►
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
D
E
B
E
E
B
C
A
It
was
just
a
month
ago
that
council
member
wooding
stepped
down
Hollywood
and
stepped
down
and
has
moved
to
DC,
and
so
tonight
we
have
an
appointment
to
fill
her
seat
and
I'm,
proposing
that
we
appoint
Meredith's
stead
to
fill
the
seat
that
is
currently
District
Five
and
before
I
move
it
over
to
you
all
I'd
just
like
to
thank
the
applicants
that
did
apply
for
the
position
and
it's
always
wonderful
to
talk
with
boyceans
about
why
they
want
to
serve
what
they
care
about
most
and
why
it
is
that
they're
called
to
be
involved
in
our
community
I'm.
A
In
those
conversations,
though,
I
must
say
that
Meredith
really
Rose
to
the
top
she
I
would
say.
Meredith
follows
the
tradition
that
Boise
has
often
had
of
someone
having
volunteered
on
commissions
and
then
being
interested
in
city
council
and
serving
in
a
different
way
and
with
the
experience
that
Meredith
has
had,
particularly
in
the
last
couple
years
on
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission,
some
as
chair
and
the
issues
that
she's
weighed
and
gave
her.
A
So
much
experience
that
I
believe
this
Council
really
needs
that
this
city
really
needs
and
it's
an
honor
and
to
put
forth
from
her
nomination
tonight
to
fill
Hollywood
and
see.
D
D
Well,
first
of
all,
I
just
want
to
say,
welcome,
you
know,
I
think.
Sometimes
people
don't
realize
this,
but
our
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
are
some
of
the
hardest
workers
in
all
Boise.
They
do
amazing
contributions
for
our
city.
They
do
it
tirelessly.
They
do
it
think
thanklessly
and
up
here
on
city
council
oftentimes.
What
we
find
ourselves
doing
is
is
reading
through
their
transcripts
trying
to
figure
out.
You
know
what,
then,
what
may
help
them
make
the
Motions
that
they
did.
D
I've
spent
the
last
four
years
up
here,
I'm
reading
a
lot
of
the
things
that
that
Meredith,
a
future
Council
physical
council
member,
talked
about
during
those
plan
and
Zoning
commissions,
and
it
was
helpful
for
my
job.
It
helped
move
so
many
important
projects
forward,
some
of
the
most
challenging
projects
that
we've
faced
you
saw
at
first,
and
so
it
feels
like
we've
been
on
the
the
same
team
for
a
while
now,
but
I'm
really
really
excited
to
have
you
up
here,
I
think
you're,
the
perfect
person
for
the
seat.
D
We
need
somebody
who
can
hit
the
ground
running
and
who's
shown
that
they,
you
know,
you
know
tremendously
care
about
this
community
and
this
community's
future.
The
other
thing,
I,
think
is
just
great
is
that
you
know
when
we
were
running
for
city
council.
We
had
no
idea
what
we
were,
what
we
were
in
for
the
last
four
years,
and
now
you
know
exactly
what
you've
got
in
for
you've,
been
on
on
planning
and
Zone.
D
F
E
To
be
council
member,
said
I
hope,
I'm
really
looking
forward
to
voting
to
confirm
new
Meredith
has
been
a
friend
of
mine,
a
confidant,
a
source
of
wisdom,
somebody
that
I
can
call
and
ask
for
advice
for
the
last
four
years
and
then
I
go
read
her
work
on
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
and
I
see
how
diligent
and
thorough
and
careful
she's
been
there.
We
need
that
so
badly
up
here.
E
C
A
So
now,
because
so
come
on
up
so
I'm
actually
gonna
come
on
I'm
gonna
come
down
and
I'm
gonna
swear
you
in.
A
Oh,
don't
come
all
the
way
up
yet
I
think
I'll
swear
you
in
down
here
is
that
is
that
what
I'm
doing
yeah
I'll
swear
you
in
in
down
here
and
then
after
that
and
then
the
next
order
of
business
is
the
special
present
for
be
becoming
a
member
of
the
city
council,
and
that
is
putting
you
on
the
CID
board,
which
is
why
I'll
come
down
to
square
you
and
now
and
ask
you
to
join
us
because
then
the
next
item
of
special
business.
We
actually
need
you
up
here.
So.
C
A
G
Hello
yeah:
this
is
pretty
exciting
moment
for
me.
G
You
know,
I
have
a
it's
in
my
soul
to
serve
and
I
found
a
lot
of
different
ways
to
do
that
over
the
years,
and
this
is
definitely
the
next
step
for
me,
so
I'm
gonna
do
it
to
the
best
of
my
ability
and
as
I
have
been
told,
some
good
advice
was:
do
the
right
thing
and
have
fun
so
I'm
gonna
do
do
that
as
best
I
can.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
for
the
kind
words
and
and
the
welcoming
I
appreciate
it.
D
Man,
mayor
I,
ask
unanimous
consent
that
we
appoint
council
member
said
to
the
Harris
Ranch
Community
infrastructure,
District
board.
A
Without
objection,
all
right,
thank
you
and
just
for
the
public
under
the
person
that
sits
in
this
seat
on
the
city,
council
is
expected
to
be
a
member
of
the
CID
board,
because
Harris
Ranch
Falls
within
the
district,
and
that
was
one
of
the
many
reasons
that
I
selected
council
member
stead
for
the
position.
Because
of
the
experience
she
brought
and
the
need
that
that
this
person
jumped
right
into
the
business
of
the
CID
which
will
be
meeting
shortly.
A
You're
welcome.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
your
service
really
appreciate
it
good
to
see
you
I
waved
you
and
then
I
didn't
even
sorry
about
that.
But
you're
welcome
to
say
a
couple
words
since
you're
here.
H
I
just
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
to
serve
in
a
volunteer
position
for
the
Boise
electrical
code
board
28
years.
Electrical
work
is
my
passion,
my
hobby,
my
career
and
sort
of
a
lot
of
facets
in
this
industry
and
for
the
last
two
code,
Cycles
I've
been
on
the
development
of
the
national
electrical
code,
and
hopefully,
next
week,
I'll
be
appointed
as
chair
of
one
of
those
code
boards
with
the
national
electrical
code,
just
looking
to
bring
some
common
sense
and
practical
application
to
the
folks
of
the
city
of
Boise.
Thank.
D
A
D
Kelly
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
serving
in
these
in
this
volunteer
capacity.
I
think
that
our
boards
and
our
commissions
and
our
volunteers
to
jump
on
there
with
such
high
level
of
expertise,
it's
just
so
important
to
the
city
right
through
your
your
resume
and
I
was
just
astounded.
D
You
know
with
all
the
work
that
you've
done,
obviously
very
qualified
for
the
position
and
just
can
be
a
great
strength
to
the
city.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
D
Yes,
Malloy?
Yes,
Malloy
to
the
historic
preservation
commission
for
a
three-year
term.
A
I
Sorry
I
was
hiding
I
just
like
to
I
appreciate
serving
on
this
commission
and
I.
Think
historic
preservation
is
really
important
to
our
city
and
our
sustainability
goals
and
economic
development
and
our
character
and
identity
of
the
city,
so
I
just
I'm
happy
to
help
with
furthering
that
for
another
three
years.
So
thank
you.
Thank.
J
D
I
C
A
Thank
you
well,
thank
you
both
and
thanks
to
all
the
volunteers
on
our
different
commissions.
It
really
it
helps
the
city
run.
Well,
we've
got
the
consent
agenda.
Now
all
items
with
an
asterisk
are
considered
to
be
routine
by
the
council
and
will
be
enacted
by
one
motion.
There's
no
separate
discussion
on
these
items
unless
a
council,
member
or
citizen
so
requests,
in
which
case
the
item
will
be
removed
from
the
general
order
of
business
and
considered
in
its
normal
sequence,.
E
E
K
B
E
J
B
J
A
A
B
Ord-34-23.
An
ordinance
amending
Boise
city
code,
title
10,
chapter
2,
Section
10-2-2-1
to
delete
unused
definitions
to
add
additional
definitions
for
clarification
in
the
new
deferral
type
and
amending
other
definitions.
Amending
Boise
city
code,
title
10,
chapter
2,
Section
10-2-5-1
by
striking
some
portion
and
adding
additional
language
to
clarify
the
requirements
and
exceptions
for
individual
sewer
connections.
B
Amending
Boise
city
code,
title
10,
chapter
2,
Section
10-2-7-2
to
add
clarifying
language
for
hardship;
discounts,
amending
Boise
city
code,
title
10,
chapter
2,
Section
10-2-8;
to
provide
General
procedures
for
all
deferral;
types
to
add
disqualifications
for
sewer
connection
fee
deferrals
to
renumber
the
subsections
for
deferral;
types
to
amend;
Provisions
for
certain
deferral
types
and
to
add
a
deferral
of
connection
fees
for
affordable
housing
projects.
Approving
a
summary
of
the
ordinance
and
providing
effective
date.
B
A
L
Hi
mayor
members
of
council,
my
name
is
Missy
grotehouse
I
am
the
purchasing
manager
for
the
city
I'm
here
today
to
request
an
award
decision
for
RFQ
2023-041
old
Boise
blocks
water,
wheel,
barrier,
public
art
project
for
the
Department
of
arts
and
history.
We
received
local
applications
in
this
call.
However,
none
of
those
applications
were
ranked
as
the
highest
I'm
here
to
stand
for
any
questions
you
may
have
in
regard
to
the
process,
and
we
have
Stephanie
Johnson
and
Jennifer
Stevens
from
the
Department
of
arts
and
history
to
address
any
Project
Specific
questions.
L
D
Mayor
yeah
I've
got
a
couple
questions,
so
I've
got
the
memo
here
and
kind
of
the
outline.
D
I,
don't
see
a
recommendation
from
staff
for
a
particular
person
and
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
how
the
process
works
when
we
do
have
an
outside
applicant
with
a
high
ranking,
but
also
a
lot
of
local
applicants
who
also
have
high
rankings
as
well.
What's
the
process
there
so.
L
D
L
Nothing
prevents
you.
The
the
artist
panel
and
evaluation
committee
would
probably
request
that
you
award
to
the
highest
ranked
as
they've
gone
through
an
extensive
proposal
process
and
they've
interviewed
and
evaluated
so
they've
taken
a
lot
of
time
of
these
seven
evaluators
time
to
come
up
with
the
chopped
ranked.
D
L
I,
wouldn't
be
able
to
speak
to
necessarily
the
the
division
there
Stephanie.
Would
you
feel
comfortable
describing.
A
Or
Jennifer,
and
perhaps
also
you
could,
if
you're
gonna,
one
of
you
is
going
to
come
up
here
and
answer
that
question.
You
could
also
walk
through
the
panel.
The
committee
that
reviewed
this
for
some
more
information.
Is
it
Stephanie
you
coming
up
thanks
foreign.
M
Council
the
the
committee
that
scored
each
of
the
applications
include
included
council,
member
Latonia,
hinikith
and
members
of
the
community
and
representatives
from
CCDC
and
our
arts
and
history
Commission,
and
the
scoring
was
based
on
the
criteria
that
was
laid
out
in
the
RFQ
and
then
I.
Don't
have
the
exact
ranking
for
how
each
of
the
each
of
the
pieces
of
criteria
that
the
scores
were
to
be
able
to
say
why
there
was
a
or
what
that
means
that
the
top
scorer
versus
the
the
second
one.
M
So
they
were
based
on
artistic
quality
ability
to
follow
through
inclusion
of
historical
themes
of
the
old
Boise
blocks,
neighborhood
the
contribution
to
the
unique
identity
of
C.W
Moore,
Park
vision
for
CW,
Moore
Park
in
the
greater
old
Boise
blocks
area
and
material
and
Method
methodological
feasibility
and
expansion
of
collection.
So,
during
the
scoring
process
there
was
extensive
discussion
around
the
responses
that
the
applicants
were
asked
to
respond
to,
and
each
of
these
scoring
criteria
were
the
rubric
that
we
used
the
highest.
M
N
You
yes,
I
just
wanted
to
comment
that
I
think
the
process
that
was
implemented
was
incredibly
extensive
and
thorough
and
I.
Think
all
of
the
individuals
that
served
on
this
selection
committee
worked
really
hard
and
diligently
in
order
to
determine
and
to
fairly
score
all
of
the
applicants,
and
so,
though
I
know,
we
all
care
a
lot
about
ensuring
that
we
have
local
artists
here.
N
It
does
seem
to
me,
based
on
what
I
was
a
part
of
this
process,
that
this
was
fairly
scored,
it
scored
and
that
we
should
award
to
the
highest
score
here,
and
so
with
that.
I
would
like
to
move
that
rfq2023-041
be
awarded
to,
and
hopefully
I'm
saying
this
correctly,
because
I
only
read
it
and
didn't
get
to
hear
it,
but
so
crates,
so
Kate's,
sculpture,
LLC,
Society,
so
kaitis.
Thank
you,
Society,
sculpture,
LLC.
Second,.
D
D
Yeah,
you
know
just
one
thing:
I
think
that
might
be
helpful.
I
would
love
to
have
a
recommendation
from
the
staff
in
some
of
the
future.
Memos
I
think
we.
This
came
up
on
another
past
project
where
it
was
kind
of
before
us,
and
we
want
to
make
the
right
decision
up
here
and
it's
really
helpful
when
we
have
a
council
member
Who's
involved
in
the
process,
but
I'm
always
welcome
to
recommendations
from
staff.
D
Who've
been
really
involved
to
kind
of
give
that
direction
so
appreciate
the
the
extra
information
and
excited
we
got.
This
awarded.
A
E
O
O
K
A
We've
got
quite
a
few
public
hearings
listed
we'll
take
a
break
every
hour,
or
so
some
of
these
are
shorter
than
the
others,
but
we
are
starting
tonight
with
the
public
hearing,
unproposed
renter
protection,
ordinances,
I
believe,
there's
Nikki,
we'll
have
Nikki
Helen
camp
from
my
office.
The
mayor's
office
housing
advisor,
presents
the
ordinance
and
then
I
from
there.
A
I've
got
some
people
that
signed
up
in
advance,
others
that
sign
up
in
person
I'll
work
through
those
lists
and
then,
if
you're,
not
if
I,
haven't
called
you
but
you're
here
to
testify
just
raise
your
hand
and
I'll
have
you
kind
of
get
up
on
deck
and
then
we'll
we'll
go
through
folks
sharing
their
testimony.
So
with
that
Nikki
welcome.
P
Thanks
very
much
mayor
council
members
pleasure
to
be
here
with
you
tonight,
Nikki
helenkamp,
with
you
for
a
public
hearing
on
the
package
of
tenant
protections
before
you
for
consideration.
P
P
We've
really
worked
to
balance
the
perspectives
of
both
groups
and
to
seek
a
measured
approach
that
would
improve
housing,
stability
and
access
in
our
community
without
creating
undue
burden
on
housing
providers
and
I'm
going
to
do
just
a
brief
overview
for
folks
who
may
not
have
been
following
super
closely
and
then
we
can
move
into
the
public
hearing
and
I'm
so
pleased
that
you
can
see
my
slides
so.
P
Foreign,
these
are
the
four
protections
before
Council,
which
would
prohibit
retaliatory
conduct
required
that
landlords
provide
renters
with
a
notice
of
Rights
and
responsibilities,
prohibit
source
of
income
discrimination
and
ensure
full
security.
Deposit
return.
When
tenants
are
being
displaced
as
a
result
of
demolition
or
substantial
renovation
for
anyone
who
might
be
following
along
with
the
ordinance
drafts.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
we're
talking
about
these
four
separate
protections.
Three
of
them
are
included
within
a
new
chapter
in
a
new
chapter
within
title
five,
so
that's
Title,
5
chapter
17,
the
source
of
income
discrimination.
P
Prohibition
is
included
as
an
amendment
to
the
existing
anti-discrimination
ordinance
in
title
V,
chapter
15..
So
that's
why
you
have
two
ordinances
in
front
of
you,
but
four
protections
being
discussed.
Hopefully,
that
is
clear.
These
are
the
same
protections
that
we've
been
discussing
throughout
this
process,
but
again
we'll
do
a
brief
overview
of
each.
P
So,
first
off
here
we
have
prohibiting
retaliatory
conduct
with
a
goal
that
renters
are
able
to
request,
repairs
and
raise
safety
concerns
without
fear
of
retaliation.
It
establishes
that
renters
are
able
to
do
the
the
actions
that
are
listed
here
without
concern
of
retaliation
from
their
housing
provider
with
potential
retaliatory
actions
enumerated
there
again.
This
is
taken
largely
from
state
code
and
is
meant
to
expand
protections
that
currently
exist
for
residents
of
mobile
home
communities
to
renters
in
general.
P
Foreign,
the
next
is
a
notice
of
landlord
and
tenant
responsibilities,
the
goal
here
being
that
all
parties
know
their
rights
and
responsibilities
when
entering
into
a
landlord-tenant
relationship.
It
requires
that
landlords
provide
new
tenants
with
a
notice
of
Rights
and
responsibilities
that
notices
a
document
created,
maintained
and
made
available
online
by
the
city.
The
landlord
would
provide
a
URL
link
to
the
tenant
or
provide
a
printed
version
upon
request.
This
is
a
concise
document,
including
information
about
the
rights
and
responsibilities
of
both
landlords
and
tenants
under
city
and
state
law.
D
Yes,
before
we
move
on
from
that
one
Nikki,
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
about
the
ability
for
that
to
be
available
in
multiple
language
and,
if
that's
an
ability.
P
Mayor
council
president
Holly
Burton,
thank
you
yes,
absolutely!
So
that's
one
of
the
requests
that
we
heard
broadly
from
community
members
on
this
was
that
this
be
provided
in
multiple
languages
and
one
of
the
advantages
of
it
being
provided
by
the
city.
Is
that
we're
able
to
use
our
translation
services
to
provide
it
in
multiple
languages?
So
that's
something
we're
very
much
planning
if
it's
some,
if
Council
decides
to
move
forward
with
this.
P
Okay,
next
is
prohibiting
source
of
income
discrimination,
the
goal
here
being
that
an
applicant
who
meets
a
landlord's
rental
criteria
can
secure
housing,
regardless
of
their
source
of
income.
This
would
Define
source
of
income
as
any
lawful,
verifiable
source
of
income,
including
child
support,
savings,
public
or
private
subsidy
veterans
benefits.
It
does
not
prohibit
the
use
of
other
screening
criteria
by
a
landlord
you
could.
A
landlord
could
continue
to
screen
based
on
whatever
lawful
criteria
they
desire.
P
It
also
doesn't
prevent
a
landlord
from
evicting
a
tenant
who
does
not
pay,
rent
or
otherwise
violates
the
lease
agreement.
That's
a
question
that
we
got
and
it
doesn't
restrict
a
landlord's
ability
to
set
rents
at
the
level
that
they
want
to
set
them
at.
So
happy
to.
You
know,
answer
questions
as
we
go
along
here,
too:
hey.
N
P
Madame,
mayor
councilmember,
Haney,
Keith,
yes,
so
Section
8
is
an
example
of
a
public
subsidy.
It's
one
of
many.
There
are
also
lots
of
folks
in
our
community
who
use
bash
vouchers,
which
are
vouchers
specific
to
Veterans
or
who
might
use
other
types
of
public
or
private
subsidy.
Section
8
is
the
one
that
I
would
say.
A
lot
of
people
are
familiar
with
because
it's
a
federal
program-
that's
been
around
for
a
long
time,
but
it
would
be
included
as
one
of
the
protected
sources
of
income.
P
Madam
mayor
councilmember,
well,
let's
I'll
do
my
best
and
I
might
look
over
at
Deanna
and
Jillian
from
the
Housing
Authority
here.
To
give
me
a
signal
if
I
start
saying
things
that
are
not
correct,
in
which
case
I
would
invite
you
to
come
up
and
fix
my
errors.
P
So
when
someone
with
a
Section
8
voucher,
which
is
what
they're
commonly
referred
to,
also
known
as
a
housing,
Choice
voucher
is
going
out
on
the
market
they're,
essentially
holding
that
voucher
and
going
shopping
just
like
you
would,
for
you
know,
without
a
voucher
for
a
unit
they're
looking
for
a
place
that
they
can
qualify
for,
that
voucher
provides
additional
income
to
help
them
qualify
to
rent
a
place
right,
and
so,
if
I
have
a
voucher,
that's
adding
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
to
my
income
and
I'm
trying
to
rent
somewhere.
P
P
There's
some
there's
screening
in
place
to
make
sure
that
whatever
my
sources
of
of
income
are
I'm
going
to
be
able
to
afford
the
the
home
that
I'm
trying
to
to
rent
so
I
go
with
my
with
my
voucher
and
I
look
for
somewhere
that
I
can
I
can
pass
the
credit
check
and
I
can
pass.
P
You
know
whatever
the
requirements
are
and
if
I,
with
all
of
my
sources
of
income
combined,
if
I
can
meet
that
income
to
rent
ratio,
then
I
would
apply
and
say,
I
think
that
I
meet
all
your
screening
criteria
and
I'd
like
to
you
know
I'd
like
to
apply.
Does
that
answer
your
question
or
were
there
additional
pieces
there
I
missed
so.
Q
P
Mayor
council,
member,
so
the
payment,
the
voucher
portion
of
the
payment,
comes
through
our
local
Housing
Authority.
Thank
you
for
the
nod
trillion
it
comes
through
our
local
Housing
Authority.
There
is
usually
also
a
tenant
portion,
so
the
payment
is
split
between
the
two,
so
some
of
it's
coming
from
our
local
housing
authority
and
some
of
it's
coming
from
the
tenant
themselves.
P
P
The
this
establishes
a
rebuttable
presumption
that
security
deposits
will
be
returned
in
full
in
these
types
of
situations,
with
the
idea
being
that,
if
you're
going
to
be
demolishing
a
building
at
minimum,
renters
should
be
able
to
rely
on
that
full
return
of
security
deposit
so
that
they
can
make
plans
for
what
they're
going
to
do
and
where
they're
going
to
go
and
know
that
they're
not
then
going
to
be
negotiating
over
whether
there
was
more
than
usual,
wear
and
tear
on
the
carpets
when
the
building
is
going
to
be
demolished,
the
carpets
are
all
going
away
anyway.
P
So
that
is
the
idea
there
in
terms
of
enforcement.
This
is
just
a
reminder
slide.
Since
we
get
lots
of
questions
about
this.
Our
existing
residential
rental
application
fee
ordinance
is
enforced
through
city
code.
Compliance,
which
is
how
this
is
also
contemplated
to
be
enforced
violations,
would
be
reported
to
Code
Compliance.
Who
would
then
investigate,
educate
and
provide
the
opportunity
to
come
into
compliance?
P
That's
always
their
first
move,
and
then,
after
that,
information
has
been
shared
and
someone
has
been
given
the
information
they
need
to
comply
if
they
fail
to
come
into
compliance
that
could
result
in
an
infraction,
with
multiple
flagrant
refusals
to
comply
potentially
resulting
in
a
misdemeanor
and
that's
standard
across
Code
Compliance.
The
way
that
they
operate
in
general,
so
I
did
want
to
highlight
just
a
couple
of
ordinance
updates
the
draft
ordinances
in
front
of
you,
some
of
the
differences
from
the
last
time
you
saw
them.
