►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Zoning Code Meeting
Description
Day 4 of 4
B
B
C
So
I'm
just
gonna,
kick
it
over
to
Tim
and
then
my
my
plan
is
after
Tim
and
staff
walk
through
the
discussion
items.
We've
had
the
recommendations
that
they're
bringing
to
us
in
response
to
some
of
those
discussions.
We've
had
then
we'll
open
it
up
for
discussion
unless
something
ends
up
coming
up
in
between
Tim
and
Council
discussion.
So
Tim,
please
welcome
back.
D
Boise
residents
have
actually
really
been
concentrating
on
this
topic
for
many
months
and
actually
several
years.
It's
really
a
remarkable
accomplishment,
so
I
think
that's
an
important
first
thing,
for
me
to
say
is
the
discussion
we've
heard
this
week
is
one
that
was
much
like
public
meetings
that
we
had
last
year
and
the
year
before,
and
the
commitment
of
so
many
people
in
the
city
to
getting
this
right
has
been
remarkable.
D
It
really
has
so-
and
this
week
has
been
certainly
reflective
of
that
we're
greatly
appreciative
of
the
ideas
and
the
passion
that
everyone
has
brought
to
these
hearings
this
week.
So
many
residents
of
the
city
and
once
again,
I
want
to
start
by
acknowledging
the
long-term
commitment
to
this
public
process
from
Jessica
zielag
Deanna
Dupuis,
Andrea
tuning
Lena,
Walker,
Lindsay,
Moser,
and
really
many
other
people
in
the
department
of
planning
and
development
services,
an
example
Crystal
rain
who
really
guided
this
through
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
process.
D
D
The
proposed
code
is
also
not
a
random
collection
of
planning,
ideas
and
theories
about
smart
growth
or
anything
else.
It
is
not
a
single
headline
response
to
how
we
should
grow
and
how
we
should
address
the
issues
of
housing,
affordability.
Rather
it
is
a
proposal
customized
to
the
specific
physical
characteristics
of
this
particular
place.
D
Okay
and
it's
a
collection
of
big
things
and
small
things,
big
ways
and
small
ways
to
address
the
most
pressing
challenges
of
this
growing
city,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
housing,
affordability,
transportation,
addressing
growth
impact
on
a
changing
climate
and
ensuring
we
grow
in
a
way
that
is
within
our
means
to
pay
for
the
services
that
we
need.
Affordably.
D
We
have
said
since
blueprint
Boise,
we
want
a
variety
of
homes,
so
people
of
all
means
can
live
here.
We
want
more
and
more
people
in
the
city
to
have
a
choice
as
to
how
they
get
about
the
city,
whether
it's
to
school
or
job
or
Services.
People
need
to
have
choices
as
to
how
they
get
around,
and
we
have
said
that
we
can't
let
growth
spoil
the
wild
places
around
us.
D
D
So
we
we
wanted
to
start
before
I
get
into
some
of
the
nitty-gritty
that
we've
been
discussing
this
week
and
our
recommendations
around
some
adjustments
to
the
ordinance
I
did
want
to
invite
a
few
other
City
staff
to
join
us
and
address
some
issues.
I
know
you
care
a
lot
about,
and
we've
all
made
notes
about
this
week.
The
first
is
is
Rebecca
Hub,
who
who
of
course,
is
a
general
manager
of
the
airport?
D
E
Rewrite
I
think
it
provides
the
continuity.
The
the
noise
exposure
models
were
part
of
our
Federal
Aviation
regulation.
Part
150
study,
which
is
a
study
that
the
airport
does
is
just
to
measure
noise.
The
FAA
approves
the
noise
exposure
model
design
and
the
layout,
but
it
doesn't
actually
provide
any
guidance.
E
We
did
have
public
hearings
as
part
of
that,
and
I
would
note
that
we
had
over
a
hundred
attendees,
all
of
whom
were
opposed
to
airport
noise
and
any
increase
in
Airplane
noise.
We
had
over
50
comments
in
the
Federal
Register
and
then,
when
Boise
was
being
considered
for
the
F-35,
we
had
public
hearings
with
over
100
attendees
at
those
as
well,
so
I
think
that
speaks
to
concern
that
residents
have
about
noise
is
an
aircraft
noise
and
the
potential
impact
of
aircraft
noise.
E
I
would
also
note
that
the
part
150
study
is
based
on
today's
standard,
which
is
65
decibels,
average
decibels
of
the
day
night
noise
level,
and
that
is
always
subject
to
change
right
now.
Faa
is
considering
changing
the
standard
to
50
decibels
and
in
their
most
recent
noise
and
environmental
excuse
me
neighborhood
environmental
study
that
was
done
last
year.
It
showed
that
the
level
of
noise
that
residents
were
experiencing
or
categorizing
as
extremely
annoying
related
to
aircraft
noises
increased
substantially,
since
the
studies
were
first
done
related
to
DNL
back
in
the
early
70s.
E
So
while
noise,
perhaps
levels
having
decreased
people,
are
actually
more
sensitive
to
it
today
than
they
were
previously,
and
that
is
why
we're
recommending
that
the
city
of
Boise,
as
we
look
at
Future
zoning
around
the
airport,
that
we
take
the
most
conservative
approach
possible
recognizing
that
noise
is
often
an
emotional
response
to
or
people's
response
to,
noise,
rather
is
often
emotional,
not
necessarily
Based.
On
data.
E
Two
people
can
hear
the
same
noise
and
be
impacted
by
it
differently,
and
so
we
always
want
to
take
the
most
conservative
approach
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
protect
the
Boise
airport.
So
that
way
we
don't
have
encroachment
in
development.
That's
not
compatible
around
the
airport.
That
would
force
us
to
at
a
future
point
in
time.
Consider
relocating
the
airport
that
we've
seen
happen
in
other
communities,
so
I
hope
that
helps
to
clarify
I
would
be
happy
to
stand
for
any
questions.
F
E
G
E
I
want
to
say
that
study
was
done,
probably
in
about
2017..
Okay
and
again.
That
study
is
something
that
we
do
as
a
voluntary
measure
to
assess
our
impact
on
the
community.
It's
not
anything
that
is
required
by
Federal
Regulation.
It
was
our
attempt
to
go
above
and
beyond
to
be
a
good
neighbor
to
assess
what
the
impact
of
future
changes,
particularly
to
the
guard
Mission,
because
at
that
point,
in
time
we
were
looking
at
the
potential
retirement
of
the
A-10
and
a
new
follow-on
Mission.
E
So
we
wanted
to
better
understand
how
a
change
in
Mission
could
impact
the
noise
footprint
of
the
Boise
Airport,
and
that
was
what
precipitated
that,
so
it's
not
required
by
regulation.
Typically,
you
would
do
it
if
your
situation
has
changed
every
five
to
ten
years,
but
our
situation
hasn't
really
changed
since,
since
that
last
study
was
done,.
D
Next,
we're
going
to
speak
to
we've
had
several
issues
come
up
related
water
in
the
city,
of
course,
the
assured
water
supply,
which
is
part
of
the
ordinance
that
we're
posing
to
you
tonight,
but
also
questions
about
aquifer
in
Southwest,
Boise
and
issues
around
Wells
and
then
even
issues
about
infiltration.
So
we've
got
Steve
Hubble
here
with
us
tonight
from
Public
Works
to
address
you
on
these
things.
D
H
You
Advance
450
thousand.
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
mayor
City,
Council
Members,
it's
nice
to
be
here
with
you
this
afternoon.
Lots
of
discussion
the
last
couple
days
about
assured
water
supply,
in
addition
to
other
items,
so
just
thought
it
would
be
good
to
take
a
couple
minutes
to
go
over
that
portion
of
the
requirement
in
detail,
and
so
starting
with
some
background.
H
You
know
the
ordinance
language
around
assured
water
supply
is
complex,
but
the
intent
is
very
simple:
it's
really
to
ensure
that
our
community
and
residents
have
long-term
access
to
water
in
the
future
as
we
develop
and
like
many
of
our
other
environmental
initiatives
with
water
supply.
We're
attempting
to
proactively
address
the
issue
with
the
intent
that
our
community
is
more
resilient
to
Future
drought
and
climate
change.
We
heard
frequently
from
our
residents
in
the
initial
parts
of
the
zoning
the
modern
zoning
ordinance
development,
that
this
was
an
issue
that
was
particularly
important
to
them.
H
To
ensure
an
adequate
and
reliable
long-term
water
supply,
the
revised
zoning
ordinance
takes
guidance
from
assured
water
supply
requirements
in
other
Western
States.
It
applies
to
all
new
development
and
Redevelopment
projects.
These
Provisions
will
have
a
later
effective
date
than
the
zoning
ordinance
itself
and
the
city
will
develop
implementation
guidance
to
work
with
applicants
and
stakeholders
on
how
to
comply
and,
prior
to
that
guidance
being
finalized.
We'd
come
back
to
council
for
your
consideration
of
that.
We've
had
some
questions
during
the
process
about
local
Authority,
so
I
wanted
to
reference.
H
The
local
land
use
and
planning
act
or
Lupa
Lupa
gives
the
city
authority
to
review
the
adequacy
of
public
services
and
Facilities
to
support
development,
including
water
supply.
Embedding
the
consideration
of
water
supply
into
the
land
use
decision-making
process
is
similar
to
what
the
city
does
for
other
public
services
like
Transportation,
fire,
sewer
and
related
items.
H
These
changes
are
reflected
in
the
supplemental
Memo
from
early
June
that
director
Keane
referenced
on
Monday
Department
of
Water
Resources
reviewed
these
revisions
and
submitted
an
updated
letter
to
thank
us
for
our
revisions
and
share
that
the
majority
of
their
comments
were
addressed.
I'll
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions,
and
also
my
colleague,
Mary
Grant,
reflecting
a
team
approach
to
this
work
is
here
from
legal
as
well.
I
Thank
you.
Steve
I
really
appreciate
the
additional
context
from
a
process
standpoint
when
and
when
we
have
an
applicant
who
comes
in
and
they're
proposing
a
development.
Is
this
almost
just
like
another
agency
letter
like
when
we
would
expect
from
achd?
What
is
that
going
to
look
like
just
from
the
applicant
standpoint.
H
Madam
mayor
council,
member
woodings,
thank
you
for
the
question.
I
see
the
process
going
forward
as
two
paths,
depending
on
the
circumstance
of
the
development.
If
a
development
proposes
to
use
a
public
drinking
water
provider,
for
example,
violia
is
certainly
the
ones
that
many
of
us
are
familiar
with.
What
we
anticipate
is
if
these
requirements
are
enacted
that
essentially
violia
would
prepare
in
advance
a
master
analysis
to
address
assured
water
supply
for
their
entire
service
area.
H
The
city
would
have
reviewed
that
and
assuming
it
was
approved
at
the
time
of
a
specific
development
application
coming
for
forward.
That
developer
would
collaborate
with
violia
to
ensure
that
their
development
is
included
and
acceptable,
and
that
then,
that
documentation
would
be
provided
to
the
developer
and
subsequent
to
the
city
and
from
what
I
understand.
That's
the
current
process
for
approving
fire
flows,
I
believe
or
fire
protection
with
a
public
water
or
with
a
utility
water
supply.
H
Then
the
second
scenario
would
be
what
I
would
describe
as
an
individual
applicant,
and
that
would
be
someone
who's
proposing
to
use
groundwater
or
a
private
water
system
and
essentially
that
developer
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
would
be
required
to
prepare
an
assured
water
supply
analysis
specific
to
that
project.
Subject
to
review
by
the
city.
I
H
So
excuse
me,
mayor
councilmember,
woodings,
a
great
question:
I
think
it's
fair
to
to
emphasize
that
the
focus
of
the
ensure
the
assured
water
supply
is
on
new
development
and
Redevelopment.
So
if
a
new
project
is
proposed
that
uses
a
well
or
groundwater,
they'll
need
to
confirm,
assured
water
as
I
described,
and
that
should
help
mitigate
any
issues
around
that
new
well
or
groundwater
development
going
forward.
The
assured
water
supply
requirements
did
not
directly
apply
to
existing
Wells
as
existing
wells
in
their
Associated
water
rights
are
regulated
by
the
Department
of
Water
Resources.
H
However,
we
do
think
there
will
be
some
benefit
from
some
of
the
assured
water
supply
work
because
it
will
start
to.
Let
us
build
the
information
that
we
know
about
groundwater
throughout
the
city
and
may
provide
some
additional
documentation
or
information
to
help
troubleshoot
issues
we
might
see
with
existing
Wells
down
the
road.
Great.
Let
me
pause.
I've
certainly
have
can
add
to
that.
But
let
me
pause
there.
J
And
mayor
excuse
me
a
couple
questions
I'm,
not
sure,
if
I've
seen
the
second
letter
from
the
Idaho
Department
of
Water
Resources,
but
I
saw
an
initial
letter
for
them,
I
think
it
was
in
April
and
then
another
one
from
another
agency,
and
this
is
going
to
be
an
extremely
oversimplification
of
what
I
read.
But
one
of
the
themes
that
I
saw
was
we're
doing
this
already.
J
B
Madam
mayor
council,
Pro,
tem,
Hallie
Burton,
you
are
correct.
We
did
receive
those
two
letters
ahead
of
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
hearings.
In
the
interim
we
had
meetings
with
stakeholder
Viola
and
also
a
meeting
with
Idaho
Department
of
Water
Resources
and
to
characterize
I.
Think
one
of
them
was
that
we're
doing
this
already
kind
of
an
aspect
and
with
the
Idaho
Department
of
Water
Resources,
there
were
some
concerns
about
redundancy
and
maybe
not
reflecting
if
in
code,
language
really
the
lane
that
the
state
agencies
have
versus
what
the
city
has.
B
So
as
follow-up
to
that
meeting
with
Idaho
Department
of
Water
Resources,
we
did
provide
the
revisions
to
that.
Council
has
before
them
this
week
and
the
second
letter
from
Idaho
Department
of
Water
Resources,
really
came
back
and
said.
Their
concerns
were
largely
addressed.
A
lot
of
it
had
to
do
with
overlap
with
respect
to
infrastructure
capacity
and
delivery
with
financial
capability,
with
sort
of
the
present
current
when
when
a
water
right
is
obtained,
whether
or
not
that
water
is
physically
present
at
that
moment
in
time.
B
However,
in
our
conversations
with
the
state
agencies,
it
became
very
clear
that
there
really
is
a
gap
in
there
is
no
state
agency
addressing
that
reliability
and
continuity
aspect
of
what
does
that?
What
do
those
water
rights
show
with
that
capacity
for
delivery
under
sustained
use
over
time
and
looking
into
the
future?
So
with
these
revisions
that
you
have,
it
was
really
tailored
to
address
that
very
narrow
question
and
to
make
sure
that
the
Avenues
of
the
state
agencies
were
very
well
respected
and
acknowledged
within
those
revisions.
Awesome.
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mayor
council,
member
Hallie
Burton
as
I
paused
at
the
end
of
council
member
woodings
question
that
was
a
bit
of
the
next
part,
so
I
think.
First
on
that
issue.
It's
worth
mentioning
that
there
are
requirements
proposed
in
the
modern
zoning
ordinance
that
dues
begin
to
address
some
of
those
issues
and
Water
Conservation
generally.
