbors
and
also
provide
a
convenient
way
for
all
residents
to
use
the
trail
and
park
on
street.
Given
the
absence
of
a
trailhead
parking
lot,
thank
you
for
hearing
us
out
tonight
and
we
trust
you
will
support
doing
the
right
thing
for
this
new
development
and
our
future
neighbors.
I
I
Gary
two
one
question
for
you:
I
think,
but
first
yeah,
you
know,
I
agree
with
you:
achd
and
the
city
of
boise
and
ada
county
all
work
for
the
people
who
live
here,
not
for
the
people
who
live
here
who
came
to
go
ride,
their
mountain
bikes
versus
the
people
who
live
here
who
occupy
a
particular
lot.
We
all
represent
and
work
for
the
same
people
trying
to
solve
the
same
problem.
So
your
comments
there
were
right
on
and
I'm
happy
to
do
my
best
to
try
to
follow
up
on
that.
I
My
question
for
you
is
with
respect
to
the
bitter
brush
and
the
replanting.
Can
you
clarify
for
me
a
little
bit
the
difference
between
what
you're
asking
for
and
what
the
developer
and
the
applicant
is
asking
for?
I
understand
they're
willing
to
do
some,
but
it
sounds
like
it's
less
than
what
you'd
like
and
I'm
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
what
the
difference
is.
S
Certainly,
madam
mayor
and
and
council
person
pageant,
as
we
understand
it,
we
do
understand
that
there's
a
there's
a
requirement
to
clear
the
hillside
where
excavations
and
earth
work
are
being
made,
we're
also
concerned.
We
are
concerned
that
triplet
ranch
and-
and
I
don't
know
if
they're
here
tonight
to
they
have
shared
with
us
some
images
of
the
work
that
they've
started
basically
ridding
the
hillside,
that's
a
part
of
their
hoa
of
of
the
noxious
weeds,
and
our
concern
certainly
is
because
this
hillside
is
contiguous
they're.
S
You
know
they're
going
the
full
step
to
remove
the
hillside,
obnoxious
weeds.
We
understand
that.
That's
not
necessarily
the
requirement
of
the
developer
currently
and
it's.
It
seems
unfortunate
to
us
that
the
hoa
is
willing
to
well,
first
of
all,
sees
the
benefit
of
clearing
the
hillside
from
from
a
you
know,
fire
safety
standpoint,
and
it
seems
as
though
it
might
be
all
for
not
in
the
event
that
it's
only
done
for
a
portion
of
the
hillside
adjacent
to
their
hoa
and
not
for
the
entire
hillside
on
the
heresies
property.
I
C
Madam
mayor,
yes,
go
ahead
gary,
you
may
not
have
the
answer
to
this,
but
if
there
isn't
someone
here
from
the
wildlife
mitigation
association,
maybe
you
can
attempt
to
answer
it.
Isn't
it
true
that
this
portion
of
harris
ranch
will
be
members
of
that
will
be
required
to
pay
an
assessment
into
it?
C
Restore
and
mitigate
any
land
that
they
disturb
and
assume
that
the
wildlife
mitigation
effort
can,
if
there
is
land
in
between
that
and
what
the
triplet
ranch
folks
have
worked
on,
can
work
on
that
that
area
that
hasn't
been
treated
wondering
if
that
might
be
a
solution
to
this.
S
Madam
mayor
and
council
president
clay,
as
I
understand
it,
they
will
be
paying
into
the
mitigation
fund.
In
terms
of
you
know,
opportunities
for
doing
work
on
the
hillside.
S
I
I
do
know
that
triplet
branch
speaking
with
their
hoa
president,
I
know
that
they
have
made
contact
with
angela
and
there
are
some
discussions
that
have
occurred.
We
have
not
been
privy
to
those.
S
A
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
with
tasia
online
so
that
they
have
the
chance
to
chat
we're
going
to
move
into
the
unless
they're
for
the
questions
for
yep,
and
is
there
any
if
anybody's
online
wanting
to
testify,
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand
now
too
and
we'll
get
to
you
after
tasia.
A
We're
all
looking
at
each
other,
but
you
can't
see
us
looking
at
each
other
we're
we
here
we
go
yep.
You.
B
T
Okay,
excellent,
thank
you
very
much,
madam
mayor
and
respected
council
members
and
members
of
the
audience.
This
is
teja
in
dakuri
and
my
home
address
is
3150
south
quarter
swing
way.
Thank
you
for
giving
me
this
opportunity
to
speak
here.
I
will
keep
it
short
and
sweet
here.
T
What
I
wanted
to
say
is
where
we're
coming
from.
Essentially,
I
am
speaking
not
just
on
behalf
of
our
family,
but
also
my
three
other
neighbors.
The
four
of
us
are
kind
of
severely
impacted
by
this
proposed
harris
east
development,
because
the
proposed
road
expansion
goes
is
on
a
dirt
road
that
currently
backs
to
our
properties
and
essentially
in
the
may
third
planning
and
zoning
commission
meeting.
T
We
showed
some
pictures
showing
how
we
are
impacted
from
light
and
sound
pollution,
and
essentially
we
requested
some
light
and
sound
mitigation
in
the
form
of
either
a
berm
or
a
fence
or
trees,
so
that
we
are,
we
can
preserve
our
quality
of
life,
enjoy
our
backyards
and
we
weren't
opposed
to
the
development.
We
were
happy
as
long
as
these
things
were
concerned
were
taken
care
of,
and
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
graciously
considered
a
request
and,
of
course,
included
this
mitigation
as
a
condition
for
the
approval,
and
all
this
is
history.
T
Actually,
the
real
reason
I
wanted
to
come
here
and
say
take
the
time
and
say
something
here
is
I
wanted
to
just
say
it
out.
I'm
we're
extremely
thankful,
all
of
us
to
the
efforts
from
doug,
fowler
and
boise
hunter
homes
as
we
worked
back
and
forth
and
identified
the
right
solution
for
our
the
home
for
homeowners.
It
wasn't
an
easy
back
and
forth
here
right
after
the
planning
and
zoning
commission,
boise
hunter
homes
was
in
our
backyards,
collecting
all
the
necessary
measurements
where
the
trees
were
how
tall
it
was
elevation.
T
You
know
angles
to
see
how
they
can
fix
this
problem.
They
took
a
couple
of
weeks.
They
provided
us
with
some
proposals
with
trees
and
fences.
We
were
a
little
worried
that
didn't
fully
address
all
our
solutions.
T
They
went
back
and
now
a
little
bit
of
property
was
not
completely
owned
by
him
right
behind
our
homes,
and
that
was
where
mr
doug
fowler
graciously
came
in
and
jumped
in
and
worked
with
us
and
they
moved
a
couple
of
power.
Poles
moved
the
road
around
giving
ourselves
a
little
more
space
for
the
berm
identified,
a
great
plan
for
a
fence
with
trees,
rock
walls
and
lots
of
trees.
T
T
So
at
the
end
of
the
day,
all
I
wanted
to
say
is
the
latest
plans
that
were
uploaded.
They
contain
an
excellent
proposal
to
fix
the
light
and
sound
mitigation,
and
all
of
us
approve
of
the
proposed
solution
and
really
the
number
one
reason
I'm
standing
up
here
is,
I
wanted
to
say
very
sincerely
and
very
heartfelt
thank
you
to
doug
fowler
and
boise
hunter
homes
for
number
one
understanding.
Our
concerns
number
two.
T
T
So
thank
you
for
doing
things
the
boise
way
and
working
with
us
an
additional
thank
you
to
all
involved
the
city,
planning,
staff
planning
and
zoning
commission
and
the
city
council
as
well.
So
I'm
happy
to
be
here
and
say,
stand
up
look
into
everybody's
eyes
and
say
thank
you
for
fixing
this
problem
for
us.
I
really
appreciate
it.
A
U
Rob
stark:
6865
east
warm
springs,
avenue,
boise
83716.
Madam
mayor
council
members.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
full
disclosure.
I
am
a
bvna
board
member.
I
am
in
support
of
the
application.
However,
I
do
see
the
need
for
building
the
turnaround
at
the
end
of
council
springs.
That
achd
does
not
support.
U
This
addition
would
benefit
both
the
future
harris
east
homeowners
and
users
of
the
homestead
trailhead.
It
would
seem
reasonable
to
project
that
the
land
swap
which
would
give
the
city
some
nearby
foothills
land
will
lead
to
a
ridge
to
rivers
trail
that
would
connect
the
homestead
trailhead
to
the
rest
of
the
ridged
river
system.
U
This,
in
turn,
will
lead
to
increased
pressure
at
this
trailhead
council
members,
badges
and
weddings
are
well
aware
of
another
barber
valley
development
that
is
near
a
popular
recreation
site
that
has
resulted
in
problems
for
the
homeowners
of
that
development.
U
U
V
You,
my
name
is
lillian
twomey,
my
address
is
5728
east
millet
drive
and
I'm
one
of
the
triplet
ranch
neighbors.
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
treatment
of
the
hillside,
north
of
our
neighborhood
and
south
of
this
harris
east
development,
which
is
partially
owned
by
residents
of
triplett
ranch.
V
So,
as
gary
mentioned
from
bbna,
our
neighborhood
is
planning
to
do
a
hillside
restoration
project
on
our
half
of
the
hillside.
Sometime
this
fall.
We
are
wanting
to
remove
dead
and
dying
plants
as
well
as
fertilize
and
irrigate
to
promote
the
growth
of
native
fire
resistant
plants
and
then
thin
and
prune
the
remaining
plants
as
needed,
and
this
project
has
already
partially
begun
with
the
really
the
support
and
drive
of
our
hwa
president
ben
hawkes
and
many
other
neighbors
who
have
been
really
involved
with
this.
V
The
project
is
really
wonderful
for
our
neighborhood,
because
it
will
help
control
the
wildfire
risk,
as
we
are
so
close
to
this
hill.
It
will
help
control
erosion
and
promote
soil
conservation,
and
it
also
has
the
added
benefits
of
making
the
area
more
more,
inviting
to
wildlife
and
contributing
to
a
sense
of
neighborhood
collaboration
among
us
as
hoa
residents.
V
We
would
really
like
for
bh
to
commit
to
completing
a
similar
project
on
the
upper
portion
of
the
hillside
and,
as
gary
mentions,
that
the
upper
half
of
the
hillside
remains
sewn
with
cheap
grass.
Our
efforts
at
the
base
of
the
hillside
will
be
overrun,
as,
as
seeds
fall
down
to
our
area,
we
have
met
with
bhs
and
requested
that
they
collaborate
with
us
by
using
their
resources
as
a
development
company
rather
than
neighborhood
volunteer
resources
from
their
future
residents
to
meet
us
halfway
and
mirror
our
efforts
on
their
upper
portion
of
that
hill.
V
I
know
councilman
badgett
asked
for
an
estimate
of
this
project.
I
am
going
to
make
a
ballpark
estimate,
but
if
ben
is
able
to
testify
later,
he
will
be
able
to
to
maybe
get
it
a
little
more
granular.
I
know
he
he
scoped
out
about
5
100
as
an
estimate
for
our
portion
shared
over
our
entire
hoa.
V
B
W
Hi,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
city
council.
