►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission - 12/14/2020
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
B
C
See
janelle,
maybe
she
might
be
running
late
and
then
I
thought
I
saw
jim
there.
E
C
Okay,
so
we
have
a
fun-filled
night
stacked
up
for
we'll
go
over
the
agenda,
real,
quick
and
then
talk
about
how
we'll
proceed
with
this
evening's
festivities.
For
number
two,
and
as
I
look
over
here,
I'm
looking
towards
bob
and
melt
so.
C
Okay,
so
letter
a
subdivision,
20-59,
prelim
and
final
plot
for
six
buildable
lots
on
elmer
street
we're
recommending
approval.
There
hasn't
been
any
opposition
received,
so
we'll
try
for
consent.
C
Number
one
zoa
20-2
that'll
be
the
main
event
tonight.
We
will
get
back
to
that
here
in
a
minute,
but
we
will
be
hearing
it.
Obviously
number
two
cp
20-53
an
emd
sign
on
emerald
street.
We
are
recommending
approval,
no
one
has
signed
up
in
advance,
and
so
we
are
going
to
try
for
consent
and
so
number
a
or
letter.
A
and
number
two
are
the
only
consent
items
hopefully
tonight.
C
Well,
I
hope
more
would
be,
but
that
we
know
of
number
three
cer,
20-15
ped
and
variants
and
subdivisions
on
33rd
and
forsythia
and
near
hill
road.
It's
a
rezone
pud
subdivision
for
14,
buildable,
townhomes
or
14
buildable
lots
and
four
common
lots.
We
have
received
some
opposition,
so
we
are
planning
to
hear
that
one
tonight
number
four
cer2019
rezoned
from
pcdd
to
c5dda
on
state
street.
C
Number
five
is
an
annexation,
cr
20-16
on
eugene
lane.
We
do
have
some
opposition
on
that
one.
So
we
will
have
to
hear
it
number
six
cp
20-50
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
drive
up
window
on
fairview.
C
C
C
And
then
number
eight
cop,
20-45
and
cva
20-63
on
victory
road
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
storage
and
a
variance.
We
did
receive
some
comments
of
opposition
and
we
will
need
to
hear
that
one.
C
C
We
have
recommended
that
each
of
them
take
five
minutes
to
speak.
However,
only
two
of
them
signed
up
in
advance,
so
we
might
be
hearing
from
less
of
them.
So
the
idea
is
that
we,
when
we
start
the
hearing,
we
can
see
how
many
neighborhood
associations
are
actually
here,
have
them
raise
their
hand
and
then
to
see
how
many
people
are
here
and
raise
their
hand,
because
I
think
we
had
15
or
so
people
sign
up.
C
We
might
have
more
that
just
show
up
online
and
then
we
can
see
how
many
people
we
can
expect.
I
I'm
guessing
it
could
be
easily
two
hours
for
this
one
item.
C
We
will
try
our
best,
of
course,
to
go
through
them,
but
we've
had
situations
in
the
past
where
we've
made
deliberation
in
and
final
decisions
at
2
a.m
in
the
morning
and
that's
never
a
good
feeling
and
the
weather
the
way.
It
is
too
for
the
few
of
us
that
are
here
at
city
hall,
so
we'll
make
that
statement
right
from
the
get-go
that
we
could
have
deferrals.
C
C
My
guess
is
that
we'll
have
to
defer
a
couple
items,
but
I'll
be
I'll,
be
happy
to
be
surprised
and
not
for
anything
either.
So
any
questions.
B
Milton
so
just
to
clarify
so
our
our
goal
tonight
or
our
purpose
is
going
to
be
to
do
the
consent,
try
and
see
if
we
can
get
a
and
two
done
on
the
commit
consent
agenda.
B
G
B
Okay,
all
right,
mr
chairman
yeah,
please
so
just
in
case
you
want
I'd,
be
happy
to
read
into
the
record
at
the
very
beginning
in
the
movie,
the
actual
code,
language
for
review
body
deferral
procedure,
item
two
lack
of
quorum
or
lateness
of
hour.
B
I'd
be
happy
to
read
that
into
the
record.
If,
if
you
want,
it
basically
says,
mr
chairman,
that
if
we
make
a
specific
finding
that
it's
lateness
of
our
is
is
is
applying,
we
can
defer
the
rest
of
the
agenda
to
our
next
meeting
right
and
it
doesn't
really
indicate
that
you
need
to
go
through
all
the
consent
procedures
and
all
of
that,
so
my
reading
of
the
code
is,
we
could
just
just
decide,
discuss
and
vote
on
that
lateness
of
our
deferral
to
our
next
meeting.
F
E
My
apologies
for
that
brief,
brief
pause.
Commissioners,
I
would
agree
and
what
we've
discussed,
or
what
we
have
settled
on
is
that
for
the
lateness
of
our
deferral,
we
do
need
to
get
through
part
of
the
agenda
and
use
consideration
of
time
and
where
we're
at
on
the
agenda
as
part
of
those
findings,
and
so
it
would
make
more
sense
to
take
that
pause.
That
saline
was
discussing
at
around
the
nine
o'clock
hour
to
determine.
B
Correct
and
and
mr
chairman,
just
for
everyone's
information-
the
way
the
city
puts
out
the
agenda
now,
there's
a
note
at
the
bottom
says:
it
is
at
the
discretion
of
the
commission
to
not
begin
new
business
after
9
30.
remaining
items
will
be
deferred
to
the
next
scheduled
hearing,
so
we
have
discretion
to
do
that.
I
think
that
nine
number
930
number,
because
that's
what
we've
sent
out
and
it's
in
the
public.
I
think
we
should
abide
by
that
and
you
know,
as
we
get
around,
that
nine
nine
thirty
number
we
can.
A
C
D
C
All
right
everyone
good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
boise
city
planning
and
zoning
commission
public
hearing
a
few
things
to
start
out
for
tonight's
proceedings.
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak
as
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you'll
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
there
is
a
chat
function
in
zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
C
After
that,
we
proceeded
the
public
hearing,
starting
with
those
who
raise,
who
signed
up
sorry,
starting
with
those
in
person
and
then
who
signed
up
online
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you
are
attending
through
your
telephone.
You
can
type
in
star9
to
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
We
are
strict
with
this
time,
as
as
it
is
limited
in
code.
C
Finally,
the
applicant
is
allowed
five
minutes
for
rebuttal,
after
which
the
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
commission
will
deliberate
and
render
a
decision.
Tonight's
agenda
and
proceedings
might
have
a
bit
of
a
delay
as
we
all
navigate
through
the
technology.
So
please
be
courteous
and
kind
as
we
venture
through
this
hybrid
format.
Mr
chair,
you
have
the
floor.
A
Good
evening,
good
evening,
everyone
we
are
citizen,
volunteers,
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
the
city
council.
We
make
final
decisions
on
conditional
use,
permits,
variances
and
appeals
and
recommendations
to
the
city
council
on
subdivisions,
annexations
and
code
or
comprehensive
plan
amendments
any
decision
tonight.
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council,
provided
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
this
hearing.
A
A
This
means
that
if
the
applicant
agrees
with
the
staff
report
and
if
there
is
no
public
opposition,
the
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
hearing
in
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
minutes
ago
with
staff
applicant,
the
neighborhood
association
and
then
the
public
testimony.
H
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
A
pretty
full
plate
this
evening,
everyone
so
we're
gonna,
take
care
of
a
few
housekeeping
items
up
front.
First
of
note:
item
number:
seven,
that
is
cup
20-47,
montessori
school
of
boise.
That
item
has
been
withdrawn
and
with
that
we
have
a
few
items
for
inclusion
into
the
consent
agenda
or
we'll
try
for
the
consent
agenda.
A
First,
without
objection
like
to
place
the
minutes
from
our
november,
2nd
and
november
9th
meetings
on
the
consent
agenda
and
then
we'll
move
right
along
to
our
first
item.
That's
item
a
which
is
eligible
for
the
consent
agenda.
That's
item
a
sub
20-59,
rodney
evans
and
partners
at
6222,
west
elmer
street.
A
K
H
A
M
A
H
A
A
H
I
D
B
Mr
chairman,
commissioner,
gillespie
jim,
would
you
mind
moving
that
we
approve
the
agenda
agenda
consisting
of
those
two
items
so
moved.
N
F
A
Okay,
very
good,
so
with
that
we
will
circle
back
around
to
item
number
one
and
actually
before
we
begin
that
item,
I
just
want
to
make
note
for
everyone
in
the
audience
this
evening.
We
do
have
a
quite
lengthy
agenda
this
evening,
I'd
like
all
parties
to
be
aware
of
that
we're
here
to
make
sure
we
get
everyone's
comments
heard,
especially
in
regards
to
number
one.
A
So
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
kick
this
off
with
item
number,
one
that
is
zoa
20-2
planning
and
development
services.
This
was
deferred
from
november
9th
2020
meeting.
This
is
a
zoning
ordinance
amendment
to
boise
city
code,
chapter
11,
603.4,
with
that
we
will
hear
from
staff,
and
that
is
andrea
tuning.
O
Chair
this
is
leon,
letson
I'll
actually
be
leading
this
conversation
initially
and
andrea
will
finish
it
up.
So
I'll
get
us
started
very
good.
Thank
you
all
right,
good
evening,
chair
and
members
of
the
commission.
The
item
before
you
is
a
zoning
ordinance
amendment
to
permit
a
housing
bonus
in
exchange
for
assisting
the
city
in
its
efforts
to
increase,
affordable
housing
target
areas
for
housing
growth
and
preserving
existing
buildings
to
expand
housing
supply.
I'm
leon
lettson
the
grower
housing
program
manager.
The
majority
of
the
presentation,
as
I
mentioned,
will
be
led
by
andrea
tuning.
O
O
O
P
O
The
housing
bonus
ordinance
is
one
tool
under
maximized
land
use
allowances
aimed
at
increasing
housing
supply
through
zoning
and
development
standards,
to
improve
housing,
affordability
options
and
choice
for
people
at
all
income
levels.
The
housing
bonus
ordinance
is
a
tool
where
you've
shop
worked
with
the
community
in
the
series
of
outreach
efforts
I
mentioned
above
and
with
that
I'll
hand
it
over
to
andrea
to
share
the
remainder
of
the
presentation,
I'll
also
be
available
for
any
questions
at
the
end.
Thank
you.
Q
We
are
here
this
evening
to
talk
about
the
zoning
ordinance
amendment
and
leo,
as
leon
had
pointed
out
earlier,
this
particular
zoning
ordinance
amendment
falls
under
the
grower
housing
maximized
land
use
allowances,
strategies
the
housing
bonus.
Amendment
is
actually
the
second
amendment
that
the
city
has
done
under
this
particular
initiative.
The
first
occurred
in
2019
with
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
amendment
this
evening.
We
are
looking
for
the
proposed
housing
bonus
ordinance,
which
is
a
new
section
within
our
residential
use
standards.
Q
Q
Each
one
of
these
base
bonuses
does
offer
a
variety
of
incentives.
A
number
of
those
incentives
include
flexibility
regarding
density,
additional
building
height,
the
ability
to
receive
a
parking
reduction,
as
well
as
a
streamlined
review
process.
If
certain
criteria
are
met,
I'm
going
to
do
a
brief
tutorial
about
each
one
of
the
available
bonuses
to
kind
of
explain
how
they
work
with
the
affordable
housing
bonus.
Q
We
do
get
a
public
benefit
of
getting
10,
15
or
20
percent
of
the
proposed
housing
income,
the
proposed
housing
being
income
restricted
and
the
incentive
that
we
can
offer
to
get
that
public
benefit
is
offering
a
streamlined
process
that
flexibility
and
density
additional
building
height
in
the
office
as
well
as
commercial
zones.
However,
it
is
restricted
in
the
r3
zone
as
well
as
a
parking
reduction.
Q
When
we
talk
about
the
affordable
housing
unit,
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
take
a
look
at
what
does
that
really
mean?
So
we
are
specifically
targeting
populations
that
meet
eighty
percent
to
a
hundred
percent
of
area,
median
income,
so
a
household
size
of
one
individual
qualifying
under
the
80
percent
of
ami.
Q
Q
It's
important
to
note
that
the
housing
bonus
ordinance
is
only
targeting
one
specific
population,
as
we
noted
before
it's
the
80
to
100
percent
of
ami.
We
do
have
a
number
of
other
strategies
that
fall
within
our
grower
housing
program
that
are
targeting
those
lower
ami
populations,
which
would
include
80
percent
and
below.
Q
Q
So
when
we
talk
about
the
additional
height
that
would
be
allowed,
if
the
public
benefit
is
provided,
we
would
allow
for
one
additional
floor
to
be
constructed
that
would
take
a
height
from
45
feet
to
55
feet.
However,
it
would
require
that's
top
story
to
step
in
and
provide
an
additional
10
foot
step
back
above
and
beyond
that
base
setback.
Q
Q
So
when
we
take
a
look
at
the
50
foot
wide
lot,
we
do
have
the
potential
to
provide
a
total
of
four
parking
spaces.
That
would
be
three
traditional
and
one
van
accessible
space,
and
when
we
look
at
the
100
foot
wide
lot,
we
are
able
to
provide
10
vehicle
parking
spaces.
Assuming
it's
alley
loaded
or
if
we
were
looking
at
on
street
parking,
we
would
have
four
on-street
parking
spaces.
Q
When
we
evaluate
the
activity
center
supportive
bonus,
the
public
benefit
is
actually
getting
housing
located
near
our
activity
centers.
So
if
a
project
is
in
one-eighth
of
a
mile
of
a
con,
excuse
me
a
community
activity
center,
they
would
be
eligible
for
a
bonus
or
one-quarter
of
a
mile
for
from
a
regional
activity.
Q
Q
Q
Q
So
if
we
have
a
structure
that
is
not
traditionally
utilized
for
residential
use,
it
could
convert
into
a
residential
use
or
if
we
do
have
a
residential
use
that
would
like
to
convert
into
additional
residential
uses
that
would
be
allowed
as
you'll
notice.
There's
a
number
of
additional
applicable
zones
that
qualify
under
the
adaptive,
reuse
and
the
one
incentive
that's
offered
is
the
parking
reduction.
Q
When
we
take
a
look
at
the
land
area
distributed
through
the
city
of
boise,
again
you'll
notice
that
it's
predominantly
throughout
the
entire
city.
The
total
land
area
is
55.7
percent
of
the
city's
land
area,
and
that
seems
significant.
However,
you'll
want
to
remember
that
these
will
be
buildings
that
will
be
converted
from
one
use
to
a
residential
use
that
drops
the
percentage
significantly.
Q
Ultimately,
the
maximum
benefit
that
they
would
get
would
be
a
30
parking
reduction,
the
possibility
of
a
streamlined
process
that
density
flexibility
and
in
certain
zones,
specifically
the
office
and
commercial
zones
additional
building
height
in
september.
When
we
submitted
our
application,
we
actually
created
a
website
for
individuals
to
seek
additional
information
and
provide
information.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
The
housing
bonus
ordinance
as
proposed,
simply
gives
us
the
opportunity
to
start
a
plan
of
action.
Early
before
more
individuals
become
overburdened
by
housing
costs.
It
allows
us
the
ability
to
evaluate
the
process
and
refine
the
ordinance
further
to
effectively
create
housing,
affordability
and
housing
options
for
people
of
all
ages,
income
levels,
household
sizes
and
cultural
backgrounds.
Q
We
did
propose
a
number
of
changes
and
modifications
to
the
ordinance
which
you
should
have
in
your
packet.
I
wanted
to
just
kind
of
walk
us
through
each
one
of
those,
so
that
there's
an
understanding
of
what
occurred
from
the
original
proposal
to
what
is
being
proposed
at
this
point
as
a
recommendation
to
the
planning
and
zoning
commission.
Q
Q
We
also
added
the
pedestrian
commercial
zone
to
an
applicable
zone
for
the
affordable
housing
bonus,
as
well
as
the
activity
center
supportive
bonus.