There's
a
couple
I
want
to
point
out:
one
is
requirements
for
drought,
tolerant
Landscaping
in
the
Landscaping
section.
H
The
second
is
the
requirement
for
soil
amendments
to
increase
soil,
moisture
and
retention,
and
then
the
third
is
a
requirement
to
maintain
irrigation
from
surface
water,
where
that's
currently
present
I.
Think
the
three
of
those
do,
at
least
within
the
modern
zoning
ordinance,
do
speak
to
some
of
those
concerns
and
then
also
I
thought.
H
It
was
worth
mentioning
that
the
city's
storm
water
management
program,
a
separate
ordinance
but
certainly
related
to
Land
Development,
has
focused
intently
on
infiltration,
since
it
was
enacted
in
the
early
90s,
so
infiltrating
runoff
from
development
precipitation
and
then,
finally,
more
recently,
the
Recycled
water
program
potentially
will
focus
on
aquifer
replenishment
long
term
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
that's
a
Panacea
there.
But
there
certainly
are
some
aspects
to
address
that
and.
J
G
H
Madam
mayor
council
member
Willits
I
have
here
a
copy
of
violia's
comments
from
April
20th
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission.
Those
are
the
only
written
comments
that
I'm
aware
of
I,
don't
believe
there
are
subsequent
ones
in
the
springtime.
We
did
engage
discussions
with
them.
We
reached
out
in
March
with
some
details
about
the
assured
water
supply
that
subsequently
led
to
an
in-person
meeting
with
their
team
in
April
and
as
I
described
with
the
revisions
based
on
commentary
from
the
Department
of
Water
Resources.
D
Mayor
members
of
council,
we
also
had
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
this
week
related
to
various
aspects
of
the
tree
canopy
in
Boise,
and
efforts
within
this
ordinance
to
ensure
that
we
continue
to
have
that
that
the
tree
canopy
continues
to
be
part
of
what
so
characterizes
the
city.
A
few
specific
things
that
relate
to
the
regulation.
So
we
did
ask
and
Sarah
Urkel
has
joined
us
from
Parks
and
Recreation
to
speak
through
a
few
issues
related
to
tree
canopy
and
tree
planting
Sarah.
K
Madam
mayor
council
members,
thank
you
for
having
me
Sarah,
Urkel,
superintendent
of
parks,
resources.
You
may
wonder
why
you're
not
seeing
our
city
Forester
today,
he
is
out
on
maternity
leave.
Paternity
leave.
Excuse
me,
so
I
will
be
doing
my
best
in
his
place
and
I
brought
Trevor
Kessner
our
Parks
planner
with
me
to
address
any
questions
should
they
arise
following
this
presentation.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
say
thank
you
so
much
for
caring
about
trees
through
the
city
of
trees,
initiative
and
through
this
modern
zoning
code
we
write.
K
We
were
pleased
to
see
many
aspects
of
enhancement
and
protection
of
parks,
assets
and
also
enhancement
and
protections
of
trees.
Incorporated
with
into
this
within
the
discussion.
Excuse
me
so,
just
for
a
moment,
I
thought
I'd
take
a
minute
to
level
set
what
these
classes
are.
Not
everyone
knows
what
a
class
one
class
two
class
three
tree
is,
and
it's
held
to
helpful
to
have
a
visual,
so
a
class
one
tree
is
really
small
for
tight
spaces
utilized
around
planting
areas
where
there
isn't
a
lot
of
room
for
canopy
class.
K
Two
is
a
medium-sized
tree.
You
might
see
those
in
the
right-of-way
often
and
class.
Three
trees
are
those
bigger,
more
mature,
larger
canopy
trees,
where
we
get
the
most
ecosystem
benefits
out
of
both
the
canopy,
the
shading,
the
they
use
less
water,
and
this
is
where
you
know
the
work
that
we're
doing
with
regard
to
tree
canopy
enhancement
and
protection.
K
The
work
that
you're
doing
with
tree
canopy
enhancement
and
protection
really
dovetails
with
a
lot
of
our
climate
related
goals,
so
I'm
happy
to
try
and
address
what
I
understand
was
discussed
through
public
comment
and
questions
from
Council.
Regarding
some
of
these
issues,
so
we
we
use
these
classes
to
help
us
calculate
what's
appropriate
where
from
a
tree
perspective.
So
if
a
class
3
tree
is
very
large,
it
needs
a
lot
of
room.
K
These
trees,
like
I,
said,
are
mature.
They
help
they
help
address
some
of
our
canopy
goals
in
areas
where
we
have
a
canopy
desert,
and
so
we
want
to
retain
them
and
protect
them
wherever
we
can
obviously
they're
compromised.
If
there's
a
lot
of
concrete
around
right,
their
Roots
can
get
compromised,
so
silver
cells
all
provide
the
accommodations
that
we
need
in
urban
environments.
We're
trying
always
to
push
that
opportunity
for
Silva
cells
and
are
you
all
familiar
with
silver
cells?
K
Perhaps
not
all
describe
them
if
you're
thinking
about
a
streetscape
with
a
sidewalk
and
perhaps
a
Road
next
to
it,
a
silver
cell
is
almost
like
a
cage
that
allows
the
tree's
roots
to
grow
and
expand
over
time
without
impacting
the
surface
hard
surface
around
it.
It's
oftentimes
a
more
costly
solution,
but
it
is
the
best
long-term
solution
for
the
health
of
the
tree.
K
The
other
issue
that
I
understand
has
arisen
in
common
in
question
is
whether
or
not
it's
appropriate
or
can
be
conceived
to
put
larger
trees
in
some
of
the
areas
and
right
of
ways
where
Idaho
Power
might
have
utilities
or
achd
might
have
right-of-way,
and
from
the
city's
perspective
you
know
we
have
tried
to
find
those
opportunities
where
we
can
place
larger
trees.
Currently,
those
two
agencies
have
requirements
that
limit
us
from
citing
Class
2
and
class
three
trees
under
power
lines
or
within
right-of-ways.
K
A
I
I
was
looking
through
the
new
code.
It
seemed
to
be
a
little
bit
more
permissive
like
class.
One
trees
are
allowed
only
under
power
lines
where
I
was
wondering
if
we,
instead
of
a
loud,
should
be
required
under
power
lines.
So
that
was
kind
of
my
question
on
that
one
and
so
kind
of
flipping.
That
thinking
should
we
make
the
language
non-permissive
and
instead
explicit,
that
we're
planting
class
one
trees
under
power
lines.
K
Mayor,
thank
you
for
that.
I
do
believe.
I
can
answer
it,
but
if
I
do
it
wrong,
hopefully
someone
will
tell
me
I
think
that,
because
we
have
different
types
of
power
lines
in
different
areas,
there
may
be
places
where
class
two
trees
would
be
completely
appropriate,
and
so
it
would
be
nice
to
have
the
flexibility
in
order
to
cite
those
trees,
like
I,
said,
on
a
case-by-case
basis
in
a
way
that
can
help
reach
our
canopy
goals,
but
also
not
impact
the
utility
okay.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
Madame
mayor.
J
My
preference
as
a
as
a
member
on
city
council
is
to
continue
that
effort
is
to
make
sure
that
we're
putting
the
biggest
trees
that
we
possibly
can,
wherever
we
can,
where
it
makes
sense
that
isn't
going
to
create
issues
for
the
road,
the
power
lines
or
anything
else,
and
then
also
working
with
these
agencies.
Achd
Idaho
Power
to
find
those
opportunities
to
go
larger
where
we
can
and
where
it
makes
sense,
am
I
kind
of
interpreting
that
effort
correctly
in
the
code.
K
J
D
Yeah,
it's
great
that
they
all
could
join
us
tonight,
so
you
all
had
a
chance
to
ask
them
questions.
Some
of
these
things
are
very
related
to
the
technical
aspects
of
what
these
other
departments
do
and-
and
we
should
make
note
of
of
the
fact
that
every
Department
in
the
city
was
so
involved
in
this
process
over
multiple
years.
So
it
was
a
absolutely
a
team
effort
to
get
us
to
where
we
are
tonight.
D
So
thanks
to
everybody
that
joined
us
and
contributed
tonight,
I
want
to
speak
and
I'll
get
into
some
topics
that
were
so
much
a
part
of
the
conversation
this
week
and
actually
get
into
a
series
of
recommendations
in
a
minute
that
relate
to
staff
recommendations
on
some
edits,
based
on
the
discussion
this
week.
But
I
wanted
to
go
back
for
a
minute
and
talk
about
the
process
again,
mostly
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
process
this
week,
and
understandably,
there
are
people
that
come
to
the
process
late.
D
There
are
those
that
have
been
involved
for
five
years,
so
everybody
has
a
different
kind
of
perspective
on
the
the
time
associated
with
this.
So
I
wanted
to
put
us
all
back
in
the
place
as
to
where
we
are.
This
is
a
slide.
I
showed
on
Monday,
which
really
gets
to
the
longer
process
of
creating
this
code,
as
I
said
on
Monday,
the
first
step
actually
which
isn't
on
this
slide,
but
it
predates
the
fall.
D
2020
stuff
was
a
analysis
of
the
existing
code
that
was
done
by
Clarion,
which
identified
where
the
existing
code
has
has
its
problems
and
how
it
was
not
consistent
with
our
comprehensive
plan
once
that
analysis
of
the
existing
code
was
done,
we
got
into
this
public
process
and
and
Earnest
in
the
fall
of
2020.
That
included
a
variety
of
ways
in
which
the
public
could
participate.
D
It
also
included
the
creation
of
our
citizen
advisory
committee
that
met
many
times
to
make
suggestions
and
provide
guidance
in
this
process
and
then,
notably
and
I'll,
come
back
to
this
in
a
minute,
but
there
was
a
real
pivot
that
resulted
from
this
public
process.
I
mean
people's
involvement
affected.
What
you
have
before
you
today
and
very
fundamental
ways
and
a
reminder-
and
you
see
it
on
this
slide.
D
This
is
a
kind
of
recounting
of
all
that
happened
in
terms
of
the
public
process
and
lots
of.
As
I
said,
people
come
to
things
at
different
times,
which
is
understandable
because
everybody's
busy
or
has
a
different
level
of
interest
in
this,
but
but
it's
again
back
to
the
extraordinary
nature
of
what
this
community
has
done
to
come
up
with.
D
It-
is
the
depth
to
which
residents
of
this
city
committed
to
this
process
years
ago
and
resulted
in
what
we
have
before
you
today
this
this
ordinance
that
you
have
before
you,
you
can
clearly
say
with
great
confidence,
is
the
product
of
a
long
public
process
and
its
contents
are
actually
fundamentally
shaped
by
that
process.
That's
remarkable.
D
This
thing
about
it
and
I
wanted
to
get
into
some
specificity
related
to
that,
because
we
talked
about
this
Monday.
There's,
probably
people
that
didn't
hear
this,
but
with
regard
to
those
shifts
that
were
made,
we
really
in
the
spring
of
last
year
started
to
focus
on
what
are
people
telling
us
are
important
about
this
city?
One
of
them
is
back
to
this
issue
of
we've
got
to
have
development
where
we've
got
the
infrastructure
and
services
to
support
it.
D
We
can't
afford
to
keep
spreading,
expecting
people
in
this
city
to
pay
for
services
and
infrastructure
further
and
further
from
the
city
that
just
doesn't
work.
We
got
a
direct
development
where
we've
got
either
existing
infrastructure
or
planned
infrastructure.
That's
how
the
mixed-use
districts
were
created,
I
mean
they're,
specifically
aligned
to
address
where
we
have
the
services
and
Facilities
to
support
growth.
D
Also
in
the
spring
and
summer
of
last
year,
we
changed
our
whole
Direction
and
said:
we've
got
to
respect
the
variety
of
neighborhoods.
We
have
in
the
city
we're
not
going
to
consolidate
our
single
family
zoning
districts,
we're
actually
going
to
go
ahead
and
acknowledge
this
diversity
of
neighborhoods
as
part
of
what
makes
the
city
what
it
is.
D
And
let's,
let's
acknowledge
that
and
understand
that
that's
part
of
what
makes
the
city
what
it
is
and
then
the
strategy
around
affordability
and
and
sustainability-
that's
when
that
last
spring
summer
is
when
we
organized
a
lot
of
these
density
moves
and
so
forth
to
help
us
achieve
our
affordability
and
sustainability
goals,
not
in
one
place
in
the
ordinance
in
many
places.
We
have
these
affordability
incentives
that
are
part
of
this,
and
that
was
a
product
of
that
public
process.
D
People
said
if
you
allow
these
additional
ways
of
getting
density
in
the
neighborhoods,
but
there's
no
affordability
aspect
of
it.
How
is
that
helpful?
We're
going
to
have
more
expensive
housing
and
I?
Believe
me,
this
ordinance
is
in
so
many
ways
about
ensuring
we
can
provide
the
supply.
We
need
in
this
city
to
address
the
demand.
Clearly
that's
fundamental
to
this
ordinance,
but
there
are
ways
in
which
we
got
to
be
careful
and
ensure
that
we're
getting
the
affordability
that
goes
along
with
some
of
this
density,
especially
in
neighborhoods.
D
So
we've
got
to
be
careful
about
that
that
all
came
from
the
public
process.
Here's
those
affordability,
incentives
that
again
came
out
of
the
public
process
spring
summer
of
last
year.
That
includes
the
two
units
beyond
the
two
that
you're
now
allowed
in
the
R1
districts
and
the
fact
that
they
have
to
be
affordable.
D
Expansion
of
of
ways
that
you
can
use
expect
accessory
dwelling
units
in
the
city,
not
one
headline,
multiple
headlines,
multiple
ways
to
get
to
this
affordability
issue
in
the
city
and
even
in
some
cases,
tying
parking
reductions
to
affordability.
So
we've
got
even
that
aspect
of
incentive
tied
to
affordability
in
these
mixed
use
districts.
D
Code,
it
says
any
protection
that
you
get
for
adjacent
industrial
use
only
applies
to
residentially
zoned
property.
If
you're,
not
residentially,
zoned,
these
protections
don't
afford
to
you.
So
that's
what
blue
Valley's
issue
was:
is
they're
not
residentially
zoned
because
of
the
history
they're
in
the
industrial
and
all
that
so
so
we
said:
let's
make
these
protections
available
to
anyone
and
it
doesn't
just
affect
Blue
Valley,
but
I'm
saying
that
was
a
recent
case
before
a
council.
It
would
affect
anybody,
that's
in
an
area
adjacent
to
Industrial.
D
These
protections
afford
to
you,
but
then
the
next
part
of
it
is
we
added
additional
protections
which
include
these
uses.
You
can
see
here
that
now
require
conditional
use
permit,
including
importantly,
that
we
added
a
definition
for
something
called
large
Warehouse
which
currently
isn't
defined
in
the
ordinance,
because
this
is
the
exact
problem
that
we
were
having
in
the
Blue
Valley
case
is
large
warehouses,
there's
no
review
of
them
necessarily.
So
we
added
this
provision
that
when
it
comes
to
that
larger
Warehouse,
let's
add
a
definition
and
then
require
a
conditional
use
permit
for
those.