As
my
sorry,
my
address
is
5728
east
millet
drive
boise83716.
W
We
continue
to
have
some
wildfire
related
concerns
after
the
pcc
meeting
and
our
talks
with
bhh,
the
firewise
website
states
that
working
collaboratively
with
your
neighbor
is
important
in
helping
to
protect
multiple
properties.
In
this
case,
heresys
is
going
to
be
your
neighbor.
We
need
to
have
a
collaborative
conversation
with
the
developer
of
paris
east
and
how
we're
going
to
protect
ourselves
as
well
as
future
residents
of
paris
east
from
wildfires
bhh
has
said
that
they
wish
to
work
collaboratively.
So
we
would
like
to
see
a
commitment
from
them
related
to
wildfire
risk.
W
We
want
to
see
them
clean
up
the
hillside
between
triplett
ranch
and
harris
east.
Our
neighborhood
is
coordinating
a
cleanup
that
will
address
our
portion
of
the
hillside.
Neighbors
have
already
started
on
weed
removal,
and
a
restoration
project
is
planned
for
this
fall.
This
covers
the
bottom
portion
of
the
hillside,
but
not
the
top.
In
researching
the
recommendations
on
the
idaho
firewise
website.
We
found
that
it's
necessary
to
create
and
maintain
a
defensible
space
around
human
dwellings.
W
The
website
mentions
that,
while
a
minimum
of
100
feet
of
defensible
space
is
necessary
on
flat
ground
a
slipped
ground,
the
minimum
is
actually
200
feet.
The
firewise
website
talks
about
three
zones
of
defensible
space
zone.
3
extends
from
30
feet
to
the
boundary
of
the
defensible
zone.
In
this
case,
zone
3
would
extend
upward
from
triplet
range
and
downward
from
paris
east
based
on
measurements
from
google
maps.
It
appears
that
the
distance
from
our
personal
backyard
to
the
top
of
the
hill
is
about
300
feet.
W
Therefore,
bhh
would
need
to
contribute
to
the
creation
and
maintenance
of
a
defensible
space.
That's
partially
in
their
portion
of
the
hillside.
The
entire
hill
might
not
fall
under
zone
3
for
either
neighborhood,
but
the
vast
majority
by
firewise
standards
needs
to
be
pruned,
have
dead
or
dying
vegetation
removed
and
have
irrigation
and
fertilization
methods
arranged
for
the
flourishing
of
native
fire
resistant
plants.
W
Although
firewise
is
different
from
louie,
we
do
not
think
it's
unreasonable
to
hold
a
high
standard
for
our
safety
and
the
safety
of
future
paris
east
residents.
The
current
heatwave
is
a
reminder
that
the
fire
season
is
getting
longer
and
hotter
and
more
people
moving
into
the
wild
and
urban
interface
just
increases
that
threat
further.
W
While
the
hh
has
said
that
they
were
considered
a
volunteer
driven
fire
safe
restoration
effort
on
there
portion
of
the
hill,
we
think
an
effort
led
by
bhh,
not
volunteers,
needs
to
be
mandated
by
the
council
based
on
idaho
firewise
recommendations.
Bhh
has
expressed
concern
that
the
hillside
is
steep
and
difficult
to
work
on.
However,
we
think
this
makes
their
intervention
even
more
necessary
as
citizens
coordinating
neighborhood
cleanup
efforts
in
our
spare
time
off
from
work,
we
will
be
limited
in
our
access
to
resources
and
our
ability
to
effectively
restore
the
entire
hill
bhh.
W
V
A
X
And
I
was
going
to
introduce
my
background
video.
If
you
can
see
it,
it's
this
hillside
that
we're
talking
about
so
the
area.
That's
you
can
see
the
fence
up
above
my
head
there
and
you
can
see
triple
ranch
off
my
left,
shoulder
so
the
heresies
property
and
the
steep
hillsides
that
todd
talked
about
are,
in
the
background
there,
and
we
we're
not
talking
about
trying
to
restore
that
vegetation,
but
native
vegetation
for
fire
rise.
Firewise
reasons
we're
talking
about
that
flat
stuff
kind
of
up.
X
In
my
up
your
my
upper
right
shoulder
behind
the
fence
line,
which
is
harris,
eats
property.
So
I
I
just
want
to
introduce
that.
That's
probably
the
only
visual
you're
going
to
get
tonight
for
the
issue
that
we're
talking
about
as
far
as
restoration
of
the
slopes
and-
and
I
also
wanted
to
take
an
opportunity
to
celebrate
the
fact
that
the
peace
valley
overlook
is
owned
by
the
city
and
the
barber
valley.
X
Neighborhood
association
began
that
effort
in
2016-2017
to
buy
it
from
a
developer,
and
I
think
todd
would
probably
agree
that
if
that
parcel
had
been
available,
it
would
have
been
a
part
of
this
development
and
we'd
have
had
seen
more
foothills
development
so
celebratory
that
we
saved
a
lot
of
foothills
property
here
and
from
development
and
we're
going
to
see
a
great,
lower
foothills
recreational
path
on
the
on
the
ridgeto
river
network,
all
because
boise
hunter
homes
was
so
forward-thinking.
X
In
fact,
mr
hunter
was
one
of
the
contributors
to
the
peace
valley
overlook
campaign.
So
I
just
wanted
to
call
that
out-
and
madam
mary,
as
you
know,
the
city
chipped
in
the
last
hundred
thousand,
and
that's
why
it
is
what
it
is
and
that's
why
we're
getting
these
great
amenities
in
this
corner
of
the
city.
Another
topic
I
wanted
to
touch
on
was
gary,
and
everyone
covered
the
trailhead,
we're
still
scratching
your
head
about
achd
on
that
one.
We
hope
you
can
solve
that.
X
Thank
you,
councilmember
badgen,
for
anything
he
can
do
in
that
battle
and
my
my
closing
thought
is
specific
plans.
X
We
are
the
only
neighborhood
that
really
understands
how
this
works
as
far
as
members
of
the
public
and
and
we
struggle
with
it
as
doug
fowler
would
would
agree.
What
we
really
want
to
see
is
the
city
to
get
aggressive
about
spo3
locale,
siringa
valley,
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
but
best
practices
have
to
get
instilled
into
that
program.
Corey
barton
homes
began
that
in
2015
it
was
it's
on
the
website
with
a
2016
date.
Best
practices
have
certainly
evolved.
X
Since
then,
sp01
is
243
pages
sp03
is
76.,
it's
very
rudimentary.
I've
talked
to
cody
riddle
about
this
a
couple
of
times
and
we're
engaged
with
the
planning
staff
regularly.
We
really
think
our
experience
with
sp01
and
two
would
be
helpful.
If
you,
the
council,
members,
would
press
the
city
staff
to
take
a
look
at
how
we
can
improve
the
plan
for
spo3.
Thank
you.
A
N
E
A
A
What
I'm
going
to
do,
then?
I'm,
given
that
this
is
a
subdivision.
We've
heard
from
the
neighborhood
association
members
of
the
party
at
the
applicant's
representatives,
we're
going
to
move
into
now
see
if
the
council
has
any
further
questions
for
the
applicant
or
staff
and
then
we'll
go
ahead
with
the
closure
kind
of
it's
not
rebuttal
right
now,
it's
not
an
appeal.
A
C
Probably
staff-
and
perhaps
the
applicants
representative
just
wondering
there
is
not
a
condition
about
while
about
mitigation
for
re-vegetating
wondered
what
discussions
have
been
had
at
staff
level
around
that
issue.
And
if
you
have
any
solutions.
O
Madam
mayor
council,
president
clegg,
typically
with
subdivisions
straight
subdivisions,
we
don't
get
into
mitigation
or
we
stick
with
the
revegetation
of
those
spaces
that
have
been
disturbed
and
that's
how
our
code
directs
us
to
do
those
things.
So
we've
not
really
examined
the
other
side
of
that.
C
O
Madam
mayor
council,
president
clegg,
that
is
correct,
that
is
usually
part
of
the
revegetation
plan.
That
is
part
of
the
category
three
hillside
review.
O
Q
Council
president
clegg,
heath,
clark,
251
east
front
street,
so
on
this
issue
you
know
the
the
owner
of
the
property.
Current,
the
owner
of
the
property
future
will
continue
to
be
a
good
steward
of
the
property.
This
isn't
a
question
of
it's
not
a
question
of
cost.
Frankly,
as
and
kevin
has,
as
appropriately
stated,
the
code
requirements
you
know,
I
I
do
want
to
emphasize
our
concerns,
and
then
I
think
we
have
a
solution
that
would
I
I
think
work.
Q
These
are
steep
slopes.
They
would
be
dangerous
for
personnel
to
access
the
there
is
minimal
topsoil
in
these
areas.
Because
of
this,
the
steepness
of
those
slopes
adding
topsoil
would
be
difficult,
you're,
going
to
end
up
if
you're
irrigating
it
you're
going
to
be
creating
huge
erosion
problems,
definitely
would
warn
everyone
against
irrigating
along
these
steep
hillsides.
Q
Q
We
think
that
coordinating
any
efforts
to
do
a
revegetation
through
the
harris
ranch
wildlife
mitigation
association
is
the
appropriate
route.
Here
we
would
love
to
work
with
their
experts
to
identify
solutions
and,
as
we
were
just
discussing
this
again,
this
is
not
a
matter
of
cost
in
terms
of
the
overall
size
of
this
project
and
the
scope
of
what's
going
to
be
expended,
this
isn't
a
big
deal,
but
we
are
willing
to
contribute
30
000
toward
those
efforts
to
the
harris
ranch
wildlife
mitigation
association.
Q
C
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
follow-up,
so
heath.
I
think
I
heard
you
suggest
that
you're
willing
to
donate
thirty
thousand
dollars
to
the
wildlife
mitigation
association
and
assuming
that
you
would
accept
that
as
a
condition
and
also
as
a
condition
that
you
will
work
with
them
on
your
revegetation
plan.
Q
Madam
mayor
councilman,
council,
president
clegg,
are
you:
are
you
referring
to
the
revegetation
plan?
That's
on
the
sites
that
would
be
disturbed.
I
just
want
to
be
precise,.
C
A
M
Q
Madam
mayor
council,
member
hallie
burton
that's
correct,
so
the
area
that's
going
to
be
revegetated
by
code
is
the
area
that
we
disturb,
and
we
didn't
really
go
into
that
in
connection
with
this.
This
presentation
tonight,
but
the
areas
that
are
going
to
be
disturbed,
are
pulled
away
from
the
top
of
the
slope
for
a
number
of
reasons
to
avoid
erosion
and
also
to
minimize
view
impacts,
so
everything
that's
going
to
be
re-vegetated
primarily
is
going
to
be
on
top.
I
Madam
mayor,
yes,
I
do
have
one
question:
I'm
sorry
yeah
heath.
I
think
you
were
probably
involved
in
the
conversations
with
achd,
and
I
heard
one
of
the
reasons
that
that
agency
expressed
concern
was
the
maintenance
potential
maintenance
of
the
extra
space
on
the
turnaround
but
looks
like
maybe
you
weren't
involved,
but
sometimes
there's
more
going
on
than
we
hear
it
like.