P
We
had
a
question
from
you
last
time
about
the
applicability
of
the
source
of
income
protections
to
adus
as
written.
My
understanding
from
legal
is
that
the
protections
would
apply
to
adus
that
are
detached
from
the
primary
residence,
so
a
backyard
cottage,
for
example,
but
would
not
apply
to
attached
adus,
for
example,
a
basement
unit,
that's
being
rented
separately
and
in
which
the
homeowner
occupies
the
attached
unit,
so
it
would
apply,
the
protection
would
apply
for
a
detached
Adu.
P
There
was
also
a
question
about
religious
exemption
and
you'll,
see
the
update
there
made
to
differentiate
the
religious
exemptions
for
in
the
existing
ordinance
related
to
gender
identity
and
sexual
orientation
from
the
source
of
income
piece.
Did
you
have
a
question
about
that?.
E
P
At
mademer
council
member,
that
is
a
question
for
our
fine
team
in
legal.
That
I
am
not
even
going
to
within.
E
P
Great
you'll
also
see
that
small
business
income
has
been
added
to
the
illustrative
list
of
types
of
lawful,
verifiable
income,
which
is
also
something
you
brought
up
last
time.
We
also
had
some
conversation
around
gift
income
after
some
discussion.
P
We've
retained
this
language
in
part,
because
the
requirement
that
income
be
verifiable
would
allow
a
landlord
to
require
documentation
of
the
history
and
predictable
nature
of
the
gift
to
ensure
that
it
was
not
temporary,
non-recurring
or
sporadic,
as
in
the
five
thousand
dollar
gift
from
a
stranger
that
you
mentioned
last
time,
council
member
Beijing,
so
allowing
for
some
differentiation
here
between
a
situation
like
that
and
one
in
which,
for
example,
an
adult
with
a
disability
is
receiving
ongoing
financial
support
from
a
parent
or
a
sibling.
P
So
again
that
piece
around
temporary,
very
non-recurring,
sporadic
being
a
differentiation
you'll,
also
see
the
inclusion
of
a
January
first
effective
date,
as
we
discussed
last
time,
which
is
being
proposed
to
provide
time
for
Education
efforts,
and
we
also
have
an
exception
added
here
for
employer
supported
or
sponsored
housing.
The
reason
for
this
exception
is
that
we
do
have
some
employers
who
are
looking
for
ways
to
support
or
sponsor
housing
specifically
for
their
own
Workforce.
E
Er,
were
there
any
discussions
since
last
time
you
were
here-
and
this
is
like
the
third
time
so
I
appreciate
you
keep
coming
about
whether
and
to
what
extent,
particularly
the
income
discrimination
should
apply
to
very
small
landlords.
Maybe
one
unit
two
unit
as
opposed
to
what
I
think
I
called
last
time:
the
corporate
Mega
landlords,
where
they
have
hundreds
or
thousands
did
that.
Did
you
guys
dig
into
that
and
make
any
decisions
about
that
mayor.
P
Council
member,
yes,
we
did
have
some
additional
conversation
about
this.
One
of
the
challenges
here
is
that
it's
actually
very
hard
to
tell
who's
a
small
landlord
and
who's,
not
because,
as
you
have
individual
llc's
for
each
property,
potentially
it
can
appear
that
somebody
has
one
property
when
in
fact
they
have
10
20
50
I
mean
there
really
is
not
an
easy
way
to
just
to
differentiate
who's,
small
and
who's,
not,
and
so
in
the
ordinance.
That's
in
front
of
you,
we
did
not
attempt
to
make
that
differentiation.
For
that
reason,.
D
And
Mary
just
some
some
process
questions
for
tonight,
there's
not
languages
written
that
would
allow
us
to
read
either
of
these
ordinances
this
evening,
so
I
guess
for
Council.
We
would
either
be
making
changes
and
asking
those
to
be
on
a
future
calendar
date
when
those
changes
are
made
or
potentially
you
know
not
moving
anything
forward,
but
there
would
be
no
reading
of
any
ordinances
tonight
because
there's
still
language
work
that
might
need
to
be
done
if
there
are
changes.
Is
that
correct.
P
Mayor
council
member,
that's
my
understanding.
Yes,.
G
Not
a
mayor
so
I
actually
had
a
similar
question
to
a
council
member
of
agent,
but
so
to
dig
into
that
a
little
bit
more
on
the
unit
count.
Could
it
be?
Was
there
consideration
on
unit
count
in
that
building?
So
if
it's
more
than
four
units,
something
like
that,
if
it's
less
than
four
four
units,
you
know
instead
of
looking
at
their
entire
portfolio,
because
I
understand
that
the
voucher
process
can
be
quite
arduous
and
if
somebody
has
one
Adu,
they
run
that
could
be.
You
know
it's
not
their
full-time
job.
P
Mayor
council
member,
that
has
been
something
that
we've
discussed
I,
think
we
ran
into
a
similar
issue
around.
If
you
are
a
landlord
who
owns
you,
know,
50
single-family
residences
you'll
show
up
in
the
same
way
as
somebody
who
owns
one
and
that's
certainly
a
decision
for
Council
in
terms
of
weighing
those
considerations,
but
that's
the
reason
it's
not
in
the
draft.
Thank
you.
Nikki.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
Nikki,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
start
public
hearing,
as
I
mentioned
I'm
going
to
start
with
folks
that
signed
up
in
advance
you're
on
my
Council
agenda
and
then
I'll
go
into
the
list
and
first
we
have
Joe
Evans
and
then
after
Joe
Ali,
Ravi,
I'm.
Sorry,
if
glass
is
on
I
can't
see
faces
I,
don't
Ally's,
not
here.
If
Ali's
online,
please
let
us
know
Kristen
and
Kristen.
Pooley
will
be
after
Ally.
Welcome.
S
Thank
you,
madam
mayor,
my
name
is
Joe
Evans
current
residence
is
transient.
I
was
actually
at
one
of
the
events
here
with
Jimmy
Halliburton
and
our
council
member
Halliburton,
and
discussing
some
of
these
options
and.
S
They've
come
a
long
way,
I
feel
that
a
lot
of
these
options
see
potential.
Ultimately,
one
of
the
problems
we
have,
though,
is
with
regards
to
working
soon
to
be
homeless,
is
a
lot
of
the
services
that
allow
for
counsel
for
triage
for
the
homeless
in
cases
like
Ali
Robbie's
experience
with
Jesse
tree
and
several
of
the
other
organizations
that
help
with
homelessness
and
preventing
it,
as
well
as
restoring
people
to
house
environments,
they
are
not
conveniently
timed.
S
The
Boise
school
self-help
manual,
is
made
available
to
individuals
as
well.
So
they
know
where
to
find
these
services
at
to
help
make
sure
that
the
tenant
rights
are
indeed
enforced.
R
d
agreed
upon
and
the
counseling
is
made
available
for
those
who
are
about
to
be
homeless
or
those
who
already
are.
J
B
Hey
I'm
Ali,
Robbie
I'm,
a
resident
of
Garden
City,
but
I
work
in
Boise
for
Jesse,
true
I'm,
an
executive
director,
a
non-profit,
is
focused
on
preventing
eviction
and
homelessness.
I'm
here
to
speak
in
favor
of
all
of
these
protections.
B
As
many
of
you
probably
already
know,
these
four
things
are
not
a
fixed
all
and
in
fact,
I
I
believe
they're.
Pretty
soft
touch
reasonable
and
practical
interventions
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
but
they
do
help
and
I'll
I
definitely
respect
all
the
landlords
that
I
work
with
in
my
day,
job
and
I'm
sure
some
of
them
may
speak
against
these
protections,
but
I'm
in
favor.
B
For
a
few
reasons,
big
picture,
there
is
currently
a
power
imbalance
between
tenants
and
landlords,
the
cost
of
rent
increased
by
40
over
the
last
two
years,
and
it's
very
difficult
for
many
tenants
to
find
a
unit
they
can
afford
and
in
addition,
there
are
federal
funds
running
out
that
have
been
able
to
keep
a
lot
of
tenants
housed
over
the
the
last
couple
of
years.
So
I
believe
these
protections
will
make
it
so
that
more
attendants
can
stay
housed.
B
Ultimately,
which
is
something
we
really
need,
especially
right
now,
so
just
to
speak
more
specifically
to
a
few
of
those
items.
So,
regarding
providing
information,
attendance
at
sign
in
many
tenants
do
not
know
their
rights
and
responsibilities
or
resources
that
are
available
to
them,
so
encouraging
landlords
to
use.
B
This
will
streamline
the
information
that
tenants
have
and
ensure
that
adequate
steps
are
followed
if
landlords
don't
fulfill
their
responsibilities
and
to
know
what
responsibilities
and
laws
tenants
are
responsible
for,
and
my
team
would
be
happy
to
provide
City
guidance
on
how
that
information
could
best
be
provided
to
especially
vulnerable
tenants
in
particular,
and
what
information
should
be
included
regarding
retaliation
at
Jesse
tree,
our
staff
have
seen
multiple
tenants
with
serious
issues
with
their
units.
Holes
in
the
walls
are
ceiling,
lack
of
AC
or
heat
lack
of
Plumbing.
B
The
list
could
go
on
and
many
of
those
issues
go
unreported
until
my
team
does
art
their
housing
inspections
in
order
to
administer
rental
assistance.
In
addition,
many
attendance
very
few
tenants
in
fact
have
organized
tenant
associations
locally
to
our
knowledge
and
I.
Believe
some
of
these
issues
go
unreported
and
tenants
do
not
organize
due
to
a
pure
retaliation,
so
I
think
this
ordinance
will
will
support
that
and
encourage
tenants
to
speak
up
about
issues
that
they're
dealing
with
regarding
source
of
income.
B
We
have
seen
tenants
with
vouchers
remain
homeless
for
some
time
due
to
their
inability
to
find
a
place,
and
too
many
vouchers
are
underutilized
in
our
community.
There
are
certainly
a
few
additional
Hoops
for
landlords
to
jump
through
and
forms
to
sign
in
order
to
utilize
the
vouchers,
but
my
very
small,
non-profit,
our
team
and
our
experience
with
the
Housing
Authority
has
been
good
to
work
with
and
I
believe
this
would
be
doable
for
any
landlord
with
some
education
and
Outreach.
B
One
clarifying
question
for
us
on
the
source
of
income
would
be
whether
security
deposit
from
an
organization
can
meet
the
definition
here,
and
that
would
be
helpful
if
so
and
yeah
my
time's
up
I
think
so.
Thank.
D
D
You
know,
since
we
brought
these
forward
at
the
city,
but
really
also
very
active
in
the
source
of
income
discussion
for
years
and
years
and
years
and
I
appreciate
that
I
I
do
have
a
question
about
that,
because
you
mentioned
about
some
of
the
resources
that
Jesse
tree
has
available
and
I'll.
Be
asking
this
question
the
Housing
Authority
a
little
bit
later
about
what
resources
are
out
there
for
your
small
landlord,
who
maybe
doesn't
know
how
to
navigate
that
system,
and
is
that
a
barrier
that
you
feel
like
could
be
overcome.
B
Council,
member
Holly
Burton
I'll
definitely
defer
that
question
to
the
Housing
Authority
because
they
could
talk
about
that
with
more
specificity,
but
from
our
experience,
working
with
them
as
a
partner,
they're,
always
responsive
to
questions
willing
to
sit
down
and
meet
with
folks
and
educate
them
about
how
to
work
through
some
of
their
programs,
so
I'm
sure
I'm,
pretty
positive.
They
do
that
for
all
landlords,
and
we
definitely
would
be
willing
to
do
that
in
this
situation,
especially
if
everyone's
going
to
be
expected
to
utilize
our
vultures.
A
R
Your
name
and
address
yes,
my
name
is
Kristen
Pooley
and
I
live
at
1521,
East,
Griffin
I
live
in
Meridian,
but
I
do
work
in
Boise,
so
I
know
that
the
council
is
aware
of
the
housing
crisis.
I've
been
here
before.
I've
listened
to
your
meetings
before
and
you
guys
have
been
trying
to
tackle
the
issue.
So
it
was
really
great
for
me
personally
to
see
this
package.
I
thought
it
was
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
I,
don't
personally
think
it
goes
far
enough,
but
I
do
know
that.
R
Sometimes
you
know
we
can't
do
everything
all
in
one
step.
So
incremental
change
happens
when
you
lose
housing
stability.
You
lose
financial
stability,
mental
health
because
moving
is
stressful.
You
lose
educational
stability
which
affects
kids
and
it
affects
our
teaching
Community
Community
relationship
building.
They
lose
that
the
neighbor
who
might
watch
your
kid
if
you're,
sick
or
run
to
the
store
for
you
or
just
help
you
in
small
ways
you
can't
create
that
without
housing
stability,
so
this
package
I
feel
like
helps
to
stabilize
people
in
a
little
bit.
R
F
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Deanna
Watson
and
I
live
at
2823
West,
gem
Street
in
Boise
and
I
am
here
this
evening
in
my
role
as
the
executive
director
of
the
Boise
city
in
Ada,
County,
Housing,
Authorities
and
first
of
all,
I
want
to
say
thank
you
to
the
mayor
and
Council
and
the
staff
at
City
Hall,
who
have
had
the
courage
to
bring
forward
some
very
reasonable
steps.
I
think
to
help
with
improving
the
imbalance
that
we
see
in
the
tenant
landlord
Arena.
F
Today,
I
would
like
to
focus
most
specifically
on
the
source
of
income
portion,
but
I
am
speaking
in
favor
of
all
of
the
proposals
so
I'm
here
as
the
executive
director
of
the
Boise
city
in
Ada,
County,
Housing
Authorities,
the
people
we
serve
and
the
people
who
need
affordable
housing
that
we
cannot
reach
with
the
funding
that
we
have
as
I
believe
you
know,
we
just
completed
providing
an
emergency
rental
assistance
program
that
brought
a
little
over
70
million
dollars
in
emergency
rental
assistance
to
families
in
the
Ada
County
area.
F
The
tenant
protection
proposal
regarding
source
of
income
will
apply
to
more
than
the
2300
families
we
assist
each
month
through
a
program
that
calculates
the
tenant
portion
of
rent
tied
to
their
income
and
our
contribution
tied
to
the
total
rent
amount
under
a
maximum
ceiling
amount
set
by
Hud
or
the
United
States
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
and
I
must
admit.
I
had
some
reservations
about
this
proposal.
F
In
the
beginning,
because
I
believe
in
private
property
rights
but
I
see
what
we
are
offering
here
is
simply
a
way
to
say
that
people
who
receive
help
with
their
rent
should
not
be
rejected
because
they
receive
help
with
their
rent
and
I,
see
them
running
out
of
time.
So
it's
just
simply
a
clarification
that
people
shouldn't
be
rejected.
F
D
Dna
asked
this
of
a
valley
Robbie
earlier
Jessie
tree
we've
had
a
lot
of
concerns
that
are
brought
up
from
folks
for
smaller
landlords
who
may
not
know
how
to
navigate
the
system.
They
may
not
have
as
many
resources
as
some
of
your
larger
landlords.
I
can't
remember
what
council,
member
vegan
call
them
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
a
little
bit
about
the
assistance
that
is
available
or
education
that's
available
for
smaller
landlords
and
how
how
onerous
that
process
is.
F
Thank
you,
Council
councilman,
Hallie,
Burton,
I
would
say
we
have
materials
that
we
provide
a
landlord
packet
that
provides
an
overview
of
all
of
our
program
aspects
and
the
steps
in
the
process.
We
also
have
a
staff
of
almost
50
employees,
many
of
whom
are
charged
with
helping
people,
get
the
assistance
and
helping
the
landlords.
We
see
this
program
as
really
a
benefit
program,
not
just
for
tenants,
but
for
landlords.
Our
checks
go
to
the
landlords.
F
F
So
we
have
a
lot
of
features
to
the
program
that
we
think
are
selling
points,
even
maybe
more
so
to
the
smaller
landlords,
for
instance,
if
they
rent
to
somebody
on
the
open
market
who
has
a
good
job
and
they
lose
their
job
that
landlord
or
maybe
then
looking
at
losing
months
of
rent
and
then
the
Heartbreak
and
the
heartache
of
having
to
go
through
an
eviction
process.
If
that
same
family
was
on
our
program
and
they
lost
their
job,
we
make
up
the
difference,
so
the
landlord
is
kept
whole
through
that
whole
process.
F
They
don't
have
to
go
through
the
eviction.
They
don't
lose
rent
because
we
make
the
adjustments
for
what
the
as
the
tenant
income
goes
down
are
a
subsidy
goes
up,
so
we
think
when
we
can
talk
to
landlords
across
the
spectrum
that
the
ones
who
are
the
smaller
landlords,
who
are
just
trying
to
rent
a
couple
of
units
that
they
have,
we
can
be
a
great
service
to
them
and
it's
a
positive
aspect.
Thank.
Q
U
F
So
this
program
is
based
on
the
this
set
criteria
that
says
that
no
family
should
pay
more
than
30
to
40
percent
of
their
income
toward
their
rent
and
utilities,
and
so
this
makes
up
the
difference
between
what
people
of
lower
income
can
pay
and
what
the
rents
are
and,
as
Ali
said,
40
percent
increase
in
rents.
Here
in
the
last
couple
of
years,
it's
hurting
our
limited
income.
Families
the
most
and
they
have
the
least
resources,
and
so
the
purpose
of
the
program
is
to
make
hold
the
landlords
and
to
assist
the
families.
U
Thank
you.
Some
of
the
issues
I've
heard
expressed
by
property
owners
are
about
compliance
with
the
program
they
don't.
They
don't
want
to
be
tied
to
inspections
and
there's
also
been
intimations
that
at
least
the
initial
payment
in
some
instances
could
be
delayed.
That
payment
does
not
start
until
the
tenant
actually
moves
in.
Could
you
just
give
me
an
explanation
of
kind
of
what
does
this
inspection
process
look
like
what
types
of
things
are
inspectors?
Looking
for?
How
frequently
does
that
occur,
and
maybe
just
some
context
for
when
do
payments
start?
F
Thank
you,
councilman
Nash
I'll,
try
to
remember
each
one
of
those
questions.
The
the
inspections
are
done
initially
and
at
least
annually,
and
can
also
be
done
as
a
service
if
the
landlord
requests
it
or
the
tenant
requests
it
because
they're
concerned
about
something
within
the
unit
or
access
to
the
unit.
F
We
have
inspectors
who
are
certified
under
a
program.
That's
currently
called
housing
quality
standards,
we're
moving
to
a
new
system
here
in
the
next
few
months,
but
that's
the
one
we're
under
right
now
and
it's
really
basic
safety
features
to
make
sure
the
plumbing
works.
All
right.
The
electricity
works.
Okay,
there's
adequate
egress,
so
safety
issues,
and
just
all
the
things
that
I
think
any
property
owner
would
want
to
know
their
property
Matt.
F
We
have
the
ability,
we
have
a
number
of
staff,
including
myself,
who
are
certified
housing
quality
standards
inspectors.
So
if
somebody
is
thinking
they're
waiting
a
couple
days
and
they
need
something
inspected
and
it's
ready
to
go,
people
like
me
can
go
out
and
do
that
inspection
I
like
to
say
I,
walk
softly
and
carry
a
big
stick,
but
that's
so
I
can
reach
the
alarms
to
test
them.
F
N
Q
A
mayor,
thank
you
so
much
for
this
Insight
Deanna
I'm
really
curious
to
know
if
there's
any
sort
of
Federal
Regulation
in
terms
of
source
of
income,
it
seems
that
that
is
one
of
the
key
concerns
in
this
ordinance
and
I'm
wondering
why
it's
not
federal
law.
Okay,
do
you
have
any
sort
of
insight
into
that.
F
Council,
member
Willits,
that's
a
that's
a
great
question
and
I.
Don't
know
that
I
do
have
an
answer
to
that.
I
think
that
the
federal
government
has
tried
to
balance
the
program
across
big
city
areas
and
smaller
rural
areas,
and
they
have
tried
to
make
it
as
streamlined
as
they
can.
But
while
it
still
protects
the
properties
and
the
people
that
are
served
at
those
properties,
we
work
really
hard
here
in
the
Ada
County
area
to
be
responsive
and
a
client-centered
and
customer
service.
Q
F
That
thank
you,
councilmember
Willits.
There
are
a
number
of
federal
regulations
that
apply
to
the
program
and
how
we
count,
income
and
and
a
lot
of
features
to
the
program,
but
I
believe
in
states
that
don't
have
that
protection
in
place
as
part
of
their
civil
rights
package.
Then
it
becomes
something
that
communities
then
can
consider
to
add
at
the
local
level.
U
If
I
could
just
follow
up
on
one
more
thing,
Diane
Deanna,
when
is
the
payment
made
on
first
month's
rent
and
are
those
payments
applied
more
consistently
over
the
course
of
the
program.
F
Thank
you,
councilmember
Nash,
the
the
first
payment
can
depend
upon
whether
or
not
the
landlord
has
gotten
all
of
their
paperwork
into
us.
There
are
times
that
somebody's,
the
unit's
ready
the
families
moved
in,
but
we're
still
waiting
on.
We
have
a
housing
assistance
payments
contract
that
the
landlord
signs
and
we
sign
and
governs
that
part
of
the
relationship.
So
if
all
of
the
pieces
to
that
package
are
not
pro
not
back
to
us
in
time,
we
cannot
make
payment,
but
I
would
say
the
delay
is
only
a
matter
of
days.
F
We
make
payments
on
the
first
of
the
month
and
the
10th
of
the
month
and
then
other
times
as
needed
if
it's
warranted,
but
basically
once
somebody's
on
the
program,
then
those
rent
checks
come
out
every
month.
On
the
same
day,
we've
been
operating
this
program
for
over
50
years.
Well,
I
haven't,
but
it's
been
an
operation
here.
For
that
amount
of
time,
we've
never
missed
a
month
of
payments
to
any
landlords
because
of
lack
of
funding
or
problems
within
our
system
of
providing
that.
U
F
Thank
you,
council,
member
Nash.
We
have
standards
that
are
tied
to
life
safety
issues
which
would
be
a
24-hour
turn
time
for
repairs
or,
if
there's
an
issue
with
you
know
needing
a
part
showing
us
that
they've
ordered
that
part
and
staying
with
us
and
communicating
with
us
what
the
status
is.
Then,
generally
it's
30
days
if
we
have
failed
a
unit
for
something
that,
in
the
winter
time
that
they
can't
repair
till
the
springtime,
the
landlord
can
ask
for
an
extension
and
we
document
the
file
to
that.
F
There
are
some
judgment,
calls
where
maybe
a
landlord
is
disputing
the
finding,
and
so
we
have.
We
sit
down
and
work
through
why
it's
a
fail
item
and
and
what
the
options
are
for
repair,
but
generally
it's
that
24
hour
for
Life
Safety
30
days
for
other
items
that
just
need
to
be
brought
back
into
compliance.
A
O
Our
chapter
has
over
80
property
manager,
members
of
our
chapter
that
manage
over
5000
rentals
here
in
the
Treasure
Valley
alone
and
I'm
coming
here
today
to
testify,
on
behalf
of
the
proposals
before
you,
I
will
say:
I'm
going
to
keep
it
very
narrow
on
the
source
of
income,
but
you'll
hear
from
many
landlords
that
some
that
have
strong
appearance,
opinions
about
limited
government
and
they
may
reach
out
to
you
about
what
they
believe
that
stance
should
be.