D
So
these
are
additional
protections
that
we
added
to
the
to
the
industrial
districts
here.
So
this
has
to
do
with
these
different
uses,
including
what
has
come
up
this
week.
Issues
about
you
know
the
most
places
that
no
one
wants
to
just
have
buy
right
anywhere.
Adding
these
conditional
use
requirements
around
uses
that
we
have
to
be
incredibly
concerned
and
careful
about,
as
it
relates
to
their
location
in
the
city
that
those
have
to
go
through
a
legislative
process.
D
He
increased
the
the
buffers
and
protect
setbacks
and
protections
for
those
in
those
cases.
So
in
any
case,
so
you
can
see
on
the
left
what
the
existing
code
does
in
terms
of
setbacks,
and
you
can
see
in
the
new
modern
zoning
code
what
our
setbacks
are
and
those
kinds
of
things.
So
we
we
added
these
additional
buffer
requirements
as
you
go
up
and
setbacks
again.
D
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
through
a
legislative
process
and
all
the
discussion
you
had
last
year
about
better
protecting
Blue
Valley.
We
ended
up
giving
them
100
foot
setback,
that's
what's
incorporated
into
the
new
code.
In
any
case,
you
don't
have
to
come
to
counsel
and
request
that
you're
getting
it
so
I
wanted
to
mention
these
industrial,
which
I
hadn't
mentioned
before
so
then.
The
other
thing
relates
to
this
language.
D
We
can,
and
then
we
added
this
or
for
or
there's
public
benefits
for
the
Post
use
that
outweighs
and
there's
a
concern
about.
This
I'll
tell
you
that
that
the
this
has
most
been
discussed.
Of
course,
in
the
recent
deliberations
this
community
had
around
the
shelter
that's
on
State,
Street
and
part
of
the
reason
we
added
specificity
here
was
from
learning
from
those
processes.
D
You
know
that
we
really
have
to
get
more
specific
about
these
things
or
be
clear
about
what
this
process
should
result
in,
and
we
think
the
public
benefits
aspect
of
it
is
important,
because
we
want
to
raise
the
public
discussion
about
any
individual
site
to
go
beyond
perceptions
of
things
like
traffic
or
parking
in
a
small
vicinity
to
talk
about
what
are
the
larger
benefits
of
anything.
But
we
recognize
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
about
the
1970s
and
so
forth
when
there
was
especially
big
concerns
around
environmental
justice
and
so
forth.
D
D
The
last
thing
I'll
mention
in
this
realm
relates
to
an
important
issue
which
kind
of
got
became
part
of
the
discussion
related
to
conditional
use
languages.
It
relates
to
findings,
and
that
has
to
do
with
this.
Addition
that
we're
proposing
in
this
ordinance
that
is
specifically
to
address
are
concerns
around
new
development
displacing
existing
vulnerable
populations.
D
This
protection
does
not
exist
in
the
current
ordinance
and
what
it
says
is
that,
as
you
can
see
here,
if
now
or
within
the
last
three
years,
you've
got
a
site
that
had
a
manufactured
home,
Community,
assisted
living
retirement,
nursing,
home
deed,
restricted,
affordable
housing
through
some
program
or
even
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing
at
60
percent
of
Ami.
That
we
would
require
conditional
use
permit
in
those
cases
in
any
of
these
zones.
D
When
we
had
put
out
the
original
draft
of
the
ordinance,
we
included
this
as
a
protection
and
as
a
conditional
use
permit
in
the
MX3,
the
MX-5
and
mx4,
and
what
we're
suggesting
now
is
that
we
extend
that
to
the
other
MX
zones
and
also
to
the
R2
and
the
R3,
so
we're
suggesting
we
widen
that
protection
for
those
vulnerable
communities.
So,
and-
and
that
is
a
separate
issue,
obviously
than
the
discussion
around
the
the
conditional
use
findings.
D
A
G
D
Mayor
councilmember
Willett,
the
the
you
mean
the
Ami
part
of
it,
so
the
annually
the
Ami
numbers
are
updated
by
Hud,
and
so
we
we
have
a
regular
ongoing
adjusting
number
for
AMI
in
the
city
and
in
the
region
and
and
it
breaks
it
down
by
different
income
levels.
So
you
go,
60
is
one
of
them:
80,
100,
120
percent,
so,
and
and
it's
also
by
family
size.
D
G
D
F
That
to
me
implies
that
the
worse,
the
proposed
uses,
the
more
likely
it's
to
be
approved
and
like
here's,
why
a
cement
plant
or
a
shooting
range
has
impacts
that
just
are
not
practicable
to
remedy,
and
so
because
you
know
you,
you
remedy
them
to
the
maximum
practical
practicable
and
the
use
is
still
atrocious.
That.
C
D
L
Marin,
council
members,
my
name
is
James
Smith
I'm,
a
deputy,
City
attorney
I.
Think
it's
an
important
question.
What
practicable
means
I
think
looking
ahead,
it's
it's
best
for
the
council
to
consider
what
you'd,
like
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
to
to
do
with
these
kinds
of
applications
and
what
how
you
expect
the
standard
to
work.
L
And
so
the
idea
is
mitigation
means
minimize
not
like
eliminate
so
we're
moving
in
the
direction
away
from
or
that's
what's
proposed
is
to
get
away
from
the
current
language,
which
can
be
tempting
to
read
as
an
All
or
Nothing
kind
of
thing,
in
the
sense
of,
if
there's
any
adverse
impact,
anything
measurable
that
it
must
be
denied.
That's
it's
tempting
to
read
it
that
way,
but
as
I
think
it's
been
pointed
out,
that's
that's
not
quite
consistent
with
state
law
which
talks
about
minimizing
impacts,
not
eliminating
them.
L
So
that's
one
reason
for
the
shift,
but
the
intent
of
some
of
this
language
is
actually
to
to
pile
on
more
meaning
and
something
to
chew,
on
where
folks
are
expected
to
to
do
everything
that
they
can
and
and
that
only
if
those
findings
are
made
that
it
could
be
approved
getting
into
the
public
benefit
piece
but
practicable.
Of
course.
The
shooting
range
example
is
if,
if,
if
through
your
code,
you've
decided
what
uses
can
be
allowed
in
a
certain
Zone
with
conditions.
L
The
idea
is
that
it's
been
thought
through
and
so
I
think
that
just
takes
the
analysis,
one
step
back.
If
you
don't
think
that
a
use
is
appropriate
in
a
certain
Zone
that
it
that
it's
not
the
type
that
you
could
really
safely
condition
at
all,
then
you
should
take
it
out
of
that
allowed
use
table
and
not
allow
it
to
be
conditionally
approved
there.
F
That's
helpful,
so
part
of
the
answer
is
this
conversation
about
what
is
what
can
be
mitigated
to
the
maximum
practicable
happens
inside
the
shell
of
an
already
decided
conversation
about
what
allowed
uses
are
even
going
to
be
able
to
enter
the
conditional
use
permit
process
in
the
first
place,
and
so,
if
we
have
a
concern
about
a
shooting
range
or
a
cement
plant
Etc
the
place
to
mitigate
those
is
by
is
on
the
allowed
uses
table
in
the
first
place
before
you
even
get
to
this
conversation.
Just
council.
C
I'm,
not
a
mayor,
yeah
and
I
appreciate
that
actually
that
clarification,
because
if
now
you
believe
that
there's
a
use
that
could
never
be
mitigated
it
shouldn't,
be
it
shouldn't,
be
an
allowed
use
within
that
within
an
area
or
or
near
a
residential
area.
Or
what
have
you,
because
what
we're
otherwise
setting
up
future
councils
and
the
community
for
that
discussion
of?
Is
it
really
enough
mitigation?
Is
it
not?
C
M
G
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
I,
think
that's
a
great
point
that
I
want
to
follow
up
on
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
this
still
doesn't
get
us
where
we
need
to
be
and
that
it
could
still
be
vague,
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
pull
the
State
statue
and
help
us
look
at
that.
That
was
mentioned
in
testimony
and
that
might
help
give
us
some
context.
G
J
One
more
comment:
a
couple
slides
back
on
the
industrial
use.
I
just
want
to
give
some
credit
to
staff
on
this
one.
We
had
a
meeting
that
was
really
really
hard
related
to
Blue
Belly,
trying
to
figure
out
what
to
do.
There,
Council
basically
gave
instructions
to
say,
like
let's
have
a
meeting
with
planning
department
and
figure
out
what
we
can
do
to
make
sure
there's
additional
protections
at
this
particular
area.
This
particular
area,
Blue,
Valley
and
staff,
basically
came
back
and
said
like
yes,
we
can
do
something
here,
but
why?
J
I
think
to
come
with
that
solution
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
that
was
involved
with
that
process
and
that
recommendation
is
recognized
because
I
think
it's
a
really
really
big
deal
and
it's
the
kind
of
stuff
I
think
that
we
love
to
see
on
council
with
staff
doing
as
far
as
coming
up
with
these
much
larger,
larger
Solutions.
I
just
want
to
thank
you,
Tim
and
your
team
for
that.
One.
A
G
How
would
we
know
about
I
understand
about
rent,
but
how
would
we
know
about
someone's
mortgage
because
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
yesterday
was
you
know
that
beautiful
video
of
someone's
home,
you
know
someone's
neighborhood,
and
if
whether
someone
wanted
to
redevelop
that
and
put
more
density
in
there
tell
us
how
that
would
work.
If
there
was
homes
existing
there
right.
D
Well,
I
mean
it
would.
This
would
apply
to
any
condition
whether
it's
an
owner
occupied,
condition
or
rental
condition.
We
would
evaluate
what
the
existing
use
is
or
what
it's
been
in
the
last
three
years.
The
reason
for
adding
the
three-year
thing
is
so
that
we're
not
encouraging
people
to
buy
property
and
then
and
then
remove
existing
tenants
or
people
that
are
there
and
then
come
forward.
You
know
for
the
conditional
use
permit
or
then
seek
a
permit
to
build.
So
that's
the
reason
for
the
three-year
window.
A
C
C
Just
go
into
some
of
that
too,
because
I
think
that's
the
that's.
The
larger
piece
of
the
puzzle
is
it's
not
that
you
know
I've
been
in
my
house
and
I've
aged
in
place
and
now
I'm
selling
it,
because
somebody
buying
my
land
would
on
one
lot
wouldn't
do
a
cup,
but
it
would
be
somebody
that's
actually
trying
to
amass
there's
quite
a
few
of
my
neighbors
as
well
correct.
D
That's
right
and
we've
heard
some
of
that
this
week,
councilmember
will
it
so
so
somebody's
seeking
to
consolidate
a
number
of
single-family
lots
to
bring
forward
a
larger
Redevelopment
of
them?
That's
why
this
is
so
helpful.
Is
it
gives
us
the
authority
and
the
right,
through
a
public
process,
to
evaluate
what's
gone
on,
to
get
this
development
proposal
before
you.
C
Yeah
I
would
say,
and-
and
my
intention
is,
that
we
go
through
the
recommendations.
If
folks
have
questions
about
them,
we
should
ask
ask
them
as
as
we're
doing
them,
but
then
we'll
break
we'll,
take
a
break
for
dinner,
as
always
planned
and
then
come
back
for
broad,
broader
discussion.
So
it
gives
folks
some
time
to
it,
gives
staff
some
time
to
come
back
with
anything
else.
That's
needed
and
the
request
about
language
as
well
as
council
members
to
Stew
on.
What's
been
what
they've
heard
to
then
come
back,
have
a
discussion.
D
Okay,
so
just
a
reminder
before
I
get
into
these
recommendations
for
tonight
we
already
have
some
recommendations
for
you
related
to
amendments
to
the
code
that
was
released
in
February
right,
so
we
released
the
ordinance
the
full
document
in
February.
We
then
came
on
April
April
13th,
with
those
red
lines
that
we
were
asking
for,
and
we
discussed
those
at
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
and
so
forth.
We
then
sent
you
a
memo
on
June
1st,
which
included
a
series
of
amendments.
D
We
were
recommending
as
a
result
of
the
pnz
hearings
and
all
that,
so
we've
got
the
ordinance
that
was
released
in
February.
We've
got
the
April
13th,
which
is
the
red
lines.
We've
got
the
June
1st,
which
is
amendments
that
we
were
recommending
after
pnz,
and
then
these
are
an
addition
and
that
this
is
based
on
the
conversation
that
we've
had
this
week.
D
These
class
three
trees
within
that
eight
foot
buffer
along
our
streets
make
sure
we
got
the
best
canopy
trees
that
we
can
have
along
our
streets,
which
is
so
much
a
part
of
Boise
and
then
the
second
thing
is
related
to
the
permitting
class
two
trees
under
the
overhead
power
lines,
which
you
just
finished
your
discussion
with
Sarah
about.
So
those
are
we're
recommending
those
changes.
C
N
F
J
We
should
get
the
biggest
tree
that
we
possibly
can,
wherever
we
can
yeah
when
it's
when
it's
allowed
by
the
agencies
that
we
work
with
and
within
the
parameters
that
we've
got,
which
I
think
is
what
this
addresses
is
that
there's
still
probably
going
to
be
a
lot
of
spots
where
there
are
class
ones.
But
by
putting
this
in
here,
it
gives
us
flexibility
in
some
situations
to
get
them
there
and.
A
D
The
next
one
relates
to
signs
just
to
quickly
confirm
all
signs,
whether
on
premise
or
off-premise,
we'll
have
an
eight
eight
second
dwell
time,
we're
recommending
that
the
electrical
substations
This
was.
This
came
to
us
this
week
from
Idaho
Power,
who
noted
that
currently
substations
are
permitted
as
a
conditional
use
in
all
of
our
districts
and
that
in
the
proposed
code,
they
were
not
we're
suggesting
this-
that
we
add
a
definition
for
electrical
substation
as
as
a
conditional
and
then
permitted
as
a
conditional
use
in
all
zones.
A
D
What
we
would
do
is
we'd
Define
them.
We
would
add
them
as
a
conditional
use
in
any
Zone
and
we'd.
Add
you
use
specific
standards
that
just
has
to
do
with
landscaping
around
them
and
that
they're,
you
know,
they've
got
a
they've
got
a
fence
around
them
that
they're
aesthetically
as
bad
as
good
as
they
can
be.
J
So
man
Mary.
So
let's
let
me
make
sure
that
I'm
getting
this
correct
in
the
proposed
code
that
we've
been
looking
at,
they
weren't
allowed
in
a
lot
of
different
areas,
even
under
a
conditional
use.
Permit
now
we're
saying
that
they
actually
can
go
in
any
of
the
areas
with
a
conditional
use
permit
and
the
idea
with
a
conditional
use
permit
is
that
I
mean
I,
guess
if
you're
into
like
70
sci-fi,
they're,
pretty
cool
looking
but
other
than
that.
Nobody
really
wants
to
look
at
the
substations
in
these
neighborhoods
they're.
D
J
It
may
be
challenging
with
the
proposed
code
to
do
that,
but
by
putting
the
conditional
use
permit
allowed,
even
in
some
of
the
areas
that
they're
already
at
it,
maybe
gives
them
the
ability
to
update
update
that
area
change
that
the
way
that
it
looks
and
feels
in
that
area,
while
also
giving
us
the
ability
to
add
some
restrictions,
is
that
was
that
sort
of
the
issue
too.