What
else
did
that
agency
tell
you
if
anything.
R
R
They
also
had
some
other
concerns
about
maybe
confusion
of
residents,
turning
around
residents,
driving
down
the
hill
and
heading
up
and,
if
someone's
trying
to
turn
around
and
that
at
the
same
time,
I
didn't
really
think
that
that
was
that
big
of
a
concern
it'll
obviously
have
to
be
striped
no
parking
like
you
can
park.
You
can't
park
in
the
cul-de-sac,
it
it
really.
It
works
from
an
engineering
standpoint.
It's
really
we're
confined
with
some
topography.
R
When
you
look
on
the
west
side
of
where
council
springs
road
that
that
area
drops
off
pretty
sharp
into
the
creek
we
thought
originally.
Maybe
we
could
put
a
hammer
head
going
that
direction.
It
just
doesn't
work
where
we
have.
The
cul-de-sac
shown
is
really
the
the
a
flat
spot
and
it
works
pretty
well
right
there
we
understand
ach
hd's
concerns,
like
I
said
before,
we're
willing
to
continue
to
work
with
the
neighborhood
association
and
go
visit
with
achd.
R
I
think
we
can
find
a
solution
to
this
issue
and,
like
I
said,
we're
willing
to
continue
to
work
on
it,
but
those
were
really
the
concerns
that
achd
brought
up.
They
didn't
provide
me
anything
in
writing.
It
was
just
a
phone
call
saying
that
we
can't
support
this
after
we
looked
at
it
and
discussed
it
for
a
handful
of
reasons.
A
All
right
with
that
we'll
go
ahead.
Is
it
heath?
Are
you
doing
closing
arguments
doug
great
and
just
to
be
clear
that
I'm
I
just?
I
think
that
there
might
be
some
confusion
in
the
audience.
Typically,
when
we
have
an
application
one.
This
is
the
subdivision
is
not
a
public
hearing.
We
have
public
hearings
for
things
that
don't
already
have
a
right.
A
We
started
it
this
evening,
but
an
applicant
even
in
a
public
hearing,
has
their
their
time
allotted
and
but
then
we
ask
that
they
not
bring
other
parties
to
the
applicant
in
for
additional
time,
and
so,
given
that
this
is
a
subdivision.
I
exercise
that
request
this
evening
at
the
break,
but
we'll
finish
with
the
rebuttal.
P
Thank
you:
doug
power,
801,
maine,
suite
501,
boise,
idaho,
mayor
council
members,
just
a
couple
of
quick
things.
First
of
all
on
todd's
response
to
councilman,
halliburton's
question
about
the
foothills
and
the
number
of
lots
and
why
there
was
one
very
important
thing
that
was
left
out
and
that
was
on
this
particular
parcel.
When
we
went
under
contract
with
boise
hunter
homes,
we
limited
them
to
between
60
and
70
lots.
That
was
the
condition
of
the
contract.
P
Admittedly,
development
in
the
foothills
is
very
expensive
and
we
have
a
lot
of
about
another
118
entitlement
and
had
lots,
but
once
upon
a
time
would
that
have
been
difficult
and
expensive?
Yes,
in
this
market,
not
quite
so
much
we
like
open
space
too.
P
That's
why
I
think
the
harrisons
still
have
about
306
acres
in
open
space
and
their
foundation
has
276
acres
next
to
wild
horse
with
that
and
with
our
request
to
for
approval
of
the
turnaround
area
as
either
the
hammerhead
that's
shown
or
the
culvestack.
If
we
can
collectively
get
it
from
achd
and
with
the
contribution
on
the
on
the
on
the
hillside
behind
triplett
ranch,
we
would
ask
for
your
approval.
Thank
you.
A
All
right,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
not
public
hearing
whatever
this
was
and
leave
it
to
you
all
to
discuss
and
make
a
motion.
C
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
I
will
move
approval
of
harris
ranch,
east
subdivision,
suv,
21,
9,
boise
city,
preliminary
platt
at
3201.
C
South
council
springs
road
with
one
additional
condition
to
be
added
to
the
site,
specific
conditions
that
the
developer
will
donate
thirty
thousand
dollars
to
the
wildlife
mitigation
association
for
vegetation
of
the
hillside
between
them
and
triple
atlant
ranch,
and
that
they
will
consult
with
the
association
before
completing
their
revegetation
requirements.
C
C
I
Madam
mayor,
I
agreed
in
a
second
of
the
motion
for
a
couple
reasons.
First,
everything
complies
with
sp01,
that's
the
most
important
thing.
Second,
this
is
a
subdivision,
and
it's
probably
not
the
time
to
especially
sitting
up
here
like
in
our
meeting,
be
coming
forward
with
fully
fledged
plant
mitigation
plants.
I
You
know,
I
think
everybody
wants
people
to
be
able
to
turn
around
down
there
and
everybody
wants
to
going
forward
for
as
long
as
these
homes
are.
There
have
a
minimum
number
of
conflicts
between
recreational
users
and
homeowners,
and
we've
seen
in
other
parts
of
the
city
that
those
kinds
of
conflicts
can
be
taxing
and
difficult
for
our
city
to
administer
it.
It
causes
a
police
burden.
It
causes
just
a
transactional
time
and
energy
burden
on
the
part
of
city
staff.
So
that's
something
that
we
care
about.
Achd.
I
We
don't
even
know
all
the
reasons
that
they're
not
able
to
do
it,
but
the
applicant
is
very
willing,
it's
very
clear,
to
continue
having
those
conversations
with
achd
and
in
the
fact
that
you
know
everybody
does
want
to
reduce
those
conflicts.
We
all
do
work
for
the
same
people
and
the
goal
is
to
come
up
with
a
complete.
You
know,
project
out
there
that
works,
for
everyone
makes
me
hopeful
that,
as
those
conversations
continue,
something
will
work
out.
I
C
C
M
Mayor,
it's
not
very
often
that
we
have
somebody
call
in
a
neighbor
who's
going
to
have
59
houses
past
their
backyard
in
a
new
paved
road
say,
thank
you
to
the
developer
and
for
going
the
extra
mile
to
work
with
them
to
mitigate
some
of
the
issues
of
the
sound
and
the
light.
I
think
that's
a
testament
to
the
the
work
that
you've
put
into
this.
M
I'm
excited
about
the
93
acres
of
open
space
and
your
commitment
to
continuing
to
have
open
space
and
also
the
commitment
to
the
30
thousand
dollars
to
the
wildlife
mitigation
association.
I
think
that
lillian's
probably
feeling
good
that
she
threw
out
a
good
number
for
you
all
to
shoot
for
at
30
000.
and
I'm
excited
you
all
are
working
with
the
other
neighborhoods
on
that.
Thank
you,
madam.
D
Mayor
yeah,
I
just
want
to
thank
boise
hunter
homes.
For
again,
you
know
I've
been
in
bending
over
backwards
just
to
help
remedy
all
these
potential
issues
that
the
neighbors
were
facing,
and
I
continuously
see
that
from
you
folks
and
thank
you
very
much.
D
B
A
G
Okay.
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
council.
This
item,
as
you
noted,
is
an
appeal
of
the
historic
preservation
commission's
denial
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
I'd
like
to
take
the
time
to
walk
you
through
the
appeal
and
the
grounds,
and
briefly
our
response
to
that
this
evening,
and
then
ted
venegas.
Our
historic
preservation.
Planner
is
here
to
answer
questions
as
it
relates
to
historic
preservation
standards.
G
The
project
did
start
with
the
code
enforcement
case
for
the
removal
of
10
trees.
We
received
and
approved
an
application
to
mitigate
for
that
removal.
That
decision
was
appealed.
We
also
received
a
separate
application
that
was
filed
to
relocate
an
open
canal
on
the
property
when
it
became
clear
that
that
would
be
appealed.
We
retracted
that
approval
all
of
this,
along
with
the
proposed
demolition
of
a
non-contributing
home
and
the
construction
of
a
new
one,
was
then
bundled.
G
We
took
all
of
this
as
a
package
to
the
historic
preservation
commission,
which
ultimately
denied
the
request
in
march
in
the
appeal,
the
applicant,
who
concluded
three
grounds
and
I'd
like
to
briefly
respond
to
each
the
first.
They
believe
that
the
denial
related
to
the
tree
specifically
violated
state
and
city
code,
and
that
his
historic
preservation
commission
provided
no
justification.
G
They
suggested
the
only
thing
that
was
achieved
was
eliminating
our
ability
to
require
mitigation,
as
it
relates
to
the
appeal
we
we
agree.
The
opponent
is
correct:
the
approval
of
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
is
our
mechanism
to
require
those
those
new
plantings,
and
so
we
believe
they
were
correct
in
this
regard,
but
that's
not
for
a
second
to
suggest.
We
condone
what
was
condoned.
What
was
done,
in
fact,
we
immediately
asked
the
enforcement
team
to
pursue
citations,
and,
while
it's
not
before
you
this
evening,
that
is
being
addressed
outside
of
this
this
process.
G
The
second
ground
relates
to
relocation
of
the
canal.
The
applicant
believes
that
we
exceeded
our
statutory
authority
by
retracting
that
approval
again
when
it
became
clear
that
the
intent
was
to
imp
appeal,
both
applications,
the
canal
and
the
removal
of
the
trees.
We
bundled
everything
our
intent
was
here,
was
to
provide
a
path
forward
where
everything
was
bundled.
We
could
look
at
things
holistically
and
make
it
as
clear
as
possible
for
everyone
involved,
applicant
and
neighbors
alike.
G
G
This
would
allow
for
the
construction
of
a
new
home
while
maintaining
this
unique
feature
to
the
neighborhood
again.
The
slide
you
can
see
on
the
screen
shows
the
approximate
location
of
the
relocated
canal
and
you
can
clearly
see
the
trees
that
were
removed
now.
The
final
ground
for
the
appeal
was
demolition
of
the
existing
non-contributing
home
and
then
the
construction
of
the
new
home.
G
In
this
case
again,
given
the
other
elements,
we
did
include
all
of
this
in
one
package
and
reviewing
the
record,
the
commission
did
actually
got
into
questioning
the
contributing
versus
non-contributing
status
of
that
existing
home.
They
went
as
far
as
suggesting
that
the
applicant
should
resurvey
the
property
to
make
a
new
determination
on
the
contributing
or
non-contributing
status.
G
Given
the
focus
on
the
other
elements
of
the
proposal
and
the
suggestion
of
re-surveying
the
property,
the
commission
really
didn't
evaluate
that
new
home
that
home,
as
indicated
in
the
original
staff
packet,
we
believe
and
still
believe,
is
consistent
with
the
approval
criteria.
So
we
do
acknowledge.
There
was
probably
an
error
in
this
regard,
so
I
briefly
touched
on
each
of
the
grounds
for
appeal
again.
We
don't
believe
that
in
the
record
there
was
evidence
to
deny
the
application.
G
G
Finally,
if
you
overturn
the
decision
and
we're
directed
to
return
with
findings
and
conditions,
we
suggest
that
larger
teeth,
larger
trees
than
would
typically
be
required,
be
included
as
a
condition
of
approval,
for
example,
rather
than
the
typical
two
inch
caliper
trees
that
we
we
would
require.