O
There
are
other
members
that
do
believe
that
there's
some
reasonable
expectations
that
can
be
put
onto
landlords
to
to
follow
through
in
regards
to
the
source
of
income,
and
where
are
members
and
you'll
find
that
the
majority
of
private
landlords
take
issue
with
is
going
to
be
revolve
around
the
requirement
of
of
Section
8
vouchers.
O
I
will
stand
before
you
and
I
will
tell
you
and
anyone
I
speak
to
the
more
voluntary
involvement
of
private
landlords
with
Section.
8
is
better
for
our
community.
We
understand
that
in
the
more
property
management
companies
that
can
be
worked
with
on
accepting
that
leads
to
more
individuals
who
are
receiving
those
housing
vouchers
on
getting
into
properties
where
the
issue
is
run
into
where
you
heard
from
the
previous
testimony
is
contracts,
Section,
8
housing
vouchers
come
with
a
contract
and
the
reason
many
landlords
don't
participate
in.
O
That
is
due
to
the
contractual
obligations
and
the
additional
administrative
burdens
that
they
would
have
to
go
into
to
accept
that
section.
8.
The
Proposal,
before
you
circumvents
voluntary
participation
to
become
forceful
demand
at
the
threat
of
criminal
penalties
that
a
private
landlord
enter
into
a
third
party
contract
with
an
organization
and
that's
where
you're
seeing
a
lot
of
this
push
back
on,
where
the
landlord
has
to
sign
their
name
to
a
dotted
line
on
a
contract
where
they
have
no
negotiation
over
to
it.
E
Mayor
what
what
part
of
this
contract
is
objectionable,
because
the
contract
says
I'm
going
to
obey
all
local
laws,
I'm
going
to
have
smoke,
detectors
I'm
not
going
to
leave
any
open
pits
with
sharp
sticks
on
them.
In
my
lawn,
that's
all
pretty
reasonable
fine
right!
They
should
be
doing
that
anyway.
So
what
part
of
these
contracts,
these
Section
8
contracts,
that
they're
required
to
sign,
is
offensive
and
is
coercive
and
is
coercing
people
to
do
things
that
they
don't
want
to
do
with.
O
For
example,
there
are
requirements
on
notices
for
increased
rents
that
are
lengthier
that
you're
going
to
have
participating
in
that
program
versus
what's
set
forth
by
Idaho
tenant
law.
So
there
are
going
to
come
additional
requirements
around
that
that
landlords
would
have
to
abide
by.
One
example
would
be
during
the
height
of
the
covet
pandemic.
There
were
requirements
about
for
those
that
were
taking
Section
8
vouchers
to
not
terminate
tenancies
with
tenants
who
were
accepting
sections.
O
Those
were
not
rules
that
were
implemented
by
local
ordinances
or
the
state,
but
landlords
then
had
to
follow
because
those
were
Federal
requirements.
So
there
are
going
to
be
additional
requirements
that
come
with
those
Section
8
vouchers
that
that
landlords
would
have
to
follow
that
are
not
are
not
controlled
by
by
here
in
the
city
or
by
the
state.
E
And
if
you
can
forgive
me
one
more
so
I,
just
don't
I,
guess:
I,
don't
totally
understand
landlord
local
ordinance
says
landlord
has
to
accept
Section
8,
voucher
landlord
accepts
it
signs
a
contract
that
then
imposes
obligations
on
it.
Landlord
then
doesn't
do
those
obligations
doesn't
provide
the
notice
kicks
out
a
tenant
during
covet.
E
O
Mayor
council
member
is
that,
in
reference
to
the
proposal
before
you,
where
it
would
be,
the
enforcement
is
through
code
enforcement.
No.
E
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
actual
objection
which
is
I,
think
we
don't
want
to
some
of
us.
Some
of
my
members
are
not
you,
I
mean
you're
here
representing
a
bunch
of
people
and
there's
a
different
I,
get
that,
but
some
of
my
members
don't
want
to
be
required
to
take
we'll
call
it
Section,
8,
Section,
8
tenants,
because
taking
such
a
tenant
comes
with
an
obligation
to
sign
a
contract
that
has
terms
in
it
that
I
hate
like
additional
notice,
etc,
etc.
E
And
my
question
is
okay,
but
if
they
violate
those
terms,
if
they
breach
that
contract
that
they
signed
with
someone,
so
what
how
did
they
I
mean?
Who
punishes
them?
Who
sues
them
for
beat
you
contract
or
who
files
criminal
charges
against
it
like?
How
does
that
actually
work?
What's
the
consequence
of
not
living
up
to
that
contract.
O
I
think
the
concern
is
the
consequence
of
what
the
city
is
recommending
and
posing
on
that.
Ultimately,
in
different
individuals
in
different
businesses
are
going
to
have
different
reasons
for
not
wanting
to
participate
and
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
go
through
all
those
with
you.
There
is
a
general
consensus
that
the
city
is
requiring
a
private
business
to
sign
a
contract
with
a
third-party
entity
into
their
private
agreements,
and
that's
the
general
sense
that
that
you're
getting
negative
feedback
from
private
landlords,
yeah.
O
E
I
get
that
you
can't
represent
everybody,
but
I
can't
understand.
Yet
maybe
somebody
else
testifying
can
help
me,
apart
from
the
principle
of
being
required
to
sign
a
document.
You
don't
like
what
is
the
actual
stick,
the
actual
punishment,
the
actual
bad
thing,
that's
going
to
happen.
So
if
anybody
testifying
later
can
enlighten
me
on
that,
that'd
be
great.
O
Q
O
N
Thank
you,
I
would
do
appreciate
your
perspective
and
also
appreciate
you
saying
that
you're
willing
to
come
to
the
table
and
work
with
the
housing
authority
and
thinking
about
how
to
expand.
You
know
private
landlords
willing
to
take
Section
8
vouchers.
I
want
to
go
back,
maybe
a
little
bit
I.
Think
of
where
council
member
Beijing
was
heading,
and
that
is
this
ordinance
does
not
say
you
must
take
a
Section
8
voucher.
N
What
it's
saying
is
that
you
can't
deny
somebody
because
of
the
source
of
income
solely
because
of
their
source
of
income,
there's
other
mechanisms
for
which
to
choose
who
is
going
to
live
in
your
property,
we're
not
saying
that
every
landlord
must
now
take
Section,
8
vouchers
and
sign
the
contract
and
live
up
to
the
standards
associated
with
that.
So
I
guess
I'm
still
just
trying
to
understand.
N
You
know
this
is
really
just
you
can't
deny
somebody
exclusively
because
they
come
with
a
Section
8
voucher,
as
opposed
to
many
of
the
other
things
that
we
know,
landlords
evaluate
and
given
what
the
housing
market
looks
like
today,
in
the
plethora
of
applications
that
landlords
are
receiving
for
their
property.
There
is
still
and
I
want
to
say
this
as
a
way
to
avoid,
but
there
is
still
a
way,
arguably
lawfully
to
not
take
a
Section
8
voucher.
If,
a
landlord
does
not
necessarily
want
to
do
so,
but
not
exclusively
for
that
purpose.
N
So
I
guess
I'm
still
just
trying
to
understand
why
this
feels
so
oppressive
when
we,
this
ordinance,
is
not
mandating
that
you
must
take
a
Section,
8
voucher,
we're
hoping
that
you
will
come
to
the
table
and
see
the
benefits
and
work
with
them,
but
we're
not
requiring
it
that.
O
Mayor
council
member,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
What
I
think
this
is
stemming
from
is
is
our
our
organization
was
involved
directly
in
the
conversations
revolving
around
this
and
the
way
that
it
was
laid
out
to
us
was
and
I
I
believe
I
brought
up
this
specific
question
of
okay,
I
understand
from
from
a
screening
standpoint
and
a
source
of
income
on
approving
an
applicant
we
have
to
they
when
they
provide
all
their
documentation
if
they
have
housing
vouchers
on
there.
O
O
For
for
these
reasons,
they
can
choose
not
to,
and
in
those
discussions
it
was
assumed
to
be
related
to
me
that
that
was
not
the
case
that
there
was
an
expectation
that
landlords
would
be
forced
into
these
contracts
that
there
would
not
be
an
option
to
not
accept
the
voucher,
but
it
would
just
be
an
approval
process
that
they
would
have
to
accept
the
voucher
and
do
all
the
documentation
necessary
around
that.
So,
if
there's
further
clarification
on
that,
that
landlords
aren't
forced
to
do
that,
but
they
can
participate
willingly.
N
V
N
But
you
have
other
mechanisms
in
which
you're
evaluating
and
determining
who
is
going
to
be
the
tenant
that
that
obtains
this
unit.
I
still
just
don't
see
that
as
burgundy
and
or
forcing
you
to
take
a
Section
8
voucher,
we're
just
asking
you
not
to
discriminate
against
attendance
solely
because
they
have
a
Section
8
voucher.
Maybe
I'm
parsing
hairs,
but
that's
Madame.
O
Council
member
in
many
ways,
I
agree
with
that
from
the
standpoint
of
if
someone
from
my
personal
business,
if
someone
wants
to
apply
and
as
a
part
of
that
income
verification
they
have
on
their
the
Section
8
voucher
status,
I
would
imagine
our
business
would
go
to
them
and
everything
else
approves,
including
the
source
of
income.
They
meet
the
income
requirements
and
our
office
goes
to
the
applicant
and
say
you're
approved
for
this
property.
Your
income
meets
it
plus
the
additional
background
information
screen
checks
that
are
done,
you're
approved
for
this
property.
O
Our
office
does
not
currently
work
with
Section
8.
So
you
need
to
take
that
into
consideration
on
if
you're
able
to
move
forward
with
this
property
or
not,
and
if
the
applicant
then
would
agree
and
say,
that's
fine
I
will
go
ahead
and
proceed
or
I
will
all
attempt
to
find
a
property
somewhere.
That
will
be
able
to
accept
this
voucher.
That
would
be.
That
would
be
a
different
situation
in
our
case,
I,
wouldn't
I,
don't
foresee
any
reason
the
landlord
would
voluntarily
say.
O
No,
you
were
denying
you
because
you,
you
have
a
Section
8
voucher,
but
in
the
circumstance
of
where
they're
saying
you're
approved,
but
our
office
currently
doesn't
work
with
that
program
and
we'll
still
proceed
with
you
with
the
property,
because
you
met
our
requirements
but
we're,
but
we're
not
going
to
go
through
the
contract
obligations
of
of
signing
up
to
accept
these
vouchers.
That's
that's!
All
I
would
see
from
a
business
standpoint
from
my
personal
business.
J
W
You,
my
name,
is
Chris
Ellis
I
live
at
11220,
West,
Daniel,
Court,
I'm,
a
small
to
medium
property,
owner
property
manager.
Sorry
just
a
couple
comments
specific
to
the
language
in
1576.
it.
This
is
in
the
notice
of
rights
to
the
tenants
and
as
a
small
property
manager.
W
We
don't
really
have
a
big
online
presence.
Having
it
be
on
included
in
the
lease
is
probably
maybe
not
the
best
way
to
do.
That.
I
would
encourage
that
language
to
be
struck
and
give
more
flexibility
to
the
property
managers.
It
could
be
on
an
app
it
could
be
on
a
website.
W
It
could
be
through
an
email,
I
think
just
I
know
it
says,
may
but
it's
a
little
bit
I
think
narrow
in
interpreting
how
that
notice
from
the
city
is
sent
out
to
the
tenants
and
then
my
other
comment
was
on
the
source
of
income,
but
not
to
section
eight,
my
my
I
guess
my
concern
is
having
emergency
rental
assistance
in
that
list.
W
Emergency
by
its
nature,
is
temporary
and
so
having
to
consider
temp
emergency
rental
assistance
when
it's
at
six
months
at
best
and
if
they've
already
been
using
it
they're
only
going
to
have
maybe
a
month
or
two
less
so
having
to
include
that
as
they're
continuing
income
Source
doesn't
seem
to
make
sense
to
me.
So
those
were
my
two
comments
and
then
I
think
I
have
another
minute,
just
to
kind
of
explain
how
it
works.
From
our
perspective,
I
actually
took
a
Section
8
tenant.
W
Last
month
they
came
filled
out
the
application
she
qualified.
They
contacted
the
Housing
Authority,
they
said
yes,
she
qualifies,
they
didn't
have
the
numbers
of
her
rent
but
said.
Send
me
a
lease.
No
I
think
it
was
all
kind
of
together,
but
you
need
to
schedule.
The
inspection
send
me
a
lease,
so
we
scheduled
the
inspection.
It
was
actually
very
quick.
W
The
person
came
out
in
two
days,
which
was
wonderful
past
the
inspection
signed
the
lease
sent
the
lease
in
then
we
had
to
sign
the
contract,
which
there
was
weekends
and
all
so
that
took
a
few
days
and
in
the
end
it
took
longer
than
a
normal
process,
but
not
hugely.
However,
we
haven't
been
paid,
so
it
we
I
shouldn't
say
that
we've
been
paid.
W
She
moved
in
the
very
end
of
the
month,
so
we've
been
paid
216
dollars
from
a
prorated
rent
for
July,
but
we
have
not
received
August
rent
yet
and
I'm
I
reached
out.
Of
course,
the
case
manager
that
was
working
with
the
tenant
is
no
longer
there
so
now
I'm
to
somebody
else.
So
I
think
you
know.
Is
it
an
onerous
process,
not
hugely?
If
you
had
a
lot
of
them,
it
would
be.
W
W
We
could
never
figure
out
what
she
was
supposed
to
pay
because
it
comes
in
a
delayed
letter
and
then
you're
trying
to
update
the
app
and
she's
trying
to
figure
out
what
to
pay,
and
it
was
it
was
very
confusing
and
and
to
say
that
it
doesn't
take
extra
time
is,
is
not
true
it
just
it
does.
Does
that
mean
it's
a
bad
thing?
No
I
personally
am
frustrated
by
those
that
don't
consider
additional
income.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
thanks
for
sharing
that
experience
as
well.
It's
why
I
let
you
go
over
actually
because
it
was
good
to
hear
a
real
world
experience.
Okay,
Lauren
been
easy
welcome
and
then
we
are
going
to
take
a
break.
X
X
So
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
security
deposit
aspect,
because
I
have
a
real
world
example
of
a
situation
that
happened
with
tenants
who
are
occupying
or
who
occupied
a
house
that
had
a
water
leak
and
there
was
a
significant
water
leak
and
I
could
not
let
them
stay
in
the
house
anymore
because
of
the
smell
because
of
the
extent
of
the
damage
and
because
of
the
repairs
that
were
needed
to
make
the
place
livable
so
I
told
them
you
have
to
leave,
and
you
have
to
leave
like
within
a
week
now.
X
I
did
what
I
could
to
help
them
find
another
place
to
live,
but
I
did
ask
them,
because
the
whole
property
was
not
going
to
be
demolished.
I
did
ask
them
to
do
some
cleaning,
and
so
this
whole
idea
that
if
you
ask
somebody
to
leave
and
they
should
still
get
their
entire
security,
deposit
I
think
doesn't
that
that's
too
broad
of
a
rule
in
in
this
ordinance,
because
there
were
things
that
could
have
been
cleaned
that
should
have
been
cleaned
that
should
have
been
taken.
Care
of.
There
was
damage.
X
There
are
things
that
I
did
deduct
from
their
security,
deposit
and
I
am
out
because
they
didn't
notify
me
of
the
water
leak.
I
have
an
insurance
claim
now,
I
am
out
my
deductible.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
expenses
and
so
to
add
on
that
I
am
now
going
to
have
to
refund
them.
An
entire
security
deposit,
I
think
is
an
additional
burden
to
a
small
business
owner
like
myself
and
I.
X
Think
the
rules
are
don't
account
for
small
business
owners
and
I
know
that
their
staff
said
it's
hard
to
know
because
of
an
LLC
and
who
has
how
many
units
and
that
sort
of
thing,
but
a
one-size-fits-all
approach,
really
is
burdensome
for
somebody
like
me,
I
work,
a
full-time
job.
This
is
a
hobby
so
to
speak,
and
but
it's
a
lot
of
work,
it's
a
lot
of
time
and
expense
and
additional
requirements
and
obligations.
For
somebody
like
me
with
just
a
few
units
and
I'm
just
a
single
business
owner.
X
A
So,
if
Nikki
would
please
address
that
in
the
question
time,
I'd
appreciate
it
right
all
right
with
that
we
will
take
a
break
I'll,
say
five
minutes,
it'll,
probably
be
a
couple
minutes
longer
and
then
I'm
going
to
start
with
Stephanie
day
Nelly
Hurtado,
Cortez
and
Tim
Beary.
So
all
of
you
are
on
Deck.
Thank
you
all
very
much
Stephanie
you
are
up
and
then
Nelly
and
Tim
you'll
come
on
up
on
great
everybody's.
Close
welcome
hello.
B
Thank
you
so
much
Madame,
mayor
and
Council
for
having
me
I'm
Stephanie
day,
I
live
at
9560,
West,
mossywood,
Drive,
83709
and
I,
am
here
I'm
the
executive
director
of
catch
I'm
here
to
say
that
I'm
totally
in
favor
of
all
of
the
proposed
tenant
protections,
and
thank
you
all
for
all
the
work
that
you
have
put
into
creating
them,
and
then
I
wanted
to
speak
to
some
things
that
we
see
happening
on
a
day-to-day
basis
because
I
know.
B
Sometimes
we
think
that
this
is
maybe
like
theoretical
and
doesn't
happen
all
of
the
time,
but
just
to
kind
of
speak
to
like
what
current
experience
is
like
I
did
want
to.
Let
you
know
that
we've
housed
over
600
families
in
the
last
13ish
years
and
our
case
manager
said
that
three-fourths
of
the
time
that
they
call
a
landlord
to
ask
about
a
property,
they
are
told
that
they
will
not
work
with
a
Section
8
voucher
and
for
our
families
when
we're
helping
them
transition
out
of
homelessness.
B
They're
often
I
mean
even
if
you're,
making
17
or
18
an
hour
as
a
single
parent,
like
you
just
can't
make
that
happen
anymore.
So
a
Section
8
voucher
is
the
best
chance
that
our
families
have
it
staying
long-term
I'm,
stable
I
did
want
to.
Let
you
guys
know
that
there
was
a
research
project
conducted
by
Hud
a
few
years
ago,
called
the
family
option
study
and
it
showed
significant.
B
B
I
also
wanted
to
mention
that
we
do
sometimes
have
landlords
that
say
that
they
specifically
will
not
work
with
our
program
and
not
because
of
Prior
experience,
but
they
just
see
that
we
have
a
family
that
doesn't
have
enough
and
can
sustain
themselves,
even
though
we
can
provide
the
rent
for
two
years,
they're
still
not
really
willing
to
give
the
family
a
chance.
So
if
that
could
potentially
be
considered
to
be
part
of
something
that
was
covered,
that
would
be
awesome,
but
I
did
want
to
say
really
quickly.
B
The
outcomes
of
the
family
options
study
said
that
there
were
significant
positive
impacts
observed
in
both
adults
and
children
who
had
vouchers
long
term.
This
was
a
three-year
study
and
they
experienced
significant
reductions
in
family
separation,
substance
use,
exposure
to
intimate
partner,
violence
and
psychological
distress.
B
Children
had
fewer
School
moves,
were
absent,
less
and
had
fewer
behavioral
problems
and
families
were
more
food
secure,
so
just
wanted
to
say
in
support
of
that
I
know:
there's
a
lot
of
complexity,
around
Section,
8
vouchers,
but
they're
extremely
helpful
tools
for
low-income
households
in
our
community
and
would
like
to
let
you
know
that
we
do
experience
a
lot
of
just
like
we're.
Not
even
gonna,
entertain
the
idea
of
a
Section
8
voucher,
so
that
is
a
thing
that
really
happens
on
the
day-to-day,
and
that
is
all
that
I
have.
D
Amen:
Stephanie
thanks
for
being
here
thanks
for
bringing
your
dinner
and
hanging
out
for
a
while
a
chunk
of
time
and
thanks
for
everyone,
you
said
that
three
quarters
of
the
folks
that
you
reach
out
to
say
that
they
don't
take
Section
8
vouchers,
I
hear
that
right.
Yes,.
B
There
we
call
anybody
and
everybody
who
posts
an
open
unit
that
is
within
the
rent
range
that
our
families
can
typically
afford,
which
we're
utilizing
the
fair
market.
Rent
rates,
don't
know
those
off
of
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I
could
look
them
up
for
you.
If
you
wanted
to
know
what
they
are
right
now
so.
D
D
B
Are
a
few
that
are
really
good
that
work
with
us
and
that
will
take
Section
8
vouchers
because
they're
working
with
us,
but
it's
really
hit
or
miss
Beyond.
Those
couple
that
we
know
will
work
with
it.
D
So
I
get
my
final
question
here
is
that
you
know
there's
I
think
been
some
conversation
about.
Like
you
know,
if
you
only
own
one
house
or
you
know
it's
from
what
I'm
hearing
from
you,
you
sound
like
it,
doesn't
necessarily
matter
that
you
would
prefer
that
it
would
go
across
the
board,
not
just
large
landlords,
but
any
landlords
in
general
would
apply
it
for
the
same
rules.
I.
B
Would
totally
yes
for
one
again
to
council
member
Henry
Keith's
like
we're
not
requiring
anybody
to
take
a
Section
8
voucher
so
and
there
are
actually
lots
of
ways
to
find
ways
around
taking
a
Section
8
voucher
that
property
managers
can
employ.
But
it
would
be
really
nice
if
they
would
at
least
let
us
apply
and
give
the
tenant
a
potential
chance
to
get
their
foot
in
the
door
versus
just
saying
like
because
you're
coming
at
us
with
a
Section
8
voucher.
We're
not
even
going
to
consider
you.
Okay,.
Q
B
Well,
I'm
pretty
sure
I'm
not
going
to
expose
any
top
secrets
here,
but
it's
actually
pretty
easy
to
put
your
rent
outside
of
the
eligible
rent
rate
for
a
Section
8
voucher,
because
the
Section
8
vouchers
have
a
specific
amount
that
they
can
go
up
to
and
then
a
voucher.
The
unit
would
not
be
eligible
for
a
voucher
anymore,
which
probably
is
what
a
lot
of
property
managers
will
do
if
this
gets
passed.
But.
A
A
A
Y
You
so
much
my
name
is
Nelly
Hurtado
address
503
South,
Americana,
Boulevard,
Boise,
Idaho
83702
I
would
like
to
say
that
I
support
all
of
the
tenant
protections.
I
am
here
to
provide
you
an
example
with
my
own
story,
with
retaliation
from
a
property
manager
within
Boise.
A
couple
years
ago,
I
was
renting
through
a
I
would
say
in
between
small
and
medium
property
management.
Y
Company
I
had
been
renting
from
them
for
about
three
years
and
when
it
came
time
to
renew
the
lease
I
took
that
as
an
opportunity
to
Identify
some
of
the
things
that
they
need
to
fix,
because
there
were
things
that
were
concerning
within
the
house
like
making
sure
that
the
apartment
could
maintain
the
heat
during
the
winter,
and
during
this
time
I
had
signed
the
lease
right
after
I
had
signed
the
lease
they
had
provided
me
with
an
eviction
with
my
experience
as
a
case
manager.