We
clarified
that
adaptive
reuse
bonus
is
for
primary
structures.
Only
we
removed
the
height
incentive
for
the
r3
zone
for
affordable
housing,
as
well
as
activity
center
supportive.
Q
Q
Now
we
get
to
the
important
stuff,
which
is
that
criteria
for
approval.
We
actually
have
two
findings
that
we
need
to
make
this
evening.
The
first
is
is
that
it
complies
with
and
conforms
to
the
comprehensive
plan,
and
our
second
legal
finding
is
is
that
it's
required
for
public
convenience
or
welfare,
so
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Q
When
we
look
at
policy
pdp
1.2,
it
talks
about
encouraging
the
production
of
housing
and
mixed-use
development
and
infill
priority
areas,
and
it
also
allows
incentives
to
be
utilized
to
provide
density,
height,
a
streamlined
process
and
also
for
targeted
areas.
Goal
nac7
specifically
facilitates
an
integrated
mixed
use.
Q
When
we
talk
about
activity
center
supportive,
it
talks
about
encouraging
high
density
residential
development
as
part
of
new
activity
centers,
as
well
as
revitalizing,
some
of
those
existing
ones
and
promoting
compact
walkable
development
patterns
that
support
transit
and
reduce
carbon
emissions.
It
also
supports
getting
us
away
from
auto
oriented
uses.
Q
Our
last
finding
is
critical.
We
have
to
determine
is
this
required
for
public
convenience
and
general
welfare?
Indeed,
this
amendment
is
necessary
for
the
public
convenience
and
general
welfare
to
effectively
and
substantially
increase
the
number
of
our
housing
options
and
provide
equitable
access
to
safe
housing,
transportation,
employment
opportunities,
as
well
as
a
healthy
environment.
Q
Q
A
A
So,
given
the
scope
of
this
amendment,
we
have
several
neighborhood
associations
that
have
signed
up
in
advance
to
speak.
I
have
the
northwest
neighborhood
association
and
the
west
end,
I
believe,
they're,
both
in
attendance.
A
A
Very
good,
excellent!
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
We're
gonna
go
ahead
and
we'll
hear
from
each
of
you
and
we'd
like
to
start
out
with
five
minutes
for
each
neighborhood
association
and
as
you
guys
all
begin.
Of
course,
please
start
with
your
name
and
address
for
the
record
we'll
go
ahead
and
start
with
the
northwest
neighborhood
association.
That's
richard.
H
R
I
prepared
comments
for
10
minutes.
I
guess
I
can
just
go
and
hack
out
paragraphs
as
I
go
along.
What
would
you
suggest.
H
H
R
Thank
you,
richard
llewellyn,
9170
hill,
road
commissioners.
R
First
of
all,
as
a
neighborhood
that
was
annexed
without
our
consent
into
a
land
use
map
that
we
did
not
participate
in
creating,
we
will
confirm
that
the
lack
of
incorporating
detailed
public
knowledge
from
our
residents
into
land
use
decisions
has
had
lasting
negative
consequences.
Let's
be
clear,
streamlining
the
process
means
shutting
us
out
and
our
knowledge.
R
The
relatively
mild
controversy
generated
by
unpopular
development
applications
is
far
more
healthy
than
building
resentment
and
boise
with
a
highly
skewed
geographic
political
representation
is
vulnerable
to
building
resentment.
Equally
important
is
that
by
engaging
the
public
and
even
listening
to
them,
the
public
may
listen
back.
Our
neighborhood
had
adamantly
opposed
any
more
dense
building
along
state
street,
but,
as
we
have
learned
more,
we
now
support
transit,
oriented
development.
As
long
as
it
is
done
right,
controversy
can
lead
to
better
understanding.
R
We
have
tried
to
understand
how
this
housing
bonus
ordinance
will
lead
to
building
more
affordable
housing.
The
short
answer
is
that
it
will
not
not
in
our
neighborhood
and
not
in
most
of
the
targeted
zoning
districts,
because
the
threshold
rent
of
100
ami
is
already
above
the
going
market
rate.
Almost
everyone
now
recognizes
that
building
more
at
the
market
rate
has
no
impact
on
creating
affordable
housing.
Even
worse,
it
is
likely
to
lead
to
speculation
and
redevelopment
of
existing,
affordable
housing
such
as
manufactured
home
parks.
R
The
ordinance
I
should
say
we
need
to
be
very
clear
that
in
most
parts
of
the
city,
the
80
percent
ami
option
will
never
be
considered
simply
because
the
100
option
will
be
met
simply
by
building
market
rate
housing.
Let
me
repeat
that
the
eighty
percent
ami
will
not
be
used.
Only
building
the
going
market
housing
will
be
further
encouraged.
R
This
proposal
is
not
designed
to
build
any
more
affordable
housing
than
already
is
being
built.
A
sixty
percent
threshold
would,
on
the
other
hand
at
least
mitigate
the
displacement
created
by
the
bonus
and
would
allow
at
least
the
essential
workers
needed
to
maintain
these
large
new
buildings
to
live
nearby.
R
R
It
would
seem
to
further
channel
development
into
what
investors
so
clearly
favor
today
the
so-called
giant
box
homogeneous
apartment
complexes,
but
let's
not
make
the
mistake
of
assuming
what
is
favored
today
will
be
needed
tomorrow.
We
may
want
a
more
healthy
variation
of
price
points
within
a
project,
but
with
this
rule
an
expensive
penthouse
could
not
be
built
with
more
modest
units
that
would
otherwise
qualify.
R
Moreover,
this
rule
would
preempt
much
adaptive
reuse,
especially
a
mixture
of
owner
occupied
and
rental
units
at
multiple
price
points.
Today's
typical
multi-family
construction
is
not
up
to
standards
that
supports
what
we,
what
we're
traditionally
known
as
condos,
but
this
coolant
should
change.
However,
the
130
percent
rule
makes
selling
individual
units
as
condos
even
more
difficult,
as
it
would
confine
the
individual
owner
to
those
rent
threshold
restrictions
when
confronted
with
the
complexities
and
vagaries
of
investors,
speculators,
construction
costs
and
external
demands.
R
R
That
brings
us
to
the
topic
of
power,
your
power
as
city
officials,
to
shape
development
toward
the
public
interest.
We
all
should
know
that
idaho
is
a
strong
property
law
state
and
largely
a
dylan
rural
state
and
the
courts
have
ruled
against
cities
when
they
attempt
to
uphold
their
comprehensive
plans.
R
We
have
all
witnessed
the
developer
attorney
threaten
lawsuits.
If
you
cite
blueprint
boise
in
a
decision
unfavorable
to
their
clients,
some
of
you
as
commissioners
have
even
told
us
that
it
is
useless
to
cite
blueprint
boise
at
a
public
hearing,
because
the
plan
is
typically
not
backed
by
enforceable
ordinance,
even
though
lupa
clearly
states
that
land
use
decisions
shall
not
be
in
conflict
with
a
comprehensive
plan.
R
A
property
owner
in
idaho
simply
has
no
legal
expectation
to
a
rezone
for
the
higher
densities
that
will
make
a
developer
greater
profits.
You
can
and
have
used
this
power
to
exact
public
benefits
in
exchange
for
rezones
boise
by
its
own
ordinance
states
that
re-zones
must
be
in
the
public
interest.
Of
course,
there
are
limits
to
any
successful
negotiation,
but
this
power
to
negotiate
is
forfeited.
Once
developers
are
entitled
to
higher
densities
by
right,
the
ability
to
craft
a
beneficial
developer
agreement
with
a
rezone
will
also
largely
be
lost
in
the
targeted
districts.
R
R
We
might
foresee
some
of
these
site-specific
issues
with
design
standards.
That
is
a
difficult
task
we
have
yet
to
seriously
undertake.
It
is
also
unclear
whether
the
city
will
still
have
the
ability
to
attach
a
developer
agreement
onto
a
rezone
into
one
of
the
targeted
districts.
If
it
limits
any
of
the
bonuses
of
increased
densities,
increased
heights
or
reduced
parking,
either
directly
or
indirectly,
we
have
yet
to
make
the
investment
in
a
serious
study
of
the
housing
bonus,
ordinance,
impacts
on
housing,
affordability
and
what
the
expected
stresses
and
costs
will
be
to
our
infrastructure.
R
The
ordinance
severely
curtails
public
participation
and
the
ability
of
the
city
to
respond
to
the
public's
concerns
on
a
contextual
basis,
and
yet
it
does
not
achieve
anything
that
cannot
already
be
achieved
with
the
current
requirements.
Appearance.
This
is
not
a
beneficial
trade-off.
It
is
most
likely
to
accelerate
the
building
of
homogeneous
market
rate
apartments
that
may
satisfy
wall
street
today,
but
impoverish
our
city
of
tomorrow.
Thank
you.
M
Hey
my
name
is
jason
durand,
I'm
representing
the
west
end
neighborhood
association,
2517,
west
jefferson,
boise.
A
M
10
minutes,
okay,
I
guess
I
guess
to
start
with
the
west
neighborhood
neighbors
association
acknowledges
the
circumstances
and
reasoning
that
led
to
the
city
of
boise
to
pursue
and
propose
this,
but
we
can't
support
it
as
it's
written
mostly.
We
have
concerns
with
the
the
by-right
or
administrative
approval
of
the
large
projects
in
the
r3
zone,
and
we
also
believe
that
the
that
this
this
coupled
with
the
fact
that
most
of
the
bonuses
go
specifically
to
the
already
high
intensity
zones,
just
serve
to
sort
of
increase.
M
It's
just
a
certain
type
of
development
that
typically
becomes
very
controversial,
and
those
usually
are
the
ones
that
approach
the
density
limits
or
the
height
limits
in
in
certain
ways
that
are,
you
know
disrespectful,
I
guess
of
the
of
the
context
and
where
it
is
and-
and
we
have
in
the
past,
used
the
public
hearing
process
and
it's
played
a
very
critical
role
in
getting
results.
M
Developer
can
live
with
and
you
know
projects
can
get
approved
so
mostly
the
removal
of
that
public
hearing
process
for
20.
You
know
the
units
that
are
fewer
than
25
units
in
r3,
and
that
is
probably
the
most
concerning
part
for
the
west
end
neighbor
association.
M
Overall,
we
appreciate
the
goal
of
this
of
this
ordinance,
but
we
think,
as
proposed,
it's
short-sighted
and
probably
prone
to
create
a
lot
of
conflict.
D
A
C
A
S
S
Tonight
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
eastern
neighborhood
association
regarding
the
housing
bonus
ordinance
ena
had
submitted
testimony
by
email
opposing
the
ordinance.
Since
then,
a
few
board
members
have
heard
andrea
tuning
talk
about
the
changes
that
have
been
made
to
the
ordinance.
We
want
to
thank
you
all
for
listening
to
the
neighborhood
associations
and
boise
residents
about
their
concerns
and
frustration
and
making
changes
to
the
ordinance.
I
also
want
to
thank
andrea
tuning
for
being
available
to
talk
via
zoom
and
email.
S
She's
been
very
patient
and
has
answered
so
many
questions
and
we
really
appreciate
her
help.
The
concerns
we
still
have
is
the
lack
of
process,
no
matter
the
size
or
zoning.
The
process
should
still
hold
true.
All
neighborhood
associations
and
residents
should
have
an
opportunity
to
participate
in
public
process.
S
Many
of
the
neighborhood
associations
have
either
finished
and
adopted
their
neighborhood
plans,
or
they
are
in
the
process
of
writing
them.
There
is
a
lot
of
work
that
goes
into
these
plans.
There
is
neighborhood
outreach,
neighborhood
input
and
voting
before
the
neighborhood
associations
can
go
before
a
city
council
to
have
the
plans
adopted
into
blueprint
boise.
S
These
plans
hold
the
map
of
what
the
residents
want
and
hope
to
see
in
the
future
as
their
neighborhood
grows,
and
so
yes,
they
should
always
have
a
say
in
the
process
when
new
proposals
come
up.
The
east
end
understands
that
we
need
to
absorb
a
percentage
of
the
growth
and
that
boise
needs
affordable
housing
in
boise,
but
we
also
want
to
be
sure
that
the
growth
that
takes
place
is
something
that
complements
and
is
congruent
with
what
we
already
have
in
our
neighborhoods.
H
T
Commissioners,
thank
you
as
important
as
the
end
result
is
so
often,
the
journey
is
just
as
important.
T
Sorry
1301
south
grant
eric
berg
president's
southeast
neighborhood
association.
T
Appreciate
it
as
important
as
the
end
result
is
so
often
the
journey
is
just
as
important,
while
cena
feels
the
end
result
that
we
are
at
now
in
the
revised
ordinance
is
a
vast
improvement.
We
also
feel
that
the
process
needs
to
be
improved
so
that
we
can
get
even
better
results
in
the
future.
T
Cena
voted
in
october
to
oppose
the
original
ordinance,
based
mainly
on
our
worries
about
the
effect
on
the
r2
zone
and
the
possible.
There
was
no
limit
in
the
density
in
the
original
drafting
and
also
the
expedited
process.
This
ordinance
went
through
first
of
all,
we're
incredibly
thankful
for
the
reception
and
willingness
of
staff
to
listen
to
the
neighborhood
with
our
concerns
in
terms
of
removing
the
r2
zone
from
the
affordable
housing
bonus
part
of
this,
and
also
lowering
the
expedite
process
to
25
units.
T
T
We
do
have
some
concerns
still
about
historic
preservation
in
the
r3
zone
when
it
comes
to
this
ordinance,
but
we
do
note
that
this
is
something
that
could
be
solved
through
the
demolition
ordinance,
among
other
things
that
are
currently
working
their
way
through
the
system
in
the
future.
We
would
really
like
to
work
with
the
city
on
the
front
side
of
these
issues
than
having
to
play
catch-up.
T
The
staff
was
fantastic
in
working
with
us
once
we
sounded
the
alarm
things
that
we
thought
would
be
extraordinarily
detrimental
to
the
city,
and
we
have
some
alternatives
that
we
think
that
could
provide
for
greater
housing.
Affordability
such
as
the
missing
middle
that
would
be
compatible
with
r1
and
r2
that
wasn't
really
part
of
this,
but
might
be
part
of
future
ordinances
or
other
areas
that
would
love
to
work
with
the
city
on.
T
However,
we
need
to
be
working
together
early
on
it
was
the
scope
and
the
breadth
of
this
ordinance
that
caught
us
off
guard
and
bringing
in
neighborhood
associations
from
the
get-go
into
the
drafting
process,
in
addition
to
the
brainstorming
process
that
we
were
a
part
of
before
these
ordinances
are
even
submitted
to
planning
and
zoning
would
make
for
much
better
awards,
both
for
the
neighborhood
and
the
noble
and
vital
goals
of
these
ordinances.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
U
Hello,
I
would
like
to
testify,
on
behalf
of
the
west
downtown
neighborhood
association.
My
address
is
1810
west
jefferson,
street
boise,
idaho.
We
submitted
a
letter
also
with
some
concerns.
We
do
appreciate
some
of
the
amendments
that
have
been
made,
but,
as
other
neighborhood
associations
have
mentioned,
we
do
still
have
a
couple
concerns.
U
Our
neighborhood
contains
c2,
pc
and
r3
zoning,
which
would
be
impacted
by
this
code
update,
and
we
do
have
our
concerns
center
around
the
streamlined
administrative
process.
In
our
opinion,
it
it
kind
of
takes
away
the
opportunity
for
interaction
between
the
residents,
the
neighborhood
and
the
developer.
As
we
go
through
this
process,
our
neighborhood
has
utilized
the
public
hearing
process.
U
We
recently
adopted
a
neighborhood
plan
by
allowing
by
having
the
streamlined
administration
process.
We
worry
that
we
will
not
be
able
to
utilize
our
neighborhood
plan
to
the
full
extent
by
being
able
to
have
the
interaction,
whether
it
be
through
the
administration,
through
the
typical
process
of
the
notification
to
the
neighborhood
and
meetings
and
such
that
and
then
in
subsequently,
the
public
hearing.