We'd
suggest
three
inch
or
even
four
inch
caliper
trees
for
a
couple
reasons,
they'll
have
a
more
immediate,
visual
and
environmental
impact.
We
believe,
that's
certainly
justified
and
if
we
were
asked
before
these
trees
were
removed,
that
would
have
been
our
approach
in
evaluating
the
application.
I
Cody,
I'm
a
little
bit
familiar
with
this,
because
it's
about
five
blocks
from
my
home
and
one
thing
I'm
just
not
clear
on-
is
how
many
structures
will
be
there
when
all
is
said
and
done.
If
this
is,
if
the
appeal
is
granted-
and
this
is
approved
because
right
now,
there's
a
structure,
that's
old
and
existing
and
you
know
substantially
demolished,
but
still
under
construction
they're.
Preserving
some
work
on
the
front,
then
there's
that
other
older
presently
untouched
home.
That
is,
you
know
clearly
they're
asking
to
demolish.
G
Madam
mayor
council,
member
beijing,
it's
the
the
plan.
The
site
plan
we
see
on
the
screen
shows
you'd
have
a
new
single
family
residence
at
the
front
of
the
front
of
the
lot
really
centered.
You
can
see
the
dashed
line
with
the
canal
kind
of
centered
on
the
property
and
then
a
detached
garage
towards
the
back
and
again
that
the
canal
and
the
the
light
blue
would
be
the
I
guess,
roughly
rough
location,
the
canal
would
be
open
air
kind
of
along
the
back
of
the
sidewalk.
C
Madam
mayor
cody
just
to
be
clear
on
the
process
tonight.
C
Y
Y
Y
In
this
case,
the
applicants
were
going
to
come
in
with
an
administrative
approval
for
demolition
and
that's
when
we
pulled
back
and
said
no
we're
not
going
to
accept
this
application
for
approval
for
demolition.
We're
gonna,
that's
kind
of
when
we
decided
everything's
kind
of
needs
to
be
pulled
together
and
brought
to
the
historic
preservation
commission.
Y
So
you
know
the
findings
for
for
demolition.
I
would
say
the
key
finding
is
that
it
is
a
non-contributing
structure.
Y
The
other
findings
are
deal
with.
Does
the
new
construction
generally
meet
the
guidelines?
So
is
the
new
construction,
the
new
house,
the
design
of
the
new
house
consistent
with
the
guidelines,
as
it
congress
with
the
neighborhood?
So
that's
that's
one
of
the
findings.
The
other
finding
is:
has
the
applicant
determined
that
re
con
rehabilitation
of
the
existing
structure?
Y
Have
they
provided
a
cost
estimate
of
demo
new
build
versus
re
just
rehabilitating
the
existing
structure
that
finding
is
rarely
provided,
especially
for
non-contributing
houses,
so
that
finding
is
is
usually
not
met
or
even
tried
to
be
met?
Other
findings
deal
with
is
the
house
doesn't
meet
other
state
or
local
historic
requirements
which
this
house
doesn't
so
it
it's
non-contributing.
C
Can
we
do
that
and
leave
the
demolition
of
the
existing
single-family
house
back
up
to
the
historic
preservation
commission,
who,
I
think,
are
the
appropriate
body
to
make
that
finding
initially,
especially
given
the
location
of
it,
it
looks
to
me
like
it
is
in
exactly
the
location
that
the
garage
is
being
proposed
in
and
they
could
make
that
finding
later,
I
I
just
I'm
reluctant
to
rule
on
something
tonight
that
we
don't
have
any
advice
on
other
than
what
you've
just
provided.
Does
that
make
sense.
Y
Y
C
Y
N
Mata
marriage
is
the
legal
point
of
point
of
work
and
and
just
to
help
clarify
the
procedure
to
to
council
member
clegg's
question
the
city
code
development
code
procedures
provide
that
if
there
were
some
unlawful
or
improper
procedure
it
may
be
remanded,
but
that
otherwise,
if
error
is
found,
the
decision
may
be
reversed
or
modified.
So
so,
not
not
quite
a
clear
procedure
towards
remand
here
as
awkward
as
that
might
make
it
or
as
difficult
as
it
might
make
it
that
that
may
not
be
a
clean
path
to
take.
Okay.
Z
Madam
mayor
council,
members
jeff
bauer
601
west
bannock
in
boise
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicants
tom
and
andrea
colgan,
mr
venegas,
if
you
could,
could
you
pull
up
my
slide
deck?
Thank
you.
Z
While
I'm
waiting
for
that
I'll
jump
out
of
order
and
address
councilwoman
clegg's
question.
I
agree
with
your
counsel.
Remand
isn't
really
appropriate
here.
It's
modify
or
reverse,
and
I
think
one
really
important
fact
here
is
that
the
historic
preservation
commission
in
their
decision
actually
did
find
that
three
of
the
five
demolition
criteria
were
satisfied
in
this
case.
A
Z
Madam
mayor,
that's
correct
and
that's
one
of
the
grounds
of
error
that
we
articulated
in
our
memo.
Okay,
I
wish
I
had
a
clicker
here,
but
I'll
just
get
started
so
again
want
to
thank
planning
staff,
both
mr
venegas
and
mr
riddle
for
all
their
time
and
and
the
council
for
your
time
tonight.
I
know
after
that
situation
this
seems
like
small
beans,
but
it's
a
really
big
deal
to
these
two
individuals.
So
thank
you.
For
your
time.
Z
Tom
and
andrea
colgan
started
looking
at
this
property
about
a
year
ago
and
they
were
interested
in
the
property
because
their
daughter
and
their
family
live
next
door.
So
council,
member
agent,
that's
that
house
that
you're
seeing
all
the
activity
on
which
also
went
through
a
lot
of
certificate
of
appropriateness
applications.
Z
Z
So
the
existing
property
is
I'm
sorry.
The
existing
structure
is
about
900
square
feet.
Two
bedroom
one
bath
constructed
in
1940,
because
the
existing
structure
wouldn't
satisfy
our
clients.
Family
needs.
They
hired
a
bunch
of
consultants
to
try
to
figure
out
what
redevelopment
options
they
had.
You
guys
are
all
familiar
with
beth
lassen
former
hpc,
commissioner.
They
hired
her
to
determine
what
the
status
of
the
property
was.
Her
research
indicated
it
was
non-contributing.
Z
They
also
had
their
own
architect
leah
mcmillan
who's
participating.
Virtually.
I
should
have
said,
also
determined
that
the
property
was
non-contributing
in
addition
to
architects
and
researching
the
historic
status
they
also
hired
spf
water
engineers
to
look
at
the
canal
relocation
I
mean
we're
not
hiding
the
ball
here.
Z
So
after
talking
with
architects
engineers,
city
staff,
they
determined
that
the
property
was
non
non-contributing
and
that
it
did
have
redevelopment
potential,
and
so
they
moved
forward
and
purchased
the
property
switching
to
the
to
the
applications.
We
did
have
the
removal
of
trees
without
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
and,
as
mr
riddle
mentioned,
planning
staff
reached
out
to
the
applicants
and
said:
hey
that
wasn't
right.
You
need
to
file
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
to
permit
what
you've
done.
Z
Z
Z
The
hpc
did
ultimately
re
re
did
ultimately
deny
that
approval
no
basis
was
articulated,
as
mr
riddle
mentioned,
and,
and
that
is
one
of
the
errors
that
we
articulated.
Z
Kind
of
taking
a
step
back
on
the
tree
removal,
I
want
to
clarify
some
of
the
background
facts.
Our
client
hired
brown's
tree
service
to
remove
these
trees.
Can
I
get
a
slide
please,
and
in
hiring
brown's
tree
service,
they
specifically
asked
the
company.
If
any
permits
were
required,
the
the
company
required
responded
that
none
were
required.
In
addition
to
directing
those
questions
to
the
tree
service.
Z
My
client
also
looked
on
the
boise
forestry
website,
couldn't
find
any
information
that
private
trees
on
private
property
were
regulated,
and
I'm
only
bringing
this
up
to
say
that
this
isn't
a
situation
of
of
you
know
ignoring
the
regulations
or
willful
ignorance.
Z
To
date,
they
haven't
provided
us
any
specific
projects
in
any
parks,
but
it
was
recommended
that
we
could
make
a
donation
to
the
tree
challenge
which
we're
more
than
happy
to
do
to
to
offset
the
trees
that
were
removed
so
now,
moving
on
to
the
canal
again,
this
this
permit
was
approved
administratively
and
I'm
not
sure
it's
relevant
tonight.
But
but
we
sort
of
disagree
with
the
facts
as
staff
presented
them.
Z
I'm
not
aware
of
any
provision
in
the
city
code
that
allows
the
city
to
just
retract
final
permits,
but
nonetheless
we're
here
tonight
and
we'd.
Ask
you
to
reverse
the
planning.
I'm
sorry,
the
historic
preservation
commission's
denial
because
we
do
meet
the
standards
for
the
relocation
and
those
standards
are
identical.
Z
Those
standards
are
identical
to
demolition.
So
again,
as
mr
venegas
mentioned,
the
key
factor
here
is
that
the
property
as
a
whole
is
non-contributing
in
the
district.
There's
nothing
to
indicate
that
this
irrigation
facility
is
any
different,
so
it
would
also
be
treated
as
non-contributing
really
important
too.
I
think
that
we
did
originally
want
to
pipe
this
structure.
That
would
be
the
cheaper
easier
thing
to
do.
Instead,
at
the
request
of
neighbors,
we
decided
to
relocate
it.
Z
So,
turning
to
the
the
final
can
the
final
certificate
of
appropriateness,
this
one
wasn't
administratively
approved.
So
this
one
went
to
the
to
the
hpc
for
their
initial
decision.
This
is
a
excerpt
from
the
decision
council,
member
clay,
and
you
can
see
that
the
decision
highlighted
there.
Three
out
of
the
five
findings
for
demolition
were
met.
Z
So
it's
our
position
that
that's
sort
of
the
end
of
the
story
here
we
agree
with
planning
staff's
project
report
that
recommended
demolition.
We
also
agree
with
the
written
decision
that
recommended
demolition.
So
really
the
issue
here
is
reclassification
and
I
don't
want
to
belabor
the
point
we
totally
agree
with
with
mr
riddle.
Z
It's
never
been
the
city's
practice
to
re
to
redesignate
properties
as
contributing
during
a
pending
application.
You
know,
I
think,
there's
idaho
law
that
would
prevent
that
it
is
we.
We
would
consider
that
a
vested
right
and
that
someone
made
an
investment-backed
decision
in
buying
the
property
and
expecting
to
to
be
able
to
redevelop
it.
Z
And
that's
all
I
have
substantively.
You
know
for
the
reasons
that
that
previously
stated,
we
think
there
are
several
errors
that
were
committed
by
the
hpc.
So
this
is
opened
up
to
you
all
to
make
a
new
decision,
a
modification
or
an
approval,
and
we
agree
with
all
of
staff's
recommendations
for
for
conditions.
D
Madam
mayor,
yes,
good
question
staff
noted
that
one
of
the
criteria
was
new
construction
would
be
consistent
with
the
guidelines.