Y
All
of
that
went
out
of
the
window
just
because
I
was
now
in
crisis
there.
At
that
time.
I
did
not
have
a
lot
of
resources
or
no
of
a
lot
of
individuals.
I
can
reach
out
to
so.
I
was
on
my
own
to
figure
out
how
to
go
about
this
situation.
I
did
not
realize
that
it
was
an
illegal
eviction,
with
some
guidance
from
legal
attorneys.
Y
I
was
able
to
kind
of
advocate
for
myself
to
stay
in
the
property
that
I
was
at
and
I
was
quite
shocked
in
the
end,
after
I
had
filed
a
lawsuit
against
the
property
manager
that
the
owner
of
the
property
manager,
the
spouse,
was
actually
an
attorney.
Y
Y
Y
Z
Good
evening
Madam
mayor
council
members,
my
name
is
Tim
Berry
I
live
at
5334,
North,
Creswell,
Avenue,
83713
and
I'm
here
in
my
capacity
as
president
president
of
the
Idaho,
affordable
housing
management
association,
we're
a
501,
C3
non-profit,
made
up
of
the
majority
of
the
affordable
housing
management
companies
in
Idaho,
hundreds
of
properties,
thousands
of
units
across
the
states.
Z
A
lot
of
this
doesn't
really
apply
to
us
in
the
affordable
housing
world,
because
we
do
this
stuff
already.
We
have
federal
laws
against
retaliation.
Z
You
know
so
we're
I
mean
on
our
side
we're
on
board
with
this,
but
we
do
oppose
the
source
of
income
and
we
post
the
rest
of
it.
For
the
same
reason,
we
oppose
the
application
fee
back
in
2019
and
that's
because
it
puts
an
undue
financial
burden
on
us.
Z
Affordable
housing
and
management
companies
don't
operate
under
the
same
budgets
that
conventional
properties
do,
and
so
we're
actually
built
to
break
even
and
any
extra
paperwork
or
man.
Hours
that
we
have
to
spend
on
doing
other
stuff
will
impact
a
property
pretty
heavily.
As
we
saw
we
spent.
Z
You
know
hundreds
of
hours
and
thousands
of
dollars
coming
into
compliance
with
the
application
fee,
just
find
out
that
there
were
others
out
there
who
weren't,
but
we
were
because
we
wanted
to
be
doing
the
right
thing
and
again
it's
not
that
we
don't
like
the
voucher
at
all.
Low-Income
housing,
tax
credit
properties,
take
the
voucher
and
when
they
come
to
us
and
I
tell
them
that
we
can't
take
it.
I
show
them
where
we
can
and
provide
them
with
resources
on
where
they
can
go
to
use
it.
Z
But
the
source
of
income
doesn't
address
the
real
problem
and
the
real
problem
is:
there's
not
enough
housing.
So
we
can
house
all
the
people
with
vouchers
we're
still
going
to
have
people
with
vouchers
who
have
nowhere
to
go
so.
The
real
answer
is:
we
need
more
housing,
because
if
you
have
rents
that
are
out
of
control
which
yes,
rents
have
been
out
of
control,
but
properties
pay
for
their
stuff
out
of
their
rents.
Rents
went
up
40.
Z
This
is
true,
so
did
wages,
Insurance
taxes,
materials
to
fix
things,
those
all
went
up
too,
and
we
have
to
pay
for
those.
Somehow,
and
that
comes
out
of
rent
in
the
affordable
world,
we
weren't
allowed
to
increase
our
rents,
40
percent.
We
were
second
five
percent,
so
we
weren't
even
able
to
meet
inflation
and
we're
have
when
we're
dealing
with
that.
Now
we
have
a
hard
time
hiring
staff,
because
we
can't
afford
to
pay
people
what
they
want
to
be
paid.
So
it's
not
that
we
don't
want
to
take
them.
Z
It's
that
it
it
just
it's
an
undue
financial
burden
on
conventional
properties
that
you're
asking
them
to
do
something:
you're,
not
asking
actually
you're
telling
them
you're
telling
them
to
do
something.
There's
other
resources
out
there
and
the
real
answer
is
more
housing
with
more
housing.
If
rents
are
too
high,
you
go
find
a
place.
That's
got
lower
rents.
If
you
go
to
a
place,
that's
not
going
to
take
your
voucher,
you'll
find
someone
who
will
so,
instead
of
forcing
landlords
to
take
the
voucher,
let's
find
ways
to
entice
them
to
take
the
voucher.
Z
The
Idaho,
Housing
and
finance
Association
that
does
administrative
voucher
in
the
rest
of
the
state
gives
the
500
incentive
fee
for
people
who
sign
up
in
the
voucher
the
rest
of
the
state
that
that's
a
pretty
good
incentive.
So.
F
D
You,
madam
mayor
I've,
got
a
question
and
then
also
a
question
for
stop
to
answer
later
Mickey
you
would,
you
had
had
a
few
different
places
that
might
be
exempt
from
some
of
the
things
I'm
on
this
slide.
So
when
you
come
back
up,
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
the
places
that
might
already
be
obligated.
You
know
with
some
of
these
things.
D
So
if
we,
if
we're
not
talking
about
source
of
income,
I
believe
that
you
said
you
were
also
against
the
other
three.
Was
that
correct.
Z
We're
already
doing
it
it's
for
the
same
reason,
it's
more
or
less
the
same
reason
as
the
source
of
income,
which
is
we're
treating
Boise
differently
than
we
treat
the
rest
of
our
state.
We
have
housing
here
in
Boise.
We
also
have
housing
in
the
rest.
D
D
You
know
for
the
landlords,
with
these
other
three
and
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
give
me
an
example
of
what
those
costs
might
be,
because
where
my
confusion
is
some
of
these
same
things
seem
like
there
would
actually
be
less
cost
like
if
the
city
is
already
putting
together
that
tenant
Bill
of
Rights
and
providing
it
for
you
you're,
not
writing
it
you're
not
coming
up
with
it,
you're,
potentially
printing
it
off
or
you're.
You
know,
picking
up
copies
from
the
city.
Z
You're
correct,
because
when
you
put
it
that
way,
it's
very
minimal
the
security
deposit,
actually,
where
I
should
clarify
we're
kind
of
on
board.
With
that,
that's
we're.
Okay
with
that
and
the
retaliation
again,
we
don't
do
it
anyway,
so
it's
not
so
I
guess
what
we're
talking
about
is
the
difference
between
what
we
call
hard
cost
and
soft
costs
hard
cost
being
the
physical
things
that
we
have
to
do
printing
off
papers.
Doing
things
like
that
and
soft
costs
is
what
we
call
the
administrative
aspect
of
it.
Z
The
time
it
takes
to
do
the
things
that
we
need
to
do
with
the
example
with
the
application
fee,
it
increased
our
hard
cost
by
forcing
us
to
provide
hard
copies
of
things
that
we
had
and
it
also
increased
the
soft
cost
of
the
time
it
took
for
us
to
do
the
things
that
we
needed
to
do
without
the
ability
to
actually
charge
back.
The
soft
costs
like
we
had
been
previously.
D
Q
Z
Mayor
council
members,
the
the
big
problem
is
that
and
no
one
will
say
it
so
I'll
say
it
is
the
negative
connotation
that
comes
with
vouchers
right.
It's
no
one
wants
to
work
involved
with
people
with
vouchers,
because
vouchers
have
Federal
voucher
holders.
Excuse
me
have
a
negative
reputation
of
being
bad
residents.
Z
We
know
this
isn't
true.
Again
we
take
voucher
residents
for
all
of
our
affordable
properties
and
to
me,
voucher
residents
are
residents,
you've
got
good
ones,
you've
got
bad
ones,
not
all
residents
are
angels,
and
so
sometimes
we
have
to
get
residents
out
and
residents
with
vouchers
have
a
support
system
in
place.
That's
very,
very
hard
trying
to
prevent
that.
We
don't
want
to
evict.
We
were
one
of
the
first
companies
that
put
into
place
repayment
agreements
during
covet
to
prevent
evictions,
but
there
are
times
when
we
have
to
get
residents
out
and
it's
better.
Z
Instead
of
spending
weeks
and
months
and
thousands
of
dollars
getting
a
resident
out,
that's
already
costing
us
thousands
of
dollars
in
Damages.
We
need
to
be
able
to
move
and
get
them
out.
So
we
can
get
a
good
resident
in
for
our
affordable
projects.
That
means
another
voucher
resident,
we're
okay
with
that,
but
we
need
to
get
someone
in
who's
not
going
to
be
damaged
in
the
unit
again
we
need
housing
and
if
owners
are
losing
housing
and
spending
thousands
of
dollars.
U
Madam
mayor
I
have
a
question:
I,
don't
quite
understand.
If
you
are
already
accepting
Section
8
vouchers,
then
what
compliance
or
administrative
burden
could
possibly
be
incurred
on
the
source
of
income
discrimination
piece.
We.
Z
Don't
have
the
same
compliance
team
that
works
underneath
conventional
properties
that
we
have
under
our
affordable
properties.
So
with
our
affordable
properties,
we
have
to
maintain
compliance
with
the
federal
guidelines,
so
we
have
a
whole
compliance
team
that
sits
with
that.
We
don't
have
that
same
team
at
the
conventional
with
the
conventional
folks,
which
are
your
Market
rents.
The
managers
are
out
there
on
their
own,
and
so
you
know
asking
them
to
start
filling
out.
Complying
with
and
going
through.
This
whole
process
would
would
add
soft
costs
to
that.
U
Z
Not
saying
they
shouldn't
be
I'm,
not
saying
that
they
shouldn't
be
given
a
chance,
I'm.
Just
saying
that
you
can't
you
shouldn't
Force
owners
to
have
to
do
it,
you
should
entice
them
to
do
it.
Make
them
Partners,
instead
of
enemies,
bring
them
on
board
instead
of
telling
them
they
have
to.
If
you
tell
them,
they
have
to
they're
going
to
push
back,
but
if
you
give
them
incentives
to
do
it
like
ihfa,
then
they'll
be
more
willing
to
work
with
everybody.
H
A
T
Hello,
thank
you.
My
name
is
Denise
Carusi
and
I
reside
at
1102,
North
19th
in
Boise
I
speak
tonight
representing
the
Boise
Idaho
County
Homeless,
Coalition
metamere
and
City
Council
Members.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
hearing
and
for
your
ongoing
efforts
to
enable
a
stable
and
sustainable
housing
community.
Here
in
Boise,
the
Coalition
endorses
the
proposed
tenant
protection
ordinances
as
they
support
efforts
for
stability
and
housing.
Pardon
me,
which
we
believe,
benefits
tenants,
landlords
and
the
community
at
Large.
T
Chapter
15
requires
non-discrimination
as
to
the
source
of
income
which
will
allow
more
families
with
legitimate
resources
to
secure
stable
housing,
especially
in
this
time
of
low
vacancies.
You
can
imagine
that
anyone
with
a
Section
8
voucher
falls
to
the
bottom
of
the
list.
You've
heard
that
discrimination
that
already
exists
in
the
room
tonight
chapter
17
requires
a
kind
of
transparency
we
would
expect
in
any
financial
transaction.
T
An
outline
of
Rights
and
responsibilities
ensures
not
only
that
the
tenant
understands
what's
expected,
but
it
allows
the
landlord
to
provide
complete
communication
and
also
the
information
necessary
to
manage
the
ongoing
relationship.
It
provides
both
a
resource
to
use
in
the
event
of
future
miscommunication.
T
Non-Retaliation
for
legitimate
complaints
of
habitability
is
foundational
to
rights
and
responsibilities.
Low-Income
tenants
are
the
most
likely
to
experience
unhealthy
living
conditions
and
the
least
able
to
correct
them
for
clarity
of
understanding.
We
encourage
you
to
do
some
sort
of
summary
document
to
cover
whatever
resources
you're
going
to
provide,
but
think
that
the
fact
that
the
city
is
going
to
actually
provide
these
resources
is
excellent.
T
We
also
ask
you
to
continue
to
look
at
the
root
causes
of
housing
instability
in
our
community
and
to
continue
to
address
the
systemic
and
contributing
causes.
Although
we
do
not
ask
that
tenants
be
allowed
to
remain
in
housing
rent-free,
we
do
know
that
it's
better
for
the
stability
of
family
and
neighborhoods,
and
it's
more
economical
and
efficient
for
them
to
remain
in
housing
than
to
displace
them
and
to
attempt
to
find
subsequent
housing.
T
Such
strategies
include
longer
notice
periods
for
rent
increases
that
are
higher
than
significantly
higher
than
the
cost
of
living
inflation
rate.
More
comprehensive
eviction
processes,
displacement,
support
for
tenants
due
to
demolition
or
development,
and
always
the
repeat:
we
need
more
affordable
housing
options
for
families
that
make
less
than
the
median
income,
especially
those
with
low
and
extremely
low
income.
Thank
you
for
your
work
for
your
time
and
consideration
and
for
approving
these
proposals.
I
J
Thank
you.
My
name
is
April
Hoy
I'm,
a
long-term
resident
of
Boise
and
a
long
time,
renter
and
I'm
here
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
pro
or
the
proposed
protections
for
renters,
there's
a
point
that
I
feel
is
being
lost
in
all
this
talk
of
balancing
the
rights
of
landlords
against
those
of
renters
and
whether
the
compliance
or
compliance
with
these
ordinances
might
be
too
burdensome
for
landlords.
J
Housing
is
a
basic
necessity.
A
passive
income
source
is
not
landlords
have
no
right
to
a
hassle-free
effort-free
profit,
while
this
effort
or
well
I
would
like
to
see
an
ordinance
that
goes
further
than
this
one.
This
one
does
I
would
or
I
would
urge
the
city
council
to
pass
this
ordinance
and
to
pursue
all
measures
possible
to
protect
renters
as
they
struggle
to
survive
in
a
housing
ecosystem
that
treats
homes
as
a
way
for
people
for
corporations
and
the
affluent
to
extract
profit
from
those
who
have
less.
AA
Mayor
McLean
and
members
of
the
city
council,
my
name
is
Cameron
Kinser
I
live
at
4344,
North,
Ferris,
Street,
Boise,
Idaho,
83704
and
I'm.
The
director
of
government
Affairs
for
the
Boise
Regional
Realtors
on
behalf
of
our
members
in
Boise
Boise
Regional
Realtors
has
been
following
this
issue
of
possible
tenant
protections
when
it
was
first
introduced
earlier
this
year
at
a
city,
council,
Workshop
I
want
to
first
thank
the
mayor's
housing
advisor
Nikki
helenkamp
for
meeting
with
our
public
policy
committee.
She
gained
feedback
and
insight
from
the
realtor
community
on
this
effort.
AA
Well,
we
acknowledge
the
importance
of
ensuring
fair
and
Equitable
housing
conditions
for
all
residents
of
Boise.
We
believe
is
imperative
to
carefully
consider
the
potential
unintended
consequences
of
such
measures
on
the
rental
market,
housing,
inventory
and
investor
confidence.
We've
heard
this
effort
could
lead
to
a
chilling
effect
on
real
estate
investment
and
exacerbate
the
already
strained
rental
housing
Supply
in
Boise.
Our
concerns
are
grounded
in
the
potential
consequences
that
could
include
the
following
scenarios:
one
investor
hesitancy,
tenant,
Productions,
May,
discourage
potential
Real
Estate
Investors
from
entering
the
Boise
Market.
AA
Investors
are
motivated
by
the
potential
for
for
fair
Returns
on
their
investment
and
a
reasonable
level
of
flexibility
in
managing
their
properties.
If
landlords
deem
the
regulatory
environment
to
be
overly
burdensome,
it
may
lead
to
a
hesitation
and
ultimately
reduce
the
number
of
available
rental
units.
Number
two
reduce
rental
inventory.
Tenant
protections
could
lead
to
landlords
becoming
more
cautious
in
renting
out
their
properties,
which
would,
in
turn,
lead
to
less
rental
units
available
across
the
city.
Number
three
stifling
investment
in
upgrades
and
maintenance.
AA
Rental
owners
often
invest
in
property
improvements
and
maintenance
to
attract
and
retain
tenants,
stricter
tenant
protections,
May
disincentivize
landlords
for
making
these
necessary
Investments,
leading
to
a
decline
in
overall
quality
of
rental
properties.
Boise
Regional
Realtors
recognizes
the
importance
of
tenant
protections
and
supports
measures
that
Foster
harmonious
relationship
between
landlords
and
tenants.
However,
we
urge
the
city
to
strike
a
careful
balance
that
considers
the
potential
consequences
on
investor
confidence,
rental
inventory
and
overall
housing
market
stability.
AA
Our
association
encourages
the
city
to
focus
more
on
sound
leasing
practices,
so
both
the
renter
and
landlord
are
protected.
We
also
recommend
that
the
idea
of
non-discrimination
against
source
of
income
be
its
own
ordinance
and
not
incorporated
into
the
city's
ndo
ordinance
already
on
the
books.
If
these
are
not
separate
ordinances,
it
could
open
the
door
for
State
Legislative
action
to
alter
the
ndo
ordinance.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
of
our
members.
AA
Regulating,
but
just
coming
up
with
some
educational
supplements
that
talk
about
the
best
practices
for
good
leases
and
that's
something
that
we
can
help
with
from
our
members
perspective.
Go.
A
AB
My
name
is
Monica
Fabian,
with
Intermountain
for
Housing
Council
I
live
at
630,
South,
Curtis,
Road,
83705
I
would
say
that
we
just
heard
four
really
good
reasons
that
this
ordinance
will
keep
investor
the
type
of
investors
and
the
type
of
landlords
that
we
don't
want
out
of.
Boise
I,
think
all
of
those
reasons
are
reasons
about
people
who
don't
want
to
do
what
Boise
needs
done.
AB
Additionally,
I
would
say
that
the
Southwest
Apartment
Association
indicated
that
they
would
be
happy
to
work
with
their
members
to
increase
the
use
of
Section
8
vouchers
within
the
community.
They've
been
here
since
2016
and
they've
not
been
either
capable
of
doing
that
or
willing
to
really
commit
to
it.
So
I'm
surprised
that
suddenly
they're
super
happy
to
do
so.
AB
AB
There
are
several
communities
around
Idaho
that
have
that
have
source
of
income
protection
and
throughout
the
country,
and
none
of
them
have
been
successfully
challenged
and
removed.
So
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
have
any
trouble
with
contract,
Freedom,
otherwise
Washington
and
other
states
would
have
already
removed
their
ordinances
with
regard
to
including
source
of
income
protections.
AB
Retaliation
so
retaliation,
I
think
this
is
the
the
strongest
and
most
beneficial
element
to
this
piece,
and
that
is
because
currently,
when
a
tenant
needs
repairs,
if
they
go
through
the
state
process,
it
takes
a
very
long
time
they
have
to
file
make
filings.
If
they
are
under
a
certain
income,
they
can
get
a
waiver
for
the
amount
of
money
it
costs
to
make
the
filing,
but
they
also
probably
are
going
to
need
an
attorney
at
something
that
legal
aid
doesn't
usually
provide.
AB
They
can't
because
they're
busy
with
evictions
and
so
oftentimes
those
things
go
without
being
represented
without
being
handled.
Having
an
infraction
process
that
has
a
police
action
or
I
shouldn't,
say:
police
action
has
a
an
infraction
process
with
it
would
be
more
efficient.
It
would
reduce
the
number
of
cases
that
would
have
to
go
to
the
court
with
regard
to
specific
performance
requirement
and
it
would
it
would
allow
people
to
get
the
repairs
that
they
need
and
not
be
evicted
for
asking
for
them
right
now.
AB
N
N
AB
A
A
AC
Man,
mayor
and
council
members,
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
address
you.
My
name
is
Terry
Graves
and
I'm.
The
senior
housing
specialist
for
the
Idaho
office
for
refugees
or
ior
I
live
at
4001.
Glenn
Street
in
Boise
ior
supports
the
adoption
of
the
tenant
protection
package
because
of
stories
like
the
one
I'm
about
to
tell
you,
ior
staff,
heard
from
attendant
who
had
been
a
resident
in
a
single
family
home
for
six
years.
AC
It
established
a
good
working
relationship
with
the
property
manager
and
his
family
had
a
record
of
paying
their
rent
on
time
and
in
full.
This
family,
kept
the
property
and
yard
cleared
debris
leaves
weeds
the
lawn
mowed
in
the
summer
and
sidewalks
clear
in
the
winter
they
took
great
pride
in
their
home.
AC
The
tenant
made
all
the
small
repairs
in
the
unit
after
receiving
no
response
to
Quest
requests
for
maintenance
to
replace
washers
and
leaky
faucets,
whether
as
Windows
and
Doors,
he
patched
aging
and
falling
plaster
replaced.
The
non-functioning
garbage
disposal
with
his
own
funds
and
paid
to
have
chimney,
swept
every
fall
in
late
summer.
Last
year,
the
air
conditioning
unit
stopped
working.
AC
AC
A
P
P
Problem
and
thanks
very
much
everyone
who
has
been
here
to
testify
so
just
running
through
my
list
of
questions
and
then,
if
there
are
some
I
didn't
catch,
obviously
bringing
them
to
my
attention.
We
had
a
question
around
what
other
states
and
municipalities
have
source
of
income
discrimination
protections.
The
mayor
mentioned.
We
have
16
States
Nationwide,
including
Utah
and
North
Dakota,
and
over
100
municipalities
that
have
passed
this
type
of
protection.
In
terms
of
the
question,
I
I
think
that
you
got
to
the
answer.
P
You
were
looking
for
council
member
Haney,
Heath
related
to
excluding
a
tenant
solely
because
of
their
use
of
a
voucher
as
being
something
that
is
prohibited
under
this
proposed
ordinance,
but
that
landlords
can
use
whatever
other
rental
criteria
they
desire
in
order
to
screen
app
applicants,
and
it
does
not
require
that
if
somebody
meets
all
of
your
application
criteria
and
is
using
a
voucher
that
that
person
be
prioritized
in
any
way,
it
just
states
that
that
can't
be
the
reason
that
you
choose
not
to
run
to
that
particular
person.
P
There
was
a
question
around
notice,
language
being
ex.
Excuse
me
around
the
notice
of
Rights
and
responsibilities
the
option
to
provide
it
that
link
not
in
the
lease
the
way
that
the
ordinance
is
written.
As
the
person
who
testified
mentioned
it
says,
may
be
in
the
lease,
and
so
it
is
open
to
be
provided
in
whatever
way
works
best.
For
that
landlord.
P
There
was
a
question
around
emergency
rental
assistance
as
source
of
income.
I
think
this
is
a
great
example
of
something
we
can
take
a
look
at
there's
a
lot
of
different
kinds
of
emergency
rental
assistance
that
have
different
lengths
in
terms
of
how
much
assistance
they're
providing
and
the
city
is
not
prescribing
by
this
ordinance
how
income
may
be
verified.
So
that's
going
to
be
something
that
landlords
will
need
to
take
a
look
at
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
Around
can
I
verify
the.
P
How
is
this
verifiable
income,
and
so
you
know
that
should
be
done
in
a
manner
that's
consistent
with
the
language
and
intent
of
the
ordinance,
but
in
a
situation
where
someone
has,
for
example,
one
month
of
emergency
rental
assistance,
If
a
landlord.