U
U
Also
by
allowing
this
by
by
having
our
the
standard
process
where
neighborhoods
can
interact
with
the
developer
and
have
public
hearing
process,
we
feel
that
it
also
helps
build
a
relationship.
U
It's
we've
had
some
instances
where
we
haven't
had
good
interaction
to
start
with,
but
then
through
kind
of
having
to
have
the
public
process,
we
have
been
able
to
build
a
relationship
and
the
developer
has
been
able
to
understand
what
the
neighborhood
is
interested
in.
The
neighborhood
can
also
understand
what
the
goals
are
of
the
developer.
H
H
B
Staff,
madam
chairman,
our
susan,
mr
chairman,
commissioner
gillespie
it's
been
so
long
with
matt,
it's
been
a
while.
So
this
question
for
andrea
and
leon,
so
referring
to
the
actual
proposed
language,
section
c
called
approval
procedure.
The
last
sentence
in
the
packet
page
62
says
any
conditions
attached
to
a
project.
Approval
should
not
reduce
or
modify
the
housing
bonuses
for
which
the
project
qualifies
under
this
section.
B
Q
Q
What
that
particular
section
is
saying
is
is
that
there
is,
if
there
is
an
entitlement
through
the
housing
bonus
ordinance
for
additional
units.
We
cannot
reduce
them
through
other
means
other
than
our
traditional
design,
reviews,
standards
and
guidelines
that
would
be
applicable
to
all
developments.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
andrea
just
let
me
give
you
an
example,
and
you
tell
me
if
how
that
shakes
out.
So
someone
owns
a
piece
of
property.
Let's
say
it's
r2
so
is
currently
envisioned.
It's
not
part
of
this,
this
code
amendment,
but
they
come
to
the
city
and
they
ask
for
rezoned
r3.
B
Q
B
So,
mr
chairman,
so
just
so
that
everybody's
clear,
so
that
means
that
any
conditions
that
are
in
a
conditional
use
permit
or
I'm
trying
to
think
what
else
a
variance
request,
etc.
What
we
typically
think
of
is
where
there's
a
you
know
a
project
or
an
applicant.
We
cannot,
in
those
sorts
of
permit
applications,
restrict
these
bonuses.
B
O
O
O
I
think
andrea's
original
answer
answers
that
question
that,
with
the
development
agreement
you
can
restrict
unit
count,
density,
height,
setbacks
and
so
forth.
I
I
guess
what
you're
saying
is:
if
a
property
is
rezoned,
there's
a
development
agreement
and
the
housing
bonus,
ordinance,
isn't
anticipated
on
that
property
and
there's
somehow
wiggle
room
within
the
plans
provided
to
allow
for
additional
density.
O
Then
I
theoretically
that
could
happen,
but
you
know
we're
so
specific
in
our
development
agreements
when
it
comes
to
elevations
site
plans
unit
counts
that
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
happen
and
I
think
it's
on
the
planners
moving
forward
to
obviously
be
aware
of
the
ordinance
out
there
that
exist
and
when
we're
requesting
zones
that
this
ordinance
could
be
applied
to.
I
think
that
conversation
will
need
to
occur
with
you
know,
with
staff
and
with
the
commission
moving
forward.
B
Right
so,
mr
chairman,
please
so
one
idea
for
you
guys,
then,
would
be
to
add
a
little
clarifying
language,
because
I
agree
with
how
you
guys
are
interpreting
it,
that
the
conditions
that
we're
talking
about
in
that
sentence
would
really
come
about
as
a
result
of
a
a
subdivision,
a
planned
unit,
development,
a
variance,
a
request
to
modify
one
of
those
right.
So
there's
a
limited
set
of
permits
and
the
associated
conditions
on
those
permits
that
we're
essentially
restricting
what
they
can
do.
Q
Q
H
N
N
N
Can
you
please
speak
to
this
conversation
between
the
city,
council
and
the
consultant
and
did
the
consultant
discuss
any
real
world
examples
where
this
is
successful
or
where
it
has
failed
and
what
are
the
bumper
rails
I'd
just
like
to
have
a
little
bit
better
understanding
of
how
you
all
arrived
at
this
decision
to
make
this
recommendation.
Q
Mr
chairman,
commissioner
squires
originally
we
worked
with
our
consultants
to
create
ultimately
an
administrative
process
for
developments
that
not
only
came
from
our
consultants,
but
it
originally
derived
from
our
comprehensive
plan.
So
there
are
a
couple
of
policies
and
goals
that
are
in
our
comprehensive
plan,
specifically
pdp
1.2
and
nac
7.3,
which
specifically
talk
about
the
city
incentivizing
these
things
allowing
development
to
occur
by
right
and
really
focusing
on
specific
objective
criteria
to
make
evaluations
for
all
development
proposals.
Q
So
you
are
correct.
We
did
a
visit
with
the
boise
city
council
initially
to
hear
what
they
wanted
to
be
folded
in
to
an
incentive
program,
and
then
we
revisited
with
them
on
two
separate
occasions
to
make
sure
that
we
were
on
the
right
track.
So
they
were
extremely
supportive
of
us
allowing
for
the
streamlined.
K
N
Q
That
is
correct,
so
the
streamlined
process
would
have
the
same
objective
criteria.
It
would
just
be
in
a
different
venue
so
rather
than
a
public
hearing,
it
would
be
done
in
the
office
at
city
hall
and
everybody
would
still
have
access
to
the
appeal
process
and
ultimately
it
would
go
to
the
design
review
committee.
First,
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
followed
by
city
council.
So
it
would
be
a
multi-tiered
approach.
N
Q
Oh
chairman,
mr
chair
commissioners,
qualifiers,
ultimately,
we
arrived
at
the
80
percent
and
the
100
percent,
specifically
based
on
comments
we've
received
from
city
council,
saying
hey.
There
are
people
that
live
on
the
edge
and
that
are
cost
burdened.
Those
individuals
need
assistance
as
well,
so
that
was
one
portion
of
it,
but
the
other
portion
is
is
what
ultimately
happens
is
when
a
developer
does
have
an
income
restricted
unit.
F
A
B
Yes,
can
I
just
jump
in
on
your
question
and
ask
one
of
my
own.
That's
related
to
that.
Of
course.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
andrea
there
was
a
really
good.
I
thought
thoughtful
piece
by
laurie
de
care
in
our
comment
package
that
talked
about
this
80
threshold
and
and
the
way
that
the
ami
is
calculated,
which
is
kind
of
a
city-wide
number
or
maybe
even
broader
and
she's.
Basically
saying-
and
I
think
richard
did
richard
llewellyn
in
his
comment
too
talked
about
you
know
in
large
parts
of
the
city,
the
average
income.
B
Q
Mr
chair,
commissioner
gillespie,
you
know,
we
really
evaluated
it
quite
well.
We
wanted
to
utilize
some
type
of
formula
or
definition
that
was
widely
adopted,
which
is
how
we
got
to
the
amis
that
are
created
by
hud
and
then
really
focusing.
As
I
had
stated
before,
on
hey,
we've
got
a
lot
of
people
on
those
brinks
and
some
units.
Yes,
they
are
below
that
100
or
80
percent
of
ami
calculation.
Q
However,
there
are
a
number
of
units,
especially
the
newer
units
that
are
coming
into
the
city
that
are
not,
and
we
have
also
been
able
to
watch
our
real
estate
market
numbers
are
increasing
as
far
as
rents,
as
well
as
pricing
for
households.
Those
numbers
continue
to
increase
and
we
may
see
the
point
where
a
number
of
those
then
jump
above
what
that
80
percent
and
that
100
percent
of
ami
currently
state,
so
we're
really
focusing
on
that
target
population.
Knowing
that
we
have
other
programs
that
specifically
target
that
80
percent
and
below.
B
Q
Q
You
are
correct,
however.
I
think
it's
also
important
that
we
reiterate
the
fact
that
this
is
an
interim
ordinance
which
is
going
to
give
us
a
valuable
tool
and
an
opportunity
to
evaluate
and
do
additional
research.
What
is
working,
what
is
not?
How
do
we
need
to
evaluate
this
further
to
make
sure
that
our
incentives
are
effective?
Q
O
Chairman
I'd
love
to
add
on
to
that
just
real
quick
as
the
grower
housing
program
manager.
You
know
I,
the
whole
universe
of
housing
is
kind
of
where
I
spend
my
day
and
as
andrea's
mentioned
and
as
commissioner
squires
pointed
out,
you
know
there
are
other
programs
that
play
in
our
community,
some
led
by
the
city,
some
led
by
other
agencies
in
the
area
such
as
boise
housing
authority,
atlata,
some
at
the
state
level
and
some
ultimately
at
the
federal
level.
O
So
how
I
look
at
this
ordinance
personally,
how
I've
come
to
to
grips
with
what
it's
doing
again
within
that
universe
of
housing?
Is
that
we
are.
We
are
incentivizing,
the
private
developer,
and-
and
in
doing
so
you
know,
there's
the
the
the
least
amount
they're
getting
back.
I
mean,
I
know
that's
going
to
be
debated
here
a
bit
tonight,
but
when
you
actually
start
putting
units
on
a
site-
and
you
start
figuring
out
how
to
park
them
and
fit
with
those
dimensional
standards,
it
gets
challenging
to
actually
build
a
lot
more
units.
O
So
this
is
kind
of
a
low-hanging
fruit
option
for
people
to
figure
out
how
to
maybe
integrate
one
or
two
units
into
a
project
where,
as
before,
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
that
and
again,
all
the
other
city
programs,
like
the
housing
incentives
program,
is
targeting
80
and
below
and
really
focused
on
50
and
30
percent.
That's
where
we
plan
to
award
the
most
money
and
and
try
to
get
the
most
done
with
that
program.
O
O
So
I
think
we
need
to
consider
all
those
things
and
recognize
that
this
is
an
opt-in
ordinance
for
developers
looking
to
create
housing
in
our
community,
and
so
those
terms
of
affordability,
frankly,
are
the
most
attractive
when
you
start
considering
pro
formas
and
and
financial
performance
of
a
project
it
just
you
know,
to
ask
for
bigger
cuts,
really
makes
it
an
unattractive
ordinance
for
a
lot
of
people
to
consider,
and
that's
where
those
other
programs
need
to
step
in
and
do
some
of
that
heavy
lifting.
A
N
I
I
do
thank
you
so
much.
Mr
chairman,
just
two
more
questions.
The
first
question
is,
you
know,
through
the
outreach
process-
and
I
understand
you
all-
are
very
limited
with
covid,
and
this
is
just
an
incredibly
challenging
year,
but
did
you
all
take
the
opportunity
to
try
to
reach
out
specifically
to
the
rental
community
and
try
to
get
as
much
feedback?
You
know
from
their
point
of
view
as
possible.
Q
Mr
chair,
commissioner
squires,
you
know
our
outreach
effort
has
been
unique
because
of
covid's.
Specifically,
we
did
have
the
website
available.
We
reached
out
to
a
number
of
known,
low-income
housing
providers.
Q
We
also
reached
out
to
a
number
of
individuals
that
had
expressed
an
interest
in
maybe
heading
that
way,
but
they
weren't
interested
in
large
developments,
and
then
we
also
heard
from
a
number
of
developers,
contact
us
saying
how
could
this
help
us?
How
would
this
apply
to
us-
and
I
think,
you're,
going
to
hear
from
some
of
those
individuals
later
this
evening.
N
Thank
you
and
last
question.
I
read
a
couple
of
comments
and
I
heard
I
think
it
was
the
easton
neighborhood
association
talking
about
their
neighborhood
plan.
Do
you
foresee
any
conflicts
with
the
adopted
neighborhood
plans?
I
know
you
all
went
through
a
very
extensive
process
with
many
of
these
associations.
Q
The
majority
of
our
plans,
specifically
don't
discuss
parking
reductions,
incentives,
height
allowances,
those
types
of
things.
What
they're
looking
for
is
active
nodes,
transportation
improvements,
those
types
of
things
we
do
also
have
some
historic
neighborhood
associations
and
any
historic
designation
would
still
be
in
place
and
historic
guidelines
would
always
be.
H
H
I
Mr
chairman,
commissioner
bratton
over
yeah,
I
have
two
questions
for
staff.
The
first
is,
you
know:
I've
been
following
it,
but
not
in
the
most
recent
months.
Can
you
tell
me
what
is
the
current
status
of
the
the
housing
land
trust
work
and
this
were
either
andrea
or
orlina.
O
Yeah
chairman,
commissioner
brettner
would
be
happy
to
answer
that
so
the
housing
land
trust
officially
launched
with
the
franklin
orchard
project,
which
I
believe
you
heard
last
monday
at
the
corner
of
franklin
orchard,
and
so
just
a
quick
primer
on
housing.
Land
trust
city
retains
ownership
of
the
land
partners,
with
the
developer
to
create
a
very
specific
project
with
targeted
levels
of
affordability,
so
that
project
is
underway.
It's
on
its
way
to
city
council,
we'll
see
how
that
hearing
goes
and
the
city
is
pursuing
other
properties
within
the
community.
O
We've
basically
committed
to
closing
on
a
site
on
state
street
near
the
veterans
park,
36th
street
intersection
area,
but
yeah
we're
continuing
to
pursue
that
as
well.
We
see
that
as
a
pretty
important
tool
for
us
moving
forward,
the
removing
the
cost
of
land
from
the
development
perspective
or
developers
perspective
is
a
pretty
powerful
tool
for
getting
the
type
of
housing
that
we're
asking
for
in
this
community.
I
O
I
Okay,
great
thanks
and
my
next
one
also
for
staff,
so
we've
got
this
restriction
of
30
ami
for
for
rents
and
I'm
curious,
given
that
idaho
does
not
allow
rent
control.
How
does
this
work
and
obviously
we
can
pretty
much
guess,
there's
going
to
be
a
lawsuit
somewhere
along
the
line
on
this
whole
thing?
How
does
that?
How
does
that
play
out?
Please.
O
Well,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
that,
or
andrea
probably
will
give
the
same
answer.
These
are
all
opt-in
programs,
so
we're
not
we're
not
requiring
someone
to
give
us
that
they
are
choosing
to
participate
in
the
program
that
we've
developed
and
received
the
funding
and
support
that
we're
offering
they're
choosing
to
make
use
of
this
ordinance
to
you
know
gain
the
the
bonuses
that
are
associated
with
it
if
they
do
provide
that
housing
and
the
the
tool
that
really
locks,
that
down
is
an
affordable
housing
covenant
that
we
record
with
the
developer.
O
That
sets
a
time
frame
for
that
affordability.
Kind
of
sets
out.
You
know
basically
any
covenant
in
terms
of
how
you're
protected
and
how
we
operate
moving
forward,
but
the
key
there
is
it's
opt
in,
so
we're
not
we're
not
forcing
anyone
to
give
us
this
we're
telling
them.
If
you
want
to
be
a
part
of
the
land
trust
you
want
to
receive
funding
through
the
incentives
program
or
you
want
to
use
the
housing
bonus
ordinance.
O
O
I
mean
you
know,
I
always
like
to
talk
to
attorneys
about
how
that
works.
You
know,
I
could
see
an
exchange
of
property
at
some
point
and
someone
unfamiliar
with
the
covenant
recorded
against
the
property
that
they
now
have
to
rent
at
a
certain
level.
And
how
would
we
you
know?
How
do
we
come
back?
I
mean
that's
part
of
what
we're
spelling
out
in
that
covenant
as
well
is
kind
of
the
recourse
in
the
event
that
affordability
is
lost
and
that
sort
of
thing.
J
Just
by
way
of
wanting
to
make
sure
we're
all
focused
on
the
same
thing
here
I
just
want
to
ask
staff
and
I'll
just
run
through
a
series
of
questions.
My
understanding,
andrea
and
leon
of
the
goals
of
this
ordinance
are
are
fairly
focused
and
here's.