Well.
D
So
we're
recommending
this
change
next,
as
it
relates
to
day
care
centers.
We
in
the
in
the
draft
that
you
have
before
you
you.
We
do
have
a
conditional
use,
permit
requirement
for
daycare
centers
within
mixed
use
zones,
and
we
think
that
those
should
be
buy
right.
So
that
is
a
change.
We're
recommending
that
daycare
centers
be
permitted
by
right
and
mixed
use
zones
without
any
conditional
use
permits.
F
D
With
regard
to
accessory
dwelling
units,
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this
this
week,
accessory
dwelling
unit,
is
an
important
part
of
the
ordinance.
It's
an
important
part
of
you
know
this.
This
collection
of
things
that
we're
seeking
to
do
to
ensure
that
we've
got
a
diversity
of
housing
options
for
people
and
that
we're
addressing
in
in
as
many
ways
as
we
can.
This
issue
around
housing,
affordability
and
I
want
to
mention
that
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
is
a
specific
thing.
D
You
know
it's,
it's
a!
It
is
accessory
to
a
principal
structure.
So
the
idea
is
this:
isn't
everything
it's
just
one
thing
in
that
collection
of
things
we're
doing,
but
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
is
something
that
you've
got
a
main
house,
and
then
you
build
whether
that
house
is
a
single
family
home
or
it's
a
the
main
house
is
part
of
a
duplex
or
anything
else,
and
then
the
the
next
thing
you
do
is
you
add
an
accessory
which
is
much
smaller
than
and
accessory
to
the
main
principal
structure.
D
We
also
have
allowances
within
this
code
that
you
can
do
two
units
on
a
lot.
So
if
you
want
to
do
two
larger
units
on
a
lot,
you
have
that
option
too.
There's
there's
many
options
here
as
to
how
we
get
to
housing,
affordability
and
diversity,
but
when
it
comes
to
this
specific
thing,
the
accessory
unit
to
a
principal
building
we're
recommending
these
these
changes.
D
F
D
Of
the
units,
whether
it
was
a
principal
structure,
the
accessory
structure,
if
it's,
if
it's,
if
it
meets
affordability
requirements,
then
you
then
you
were
exempt
from
this
requirement.
We're
saying
exempt
it
entirely
and
then
we're
also
saying
that
exempts
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
from
the
affordability
requirement.
So
this
would
mean
the
standards
that
we're
proposing
for
accessory
dwelling
units,
which
means
you
can
do
a
larger
accessory
dwelling
unit.
We
increase
the
square
footage
of
them
and
the
technical
standards
of
them
to
make
them
easier
to
accomplish.
M
D
Well,
you'd
have
a
lot
more
flexibility
as
to
how
you
do
things,
because
the
the
dwelling
unit
aspect
of
your
garage
would
not
require
an
off
Street
space,
so
the
the
situation
would
be.
Do
you
have
the
parking
on
the
lot
to
for
the
principal
building,
and
that
would
be
the
only
question
so
one
note
about
that,
of
course,
is
that
our
off
street
parking
requirements
for
single-family,
duplex,
Triplex
and
quadruplexes
goes
down
from
two
spaces
per
unit
to
one.
D
M
G
B
J
Yeah
Madam
mayor
councilmember,
well,
it's
I
believe
some
of
the
requests
that
people
had
was
to
eliminate
the
size,
restrictions
altogether
and
I.
Think
what
this
is
already
doing.
You
know,
even
without
these
edits,
is
that
it's
already
creating
some
more
flexibility,
but
some
people
were
saying:
go
further,
no
size
restrictions
whatsoever,
I
I'm,
pretty
sure
I'm.
Remembering
that
correctly.
Please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
this
one
I
think
is
really
really
interesting
and
I'm
in
support
of
everything.
That's
on
there.
J
One
of
the
things
I
know
about
folks
in
Boise
is
that
they
love
to
be
part
of
the
solution
to
solving
problems,
and
everybody
wants
to
figure
out
how
we
can
help
with
affordable
housing.
Accessory
dwelling
units
in
people's
backyards
is
one
of
those
things
that
everybody
has
the
capacity
to
do
on
their
own
piece
of
property.
So
I
think
it's
something
that
we
need
to
definitely
explore
on
how
we
can
make
this.
J
As
easy
as
possible,
and
while
I'm
definitely
supportive
of
everything,
that's
on
here,
I
would
love
to
continue
that
conversation
in
particular
areas
like
the
central
bench,
East
End,
North
End,
where
you
have
so
many
lots
that
are
non-conforming
to
begin
with,
that
make
it
really
really
difficult
to
figure
out.
How
can
you
actually
get
one
of
these
things
in
here?
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
how
we
can
make
that
process
easier.
I,
think
there's,
council
members
who
have
other
thoughts
and
maybe
additions
on
this
particular
area.
D
D
Last
night
too,
we
have
a
zoning
ordinance.
We've
got
to
make
that
that's
step.
One
we've
got
another
step
which
is
to
make
that
zoning
ordinance
as
easy
as
we
possibly
can
to
navigate
for
people
seeking
to
do
affordable,
housing
and
diversity
of
Housing,
and
then
we've
got
pre-approved
plans
which
has
to
do
with
the
building
permit.
So
we
have
that
work
to
do
after.
If
Council
decides
to
approve
this,
we
we
have
those
standards
that
we
can
build
on.
N
My
question
about
the
square
footage
requirement.
The
edu
I'm
envisioning
is
like
a
rambler
that
has
a
basement
apartment
that
has
like
the
equivalent
square
footage
of
the
first
floor.
Would
that
apply
that
square
footage
restriction
to
say
a
basement
Adu
that
has
the
equivalent
square
footages
of
the
primary
dwelling,
which
is
essentially
the
upstairs
the.
N
Dr
Keane
has
there
ever
been
any
discussion
about
tying
the
square
footage
requirement
to
the
size
of
the
primary
dwelling
like
less
than
or
equivalent
to
the
primary
dwelling,
rather
than
just
having
the
the
flat
900
square
foot
I
mean
I
could
imagine
a
situation
where
a
3
000
square
foot
home.
It
would
be
totally
appropriate
to
have
a
1100
square
foot
Adu
in
the
backyard.
D
But
I
just
wanted
to
ask
mayor
council
member
Nash.
We
would
that
has
been
discussed.
So
it's
a
lot
of
different
discussions
about
how
to
how
to
how
to
define
the
appropriate
size
of
this,
and-
and
you
know
it's
a
good
point-
and
there
are
some
cities
that
have
done
that.
I'll
say
that
the
variety
of
of
single-family
primary
unit
sizes
in
those
places
is
is
vastly
wider
than
they
are
in
Boise
and-
and
we
felt
like
this
was
a
good
scale
for
this
city.
G
D
A
D
One
is
just
about
this
accessory
unit
to
the
main
structure.
If
you
want
to
do
a
really
much
larger
second
unit,
then
you've
got
other
ways
to
do
that
in
the
ordinance.
So
you
know
on
a
single
family
lot.
You
can
do
two
units,
so
it's
just
that.
Let's
have
this,
these
multiple
ways
to
address
these
issues,
but
but
this
is
actually
different
than
that.
You
know.
C
What
I
find
interesting
on
this
I
was
thinking
about
it.
Is
it
like
I
was
reading
this
article
about
I,
don't
know
some
City
that
had
and
they
were
highlighting
this
house
with
an
Adu
behind
it,
but
the
Adu
is
bigger
than
my
first
home,
and
it
made
me
think
that,
well
maybe
in
that
City
they
didn't.
Actually
let
you
just
put
two
homes
on
a
lot,
because,
let's
call
it
what
it
is.
It's
it's
a
home
versus
an
Adu
in
our
community.
C
I
I
You
know,
900
square
feet
in
Boise
is
I,
think
an
appropriate
size
for
that,
because
our
houses
just
aren't
big
and
then,
if
you
want
something,
that's
1200
square
feet.
Well,
you
just
build
a
second
home
and
we
have
a
process
for
that.
So
I
really
appreciated
that,
especially
in
the
context
of
stuff
that
we
heard
from
housing
Advocates
that
we
can
do
all
of
these
things.
It's
just
a
matter
of
how
we
Define
things
and
who
gets
something
extra
special.
F
Yeah
I
agree
with
all
of
that.
The
ironic
and
sort
of
hilarious
thing
is
that
they're
all
small
homes
or
homes,
and
so
at
some
point,
a
house
at
some
point.
If
you
liberalize
enough,
you
lose
the
distinction
of
the
category
Adu
and
that's
Tim's
point
it's
no
longer
an
accessory,
so
you
want
to
preserve
the
criteria
to
preserve
the
category
Adu.
When
your
policy
goal
no
longer
cares,
and
so
my
encouragement
would
be
as
we
continue
to
think
about
ways
to
become
more
flexible.
F
The
conversation
to
have
might
be
abolishing
the
Adu
and
just
talking
about
how
many
housing
units
you're
putting
on
a
property,
because
at
some
point
the
distinction
stops
making
a
difference
and
what
we
just
heard
from
Tim
was
well.
We
need
to
preserve
some
differences,
so
the
distinction
still
exists
and
if
we're
really
moving
towards
not
having
the
distinction,
it's
not.
F
F
D
And
councilmember
weddings
I
think
these
are
really
good
points.
I
I
think
it's.
This
is
an
important
discussion.
Just
for
Boise
as
it
relates
to
you
know,
we're
used
to
that
one
headline
that
one
solution
and
and
the
the
value
of
what's
come
out
of
this
process
is:
there's
not
one
and
and
it's
hard
for
people
to
sometimes
acknowledge
this,
which
is
you've,
got
Mo.
We've
just
sat
here
and
talked
about
three
different
options
for
the
same
situation.
That
would
get
you.
D
Foreign,
thank
you
next
neighborhood
transition
standards.
So
there
was
some
discussion
this
week
about.
This
relates
to
properties
that
are
zoned,
R2
or
R3
adjacent
to
our
MX
zones,
and
this
in
part,
has
to
do
with
this
issue
of
rezoning
within
an
eighth
of
a
mile
of
the
streets
that
we
Zone
MX3,
but
it
also
has
to
do
with
neighborhoods,
like
the
west
side,
which
you
heard
from
residents
there
asking
for
including
these
transition
standards
as
Protections
in
that
neighborhood.
D
So
we've
looked
at
this
this
week
and
result
as
a
result
of
the
public
discussion
and
are
recommending
that
we,
we
do
add
that
protection
to
the
R2
and
the
R3
the
transition
from
the
MX
and
have
looked
specifically
at
those
places
that
were
zoning
MX.
We
didn't
want
to
make
it
too
much
of
a
constrained
condition
for
those
MX
zones,
but
we
feel
like
this
can
be
accomplished
and
address
that
concern
that
we've
heard
this
week.
G
D
But
we
We
Are
Tonight,
going
to
recommend
that
we
in
fact
decouple
those
two
requirements
and
and
in
these
cases,
where
you're
getting
additional
units
and
you're
taking
advantage
of
these
incentives,
you
would
have
the
option
then
of
the
affordable
incentive
or
the
sustainability
incentive
rather
than
having
them
together.
So
it
becomes
you're
meeting
the
affordability
incentive
requirement
or
the
sustainability
one,
and
so
we're
recommending
that
we
do
decouple
those
and-
and
so
we
can
discuss
those.
F
Nightmare,
oh
just
very
briefly:
I
first
I
think
this
is
great,
but
second,
if
in
a
year
we
have
such
a
flood
of
sustainable
and
affordable
housing
coming
in
under
these
applications
that
we
just
have
this
wonderful
problem
to
deal
with.
There's
too
many
that
I
think
we
should
consider
recoupling
them
with
an
ad.
C
Actually
would
say
that
maybe,
instead
of
recoupling
them,
we
look
at
whether
or
not
there's
a
process
to
further
incentivize
the
coupling
of
them
so
that
both
for
Market
projects
that
are
sustainable,
that
there's
there
become
incentives.
But
if
you're
both
meeting
affordability
goals
and
sustainability
goals,
then
there
might
be
some
further
incentives.
G
D
J
J
Yes,
yes,
this
is
a
tough
one,
I
think
for
me
and
I
think
I
can
get
there.
I
think
one
of
the
problems
with
Innovation
is
that
you
don't
always
know
what
the
result
is
going
to
be,
and
if
you
did
then
you'd
you
know
you
would
know
exactly
what
to
do,
and
we
don't
so
like
there's
some
things
that
are
in
this
code
that
we
don't
know
exactly
what
the
outcome
is
going
to
be.
J
But
we
know
what
we're
trying
to
do
and
so
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
that
I
I
can
I
can
be
on
board
here,
and
people
can
still
do
both
if
they
want
to,
and
we
we
heard
that
I
think
was
from
Habitat
for
Humanity
neighborworks.
We
heard
this
from
neighborworks
that
came
in
and
they
said
you
can
do
both
or
you
can
do
both
to
a
certain
extent
and
I
hope
that
people
still
choose
to
do
that,
because
I
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do.
J
I
do
think
it
saves
people
a
lot
of
funds
over
time
with
their
utility
bills
and
everything.
That's
that
else.
Is
there
one
of
the
things
that
they
brought
up
specifically
was
even
if
you're
not
going
to
put
the
solar
panels
on
top
like
put
the
plugins
that
are
there,
you
know,
get
the
house
ready
so
that
when
it
can
make
those
changes,
it
does
have
the
ability
to
do
that.
N
D
That
would
mean
that
in
in
the
case
when
you're
in
those
R1
districts,
where
you
do
have
the
right
to
do
more
than
two
units,
three
or
four,
we
had
been
saying
in
the
ordinance
that
you
would
have
to
meet
those
affordability
thresholds
and
Institute
the
sustainability
requirements
within
those
units.
So
now
we
would
be
saying,
as
you
come
in,
for
a
permit
for
those
things,
you
would
have
to
show
us
that
you're
addressing
one
of
them
at
least.
D
One
thing
I'll
mention
mayor
and
Council
that
I'll
come
back
to
because
we've
discussed
it
several
times
here
at
the
end.
Is
this
issue
of
us
checking
back
in
with
you
regarding
how
the
ordinance
is
going
and
what
amendments
we
might
need
I'll
get
to
that
at
the
end.
The
next
item
is
bike.
Parking
and
I
wanted
to
mention
a
couple
things
about
this.
One
is
that
the
issue
that
we
talked
about
this
week
at
a
specific
apartment,
downtown
I,
wanted
to
mention
that
and
how
this
ordinance
addresses
that
problem.
D
A
D
The
existing
ordinance
we
have
is
not
clear
enough
and
in
the
case
of
the
Thomas
Logan,
what
ended
up
happening
is
just
because
of
that
lack
of
clarity.
The
decision
was,
you
could
use
your
unit
as
a
bike
parking,
space
and
okay,
so
that
that
was
a
decision
that
was
made
some
time
ago
and
and
it
resulted
it
kept.
You
know
the
the
concern
we
heard
and
understand.
That's
what
this
resulted
from
so
in
the
proposed
ordinance
we're
getting
very
specific
about
what
qualifies
as
a
space
or
not,
and
so
what
we
do.