Do
you
intend
to
be
consistent
with
the
guidelines
with
your
new
construction.
Z
Madam
mayor
councilmember
thompson:
yes,
I
kind
of
glossed
over
that
I'm
sorry
and
again,
miss
mcmillan
is
participating
virtually
to
provide
any
more
detail.
You'd
like
but
planning
staff
did
provide
a
very
detailed
analysis
of
all
of
section
5
of
the
design
guidelines
and
found
that
we
conformed
I'm
getting
in
the
weeds.
Now.
Planning
staff
also
recommended
one
additional
window
on
the
facade
that
sort
of
got
glossed
over.
We're
also
happy
with
that
condition.
So
if,
if
you
would
like
to
impose
that
condition
that
mr
venegas
wanted,
we
would
accept
that
as
well.
Thank.
AA
Hello,
I'm
here
good
evening,
madam
mayor
and
council
members,
my
name
is
kate
henwood
and
I'm
here
tonight,
as
co-chair
of
the
north
end
neighborhood
association's
historic
preservation
committee.
We
testified
on
this
matter
at
the
march
29th
historic
preservation,
commission
meeting
and
those
comments
are
on
record.
AA
AA
And
this
application
continues
to
be
top
of
mind
and
of
great
consternation
to
many
nina
members.
I
would
now
also
like
to
read
to
you
a
statement
that
was
written
and
signed
by
83
north
end,
neighbors
again
to
be
clear.
This
letter
comes
from
individual
citizens
and
I
am
reading
it
on
their
behalf,
not
on
that
of
nina
as
a
whole.
AA
The
property
located
at
717
north
19th
street
has
been
an
iconic
and
beloved
property
in
this
neighborhood
generations
of
north
enders
have
enjoyed
feeding
the
ducks
and
watching
the
wildlife
in
the
century-old
boise
canal.
One
of
the
few
year-round
canals
in
boise
the
position
of
this
home
on
this
lot
is
unique
and
gives
a
feeling
of
openness
along
the
canal.
It
is
deeply
ingrained
in
the
character
and
culture
of
our
north
end
community,
while
the
illegal
removal
of
trees
from
the
property
has
been
a
tragic
blow
to
the
character
of
this
neighborhood.
AA
We
face
further
threats
to
the
appearance
and
feel
of
a
street
that
has,
for
generations,
remained
essentially
unchanged
with
proposed
diversion
of
the
historic
canal
and
demolition
of
a
quaint,
1939
home
in
pursuit
of
maximum
lock
coverage
for
a
large
new
home.
The
goals
and
guidelines
of
historic
preservation
in
this
district
are
clearly
stated,
and
this
project
contravenes
them
as
a
resident
of
this.
As
residents
of
this
neighborhood
and
this
historic
district,
we
urge
the
city
council
to
uphold
the
historic
preservation
commission's
denial
of
this
project.
AA
Our
committee's
efforts
are
and
will
continue
to
be,
on
problem
solving
which
we're
working
on
in
the
form
of
code
enforcement,
pre-removal
education
among
residents
and
vendors
and
pursuing
updated
survey
data,
all
of
which
we
hope
will
go
a
long
way
in
preventing
the
scenario
from
playing
out
again
down
the
line.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
consideration
this
evening.
H
Madam
mayor,
yes
mask
a
question.
Thank
you,
kate.
I
have
a
question
about
what
sort
of
consideration
do
you
give
when
an
applicant
has
received
erroneous
information
from
a
vendor
such
in
this
case
about
whether
or
not
permitting
was
required
for
the
removal
of
trees,
yeah.
AA
I
it's
a
difficult
position.
You
know
there
there
are
honest
errors,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
our
you
know,
ten
mature
trees
are
gone
from
our
tree
canopy
and
that
just
that
just
can't
go
unaddressed.
AA
So
I
mean
our
point:
is
that
that
the
code
is
is
written
and
as
it
is
and
we're
you
know
we
just
this.
That's
a
this.
That's
a
major
precedent.
It
it
wasn't
10
one
tree,
it
was
10
trees
and
that's
just
it
is
a
huge
loss
to.
AA
I
guess
that
our
our
canopy
and
the
you
know
the
character
of
our
neighborhood
and
we're
just.
We
want
to
see
that
rectified
and
avoided
in
the
future.
Just.
H
A
A
L
L
I
am
representing
myself:
I
am
supplementing
kate
henwood's
testimony.
This
regrettable
outcome
should
never
have
occurred.
Gentlemen,
ladies,
it
should
have
never
had
to
come
before
you
for
review
the
manner
in
which
this
whole
project
was
pursued
displayed
a
flagrant
disregard
of
the
rules
governing
development
in
a
designated
historic
district.
L
L
Retroactive
approval
of
removal
of
mature
trees,
failure
to
impose
meaningful
penalties
for
code
violations
is
unacceptable,
insufficient
and
makes
a
mockery
of
city
regulations.
At
the
time
this
project
came.
First
came
before
the
historic
preservation
commission.
I
asked
whether
there
was
even
any
written
concurrence
from
the
canal
company
that
a
project
like
this
could
be
undertaken.
Was
it
feasible
from
an
engineering
standpoint?
L
L
The
decision
of
the
historic
preservation
commission
should
be
upheld,
but
I
do
wish
to
commend
cody
riddle.
The
deputy
planning
director
for
taking
the
initiative
in
response
to
the
letter
from
nina
to
draft
an
advisory
to
arborists
operating
in
the
city,
that
there
is
a
process,
an
established
process
for
treating
trees
as
essential
elements
of
historic
districts,
that
certificates
of
appropriateness
are
necessary
and
that
approvals
must
be
granted
in
advance
and
not
retroactively.
L
A
AB
AB
I
guess
I'd
like
an
answer
to
the
question:
has
the
canal
company
signed
off
in
written
approval
for
the
removal
of
the
relocation
of
the
canal,
because
I
guess
I'd
like
to
speak
a
little
bit
for
the
historical
values
of
the
canal
when
there
was
some
research
done
on
this
earlier,
I
believe
it
shows
up
in
the
early
1900s
sanborn
maps.
It
runs
in
a
diagonal
through
the
property.
AB
It
appears
to
be
on
the
original
path
of
you
know
the
original
path
the
canal
would
have
run
through,
and
I
don't
think
we
should
minimize
sort
of
the
the
you
know
the
consequences
of
of
moving
and
relocating
one
of
the
earliest
historical
structures.
Essentially,
in
the
north
end,
which
is
this
canal
which
stays
from
the
18,
I
believe
it's
the
1860s.
AB
This
is
a
something
that
should
be
recognized
as
a
significant
historical
feature,
and
I
would
urge
the
city
to
also
pursue
that
that
this
is
something
that
should
be
looked
at
and
and
because
we're
likely
to
see
other
with
the
you
know
massive
influx
of
people
with
a
lot
of
money,
building,
bigger
and
bigger
houses,
and
not
being
satisfied
with
the
existing
structures
on
site,
we're
likely
to
see
incidences
of
incidence
of
moving
canals
again
in
applications
in
front
of
the
city,
and
I
guess
I
too
would
like
to
voice
just
my
extreme
consternation
and
sadness
at
the
tree
removal
and
how
it
played
out
and
really
do
believe
that
there
needs
to
be.
AB
You
know,
stronger
enforcement
of
penalties
for
removal
of
trees,
and
I
I
would
like
to
just
say
that
that
the
house
that
exists
there,
that
it
now
still
exists
there
really
sort
of
embodies
the
north
end
and
all
the
the
claims
of
no
historical
significance,
etc.
AB
A
Are
they
there,
oh
great,
so,
michael
and
mitzi,
it
sounds
like
your
mics
are
off.
AC
AC
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
council
members.
My
name
is
michael
short.
I
currently
reside
at
1714
west
bank
street,
but
I
grew
up
at
707
north
19th
street.
AC
I
believe
the
historic
preservation
committee's
denial
of
these
applications
should
be
confirmed.
The
committee
has
specific
expertise
and
experience
in
these
matters.
They
conducted
two
public
hearings
on
these
applications,
including
input
from
dozens
of
community
members
confirming
the
committee's
denial
of
these
applications
is
supported
by
the
record
by
city
code
and
serves
as
an
important
confirmation
of
the
committee's
dictate
to
protect
boise's
historical
districts
as
to
the
nature
of
the
underlying
application.
AC
Appellant's
canal
and
home
removal
applications
rely
on
the
removal
of
trees
mere
weeks
before
the
removal
of
the
trees.
The
appellant's
son
submitted
an
application,
including
a
tree
removal
plan
right
next
door
that
the
appellants
did
not
know
of
the
requirements
of
the
tree.
Removal
application
challenges,
belief
in
either
event.
Appellants
cannot
equitably
be
allowed
to
proceed
with
their
plans
simply
because
they
have
already
and
impermissibly
removed
those
trees.
AC
As
to
the
house,
this
house
was
never
re-surveyed
when
the
north
end
historic
district
was
created,
its
status
is
non-non-contributory,
should
be
re-surveyed
under
appropriate
standards.
For
that
historic
district
boise
code
does
allow
for
resurveying,
even
if
that
is
not
the
usual
policy,
when
the
north
end
district
and
other
historic
districts
were
created,
homes
were
surveyed
or
re-surveyed,
and
this
did
not
trigger
violations
of
vested
rights,
regardless
of
the
status
of
the
house.
The
removal
of
the
house
is
justifiably
related
to
the
canal,
rerouting
such
that
denial
of
one
supports
now
the
other.
AC
Not
only
would
a
new
house
require
the
removal
of
trees,
which
already
happened,
but
any
new
house
would
require
a
rerouting
of
a
historical,
integral
canal,
not
just
of
the
property,
but
the
neighborhood
and
the
city
of
boise.
Canals
in
idaho,
especially
the
treasure
valley,
are
the
story
of
idaho
itself.
AC
Without
farmers,
cooperatives
in
the
1880s
and
the
reclamation
programs
in
the
early
20th
century
boise.
As
we
know
it
would
not
exist.
The
canal
through
this
property
is
diverted
from
the
boise
river
on
warm
springs
avenue.
It
lets
hot
spring
runoff
and
flows
through
significant
parts
of
the
north
end.
This
section
is
unique
when
it
emerges
from
below
ground
onto
717
and
its
formerly
verdant
lush
property.
AC
Its
waters,
worn
from
the
hot
springs,
became
a
haven
for
local
bird
and
wildlife,
while
those
trees
are
gone,
the
canal
and
its
potential
can
still
be
protected
simply
put
150
year.
Old
canal
is
a
distinct
historical
feature
of
the
north
end
and
should
be
protected
both
pursuant
to
historic
preservation
standards
and
for
the
vibrancy
of
the
neighborhood
and
city
as
a
whole.
AC
B
AD
A
Me
sorry
guys,
my
mic
wasn't
on.
I
need
lorenda
to
turn
off
her
mic
naomi.
It
we
haven't
called
you
yet
and
mitzi.
We
heard
you
for
a
second,
so
try
again.
AD
Hi
this
is
mitzi.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
My
name
is
mitzi
c
slack.
I
live
at
707
north
19th
street.