J
What
my
understanding
is
is
that
goal
one
is
to
substantially
increase
the
number
of
housing
options
for
all
income
levels,
to
expand
the
housing
incentive
program
to
maximize
land
use
allowances,
to
simplify
the
regulations
and
development
review
process,
to
modernize
the
zones
and
development
standards
and
to
incentivize
developments
that
integrate
various
transportation
modes
and
a
mix
of
uses
at
targeted
growth
locations
throughout
the
city.
Have
I
got
that
I
got
that
right.
J
Okay,
so
this
this
is
not
meant
to
be
the
silver
bullet
that
will
solve
all
of
our
affordable
housing
issues
in
this
city,
but
just
those
very
targeted
six
things
that
I
mentioned
right
there
correct.
Q
J
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
so
then,
the
logical
conclusion
there
is.
We
have
other
policy
tools
available,
that
staff
will
be
rolling
out
to
pnz
and
to
council
that
will
address
people
who
are
in
the
30
to
50
ami
income
level.
Those
are
different
challenges
than
what
this
ordinance
is
meant
to
address.
J
W
I
have
a
question
related
to
the
height
increases,
so
for
staff.
This
is
kind
of
so
noticed
that
you
had
high
r
height
increases,
but
it
set
back
from
as
you
go
up.
How
did
you
kind
of
come
to,
I
guess
the
height
and
the
setback
relationship
when
putting
kind
of
those
specific
requirements
together?
Is
that
kind
of
a
standard
or.
W
Q
Oh,
mr
chair,
commissioner
moore
yes,
we
took
a
look
at
how
we
could
evaluate
projects
as
they
are
today.
So
we
took
that
massing
that
what
could
be
built
today
and
then
we
said:
how
can
we
protect
those
residential
neighbors
that
are
zoned
residential
or
have
a
single
family
or
duplex
located
on
them
from
that
additional
height
and
to
make
it.
A
H
F
Q
Q
W
So
this
is
kind
of
a
standard
kind
of
dimension.
There
weren't
any
sort
of
you
know.
You
spoke
to
preservation
of
solar
access,
and
things
like
that
that
wasn't
based
off
of
any
sort
of
study
on
that
it's
just
kind
of
a
standard
kind
of
setback
that
we
looked
at,
that
you
looked
at.
Q
B
B
It's
basically
talking
about
which
projects
are
eligible
eligible
for
the
streamline
administrative
process,
and
it
basically
is
my
reading
of
it.
It
says
that
if
you're
in
an
activity
center
and
if
you
qualify
for
the
ahb,
the
the
affordability
bonus
then
and
you're
under
50
units,
you
get
the
streamline,
but
then
earlier
we
would
say
I
thought
we
had
agreed
or
that
you
guys
were
going
for
that
in
the
r3.
That
number
was
25,
not
50..
Q
Mr
chair,
commissioner
gillespie,
so
if
it
was
in
the
r3
zone
it
would
go
back
to
the
25.
So
the
lesser
amount.
F
B
Okay,
so
just
just
page
no,
you
might
want
to
clarify
that
language
on
that.
In
that
section,
that's
what
I
thought,
mr
chairman,
another
question
please!
So,
just
for
the
record,
andrea
and
leon
does
the
does,
and
I
haven't
read
this:
the
streamlined
procedure
is
already
existing
in
the
code.
Basically
right
does
it
have
the
same
notice
requirements
as
a
full-blown
pnz
application
in
terms
of
all
the
homeowners
in
a
certain
radius
or
the
property
owners,
as
well
as
the
neighborhood
association,
but
they
still
get
that
notice.
O
And
I'll
reiterate,
commissioners,
she
andrea
certainly
is
the
expert
on
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
this
ordinance,
I'm
more
of
the
high
level
grower,
housing,
housing,
stuff.
So
I'll
defer
all
very
specific
questions
like
that
to
andrea.
B
Right
so,
mr
chairman,
I
I
just
you
know,
because
this
is
a
legislative
hearing,
so
we
can
sort
of
bookmark
issues,
but
one
of
the
things
we
maybe
want
to
talk
about
is
is
do
we
want
to
continue
to
require
that
a
normal
notice,
what
I'll
call
normal
notice?
Even
if
it's
a
streamlined
review
process
just
because
of
the
nature
of
this
particular
you
know
kind
of
development,
absolutely.
Q
Mr
chair,
commissioner,
moore
the
city
arrived
at
the
original
number
of
50,
based
on
best
practices
and
recommendations
from
our
consultants.
When
we
heard
concerns
from
our
public,
they
had
recommended
that
we
select
a
number
that
was
lower.
So
ultimately,
we
evaluated
a
number
of
the
projects
that
we
have
reviewed
throughout
the
years
and
tried
to
gauge
when
it
would
be
appropriate
to
make
that
transition.
N
That
just
kind
of
prompted
a
question
to
pop
in
my
head
did
the
city
do
any
sort
of
evaluation
as
to
potential
number
of
projects
that
could
have
utilized
this
bonus?
For
example,
I
I
don't
know
if
that
question
makes
sense
or
not,
but
I
mean
out
of
the
normal
amount
of
applications
that
are
received.
Q
Commissioner,
chair
commissioner
squires,
ultimately,
we
didn't
look
at
every
application
that
has
passed
by.
What
we
did
do
is
take
traditional
lot
sizes,
so
50
by
120
or
100
by
120
and
evaluated.
How
does
the
housing
bonus
impact
that?
And
then
we
looked
at
a
couple
of
different
sites
because
we
were
contacted
by
developers
saying
hey?
What
can
I
do?
I
already
have
an
entitlement.
Would
that
change
things?
For
me
we
did
some
evaluations
in
that
regard,
and
then
we
also
took
a
couple
of
projects
that
didn't
come
forward
that
they
were
originally
proposed.
Q
Q
The
biggest
benefit
that
we
get
with
that
is,
is
that
we
get
some
additional
bedroom
counts,
so
we're
in
a
project.
We
may
have
seen
a
four
plex
that
was
all
single
unit,
so
one
bedroom
units
or
studio
units.
The
housing
bonus
would
allow
those
some
of
those
units
to
become
two-bedroom
to
accommodate
larger
household
size.
A
It
was
a
very,
very
nice
job
walking
us
through
it's
a
complex
ordinance
and
a
nice
job,
presenting
it
very
clear,
very
concise.
We
appreciate
it.
All
of
my
questions
have
been
asked
and
therefore
answered
by
my
fellow
commissioners,
so
I
think,
with
this
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
questioning
question
period
here
and
we're
going
to
take
a
five-minute
break
before
we
begin
the
public
testimony
of
this
item.
So
if
everybody
can
step
away
for
a
few
minutes,
we'll
we'll
reconvene
here
at
7,
38
or.
A
A
A
Okay,
looks
like
all
of
our
commissioners:
are
back
okay,
we'll
open
up
we'll
get
going
here,
open
up
our
public
testimony
for
this
item,
a
couple
of
notes
up
front
for
everybody
in
the
audience
tonight:
we're
gonna
make
sure
and
limit
everyone's
time
to
three
minutes.
A
Z
Z
Z
This
housing
crisis
may
have
been
manufactured
allowed
to
happen,
not
by
market
forces
but
by
the
active
encouragement
of
eager
city
leadership,
civic
boosters
and
those
in
the
development
world
who
stood
to
profit
by
over
marketing
and
under
ready
city
commissioners.
I
really
do
think
it's
important
to
pause
and
acknowledge
just
how
we
got
in
such
a
fix.
Z
Z
Z
Z
H
F
L
Good
evening,
mr
chairman
commissioners,
I'll
try
and
be
brief.
My
name
is
michael
prentiss
and
I
live
at
1910
north
23rd
street
here
in
boise.
I
think
I
have
some
various
perspectives
on
this
whole
thing
number
one.
I
live
here,
number
two,
I
own
rental
units
here
I
have
a
piece
of
ground
I'd,
be
interes,
I'm
interested
in
developing
and
and
would
apply
for
these
affordable
housing
bonus
units.
L
L
I'm
going
to
give
three
suggestions
number
one,
the
80
threshold
of
ami.
I
I'm
going
to
suggest
it
should
be
closer
to
60
percent
and
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
talk.
While
we
we
address
the
30
to
50
percent,
but
you
still
have
that
gap
between
50
and
80..
I
think
lowering
it
to
60
percent
makes
sense
as
far
the
other
suggestion
is.
Is
the
streamline
process?
L
I
think
there
there's
it
makes
sense
in
a
lot
of
ways
and-
and
I
think,
there's
been
some
compelling
arguments
made-
that
it
shouldn't
be
in
residential
and
residential
neighborhoods
should
have
some
say.
I
don't
disagree
with
that.
I'd
want
some
say
in
my
neighborhood,
however,
there's
also
if,
if
you
lower
the
re,
the
streamline
process
for
the
residential
neighborhoods,
what
I'm
going
to
suggest
is
maybe
consider
increasing
it
for
commercial
neighborhoods,
and
maybe
you
get
a
little
bit
more
bang
for
your
buck
there.
L
A
A
A
AA
Oh
sorry,
when
I
was
when
you
celine
just
so
you
know
when
you
let
people
enter
it,
pauses
everything
so
you
lose
sound
for
a
good,
40
or
30
seconds.
So
it
wasn't
clear.
Thank
you
for
your
patience,
sheldon
rodriguez,
for
the
record.
My
address
is
529.
North
hill
view
drive
here
in
boise.
AA
First
of
all,
thank
you
to
the
staff
who
put
together
a
really
great
presentation.
I
think
they,
you
know
clearly
everyone's
been
working
hard
on
this,
and
I
also
would
like
to
thank
you
as
commissioners
in
taking
the
time
to
really
dig
into
these
issues.
There's
a
lot
of
people
that
care
about
this
stuff,
and
I
strongly
believe
that
it's
because
it
affects
our
community
and
it
affects
our
neighborhoods
and
we
love
this
city.
AA
That's
certainly
why
I
live
here,
and
it's
certainly
why
I
chose
to
take
my
time
out
to
listen
to
the
conversation
today.
So
with
that
said,
I
think
affordable
housing
is
one
of
the
most
difficult
challenges
that
this
community
faces
right
now
we
have
a
shortage
and
we
have
a
shortage
in
supply
and
we
have
a
shortage
in
supply
that
is
restricted
to
certain
incomes.
AA
AA
AA
AA
P
Oh
great,
it's
good
to
see
you
all.
I'm
ed
mccleskey
at
1919,
vernon
lane
83706
as
revised
and
scheduled
this
fast
track,
still
eclipses
the
public
sphere
through
timing,
ambiguous
contractions
to
appeals
and
recently
changed
goal
posts
in
the
midst
of
our
raging
pandemic,
not
everyone
who
could
speak
to
this
still
sweeping
zoning
proposal
can
participate.
P
This
is
therefore
the
worst
time
to
fast-track,
questionable
decisions
of
such
wide
and
deep
impacts.
This
late
hour,
revision
questionably
promises
that
r2
zones
will
not
really
be
touched
by
these
up
zones:
clauses
under
relationship
to
other
housing
bonuses,
open
doors
to
assault,
overly
densified
neighborhoods
in
several
residential
zones.
I
urge
stopping
this
fast
tracking
in
its
tracks,
so
that
residents
at
large
can
review
what
so
far
has
been
discussed
by
really
too
few,
even
through
neighborhood
associations.
P
This
proposal
values
efficiency
over
public
hearings,
but
you
have
the
equivalent
of
a
fiduciary
responsibility
to
the
people,
not
to
misleadingly
labeled
stakeholders.
As
a
professor
of
communication,
I
know
that
labeling
loves
ambiguity
here.
It
buries
ongoing
threats
to
livability
in
r2
and
other
zones.
Ambiguity
is
the
greatest
linguistic
friend
of
public
relations
workers.
It
conceals
multiple
meanings
that
political
language
too
rarely
owns
up
to,
but
when
words
meet
action,
clarity
can
emerge
to
eclipse
other
meanings.
P
Some
come
to
light,
showing
an
arrogance
of
power
and
privilege.
Instead
of
respect
for
public
process
that
speaks
for
meanings
from
relatively
privileged
or
desperate
classes,
most
cannot
repurchase
or
purchase
for
the
first
time
facing,
if
not,
homelessness,
consignment
to
perpetual,
renting
and
disappearance
from
the
middle
class,
but
the
box
always
gets
checked.
Doesn't
it
with
pro
forma
claims
of
public
engagement?
Claims
where
the
life
of
ambiguity
lives
on
to
the
detriment
of
the
people's
voice
city?
P
Pr
campaigns
too
often
have
legitimized
the
undue
influence
of
financed
city
and
state
goliaths,
with
ambiguous
labels
like
stakeholder
and
progress.
I've
taught
entire
semesters
on
that
kind
of
ambiguity.
As
an
index
of
the
erosion
of
the
public
sphere,
the
public
should
not
be
the
city's
guinea
pig
writ
large
for
this
alleged
interim
research.
This
is
not
an
opt-in
ordinance
for
the
public.
R
Great,
thank
you
richard
lewellen.
These
are
my
personal
comments:
91
sorry
richard
lewin,
9170,
hill,
road,
boise,
idaho.
First
of
all,
I
didn't
have
time,
but
I
would
like
to
thank
staff.
They
have,
I
think,
been
under
unusual
pressure
and
have
responded
to
comments
and
are
trying
to
make
this
a
better
ordinance,
and
I
do
appreciate
that
they
have
been
responsive,
but
we
need
more
of
that.
R
We
need
more
of
this
kind
of
time
kind
of
discussion,
there's
still
a
lot
of
things
to
be
worked
out,
even
if
you
agree
with
the
general
purpose-
and
I
agree
with
the
from
a
very
high
level
perspective
of
the
of
the
larger
intent
to
use
incentives
to
actually
produce
affordable
housing
or
other
public
benefits
such
as
adaptive,
reuse
and
perhaps
transit
supportive
density.
R
Specifically,
you
know
those
were
great
questions
about
the
notification
issues
and
when
you
get
into
a
weird
situation
like
this,
where
somebody
would
be
notified
if
they're,
if
their
neighbor
is
going
to
be
expanding
a
carport
but
not
notified,
if
somebody's
going
to
build
a
six-story
apartment
building
next
to
them,
that's
potentially
very
weird,
and
so
is
that
not
correct
chris?
I
see
you
saying
no
it
it.
If
that's
not
correct,
then
my
understanding
was
that
a
notification
is
not
the
same
as
it
normally
would
be
because
of
the
administrative
review.
R
If
if
that
is
the
case-
and
perhaps
I'm
wrong
here,
but
if
that
is
the
case,
it's
weird
right
and
weird
is
typically
a
good
direction
to
go
in
and
then
again
I
cannot
overemphasize
as
long
as
we
have
part
of
this
ordinance,
giving
the
choice
of
building
what
is
already
been
built.
Market
rate
housing
which
is
100
ami,
that's
actually
above
the
new
construction
in
my
neighborhood.
So
as
long
as
that
is
an
option,
nobody
except
a
charitable
organization,
is
going
to
choose
the
80
ami
right.
R
So
let's
not
even
talk
about
80,
because
it's
just
it's.
It's
deceptive,
so
what
this
does?
Is
it
incentivize
folks
to
build?
What's
already
been
built
now,
if
you
remove
that,
that
would
be
my
recommendation
go
to
60
or
80
percent.
Now
they
actually
have
to
choose
what
kind
of
affordable
housing
will
we
build
and
we're
actually
moving
the
ball
down
the
field
in
the
direction
we
need
to
incrementally
it
doesn't
solve
the
big
picture.
No,
nothing
does,
but
at
least
we're
doing
something.
R
A
Thank
you,
mr
llewellyn.
All
right,
miss
alexander.
H
AB
Okay,
great,
my
name
is
stacy
alexander
and
I
live
at
1519
west
fort
street
boise,
idaho
83702,
mr
chair
members
of
the
commission.