D
We
Define
what
a
long-term
bike
parking
space
is
and
what
a
short-term
one
is,
and
then
we
require
a
certain
number
per
unit,
so
your
unit
does
not
apply
as
a
part
bike
parking
space,
and
so
you
see
that
language
here
with
regard
to
how
the
new
language
would
address
this
issue-
and
it's
specifically
not
only
says-
defines
what
long-term
parking
is.
It
says
what
it
isn't
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
that
situation
again.
D
So
that's
one
thing,
then,
as
it
relates
to
the
new
off
Street
or
the
bike
parking
requirements
we
had
proposed
in
the
in
the
in
the
existing
version
of
the
code
that
we
have
one
long-term
space
per
unit
and
one
short-term
space
per
I'm.
Sorry,
one
long-term
space
per
unit
is
how
we
required
it,
and
then
we
required
one
short-term
space
per
10
units
within
any
individual
project.
So
what
we're
recommending
here
is
that
we
actually
do
tie
it
to
bedrooms.
D
J
All
right,
so
here's
what
I'm
thinking
about
in
my
head,
my
partner
and
I,
are
living
in
the
house
and
we've
got.
We've
got
one
kid,
and
this
means
that
we
will
have
one
bike
parking
spot
for
the
two
folks
that
are
living
in
the
first
bedroom
and
then
half
of
a
bike
parking
spot
for
the
kid
or
kids
that
are
living
in
the
other
bedroom.
So
like
that
math
seems
funny
to
me
as
far
as
like,
if
we're
actually
wanting
to
provide
enough
bike.
D
J
No
I'm
talking
about
multi-family,
so
yeah,
like
many
multi-family
housing
complexes
that
I'm
familiar
with,
will
have
maybe
five
people
living.
You
know
in
a
three
bedroom
place
and
in
a
three-bedroom
place
it
looks
like
you're,
probably
getting
just
a
little
over
two
and
a
half
bike
parking
spots,
even
though
there
might
be
five
people
living
there.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
curious.
Like
the
0.5
aspect.
How
did
we
arrive?
Is
that
a
standard
that
we
saw
somewhere
else?
It.
D
And
and
within
multi-family
projects,
of
course,
then
those
add
up
to
a
certain
number
of
spaces.
If
there's
a
half
space
in
there,
it
would
be
one
more
space
than
that
and
and
you're
addressing
the
increase
in
demand
based
on
those
additional
bedrooms.
But
you're
going
to
have
situations
where
you
know
a
unit
doesn't
have
any
need
for
bike
parking
and
then
others
that
have
more
so
it
just
it's
just
to
kind
of
seek
to
to
balance
it
out.
And
then
you
get
a
number
based
on
this.
This
ratio
and
that's
frequently
done
in.
J
Memory
to
be
clear,
I
think
this
is
much
better
than
where
we
were
at,
especially
when
we're
talking
about
walkability
bike
ability,
creating
neighborhoods,
where
people
can
ride
I.
Don't
personally
feel
like
it
goes
quite
far
enough
and
I
think
that
that
could
be
a
larger
discussion
about
bike
parking
again
in
the
future.
Again.
I
think
this
is
significantly
better
than
where
it's
at
what
I
don't
want
to
see.
J
D
Oh,
this
came
up
last
night
and-
and
there
was
some
discussion
at
Council
about
a
suggestion
that
was
made
regarding
the
ability
to
potentially
reduce
the
amount
of
off
street
parking
that
you
provide
and
in
the
case
where
you
get
a
conditional
use
permit.
That
would
be
issued
by
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission.
So
we're
recommending
that
change
that
in
cases,
whereas
people
are
seeking
to
do
less
parking
than
is
than
is
what
is
required
that
we
allow
for
that
through
a
conditional
use
process
that
goes
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission.
A
F
I
just
think
this
is
so
elegant,
I
love
it
and
thank
you
for
picking
it
up
so
quickly.
If
the
conditional
use
permit
is
approved,
it's
demonstrated
that
the
adverse
impact
of
being
under
parked
has
been
mitigated
and
the
parking
becomes
purely
a
technicality,
so
I
just
think
it's
lovely
and
great,
and
it's
been
less
than
24
hours
and
I
appreciate
it,
seeing
it
here.
Thank
you.
G
D
Mayor
councilmember,
Willits
and
council
member
Willits
you'll
know
this
is
a
this
will
be
a
circuitous
route
that
I
take
here.
Describing
this
because
off
street
parking
requirements
are
somewhat
nuanced,
let
me
put
it
that
way:
I'll
try
to
simplify
this
and
get
to
a
level
of
specificity
that
you're
seeking.
Let
me
know
if
you
want
me
to
go
further,
but
I'll
speak
to
it
in
in
several
ways.
One
is:
it
relates
to
single
family,
multi,
single
family,
home
duplex,
triplex
quadruplex
in
any
of
those
cases.
E
D
The
standards
that
exist
today-
or
this
are
the
same-
we've
changed
the
way
we
calculate
it
to
be
associated
with
bedrooms
versus
square
footage,
but
it's
essentially
the
same
requirements:
you're
not
seeing
big
changes
when
it
comes
to
multi-family,
mixed-use
commercial
one.
A
couple
other
nuances,
I'll
mention
one,
is
that
okay
yeah.
G
G
D
Well,
yeah
and
I
I
think
the
the
thing
about
this
is.
It
relates
to
this
I'm
going
to
speak
really
to
the
single
family,
duplex
Triplex,
because
that's
where
the
change
is
the
other
ones,
we
don't
really
have
a
change
in,
but
the
idea
here
is
that
we're
just
gonna
have
to
use
you
know,
and,
and
often
it
will
be
the
case
that
people
will
provide
more
off-shree
parking
than
more
requiring.
All
this
is
about
is
what
we're
requiring
the
one
space
per
unit.
D
We'll
certainly
have
cases
where
people
are
providing
more
because
they
feel
like
in
order
to
sell
it
or
they
want
additional
Austria
parking.
The
only
question
is,
what
is
the
public
saying?
You
must
provide
so
we're
just
saying
one
unit
and
from
a
public
kind
of
policy
perspective.
The
idea
is
the
more
parking
we
require
the
less
affordable
the
units
will
be.
D
We
don't
want
to
require
that,
and
often
by
providing
more
off
street
parking,
it
kind
of
deadens
the
street
and
makes
it
less
interesting
to
walk
and
all
these
kinds
of
things
so,
rather
than
having
the
Austria
parking.
We
would
prefer
that
some
of
that
parking
be
handled
on
the
street.
So
that's
that's
the
big
difference
so.
G
J
Amanda
mayor
councilmember
wilts,
if
I
could
add
something
to
that.
We
had
a
really
interesting
development
that
was
proposed
several
years
ago.
I
can't
remember
if
you
were
on
at
that
point:
it
was
on
16th
and
State
Street
and
it
was
going
to
be
high
ceilings
designed
for
local,
non-profit
workers,
artists.
J
There
may
not
need
to
be
the
amount
of
car
parking
that
we
would
typically
require,
but
it
might
come
with
conditions
of
additional
bike
parking
like
the
number
that
I
was
wanting
to
see
a
little
bit
earlier,
or
maybe
bike
charging
stations
or
the
proximity
to
a
path.
I
think
that
they
might
have
to
show
through
that
conditional
use
permit
that
this
would
actually
work
and
be
possible.
J
So
I
think
it's
kind
of
an
interesting
Innovation
to
say
like
let's
see
if
this
might
work
in
some
very
specific
spots,
but
there's
probably
some
other
specific
spots
where
this
really
wouldn't
work.
In
my
opinion,
where-
and
that's
kind
of
where
that
conditional
use
permit
comes
in
and
that's
kind
of
how
I
see
this
one
but
again
I-
think
it's
really
interesting
and
really
an
idea
that
came
straight
from
a
community
member's
input,
I
think
within
the
last
the
last
few
minutes
of
testimony
so
pretty
pretty
cool.
G
K
D
Agreed
council
member
next,
we
have
noticing
for
type
2
applications.
This
has
been
a
frequent
topic
of
conversation.
This
week
relates
to
our
process
and
I've
mentioned
multiple
times
this
week.
Not
a
single
developer
asked
me
to
create
or
ask
us
to
create
these
types
and
allow
for
this
type,
two
to
move
forward.
The
whole
purpose
of
the
type
two
is
to
to
make
what
we
want
as
a
city.
The
things
that
we
feel
like
are
important
in
addressing
our
goals
around
affordability
and
Mobility.
D
As
you
know,
there
is
not
a
requirement
for
the
type
twos
to
provide
notice
to
the
neighbors,
and
so
what
we're
recommending
here
is
that,
with
the
type
2
applications
we
do
include
so
remember
what
the
type
twos
that,
upon
submittal
of
an
application,
the
neighborhood
does
get
notified.
So
that
remains
as
it
is
today.
So
today,
when
we
get
an
application,
the
neighborhood
is
notified.
That
would
remain
the
case
in
this
new
requirement.
Also
an
addition
that
doesn't
exist
today.
D
Hasn't
we've
created
the
development
tracker
and
it's
live,
but
that
will
be
another
way
that
people
can
follow
what's
happening
in
their
neighborhood
and
you
can
actually
sign
up
to
get
emails
on
when
things
are
coming
in.
So
you,
the
neighborhoods,
still
get
noticed
for
type
twos
will
now
have
the
development
tracker
that
people
can
sign
up
for
the
so
they
can
see.
What's
going
on.
C
D
C
D
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
clarification,
and
we've
talked
this
week
about
the
varied
capacity
of
neighborhood
associations
and
so
forth,
but
the
reality
is
today
we
provide
a
notice
upon
some
metal
of
applications
to
the
neighborhood
associations.
We
would
continue
to
do
that
in
the
new
code
on
type
twos.
D
D
Part
of
the
way
in
which
we're
going
to
make
the
things
we
want
need
easier
to
do
is
that
you
meet
these
technical
requirements
and
you
are
approved,
but
we
will
notice
the
neighbor
so
that
they
know
of
that
they'll
be
able
to
look
at
what
those
plans
are
and-
and
you
know,
they'd
be
able
to
I'm
not
encouraging
this,
but
that
they'd
be
able
to
appeal
that
it
would
go
to
the
hearings
examiner
for
a
hearing
on
that
appeal.
So
this
is
an
additional
requirement
around
these
type
twos
that
we're
suggesting.
M
F
G
Now,
mayor
Tim,
we've
heard
so
much
this
week
about
people
wanting
to
be
involved,
people
wanting
to
have
a
voice
about
what
happens
in
their
neighborhood
the
pros
and
cons
of
neighborhood
associations,
I
think
personally,
I
think
they're,
fundamental
and
obviously
there's
folks
that
we
want
more
involvement
in
those.
Why
wouldn't
we
do
this
to
the
neighbors
upon
submittal
like?
Why
would
we
do
it
afterwards
and
say
hey
by
the
way?
This
just
happened
to
you
like?
Why?
Wouldn't
we
do
it
ahead
of
time.
D
Well,
council,
member
of
thank
you
mayor,
councilmember
Willits.
The
our
thinking
is
this.
You
know
when
again,
these
are
permitted
type
twos
are
a
permitted
use.
We
want
them
to
happen.
These
These
are
fundamentally
a
part
of
this
new
zoning
ordinance
type
twos.
If
you
look
at
that
list
of
type
two
things,
you
know
it's
you're
doing
a
triplex
on
an
individual's
single
family
law,
you're
doing
a
an
apartment
building
on
a
on
Fairview.
D
You
know
it's
these
things
that
are
so
fundamental
to
Our
Success,
and
so,
if
you
meet
these
standards,
you're
allowed
to
do
that.
The
the
concern
that
we
have
about
notice
upon
submission
of
an
application
is,
it
creates
a
real.
We
think
that
that
sends
the
wrong
message
to
people,
because
you
get
a
notice
upon
application,
you're,
calling
City
staff
and
saying
when's
the
hearing
or
how
can
I
weigh
in
on
this?
D
The
actual
fact
is
you
can't
so
why
would
we
create
that
wildly
unrealistic
expectation
by
sending
somebody
a
notice
to
basically
say
come
in
here
and
give
us
your
opinion
on
this
application
which
we're
going
to
approve
the
point
at
which
it
becomes
really
important
is
once
we've
approved
it
that
they
have
a
chance
to
appeal
that
if,
in
fact
upon
a
review
of
the
plans,
they
have
an
issue
with
it
that
that's
our
feeling
about
this.
It's
an
important
difference
and-
and
you
know
this
happens,
you
know
and
you've
seen
this
frustration
before
Council.
D
So
many
times,
people
come
and
say:
I
want
to
have
a
say
and
I
understand
that
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
in
many
cases
we
don't
have
the
right
to
say
no,
and
it
really
creates
a
lot
of
frustration
and-
and
you
know,
feelings
of
discontent
about
the
government
when
you're
invited
into
a
process
that
you
actually
have
no
control
over
I
mean.
Why
would
we
create
that
expectation?
Is
the
concern.
F
D
Mayor
council,
member
Beijing,
thank
you
and
I
think
it
kind
of
speaks
to
what
we've
heard.
This
week,
we
heard
from
multiple
neighborhoods
that
the
issue
that
we
have
is
really
just
that
we
want
to
know
so
that
you
know
whoever
it
is
that's
doing
it.
We
can
coordinate
with
them.
If
there's
an
issue
around
my
driveway
or
a
fence,
or
something
like
that,
just
that
we
know
and-
and
we
feel
like
this
addresses-
that.
D
D
So
we
in
the
current
draft,
we
specified
that
there
would
be
five
minutes
for
a
neighborhood
association
in
a
case
that
comes
to
public
hearing,
we're
recommending
that
that
be
added
that
we
add
to
that
to
make
it
10
minutes
and
that
just
to
be
clear
that
those
neighborhoods
that
are
speaking
for
those
10
minutes
would
be
within
the
notification
area
of
that
case.
You
know
just
to
be
clear
about
that.
D
C
C
J
J
So
I
think
the
10
minutes
is
great.
I
think
that
everybody
should
get
that
10
minutes
and
I
think
that
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
do
it
within
the
notification
radius
or
the
neighborhood.
That's
in
there.
I
do
think
that
there's
applications
where
they're
much
more
complex
and
that
there
should
be
an
ability
for
the
neighbor's
Hood
Association
to
request
additional
time
from
staff.
J
On
those
particular
occasions,
I
thought
about
this
in
my
head
and
trying
to
figure
it
out,
like
should
staff
reach
out
to
them
on
a
certain
type
of
application
that
seemed
problematic
just
because
it
you
know
it's
hard
to
figure
out
what
it
might
be,
and
so
in
my
head
there
would
be
a
way
for
a
neighborhood
association
when
they
knew
that
a
project
was
coming
up
to
request
additional
time.
You
know
from
the
staff
to
do
it
I'll
kind
of
explain
why
I
think
that
this
has
been.
J
You
know
one
of
the
more
interesting
conversations
during
this
public
hearing
I
think
we
somebody
brought
it
up,
I
think
Este,
maybe
from
South
Coal,
maybe
brought
up
the
neighborhood
associations
have
the
ability
to
be
one
of
the
city's
greatest
resources
and
I
absolutely
agree
with
that
statement
and
I
think
that
we've
seen
that
demonstrated
During
certain
times
where
there
was
incredible
amounts
of
Outreach.