This
project
strikes
to
the
heart
of
what
it
means
to
live
in
a
historic
district.
This
includes
maintaining
cohesive,
neighborhood
identity
and
respect
of
the
unique
natural
settings
of
old,
boise
neighborhoods.
AD
The
tragic
tree
removal
and
proposed
alterations
to
our
beloved
iconic
canal
are
a
devastating
blow
to
the
north
end.
Long-Time
residents
of
this
neighborhood
are
quite
simply
grief.
Stricken
neighbors
drew
and
wrote
messages
of
sadness
on
the
sidewalk
outside
of
this
property
for
months
after
the
illegal
tree
removal,
the
goals
and
guidelines
of
historic
preservation
in
this
district
are
clearly
stated
in
local
multiple
documents,
and
this
project
contravenes
them
in
the
following
ways.
AD
One
the
interior,
secretary's,
published
standards,
recommends
identifying,
retaining
and
preserving
building
and
landscape
features
that
are
important
in
defining
the
overall
historic
character
of
the
setting.
It
is
not
recommended
to
remove
or
substantially
change
those
building
and
landscape
features
in
this
setting,
which
are
important
in
defining
the
historic
character.
The
historic
boise
canal
is
undeniably
important
in
the
culture
and
history
of
boise
and
this
district
and
should
not
be
altered
to
allow
for
new
construction.
AD
Two,
according
to
the
boise
historic
preservation
plan,
when
the
expanded
north
end
was
annexed
in
2004,
one
of
the
driving
forces
was
that
many
smaller
homes
were
being
torn
down
to
build
larger
homes
that
maximize
lot
coverage.
Protection
of
these
modest
homes
in
the
north
end
was
deemed
essential.
AD
Three,
the
published
goals
of
the
northern
historic
district
state
that
the
most
significant
features
of
the
district
are
its
overall
scale
and
simple
character
of
buildings
and
tree-lined
streetscape.
As
a
result,
the
primary
goal
is:
preserving
the
general
modest
character
of
each
block
as
a
whole,
as
viewed
from
the
street.
The
proposed
alterations
to
this
property
will
dramatically
change
the
character
of
this
block.
AD
This
canal
is
integral
to
this
neighborhood,
and
this
project
is
wholly
in
congress
with
the
historical
and
cultural
aspects
of
the
north
end.
And
finally,
five,
the
existing
home
has
significance
in
this
neighborhood.
The
home
is
on
the
chopping
block
only
on
the
basis
of
an
outdated
1978
survey,
which
was
done
one
full
year
prior
to
the
establishment
of
the
historic
preservation
commission.
It
was
surveyed
for
the
incorrect
historic
district
with
distinctly
different
overriding
policies
and
goals,
as
stated
in
the
historic
preservation
guidelines,
other
homes
in
the
area
were
surveyed
between
2001
and
2004..
AD
AA
Okay,
hi
everyone.
Thank
you
so
much
for
meeting
on
this
issue
tonight.
I
do
appreciate
everybody's
time.
My
name
is
naomi
aiken
and
I
live
at
813
north
20th
street
one
block
away
from
the
property
just
to
address
some
concerns
that
were
or
questions
that
were
brought
up
by
the
council
council.
AA
Previously,
it's
important
for
you
all
to
know
that
the
trees
were
cut
before
the
historic
preservation
meeting
allowed
for
neighbors
to
testify
to
whether
or
not
the
home
was
contributing
or
non-contributing
and
before
the
historic
preservation
commission
could
vote
on
the
removal
of
the
trees
and
the
destruction
of
the
home.
Neighbors
were
given
no
opportunity
to
speak
regarding
the
home,
all
neighbors
that
I
have
spoken
with,
and
it
goes
on
for
blocks
we're
opposed
to
this
to
the
destruction
of
the
home
and.
AA
To
the
destruction
of
the
tree,
neighbors
feel
that
the
home
is
contributing,
trees
appear
to
have
been
dropped
intentionally
on
the
home.
The
roof
of
the
home
has
clearly
been
destroyed,
and
it
does
appear
to
neighbors
that
this
was
done
intentionally
in
order
to
contribute
to
determining
that
the
home
was
not
contributing
and
therefore
warranting
destruction.
AA
I
am
43
years
old
and
have
lived
in
the
north
end
for
the
entirety
of
my
life.
My
parents
live
right
across
the
street
from
north
junior
high
on
14th
street
right
next
to
north
junior
high
excuse
me.
AA
We
clearly
have
lived
in
the
north
end,
many
years
prior
to
it
being
determined
a
historic
preservation.
District,
many
of
my
neighbors
I'd,
say:
60
percent
of
my
neighbors
all
have
owned
their
homes
longer
than
I've
been
alive.
We
all
have
come
before
the
historic
preservation
commission
for
one
reason
or
another,
my
dad
wanted
to
put
a
porch
on
his
home.
It
was
denied
and
he
respected
that
denial.
AA
I
had
to
work
a
complete
remodel
around
an
existing
tree
in
my
backyard
that
nobody
would
have
noticed
had
it
been
cut
or
not
old
north
end
residents
do
not
have
the
money
to
hire
lawyers
to
come
before
the
commission
or
the
city
council.
We
are
educators,
we're
bike,
mechanics
were
postal
workers.
AA
We
are
secretaries,
those
are
the
homes
that
were
occupied.
Those
were
the
people
that
occupied
the
homes
I
grew
up
around.
I
think
that
having
new
neighbors
move
in
with
memes
above
and
beyond
those
when
the
historic
preservation
commission
was
put
in
place,
has
changed
things
and
that
we
need
to
go
back
to
basics
and
the
city
council
needs
to
uphold
the
rules
as
they
were
originally
written,
regardless
of
the
means
of
new
neighbors.
New
neighbors
who
are
moving
in,
are
clearly
informed
of
the
regulations.
AA
They're
informed
by
realtors
they're,
informed
by
architects,
they're
informed
at
the
time
that
they
close
and
meet
with
the
title
company.
There
is
no
excuse,
and
there
should
be
no
exception
to
the
rules
being
broken.
What,
regardless
of
how
long
somebody
has
lived
in
the
community,
all
animals
that
used
to
occupy
the
canal
have
been
dismissed.
My
neighbors
across
the
street
have
stated
that
they
have
ducks
that
no
longer
have
nesting
areas
and
they've
had
to
move
up
the
canal
for
shade.
In
addition,
there
has
been
no
approval
from
the
canal
company.
AA
One
of
my
neighbors
is
on
the
board
of
the
canal
and
just
to
be
clear
that
there's
no
approval
from
the
canal
company.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
I
really
appreciate
you
hearing
this
issue
today,
thanks
naomi.
F
Great
thank
you,
madam
mayor
and
city
council.
I
will
be
brief.
I
grew
up.
My
name
is
larinda
williams.
I
now
reside
at
2230
north
27th
street
in
boise's
north
end.
I
grew
up
in
a
house
on
906
north
17th,
which
was
two
blocks
from
the
canal
and
the
house
that
is
now
in
a
state
of
disrepair.
F
As
a
little
girl
I
used
to
save
whatever
scraps.
I
could
keep
out
of
my
lunch
generally
my
my
sandwich
crust
and
go
feed
the
ducks
on
my
way
home
from
school
in
that
canal
50
years
ago,
over
50
years
ago,
I
moved
back
to
the
north
end
two
years
ago,
because
this
was
an
area
that
I
had
a
sense
of
place
and
felt
that
I
belonged.
It
is
green,
the
houses
have
character
and
the
people
generally
look
out
for
each
other.
F
F
I
feel
a
great
sadness
because
I
came
upon
the
cut
trees
during
a
bike.
Ride
last
fall
and
I
was
absolutely
appalled-
and
I
was
a
member
of
the
historic
preservation
committee
of
nina
earlier
this
year
and
am
a
person
of
record
from
the
testimony
on
march
30th.
I
would
encourage
you
to
deny
the
demolition
and
turn
down
the
rerouting
of
the
canal.
F
There
are
many
lovely
homes
and
I'm
sure
that
the
current
owners
could
find
a
beautiful
home
that
they
can
afford
to
purchase.
That
little
cottage
was
very
special,
very
unique,
very
small,
but
it
represented
the
history
of
boise
when
the
north
end
was
orchards
and
small
farms
and
small
farm
houses.
Thank
you.
AE
AE
AE
I
testified
there,
along
with
others,
who
identified
the
action
of
that
demolition,
as
flagrant
and
in
your
face
disregard
for
the
law,
while
the
actions
of
removing
multiple,
mature
trees
from
the
site
at
7,
17
north
19th,
without
a
permit,
and
without
going
through
the
proper
application
process,
were
both
shocking
and
borderline
tragic.
They
were
not
intended
to
be
egregious
in
nature.
The
appellant
didn't
violate
a
permit
that
he
had
stating
that
he
couldn't.
He
violated
a
historic
guideline
that
he
was
unaware
of
stating
that
he
shouldn't.
AE
I
can
attest
to
this
fact
because
back
in
october,
while
I
was
serving
on
the
nina
board,
this
applicant
contacted
me
after
having
committed
this
tragic
act
and
in
the
wake
of
shocked
and
upset
neighbors
rightfully
so
he
requested
a
conference
call
with
both
me
and
then
president
mark
baltus,
which
we
granted
at
that
time.
He
explained
he
was
new
to
the
area.
AE
He
was
renting
a
house
in
the
north
end,
while
he
remodeled
a
recent
purchase
and
he
unknowingly
committed
this
violation
in
addition
to
having
hired
a
professional,
he
searched
the
city's
website
for
tree
removal
info
and
saw
nothing
about
a
required
certificate
in
the
historic
district.
While
he
was
on
the
phone.
We
also
looked
at
the
city's
website
and
could
not
locate
the
information
it
wasn't
contained
in
the
tree
section.
AE
However,
it
was
layered
more
deeply
in
the
historic
section
the
city
has
since
taken
actions
to
make
this
more
clear
by
improving
the
the
website
and
by
sending
a
letter
to
all
residents
in
historic
districts
with
their
december
sewer
bills.
I
know
I
received
one
and
I
just
want
to
speak
to
that,
because
it's
so
easy
to
say
everyone
knew
or
should
have
known,
and
I
really
do
think
that
this
new
community
member
didn't
know,
despite
the
testimony
that
michael
short
said,
that
he
had
filled
out
an
application
on
a
different
property.
AE
All
that
says
is:
are
you
removing
a
tree
of
significance?
It
doesn't
actually
delve
into
the
fact
of
whether
you
can
and
how
you
could
in
meetings
passed
and
before
this
council.
I
have
testified
in
opposition
to
illegal
demolitions
and
have
recently
taken
place
in
the
north
and
east
end
historic
districts.
Each
time
those
applicants
presented.
It
was
my
experience
that
none
of
them
showed
much
for
remorse,
nor
value
for
historic
preservation
and
none
of
whom
suggested
remedies
or
mitigations
to
make
up
for
their
actions.
AE
They
barely
even
acknowledged
the
impact
on
the
communities
in
which
they
lived.
In
fact,
they
acted
entitled.
I
think
this
appellant
has
acted
differently.
He's
not
only
acknowledged
his
mistake.