I
speak
to
you
tonight
as
a
citizen,
I'm
not
a
developer's
agent
or
a
member
of
the
wall
street
elite.
My
opinion
is
not
bought
and
paid
for
I'm
a
boys
and
a
mother.
Looking
out
for
my
children's
future
in
the
future
of
the
city,
I
would
like
to
express
my
support
for
the
housing
ordinance
since
the
city
lacks
a
number
of
tools
to
provide
affordable
housing
compared
to
most
states.
AB
Idaho
has
a
severe
lack
of
policies
used
to
ensure
housing,
affordability.
My
support
includes
three
reasons.
First,
the
need
is
dire.
Pretty
much
any
amount
of
time
spent
in
boise
will
illuminate
that
this
ordinance
represents
action
when
action
is
needed.
Second,
the
opposition
brings
no
reasonable
alternate
solutions.
Many
of
those
opposing
the
ordinance
tonight
have
or
will
lament
the
process.
It
wasn't
long
enough
didn't
involve
the
right.
People
happened
at
the
wrong
time,
was
disingenuous
or
misguided,
etc,
etc.
AB
AB
The
primary
alternative
I've
been
able
to
find
from
these
groups
is
an
affordable
housing
overlay.
Any
land
use
professional
will
tell
you
that
overlays
are
challenging
and
they
inherently
say
that
affordable
housing
belongs
here
not
over
there.
Housing
that's
affordable
should
be,
should
not
be
exclusive,
but
instead
should
be
part
of
the
fabric
of
this
entire
community.
AB
Along
those
lines,
this
ordinance
should
actually
be
broader
in
its
reach
and
applicability
covering
all
residential
zones.
Third,
this
is
an
opportunity
to
have
a
minimum
and
interim
measure.
While
the
code
rewrite
is
underway.
This
could
be
viewed
as
a
trial
phase,
with
notable
successes
and
lessons
learned
informing
the
code
rewrite.
A
Okay,
we'll
move
on
to
bart
cochran,
then
jenny,
mctaggart,
lauren,
panisi
and
jody
hull.
I
believe
mr
cochran's
on
yeah.
AC
I'm
the
executive
director
and
founder
of
an
organization
called
leap,
housing
solutions,
we're
an
affordable
housing
nonprofit
in
the
community,
and
I
just
want
to
just
express
my
support
of
the
housing
bonus,
ordinance
tonight
and
kudos
to
to
andrea
and
to
leon
in
the
public
comment
process.
I
think
it
was.
AC
I
was
neat
to
see
all
the
revisions
due
to
the
feedback.
I
think
it
was
very
responsive
to
the
community's
concerns
and
as
a
as
a
housing
practitioner,
we're
keenly
aware
of
the
affordable
housing
challenges
in
boise
and
with
rising
costs
and
inbound
migration
and
even
compounding
with
covet
19.
The
challenges
are
just
getting
more
and
more
difficult.
I
think
many
of
you
know
that,
but
what
we
know
for
sure
is
that
it's
not
getting
any
better
naturally,
and
so
we
need
a
solution,
so
leap
as
a
result.
AC
AC
We
often
joke
that
capital
stacks
for
affordable
housing
are
put
together
with
bailing
twine
and
bubble
gum,
and
it's
capital
intensive
to
create
affordable
housing
in
this
community,
and
there
are
many
many
barriers
we
just
can't
create
housing
fast
enough,
affordable
housing
options
fast
enough,
and
so
we
believe
that
the
housing
bonus
ordinance
reduces
some
of
those
barriers
and
makes
it
more
feasible
to
create
affordable
housing,
although
of
course,
as
a
non-profit,
affordable
housing
provider.
AC
So
we
think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
more
housing
gets
created
as
a
result,
and
I
think
that's
the
point-
and
so
tonight
we
just
want
to
urge
you
and
just
to
to
please
approve
this
effective
tool
for
affordable
housing.
So
thank
you
for
listening.
AD
Yes
hi,
my
name
is
jenny,
mctaggart
and
I
live
at
2106
west
jefferson
street.
I
am
here
because
I
do
not
support
the
proposed
housing
order,
bonus
ordinance
as
written
as
a
west
end
neighborhood
resident.
I
support
the
comments
made
by
the
west
end
neighborhood
association
and
wish
to
add
my
own
comments.
AD
I
put
I
oppose
the
proposed
streamlined
approval
process.
Overall,
the
proposed
streamlined
approval
process
circumvents
the
process
currently
established
by
the
zoning
code.
By
doing
this,
it
removes
the
checks
and
balances
that
are
essential
for
higher
density
projects.
These
checks
and
balances
ensure
that
developments
are
beneficial
to
neighborhoods
citizens,
the
city
and
developers.
AD
By
streamlining
the
process,
neighborhoods
and
individuals
lose
the
opportunity
to
have
a
voice
to
ensure
a
balance
of
interest
on
larger
density
projects.
Under
this
proposal,
developers
will
be
given
many
incentives.
The
proposed
streamline
approval
process
which
allows
for
modifying
development
practices
at
an
administrative
level
entertains
a
lot
of
coloring
outside
of
the
lines,
and
I
deserve
a
voice.
The
public
deserves
voice.
A
Thank
you,
mrs
mike
tiger
up
next
is
lauren
panisi.
AE
Lauren
panisi,
thank
you.
I
live
at
2411
west
pleasanton
avenue
in
boise.
I
echo
many
of
the
comments
that
have
already
been
shared,
in
particular
dave,
klinger
and
jenny.
Mctaggart,
the
transparency
and
public
input
is
critical
in
my
neighborhood,
which
is
the
west
end.
We've
had
several
projects
that
were
the
result
of
neighborhood
input
to
comment
and
work
with
the
developer.
That
was
a
critical
part
of
the
of
the
process
from
the
initial,
even
though
it
was
the
300
foot
notification.
AE
All
all
of
that
was
necessary
and
would
be
a
shame
to
lose
that
the
other
thing
is
to
delay
or
defer
public
input
to
the
appeal
or
design
review
process.
AE
It's
very
difficult
at
that
point
to
affect
any
change
because
the
project
is
approved
and
only
under
very
specific
and
certain
criteria
could
a
resident
affect
or
or
influence
any
change
at
that
point,
because
the
project's
approved
so
we're
kind
of
stuck
and
left
with
the
result
of
whatever
the
development
turns
out
to
be
as
it
is.
We
have.
AE
I
also
had
a
question
about
how
the
like
are
for
us,
the
30th
street
master
plan,
how
that
works
with
or
is
affected
by
these
bonus
ordinances
that
that
30th
street
master
plan
was
very
important
in
shaping
our
neighborhood.
Does
that
go
out
the
window
now
in
favor
of
bonus
ordinances?
AE
You
know
we
have
a
development
going
up
right
now,
where
jerry's
market
used
to
be
it's
three
stories.
It
is
a
big
square
box.
It
looks
like
a
prison.
Quite
honestly
does
not
fit
in
our
neighborhood.
Yet
this
is
what
everyone
is
telling
us
the
city
needs
and
we
must
have
yet
we
have
to
live
with
the
way
it
looks
the
traffic
and
all
of
these
other
things
that
go
along
with
it.
So
that's
another
point
that
I
have
our
other.
AE
My
other
point
was
about
the
sustainability
that
was
like
number
one
on
the
list
of
the
seven
principles.
I
guess
the
city
is
trying
to
adhere
to
we're,
knocking
down
houses
buildings
here
to
p
in
favor
of
building
new
ones.
How
does
that
fit
with
the
sustainability?
I
just
I
don't
understand
that.
I
feel
that
these
bonus
ordinance
put
all
the
power
with
the
developers
and
leaves
the
residents
of
the
neighborhoods
out,
and
I
I
don't
understand
what
the
rush
is
and
why
we
can't
be
part
of
the
process.
AE
A
Thank
you.
Miss
miss
penici
up
next
jody
hole,
followed
by
katie
fight.
Then
chris
y
chris
runyon
and
pam
reamer.
AF
Oh
there
we
go.
This
is
my
first
zoom
council
meeting
or
a
public
meeting
like
this.
My
name
is
jody
hall
and
I
live
at
7916
west,
queen
court,
boise,
idaho,
near
fairview
and
milwaukee,
and
I
would
echo
the
last
speaker
lauren.
I
have
almost
all
the
same
concerns
she
does
about
the
public
process.
Participation
right
now.
AF
That's
all
we
have
to
influence
what
goes
in
our
neighborhood,
because
design
review
is
like
she
said
after
it's
already
been
approved
so-
and
I
also
you
know,
echo
several
other
people,
mr
klinger,
about
the
ripeness
of
this
ordinance.
It
does
feel
rushed.
I
am
a
member
of
the
west
bench,
neighbors
association
and
I
know
we
haven't
even
talked
about
this
as
an
association
at
all.
So
I
don't
and
then
I
attended
this
the
charade.
AF
You
know
dinner
things
in
2018
and
I
know
it
was
just
about
you
know
we
talked
about
concerns,
but
it
wasn't
specifics,
and
so
I'm
also
concerned
about
if
this
where's
the
proof
that
this
will
actually
do
anything
like
they
said
the
80
is
already
what's
being
80
to
100,
it's
already
what's
being
built.
So
will
it
actually
do
anything?
AF
A
lot
of
these
ordinances
are
to
the
benefit
of
the
developers
and
not
the
citizens,
and
to
take
us
out
of
the
you
know,
process
even
further,
and
you
know
the
the
housing
market
is
not
under
our
control.
It's
not
under
the
control
of
the
citizens
of
boise,
it's
not
under
the
control
of
the
city
council
or
the
zoning
commission,
it's
under
the
control
of
the
housing
commodity
market
and
they
will
build
what
they
want
to
build
and
they're
going
to
want
to
build
more
and
bigger
and
get
whatever
they
can.
Bonuses.
AF
And
not
I
mean
there
are
charity
organizations,
but
these
people
mostly
are
here
for
the
you
know
the
profit,
so
we
have
to
like
you
know
like
they
said,
there's
other
tools
we
need
to
do
you
know,
even
if
we
you
know
lower
it
to
60.
AF
I
don't
think
this
is
the
solution,
especially
I'm
in
an
r2
zone,
and
I
was
very
nervous
when
I
first
saw
this
proposed
for
my
little
duplex
development,
because
we
border
c1
or
I
don't
we're
commercial,
I'm
right
off,
fairview
like
two
blocks
and
there's
a
kind
of
failed
little
commercial
building.
Next
to
me,
and
that
could
you
know,
have
a
whatever
three
three
four
story:
apartment
complex
without
any
notice
to
my
neighborhood
and
we
were
like
10
feet
away
from
it
so
very
concerned,
and
you
know
putting
I
don't.
AF
I
don't
know
how
this
would
even
relate
to
commercial
because
fairview,
you
know,
as
we
know,
is
a
mess
right
now
and
and
there
the
proposed
development
down
there.
Big
o
has
already
been
canceled.
It's
just
I
don't
see,
you
know
we
don't
have
public
transportation
to
make
a
thing
like
this
work
with
reduced
parking,
and
I
so
I
don't
think
that
this
is
like.
They
said
the
time
we
haven't
really
had
the
participation
we
need.
AF
This
is
very
difficult
to
be
on
the
zoom
call
for
a
lot
of
people
and
to
rush
it
through
during
the
holidays.
That's
you
know
not
the
best
timing,
and
I
think
that
with
the
changes
and
the
modifications
and
the
questions
today
that
it
might,
I
think
it
needs
to
be
ironed
out
before
it
gets
passed
on
to
the
city
council,
and
I
don't
think
that
you
know
we
should
just
try
it
out
and
see
how
it
works,
because
we
could
get
some
really
crappy
development
in
and
decide
it
doesn't
work.
AG
AH
Okay,
yes,
katie
fight,
1006,
north
5th
street
boise.
This
proposal
mirrors
what
I've
lived
through
as
a
public
lands
activist
for
the
past
four
years.
AH
AH
AH
Second,
I'd
like
to
challenge
the
claim
that
this
is
environmentally
friendly,
we're
losing
green
space,
we're
losing
our
urban
forest,
we're
losing
so
much
of
the
cooling
air
filtering.
You
name
it
amenities
in
this
town
and
they're
being
replaced
by
these
big
blocky
development
structures
that
are
harsh,
harsh
environments
for
people
to
live
in.
AH
Quite
frankly-
and
this
is
exactly
what
this
proposal
would
do-
plunk
down
25
units,
potentially
right
next
to
somebody's
house
or
a
couple
houses
away,
and
to
claim
that
a
20-foot
set
20-foot
setback
would
effectively
moderate
the
effect
of
a
tall
building,
cutting
out
the
sun
from
your
house
in
winter
and
drastically
altering
your
view.
That's
just
nonsense,
and
then
I
would
also
like
to
say.
I
think
this
is
very
being
spun
to
you.
I
think
it
was
spun
to
you
with
all
due
respect
to
the
staff
and
how
the
staff
presentations
were
presented.
AH
For
example,
miss
tuning
gave
her
a
list
of
eight
or
nine
or
ten
public
concerns.
Well,
I
read
through
the
same
agenda
packet
and
I
sure,
saw
public
process
public
process,
public
process
being
cut
out
as
a
major
concern.
Yet
that
wasn't
even
on
the
list
that
you
were
presented
with,
I
urge
you
to
reject
this
proposal,
take
time
for
full
public
involvement
and
look
before
you
leave.
Thank
you.
A
H
AI
AI
AI
They
have
also
served
as
places
for
community
activities
and
community
support,
including
substance
abuse
meetings
after
school
daycare,
non-profit
fundraisers
for
a
disadvantaged
youth
such
as
big
brothers,
big
sisters,
etc,
etc.
The
value
of
this
to
the
community
should
not
be
traded
for
yet
another
million
dollar
home.
With
regards
to
other
components
of
the
housing
proposal.
I'd
like
to
also
stress
that
how
well
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
aligns
with
the
outcome
is
highly
dependent
on
how
clearly
it
is
written.
AI
For
instance,
the
selling
point
to
boise
residents
of
accessory
dwelling
units
was
to
provide
for
more
long-term
rental
opportunities,
but
residents
due
to
inadequate
requirements,
many
of
the
adus
are
actually
being
rented
as
short-term
vacation
rentals.
I
feel
the
way
the
housing
bonus
proposal
is
currently
drafted,
based
on
quote
keeping
the
provisions
relatively
simple,
as
recommended
by
the
consultant
who
who
the
city
hired
to
develop
the
ordinance
to
incentivize
development
due
to
this
approach.
Sadly,
I
believe
that
this
proposal
will
also
not
meet
the
original
intent
of
the
ordinance.
AI
The
proposal
seeks
to
obtain
a
30-year
commitment
from
a
developer,
but
does
not
spell
out
what
happens
if
the
developer
sells
the
property.
This
lack
of
detail
inherent
in
keeping
the
provisions
simple
sets
the
city
up
to
with
potentially
losing
the
community
benefit.
The
proposal
was
predicated
on
once
again.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
I
urge
you
not
to
pass
the
current
proposal.
A
A
AJ
AJ
This
ordinance
seems
to
be
targeting
people
who
make
almost
25
an
hour
and
up
so
this
isn't
very
helpful
to
those
who
are
making
below
eighty
percent
we're
not
even
allowed
to
rent.
Unless
we
have
30
of
our
income
available
for
rent,
it
seems
like
it's
becoming
where
it's
not
our
choice.
If
we
want
to
pay
more
than
30
percent,
I
don't
have
cable.
I
can
put
that
toward
housing
rent.
I
don't
eat
out
a
lot.
AJ
I
can
put
that
toward
my
housing
rent
and
it
seems
like
that
choice
is
being
taken
away
from
me.
I
have
to
have
30
percent
to
be
able
to
find
a
place
to
rent
and
there's
not
much
in
the
way
of
affordability,
also
in
looking
over
the
chart
that
they
say
they
got
from
hud,
I'm
having
a
hard
time
getting
the
numbers
to
match
up
when
it
does
the
30
I'm
looking
at
a
lower
rent
than
what
it's
stating,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
leon,
I
left
your
voicemail.