That
was
done.
Nuanced
understanding
of
a
particular
neighborhood,
really
a
lot
of
community
involvement
that
they
did
in
that
area.
J
J
As
far
as
Outreach
goes
I'm
an
involvement
or
expectations
like
council
president
woodings
really
sort
of
delivered
on
through
this
process,
trying
to
understand
how
much
did
you
engage
with
your
neighborhood
before
giving
testimony,
we
kind
of
saw
it
all
over
the
board.
You
know,
folks
that
were
doing
a.
J
But
the
difference
between
five
minutes
and
10
minutes
I.
Think
that
there's
only
good
things
that
can
happen
in
that
extra
five
minute
period
of
time,
extra
nuances
that
might
be
able
to
be
brought
up
and
I,
don't
see
what
the
harm
is
in
that
extra
five
minutes
or
an
additional
time
on
a
more
complex
application.
I
I
Ce
helps
through
neighborhood
engagement
and
really
developing
some
of
those,
so
that
we
have
a
little
bit
more
accountability
and
neighborhood
associations
can
be
that
tool
to
reaching
into
neighborhoods
and
getting
neighborhood
feedback
that
we've
seen
I
think
done
so
well
in
some
neighborhoods
and
just
not
well
at
all.
In
others.
F
Better
I
think
it's
helpful
to
think
about
it.
It's
so
easy
for
everybody
to
become
defensive
in
this
conversation,
because
it's
volunteers
truly
doing
the
best
work
that
they
can
on
behalf
of
their
neighborhood,
which
is
something
that
everybody
cherishes
and
so
I
think
it's
helpful
to
think
about
it
in
terms
of
the
institution
of
neighborhood
associations
as
a
unit,
rather
than
particular
neighborhood
associations
that
take
some
of
it
out.
My
fundamental
concern
is
that
we
can
be
doing
better.
F
We
can
be
doing
better
at
being
a
good
conduit
of
information
from
the
neighborhood
to
the
city
council.
We
can
be
doing
better
at
truly
reflecting
the
people
and
the
values
of
the
neighborhood
and
of
the
neighborhood
as
we
want
it
to
change,
and
another
way
of
saying
we
could
be
doing
better
is
I,
don't
think
yet
we're
doing
well
enough,
and
so
my
view
isn't
that
we
don't
want
to
hear
the
neighborhood
association's
perspective
we
do
or
that
we
want
to
shut
the
neighborhoods
associations
out.
F
That's
not
what
we
want,
but
we
want
to
do
better.
We
want
to
get
better
and
what
I
heard
from
both
of
my
colleagues
just
now
is.
There
are
ways
that
we
can
address
that,
and
there
are
ways
that
we
can
lean
in
help
facilitate
neighborhood
associations,
it
being
more
effective
in
their
work,
help
them.
So
you
know
get
us
the
information
we
need
and
I
think
that's
great.
If
I
had
my
druthers
I
would
work
on
that
process,
and
once
we
got
there
expand
the
amount
of
time
I.
G
C
Think
no,
but
I
think
what
point
right,
but
discussion
can
be
had
on
all
of
these
during
I
mean
this
was
intended
to
be
a
time
for
questions
rather
than
the
kind
of
discussion
deliberation
on
what
the
time
ought
to
be,
or
what
else
ought
to
be
added
and
we've
we've
stuck
with
that
until
just
now,
when
everybody
started
sharing
their
opinions
on
the
neighborhood
time
and
I
want
to
be
sensitive
to
our
time,
we
still
have
four
more
so
I.
Don't
want
to
inadvertently.
J
Memory
I
do
have
a
question
for
staff.
If
anyone
doesn't
have
on
this
particular
issue.
The
question
the
question
Tim
would
be
in
that
additional
aspect
that
I
was
talking
about
and
if,
if
there's
any
recommendation,
any
feasibility
any
process,
that
would
make
sense
for
a
neighborhood
association
that
wanted
more
time
about
getting
it
requesting
it
being
granted
because
it
was
a
annexation
or
a
result
like
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
like.
J
J
Yeah
I
think
that
that
makes
sense
in
a
policy
I
guess
when
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
is
there
a
way
within
code,
the
correct
way
of
saying
they
will
be
given
10
minutes
of
testimony
and
may
be
given
additional
time,
if
requested.
That's
where
I
think
that
the
code
part
is
it's
not
necessarily
the
policy
and
trigger
in
and
out
it's
making
sure
that
they're
is
some
sort
of
wording
in
the
code
that
opens
that
up
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out.
C
J
D
Okay,
with
regard
to
conditions
of
approval,
this
relates
to
we've
heard
in
a
few
cases
this
week
about
concerns
related
to
what
development
is
done,
and
then
the
improvements
aren't
made
and
I
mentioned
on
Monday.
The
issue
here
is
that
the
language
isn't
clear
enough.
Decisions
that
have
been
made
in
the
past
at
times
have
not
been
clear
enough
as
to
when
improvements
are
required
to
be
made.
D
So
we've
heard
this
from
multiple
people,
I've
experienced
cases
myself
when
you
look
at
the
language
of
the
approvals,
and
especially
around
conditions,
the
lack
of
clarity
means
that
we've
get
this
frustration
around.
The
improvements
aren't
made
in
a
timely
way,
and
so
what
we're
recommending
is
this
additional
language
that
had
recommending
changes
to
the
common
procedures
for
decisions
and
conditions,
and
this
language
would
say
that
all
conditions
of
approval
are
required
for
for
required
improvements
be
completed
within
one
year
of
the
first
occupancy
permit
being
issued.
D
F
D
Councilmember
woodings,
that's
correct.
We
were
trying
to
add
language
here
that
we
could
that
we
could
count
on
consistently
but
understanding
each
project
is
of
a
different
scale
and
size,
and
there
may
be
cases
where
you
need
to
add
a
condition
that's
different
than
this,
but
we
want
to
make
sure,
there's
specificity,
that
we
can
count
on
regardless.
D
Follow
up
with
city
council,
so
this
just
has
to
do
with
we've
talked
this
week.
A
lot
about
you
know
the
the
the
times
in
which
we'll
come
back
to
council
we're
adopting
a
new
ordinance
for
the
first
time
in
75
or
57
years
in
Boise.
We
know
it
will
take
time
to
adjust
we're
very
confident
in
the
overall
structure
of
this
ordinance,
the
way
that
it's
tied
to
this
Physical
City
the
way
the
the
incentives
we've
added
really
excited
about
that.
D
But
we
know
there's
going
to
be
details
that
we're
going
to
have
to
work
through
so
we're
recommending
a
couple
of
things.
One
is
that
we
come
back
to
Council
in
November
of
this
year
to
do
any
kind
of
minor
amendments
or
cleanup
that
we
need
to
do
upon
council's
adoption
of
this
just
to
check
in
and
and
see.
If
there's
any
cleanup
that
needs
to
be
done
before
the
the
ordinance
is
effective.
D
I'll
we're
recommending
a
December
1st,
effective
date,
which
is
on
my
next
slide
and
then
upon
the
effective
date
of
the
ordinance
which
would
be
December
1st
of
this
year.
We
would
come
back
to
council
every
12
months
after
to
give
a
report
to
Council
on
how
the
ordinance
is
progressing.
What
are
those
amendments
that
we're
recommending
to
the
ordinance
based
on
the
experience
we've
had
with
it?
So
we
would.
We
would
commit
to
these
things
we're
recommending
these
these
check-ins
with
Council
on
a
regular
basis.
C
F
C
D
Thank
you
mayor.
Yes,
you
know
we
there's
a
big
effort
within
the
department
or
within
the
city
as
a
whole,
not
just
in
the
planning
department
around
implementation
of
this
code,
which
has
to
do
with
all
these
procedures
that
were
changing
to
make
it
as
simple
as
possible
for
people
it
has
to
do
with
the
technology
that
supports
this
work
so
just
and
and
further
moving
further
on
all
that
implementation,
we're
anticipating
there
could
be
something
that
we've
got
to
adjust
here.
D
Potentially
we
don't
know
this,
but
in
case
we
want
to
just
suggest
that
we
have
a
check-in
in
November
just
to
see
if
there's
anything,
that's
Arisen.
This
would
not
be
substantive
changes.
We're
not
talking
about
changing
the
incentives.
We're
not
talking
about
changing
the
structure,
we're
not
talking
about
changing
the
land
use
categories.
Anything,
that's
substantive!
Just
is
there
any
procedural
or
minor
amendments
that
need
to
be
made
to
make
this
work
as
well
as
it
can
when
we
implement
it.
K
B
D
Effective
date,
that's
recommended
is
December
1st
of
this
year
and
then
concluding.
This
is
the
planning
commission's
recommendations.
These
are
the
Motions
that
we
need
tonight
the
action
that
we
need
tonight.
We
do
want
the
ordinance
adopted
with
those
red
line
edits.
We
included
in
a
note
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
on
April
13th.
We
do
want
to
include
those
recommendations
that
we
made
in
a
memo2
council
on
April
1st
and
then.
Lastly,
we
do
want
to
make
those
recommendations.
We
do
want
to
include
those
recommendations
that
we
made
to
you
tonight.
C
B
I
Madam,
mayor
I,
don't
have
a
question
about
this,
but
I
do
have
a
note
to
counsel
that
we
did
receive
some
late
correspondence
from
violia.
Their
representative
had
been
here
with
comments
and
he
left
those
written
comments
with
the
staff
member
and
so
now
we
have
those
in
our
email
inbox.
If
we'd
like
to
review
on
break.
C
D
C
Right
we
will
break
for
half
an
hour,
then
be
back
all
right.
We
are
all
back
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
get
started.
I
think
Tim,
Keane,
you've
got
one
item
more
I
think
that
is
that
correct,
we're
going
to
hear
from
Tim
on
the
deed
restrictions
and
then
we're
doing
Lupa
James
you've
got
language
great.
D
D
D
This
is
something
we've
experienced
as
well
when
you
have
periods
that
are
less
than
that
10
10
20.,
even
30
years,
those
time,
those
time
periods
and
quicker
than
you
can
imagine
so
you're
always
scrambling
to
address
affordable
housing.
That's
coming
off!
It's
it's
its
length
of
affordability
requirement,
so
the
recommendation
was
strongly
that
we
stick
with
50
years.
So
so
we
we
have
included
that
in
this
set
of
incentives,
as
our
requirement
I
will
share
with
you.
We
have.
D
We
have
been
concerned
about
it
as
well
as
something
that
is
that
the
right
amount
is
that
to
onerous
what
will
its
effect
be
on
whether
this
incentive
is
successful
or
not.
It
is
an
area
that
we
think
we're
going
to
have
to
pay
close
attention
to,
and
is
one
that
we
would
expect
to
definitely
come
back
to
report
to
City
Council
on
a
regular
basis
as
to
what
we're,
seeing
as
it
relates
to
that
specific
thing
and
its
influence
on
the
success
of
these
incentives.
F
D
Mayor
councilmember,
Beijing
I,
think
that's
exactly
right.
I
mean
that's
part
of
the
concern
here
is:
is
around
the
capacity
of
this
community
to
address
these
big
issues
that
are
not
short-term
they're
long-term
issues
and,
and
we
need
to
be
thinking
longer
term
about
how
these
requirements
that
we're
setting
ensure
that
we're
not
only
creating
the
affordable
housing
that
but
we're
maintaining
it
over
time.
So
I
think
that's
a
very
good
point.
I
D
Experience
in
other
cities-
you
know
I
mean,
and
this
things
like
inclusionary
zoning,
of
course,
are
not
known.
Cities
we're
not
implementing
inclusionary
zoning.
To
be
clear,
our
ordinance
is
designed
around
incentives.
I
spoke
to
this
in
the
memo
that
I
sent
to
the
Planning
Commission
in
in
April
that
we're
not
we're
not
able
to
do
inclusionary
zoning
in
Idaho.
So
we
are
not
doing
that.
That's
part
of
how
we
organize
this
this
this
ordinance
around
incentives,
but
that
approach
that
technique
to
deal
with
affordability
in
city
in
cities
is.
I
D
Mayor
council,
member
woodings
I
mean
this
is
a
very
important
conversation
and
point.
It
is
in
no
way
our
interest
in
creating
a
period
of
affordability
that
dampens
the
success
of
this
incentive
period,
the,
but-
but
we
thought
this-
this
concern
around
this
moment
in
terms
of
ensuring
long
periods
of
affordability
that
we
that
we
are
very
cognizant
of
that
and
and
that's
why
we
landed
at
50..
Typically,
it's
been
in
cases
around
the
country
in
cases
where
it
is
a
requirement
as
part
of
an
inclusionary
zoning
ordinance.
Ours
is
not
that
it
is.
D
Is
it
an
incentive
based
one,
which
is
why
we
think
we
have
to
very
closely
monitor
this
and
and
come
back,
as
I
said,
with
regular
reports
to
Counsel
on
what
the
effect
of
this
is
one
last
thing
on
this
mayor
with
this:
this
ordinance
is
not
for
next
year
I
mean
it
is
because
we're
going
to
be
using
it
whenever
you
set
the
effective
date
it
is
for
next
year,
but
it's
for
a
long
period
of
time.
I
mean
that
we
to
councilmember
baden's
point
this.
D
This
needs
to
serve
us
for
a
long
period
of
time,
we'll
be
coming
back
and
improving
it
constantly,
as
I
said,
on
an
annual
basis,
at
least,
but
we
do
have
to
think
longer
term
about
the
impact
of
these.
The
housing
bonus
ordinance
is
a
great
example
of
this,
which
the
city
adopted
just
two
or
so
years
ago.
The
housing
bonus,
ordinance
was
adopted
and
I've
heard
some
frustration
at
times
about
how
effective
it's
been.
F
Had
a
point,
it
might
have
been
misinterpreted
that
my
the
question
was,
you
know
we're
here,
because
we're
struggling
with
a
code-
that's
50
years
old,
so
some
people
50
years
ago
decided
they
knew
what
was
best
and
it
turned
out
not
to
fit
as
we
learned
over
the
course
of
50
years.
So
the
question
is:
does
our
analysis
and
recommendation
take
into
account
some
humility
about
how
unsure
we
are?
Things
are
going
to
be
in
50
years
and
are
we
confident
saying
yes
sitting
here
today?
I
can
make
a
prescription
for
50
years
I'll.
C
Jump
in
on
that
too,
because
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
it's
not
that
there's
such
confidence
that
we're
making
a
prescription
for
50
years.
The
start,
the
we're
saying
50
with
I,
hear
the
director
saying
it's
really
important
that
we
come
back
within
the
year
and
see
whether
or
not
it's
a
hindrance
or
a
help
to
getting
what
we
want
and
regardless
of
I
mean
I,
would
also
say,
like
beyond
the
this
affordability
piece.
I
mean
people
are
going
to
have
to
come
after
us
and
update
the
zoning
code
again
right.
C
So
it's
just
that.
Unfortunately,
the
city
pushed
it
off
for
too
long
and
we're
doing
it
now,
but
I
I
mean
I,
fully
anticipate
with
this
ordinance
that
you
know
at
some
point
in
the
future.