Looked
at
that
and
said
that
this
I
can't
verify
this
as
income,
because
it's
one
time
one
month,
funds,
then
that
would
be
something
that
would
be.
You
know,
that's
their
verification
process
as
they
look
at
that
there
was
a
question
around
security
deposits,
return
and
I.
P
Think
a
really
good
issue
brought
up.
Thank
you.
I
can't
remember
who
it
was
on
the
potential
for
narrowing
some
language
around
what
we
mean
by
substantial
rehab.
The
example
that
was
given
was
one
where
it
sounded
like
there
was
a
cleaning
that
was
going
to
be
necessary
because
of
a
water
leak,
but
that
that
unit
was
then
going
to
be
inhabitable
again
afterward
and
that
that
cleaning
was
going
to
be.
You
know
sufficient
to
address
the
rehab
there
to
be
part
of
the
rehab
that
was
needed
as
we've
been
contemplating.
P
This
ordinance
I
think
our
conversation
has
really
been
focused
on
situations
where
the
rehab
is
so
substantial
that
nobody
needs
to
clean
anything
because
we're
completely
you
know
we're
gutting
the
building,
we're
doing
really
significant
changes.
So
we
can,
with
your
direction,
work
with
legal
on
narrowing
the
language
there
to
really
make
it
clear
that
what
we're
talking
about
with
substantial
rehab
would
apply
not
to
a
situation
like
that,
one
where
there
would
be
essentially
the
same
unit
being
reoccupied
but
to
something
more
significant.
P
So
that's
something
if
you'd
like
to
direct
us
to
look
at
that
we
can.
There
was
a
question
as
well
about
who
is
obligated
to
do
these
things
already.
The
Tim
Beary
from
Amma
mentioned
that
federally
funded,
affordable
housing
is
already
held
to
these
standards
as
part
of
their
their
compliance
for
how
you
know
being
federally
funded
and
that's
that's.
Who's
already
required
to
comply
happy
to
answer
any
other
questions.
Yeah.
N
I'm
going
to
take
us
back,
I
think
to
a
prior
conversation,
we're
having
in
terms
of
for
the
source
of
income
limiting
to
certain
number
of
properties,
I'm,
just
curious.
If
there
are
conversations
around
aligning
this
with
the
state
of
Idaho's
for
housing
laws
where
it
applies
to
a
provider
with
two
or
more
properties.
P
That
America
council
member,
the
the
question
around
that
we
kept
coming
back
to
is
how
you
would
verify
that
somebody
only
has
has
fewer
than
two
properties
the
owner
occupancy
exemption.
That's
currently
in
it
is
much
easier
to
verify
because
you
can
see.
Does
this
person
live
on
site?
If
they
do,
then
they
get
the
exception.
But
in
order
to
verify
that
you
only
have
two
units,
there
really
isn't
a
good
way
for
us
to
do
that,
and
so
that
hasn't
been
part
of
the
conversation.
As
a
result,
okay.
E
Madam
may
I
guess
yeah
just
to
pick
up
on
that.
This
is
one
that
I'm
still
chewing
on,
but
it
really
seems
like
the
choice
is
given
that
we
can't
verify
with
certainty
that
someone
doesn't
own
multiple
LLCs
as
a
policy
matter,
it's
better
to
be
over
inclusive
than
to
just
do
our
best
and
miss
some
overt
inclusive,
rather
than
recognize.
We
won't
catch
all
of
them,
but
we
will
relieve
the
burden
on
some
of
the
small
people.
E
P
P
That
will
be
minimally
burdensome
and,
as
we
weighed
that
I
think,
as
and
in
conversations
with
the
housing
authority
and
with
other
entities
that
provide
different
sources
of
income
through
vouchers
and
other,
you
know,
forms
of
income
that
we
really
felt
that
looking
at
the
burden
that
would
be
placed
on
those
small
housing
providers
that
it
would
be
something
that
could
potentially
be
managed
and
so
think
and
I.
Think
that
that's
absolutely
something
to
continue
to
chew.
P
On
from
your
decision
making
seat
of
whether
there
is
something
there
that
says,
we
do
want
to
provide
this
additional,
this
additional
exception,
and
we
know
that
it
may
mean
that
people
slip
through
a
loophole
by
just
claiming
that
they
only
have
one
or
two
properties
and
rolling
on
with
their
lives.
P
That's
certainly
something
that
I
think
is
it's
worth
continuing
to
think
about.
Thank.
D
There's
there's
two
different
ordinances
that
are
here,
and
one
of
them
seems
to
have
a
little
bit
more
discussion
than
others,
and
what
what
I
think
might
be
helpful
is
to
make
a
motion
on
the
second
ordinance
now
to
see,
if
there's
any
more
discussion
about
the
second
ordinance
and
then
have
further
discussion
if
needed,
about
amending
the
anti-discrimination
source
of
income
ordinance.
D
And
so
what
I
would
propose
is
that
we
move
forward
with
an
ordinance
adopting
chapter
17,
Title
Five
of
Boise
City,
prohibiting
retaliation
against
tenants
under
defined
circumstances,
requiring
notification
of
tenant
rights
and
are
addressing
retention
of
security
deposits
due
to
planned
demolition
of
substantial
or
substantial
remodeling
of
least
residential
spaces
and
providing
an
effective
date
of
January
1st
with
some
direction
and
the
direction
that
I
would
provide
would
be
to
make
sure
that
we
have
some
clear
language
on
on
what
those
those
remodels
or
that
demolition
or
those
security
deposits
might
entail
and
to
be
as
subjective
there
as
we
can
and
then
further
direction
direction.
D
To
ensure
that
we've
got
multiple
languages
available
for
folks
in
the
community.
E
U
Madam
mayor,
would
it
be
appropriate
for
another
question
staff?
Yes
Nikki,
the
question
I
have
what
language
do
we
have
in
there
about
a
a
link?
The
link?
Do
we
have
a
link,
yet?
Is
that
link
super
long
and
awkward?
Could
that
link
be
a
QR
code?
These
are
I
know
these
are
these?
Are
things
that
I
think
about
a
lot
when
I'm
drafting
things
and
I
I
also
don't
like
long
links
so.
P
Madam
mayor
council,
member
Nash
you're,
not
the
only
one
who
doesn't
like
long
links.
This
was
actually
a
really
helpful
piece
of
feedback
we
received
from
some
of
the
landlord
groups
that
we
engaged
as
well,
who
also
don't
like
long
links
and
links
that
could
go
out
of
are
no
longer
correct
and
now
they've
got
something
that's
wrong
in
their
documents.
So
yes,
that's,
absolutely
something
we're
prioritizing.
P
The
link
doesn't
exist
yet,
and
but
that's
something
that,
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
it's
short
and
concise,
I
love
the
QR
codes
idea
and
I
think
we
can
see
about
working,
something
like
that
in
and
the
purposely
in
the
ordinance.
It
just
speaks
to
a
URL
link
instead
of
providing
one,
because
we
received
this
advice.
Also
from
one
of
the
landlord
groups,
is
that
you
shouldn't
put
specific
url
url
links
in
code,
because
then
you
have
to
amend
your
ordinance
when
it
is
changed.
So
we're
not
going
to
do
that.
Q
I
have
a
question
for
the
maker.
The
motion:
is
it
your
intent
to
then
bring
this
back
a
free
vote
on
this
to
bring
it
back
so
that
we
have
another
look
at
it
or
is
to
send
to
the
first
reading
calendar
yeah.
D
Man,
mayor
councilman,
Our
member
Willits,
that
we
would
have
the
clear
language
incorporating
some
of
the
requests
back
in
front
of
us
in
ordinance
reading
and
that
would
be
moved
to
the
first
reading
calendar.
So
then
it
would
be
read
three
times
in
full
and
then
go
to
the
final
reading
for
approval
and
in
that
process
there
would
be
an
opportunity
to
amend
it.
Q
Thank
you,
madameer
and
Mr
President
I
also
think
it
would
be
important
for
us
to
solicit
feedback
on
that.
Obviously,
once
it's
published
in
on
the
agenda
and
also
Nikki
as
you
as
you
work
with
folks
to
rewrite
it
that
we
we
get
it
as
tight
as
possible
before
we
get
it
up
here.
Yeah.
D
Man,
Mary,
council
member,
well,
it's
I
agree
with
that.
I
do
think
that
staff's
done
a
great
job
at
getting
quite
a
feedback.
Quite
a
bit
of
feedback
at
this
point.
I
do
agree
with
a
madame
mayor
that
coming
back
in
a
work
session
would
also
give
council
members
additional
opportunity
to
give
some
feedback
and
the
people
could
be
reaching
out
to
council
members
during
that
period
of
time.
D
A
Z
Q
P
Madam,
mayor
council,
member,
so
I
think
if
I
understand
correctly
we'd
be
talking
about
numbers
one.
Two
and
four
here:
do
you
want
me
to
go
to
the
other
slides?
Okay,
that's
great!
Thank
you.
A
D
I've
got
a
motion
prepared
for
the
for
the
first
one,
but
if
there
was
additional
Council
questions
specifically
related
to
source
of
income,
now
that
those
other
ones
are
off,
the
book
certainly
welcome
to
wait
for
more
additional
questions
for
staff.
D
Man,
I'm
gonna,
make
a
motion
and
then
and
then
I've
got
some
comments
if
I,
if
I
can
get
a
second,
so
I'm
gonna
move
that
an
ordinance
amending
title,
V,
Public,
Safety,
Boise
city
code
by
amending
language
in
chapter
15,
discrimination
prohibited
based
on
the
basis
of
source
of
income,
be
moved
forward.
E
One
thing
we
didn't
talk
about
very
much
and
I,
just
don't
know
I've
been
thinking
about
it
tonight
is
the
effect
that
this
will
have
on
rents
if
the
sophisticated
landlords,
all
figure
out
how
to
avoid
Section,
8
or
other
compliance
just
by
raising
the
rents
a
little
to
get
out
of
the
zone
and
we've
done
two
bad
things.
We've
raised
a
lot
of
rent
in.
G
E
G
E
It
because
I
do
think
that
they're,
you
know
the
basic
idea
when
you're
entering
an
economic
relationship
with
somebody
you
shouldn't
be
discriminating
based
on
the
source
of
their
money,
is
pretty
basic
and
important,
I
think
to
to
a
healthy
Society.
Q
I'd
like
to
Echo
some
comments:
I
I'm,
I'm,
really
thrilled
about
the
last
decision.
I
think
that
we
agree
that
retaliation
is
wrong,
that
transparency
and
transactions
is
vital.
Those
I'm
glad
that
we
got
those
through
because
I
think
that's
an
important
step
for
everyone
and
it's
values
that
we
can
all
agree
on.
Q
I'm
very
concerned
about
sources
of
income
because
of
the
unintended
consequences
that
it
will
raise,
rents
that
it
was
going
to
decrease
the
rental
supply
and
it's
really
going
to
hurt
the
people
of
this
ordinance
intends
to
to
help
and
protect
so
I'd
like
to
continue
to
talk
about
it.
But
I
I
think
there's
a
lot
more
work
needs
to
be
done
on
this.
D
I've
got
a
comment,
and
then
you
know
I'll,
let
other
folks
move
on
and
see
see
what
what
their
feelings
are.
I,
council,
member
of
agent,
100,
agree
and
I
think
that
I
do
have
some
concerns
of
you
know
how
this
might
affect
some
of
our
our
smaller
landlords.
I.
D
Don't
doubt
that
there
is
potentially
some
extra
work
that
landlords
may
have
to
do
in
order
to
work
with
folks
who
qualify
for
housing
with
a
voucher
provided
by
the
federal
government
that
has
been
awarded
to
them
because
of
certain
circumstances
that
they
live
in.
D
This
issue
is
something
that
I
think
I
became
aware
of
before
I
was
on
city
council,
and
it
came
about
from
somebody.
I
worked
with
a
Boise
bicycle
project
who
was
living
at
the
shelter
desperately
trying
to
find
housing
couldn't
find
housing.
Finally
got
a
voucher
was
so
excited
that
they
received
a
voucher
and
the
idea
that
they
could
actually
move
into
a
place.
That
was
stable,
get
back
on
their
feet
and
they
went
all
around
Boise.
D
They
could
never
find
anything
in
Boise
because
they
got
turned
down
again
and
again
and
again,
because
the
first
thing
that
people
would
tell
them
is
we
don't
accept
vouchers.
D
We
don't
accept
vouchers
over
and
over
again,
this
person
eventually
moved
all
the
way
out
to
Nampa
took
them
a
long
time
to
get
into
housing,
commuted
into
Boise
on
the
bus
every
single
day
rode
their
bike.
You
know
got
to
the
places
they
need
to
get
needed
to
go,
but
that's
because
they
had
to
go
all
the
way
out
to
Nampa
to
actually
find
a
place
that
was
going
to
going
to
work
with
them.
D
There's
source
of
income,
prohibiting
discrimination
against
source
of
income
in
19,
different
states
across
the
country,
major
cities
all
across
the
country,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
find
is
that
it
doesn't
always
have
a
super
huge
increase
in
getting
a
ton
more
people
in
in
housing.
D
But
it
does
make
a
difference
and
it
makes
a
huge
difference
in
the
locations
that
people
can
actually
get
into
getting
into
neighborhoods
that
aren't
low-income
neighborhoods,
but
are
more
mixed
income
neighborhoods,
and
we
know
that
that
makes
a
difference
there
as
well,
and
then
it
makes
a
huge
difference
for
people
of
color
other
folks
that
are
discriminated
against
in
a
variety
of
other
areas
who
then
get
turned
away
because
they
don't
take
vouchers.
And
so
this
is
something
that
we
know
has
a
positive
impact.
There's
demonstrate
a
positive
impact
across
the
country.
D
It
may
not
be
as
big
as
we
want
it
to
be,
but
it
still
makes
a
difference
and
I
think
that
you
know,
while
I
do
have
some
reluctance.
When
it
comes
to
a
small
landlord
to
me,
it
comes
down
to
to
really
a
principle
of
somebody
showing
up
at
a
door
that
has
a
legal
and
verifiable
source
of
income
that
they
qualify
for
and
getting
turned
away
blanket
statement
because
they
don't
take
vouchers,
and
you
know
I
guess
when
I
got
this
position
on
Council.
D
D
That's
already
facing
the
least
amount
of
obstacles
versus
the
group
that's
facing
the
most
and
if
we
can
get
rid
of
a
couple
more
obstacles
and
provide
that
education,
assistance
and
work
with
our
non-profits
I
think
we
can
get
to
a
spot
where
we
work
together
and
work
with
others.
But
that's
where
that's
where
I
have
a.
D
Moving
forward
across
the
board
is
that
it's
to
me
it's
either
right
or
it's
wrong.
You
know
you
can't
discriminate
against
somebody
based
off
of
a
legal,
verifiable
source
of
income,
no
matter
how
many
Apartments
they
own
or
have,
and
that's
kind
of
where
I
met
on
this.
U
Madam
mayor,
this
may
not
come
as
a
surprise
to
some
of
you
that
know
me,
but
the
first
day
of
school,
when
I
was
in
kindergarten,
I
got
called
in
the
principal's
office
and
I
thought
it
was
because
I
did
something
wrong
turns
out.
It
was
my
parents
who
had
done
something
illegal
and
that
was
sent
me
to
the
wrong
School.
C
U
The
way
they
figured
it
out
was
I
knew
my
address,
and
the
teacher
argued
with
me
about
it
and
I
argued
back
and
when
I
was
three,
my
mom
bought
a
home.
She
was
working
at
Burger
King
at
the
time
she
was
a
single
mom
and
it
didn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
why
family
members
would
speak
in
hush
tones
about
the
place
where
we
had
moved,
but
she
had
bought
a
house
near
the
projects
and
we
didn't
have
a
very
good
school.
U
So
she
lied
to
send
me
to
a
different
school
where
she
thought
I
could
get
a
better
education
and
there's
a
lot
of
reasons
why
we
don't
concentrate
Federal
housing
programs
like
we
used
to
there's
a
lot
of
compounding
social
issues
that
result
from
that
which
my
family
felt
growing
up
there
and
I.
Think
because
we
have
this
program,
we
need
to
be
doing
what
we
can
to
make
sure
that
these
vouchers
are
accepted.
I
would
be
supportive
of
a
source
of
income.
U
Anti-Discrimination,
ordinance
and
I
would
have
voted
for
it
tonight.
I
would
like
it
in
a
different
section
of
code.
I,
don't
want
to
invite
legislative
action
to
our
ndo
I'm
open
to
conversations
about
who
it
does
and
doesn't
apply
to,
but
I
think
the
promise
of
a
voucher
is
that
we're
not
going
to
concentrate
you
in
a
place
where
you
don't
have
the
resources
you
need.
You
don't
have
the
school,
you
need.
U
You
don't
have
the
social
network
you
need
and
I
would
like
to
make
good
on
that
promise
to
the
to
our
Section
8
voucher
holders.
U
In
addition,
my
personal
experience
with
vouchers,
my
father
is
a
is
a
HUD
inspector
and
the
types
of
things
that
he
fails.
Homes
for
are
a
water
heater.
That's
going
to
burn
a
kid
or
lead
paint,
That's
peeling
in
a
bedroom
or
doors
that
won't
lock
on
houses.
These
are
just
general
safety
things
that
good
landlords
are
already
doing,
and
then
it's
not
going
to
really
bother
the
folks
that
are
doing
it
right.
U
So
I
think
there
are
things
we
probably
need
to
change
to
the
ordinance
as
proposed
to
get
it
through
Council
and
I'm
open
to
doing
that.
I,
don't
want
my
lack
of
a
second
to
appear
that
I'm,
not
supportive
of
of
what
we're
doing
here,
I'm
100
supportive
of
what
we're
doing
here,
but
I
I
don't
want
this
to
die
and
I
want
to
the
conversation.
U
If
there's
things
we
can
do
to
this
tonight,
to
get
it
to
where
we
want
to
get
it
to
where
we
want
it
to
pass
it
out
of
council
I
want
to
have
that
conversation
and
I
want
to
do
that
tonight.
So
I
just
want
to
share
that.
A
Well,
what
I'm
going
to
propose,
then,
unless
okay
I'm
going
to
propose
then
based
on
that
council
member,
that
if
there
are
issues
that
ought
to
be
addressed,
like
you've
mentioned
section
of
code,
you
said
you
wanted
to
have
a
further
conversation.
But
what
are
the
specifics
I'm
just
going
to
try
to
move
this
along?
A
This
is
council
member
Hallie
Burton's
ordinance,
but
given
that
Nikki
is
going
to
come
back,
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
folks
walk
through
what
you'd
like
to
see
addressed,
questions
you'd
like
to
have
answered,
and
then
this
comes
back
at
a
time
certain
likely
on
the
same
day
as
the
others
for
further
conversation.
D
A
E
All
adus
and
small
landlords,
but
like
that's,
really
what
the
heart
of
what
I'm
focused
on
all
adu's,
meaning,
there's:
no
functional
distinction
between
an
Adu,
that's
attached
to
your
home
and
that's
not
attached
to
your
home.
We
just
passed
a
zoning
code
that
tried
very
very
hard
to
push
citizens
to
build
adus
and
rent
them.
So
I
want
to
relieve
burdens
on
getting
those
rented
so
I.
Would
you
know
if
I
had
the
Magic
Pen
I
would
exempt
adus
from
this
ordinance
and
I
would
exempt.
E
You
know
in
line
with
state
law,
landlords
who
rent
two
or
fewer
properties,
emergency
rental
assistance,
I
gather,
that's
the
technical
term
with
many
meanings,
if
it's
emergency
rental
assistance
for
two
weeks
or
a
month
to
me,
that's
not
steady
income.
If
it's
emergency
rental
assistance
for
five
years,
it
is
so
clarification
on
how.
K
E
Apply
that
and
I
agree
with
the
reservations
about
it's.
The
this
ordinance
is
placement
inside
our
broader
non-discrimination.
Ordinance
I,
don't
know
that
it
would
be
preempted
just
because
it's
there,
but
it
is
odd.
It's
an
odd
sort
of
place
for
it
to
sit.
One
deals
with
discrimination
of
a
very,
very
different
kind
than
this
so
more
conversation
about
why
it's
there
or
why
it
fits
there
along
the
lines
with
council.
Member
Nash's
comments
would
be
appreciated
by
me
as
well.
D
Okay,
it
seems
like
there.
There
is
some
direction
from
council
members.
There
is
some
willingness
to
look
at
this
into
a
variety
of
other
areas.
D
I
do
think
that
we
have
gone
over
the
reason
why
this
landed
in
the
anti-discrimination
ordinance
versus
other
areas
before
in
the
past
and
I
believe
that
one
of
the
reasons
why
maybe
Nikki
you
can
speak
to
this
a
little
bit
more
is
that
we,
as
we
see
this
past
in
other
places
across
the
country.
This
is
actually
the
easiest
place
to
implement
it
and
to
have
the
most
effect
and
I.
D
Think
that
if
you
were
to
look
at
things
like
you
know
in
the
state
of
Idaho,
you
know
the
city
of
Boise,
including
lgbtq,
plus
status,
into
our
housing
policies
and
into
the
anti-discrimination
ordinance.
You
know
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
it
lives
in
the
anti-discrimination
ordinance
and
for
housing
as
well,
and
so
Nikki
I.
Don't
know
if
I
think
that
you
did
present
that
to
us
at
one
point:
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
refresher
or
if
that's
helpful
or
not
sure,.
P
Madame
mayor
council,
member
Holly
Burton.
Yes,
that
is
something
we
that
we
looked
at
and
that
it
is
a
common
place
for
other
states
and
municipalities
to
put
that
the
Utah
fair
housing
act
as
an
example
North
Dakota.
Similarly,
it's
placed
within
their
their
fair
housing
work,
and
so
that
is
I
think
a
big
part
of
the
reason.
Our
legal
team
in
looking
at
the
ordinance
drafting
thought
it
was
the
cleanest
place
to
locate
it.
P
But,
as
I
mentioned
last
time,
they
did
look
at
a
couple
of
other
options,
and
so,
if
they're,
if
there
are
strong
feelings
about
considering
those
other
options,
it's
certainly
something
that
we
could
come
back
to
you
with
some
pros
and
cons
on
for
some
more
consideration.
N
P
Not
America,
council,
member,
Haney,
Keith
I
think
that
what
we've
seen
and
how
it
plays
out
in
other
municipalities
is
that
housing
providers
typically
charge
what
they
can
get
in
rent
what
the
market
affords
right,
and
so
that
is
I
think
typically
what
you
would
see
as
more
of
a
driving
force
than
whether
or
not
there
is
a
source
of
income
discrimination
ordinance
on
the
books
there
that
they're
responding
to
the
market,
like
almost
everything
else,
does
so
I.
Think
the
question
there
around
is
this
something
that
landlords
might
do.
P
Certainly,
you
might
see
some
try
for
sure
and
I
think
that
there
are
also
you
know,
other
ways
that
any
kind
of
any
kind
of
ordinance
any
kind
of
Regulation
that
any
of
us
you
know
move
forward.
There
are
always
going
to
be
ways
that
folks
look
at
going
around
when
I
think
about,
though
the
40
rent
increases
that
we
saw
in
this
area.
It
wasn't
because
somebody
tried
to
make.
You
know
tried
to
regulate
the
landlord
tenant
industry.