AJ
AJ
Please
keep
in
mind.
We
would
like
to
have
a
nice
place
to
live,
even
if
it
is
small,
even
if
it's
not
all
the
amenities
like
dishwashers,
I
love
washing
dishes
by
hand.
I
don't
need
a
dishwasher.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you,
mr
romer
marcia
franklin.
AK
I
am
unmuted,
thank
you
so
much.
My
name
is
marcia
franklin
and
I
live
at
2521
west
stewart
avenue.
I
would
ask
that
you
defer
action
on
this
proposal
so
that
more
public
understanding
of
it
can
occur
and
that
several
aspects
of
it
can
be
modified
even
with
recent
changes
in
the
document.
This
is
a
huge
transformation
in
boise's
code
with
definitions
that
will
provide
the
foundation
for
an
even
larger
rezone.
AK
AK
AK
I
realize
having
sat
through
hundreds
of
public
hearings
of
the
legislature,
that
they
slow
the
process,
but,
as
we
know,
democracy
is
messy.
It's
important
that
citizens
have
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
in
public,
not
just
the
developers
behind
the
scenes.
It's
important
for
history
that
there's
a
public
record
of
both
support
and
concern
for
a
project,
and
it's
important
frankly
that
citizens
hear
from
each
other
we've
been
told.
Oh
you
don't
need
to
worry.
AK
You'll
still
have
the
same
protections
under
an
administrative
process,
but,
as
I
read
it,
that
would
only
be
on
appeal,
plus
administrative
processes
aren't
noticed
to
the
public
are
based
on
objective
criteria
and
are
often
done
in
two
weeks.
By
the
time
a
project
is
at
design
review.
My
experience
is
it's
too
late.
Projects
as
large
as
50
units
almost
always
involve
subjective
criteria.
Hence
why
they
come
before
public
hearings.
AK
We
have
a
new
28-unit
development
in
my
neighborhood,
even
with
a
public
hearing,
it's
created
great
consternation
and
that's
only
three
units
larger
than
one
that
would
receive
no
public
hearing.
We
had
a
proposed
development
of
nine
units
in
my
neighborhood
that
was
controversial,
so
why
was
24
units
picked
as
the
cutoff
or
49?
AK
This
will
just
take
already
contentious
developments
and
make
them
even
more
so
and
in
an
era
when
we
need
more
public
participation.
This
suffocates
it.
I
would
also
note,
as
commissioner
gillespie
did,
that,
while
r2
appears
to
have
been
removed
from
the
proposal.
It
still
reads
that
if
both
the
affordable
housing
and
adaptive
reuse
standards
have
been
met,
quote
in
all
zoning
districts,
buildings
containing
less
than
50
dwelling
units
may
be
approved
administratively
r2
and
r3
should
be
removed.
There
also
will
the
promises
by
developers
to
provide
affordable
housing
be
monitored?
AK
Is
the
covenant
enough,
or
can
there
be
a
developer's
fee
charge
so
that
city
staff
can
be
hired
to
check
these
rental
rates
and
see
whether
they
stayed
at
30
percent
of
ami?
Otherwise,
this
is
for
not
I'm
hearing
for
the
first
time.
This
would
be
an
interim
ordinance
if
that's
the
case
a
date
certain
for
its
expiration
should
be
appended
to
it,
and
you
know
with
the
removal
of
r2
from
this
proposal.
My
house
is
not
directly
affected
by
it,
but
anytime
a
law
is
changed
to
restrict
public
input.
It
affects
all
of
us.
AK
A
Thank
you,
ms
franklin,
erica.
AG
AG
AG
AG
The
other
important
point
I
want
to
make
in
this
application
is
that
idaho
code
65676511-2
requires
any
amendment
to
a
zoning
ordinance
be
evaluated
for
the
impact
on
public
services,
including
school
districts.
The
city
did
send
the
transmittal
document
to
the
66
various
entities,
and
that
does
not
include
the
34
neighborhood
associations
and
only
one
response
shows
up
in
the
project
report
from
public
works.
AG
I
have
a
really
big
problem
with
this,
because
we
are
hearing
over
and
over
again
how
lack
of
coordination
for
development
across
the
entire
valley,
because
what
boise
does
impacts
ada
county
services,
we
heard
from
one
agency
when
we
had
66
on
the
list.
How
are
we
supposed
to
believe
in
coordinated
development
when
we're
not
actually
getting
responses
at
all
from
all
the
other
agencies
that
could
be
impacted
by
this
ordinance
and
then?
Finally,
I
want
to
jump
back
to
the
administrative
approval
approval
you
might
be
creating
an
unintended
consequence
by
going
that
route.
AG
AD
AL
Yes,
my
name
is
alexandra
manjar
and
I
live
at
2222
west
kootenay
street
in
boise,
I'm
speaking
today
in
support
of
this
ordinance.
When
my
husband
and
I
moved
to
boise
six
years
ago
as
recent
graduates,
our
household
income
fit
into
the
targeted
range
of
this
ordinance
and
we
did
find
it
difficult
to
secure
housing
and
establish
neighborhoods
that
were
within
walking
distance
of
employment,
grocery
stores
and
our
everyday
needs.
AL
This
was
important
to
us
from
an
environmental
perspective,
and
so
I
believe
that
this
ordinance
does
support
environmental
stewardship
for
the
city.
The
benefits
of
infill
development
are
many,
and
this
is
one
of
them
maximizing
the
investments
in
infrastructure
and
encouraging
different
mobility,
use,
walking
and
biking
and
transit,
supporting
a
car
light
or
car
less
lifestyle.
AL
So
I
expressed
general
support
for
this
ordinance
as
written
and
I'm
glad
to
see
the
city
is
working
quickly
to
address
the
need
for
housing
production
and
distribute
it
citywide,
and
I
think
that
the
streamline
process
is
particularly
impactful
for
small-scale
developers,
and
I
encourage
that
to
remain
and
when
I
think
about
the
great
examples
of
missing
middle
housing,
I
think
about
the
north
end,
which
is
mostly
r1,
and
so
I
am
discouraged
to
see
that
r1
and
r2
are
not
included
in
several
of
these
bonuses.
AL
I
think
that
these
communities,
those
neighborhoods,
are
some
of
the
best
places
to
have
this
infill
development,
and
I
would
like
to
see
the
city
consider
targeting
some
bonuses
for
these
in
the
future.
I'm
happy
to
see
that
the
adaptive
reuse
includes
those
zones
still.
I
also
think
that
the
city
should
consider
reducing
parking
requirements
further.
AL
The
architect,
that's
behind
the
missing
middle
housing
movement.
Dan
perlick,
recommends
one
parking
space
per
unit
as
a
maximum
and
actually
prefers
no
requirements.
AL
When
he
assists
cities
in
developing
missing
middle
ordinances,
the
market
will
likely
still
provide
parking
by
demand,
and
so
I
think
that
the
city
should
removing
parking
minimums,
especially
in
the
zones
that
are
targeted
for
activity
centers.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
miss
manjar,
okay,
that
is
at
the
end,
yeah.
That
is
all
the
names
that
signed
up
in
advance
to
testify.
If
you
are
online
and
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item,
please
raise
your
hand
virtually,
and
we
will
run
down
the
list
from
top
to
bottom.
A
C
Mr
chair,
I
already
moved
over
monica
fabi.
H
AM
Can
you
hear
me
evidently,
my
name
is
monica
fabi.
I
live
at
630,
south
curtis,
road,
boise,
idaho
and
lake
and
work
at
4696
west
overland
road,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
intermountain
for
housing
council
intermountain
for
housing
council
is
a
non-profit
organization
whose
mission
is
to
ensure
open
and
inclusive
housing
for
all
persons
without
regard
to
race,
color,
sex,
religion,
identity,
national
origin,
familial
status,
sexual
orientation,
gender
identity,
a
source
of
income
or
disability.
AM
The
ifhc
attempts
to
eradicate
discrimination
through
education
on
the
fair
housing
laws,
information
and
referral,
housing,
counseling
and
assistance
with
mediating
and
or
filing
fair
housing
complaints,
among
other
things.
The
iafhc
also
provides
education
and
outreach
on
fair
housing
laws
and
practices
to
housing
providers
and
others.
As
we
know
in
the
treasure
valley,
the
highest
need
for
housing
is
for
those
with
disabilities,
families
with
children
and
people
of
color,
and
that
these
groups
are
most
discriminated
against
in
housing
and
community,
while
their
needs
for
subsidized
and
affordable
housing
is
the
greatest.
AM
It
is
important
that,
when
proposing
significant
changes
to
the
zoning
code
law,
the
city
should
examine
all
proposals
through
the
fair
housing
lens,
including
whether
it
will
provide
equal
access
to
community
displaced
residents.
Demolish
affordable
housing
cause
discriminatory,
gentrification
impact
health
and
well-being,
and
the
like.
It
is
imperative
to
start
any
conversation
about
zoning
codes.
AM
By
acknowledging
that
our
historically
zoning
that
historically
zoning
laws
were
often
used
to
enforce
discrimination
and
segregation
in
our
cities,
zoning
ordinances
were
promoted,
nationwide
to
reserve
middle
class
neighborhoods
for
single
family
homes
that
low
that
lower
income,
families
of
all
races
could
afford,
thereby
excluding
lower
income
african
americans
from
living
in
neighborhoods.
Where
middle
class
whites
resided,
we
recommend
reading
richard
rothstein's,
the
color
of
law,
addressing
the
damage
caused
by
those
policies
over
multiple
generations
will
be
a
long
and
challenging
process
for
communities
that
choose
to
undertake
it.
AM
In
our
reading
of
the
housing
bonus
ordinance,
we
believe
that
the
affordable
thresholds
and
the
percentage
of
required
deed,
restricted
units
is
weak
and
insufficient.
We
object
to
the
removal
of
impacted
residents
from
the
development
process,
even
though
they
the
need
for
housing
in
our
community
is
strongest
among
the
extremely
low
income
and
low
income
zero
to
eighty
percent
ami.
AM
The
housing
bonus
ordinance
only
addresses
those
at
moderate
income
levels
80
to
100
percent,
since
the
definition
of
low
income
is
described
as
earning
less
than
80
of
ami,
the
hbo
is
not
serving
that
part
of
the
market.
It
should
be
targeted
for
low
income
residents
that
the
market
is
otherwise
not
producing
and
requires
government
to
government
stimulations
to
incentivize,
in
addition
with
as
little
as
a
ten
percent
of
deed,
restricted
units.
AM
A
Thank
you,
miss
ceja,
I
believe,
is
next.
Y
Thank
you
good
evening,
commissioners.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
to
provide
comment
this
evening.
The
comments
provided
are
my
personal
comments
as
a
longtime
resident
of
boise.
Can
you
guys
hear
me
address.
Y
3901
north
cambria
way
boise83705.
Y
No,
that's
okay,
so
I
have
a
couple
of
items
and
I'll
try
to
be
quick
transparency
and
community
and
game
engagement
is
the
first
I
am
on
the
planning
and
zoning.
I
am
the
planning
and
zoning
committee
member
for
the
callister
neighborhood
association,
and
I
didn't
learn
of
this
proposal
until
mid
november.
It
appears
that
the
limited
outreach
efforts
conducted
for
this
proposal
were
poorly
implemented
in
reading
through
the
city's
website.
Regarding
this
proposal,
there
is
mention
of
the
2018-2019
community
conversations
on
growth
and
transportation
and
how
they
informed
the
housing
bonus
efforts.
Y
Y
My
second
item
is
diversity
of
housing,
affordable
housing
shouldn't
just
be
limited
to
specific
areas
of
the
city.
I
understand
why
we
want
to
focus
on
density
within
transit
or
activity
corridors,
but
to
some
extent,
this
approach
concentrates
affordable
housing
to
specific
sections
of
the
city.
We
should
be
striving
for
diverse
housing
options
throughout
the
city.
I
do
not
support
the
removal
of
r2
from
the
housing
bonus
proposal
and
ask
that
it
remain.
Y
I
support
the
adaptive
reuse,
bonus
proposal.
I
live
near
state
street
and
there
are
still
some
affordable
housing
options
within
an
eighth
to
a
fourth
mile
of
the
state
street
corridor.
I
have
concerned
this
type
of
proposal
may
lead
to
gentrification
along
the
state
street
corridor
and
other
transit
corridors
in
the
city.
I
have
heard
concerns
from
section
8
housing
residents,
specifically
that
their
landlord
will
decide
to
evict
the
residents
and
redevelop
this
property
to
take
advantage
of
the
housing
bonus.
Y
It
is
important
that
the
city
evaluates
how
this
how
these
types
of
ordinances,
while
on
the
surface
may
seem
sound,
but
once
implemented,
may
result
in
larger
issues
with
displacement
of
low-income
residents.
My
third
item
is
affordable
is
proposed,
affordable,
housing
unit
percentages.
First,
I
I
support
the
30-year
restricted
income
unit.
Y
However,
I
do
believe
that
we
need
to
think
long
term
what
happens
after
30
years?
Do
we
have
the
option
of
renewing
the
proposed
30-year
agreement
for
an
additional
30
years?
I
have
concerns
similar
to
what
you've
heard
this
evening
about
the
affordable
threshold
percentages.
I
think
that
they
need
to
be
lower
than
eighty
percent
and,
lastly,
streamline
administrative
process.
I
have
serious
concerns
about
the
streamlined
administrative
process
proposal
and
notification
to
the
community.
Y
X
Hi
there,
my
name
is
kathy
sherman.
I
live
at
3208
treasure
drive
in
boise
03,
I'm
on
the
board
of
my
neighborhood
association
and
I'd
like
to
talk
and
for
for
my
profession
I
oh
I
can
have
my
videos
started
wow
there
you
go.
X
I
professionally,
I
I'm
the
housing
specialist
for
veterans
for
the
supportive
services
for
veterans,
families
project
with
lada
boise.
So
for
the
past
three
years
I've
been
looking
for
housing
for
veterans
in
order
to
be
in
our
program.
They
have
to
be
at
50
percent
of
ami.
X
The
affordability
gap
in
county
units
per
100
people,
so
in
ada
county,
the
idaho
households
making
30
of
ami
there
are
19
houses
available
for
those
100
folks
and
more
startling
statistics
than
that
are
the
cost
burdens
of
those
folks
who
are
at
30
percent
ami,
if
you're
at
30
to
50
percent
of
income.
X
If
your
cost
burden
means
you're
spending
30
to
50
percent
of
your
household
income
on
housing
in
ada
county
for
those
30
percenters,
you
are
spending
9
94
of
the
30
30
percenters
are
spending
more
than
30
percent
of
their
income
on
housing.
X
I
would
like
this
initiative
to
also
include
I
live
in
sunset,
neighborhood
association.
We
look
at
ourselves
as
the
funnel,
so
we
all
have
big
backyards.
Let's
make
this
easy
for
homeowners
to
also
do
this
same,
to
be
able
to
be
those
have
the
same
threshold
as
developers
do
so.
From
that
perspective,
I
think
in
general
this
is
a
good
thing
because
with
it
it
defeats
nimbyism.
I
have
watched
too
many
times.
X
Good
proposals
come
before
you
and
we
compromise
by
letting
more
expensive
housing
going
in
with
fewer
units,
and
this
is
a
good
it's
a
good
proposal
start,
I
would
say,
let's
do
a
three
month
test
period.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
sherman
up
next
patrick,
I
believe
patrick
spouts
is
next
and
then
jared
osteen,
elaine,
kasikov,
laurie,
decant
decare.
G
Thank
you.
My
name
is
patrick
spouts.
I
live
at
912,
west
brumback
boise,
and
I
want
to
speak
strongly
in
support
of
this
ordinance.
I
think
it
is
a
wonderful
first
step,
one
of
our
first
steps
to
welcome
new
neighbors
into
a
variety
of
corners
of
our
city.