He's
made
countless
efforts
to
meet
and
talk
with
his
neighbors
and
offer
solutions
that
the
city
has
accepted
to
make
up
for
their
actions
he's
presented.
AF
Evening
can
you
hear
me?
Okay,
yes,
okay,
my
name
is
again
my
name's
melissa.
Arnold,
my
address
is
1700
north
harrison,
I've
been
a
resident
in
the
north
end.
For
two
years
now,
I've
been
watching
the
progress
on
the
property
and
have
been
following
the
applications
and
hearings
for
about
six
months.
Now,
I'm
in
favor
of
the
project-
and
I
encourage
the
council
to
approve
the
appeal
and
let
it
move
forward
first,
regardless
of
whether
it
could
whether
the
property
could
have
or
should
have
been
designated
contributing.
It
wasn't.
AF
The
city
records
and
files
designate
the
property
as
non-contributing
the
applicants
in
the
case
researched
the
property
and
relied
on
the
city,
records
and
city
staff
in
making
a
significant
investment.
It
would
be
fundamentally
unfair
to
treat
this
home
as
contributing
at
this
stage.
After
purchasing
the
property
designing
a
new
home
and
filing
applications,
citizens
should
be
able
to
rely
on
the
city's
historic
information.
AF
If
the
consensus
is,
is
that
this
information
needs
to
be
updated,
it
should
be
done
on
a
district-wide
level
and
not
while
a
specific
home
is
under
review,
except
for
an
initial
stumble
with
the
trees,
which
I
believe
was
unintentional.
These
applicants
have
done
everything
right.
It
appears
they've
cooperated
with
staff
at
every
level.
They've
listened
to
neighbors
concerns
on
day
lighting,
the
canal.
AF
In
my
opinion,
this
relocation
is
an
overall
win
for
neighbors,
as
it
will
increase
the
visibility
and
the
length
of
the
future
they're
doing
what
they
can
to
make
amends
for
the
tree.
Removal.
The
home
is
a
reasonable
size
on
the
lot
and
the
design
of
the
home
will
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood.
In
the
end,
I
believe
the
proposed
project
as
a
whole
will
have
a
positive
effect
on
our
district
and
I'm
looking
forward
to
a
family
living
on
the
property
and
adding
to
the
fabric
of
the
community.
AF
C
As
I
review
the
record
again,
I
was
thinking
I
must
have
missed
something.
I
still
can't
find
any
evidence
of
the
historic
preservation
commission.
Making
findings
of
demolition
doesn't
mean
that
they
didn't.
There
was
a
first
hearing
that
I
don't
believe
is
part
of
our
record,
at
least
that
I
can
find
and
on
fight
on
page
44
of
our
record.
It
specifically
has
conditions
that
don't
allow
the
demolition.
So
I
wonder
if
you
could
point
me
to
whatever
it
is
I'm
missing
on
those
findings?
Thanks.
Y
I
can
read
them
to
you,
they're
at
the
it's
in
the
staff
report
at
the
end
of
the
packet.
So
if
you
go
to
the
end
of
the
packet
where
the
staff.
Y
Y
Now,
on
the
non-contributing
status,
it
was
acknowledged
that
the
property
is
in
fact
non-contributing.
We
have
a
document
that
says
it's
non-contributing,
however,
in
their
in
their
decision
they
questioned
whether
it's
truly
non-contributing
and
asked
the
applicant
to
have
the
property
resurveyed
okay,
but
we
do
have
the
findings
in
here.
The
findings
are
addressed
as
they
normally
are
in
any
staff
report,
and
so
the
commission
did
did
acknowledge
the
non-contributing
status
and
did
acknowledge
the
findings
but
put
into
question
that
the
property
is
truly
non-contributing.
Y
Madam
mayor
council,
president
clegg
wright,
they
did
not.
The
motion
was
just
one
motion
for
the
entire
package.
In
this
case,
it
might
have
been
cleaner
to
do
separate
motions
for
each
aspect
of
the
project,
but
in
this
case
the
app
the
the
commission
did
just
do
a
one
motion
for
the
entire
project
and
just
denied
the
entire
thing.
J
Ted,
this
is
kind
of
a
follow
on
to
elaine's
question.
There
seems
to
be
some
confusion
about
what
a
property
being
surveyed
for
historic,
contributing
status
means
and
who
decides
that
we
had
a
couple
of
folks
who
testified
who
said
the
neighbors
think
that
it
should
be
contributing.
Can
you
give
us
a
little
bit
more
context
around
who
does
those
surveys
how
they
happen
when
they
happen
and
how?
Y
Yes
matter,
mayor,
councilmember
whittings,
so
when
a
historic
district
is
proposed,
one
of
the
first
steps
you
do
is
you
hire
a
consultant
to
survey
the
properties
within
that
boundary,
so
they
visit
each
of
the
properties
and
make
a
determination
whether
that
property
is
contributing
or
not.
They
can't
go
on
the
property,
but
so
they
have
to
make
an
analysis
kind
of
from
the
right
of
way
so
and
part
of
that
analysis.
Y
So
this
is
an
architectural
historian.
Typically,
that
is
hired
by
the
city
to
make
these
individual
analysis
on
on
these
properties
and
basically
they
determine
they
do
they
try
to
determine.
Has
the
house
changed
over
time
since
it
was
constructed?
Has
it
changed
outside
of
the
period
of
significance
which
runs
roughly
to
about
1949?
Y
They're
brought
back
to
us
and
you
know,
public
hearings
are
held
for
the
district,
but
the
survey
is
done
by
by
a
consultant
hired
by
the
city
to
determine
the
contributing
or
non-contributing
status,
and
those
surveys
are
done
typically
a
year
or
so
prior
to
the
historic
district
being
created.
J
Y
Madam
mayor
councilmember
whittings,
so
certainly
there
is
a
way
to
propose
to
come
to
the
city,
to
propose
that,
so
it
has
been
brought
to
our
attention.
You
know
that
some
of
our
historic
districts
have
talked
about
re-surveying
properties,
because
the
surveys
are
becoming
a
bit
dated.
So
this
is
something
that
would
be
proposed
to
the
city,
and
I
think
this,
the
city
council
would
need
to
approve
a
resurvey
project
for
for
a
an
entire
district
for
a
house
on
its
own.
That
would
come
before
the
historic
preservation
commission.
Y
What
would
be
called
a
classification
hearing?
So
if
it's
on
an
individual
property,
it's
just
to
the
historic
preservation
commission,
if
it's
for
an
entire
district,
obviously
that
the
city
council
would
need
to
approve
that.
M
Y
Phone
mayor
council,
member
hallie
burton
we
do
not
have
anything
in
writing
for
approval
to
tile
or
to
relocate
the
canal
in
our
recommendation
and
our
we
do
have
a
condition
of
approval
that
something
in
writing
be
provided
by
the
canal
company
prior
to
any
permits
being
obtained
for
that
property.
Y
But
the
applicant
has
we've
talked
to
the
applicant
and
they
have
been
in
contact.
They
say
with
the
canal
company
and
have
received
verbal
approval
to
tile
or
relocate.
But
again
we
do
have
a
condition
of
approval
that
nothing
can
be
done
on
that
property
until
we
receive
something
in
writing
from
the
boise
canal
company.
M
Y
Madam
mayor
council,
member
holly,
burton
to
reroute
a
canal
in
a
historic
district,
does
require
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
application
which
would
go
before
the
you
know:
historic
preservation,
commission,
on
a
non-contributing
property.
We
did
look
at
reviewing
this
administratively
because
the
property
is
considered
non-contributing,
so
it
does
require
an
application.
It
doesn't.
It
wouldn't
necessarily
come
all
the
way
to
the
city
council
for
that
approval,
but
it
certainly
comes
to
the
city
for
review.
A
M
So
if
we
decided
to
uphold
the
decision
of
the
commission,
would
that
mean
that
they
would
be
denied
the
canal
would
be
denied
the
permit
for
the
canal
and
then
also
denied
the
demolition
of
the
house
and
since
they've
already
done
the
trees
and
there's
a
mitigation
plan?
That's
in
place
that
would
stay
the
same,
but
the
other
two
would
be
not
be
able
to
be
changed.
The
canal
would
have
to
stay
as
is,
and
the
house
wouldn't
be
allowed
to
be
demoed.
Is
that
what
the
decision
we
would
be
making
would
be.
A
AF
Z
At
mayor
council,
jeff
bauer,
again
601
west
bank
I'll
try
to
be
brief.
We
agree
with
miss
henwood.
We
think
education
is
key
on
this
issue
and
I
appreciate
miss
potasso's
comments.
I
do
truly
believe
this.
This
was
a
mistake
by
my
client
for
the
tree
removal
today.
Z
In
preparing
for
this
hearing,
I
did
get
on
the
city's
historic
preservation
website
and
I
can
say
that
in
the
future,
I
don't
think
anyone
will
have
ignorance
as
a
defense
there's
now
videos
on
tree
removal,
as
well
as
just
the
historic
preservation
process
in
general.
So
I
would
commend
city
staff
and
whoever,
on
those
videos,
we're
not
trying
to
maximize
lot
coverage.
We
have
66
percent
open
space
on
our
lot,
which
exceeds
the
standards.
Z
Z
Also
agree
with
mr
klinger:
ignorance
of
the
law
is
no
defense
as
a
lawyer,
it's
kind
of
the
first
thing
they
teach
you,
but
I
would
say
I've
watched
this
council's
decisions
on
these
projects
recently,
and
I
know
that
I
think
all
of
you
have
made
a
distinction
between
willful,
ignorance
and
and
willful
actions.
Knowing
the
rules
versus
mistake
and
again,
I
think
we
have
a
mistake
here.
Z
Mr
venegas
properly
recited
the
facts
with
respect
to
the
canal.
We
do
have
verbal
approval.
Our
engineers,
spf,
have
been
working
with
the
canal
company
to
approve
the
relocation,
and
the
condition
of
approval
in
this
project
does
require
written
approval
before
we
can
make
any
changes.
Z
Mr
halliburton,
great
questions,
it's
actually
a
kind
of
a
rabbit
hole.
I
went
down
if
the
canal
company
was
actually
a
state
entity.
This,
the
historic
preservation
laws,
could
not
regulate
it.
If
the
canal
company
wanted
to
change
it,
they
could
in
this
case
it's
a
cooperative.
So
they
are
governed
by
the
regulations.
Z
But
at
one
other
interesting
point,
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
decision
decision
matrix
provides
that
in-ground
irrigation
facilities
are
not
subject
to
regulation.
We
didn't
bring
that
up
tonight
because
I
don't
think
it's
relevant
because
we
meet
the
standards,
but
that
is
an
argument
that
could
potentially
be
made.
Z
Mr
short
great
comments-
and
I
appreciate
the
history
real
quick-
there
were
two
hearings
on
this.
The
first
one
was
tied.
That's
why
it
went
to
a
second
one.
At
the
second
hearing.
The
decision
was
three
five,
so
this
was
close.
You
don't
owe
the
historic
preservation
commission,
any
deference.
You
owe
them.
What's
called
due
consideration
per
your
code
due
consideration
quote
is
not
deference.