P
It
was
because
of
the
market,
and
so
when
we
think
about
what
what
is
the
the
more
powerful
force
in
driving
rents,
it's
those
larger
market
forces
and
there
was
a
comment
made
earlier
about
more
housing
being
needed.
As
the
as
you
know,
the
answer
to
that
and
I
think
that
this
Council
in
moving
forward
the
update
to
the
zoning
code,
acknowledged
that
and
saw
a
role
in
trying
to
increase
housing
Supply
in
this
area.
P
But
there's
no
such
thing
as
a
golden
or
silver
bullet
a
golden
bullet,
either
I
guess,
but
a
silver
bullet
in
in
the
housing
World
more
housing
Supply
on
its
own
is
not
something
that
we've
seen
as
being
something
that
addresses
housing
stability
in
the
same
way
that
looking
at
anti-discrimination
ordinances
like
this
have
been
able
to
to
council
member
Hallie
Burton's
Point
about
people
having
choice
in
what
areas
they
live
in.
N
Thank
you.
That's
helpful
and
I
also
just
wanted
to
say
that
you
know
my
second.
My
lack
of
a
second
is
not
also
indicating
I'm.
Very
supportive
of
this
I
think
I'm
in
line
with
council
member
bajan's,
just
issues
of
things
that
I'd
like
to
just
continue
to
talk
through
and
just
make
sure
that
we
get
this
right
before
we
approve
it.
D
D
Motion
and
that's
not
to
move
this
to
a
first
ordinance
reading,
but
it's
to
direct
staff
to
take
some
of
the
suggestions
from
Council,
including
looking
at
small
landlords
adus,
whether
it
belongs
in
an
anti-discrimination,
ordinance
or
somewhere
else,
and
to
bring
it
back
to
council
for
further
discussion.
E
B
E
B
N
A
All
right,
thank
you
all
we're
going
to
take
a
quick
break
and
then
we'll
be
up
with
item
number
two
on
the
agenda.
There's
a
lot
of
them.
A
A
AD
Evening,
Madame,
mayor
and
council
members,
the
item
before
you
is
a
request
for
the
vacation
of
a
plot
note
that
restricts
construction
from
occurring
on
the
Eastern
side
of
a
drainage,
sewer
and
utility
easement
on
Lot
10
and
a
portion
of
lot
nine
block,
one
of
the
mcgall
subdivision.
The
property
is
located
at
2994
North,
Lancaster
Place
on
1.02
Acres
within
an
r1b
Zone.
AD
The
subject
plot
note
was
established
through
the
recording
of
the
mcgall
subdivision
in
2017..
The
applicant
requests
to
vacate
the
platinum
in
order
to
build
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
on
the
east
side
of
the
easement.
The
proposed
location
of
the
Adu
complies
with
the
dimensional
requirements
of
the
r1b
zone.
AD
We
had
Andy
Adams
with
the
who's.
A
representative
from
the
public
works
engineering,
Hillside
division
virtually
present,
but
I
don't
know
if
he
is
still
on
and
he
would
be
willing
to
follow
up
with
any
further
discussion
about
the
engineering
side
of
things.
But
public
comment
was
received,
of
which
the
concerns
are
summarized
on
your
screen.
I
will
note
that
all
items,
all
items
as
part
of
this
proposal
were
notified
as
required
by
code
and
in
conclusion,
the
planning
team
recommends.
Approval
of
the
Platinum
vacation
and
I
will
stand
for
questions.
K
So
this
is
this
does
involve
the
vacation
of
a
plot
note
that
is
placed
on
the
plot
of
this
subdivision,
in
which
my
client
purchased
a
lot
to
build
his
family
home
after
we
started
looking
at
this,
we
identified
an
area
that
is
unencumbered
by
any
easements.
It
is
below
the
allowable
slope.
We've
had
geotechnical
investigation
done
on
the
portion
of
the
property
in
question.
K
Also,
the
r1b
zone,
as
you're
well
aware,
allows
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
to
be
built
so
because
this
plot
note
references
the
easement,
it
does
I
believe
inadvertently
encumber
a
portion
of
this
lot.
That
is
buildable
I.
Think
that
you'll
probably
hear
some
testimony.
K
Contrary
to
that,
but
based
on
all
the
investigation
and
the
engineering
that's
been
performed
on
this
lot,
the
geotechnical
engineer
has
provided
a
letter
that
states
that
the
the
Adu
that
is
not
currently
proposed.
We
had
originally
submitted
an
application
with
both
the
the
home
and
the
Adu,
and
when
this
became
apparent
as
an
issue,
we
withdrew
the
Adu
application
in
that
in
the
time
between
that
the
main
home
was
approved
through
Hillside
through
cfh
application
for
Hillside
development
permit
and
so
he's
intending
to
build
his
home
there
so
dirt.
K
While
we
were
doing
this
in
additional
investigation
and
Engineering
to
determine
the
100
Year
flow
through
this
drainage
that
it
has
no
impact
on
this
lot,
the
future
construction
on
the
slot
any
adjacent
lot
or
anyone
Downstream
of
this
lot.
So
there's
really
no
impact
on
anybody.
Adjacent
to
this
Public
Works
requested
that
we
did
a
pretty
substantial
review
of
that
drainage
that
goes
through
there.
We
had
to
get
additional
aerial
topography.
K
We
went
back
and
got
some
additional
information
from
the
original
engineer
that
designed
the
subdivision
to
run
an
external
calculation
from
their
drainage
report,
which
we
could
not
get
a
hold
of
fully
that
so
we
were
able
to
fully
analyze
this
area.
You
know
the
again.
This
is
an
owner
occupied
home
he's
got
a
couple:
kids.
Obviously
he
and
his
wife
have
parents,
they're
aging,
so
they're,
looking
at
this
accessory
dwelling
unit
on
the
lot
as
the
ability
to
provide
for
some
of
their
family
members
to
stay.
K
You
know
the
there's
some
testimony
and
some
of
the
written
testimony
that
was
received
that
we
did
review
talked
about
the
storage
in
the
garage.
That's
on
the
first
level
of
the
Adu.
It
is
a
two-bedroom
Adu
that
has
a
bathroom
it's
below
the
allowable
square
footage
based
on
the
ordinance
currently
and
he's
really
building
that
space
for
his
own
use
for
additional
storage,
I'm
sure
everybody
has
run
into
a
situation
at
their
own
home
where
they
wish
they
had
somewhere
else
to
put
some
other
stuff
that
isn't
outside.
K
That's
really
what
he's
looking
to
do
and
the
plot
note
prohibits
him
from
building
on
a
portion
of
his
lot.
That
is
buildable
and
that's
why
we're
asking
for
the
vacation
of
it.
I
would
stand
for
any
questions
that
you
have
for
me.
E
And
mayor
yeah,
just
so
I'm
clear
chronologically
that
the
house
got,
the
house
was
approved
and
you're
coming.
No,
the
house
was
proposed
within
Adu,
the
Adu
was
pulled.
The
house
was
approved,
you're
coming
back
for
the
Adu,
which
will
require
vacating
a
portion
of
this
note
and
that's
in
your
mind
at
least
the
main
Crux
of
the
issue
correct.
K
Yes,
we
were
informed
that
the
plot
note-
it
does
say,
east
of
the
drainage,
easement
and
I-
think
that
the
intent
was
to
not
have
anything
built
on
the
drainage
easement.
That
falls
in
the
middle
of
this.
The
only
thing
that
gets
built
on
that
is
the
driveway
there's
a
current
seepage
bed,
that's
installed
with
the
subdivision
improvements
and
it
accepts
all
the
roof
drainage,
all
the
road
drainage
from
the
subdivision.
K
A
AE
City
Council
Members
I'm
Carolyn
punt,
my
address
is
3001
North
Lancaster
Place,
which
is
directly
across
the
road
from
the
lot.
My
husband
and
I
were
the
first
to
build
a
house
on
Lancaster
in
this
Lancaster
heights
subdivision.
We
chose
to
build
our
home
in
this
neighborhood
because
of
the
great
location
and,
amongst
a
number
of
other
reasons.
AE
We
took
on
this
project
with
the
understanding
that
there
were
rules,
restrictions,
codes
that
needed
to
be
followed
to
build
a
house
and
to
be
able
to
build
a
home
and
for
good
reason.
We
built
our
house
according
to
the
ccnr's
city
codes
and
within
legal
building
space
afforded
to
us
on
the
plot
map.
Six
other
homes
and
families
have
since
done
the
exact
same
and
without
any
issues.
AE
A
request
was
made
by
the
owner
of
Lot
10
for
one
of
the
restrictions
to
be
lifted
so
that
they
can
build
an
additional
structure
in
an
area
that
was
never
intended
to
be
built
upon.
This
area
is
a
designated
drainage
easement,
with
multiple
Homes
located
at
the
top
of
the
easement,
which
is
the
top
of
a
hill.
AE
AE
The
point
is
that
everything
is
in
is
fine
until
it's
not
the
structure
that
the
owner
wants
to
build
is
not
the
primary
home
and
it
is
not
essential
to
them
living
or
even
building
their
home
on
this
lot
and
is
currently
being
requested
to
be
built
in
an
area
not
again
not
intended
to
be
built
upon.
The
owner
would
like
to
build
a
secondary
structure
directly
below
several
established
single-family
homes
by
digging
into
the
hillside
supporting
these
homes.
AE
The
risk
benefit
analysis
has
to
prove
that
the
benefits
outweigh
the
risks
before
moving
forward
best
case
scenario,
one
family
gets
to
build
a
secondary
structure
that
isn't
necessary
worst
case
scenario.
Several
families
are
to
place
displaced
from
their
homes,
the
property
values
of
an
entire
surrounding
neighborhood
plummet,
lower
tax
revenue,
and
one
can
only
imagine
what
the
city
would
have
to
pay
out
for
a
second
neighborhood
slide
off
all
for
the
construction
of
a
structure
that
is
not
necessary.
In
this
case,
the
risks
by
far
outweigh
the
benefits
of
moving
forward.
AE
With
this
project,
a
period
of
due
diligence
was
provided
for
all
of
the
lots
and
should
have
been
done
prior
to
purchasing
the
lot
not
after
okay,
seven
other
homes
have
been
able
to
go
through
the
same
process
without
issues,
and
we
are
requesting
that
this
be
considered,
and
there
should
be
no
exception
in
this
case,
especially
for
a
structure
that
is
not
necessary
and
with
so
many
dangerous
risks
attached.
Thank
you
thank.
D
You
amen
mayor
I,
have
a
question,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
clear.
Your
big
concern
is
that
the
construction
of
this
Adu
will
create
instability
that
will
be
dangerous
for
the
surrounding
houses.
So.
AE
D
Let
me
try
to
reword
it
are
you
are
you
concerned?
Are
you
in
fear
that
this
is
going
to
put
other
houses
in
danger,
or
are
you
opposed
to
the
fact
that
they're
putting
another
structure
on
their
property.
V
Thank
you
mayor
and
city
council
members.
For
your
time
my
name
is
Joni
Fosse.
My
address
is
2944
Hillway
Drive
I
wish
to
express
my
opposition
to
SOS
22-24,
the
vacation
plot
note
for
Lot
10
in
the
Miguel
subdivision
at
address
299
for
North
Lancaster
Place.
Originally
this
lot
was
approved
in
2016..
It
had
the
address
of
3022
North
Lancaster
later
it
was
determined
that
this
was
incorrect
and
the
address
was
switched
with
the
addition
lock.
V
Then
in
2020
as
SOS
20-5
and
6,
the
lot
line
was
adjusted
and
other
plot
notes
were
vacated
at
that
time.
In
the
certified
letter
we
were
sent
and
in
bold
letters
it
states
the
plot
note
vacation
would
only
affect
the
subject
property
and
the
underlying
setbacks
for
the
r1b
Zone.
Oh,
and
the
underlying
setbacks
for
the
r1b
Zone
will
still
apply.
V
I
also
exchanged
phone
calls
with
Cody
riddle,
previous
planning
and
services
staff,
possibly
even
director
at
the
time
who
assured
me
that
the
easement
setbacks
would
remain
in
place.
The
adjacent
lot
number
nine
also
has
a
plot
note
with
a
60-foot
setback,
I
wonder
if
they
too
will
be
asking
for
a
platinum
vacation
in
the
near
future.
V
That's
two
changes
already
on
the
slot.
The
engineers
who
originally
plotted
this
slot
and
lot
9
put
those
notes
on
the
plot
for
a
reason:
was
it
the
soil,
the
slope,
the
proximity
to
uphill
houses
that
still
shipped
50
years
later,
whenever
heavy
equipment
operates
in
the
area,
this
application
was
deferred
on
January,
10,
20
23
to
do
it
100
year,
flood
simulation.
V
What
about
building
on
the
other
slope,
where
the
main
house
will
be?
Will
it
support
100-year
flood,
not
sure
that
100
year
flood
is
why
the
note
is
on
the
plat?
Why
did
they
think
this?
It
was
never
mentioned
in
2016
when
the
subdivision
was
plotted.
V
Nor
was
there
any
mention
of
drainage
mitigation
that
might
allow
for
building
east
of
the
sewer
easement.
These
issues
were
never
mentioned.
The
owners
of
this
lot
bought
it
with
this
plat
note
they
should
abide
by
it.
It
sets
a
bad
president
for
the
city
council
to
modify
previously
approved,
lots
and
subdivisions.
These
plot
notes
are
basically
conditions
of
approval.
They
should
not
be
modified.
There
have
been
other
instances
where
the
city
has
upheld
previous
approvals.
Please
do
so
here
and
deny
SOS
22-24.
Thank
you.
K
Madam
mayor
members
of
city
council
yeah,
we
do
appreciate
that
there
are
some
notes
on
this
lot
that
had
been
vacated
in
the
past.
Not
a
part
of
this
project
not
done
by
my
client,
I,
don't
even
know
if
it's
done
by
the
person
that
he
bought
the
lot
from.
K
We
are
not
vacating
an
easement
we're,
not
vacating
the
setback,
we're
well
away
from
the
property
line
well
outside
of
our
setbacks,
so
we're
not
encroaching
on
any
of
that.
We're
not
encroaching
on
any
platted
easement
right
now.
We've
done
a
full
evaluation
of
this
lot
and
the
spacing
question
where
the
Adu
will
fall
has
no
encumbrances
on
it
at
all.
K
The
flood
study
that
was
done
or
the
the
flow
study
has
identified,
that
the
design
of
the
home
that
was
completed
that
I
did
will
not
be
affected
by
the
water
surface
elevation
during
a
hundred
year.
Storm
event.
Nor
will
potentially
do
you
be
impacted
by
that,
as
well
as
the
original
storm
water
system
that's
installed.
That
is
in
the
center
of
this
lot.
So
it's
a
very
unique
lot
within
the
subdivision
is
fully
maintained.
K
It
will
be
maintained
by
the
HOA
and,
as
far
as
I
know,
there's
no
restriction
in
their
ccnrs
that
prohibit
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
Nor
is
there
a
restriction
in
Boise
city
code
that
would
not
allow
an
Adu
on
any
residentially
zoned
lot.
So
we
feel
comfortable
based
on
the
geotechnical
analysis
of
this
lot.
They
have
not
identified
any
problems
with
slope
stability,
definitely
not
anything
that
has
a
historic
Landslide,
as
did
the
Terra
nativa
area.
K
So
that's
kind
of
my
rebuttal
to
that.
I
would
stand
for
any
additional
questions.
K
A
Q
AD
Q
E
I
didn't
I,
don't
see
any
compelling
reason
that
it's
a
problem
where
it's
supposed
to
be
located.
We
want
more
adus
the
risk
or
the
burdens
to.
Frankly.
Anybody
from
drainage
problems
is
on
you,
sir
I
hope
your
home
doesn't
fall
down
or
be
flooded,
but
there's
no
geotechnical
reason
to
think
that
that
will
be
happening
and
that
that
will
happen,
and
we
you
know
we
want
people
to
put
their
property
to
the
highest
and
best
use.
E
A
We're
gonna
move
into
monitor
way.
We've
got
Dave,
Moser
welcome,
and
then
these
are
not
the
people
from
the
land
group
that
I
see
it's
Doug
I've
got
Macy
and
Tyler
on
here,
but
it's
you
tonight,
okay
and
then
we
don't
expect
swaka.
Is
anybody
here
from
the
public
on
this
one
if
you're
online?
Let
me
know
okay.
AF
The
applicant
is
requesting
approval.
A
final
plot
for
residential
subdivision,
comprised
of
48
buildable
lots
and
five
com
Lots
on
13.3
Acres,
located
at
2484,
South
Monitor
way
in
our
r-1b
Zone
The
Proposal
will
create
48
buildable
lots
of
the
public
street
that
connects
back
to
monitorway
adjacent
to
the
West.
The
proposed
Lots
will
meet
the
dimensional
requirements,
The
r1b,
Zone
and
all
new
homes
constructed
on
these
Lots
will
require
to
comply
with
the
height
setback
and
parking
requirements
of
the
Zone.
AF
This
application
is
being
heard
tonight
since
there's
a
request
to
change
several
of
the
conditions
of
approval
that
were
part
of
the
preliminary
plot
approval
and,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
aerial
photograph,
the
property
is
located
in
the
area
comprise
of
medium
and
low
density.
Residential
neighborhoods
containing
D
chat,
single-family
homes.
AF
In
summary,
the
proposed
our
vision
complies
the
dimensional
standards
of
the
RMB
Zone
in
terms
of
lot
size,
width
and
Street
Front
edges.
However,
the
plenary
plot
approval
included
a
condition
of
approval
that
required
a
12-foot
wide
pathway,
be
constructed
adjacent
by
the
applicant
adjacent
to
the
east
of
the
site
within
the
unimproved
right-of-way,
and
a
10-foot
wide
detached
sidewalk
be
installed
along
the
south
side
of
Malad
Street.
Finally,
an
additional
pedestrian
connection
to
the
pathway
was
requested
at
the
northeast
corner
of
the
subdivision
adjacent
to
the
common
Drive.
AF
The
pathways
locations
are
highlighted
on
this
slide
and
are
identified
at
the
red
dotted
lines
after
the
plenary
plot
approval
at
Council
and
upon
further
review
achd
expressed
concerns
with
this
pathway
construction
within
their
unimproved
right-of-way.
The
main
concern
was
that
several,
the
property
owners
adjacent
to
the
east
of
this
site
have
encroached
into
their
right-of-way
with
developments
as
such
achd
will
not
allow
the
applicant
to
construct
the
pathway.
However,
they
suggested
that
the
city
take
the
lead
on
a
pathway,
planning,
process
and
construction
for
this.
AF
Based
on
the
suggestion,
the
city
and
the
highway
district
had
additional
discussions
and
was
determined
determined
that
the
city
would
take
the
lead
on
the
pathway,
planning
process
and
construction
within
this
larger
neighborhood
and
as
such,
both
the
city
and
achd
agreed
that
the
first
pathway
planning
effort
should
be
to
connect
back
to
Maple
Grove
Road.
This
proposed
pathway
is
located
within
the
unimproved
right-of-way
adjacent
to
the
northeast
of
the
site
and
north
of
the
Overland
Heights
Acres
unit
number
two
subdivision
s
shown
on
this
slide.
AF
AF
Here,
therefore,
the
applicant,
therefore,
the
requiring
the
applicant
to
construct
the
pathway
within
the
unimproved
right-of-way
adjacent
to
the
subdivision,
is
not
required
and,
to
be
honest,
acht
won't
allow
it.
In
addition,
the
requirement
to
install
a
10
foot
wide
pathway
or
a
10-foid
detached
sidewalk
along
the
south
side
of
Malad
Street,
which
should
be
modified
to
eight
feet
and
the
requirement
for
The
Pedestrian
connection
to
the
northeast
corner
of
the
development
should
be
removed.
AF
AF
D
Yeah,
if
you
could
go
back
to
the
original
one
that
we
had
proposed
with
the
pathway,
I
realized,
that's
not
going
to
happen,
but
that's
the
one.
So
with
that
pathway,
we
we
have
the
stubbed
intersection
on
Milad
Street
and
then
another
sort
of
what
looks
like
a
pathway,
or
maybe
it's
a
driveway
on
Raleigh,
Street
and
I
think
that
we
had
intended.
D
We
were
trying
to
design
from
the
dice
I
remember
this
and
it
was
really
frustrating
for
everybody,
and
so
we
had
put
those
two
kind
of
stubs
there:
the
the
stub
on
Raleigh,
it's
there
specifically
to
access
the
house
is
that
correct.
AF
Matter
mayor
members
of
the
council,
the
the
additional
pathway
Connection
in
the
Northeast
off
at
the
end
of
Raleigh,
along
that
Common
Drive,
was
to
provide
an
initially
was
to
provide
an
additional
pathway
connection
on
the
north
side
of
the
site
northeast
side
to
supplement
the
pathway
connection
on
the
to
the
south
at
Malad.
AF
Madam
you're
members
of
the
commission
or
Madame
members
of
the
commission,
that
is
correct.
AF
The
the
main
stub
to
the
east
is
through
Malad
and
that
would
stop
to
that
would
line
up
initially
with
Malad
Street
as
it
exists
to
the
east
of
here
and
then
there's
unimproof
right
away,
that
that
pathway
exists,
that
we're
proposing
and
then
up
the
north
of
that,
where
that
car
is
that's
more
of
a
common
drive
that
would
feed
the
two
lots
there
in
the
corner.
Great.
D
And
then,
if
you
could
go
just
a
couple
slides
forward
to
the
that's
the
one?
So
if
folks,
who
are
living
in
this
area
to
access
this
pathway,
they
would
go
out
the
front
of
the
complex
up
the
road
kind
of
over
that
diagonal.
So
they're
not
going
out
the
back
anymore,
they're
kind
of
going
back
in
front.
That's
what
we're
kind
of
reading
here!
I'm,
not.
AF
A
mayor
members
of
the
council,
that
is
correct,
so
without
this
current
pathway
connection
they
would
walk
up,
follow
I,
think
there's
a
sidewalk
along
here.
Then
they
would
get
up
to
this
section
and
then
potentially
then
get
up
into
this
neighborhood
and
then
kind
of
wind.
Your
way
back
over
to
Maple.
AF
Matter,
members
of
the
council
I
mean
that
is
a
possibility.
Putting
it
in
the
pack
put
it
in.
The
subdivision
would
require
a
major
redesign
of
the
plat
as
it
is,
and
it
would
probably
require
a
conditional
use
plan
unit
development
because
then,
by
doing
so,
you'd
probably
be
shrinking
the
Lots
down
below
the
minimum
lot
size
of
the
r1p
Zone
got
it.
Thank
you.
A
AG
No,
the
only
thing
that
I
did
want
the
Madam
mayor
and
Council
to
know
is
that
when
and
by
the
way,
I'm
Doug
Russell
with
the
land
group.
AG
Only
thing
that
I
wanted
the
council
to
know
is
that
in
good
faith,
we
took
all
the
conditions
that
you
guys
place
on
the
original
application
and
we
went
to
implement
them
and
it
was
when
we
went
out
there
and
noticed
recognized
that
there
was
encroachments
in
this
right-of-way
immediately
threw
up
a
red
flag,
I
reached
out
to
David
and
planning
staff
also
reached
out
to
achd
and
I
said
hey.
Can
you
guys
give
us
some
advice
on
how
we
go
about
getting
these
encroachments
off
of
your
right-of-way
and
that's
when
and
I?