The
councils
and
the
mayors
that
come
after
us
will
be
picking
it
up
again,
because
cities
will
continually
change.
Yeah.
F
But
that
wasn't
my
question
either
that
the
question
is:
do
we
feel
confident
enough
about
what's
going
to
happen
in
50
years
to
be
willing
to
make
that
commitment?
Now?
Not
what
not
do
we
feel
confident
we
can
revisit
this
in
the
future,
because
we're
going
to
be
entitled
in
properties
for
two
and
a
half
Generations.
So
that's
the
question.
D
The
the
I
think
the
most
important
aspect
of
this,
for
me
at
least,
is
that
we
are,
as
a
community
intentionally
saying
that
we
haven't
figured
everything
out
to
every
degree
when
we
adopt
this
ordinance.
Unlike
other
cities.
Even
now
that
are
adopting
ordinances
who
say,
we've
figured
everything
out
we're
adopting
this
ordinance
and
the
expectation
is.
It
will
be
good
for
50
years
we're
not
making
that
we're
not
saying
that
we've
planning
commissions
city
council
this
week,
we've
said
we're
not
we
are
intentionally
saying.
D
We
know
that
this
ordinance
is
is,
is
is
ideal
for
this
city
in
terms
of
how
it
is
structured
based
on
the
physicality
of
this
place.
We
know
that's
right
and
we
know
the
way
we've
organized
it
around
incentives
is
the
right
move
for
us,
given
our
position,
but
what
we've
also
said
is
we
in
and
very
intentionally
understand
that
in
this
issue
is
among
the
highest
that
we
were
thinking
of?
D
Is
we're
going
to
have
to
come
back
and
I've
mentioned
this
several
times
regularly
to
evaluate
these
incentives
to
see
if
they're
effective,
the
50
years,
the
level
of
affordability,
the
all
that
we
got
to
keep
coming
back
and
Reporting
on
it?
And
to
me
that's
the
important
decision
for
Boise?
Is
we
don't
think
this
is
a
we
figured
everything
out
and
we're
confident
in
what
the
conditions
are
going
to
be
50
years
from
now
we
are
saying
we
we
it's,
it's
not
appropriate
to
think
that
way.
J
Man,
I've
got
one
more
kind
of
question
here
or
just
maybe
getting
your
thoughts
on
on
the
statement.
I
think
one
of
the
goals
is
to
have
more
housing
affordability,
but
in
addition
to
that,
it's
to
have
more
housing,
affordability
in
different
parts
of
towns
and
I
would
consider
you
know.
Maybe
this
is
the
right
term,
but
maybe
are
more
our
higher
priced
areas
of
talents.
J
We
know
that
when
there's
mixed
income,
that's
a
good
thing
in
neighborhoods
across
the
city,
one
of
the
things
that
I
noticed
with
some
of
our
affordable
housing
that
we
have
close
to
downtown
right
now
in
the
River
Street
area.
It
exists
there
today
because
there
were
restrictions
that
were
put
on
at
a
really
long
time
ago
and
it's
a
really
great
place
for
there
to
be
affordable
housing
because
it's
so
close
to
everything.
But
it's
a
really
unlikely
place
that
affordable
housing
would
be
built
today.
J
I
guess
I'm
just
sort
of
wondering
in
your
conversations
with
other
cities,
if
the
length
of
that
deed
restriction
and
the
reason
to
try
to
get
it
as
long
as
possible.
If,
if
there's
any
tie
to
knowing
that
parts
of
town
are
going
to
be
outpriced
in
the
future
and
making
sure
that
there's
affordable
housing
in
those
areas
as
long
as
possible,
I
don't
know
if
that
is
part
of
the
conversation
or,
if
I'm
just
thinking
things
out
loud
and.
C
L
The
mayor
council,
member
Willis,
we've
put
together
some
excerpts
here
from
the
conditional
use
permit
or
what
the
statute
refers
to.
A
special
use:
permit
Provisions
from
Idaho
code
from
the
local
land,
use,
planning,
act
or
Lupa
for
short-
and
this
is
in
in
hopes
of
of
addressing
the
concern
about
getting
some
more
specificity
in
how
the
city
looks
at
conditional
use
permits
and
conditions
them
for
Success.
So
the
the
first
part
excerpted
there
is.
L
The
idea
is
that,
once
it's
there,
the
focus
shifts
to
well
what
conditions
you
know
can
we
apply
and,
and
there
it's
important
to
note-
that
there's
lots
of
there's
lots
of
types
of
conditions
that
might
apply
and
it's
going
to
be.
It
needs
to
be
a
case-by-case
decision
and
you
certainly
have
highly
qualified
and
highly
motivated
Planning
and
Zoning
Commissioners,
who
who
understand
this
process,
but
certainly
need
you
know
some
good
and
some
useful
language
so,
but
it
doesn't
stop
there
and
back
to
the
council
member's
concern
about
about
conditions.
A
G
G
G
D
Mayor
councilmember,
Willits
and
I'll
speak
to
it
just
from
our
perspective.
I
wish
Steve
Hubble
was
still
here
from
public
works
because
we
worked
very
closely
with
public
works
on
this
item
back
and
forth
quite
a
bit
around
the
language
related
to
the
sustainability
incentives
and,
and
they
felt
very
strongly
that
that
this
all-electric
aspect
of
it
is
a
very
important
part
of
the
sustainability
incentives
and-
and
you
know
with
regard
to
the
testimony
this
week
regarding
natural
gas
and
and
what
the
implications
of
this
ordinance
are.
As
you
know,
council
member,
we.
D
Requirement
as
part
of
an
incentive
to
get
additional
units,
it
is
not
required
of
of
anyone
in
the
city.
It
is
only
in
cases
where
you're
seeking
or
you
decide
to
take
advantage
of
these
incentives
and
having
seen
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
over
a
period
of
many
weeks.
With
regard
to
to
the
inclusion
of
this
in
in
our
in
our.
D
And
the
implications
of
that,
we
really
feel
strongly
that
there's
just
a
disagreement
as
to
the
city's
ability
to
do
this.
You
know
and
what
the
implications
are
in
terms
of
various
app
ways.
You
want
to
approach
this
from
a
legal
standpoint
and
we
have
we
have
discussed
this
thoroughly
internally
and
discussed
it
from
various
Avenues,
with
City
attorney,
as
well
as
public
works
and
feel
as
though
this
is
an
appropriate.
It's
a
it's
a
very
as
a
matter
of
fact.
D
Public
works
at
docile,
so
this
this
part
of
it
which,
which
was
if
we
don't
include
this
all
electric
provision,
then
we
it's.
What
are
we
doing?
You
know,
why
do
it?
If
we
don't
have
that
aspect
of
the
sustainability
incentives?
So
so
we
feel
strongly.
This
is
an
important
aspect
of
it
and
that-
and
we
just
have
a
disagreement
over
over
whether
or
not
the
city
has
the
authority
to
do
this,
and
we
strongly
feel
we
do
because
it's
part
of
these
incentives.
A
L
F
Somebody
Builds
an
apartment
building
right
now
doesn't
put
gas
in
Rents
It
Out,
the
tenants
can't
sue
the
city
or
anybody
else
for
the
lack
of
availability
of
gas.
That
was
the
decision
that
the
developer
made
new
code
goes
in
new
code
says
Hey
developer.
If,
like
you
did
last
year,
you
want
to
choose
to
not
put
natural
gas
in
here's.
Some
additional
stuff
that
you
know
will
help
move
you
along
developer,
makes
the
same
choice.
Unit
doesn't
get
Natural
Gas
same
issue.
F
Was
the
developer's
choice,
not
the
cities,
we
didn't
mandate,
anything
we
didn't
require
anything,
but
in
both
cases
the
tenant
doesn't
have
access
to
natural
gas
because
of
a
decision
that
their
developer
made
and
that's
why
it's
not
regulating
or
mandating
or
denying
access
to
Natural
Gas
to
Residents
and
tenants.
Is
that
right,
mayor.
J
Been
married
Tim
and
this
could
be
for
other
staff,
potentially
as
well
I.
During
the
conversation
earlier
about
neighborhood
association.
Testimony
time,
I
asked
if
we
thought
there
was
possible
wording
that
could
give
flexibility
to
request
additional
time,
I'm
wondering
if
there
has
been.
If
there
is
wording,
that's
out
there.
That
would
allow
us
to
give
them
that
flexibility
in
code.
D
B
D
That
we
we've
thought
about
this
this
week
with
regard
to
are
there
certain
types
of
cases
where
there
would
be
additional
time
and
these
kinds
of
things
the
one
thing?
That's
a
concern
about
that,
and
you
all
know
this
very
well,
it's
hard
to
predict
what
will
be
a
big
neighborhood
issue.
Sometimes
it's
big
things
that
you
would
expect,
but
many
many
times
it's
not
it's
a
very
specific
small
thing.
That
means
a
lot
to
that
neighborhood,
but
we
wouldn't
have.
D
D
What
will
be
an
issue
that
a
neighborhood
finds
to
be
one
that
that
is
fundamental
to
the
quality
of
life
in
that
neighborhood,
so
that
that's
just
something
I
wanted
to
mention
that
concerned
us
about
getting
too
specific
about
what
other
projects
might
then
qualify
for
more
than
10
minutes?
You
know
there
could
be
language.
That's
added,
certainly
and
and
again
upon
direction,
to
counsel
tonight
that
we
could
add
related
to
the
10
minutes.
D
That
somehow
speaks
to
the
policies
that
will
be
enacted
by
the
city
and
and
in
association
with
this
10
minutes,
and
that
that
ability
to
speak
at
public
hearings,
which
would
say
the
city,
will
create
policies
that
establish
the
circumstances
under
which
additional
time
could
be
provided
and,
and
that
then
decision
would
be
that
that
recommendation
would
be
made
by
the
planning
director
to
the
chair
or
the
the
mayor
in
those
cases.
So
you
could
reference
it
in
the
code,
but
then
don't
get
specific
about
what
those
standards
are.
D
But
one
other
thing
we
talked
so
that's
an
option,
but
then
the
other
thing
we
did
talk
about
to
some
degree
council
member
is
is
kind
of
just
how
well
things
went
this
week
and
honestly
at
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
I
mean
we
only
had
three
minutes
this
week
for
individuals,
five
minutes
for
the
neighborhoods,
but
what
you
realize
in
that
is:
hey,
there's
Clarity
to
I,
get
this
amount
of
time
and
then
Council
the
council
and
the
mayor.
During
this
week.
D
You
ended
up
asking
questions
of
people
that
that
came
with
things
that
you
wanted
more
information
about,
and
so
it
became
more
than
three
minutes
or
five
minutes
based
on
the
deliberations
of
counsel,
and
it
wasn't
somehow
encoded.
It
was
just
that's
the
way
we
do
business.
It
seemed
to
work
quite
well
this
week
that
that
we
that
we
handled
it
that
way
and
people
had
the
certainty
around
how
much
time
they
had.
D
J
J
L
And
then
those
are
the
guidelines
that
are
used
so
using
maxims
and
minimums
can
can
get
you
a
sideboard
or
can
can
get
you
most
of
the
way
there
leaving
the
rest
up
to
the
chair's
discretion.
But
to
the
question
of
How,
It's
decided,
I,
I.
Think
as
as
Tim's
talked
about,
some
projects
are
big
and
some
are
small,
and
so
just
seeing
how
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commissions
hearing
hearings
goes.
L
It's
some
are
short
right
and
just
waiting
for
the
for
the
presentations
to
to
get
through
and
for
the
applicant
team
and
the
neighbor
Association
presentations
being
equal
folks
just
need
to
track
how
much
time
was
devoted
so
shared
chair.
Discretion
covers
a
lot
and
and
I
think
it's
worked
pretty
well
for
the
planning
zoning
commission
haven't
seen
much
trouble
with
it.
There.
J
C
And
I
would
say
too
I
mean
my
experience
on
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
and
then,
as
on
counseling
now,
is
that
you
know
in
advance
from
staff
if
it's
really
technical
application.
You
know
in
advance
from
staff
they're
going
to
be
a
lot
of
residents
that
are
interested
and
engaged,
and
the
staff
gets
a
sense
of
what
to
expect
time
wise
and
then
sets
that
expectation
with
both
the
applicant
and
then
the
neighborhood
associations
and
I
think
that
this
is
good
to
give
a
floor,
but
it
does.
C
G
To
my
outside
a
question
about
Minor
subdivision
dividing
because
right
now
you
have
a
you,
can
have
a
private
property
owner
that
can
divide
their
property
and
now
there's
a
there's,
some
nuances
there.
Can
you
walk
us
actually
right
here:
removal
of
minor
land
divisions
and
requirement
for
new
subdivisions
to
have
a
public
hearing
to
ensure
developers
provide
infrastructure
improvements,
walk
us
through
what
that
looks
like
in
practicality
when
you
have
a
private
homeowner
that
might
be
on
an
acre
and
then
wants
to
do
some
units.
What
does
that
look
like
yeah.
D
So
mayor
councilmember,
Willits,
the
the
situation
is
that
what
we
that
the
issue
that
we're
trying
to
get
here
to
here
is
that
we
have
cases
today
where
people
are
able
to
record
a
survey
in
order
to
to
to
circumnavigate
or
get
around
the
subdivision
requirements
that
the
city
has,
which
means
that
they'll
be
able
to
subdivide
property
and
not
make
the
improvements
that
they
would
otherwise
be
required
to
make
whether
it
could
be
small
things.
It
could
be
big
things,
but
it
could
be.
I
I
move
that
we
approve
and
move
to
First
reading
zoa23-1
for
the
staff
Report
with
the
following
modifications
to
the
draft
rewrite
number
one
implement
the
modern
zoning
code
with
an
effective
date
of
December
1
2023
to
modify
the
conditional
use.
Permit
findings
to
include
the
word
and
three
modify
the
bike
parking
to
increase
the
long-term
bike
parking
to
be
calculated
to
require
one
bicycle
parking
space
for
the
first
bedroom
and
0.5
parking
spaces
for
each
additional
bedroom.
I
I
10
increase
neighborhood
association,
testimony
time
to
10
minutes
for
the
neighborhood
associations
that
are
located
within
the
notification.
Radius,
11.
decouple
the
sustainability
and
affordability
requirements
within
the
affordability
incentives,
12.
create
a
use
that
will
allow
electric
substations
that
will
include
use
specific
standards
that
require
landscaping
and
screening
requirements
in
all
zones.
I
13.
include
language
that
requires
conditions
of
approval
that
require
all
improvements
to
be
completed.
One
year
after
first
occupancy
permit
is
issued
14.
allow
all
sizes
of
child
care
daycare
facilities
allowed
in
the
mixed-use
zones
by
right.
15.
allow
for
a
parking
reduction
to
be
obtained
through
conditional
use.
Permit.
I
I
18
reduce
the
length
of
deed
restriction
for
affordability,
incentives
to
20
years
and
to
include
the
following
directives
to
staff
prepare
and
bring
back
an
ordinance
on
June
27th
for
readings
and
formal
adoption
of
the
approved
zoning
code.
Rewrite
bring
minor
amendments
to
the
code
that
are
needed
in
November
of
2023
and
bring
the
code
back
to
the
city
council
in
one
year
from
the
effective
date
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
and
make
appropriate
amendments.