It
simply
means
the
degree
of
attention
properly
paid
to
something,
as
the
circumstances
merit
based
on
all
the
errors
that
we've
articulated.
Here,
I
don't
think
any
deference
is
merited.
Z
Z
Z
AF
I
Madam
mayor,
I'm
going
to
attempt
a
motion
in
this
multi-part
mess.
I
would
move
to
grant
the
appeal
in
drh,
2112
and
2117
by
reversing
with
respect
to
the
demolition
and
by
reversing
and
modifying
with
respect
to
the
trees
by
reversing
and
modifying
with
respect
to
the
canal,
and
then,
if
I
get
a
second,
I
can
explain
what
those
modifications
are.
J
I
So
this
is
a
mess
and
for
people
watching
and
paying
attention.
Our
job
here
is
to
sort
out
what
to
do
with
it,
not
to
make
a
decision
based
on
what
should
have
been
done,
the
first
time
around
that's
punishment
and
retribution,
and
that's
not
what
we
do.
That's
what
our
code
enforcement
does
recently.
We
had
one
of
these
and
I.
E
I
It
was
unclear
how
the
code
enforcement
process
went
afterwards,
but
I
hope
that
the
code
enforcement
of
the
prosecution
team
doesn't
draw
any
inferences
from
our
decision
here
tonight
as
to
what
they
should
do.
That's
their
job,
that's
their
lane
and
I'm
sure
that
they
will
proceed
properly
within
their
line
in
those
ways.
I
So
I
would
reverse
the
denial
of
the
tree
condition:
approval
on
the
ground
that
it
violated
state
law
and
boise
city
code.
Excuse
me,
city
law
and
the
city
code,
because
it
didn't
provide
a
reason,
statement
or
justification
and
that's
one
of
the
grounds
for
reversal.
Additionally,
this
is
a
little
more
frustrating.
I
The
only
practical
thing
achieved
by
the
denial
given
that
the
trees
have
all
been
cut
is
that
we
have
no
control
over
how
to
get
more
trees
there
again.
So
by
granting
the
appeal
and
reversing
with
respect
to
the
trees,
we
can
then
modify
the
order
or
modify
the
condition
to
require
tree
medication
on
behalf
of
of
the
residents
of
that
neighborhood.
I
I
August
17th
city
council
meeting:
it
would
be
good
if
it
happened
promptly
and
if
we
can
get
it
before,
then
I'm
sure
we'd
consider
it.
I
That
I
think
what
the
council
would
like
to
see
would
be
four
to
six
inch,
caliper
trees
and
15
feet
of
height
to
try
to
create
that
screen.
That
was
there,
but
then
it
got
removed
and
I
would
also
encourage
exploring
things
like
the
city
of
trees,
challenge
or
other
city-wide
tree
mitigation
plans
to
offset
what
happened
here
with
respect
to
the
canal.
I
No
telephone
calls
no
oral
agreements,
no
continuing
meaningful
work
there
without
written
confirmation
that
the
canal
company
is
on
board
and
then
with
respect
to
the
demolition.
I
would
just
reverse
that,
because
the
decision
that
the
historical
preservation
commission
made
was
arbitrary
and
capricious
it
was
arbitrary
and
capricious,
because
that
body
acknowledged
that
at
least
three
of
the
conditions
were
met,
and
in
my
review
I
see
that
they
were
met
and
yet
issued
a
denial
anyway.
So
when
you
have
somebody
meeting
the
criteria
and
you
reject
them
anyway,
that's
arbitrary.
I
That
is
how
it
is
presently
classified
and
without
getting
into
whether
the
applicant
has
a
property
right
or
whether
they,
you
know
justifiably,
relied
on
their
status.
It's
certainly
true
that
the
code
says
look
at
how
it
is
classified,
not
how
it
should
be
classified,
there's
no
evidence.
This
is
the
second
condition
that
the
existing
structure
is
eligible
for
designation
as
a
historic
property.
We
haven't
seen
that
evidence.
I
The
commission
didn't
see
that
evidence
and
so
lacking
that
that's
a
reason
to
grant
the
demolition
and
then
third,
there's
no
evidence
that
the
existing
structure
that
that
is,
demolition
will
not
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
district
and
that's
again
because
it's
classified
as
non-contributing
brief
comment
on
the
idea
that
the
applicant
should
have
a
burden
to
reclassify
their
own
property.
I
That's
wrong
is
wrong
because
it
would
functionally
make
it
so
that
all
of
our
classifications,
don't
matter
anytime.
Anybody
wants
to
demolish
a
property.
They
need
to
go,
get
their
properties
reclassified.
That's
that
it
would
undo
the
purpose
of
all
of
our
maps
and
it's
wrong
sort
of
from
a
fairness
perspective,
because
you're
asking
an
applicant
to
argue
against
themselves
at
their
own
expense,
despite
what
our
own
sandboard
maps
say.
I
So
those
are
the
reasons
that
I
would
reverse
reverse
and
modify
and
reverse
and
modify.
C
Vladimir
I'll
I'd
like
to
comment
on
the
motion,
I
as
much
as
I
agree
with
some
of
the
commenters,
that
the
loss
of
the
trees
without
a
an
appropriate
certificate
is
a
tremendous
loss
to
the
city.
I
think
you
all
know
how
much
I
care
about
trees.
C
In
this
case,
I
think
council,
member
begen
is
right
that
denying
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
puts
us
in
a
position
of
not
being
able
to
do
anything
about
that
loss
and
providing
a
certificate
puts
us
in
a
position
to
do
quite
a
lot
about
it
in
terms
of
the
canal.
I
also
agree
that
it's
great
to
have
this
little
piece
of
boise
left.
C
However,
we
need
to
acknowledge
that
through
the
rest
of
the
north
end,
there's
really
only
by
my
recollection,
having
walked
quite
a
lot
of
that
area,
only
three
places
where
it
surfaces,
which
means
it's
been
covered
in
the
rest
of
its
distance
and
to
now
say
that,
because
there's
only
these
few
places
left
that
this
property
owner
has
to
be
treated
differently
and
not
be
allowed
to
change
the
canal
when
all
other
property
owners
were
allowed
to
just
doesn't
meet
the
any
fairness
in
my
mind,
nor
does
it
meet
it
in
the
law,
as
I
understand
the
law
and
finally
on
the
contributing
versus
non-contributing.
C
I
agree
with
council
member
of
agent
that
you
can't
retroactively
change
the
rules.
It
would
be
like
saying:
well
we're
not
going
to
allow
this,
because
it
really
shouldn't
be
zoned
r1.
It
should
be
zoned
something
else
or
we're
not
going
to
allow
this,
because
we're
going
to
change
the
rules
before
we
make
our
decision.
C
J
Well,
madam
mayor,
I
wholeheartedly
agree
with
everything
that's
been
said
so
far,
especially
I
was
going
to
bring
up
council
president
clegg's
comment
at
the
end
about
looking
at
this
more
universally
we've
had
so
many
historic
preservation.
Commission
appeals
that
really
call
a
lot
of
our
actions
into
question.
A
lot
of
the
education
that
realtors
are
provided
and
contractors
in
this
case
are
provided
around
permitting
and
how
you
have
to
treat
things
differently
in
a
historic
preservation
district.
J
So
I
think
that
we
have
a
lot
to
do
there.
We
have
a
lot
of
clarity
to
build
actually
cody,
and
I
were
just
talking
about
this
a
couple
of
days
ago
when
our
when
our
pds
department
is
stacked
up
again,
and
we
have
a
little
bit
more
capacity
to
have
those
conversations.
J
We
very
much
look
forward
to
doing
it
doing
so
so
that
we
can
provide
more
clarity
so
that
we
can
get
back
on
the
same
page
about
what
we
all
envision
for
our
historic
districts
going
forward
as
our
city
grows
and
as
we
have
changing
needs
for
families
and
that
type
of
thing.
So
I'm
happy
to
support
the
motion.
J
I
think
that,
out
of
fairness
to
the
property
owner,
this
is
the
best
course
of
action,
and
also
to
get
the
caliper
inches,
that
we
need
from
trees
and
make
sure
that
this
property
is
again
contributing
to
the
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
I
M
I
absolutely
agree
with
everything
that's
been
said.
I
do
have
a
question
for
council
member
agent
maker
of
the
motion
just
because
throughout
some
of
our
discussion
here
it
sounds
like
maybe
there
maybe
I
might
just
need
a
little
bit
more
clarity.
M
So
when
we're
talking
about
specifically
the
canal,
we're
talking
about
getting
a
proper
certificate
of
appropriateness
and
we're
talking
about
getting
written
confirmation
from
the
canal
company,
I'm
saying
that
we're
doing
this,
and
are
we
also
asking
them
to
do
indeed
reroute
the
canal
and
not
tile
the
canal
or
are
you?
Are
we
leaving
that
open
to
be
to
be
tiled.
I
I
hadn't
thought
about
it,
sir.
I
think
the
applicant
initially
wanted
to
tile
it.
The
applicant
was
open
to
leaving
it
open
at
the
neighbor's
request.
M
I
If
the
second
order
is
okay,
let's
amend
the
modification
of
the
canal
condition
to
say
you
know
reverse
with
respect
to
rerouting
the
canal
condition
all
future
permits
on
written
confirmation
that
the
proper
permission
from
the
canal
company
has
been
received
and
that
whatever
happens
with
the
canal,
you
remain
open
and
not
be
tiled.
H
Madam
mayor,
thank
you
thank
you
to
councilman
beijing
for
teasing
that
apart
enough,
so
that
we
could
move
forward
with
something
I
I
I
guess
I
have
a
question
for
staff
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
something
that's
happening
already
or
as
councilmember
wooding
said.
Perhaps
when
we
increase
our
staff,
they'll
have
more
capacity
to
do
this,
but
I
ran
into
my
brother
here
a
couple
years
ago.
He
works
for
a
home
development
company
and
he
was
here
getting
training
for
erosion
prevention.
H
As
part
of
his
work.
Do
we
offer
that
sort
of
training
like
like
lawyers,
get
continuing
education
opportunities
so
that
they're
up
to
date
on
changes
in
code
and
that
sort
of
thing,
so
that
so
that
an
applicant
could
trust
when
they're
interacting
with
a
vendor?
And
they
ask
do
I
need
a
permit
for
this?
Do
we
need
a
permit
for
this.
Y
Madam
mayor
councilmember
sanchez,
we
don't
currently
have
that
in
place,
but
it
is
something
that
we
have
discussed
a
lot
within
our
department
and
with
the
mayor
and
a
couple
of
council
members
as
well
as
is
implementing
a
certification
program.
So
it
is
something
that
we've
really
investigated
researched
and
looked
at,
but
it
just
hasn't
been
implemented
yet
so
currently
we
do
not
have
that.
A
D
C
I'd
like
to
ask
unanimous
consent
from
my
fellow
council
members
for
myself
and
council
member
beijing
to
work
with
staff
on
two
things
we
have
talked
about
for
some
time,
but
not
taking
final
action
on
the
first
is
the
penalty
section
of
the
historic
preservation
district's
chapter
and
describing
something
that
provides
a
penalty
for
willfully,
acting
without
a
certificate
of
approval,
and
the
second
is
to
finalize
the
discussions.