I
think
this
ordinance
is
appropriately
scoped
that
provides
modest
incentive
and
some
streamlined
processes
that
will
target,
admittedly,
just
one
segment
of
our
affordable
housing
need,
as
many
comments
have
been
put
forth
today.
G
A
Up
next
jared
stein,
austin.
V
I'd
just
like
to
thank
the
oh.
My
name
is
jared
austin.
My
address
is
4211
west
fairmont
street.
I'd
just
like
to
thank
the
commissioner
for
hearing
us
all
today.
We
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
and
feelings
on
this,
and
I'd
like
to
thank
staff
also
for
for
putting
this
together
for
all
of
us.
V
V
V
The
city
of
boise
only
has
so
many
ways
to
achieve
affordable
housing
units.
Like
others
have
said.
This
is
the
carrot
method,
not
the
stick,
also,
as,
as
others
have
said,
there's
no
one
silver
bullet
for
this.
This
is
an
iterative
process.
This
is
not
the
end
game.
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
how
how
how
utilized
this
program
ends
up
being
and
then
more
iterations
can
come.
V
It
will
also
be
interesting
to
have
data
from
this
go
into
the
zoning
code,
rewrite
process
as
as
we
work
together
to
help
handle
similar
questions
in
that
larger,
larger
endeavor.
I'm
excited
to
see
how
we
can
further
iterate
on
this
going
forward.
Personally,
I
would
like
to
see
this
used
for
other
zoning
types,
including
r2
and
even
r1,
but
we
can
talk
about
that
at
a
later
date.
So
that's
all
I
have
to
say
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
AN
I
know
that
this
was
introduced
in
october
only
because
I
follow
vanishing
boise
on
social
media,
and
I
know
I'm
in
good
company.
When
I
say
I
really
it
came
out
of
nowhere
to
surprise
me.
I
didn't
see
any
clear
connection
to
the
2018
process.
AN
AN
AN
It
seems
like
the
city
is
out
of
touch
with
with
what
the
essential
workers
of
this
city
are
making
if
those
essential
workers
are
lucky
enough
to
still
have
a
job.
So
I
really
do
think
that
the
commissioners
should
consider,
following
vanishing
boise's
recommendation
to
adjust
the
income
levels
based
on
ami
to
60
of
ami,
as
many
have
said,
and
possibly
even
50..
I
think
we
might
seriously
start
talking
about
affordability.
AN
Then
I
also
agree
with
the
vista
neighborhood
association's
assertion
that
this
housing
bonus
ordinance
probably
puts
existing,
affordable
housing
such
as
mobile
home
parks
at
risk.
The
city
should
be
working
to
protect
the
affordable
housing
stock.
It
has
not
encourage
the
building
of
complexes
that
will
offer
only
a
token
number
of
so-called
affordable
units.
AN
AN
A
Thank
you,
mrs
kazzakov
up.
Next,
I
think
it's,
oh
sorry,
look
laurie
de
care.
AO
Okay,
lori
to
care,
7154
west
state
street
number
148
the
goal
to
provide
housing
affordable
for
everyone
will
not
be
met.
The
80
percent
threshold
is
meaningless
because
developers
will
simply
do
what
is
most
lucrative
and
build
at
80.
I'm
sorry
at
100
percent
ami,
which
is
already
a
market
rate,
make
no
mistake.
This
will
build
no
affordable
units
for
anyone.
We
are
calling
housing
for
people
making
seventy
four
thousand
dollars
a
year
as
affordable,
taking
away
100.
H
A
AO
A
B
A
Sorry,
mr
chair,
so
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
move
along.
We
have
only
a
couple
more
folks
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
to
greg
carobrisi
while
lori
gets
her
tech
figured
out
here.
K
A
We're
going
to
get
to
that
here
in
a
little
bit
if
you
this
is
for
comments
specific
to
this.
This
zoning
amendment,
this
ordinance
movement.
A
That
sounds
good.
Thank
you
very
much,
and
then
I
think
we
only
have
one
more
hand
up
and
that's
april,
more
low-income
housing,
hoy.
B
B
AP
Cool
well
hello,
my
name
is
april
hoy
and
I
live
at
5212
west
kootenay
street.
I'm
here
tonight
to
speak
against
this
proposal.
In
its
current
form,
this
proposal
wouldn't
set
her
pardon
me.
Housing
affordability
is
far
and
away
the
most
important
housing
issue
currently
facing
boise.
AP
AP
A
B
C
Chair
commissioners,
we
are
sending
her
the
dial-in
information.
AO
AO
Okay,
the
goal
to
produce
housing
affordable
for
for
everyone
will
not
be
met.
The
80
threshold
is
meaningless
because
developers
will
simply
do
what
is
most
lucrative
and
build
at
100
ami,
which
is
already
market
rate.
Make
no
mistake:
this
will
build
no
affordable
units
for
anyone.
We
are
calling
housing
for
people
making
74
000
a
year,
affordable,
taking
away
the
100
option
and
only
having
80
so
that
at
least
it
would
do
something
is
an
option.
AO
AN
A
A
A
F
Z
B
F
K
Wow
the
attack
is
pretty
good
tonight.
That
was.
K
K
H
C
AO
B
AO
C
AQ
The
goal
to
provide
housing
affordable
for
everyone
will
not
be
met.
The
80
threshold
is
meaningless
because
developers
will
simply
do
what
is
most
lucrative
and
built
at
100
ami,
which
is
already
market
rate,
making
a
mistake.
This
will
build
no
affordable
units
for
anyone.
We
are
calling
housing
for
people
making
74
000
a
year
as
affordable,
take
away
the
100
option
and
can
and
do
60
and
80.
So
at
least
it
would
do
something.
AQ
The
difference
between
affordable
housing
is
a
real
estate
term
of
art,
and
a
house
I
can
afford
is
significant.
The
city's
definition
of
affordable
housing
is
far
beyond
the
grasp
of
the
city's
lower
income
community,
who
earn
far
less
than
the
minimum
incomes
necessary
to
qualify
for
a
unit.
Under
this
plan,
the
portion
of
the
population
that
reached
income
thresholds
of
62
or
74
thousand
dollars
in
capone
up
1870
a
month
for
these
new
quote-unquote,
affordable
apartments
does
not
help
those
most
in
need
of
housing.
AQ
Those
defined
as
low-income
and
extremely
low-income
people
and
those
most
precariously
housed
their
growing
ranks
could
never
afford
the
shiny
new
construction
apartments
that
will
replace
the
buildings
where
they
used
to
live
the
income
levels
the
city
is
using
are
50
higher
than
those
used
for
most
affordable
housing
programs.
Boise's
ami
has
been
driven
up
significantly
in
the
last
two
years,
both
by
the
displacement
of
poor
people
coupled
with
wealthy
in-migrants,
bringing
out-of-state
wages
or
equity
from
home
sales
and
higher
price
markets.
AQ
It
further
untethers
the
cost
of
housing
from
local
wages.
Boise
is
a
tale
of
two
cities
with
bimodal
distribution
of
incomes
locals
living
on
idaho
wages,
making
thirty
five
thousand
dollars
and
a
more
well
healed
people
making
a
hundred
thousand
the
high
income.
Demographic
is
already
well
served
by
the
development
industry's
constant
production
of
market
rate
apartments
and
single-family
homes.
AQ
AQ
D
AQ
A
Q
Good
evening,
commissioners
area
tuning
for
the
record,
I
do
want
to
bring
up
a
couple
of
points.
The
really
key
points
are
is
is,
first
and
foremost
is
we
are
proposing
affordable
housing,
not
low
income
housing
that
we
are
trying
to
address
an
affordability
factor,
we're
also
looking
at
area
median
income,
and
so
when
you
determine
what
that
is,
that
means
50
percent
of
our
population
makes
more
than
that
amount
and
50
makes
less
than
that
amount.
Q
So
that
is
a
key
item
to
keep
in
mind
as
well,
and
we're
also
looking
at
all
of
those
essential
workers
and
that
workforce,
housing
and
workforce
housing
really
is
80
percent
of
ami
all
the
way
up
to
120
percent.
So
we
are
really
focusing
on
that
workforce
housing
to
keep
people
employed
that
are
our
essential
employees.
Q
We
also
need
to
take
into
account
that
this
isn't
specific
to
affordable
housing
either
we
do
have
a
couple
of
different
facets.
It
includes
this
is
a
new
view
in
regard
to
adaptive,
reuse
and
something
that
the
city
has
never
seen
before,
and
we
are
also
taking
a
look
at
activity
centers
to
really
bring
people
to
their
have
their
homes
located
near
goods,
services
and
employment
centers.
This
is
key
for
us
to
reduce
vehicle
trips
traveled
and
to
get
vehicles
off
the
road
and
encourage
pedestrian
and
walkability.
Q
So
I
think
all
of
those
are
key
components
that
we
need
to
take
into
account.
I
do
want
to
remind
you
that
you
do
have
the
ability
to
recommend
approval
to
the
city
council
as
they
move
forward.
You
can
recommend
denial
or,
if
you've
heard
testimony
this
evening.
That
would
also
cause
you
to
suggest
modifications
to
the
city
council.
You
can
certainly
recommend
those
as
well,
so
I
just
want
to
be
available
for
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
I
think
those
are
my
key
components
that
I
think
that
should
be
considered.
H
A
J
Well,
I
will
just
start
us
off
by
saying
I
would
move
that
we
would
approve
this
motion
as
written
with
the
technical
corrections
submitted
by
commissioner
gillespie.
F
H
J
J
Blanchard,
as
I
made
the
motion,
I
will
give
my
rationale
for
this,
so
I
I
want
to
first
say
thanks
to
andre
and
leon.
This
is
a
really
fantastic
job
of
staff.
Work
on
this.
A
lot
of
us
have
been
kicking
around
this
work
for
quite
some
time.
J
I
started
my
planning
career-
I
don't
know
16
or
so
years
ago,
as
an
intern,
actually
in
pds
and
started
going
through
this
stuff,
and
then
I
don't
know,
15
or
so
years
ago,
went
to
work
as
staff
of
the
council
and
I've
been
out
about
doing
other
things
since
then,
as
most
of
you
know,
but
by
day
now
I
am
a
developer
of
affordable
housing,
and
so
all
these
things
resonate
quite
well.
Let
me
just
try
to
get
a
couple
of
things
out
there.
J
As
earlier
stated,
this
has
a
very
limited
objective
here
and
those
six
goals
that
I
asked
andrea
and
leon
about
are
really
what
this
policy
is
all
about.
There
is
absolutely
no
doubt
that
the
greatest
need
out
there
is
to
find
some
way
to
help
people
who
are
at
30
to
50
ami.
This
does
not
do
that
and
is
not
intended
to
do
that.
J
That
is
a
much
more
challenging
question
and
a
very,
very
difficult
thing
to
implement,
and
I
know
city
staff
is
already
working
on
that,
and
I
know
the
mayor
is
committed
to
that
as
his
council,
but
for
right
now
what
we
can
do
is
try
to
get
some
housing
starts
more
quickly
at
market
rate
and
that's
something
we
can
easily
do
and
that's
something
that
this
proposal
can
potentially
impact
in
the
15
years
or
so
that
I've
been
kicking
around
doing
this.
J
A
lot
of
you
guys
have
been
here
longer
milt
been
on
this
commission
for
eight
or
nine
years,
so
he's
can
probably
second
this,
but
a
lot
of
times
when
these
kind
of
proposals
come
before
council
or
pnz.
J
We
tend
to
hear
a
lot
of
the
same
things
that
this
is
a
overarching
policy.
It's
a
huge
rewrite.
It's
a
huge
transformation.
J
There
just
wasn't
time
for
citizens
to
participate
and
that
somehow
there's
like
this
cabal
of
developers
that
we're
always
talking
to
who
are
telling
the
commission
and
counsel
and
the
staff
how
to
think
and
it
just
it
it
just
doesn't
happen
like
that.
I
just
I
can't
I
I
can't
ever
think
of
a
time
when
I
actually
met
with
a
developer
out
there
and
said
hey.
You
know
what
you
ought
to
do
while
you've
got
your
your
commissioner
hat
on
it.
J
Just
it
just
doesn't
happen
like
that,
so
I
just
want
to
address
those
things
there
really
quickly
and
again,
just
reiterate
that
this
is
a
very,
very
sensible
and
moderate
rewrite
and
for
all
the
people
who
spend
a
lot
of
time.
I
know
lori
to
care,
and
I
know
april
hoy
who's
a
an
old
colleague
of
mine
at
boise
state.
These
people
spend
a
lot
of
their
time
looking
at
this
issue,
and
I
empathize
with
them
and
I'm
with
them
100
on
this
as
far
as
needing
to
provide
affordable
housing.
J
But
let
me
tell
you:
there
are
much
much
more
serious
tools
coming
down
the
pike
that
we
see.
All
over
the
country
in
part
of
my
day
job,
I
keep
our
leadership
abreast
on
zoning
changes
that
are
happening
throughout
the
country
as
it
affects
our
business
and
if
you
think
this
is
overarching
or
a
huge
rewrite
or
huge
transformation,
you
need
to
be
aware
of
what
other
cities
are
are
doing
around
the
country.
For
example,
olympia
washington
just
got
rid
of
our
zoning
altogether.
J
So
if
it's
our
zone,
you
can
put
whatever
you
want
on
it,
there's
no
more
residential
single-family
zoning.
It's
gone
most
of
california
is
doing
the
same
thing.
Atlanta
is
looking
at
the
same
thing.
The
boroughs
in
new
york
are
up
zoning.
It's
occurring
all
over
the
place,
so
this
is
a
comparatively
with
what
we're
working
with
here
tonight.
This
is
a
very,
very
mild
policy
which
could
potentially
help
us
get.
J
Some
more
housing
starts
more
quickly
and
that's
all
it
is,
and
that's
all
it's
designed
to
be-
and
there
is
very
little
frankly
that
I
think
could
possibly
be
damaging
in
neighborhoods
or
you
know.
Frankly,
I
I
don't
know
how
many
more
housing
starts.
This
will
get
us,
but
certainly
I
know
staff
will
be
tracking
this.
Should
this
policy
go
through.
So
that's
just
kind
of
the
way
I've
been
thinking
through
that
legal
asked
me
to
make
a
quick
technical
correction
too.
J
Richard
llewellyn
had
mentioned
the
prospect
of
a
six-story
building
being
dropped
down
next
to
a
single-family
residence,
and
I
don't
know
that
we
can
build
anything
of
six
stories
that
would
be
60
feet
tall
and
I
think
that
can
only
occur
in
c5
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
I
don't
want
specters
out
there
that
aren't
that
aren't
realistic
influencing
this
decision.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
the
way
I
thought
through
this
thing
and
I
I
hope
that's
helpful.
B
Gillespie
so
chris,
just
let
me
make
sure
that
we
we
get
it
on
the
record,
so
I
think
the
technical
corrections
you
were
speaking
of
were
to
add
which
kinds
of
permits
to
section
c,
which
is
the
section
that
says
these
entitlements,
can't
be
changed,
and
that
was
the
whole
discussion
of
rezones
and
development
agreements
and
all
that
stuff.
B
I
think
the
other
one
was
just
that
confusing
language
and
marcia
franklin
also
talked
about
it
where,
if
you
were
both
the
hs
and
an
acs,
the
plain
language
says
50,
but
I
think
andrea.
So
this
is
on
packet,
page
68,
so
sections
three
I
b,
the
r
three
is
the
the
streamline
number
is
still
25.,
so
I
think
chris,
those
were
those
two
things
that
you
were
talking
about.
Is
that
right.
J
J
B
So,
mr
chairman,
before
I
we
we
do
that,
you
know.
One
thing
guys
we
can
do
is
we're
all
going
to
have
different
things
we'd
like
council,
to
consider
so
I'm
not
sure
and
I'd
just
like
to
ask
the
group
I
mean:
do
we
really
need
to
micro
edit
this
or
should
we
either
approve
it
or
deny
it,
but
then
each
of
us
can
make
our
own
sort
of
recommendations,
because
then
council,
you
know
whatever
we
do
they're
going
to
read
through
it.