AG
Don't
know
why
achd
didn't
catch
this
in
the
pre-plat
review,
but
that's
when
achd
threw
up
the
red
flag
and
they
called
the
meeting
with
David
and
our
team,
and
they
basically
told
us
like
we
don't
want
this
here,
and
so
we
came
up
with
Plan
B,
which
David
has
presented
to
you
tonight
to
answer
councilman
Hallie
Burton's
questions.
That
is
a
common
drive
for
those
two
lots.
AG
It
has
not
intended
that
cars
would
go
all
the
way
through
there,
but
we
were
planning
on
putting
a
little
easement
across
there
for
future
connection
to
that
pathway.
If
it
were
ever
installed
now
that
nothing
is
occurring
there,
we
would
prefer
to
not
have
an
easement
across
that
and
then
the
other
thing
is
to
councilman
badgence
comment.
AG
We
did
actually
look
at
you
know.
Could
we
make
a
shift
put
an
easement
on
our
property?
The
prop
the
problem
is
is
to
get
back
into
the
right-of-way,
where
the
city
would
prefer
the
path
to
be.
We've
got
to
go
across
somebody
else's
private
property
and
we're
not
really
sure
how
we
would
do
that,
so
that
idea
kind
of
fizzled
out
too.
AG
So
we
are
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
that
and
that
David
and
his
team
have
put
forth
and
we're
ready
to
move
forward,
but
we
just
need
to
get
this
final
plan
approved
and
we're
sorry
that
we
were
unable
to
get
that
Regional
path
in
place
it
just.
We
had
all
intentions
too,
but
achd
ultimately
told
us
no.
E
Thank
you,
one,
quick
question
on
assuming
we
adopt
the
staff's
recommendation
and
approve
one
thing:
we
talked
a
lot
about
in
the
zoning
code.
Rewrite
were
unfulfilled
conditions.
We
have
some
neighborhoods
where
that's
been
a
real
problem.
Would
you
have
any
objection
to
changing
condition?
Three
to
say
you
will
complete
that
little
pathway
before
the
first
certificate
of
occupancy
is
issued
on
any
structure
in
the
subdivision.
AG
E
AG
During
the
construction,
I
mean
whatever
you
feel
comfortable
with
we're
committed
to
building
the
pathway,
and
so,
if
that,
if
that's
what
it
takes
to
get
it
approved
tonight,
but
I
do
believe
that
it
would
be
wise
to
maybe
consider
construction,
sequencing
and
damage
of
the
sidewalk.
If
we
put
it
in
first,
it
could
create
some
problems,
but
how.
E
D
Anyway,
yeah
I
move
approval
of
the
final
plan
for
SUV
23-12,
with
conditions
number
two
and
number
six
removed
and
condition
number
three
modified
as
staff
stated
with
council
member
agents,
additional
Direction
And.
E
A
E
D
G
Not
a
mayor
yes,
I
in
an
abundance
of
caution.
I'm
going
to
recuse
myself
from
item
number
four,
because
I
participated
in
the
original
denial.
Okay.
A
A
With
this
one,
just
before
we
get
started
Sabrina
good
to
see
you
Elam
and
Burke,
you
guys
are
here:
I'm,
sorry,
oh
yeah,
yeah,
sorry,
I
put
on
my
glasses
and
I
can't
see
people's
faces,
and
then
we
don't
expect
asyla
friends
to
be
here
from
South
Cole.
We've
got
one
member
of
the
public
here,
so
I'm
gonna
have
staff,
go
hear
from
the
applicant
we'll
hear
from
the
member
of
the
public
and
then
we'll
figure
out.
If
we
need
to
do
rebuttals
and
everything
else
go
ahead,.
AH
AH
The
terms
of
the
associated
development
agreement
restricted
certain
Auto
oriented
uses
that
are
typically
Allowed
by
Wright
in
the
C2
Zone
and
included
development
standards
regarding
vehicular
access
to
the
site.
As
shown
on
this
slide
on
May
8th,
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
heard
a
request
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
self-service
storage
facility
on
2.17
Acres,
located
at
6780
South
Cole
Road
and
a
c2d
DA
Zone.
AH
The
commission
determined
that
the
request
was
not
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area
and
was
not
consistent
with
the
goals
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan
and
denied
the
cup
on
May
17th.
The
out
applicant
appealed
the
commission's
decision
based
on
the
ground,
shown
on
this
slide.
The
appeal
asserts
that
the
commission
and
Council
were
aware
of
the
intended
self-service
storage
use
at
the
time
of
annexation
and
that
the
approval
of
the
annexation
effectively
also
approved
the
use.
AH
Upon
receiving
the
current
application,
the
commission
properly
reviewed
the
proposal
for
a
self-service
storage
facility
and
found
that
it
did
not
comply
with
the
cup
approval
criteria,
while
the
DEA
does
acknowledge.
Self-Service
storage
is
a
use
that
may
be
allowed
through
a
conditional
use
permit.
It
does
not
guarantee
the
use
of
the
site
for
that
purpose.
AH
Therefore,
the
commission's
denial
of
cup
22-68
does
not
constitute
a
taking
of
the
applicant's
contractual
right
to
develop
the
properties
described
in
the
D.A,
as
the
da
does
allow
development
of
the
site
for
a
wide
range
of
uses
that
are
allowed
and
conditionally
allowed
in
the
C2
Zone
as
outlined
in
your
packets.
The
appellant
has
not
provided
any
evidence
to
demonstrate
that
the
commission
aired
in
its
decision
to
deny
this
EP.
E
Yes,
Sabrina,
why
was
a
conditional
use
permit
required
for
a
storage
facility
in
the
first
place?
Is
it
because
the
development
agreement
said
subject
to
conditional
use
permit
or
because
the
Zone
always
requires
a
conditional
use
permit
for
this
type
of
facility,
like
what
is
the
reason
that
that
process
got
triggered.
A
D
So
I
was
trying
to
go
through,
like
some
past
documents
here,
to
try
to
figure
out
like
where
the
conversation
was
and
had
this
come
up
I'm
fairly
certain
it
did
come
up.
You
know
the
discussion
of
a
of
a
storage
unit
in
this
space.
It
was
a
long
time
ago.
I.
Remember
it
mostly
now
looking
at
it
because
of
the
canal,
that's
next
to
it,
which
is
how
I
remember
everything.
D
Do
you
have
any
like
looking
back
at
when
this
came
in
front
of
council
and
planning
zone
and
how?
How
much
was
that
discussed
the
possibility
of
a
of
a
storage
facility.
AH
Mountain
mayor
council
member,
it
was
offered
up
by
the
applicant
as
their
intended
use
of
the
site,
but
they
did
not
bring
forward
an
application
for
the
use
at
that
time
because
it
was
mentioned
as
a
potential
use
of
the
site.
It
was
discussed
during
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
hearings
and
the
city
council
hearings
for
the
annexation.
AH
D
And
then
Mary,
following
up
there
like
during
those
conversations
were
there
other
uses
that
were
talked
about
as
far
as
like
when
we
were
when
we
were
looking
at
this,
this
annexation
were
there
other
uses
that
were
being
talked
about
or
considered
during
that
time,.
AH
Madame,
mayor
council
member,
the
site
is
currently
vacant
when
the
development
agreement
was
approved,
it
did
not
approve
any
specific
use,
as
shown
on
this
slide,
not
number
two,
the
permitted
uses
it
just
outlines.
AH
U
AH
AH
U
N
Again,
I
wasn't
present
I
think
during
the
prior
discussions,
but
I'm
having
a
hard
time,
I
suppose
when
I
look
at
the
two
conditions
in
which
we
evaluated
this
on
when
I
see
that
when
we
talk
about
development
standards,
the
only
thing
that
is
discussed
and
listed
as
a
self
storage
facility,
so
it
it
indicates
to
me
that
it
was
at
least
a
key
intended
use
that
would
have
been
considered
by
both
planning
and
zoning
and
by
the
city
council,
and
that
subsequently,
then
determining
that
that
is
not
within
the
appropriate
conducive
to
that
particular
neighborhood
strikes
me
as
odd,
when
the
only
thing
that's
listed
here
on
their
development.
AH
Madam
mayor
council,
member,
yes
I,
do
agree.
It
is
a
little
strange
that
the
D.A
does
contemplate
that
Self
Storage
use
specifically
I
believe
that
is
just
because
that
was
you
know,
a
use
that
was
mentioned
by
the
applicant
as
a
potential
use
at
that
point
in
time,
however,
I
would
know
at
the
time
of
annexation.
AH
The
commission
and
council
did
not
evaluate
that
use
for
compliance
with
the
cup
findings
at
that
time,
what
was
being
reviewed
was
the
annexation
finding
shown
on
this
slide
that
really
are
focused
more
on
determining
whether
the
site
is
adjacent
to
you
know.
Existing
City
boundaries
is
within
our
area
of
impact.
It
can
be
served
by
services,
whereas
the
cup
findings
are
specific
to
the
use
and
the
potential
impacts
and
compatibility
with
the
neighborhood.
A
I
just
have
a
I've
got
a
question,
a
sequencing
question.
Was
this
I,
don't
remember
I,
don't
remember
this.
Was
this
lot
annexed
by
itself
without
any
plans
tied
to
it
or
was
it
annexes
a
larger
annexation.
J
E
E
And
and
then
it
was
approved
the
annexation,
along
with
the
development
agreement
that
said,
hey
you'll
have
to
come,
get
a
conditional
use
permit
for
the
storage
facility,
and
my
question
is:
would
it
have
been
a
valid
basis
to
deny
the
annexation
on
the
ground
that
hey?
We
see
here,
you're
planning
a
storage
facility,
or
is
it
the
case
that,
because
what
was
only
before
us
was
the
annexation,
we
were
kind
of
bound
under
the
rules
to
approve
it.
Even
though
it
had
this
other
dangling
issue
out
there.
AH
AI
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
As
I
mentioned
council
members,
my
name
is
Tom
Lloyd
I'm
here
from
Neil
Burke
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
and
appellant
hatch,
design,
architecture
and
the
owner
of
the
property
Craig
McLeod,
respecting
time
limits.
AI
I
do
want
to
get
straight
to
the
heart
of
the
issues
on
the
appeal
and
I
think
that
will
address
some
of
the
concerns
or
questions
that
were
raised
by
council,
member
Hallie,
Burton
and
council
member
Nash,
but
I
think
in
order
to
do
that
effectively,
we
need
to
go
through
a
more
complete
history
of
where
we
came
from
start
to
finish.
AI
To
get
us
to
this
point
where
we
are
right
now,
as
staff
indicated,
this
property
was
previously
annexed
and
zoned
into
c2d
D.A,
but
it
was
during
that
annexation
process
that
a
lot
of
emphasis
was
placed
on
traffic
and
access
for
this
particular
parcel,
which
of
course,
is
abutted
on
one
side
to
the
east,
by
the
New
York
Canal
to
the
South,
it's
butted
by
private
property,
which
is
not
annexed
into
the
city
of
Boise
to
the
West.
It
is
Coal
Road
into
the
north.
It
is
Lake
Hazel.
AI
So,
prior
to
that
annexation
rezone,
the
commission
had
retained
comments
from
achd
as
to
how
an
existing
access
point,
one
that
serviced
the
residents
to
the
South,
could
be
used
as
sort
of
a
dual
access
for
the
property.
That's
in
question
now
and
the
initial
development
agreement
that
was
proposed
had
that
as
a
condition
so
that
that
access
point
would
have
to
be
shared
with
the
residential
access
point
to
the
South
for
a
number
of
reasons.
Staff
achd
I
think
this
Council
didn't
really
like
that
idea.
The
commission
didn't
like
that
idea.
AI
You
know
the
the
parcels
are
currently
Co
or
owned
by
the
same
individual,
but
that's
there's
no
guarantee
that
that's
going
to
be
the
case
going
out
into
the
future,
and
so
with
one
parcel
being
annexed
into
the
city,
the
other
parcel
not
being
within
the
city.
It
would
be
difficult
for
a
requirement
to
exist
absent
some
sort
of
easement
that
that
residence
would
have
to
give
access
to
the
northern
parcel.
AI
So
at
that
stage
the
emphasis
was
kind
of
put
into
identifying
with
achd.
What?
What
can
we
do
here?
What
type
of
possible
access
point?
Would
everybody
be
okay
with
that?
AI
Doesn't
create
this
shared
access
point
with
the
residential
partial
parcel
to
the
South
at
the
June
6th,
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
meeting
it
was
presented
that
from
achd's
Impact
gen
fee
generation,
which
is
based
on
traffic
storage,
has
the
lowest
traffic
rating,
and
since
these
are
larger
parking
spaces
that
are
going
to
be
used
for
recreational
vehicles,
that
that
traffic
standard
is
actually
lower
that
traffic
that
traffic
impact
is
actually
lower.
AI
The
commission
and
subsequently
the
city
and
the
development
agreement
ultimately
and
rightfully
elected
not
to
tie
those
two
access
points
together,
and
that
was
largely
based
on
that
input
from
achd
as
presented
before
the
commission
during
the
annexation
process.
Mr
hatch,
that
indicated
so
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
comments
we're
getting
back
from
the
highway
district,
which
is
instead
of
intensifying
this
access.
In
other
words,
that
shared
access
which
doesn't
align
with
current
access,
they
would
rather
limit
this
to
a
very
low
intensity,
traffic
format
and
staff
agreed
with
that.
AI
Noting
that
the
separate
access
that
would,
if
so
long
as
we
tied
that
separate
access
to
a
low
intensity
use,
which
was
the
self-storage
facility
that
everybody
was
talking
about
at
that
time,
then
that
would
be
preferable.
The
comments
from
staff
were
as
follows.
Another
concern
we
have
with
maintaining
a
separate
access
point
for
that.
Northern
lot
is
that,
as
written
in
the
development
agreement
that
first
version
of
the
development
agreement,
it
doesn't
tie
that
lot
to
the
self-storage
use.
AI
There
are
a
number
of
other
uses
in
the
C2
Zone
that
could
potentially
go
in
there.
That
would
generate
more
traffic
and
so
having
that
close
to
the
intersection
that
being
the
intersection
between
Cole,
Road
and
Lake
Hazel
would
not
be
ideal.
So
in
the
motion
to
approve
the
annexation
was
made
before
the
commission.
It
was
stated
as
follows
by
commissioner
Mooney
I
move
that
we
recommend
approval
of
the
annexation
with
an
additional
condition
on
the
development
standards,
paragraph
4A,
vehicular
access.
AI
Commissioner
Mooney
indicated
in
plain
language
as
specified
by
the
applicant
I.E
onto
that
single
parcel,
rather
than
encumbering
the
one
to
the
South
that
isn't
being
considered
for
annexation,
but
also
including
in
the
note,
the
use
standards
and,
if
there's
a
more
intensive
use
coming
in
the
future.
That
would
not
be
allowed
during
discussion
about
the
motion
before
the
commission
staff
also
indicated.
AI
My
only
question
with
that
is
that
we're
not
looking
to
the
use
right
now
so
to
tie
it
to
that,
we
could
tie
it
to
that
use
and
then
state
that
if
there's
a
change,
we'll
re-look
at
access
now,
these
comments
are
important
because
in
the
comments
before
the
commission
on
the
conditional
use,
permit
staff
indicated
that
it
was
not
tied
in
the
development
agreement
to
that
Self.
AI
Storage
use
and
I
raised
this,
because
it's
important
to
note
that
that
time,
the
development
agreement
to
that
Self,
Storage
use
was
actually
the
idea
that
was
generated
by
staff's
comments.
During
that
commission
hearing
based
upon
the
applicant's
agreement
to
that
condition,
that's
exactly
what
happened.
The
final
version
of
the
development
agreement,
which
we
saw
on
the
screens
here
a
moment
ago,
was
modified
to
tie
the
low
impact
self-storage
use
standard
to
the
Ann
annexation.
Through
that
development
agreement,
and
with
that,
the
motion
was
approved
in
the
annexation
and
development
agreement.
AI
Recommendation
was
sent
to
this
body
for
final
approval.
That
annexation
in
rezone
then
came
before
the
city
council
on
September,
13th,
2022
and
staff
introduced
the
annexation
with
the
following,
because
I
and
again
I
raised
this
because
the
question
was
was
was
given
to
staff
how
much?
What
discussion
was
there
about
the
self
storage
unit,
the
self-storage
facility
from
the
get-go,
and
it
was
introduced
from
the
very
beginning
as
the
applicant
proposes,
to
construct
a
self-storage
Center
on
the
site
following
expect
following
annexation?
This
has
always
been.
AI
It
was
always
a
part
of
the
discussion
with
regard
to
the
access
issue
staff
explained
the
commission
found
that
the
shared
access
would
not
be
necessary
if
the
property
were
developed
as
a
self
storage
or
another
low
traffic
use
and
recommended
modifying
the
development
agreement
to
allow
the
site
to
have
individual
access
from
coal.
In
that
case,
so
from
all
of
that,
we
have
what
ultimately
ended
up
in
the
development
agreement,
which
was
essentially
the
city
and
the
applicant
agreeing.
AI
This
is
what
these
are:
the
standards
that
we're
going
to
agree
that
this
property
can
be
developed
according
to,
in
particular,
paragraph
number,
three
of
that
agreement,
development
of
the
project,
any
new
improvements
and
site
work
to
be
constructed
on
the
property.
Pursuant
to
this
agreement,
known
as
the
project
will
be
a
consistent
with
the
development
standards
set
forth
in
section
four
below
which
I'll
get
to
in
a
moment
and
B.
Otherwise,
in
compliance
with
applicable
law
that
paragraph
four,
that
section
four
is
where
we've
seen
it
on
the
screen
already
today.
AI
But
it
indicates
what
those
development
standards
are
going
to
be
for
this
parcel.
The
following:
Provisions
requirements
and
conditions
will
apply
to
the
development
of
the
project
on
the
property,
a
as
long
as
the
use
of
the
subject.
Property
is
a
self-storage
facility
or
another
use
which
generates
equal
or
lesser
traffic
and
now
bear
in
mind.
The
comments
from
the
very
beginning
of
this
process
indicated
that
achd
had
said.
This
is
the
lowest
use.
AI
This
is
the
lowest
traffic
generation,
use
that
we
that
we
can
come
up
with,
as
determined
by
the
planning
director
of
the
site
shall
be
permitted
to
take
to
direct
vehicular
access
from
coal
Road
via
an
individual
driveway
located
a
minimum
of
375
feet
south
of
the
intersection,
and
then
section
B
was
added
development
or
Redevelopment
of
the
site
for
any
use
which
any
use
which
generates
greater
traffic
than
a
self-storage
facility,
as
determined
by
the
planning
director,
shall
be
contingent
on
one
access
via
that
shared
access
point
with
this
residence
which
may
in
the
future
may
or
may
not
be
owned
by
the
same
individual.
AI
That
owns
the
self-storage
facility
number
two
closure
of
the
direct
vehicular
access
from
Cole
Road.
Now
this
parcel
of
property
is
fairly
rectangular
in
shape,
if
you
think
about
it,
you've
got
the
canal
to
the
east,
the
private
property,
to
the
South,
and
then
you
have
two
roadways.
Two
public
access
points.
The
northern
public
access
point
achd
is
indicated,
they're
not
going
to
allow
approval
of
an
access
point
off
of
there.
It's
with
the
development
of
Lake
Hazel
that
whole
area
was
raised
up.
AI
It's
a
12
to
14
foot
grade
difference
between
where
the
site
is
and
where
the
roadway
is
taking.
Access
off.
That
really
is
not
feasible
and
then
achd
has
also
indicated
we're
not
going
to
allow
access
on
coal
unless
there
is
this
low
low
intensity
use.
AI
What
happens,
then,
is
if
any
greater
use
occurs,
as
is
I
think
the
suggestion
by
the
Commission
in
denying
this
application
the
access
point
that
was
given
to
this
property
as
a
part
of
the
development
agreement
goes
away.
So
if
you
go
back
to
the
four
four
corners
of
that
particular
rectangle,
there's
no
longer
a
right
of
access
to
this
parcel
in
any
way
shape
or
form
unless
the
city
attempts
to
force
a
non-resident
of
the
city
of
Boise
to
the
South
to
allow
an
easement
access
up
through
their
property.
AI
That's
the
only
way
that
access
could
then
occur
so
relevant
to
this
appeal
in
my
final
minutes
here.
We're
looking
at
the
two
elements
of
the
two
bases
for
appeal
is
set
forth
in
section
11-03-003.9,
c2a,
subsection,
2,
that
the
decision
is
in
violation
of
constitutional
state
or
city
law.
An
example
would
be
a
taking
and
subsection
five.
The
decision
is
arbitrary,
capricious
or
an
abusive
discretion,
in
that
it
was
made
without
a
rational
basis
or
in
disregard
of
the
facts,
and
circumstances
presented.
AI
AI
The
approval
criteria,
then
we're
reviewing
the
the
the
the
the
council
is
reviewing
comes
from
Boise
city
code,
11-03-04
to
0.6
C7
and,
as
Ms
Mortensen
had
indicated,
the
two
bases
for
for
the
commission
denying
this
cup
application
were
as
follows:
number
one:
the
location
is
compatible
to
other
uses
within
the
general
neighborhood.
The
commission
indicator
or
decided
that
it
was
not
compatible
Unfortunately,
they
didn't
provide
any
any
more
information
for
us,
I
mean
that
law.
AI
That
is
kind
of
the
definition
of
arbitrary
and
capricious
as
with,
if
there
is
no
information
provided
whatsoever
as
to
why
this
does
not
why
it's
not
compatible
with
the
general
neighborhood
and
frankly,
in
addition
to
the
the
commission,
not
providing
any
of
that
basis,
I
would
suggest
that
it's
it's
incorrect
I
mean
if
you
look
at
the.
AI
If
you
look
at
the
overhead
map,
the
aerial
map
of
this
property,
both
with
what's
been
developed
and
what
is
slated
to
be
developed,
you
have
a
number
of
neighborhoods
subdivisions,
none
of
which
are
going
to
allow
recreational
vehicles
to
be
parked
in
front
of
the
houses,
and
it's
all
over
there.
I
mean
this
development
in
this
area
is,
is
like
wildfire.
AI
AI
The
commission
did
decide
that
the
proposed
use
will
not
place
an
undue
burden
on
Transportation
or
other
public
facilities.
The
commission
did
decide
that
the
SAR
that
the
site
is
large
enough
to
accommodate
the
proposed
use.
One
note
on
that,
though,
is
when
you
look
at
this
development
agreement.
AI
When
you
look
at
everything
in
the
context
of
this
development
agreement,
the
site
is
not
large
enough
to
accommodate
anything
other
than
that
self-storage
use
the
reason
being
that
anything
larger
than
that
Self
Storage
use
is
going
to
necessarily
generate
more
traffic
intensity
and
at
the
point
where
it
generates
the
more
traffic
intensity.
Now
we're
triggering
that
key
in
the
development
agreement
where
we
lose
that
access
point
altogether
and
now
we've
got
to
make
a
major
issue
with
even
being
able
to
get
in
access
to
that
property.
AI
I
know
the
the
staff
report
quoted
the
commission.
Some
of
the
commission's
concerns
that
really
the
commission's
looking
for
things
to
do
and
places
to
go.