B
A
A
A
So
I'm
not
sure
we
need
to
amend
the
motion,
but
I
think
that
it
merits
at
least
some
discussion,
because
I
would
like
to
entertain
a
way
to
perhaps
correct
or
improve
that
process
of
notifications.
I
think
it's
a
fair,
a
fair
request
to
at
least
keep
the
the
radius
notifications
in
place
so
that
homeowners
within
that
radius
are
notified
of
projects,
even
if
it
is
a
administrative
review
yeah.
Mr
chairman,
commissioner
brandon
over.
I
Yeah,
I
agree
100
with
what
you're
saying
there.
Mr
chairman,
they
I'm
you
know
when
I
saw
this.
I
was
very
excited
because,
as
you
guys
probably
guessed,
I'm
a
champion
for
affordable
housing
here
in
boise
and
and
with
ms
tuning's
clarification
in
the
rebuttal.
It
was
good
to
for
us
all
to
kind
of
pause
for
a
moment
and
recognize
that
this
is
fairly
tightly
scoped
and
in
that,
in
that
context,
does
a
pretty
good
job.
I
But,
frankly,
it's
going
to
be
a
journey
of
discovery
and
there's
a
code
rewrite
coming
up,
not
too
long,
which
can
help
amend
some
of
the
areas
where
maybe
we
got
unexpected
results.
However,
the
one
thing
I
think
that
really
works
against
this
code
piece
is
the
streamlined
administrative
review.
I
We
are
dealing
with
a
time
where
government
is
mistrusted
and
in
some
cases
deservedly
so,
and
we
hear
people
saying
I
would
like
to
have
my
voice
heard
and
part
of
the
function
of
this
planning
and
zoning
commission
is
to
provide
a
place
where
people's
voices
are
heard
and
so
to
take
something
as
important
as
this
with
high
density
housing
projects
and
not
give
people
potentially
not
give
people
the
chance
to
discuss
it
and
get
in
front
of.
It
is
a
big
mistake
that
will
haunt
us
in
the
future.
I
Yeah
as
as
one
of
those
folks
mentioned,
democracy
is
messy.
We
have
some
long
meetings
here
and
let
that
continue
please.
I
would
recommend
that
we
strike
the
streamlines
or
we
recommend
strike
striking
that
when
we
put
it
to
the
council.
B
B
I
Mr
jim,
to
respond
to
commissioner
gillespie,
so
I
I
I
I
agree.
However,
I
have
to
go
back
to
your
prior
comments
about
writing
code
in
the
commission
meetings,
and
so
I
would
say
well,
let's
definitely
put
it
out
there
that
this
is.
This
is
something
where
we
question
the
usefulness
of
it
and
suggest
that
there
are
alternatives
about
how
it's
applied
but
stop
short
of
being
overly
prescriptive
in
terms
of
how
we
see
it,
I
think
you
hit
on
the
key
point:
is
this
of
all
the
things
in
there?
I
I
A
N
N
So
for
me,
the
biggest
issue
is
the
administrative
process
and
I
am
spot
on
with
commissioner
gillespie
and
commissioner
brat
nober
that
I
think
most
certainly
it
needs
to
stay
in
place
for
the
residential
zoning,
and
so
I
think
that
is
certainly
I
would
support
it
for
all
zones,
but
I
think,
if
we're
going
to,
if
we
have
to
have
just
one
absolutely
that
one,
the
other,
the
only
thing
that
I
would
say
in
terms
of
a
potential
recommendation
to
the
city
council
is
I'd
like
to
see
the
r2
zone
added
back
in.
N
I
think
that's
important
as
well.
I
understand
why
it
was
taken
out
and
I
get
that
this
is
just
a
trial
and
that
you
know
everything
will
be
re-reviewed
with
the
new
zoning
ordinance.
But
I
do
think
that
that
is
something
to
be
considered
as
well,
and
that's
thank
you
for
asking
for
my
comments.
W
So,
in
terms
of
public
comment,
that
was
my
biggest
issue
with
this
is
just
lack
of
notification.
Public
comment
and
I
think
exactly
hitting
on
the
head
with
that,
and
I
I
agree
with
not
writing
code
at
dice
or
a
virtual
dice.
I
think
if
we
feel
that
that
element
doesn't
meet
the
the
intent
of
public
convenience
and
general
welfare,
is
it
worth
recommending
mouth
at
home
motion?
Is
it?
Do
we
make
a
recommendation
to
city
council
that
they
re-look
at
this?
W
A
J
J
I
want
to
try
to
broaden
the
perspective
here
for
a
second
and
go
back
to
the
goals
that
staff
brought
to
us
with
this
ordinance
really
quickly
and
just
put
this
out
there,
because
where
I
think
we
are
in
the
process
is
this
is
that
we've
passed
a
comprehensive
plan,
and
now
it's
we
are
tasked
and
council
is
tasked
with
with
moving
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan
forward,
and
so
one
of
the
things
one
of
the
explicit
goals
of
this
policy
was
quoting
from
the
staff
report
to
simplify
the
regulations
and
development
review
process.
J
J
That
said,
I
think
that
there
is
enough
testimony
from
all
the
commissioners
and
certainly
from
the
public
on
other
people's
weariness
of
streamlining
this
process,
and
I
I
think
I
would
again
with
the
input
of
commissioners
saying
how
all
of
us
are
loathed
to
write
code
from
the
day
is
that
I
would
just
propose
that
the
original
motions
stand.
J
I
think,
there's
enough
guidance
for
council
to
take
it
up
and
frankly,
I
think
it's,
I
think
it's
important
that
council
do
take
it
up
and
make
their
legislative
intent
known
as
as
the
legislative
body
of
are.
There
concerns
among
counsel
with
this
streamlining
process,
or
is
this
very
intentional,
as
it
says
in
the
comp
plan
and
as
staff
pointed
out
in
goals
for
this
ordinance.
J
So
my
reading
of
it
is
that
this
is
that
this
is
a
very
intentional
piece
of
this,
but
I
think
again
all
that
said.
I
think
it's
worthwhile
to
leave
it
to
council
get
their
legislative
intent
on
it
and
let
them
take
all
of
the
public
and
our
suggestions
to
bear.
B
Mr
chairman,
no
I
mean
I,
I
think
that
saline
you
cannot,
if
you
think,
there's
enough
on
the
record
for
them
to
chew
over
she
says
yeah.
I
do
want
to
address
one
other
issue
that
came
up,
and
this
is
the
argument
that
we
shouldn't
do
this,
because
we
don't
have
adequate
public
transportation.
B
B
The
city
will
argue-
and
I
agree,
though,
that
the
transit,
the
only
way
it's
going
to
happen,
is
to
follow
the
density,
so
I
do
believe
that
we
should
go
ahead
and
and
do
something
like
this
now,
because
I
know
for
certain
that
if
we
don't
increase
the
density,
we'll
never
get
mass
transit
and
that
this
is
the
only
way
it's
not
a
certain
way,
but
it's
the
only
way
because
the
alternative
is
we
spread
out
like
vegas
or
phoenix
or
salt
lake
city,
and
then
you
just
can't
do
it,
because
it's
just
too
expensive
per
mile.
H
I
Brandon,
so
obviously
I
I
am
strongly
biased
toward
eliminating
the
streamlined
approval
process,
but
the
alternative
is
turning
down
the
the
law,
I'm
even
less
in
favor
of
that,
however,
that
said
I
I
want
to
and
say
we
all
do,
respect
to
you
that
we've
pontificated
enough
on
this-
I
this
is
my
last
shot
at
it.
So
what
the
heck!
I
believe
that
there
is
number
one
the
potential
for
abuse
of
the
streamline
process.
I
That's
what
you're
hearing
in
testimony
of
both
commissioners
and
the
public,
and
even
when
it's
not
abused
there
will
be
the
appearance
of
abuse.
That's
just
the
way
these
things
go.
So
this
message
is
for
the
city
council.
It
would
be
highly
unwise
to
leave
that
in
there.
I
recognize
that
it's
it's
one
of
the
key
points
of
this,
but
I
don't
believe
it
gets
us
any
closer
to
the
goal
of
affordable
housing,
whether
it's
in
there
or
not,
and
just
a
couple
more
points
that
I
wanted
to
add.
I
I
believe
that
the
the
elimination
of
the
r1
and
r2
I
agree
with,
I
believe
it
was
commissioner
squires,
at
least
on
the
r2,
but
also
the
r1.
I
That's
that
can
be
a
slippery
slope
towards
segregation
of
the
low
income,
how
of
the
affordable
housing
and
potentially
low
income,
housing
choices,
we've
seen
those
that
happen
in
other
cities
and
so
to
avoid
gentrification
whatever
you
want
to
call
it,
they
should
take
a
hard
look
at
it,
including
all
the
argents.
W
H
W
I
won
a
few
more
items
besides
the
topic
of
public
notification,
which
is
to
reiterate
I'm
reluctantly
in
support
of
this.
I
think
there's
so
many
good
merits
to
this,
but
I
do
have
issues
with
the
lack
of
public
notification
and
public
hearings.
I
think
there's
a
better
solution
and
I'm
excited
to
see
what
city
council
comes
up
with.
W
Besides
that
item,
I
am
encouraged
by
the
adaptive
reuse,
incentives,
it's
exciting
to
see
things
like
that,
starting
to
come
along,
and
I'm
hopeful
that
maybe
a
higher
demand
for
development
along
those
activity
centers
will
help
bring
in
more
public
transportation
and
add
in
some
more
demand
for
some
of
that
public
transportation
a
little
bit
sooner.
So
I'm
excited
to
see
how
this
evolves
and
hopeful
that
that
public
hearing
process
will
develop
a
little
bit
more.
H
A
H
A
Okay,
yeah
just
real
quick.
I
want
to
thank
everyone
that
testified
this
evening.
I
appreciate
the
process
this
evening.
A
Everyone
was
succinct
in
their
comments
and
you
know
we
had,
I
think,
a
pretty
good,
robust
array
of
comments
on
this
topic
and
it's
a
complex
issue
and
everyone
has
different
ideas,
and
my
personal
opinion
is
that
you
know,
while
this
is
maybe
not
the
end-all
be-all,
it's
a
good
step
in
the
right
direction,
and
I
would
actually,
I
actually
think
the
timing
of
it
is
quite
good,
given
the
fact
that
we
have
the
zoning
ordinance
revisions
upcoming
right.
So
this
is
a
a
chance
to
give
this
a
try.
A
D
A
D
B
It
is
9
34.
pursuant
to
both
city
code.
I
would
suggest
that
the
hour
is
now
late,
especially
for
those
of
us
down
here
at
freezing
cold
city
hall,
and
that
we
prefer
code.
We
defer
the
rest
of
our
agenda
to
our
next
regularly
scheduled
meeting
so.
B
C
Mr
chair,
commissioner
gillespie,
I
just
want
to
ask
a
few
questions
for
clarification.
Are
you
saying
all
of
the
other
items
tonight
or
did
you
want
to
attempt
to
hear
one
of
them.
A
D
B
There's
a
whole
gang
on
here
here:
let's
take
the.
B
I
mean
I
would
defer,
what's
left,
adjourn
the
meeting
and
then
we'll
hit
these
guys
on
the
second
meeting
in
january.
That
would
be
my
preference,
but
I'm
okay,
but
I'm
only
good
for
one
more
and
by
the
way
at
the
bottom
of
our
agenda.
It
says
the
discretion
of
the
commission
to
not
begin
new
business
after
9
30.,
so
we're
pretty
clearly
you
know
inside
the
guardrails
of
the
of
the
procedure
here.
A
A
I
think
we're
getting
nods
from
the
commission
that
a
deferral
to
a
deferral
of
all
remaining
items
to
january
11th
is
the
desire.
A
N
E
Mr
chair,
commissioner
gillespie.
Yes,
I
think
this
is
an
adequate
motion
and
would
be
happy
to
support
it.
Thank
you.
A
H
A
Do
we
want
let's
go
ahead
and
start
with
commissioner
brad
uber,
okay,.
I
Okay,
well,
first
of
all,
since
this
is
my
last
meeting
as
commissioner
I'd
like
to
say
a
couple
words
of
farewell,
while
I'm
very
disappointed
that
my
commission
wasn't
renewed,
I
understand
the
politics
involved
in
these
appointments.
I've
been
truly
blessed
to
work
on
the
boise
city
planning
and
zoning
commission
with
such
talented
people.
Even
for
this
short
time,
I
want
to
thank
former
mayor
dave
bieder
for
giving
me
this
opportunity.
I
The
commissioners
who
pour
over
analyses
and
public
testimony,
the
dedicated
and
professional
staff
who
run
the
show
and
the
concerned
citizens
who
testify
and
share
their
vision
for
our
city
are
all
working
to
make
boise
a
great
place
to
live.
I've
looked
forward
to
each
and
every
meeting
they
allow
citizens
and
government
to
interact
directly
and
make
life
a
little
better
for
all
of
us.
Everyone
gets
to
speak
for
their
three
minutes.
I
Volunteer
commissioners
listen
and
make
judgments
based
on
facts
and
testimony,
while
my
judgment
sometimes
ran
against
the
grain
of
the
commission.
I've
always
kept
in
mind
that
the
lives
of
real
people
are
impacted
when
making
my
calls
thanks
again
for
all
the
work
and
camaraderie,
I
wish
you
all
the
best.
B
W
I'm
just
like
echo
that
I
mean
it's.
I've
only
been
on
here
for
a
couple
of
months,
but
I
really
appreciate
your
perspective
outlook
on
things
and
all
your
comments
and
questions,
I
think,
has
been
really
helpful
and
as
I've
gotten
used
to
commissioning
and
learning
and
has
been
really
great
and
all
the
best.
I
N
I
was
just
gonna
say
I,
you
know
it's
been
weird
being
appointed
in
this
time
of
covid
and
not
having
sat
in
a
meeting
room
with
all
of
you
since
march
with
my
appointment,
but
commissioner
brat
nober,
I
just
always
have
appreciated
just
you
speaking
your
truth.
We've
been
in
alignment
together
a
couple
of
times
to
think
by
ourselves,
and
I
I'm
just
really
disappointed
that
you're
not
going
to
continue
on
the
commission,
and
I
really
do
truly
hope
that
our
past
cross.
N
I
I
meant
that
when
I
wrote
it,
and
I
just
thank
you
for
your
service.
Thank
you.
H
J
Chair,
mr
blanchard,
thank
you
jim.
It's
really
been
a
privilege
serving
with
you
over
zoom.
I
believe
it's.
I
can't
believe
it's
all
it's
actually,
commissioner
moritz.
I
think
we
we're
it's
been
almost
a
year
now,
although
I
don't
know
if
we
started
having
meetings
until
march,
but
jim,
I
really
appreciate
your
empathetic
approach
toward
this
thing.
J
I
think
empathy
is
a
very
difficult
thing
in
the
best
of
circumstances
for
people
and
it
certainly
it
didn't
pop
up
on
my
top
five
strengths
when
I
did
strengthsfinder,
and
so
you
were
always
that
great
reminder
for
me
when
we
do
these
public
meetings
that
that
empathy
really
is
is
key,
and
that
was
really
what
I
learned
from
you
in
the
last
year
working
with
you,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
that
the
spirit
that
you
brought
and
real
very
grateful
for
that.
J
I
A
Jim
yeah,
all
the
best
in
your
next
endeavors,
we'll
miss
you
here
on
the
commission.
It's
been,
I
can't
believe
it's
already
been.
I
think,
two
years
since
we've
been
serving
together
and
amazing
how
time
has
flown,
and
I
have
always
appreciated
your
thoughts-
and
I
agree
with
commissioner
blanchard.
Your
empathy,
I
think,
is
second
to
none,
so
we're
going
to
miss
your
your
input
in
2021
and
beyond.
So
again,
all
the
best,
and
with
that
this
is
our
last
meeting
in
2020.