The
problem
is
the
development
agreement
in
this
case
didn't
allow
for
that.
There's
no
room
for
that,
because
anything
where
it's
going
to
be
things
to
do
and
places
to
go
for
the
people
to
participate
in
is
necessarily
going
to
increase
traffic,
which
Again
by
its
nature,
necessarily
ends
up
closing
the
only
access
point
that
there
is
to
this
property.
AI
So
the
final,
the
commission
did
indicate
that
the
proposed
use
complies
with
all
conditions
imposed
and
will
not
adversely
affect
other
property.
But
then
the
commission
decided
that
the
proposed
use
is
not
in
compliance
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Again,
we
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
substance
to
this
decision.
It
seems
like
it
was
just
more
or
less
a
decision.
Well,
we
want
something
else
there,
and
so
we
don't
think
that
this
is
cohesive
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
but
the
problem
still
comes
back
to
the
same
thing.
AI
Anything
that
would
be
more
desirable,
I
guess
in
the
commission's
view,
for
this
property
is
necessarily
going
to
be
something
that
is
more
traffic
intensive.
If
it's
more
traffic
intensive
the
the
provisions
of
the
development
agreement
take
place
or
kick
into
place
and
that
access
point
is
lost
altogether.
AI
So
in
my
final
30
seconds,
I'll
move
on
So,
based
on
all
of
that,
we
think
that
the
commission's
decision
was
arbitrary
and
capricious
it
didn't
take
into
account
the
totality
of
where
we
came
from
and
what
these,
what
limitations
are
in
place
as
a
result
of
the
development
agreement
that
was
ultimately
signed.
AI
What
what
ends
up
happening
with
this
closure
of
that
access
is
kind
of
a
a
set
of
dominoes
where,
if
we
don't
allow
this
self-storage
and
we
require
something
that's
going
to
be
of
Greater
traffic
intensity
than
all
of
those
dominoes
fall
to
the
point
where
that
access
point
gets
closed
off
altogether
and
then
at
that
point,
there's
no
access
to
the
property,
there's
no
circuitous
access
to
the
property,
and
we
we
end
up
in
a
taking
situation.
All.
AJ
Foreign
council
members,
my
name,
is
Brie
brush
I
live
at
7627,
West
Havana
drive
I'm
here
this
evening.
Speaking
in
my
personal
capacity,
my
home
is
in
the
baseri
subdivision
directly
across
Cole
Road
from
this
property
to
the
West.
I,
won't
repeat
my
testimony
from
pnz.
Some
of
it
was
cited
in
the
staff
report,
but
I
will
reiterate
that
I
believe
this
area
is
already
oversaturated
with
these
types
of
facilities
and
this
property
would
be
sorely
underutilized
if
this
use
is
allowed
within
just
three
miles
of
my
neighborhood.
AJ
There
are
five
storage
facilities
with
boat
and
RV
available
and
I
actually
called
one
of
the
owners
of
these
facilities
before
PNC
to
chat
with
him
about
his
vacancy
rates
and
his
use,
and
he
said
that
his
use
and
occupancy
has
declined
so
much
in
the
last
six
months.
That
he's
had
to
evict
people
for
not
paying
and
reduce
his
rates
to
try
to
get
his
business
back
and
further.
AJ
My
neighborhood
has
just
63
homes
in
it,
but
on
the
other
side
of
coal
Road
from
basiri
is
the
local
subdivision,
which
will
have
2
000
Homes
at
full,
build
out
and,
as
more
is
considered
to
the
South
I
believe
this
property
would
be
better
suited
for
a
neighborhood
commercial.
The
applicant
cites
a
need
for
a
use
with
low
trip
generation.
The
local
subdivision
has
highest
density,
is
six
units
per
acre?
AJ
The
trips
being
generated
are
Stones
Throw
from
this
property,
with
each
development
such
as
the
local
industry,
our
sidewalk
and
pathway
Network
expands
allowing
people
the
option
to
move
without
their
cars,
but
they
have
to
have
somewhere.
They
need
to
go
and
referencing
the
access
to
this
property
in
relationship
to
the
not
Annex
property.
AJ
Next
to
it,
it's
the
owner's
property
he
owns
both
of
these
Parcels
one
is
annexed
for
this
use
and
one
is
his
home
for
and
finally,
there
was
reference
to
the
annexation
hearing
and
comments
made
during
that
time
to
former
city
council
members
who,
unfortunately,
are
not
here
today
mentioned
that
they
hoped
by
the
time
this
came
back
for
cop.
AJ
J
A
All
right
is
anybody
else
here
to
testify
does
do
we
have
any
questions
for
staff.
D
In
addition
to
an
application,
you
know
for
the
use
of
the
property
I.
Don't
think
that
we
saw
that
on
this
one
we
saw
just
the
annexation,
but
that
is
something
that
we
see
on
a
regular
basis.
People
are
actually
letting
us
know
what
the
use
is
going
to
be,
even
in
a
conditional
use
permit
or
sometimes
other
ones,.
AH
N
It
seems
to
me,
at
least,
if
I'm
understanding
the
timeline
Horizon.
Here,
though,
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
how
this
piece
of
property
would
be
able
to
be
utilized
in
light
of
the
traffic
issues,
and
so
the
ability
to
determine
how
it
could
be
used
in
light
of
the
conditions
makes
that
a
little
more
challenging.
It
was
clear
that
there
was
discussion
about
this
storage
facility
in
light
of
the
traffic
restrictions,
so
in
some
ways
I
think
it.
N
It
just
I'm,
still
just
a
little
bit
confused
about
the
kind
of
timeline
tracking
of
this,
and
that,
if
we
expect
individuals
to
come
and
bring
both
of
those
applications
at
the
same
time
when
we
know
that
there
may
be
challenges
with
the
annexation
and
restrictions
on
that
as
part
of
that
discussion,
I
I
would
not
have
expected
those
to
happen
at
the
same
time.
In
light
of
what
I'm
hearing
the
discussion
was
about
with
this
particular
piece
of
property.
AH
N
Yeah
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
understand
when
this
annexation
was
brought
forth.
It
seems
that
there
were
already
issues
and
concerns
about
how
its
use
would
be
ascended
around
traffic
and
that
it,
the
separation
of
waiting
to
bring
a
separate
cup,
was
to
ensure
that
it
complied
with
what
we
were
looking
for
with
the
annexations
I
guess
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
are
we
always
expecting
or
always
wanting
and
annexation,
and
it's
up
at
the
same
time,
because
I
I'm,
just
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
the
expectation
here
well.
A
I'll
jump
in
here
because
that's
actually
a
policy,
a
policy
discussion
when
I
was
on
Planning
and
Zoning
I
would
not
vote
to
Annex
something
without
a
clear
plan
on
the
use.
Given
that,
if
you
Annex
something
with
a
suite
of
potential
uses,
you
might
end
up
getting
a
use
that
you
don't
want
and
the
time
to
have
that
discussion
is
at
the
time
of
annexation
and
designation
of
the
zoning
was
my
Approach
as
a
planning
and
zoning
committee,
commission,
member
and
a
council
member
way
back
in
the
day.
A
A
policy
discussion
and
decision
that
you
know
Council
should
have
at
some
point
in
the
future
if
there
needs
to
be
clear,
Direction
given
where
we're
at
today
on
this
one
and
given
the
discussion
that
was
had,
especially
with
two
council
members
that
we've
lost
about
their
concerns
of
what
this
could
be,
given
that
there
wasn't
a
plan
in
place
at
time
of
annexation
when
a
right
and
a
development
right
was
given
without
Clarity
on
what
was
expect
did
here
and
so
I'd
say
rather
than
I
jumped
in
rather
than
having
staff,
because
it
really
is
a
policy
discussion.
AI
Thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Just
briefly
with
regard
to
the
the
comments
by
the
public
and
the
concern
about
this,
you
know
having
something
that's
more
of
an
active
use.
The
reality
is
this
parcel
of
properties,
really
isn't
all
that
conducive
to
it.
With
that
14
foot
difference
in
the
grade
level,
it's
not
something
that's
going
to
be
amenable
to
any
sort
of
active
use
and
as
I
as
I
think
I
beat
to
death.
AI
In
my
opening
comments,
when
we
do
have
any
sort
of
an
active
use,
any
sort
of
a
more
active
use,
something
that's
going
to
want
to
bring
the
community
in
we're
necessarily
generating
more
traffic
in
that
area,
and
when
we
necessarily
generate
more
traffic
in
that
area,
we
are
losing
that
access
point
all
together
with
regard
to
with
regard
to
when
this
annexation
was
brought
forth
and
and
that
the
cup
was
not
brought
brought
forth.
AI
At
the
same
time,
I
think
the
the
comments
by
council
member
Haney
Keith
were
were
I.
I
agree
with
the
fact
that
there's
not
always
going
to
be
circumstances
in
which
it
makes
sense
to
bring
those
at
the
same
time.
But
in
this
case
my
client
was
indeed
very,
very
transparent
about
what
was
going
to
happen,
allow
it
has
ever
changed
and
so
given
how
we
have
the
development
agreement
where
it
is
today
it's
either.
AI
This
is
going
to
be
developed
into
the
self
storage
facility,
because
that's
really
all
that's
available
under
that
traffic
requirement,
that
low
10
intent,
low
density,
low
intensity
traffic
requirement-
or
it's
not
going
to
be
developed
really
into
anything,
because
anything
else
is
going
to
create
all
sorts
of
problems
down
the
road
with
access
and
with
needing
to
potentially
get
a
new
development
agreement,
or
something
like
that.
AI
I
think
that
you
know
it's
almost
more
trouble
than
it's
worth
at
that
point,
and
so
I
think
the
the
usage
of
the
self
storage
facility
is
down
that
14-foot
slope.
They're
they're,
you
know
I
I.
My
client
is
absolutely
open
to
the
conversations
with
the
commission
about
how
to
design
that
to
make
it
fit
the
neighborhood
best
how
to
make
that
actually
be
an
enhancement
to
the
neighborhood
as
opposed
to
the
vacant
lot.
AI
That
is
there
right
now,
but
if
the,
if
the
requirement
is
going
to
be
go,
do
something
else
which
is
necessarily
going
to
require
go,
get
a
new
development
agreement
start
this
all
over,
so
that
you
can
at
least
have
access
to
that
parcel,
and
I
guess
is
that
it's
going
to
stay
as
that
bacon
lot,
it's
not
going
to
be
very
conducive
to
the
neighborhood
feel
altogether,
and
so
with
that,
I
would
stand
for
any
further
questions.
Ben.
D
Mayer
I've
got
it
question
comment,
so
I
appreciate
what
councilmember
Henry
Keith
brought
up
and
I
appreciate.
You
know
that
not
all
the
time
is
annexation
going
to
come
with
a
conditional
use
permit.
At
the
same
time
they
would
tell
you
this
is
exactly
what
it's
going
to
be,
but
the
reality
is.
Is
it
didn't?
D
And
so
there
was
nothing
that
guaranteed
your
client
that
a
storage
unit
could
take
place
because
there
was
no
conditional
use
permit
at
that
time,
and
so,
while
that
discussion
maybe
came
up,
it
sounds
like
there
was
at
least
two
council
members
that
weren't
excited
about
it.
I
haven't
ever
been
excited
about
a
self
storage
unit,
popping
up
in
a
neighborhood,
and
so
there
was
nothing
that
guaranteed
that
right
going
forward.
D
But
when
the
commission
heard
it
they're
not
hearing
it
as
a
guaranteed,
for
you
know,
past
discussions
they're
only
looking
at
as
the
conditional
use
permit
and
so
I
guess.
That's
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
here
is
that
without
any
of
the
past
discussions
only
conditional
use
permit
in
front
of
you.
D
They
made
a
decision
saying
that
the
comprehensive
plan
didn't
identify.
This
as
the
best
use
and
that
it
didn't
comply
with
the
neighborhood,
so
they
found
two
specific
things
that
we
look
for
in
a
conditional
use.
Permit
and
I
guess
I
need
you
to
figure
out
like
how
they
errored
in
that
in
those
findings,
because
they
did
find
two
specific
things
that
we
typically
look
for
in
a
conditional
use.
Permit.
A
AI
And
councilmember
Halliburton,
you
know
it's
interesting
what
what
what
Madam
mayor
mentioned
before
about
the
policy
consideration,
because
when
this
originally
came
through
the
commission
that
that
very
issue
was
raised,
in
fact
the
only
commission
member
who
a
commissioner
who
voted
no
said
hey
using
his
words
the
cat's
out
of
the
bag.
At
this
point,
if
we
approve
this,
we
can't
come
back
later
and
say
no,
but
that's
in
fact
what
did
happen
here
with
regard
to
the
idea
about
nothing
was
guaranteed
I
I!
AI
That's
where
I
think
we
have
a
problem
with
the
development
agreement,
how
it
was
issued,
because
I
do
think
that
the
development
agreement
does
guarantee
a
right
to
to
develop
that
property
as
a
self-storage
facility.
The
condition
was
set
was
set
forth
as
long
as
the
use
of
the
subject.
Property
is
a
self-storage
facility.
You
can
have
this
access
point
and
at
that
point,
I
think
we've
got
an
agreement
between
the
city
and
the
applicant.
AI
That
says:
we're
going
to
allow
you
to
do
that,
because
we
know
that
this
is
how
that's
going
to
impact
the
traffic,
maybe
not
the
cleanest,
best
way
to
go
about
things
absolutely,
but
we
would
contend
just
to
answer
your
question
that
there
is
a
guarantee
of
a
right
to
develop
a
self
storage
facility.
There.
D
E
This
is
not
a
particularly
easy
or
Lovely
One.
The
basis
of
my
motion
is
that
first,
it
can't
be
the
case
that
we
granted
a
conditional
use
in
the
development
agreement.
That
process
requires
a
public
hearing.
It
requires
all
kinds
of
things
and
if
we
did
business
that
way,
somebody
else
would
just
sue
us
and
say
we
didn't
follow
the
proper
procedure
on
something
we
proved
that
way.
So
development
agreement
can't
contain
a
promise
to
build
a
storage
facility
here.
E
E
All
we
have
to
decide
and
all
we
should
decide
is
whether
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
aired
and
the
articulated
a
basis
for
their
decision.
They
considered
these
arguments
and
they
made
a
decision
based
on
the
comprehensive
plan
and
compatibility
with
the
neighborhood.
The
comprehensive
plan
calls
out
more
active
mixed
commercial
residential
in
that
general
area,
which
they
concluded
rationally,
but
a
storage
facility
isn't
and
they
made
factual
conclusions
about
the
compatibility
of
storage
facility
with
the
neighborhood.
So
for
me
it
comes
down
to
they
didn't
air.
E
Under
our
appeal
standard,
we
couldn't
legally
or
procedurally,
have
promised
a
storage
facility
when
we
did
the
annexation
and
we've
got
an
unfortunate
Confluence
of
events
with
what
achd
will
permit,
what
our
comprehensive
plan
will
permit
and
the
disjointed
timeline
of
the
annexation
request
and
the
conditional
use
permit
and
I'm.
Sorry.
E
E
A
All
right,
we
have
one
more
item
and
I'm
gonna.
Typically,
we
have
the
rule
where
we
don't
start
new
business
after
10
unless
I,
just
I'm
saying
unless
I
give
a
reason,
I'm
giving
a
reason,
but
we
have
that
to
exist
so
that
we
don't
pick
up
longer
items
after
10.
If,
if
we
feel
that
that's
the
right
thing
to
do,
this
is
an
application,
a
whole
bunch
of
app
requests
to
Surplus
city-owned
land.
Is
anybody
here
to
testify
on
this
I
didn't
think
so?
A
And
for
it's
for
that
reason
that,
because
it's
our
request,
a
surplus
didn't
expect
anybody
to
be
here.
We're
going
to
go
ahead
and
pick
this
up,
but
I'd
ask
for
a
condensed
report
and.
D
Ahead,
Ben
Mayer
I
move
that
we
defer
drh22-00437.
E
O
O
B
AK
You
Madame
mayor
members
of
council.
It
will
be
super
efficient.
This
should
just
take
a
few
moments.
I
am
here,
as
the
mayor
said,
regarding
the
surplus
of
four
properties
that
are
currently
in
our
rental
housing
portfolio.
These
properties
were
originally
purchased
with
federal
funds,
and
the
required
period
of
affordability
has
expired,
so
we
are
proposing
surplusing
those
to
sell
these
homes
at
a
below
market
rate
to
an
income
eligible
household.
AK
AK
There
is
a
surplus
process,
of
course
required
that
has
certain
requirements
among
those
is
that
the
property
is
both
considered
under
utilized
and
not
being
used
for
a
public
purpose.
These
homes
have
recently
been
vacated
by
virtue
of
the
type
of
property.
They
are
they're
extremely
expensive
to
maintain
and
operate
as
affordable
rentals.
So
we
are
proposing
surplusing
them
really
briefly
on
pricing
and
affordability,
where
targeting
households
at
80
Ami
because
of
the
size
of
the
home,
we
assumed
that
they
would
be
in
the
neighborhood
of
a
five-person
household.
AK
AK
There
is
a
whole
host
of
requirements
for
offer
packages.
We
have
some
very
specific
ones
wanted
to
have
those
documented
as
part
of
the
public
hearing.
The
reason
for
this
set
of
requirements
is
that
we
want
to
set
potential
homeowners
up
for
Success,
avoiding
any
predatory
loans,
for
example.
So
our
process
is
that
the
a
realtor
will
collect
all
of
our
packages.
They'll.
AK
Last
but
not
least,
these
are
the
steps
that
we
will
undertake.
Once
city
clerk
publishes
the
ordinance,
we
will
list
the
properties
for
sale
and
accept
offers
until
roughly
the
end
of
September
happy
to
stand
for
any
questions.
G
This
is
a
new
process
for
me,
so
forgive
me,
is
it
possible
to
do
some
kind
of
like
deed
restriction
or
something
that
would
allow
the
resale
to
also
be
at
80
percent.
AK
Madame
mayor
council
member,
we
are
not
including
a
deed
restriction
on
the
properties,
because
the
legal
mechanism
there
gets
incredibly
difficult
to
enforce
since
we're
not
putting
funds
toward
or
or
putting
funds
towards,
say
the
down
payment
or
towards
their
loan.
So
we
really
have
no
enforceability
there.
Thank.
G
U
AK
AK
So,
given
what
we
have
to
charge
or
what
we
do
charge
in
rent
it,
there
is
a
pretty
big
Delta
between
what
it
costs
to
operate
and
maintain
them
as
affordable
rentals,
which
we
are
required
to
do
versus
offering
a
homeownership
opportunity,
which
is
a
space
that
we're
trying
to
move
into
policy
wise
as
we're
able
to
do
so
so
that
that
effort
is
made
in
this
vein
or
this
I
think
I
said
that
backwards.
But
you
got
me
has.
AK
Madam
mayor
council
member
Nash,
not
specifically
on
this
set
of
four
properties,
we
have
a
mid-term
to
long-term
game
plan
to
talk
with
the
housing
authority
and
others
in
the
homeownership
space
or
affordable
rental
housing
to
talk
through
what's
possible.
As
far
as
a
community
Land,
Trust
deed,
restricting
affordable
home
ownership
opportunities
Etc,
we
have
a
certain
level
of
urgency
to
move
on
the
properties
we
have
now
because
they
are
sitting
vacant
and
we're
assuming
some
risks
with
that
vacancy.
U
I
just
comment:
I
I,
like
the
idea
of
us
moving
into
space
of
promoting
home
ownership
at
the
same
time,
I
feel
like
that's
just
one
family
we
can
help,
whereas
if
we
were
able
to
preserve
these
in
rental
inventory
long
term,
I
feel
like
we
could
help
a
lot
more
people
I
know
that
it
may
not
be
make
sense
for
us
to
do
it.
Sorry.
D
I
think
that
this
is
is
probably
the
way
to
do.
This
I
moved
the
ordinance,
30-23
ordinance,
31-23,
ordinance,
32-23,
ordinance,
33-23.
D
Be
read
by
number
and
title
only
and
filed
for
the
second
reading
calendar.
Second,
we.
A
U
Yeah
I'd
just
say
I'd
like
to
keep
these
in
rental
inventory.
It
may
not
make
sense
for
us
to
do
it.
Maybe
there's
another
agency
like
the
Housing
Authority
that
could
keep
it
in
the
rental
inventory,
but
I
I
feel
like
selling
it.
Helping
promote
home
ownership
for
affordability
is,
is
a
good
thing,
but
I
think
we
just
get.
We
just
help
one
family
and
not
a
lot
more
over
a
longer
period
of
time,
so
I'm
probably
inclined
to
vote
no
on
it.
D
Madam
Mary
I'll,
just
I'll,
make
a
comment.
There.
I
acknowledge
that
and
and
I
do
think,
that
that's
important
to
consider.
We've
had
a
couple
of
these
come
before
us
and
it
does
put
funding
back
into
a
lot
of
our
initiatives
for
housing.
D
So
I
think
that
there
is
a
benefit
there
and
then
also
I
think
with
the
generational
wealth
component,
offering
home
ownership
when
we
can
does
have
a
you
know,
effect
down
the
line
as
well,
but
certainly
understand
that
and
that's
something
I
would,
you
know,
be
willing
to
talk
about
as
we
look
at
these
things
again
in
the
future.
Q
I
had
a
quick
question
for
Maureen
Maureen:
this
is
like
winning
the
lottery
for
some
folks,
I
mean
this
is
unbelievable.
The
price
that
the
price
point
that
this
is,
how
will
this
be
advertised
I
mean
I,
just
I
I.
Think
if
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
interest
in
this,
so
I'm
curious
about
how
we
make
sure
that
it's
a
fair
advertisement
that
people
know
about
it.
AK
Madam
mayor
council,
member
Willis,
the
realtor
that
we
will
have
on
higher
to
do
this
will
certainly
advertise
in
the
traditional
ways
we
will
also
be
reaching
out
to
non-profit
agencies
that
do
this
work
and
they've
actually
have
quite
a
few
qualified
home
buyers
already
or
I
should
say
most
likely
do
so
we'll
do
some
direct
advertising
to
them
to
let
them
know
that
these
four
properties
are
up
for
sale.
G
I'm,
not
something
I
need
to
understand
tonight,
but
something
I
would
love
to
understand.
More
is
if
we
can't
afford
to
maintain
affordable
rentals.
How
can
we
expect
other
landlords
to
do
that
and
I
know
that
we
are
incentivizing
that
as
best
we
can,
but
that's
just
something:
I'd
love
to
learn
more
about
yeah.
A
I'll
propose
it
in
your
when
you
do
your
orientation
meetings
with
the
housing
team
that
you
have
that
discussion
all
right.
There's
a
motion:
Clerk.
B
U
U
B
Ord-33-23
an
ordinance
declaring
certain
real
property
identified
as
Ada
County
Assessor's
parcel
number
r1061600250
and
located
at
2952
West
Cherry
Lane
in
Boise,
City,
Ada,
County
Idaho
as
underutilized
or
not
used
by
the
city
for
public
purposes.
Finding
that
the
sale
of
the
property
is
in
the
public
interest,
offering
the
sale
of
the
property
to
an
income
eligible
buyer
authorizing
City
officials
and
staff.
To
do
all
things
necessary
to
conduct
the
real
property,
sale,
transaction
and
establishing
an
effective
date.