I
I
just
want
to
share
a
couple
of
little
stories,
so
I
moved
part
time
to
the
North
End
when
I
was
eight
years
old,
so
I
spent
my
Summers
and
holidays
there,
and
we
had
you
know
a
beautiful
little
single
family
home
on
a
corner
lot
with
protected
sidewalks,
a
block
from
Hollywood
Market,
where
I
would
go,
buy
ice
cream
from
Margaret
during
the
summer
and
it
was
a
wonderful
place
to
grow
up.
You
know
we
could
walk
downtown.
We
I
would
walk
downtown
and
have
lunch
with
my
stepmom
who
worked
at
City
Hall.
I
It
was
a
really
wonderful
place
fast
forward
to
when
I
was
in
college.
I
lived
within
three
blocks
of
that
house.
In
a
duplex,
I
lived,
maybe
five
more
blocks
up.
The
street
later
in
college,
I
lived
in
a
duplex
behind
the
co-op.
My
husband
and
I
bought
our
first
home
together
on
Fourth
and
Pueblo,
a
single
family
home,
and
it
really
afforded
us
that
opportunity
to
live
in
the
same
neighborhood
with
a
variety
of
needs
at
a
variety
of
times
in
our
life.
I
I
We
heard
from
a
lot
of
people,
and
a
majority
of
those
folks
were
in
favor
of
this
zoning
code,
which
I
think
was
unexpected
when
you're
going
into
these
things.
You
just
never
really
know
in
advance
how
that's
going
to
go.
We
heard
from
people
who
had
constructive
concerns,
and
we
I
think
made
some
positive
changes
to
reflect
a
lot
of
what
we
heard.
I
J
J
Pro
tem
so
go
ahead.
Sir,
oh
I
think
I've
got
like
lots
of
things
that
I
want
to
give
some
statements
that
I
want
to
say
as
well
through
some
of
the
questioning
I
feel
fine
with
the
10
minutes
for
neighborhood
association
time,
because
I
do
think
that
there's
the
ability
for
discretion
to
be
given
in
larger
applications
that
could
be
granted.
J
You
know
both
from
the
chair
and
through
questioning
I,
think
guaranteeing
10
minutes
is,
is
great,
I
think
that's
a
long
time
for
a
presentation
and-
and
you
should
and
people
should
be
able
to
put
a
good
presentation
together.
That
way,
and
there
may
be
some
really
really
large
applications
that
are
out
there
in
the
future
that
we'll
need
to
potentially
look
at
and
have
some
discretion
there
and
I.
Think
that
there's
enough
room
to
do
that.
J
I
have
the
ability
and
willingness
to
support
the
motion.
The
way
that
it
is
right
now,
I
also
have
an
appetite
for
the
deed
restrictions
remaining
at
50
years
and
here's
the
reason
why
I
think
a
lot
about
change
that
we
have
in
our
city
and
one
of
the
things
I
really
appreciate
the
council
member
of
agent
brought
up
is
that
we
really
have
no
idea
what
50
years
from
now
are
going
to
look
like
and
I
was
thinking
about
this
billboard
conversation
and
the
last
code.
J
There
wasn't
electronic
Billboards,
even
probably
20
or
30
years
ago.
We
couldn't
have
taken
public
testimony
over
Zoom
five
years
ago.
There
was
an
internet
20
years
or
30
years
ago.
For
us
to
be
doing
so
much
of
the
engagement
we've
done,
there's
so
much
that
can
change
and
I
absolutely
understand
that
aspect
and
I.
Think
it's
hard
to
predict
in
50
years
is
a
lot
a
long
time,
but
I
think
that
that
last
point
that
I
brought
up
with
director
Keen
is
kind
of
where
my
mind's
at
is.
J
20
years
ago,
when
I
was
starting,
the
Boise
bicycle
project
and
going
to
college
I
fell
in
love
with
Boise,
because
I
lived
in
an
Adu
in
the
North
End
off
10th
and
Pueblo,
and
it
was
that
proximity
to
that
downtown
area
that
like
changed
my
life
and
set
me
on
a
really
really
like
new
direction
of
community
involvement.
Community
engagement,
support
of
all
these
local
different
business.
All
these
different
local
businesses,
involvement
with
non-profits
across
the
board
coming
to
City
Council
meetings,
and
that
area
is
just
it's
simply
not
affordable.
J
Today
and
the
best
thing
that
could
happen
for
some
of
our
lower
income
and
most
vulnerable
vulnerable
populations
is
that
they
would
have
places
to
stay
in
some
of
our
highest
property
value.
Neighborhoods,
I,
think
of
the
East
end,
I,
think
of
the
north
end,
I,
think
of
the
River
Street
area,
I,
think
of
the
west
Boise
area,
I.
J
All
these
different
facilities,
and
so
I
do
think
that
there
are
some
advantages
to
keeping
it
at
50
years
again:
I'm
not
going
to
throw
the
baby
out
with
the
bath
water
on
this.
One
I
think
that
it's
a
great
motion
I
think
that
it's
a
great
code
with
the
20
years,
I
believe,
is
what
you
propose.
Council
president
Woodin,
but
I
don't
know
if
there's
appetite
for
from
other
council
members
for
50.
F
F
I
want
to
join
the
course
of
people
thanking
the
city
staff
who've
been
working
on
this
so
hard
thanking
the
advisory
committee
and
thanking
all
of
the
members
of
the
public
who
came
both
to
support
it
and
to
voice
their
opposition
or
their
concerns,
so
many
examples
of
ways
that
those
words
of
encouragement
or
proposals
to
be
better
or
criticisms
and
concerns
have
been
adopted
and
incorporated
into
this
draft.
Not
all
of
them.
F
I
personally
have
a
big,
pencil
and
I
think
I
could
make
it
a
lot
better,
but
I'm
humble
about
the
fact
that
everybody
feels
that
way
and
everybody
has
a
slightly
different
perspective.
The
remarkable
thing
about
this
draft
is
that
it
really
does
reflect
the
themes
and
the
spirit
of
what
everyone
asked
for
and
that's
why
I
want
to
Circle
back
around
to
thanking
the
staff
and
the
people
who
leaned
in
and
worked
on
this.
That
is
much
more
of
an
undertaking
than
sitting
down
and
writing
600
Pages,
it's
absolutely
Monumental.
F
It's
incredibly
huge
and
Incredibly
meaningful
work,
and
this
will
be
the
certainly
the
greatest
privilege.
I
ever
have
to
be
able
to
vote
in
favor
of
this
on
some
of
the
more
specific
things
you
know,
I
don't
feel
50
years
is
the
right
number
it's
just
too
long
and
each
year
that
goes
by,
we
add
to
it
so
that
10
years
from
now
we'll
be
looking
at
60
years.
M
That
Amir
I
do
want
to
thank
the
the
public
for
coming
out
and
testifying
I
think
that
it
was
really
informative
to
hear
all
of
your
perspectives.
I
really
want
to
thank
the
staff.
I
will
admit
that
after
last
night,
I
came
in
with
a
lot
of
questions
and
a
lot
of
issues
that
I
wanted
to
make.
Sure
we
addressed
and
I
was
very
impressed
that
today
it
was
already
addressed
by
the
staff
by
the
time
we
got
here
this
evening,
so
I.
Thank
you
for
that.
M
With
respect
to
the
motion
I2
of
the
support
of
the
motion,
but
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
I
would
prefer
that
it
be
a
50-year
deed
restriction.
I
do
look
back
on
the
housing
policies
that
have
been
in
place
across
the
country
since
the
1930s
and
think
about
the
lack
of
intergenerational
wealth.
That
is
plaguing
many
sectors
of
our
society
and
the
ability
to
have
affordable
housing
is
not
an
issue
that
is
going
to
go
away
anytime
soon,
even
within
the
next
50
years.
M
A
M
To
claw
back,
what
has
happened
over
the
last
now,
basically,
a
hundred
years
is,
is
something
that
we're
as
a
society
not
going
to
be
able
to
undo
within
a
20-year
time
frame,
but
I'm,
not
similarly
going
to
throw
this
whole
thing
out.
It's
been
a
tremendous
amount
of
effort
in
many
years
by
by
many
individuals.
B
M
G
G
Sometimes
we
live
in
a
zero-sum
game
and
we
can
do
a
lot
of
communication
and
still
have
people
feel
like
they
don't
know
everything
that's
going
on
and
that's
always
a
challenge
and
I
think
we
always
learn
when
we
go
through
these
processes
about
how
we
can
do
better.
Do
more
and
I
think
the
some
of
the
changes
today
reflect
that
about
how
we
can
communicate
better
from
a
from
a
personal
perspective.
You
know
president
weddings
talked
about
her
experience
and
I
think
you
know
mine.
G
A
lot
of
you
know
my
personal
experience.
Some
of
you
don't
but
I
grew
up
in
affordable
housing.
I,
like
my
husband,
grew
up
in
a
single
white
trailer.
I
grew
up
in
a
double
bite
and
I
had
a
wonderful,
wonderful
childhood
and
we
were
able
to
move
to
Boise
or
to
the
Treasure
Valley
and
buy
a
house
in
our
early
20s,
and
we
found
the
commute
arduous.
You
know
we
needed
to
get
closer
into
Boise
and
the
closest
that
we
could
afford
was
West.
G
G
We
need
lots
of
different
kinds
of
housing,
Choice
Is
Fundamental
to
the
American
way
you
have
to
have
choices.
We
shouldn't
have
one
thing
for
everybody
we
should
give.
We
should
give
citizens
every
kind
of
choice
possible.
So,
when
I
looked
at
this
code,
there
were
a
couple
of
things
that
I
looked
at
philosophically
I
looked
at.
G
Are
we
reducing
red
tape?
Are
we
allowing
the
market
to
innovate?
So
are
we
deregulating
things
so
that
the
market
and
those
who
do
this
work
can
bring
their
best
and
brightest
ideas?
And
then
are
we
helping
private
property
owners
to
invest
in
Boise
families
and
when
I
look
at
this
overall,
the
answer
is
yes
to
all
of
those.
Are
there
things
that
I
want
changed
and
I
want
to
put
on
the
record?
You
bet
I
I
really
want
more
time
for
neighborhoods
I.
G
Don't
want
neighborhood
associations
to
believe
that
or
feel
that
their
voices,
don't
matter
and
I,
think
we
need
to
do
better.
There,
I
don't
like
force
density
for
four-story
buildings
in
certain
zones.
I
really
want
to
evaluate
that
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
have
opposition
parties
when
we
look
at
this
in
a
year
and
evaluate
it
and
I
think
the
cup
language
could
be
straight
could
be
strengthened.
I,
don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
do
that
right
now
on
the
dice.
G
So
as
I
look
at
this
in
overall
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
I
want
to
change
that
have
been
addressed.
It's
not
everything,
I!
Think.
If
you
look
at
my
colleagues,
every
one
of
us
has
a
list
that
we
would.
We
would
change,
but
overall
I
think
it
gets
us
down
the
road.
It
gets
us
in
a
better
spot
than
we
were
yesterday
and
it
gives
us
the
opportunity
to
build
on
something
that
we
need
today.
G
More
than
ever
and
I'm
excited
to
see
how
boysans
can
innovate
with
this
new
Zone
and
to
make
sure
that
we
are
innovating
in
Boise,
because
I
don't
want
urban
sprawl
and
other
parts
of
this
of
the
valley,
because
we're
too
tight
here
in
Boise.
So
we
need
to
look
at
that.
So
I'm
going
to
be
casting
a
yes
vote.
N
My
son's
been
here
with
me
all
week
and
before
he
was
born,
I
really
wanted
to
own
a
house
so
that
we
had
a
stable
place
for
him
to
grow
up
in
and
I
was
in
undergrad
and
I
was
a
bank
teller
and
we
were
able
to
afford
one
and
we
got
into
one
and
I
thought.
I
was
being
very
industrious
and
I
flipped
that
house
to
pay
for
my
first
year
of
graduate
school
and
I
thought
that
was
the
best
financial
decision.
I
ever
made
I
sold
that
house
in
2016.
N
and
that
house
now
has
half
a
million
dollars
of
equity
in
it
and
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
are
in
my
situation
that
maybe
never
even
owned
a
home
that
feel
like
they
missed
the
lottery
ticket
because
they
weren't
in
the
market
in
the
last
five
years,
and
we
need
to
do
something
about
it
and
zoning
code.
Does
that
and
the
process?
And
what's
come
out
of
this
pardon
my
language?
It's
just
pretty.
J
You
know
I,
think
I
added
my
piece
and
I'm
fine
with
that
I
want
to
start
by.
You
just
got
me
really
off.
Guard
I
want
to
start
by
saying
how
proud
I
am
of
all
the
council
members
who
are
up
here.
This
isn't
an
easy
decision.
We
heard
from
so
many
incredible
people
in
our
community
and
council.
President
woodings
you've
been
involved
in
this
conversations
before
that
I
was
on
Council
and
I,
really
appreciate
you
making
the
motion
tonight
and
and
taking
that
Madame
mayor.
J
You
know
you
were
on
Council
when
this
started
you're
the
mayor
now
and
it's
such
a
huge
moment.
This
is
all
this
is
the
biggest
Vote
many
of
us
I
think
will
ever
take,
but
it
doesn't
seem
like
the
hardest
vote
in
the
world,
because
I
think
that
the
input
that
we've
heard
from
the
community
the
expertise
that
we've
had
from
staff.
J
This
is
the
right
thing
to
do
like
this
is
this
is
taking
a
a
code
that
wasn't
working
in
our
community
and
making
it
significantly
better,
and
so
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
really
am
I'm
proud
of
each
one
of
you
and
I'm
happy
to
be
on
your
team
and
I
didn't
get
50
years
on
that
particular
thing
and
that's
okay,
there's
so
many
other
amazing
things
in
here
in
20
years.
Is
great
I
want
to
thank
all
the
folks
on
our
staff
who
engaged
in
this.
J
You
know
more
than
anyone,
sometimes
in
environments
that
were
a
little
bit
tough
with
folks
that
were
scared,
frustrated
mad
and
you
handled
that
with
so
much
grace
and
so
much
professionalism
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
I
admire
most
about
people
and
council
member
of
Asian
said
this.
To
me.
One
time
is
people
who
have
the
ability
to
change
their
mind
about
something
and
director
Keane
brought
this
engaging
with
the
public.
J
We
were
trying
to
do
something
really
really
good
for
our
community,
we're
taking
a
lot
of
really
really
good
steps,
but
we
didn't
have
it
right,
and
we
heard
from
the
community
about
that
and
you
all
listened.
You
took
that
feedback
gracefully
and
you
created
something
really
really
good
and
I
and
I
can't.
You
know
voice
my
appreciation
to
you
all
all
enough
Tim
you
got
this
across
the
Finish
Line
I
want
to
say,
congratulations
to
you,
I've
really
enjoyed
watching
you
throughout
this
process.
J
I
forgot
to
say
that
this
might
take
a
little
bit.
Tim
I've
watched
you
through
this
process
and
the
way
that
you
bring
your
experience
and
expertise
to
the
table
and
share
it
with
other
people,
while
also
humbly
taking
all
of
their
input,
treating
each
and
every
one
of
their
questions.
With
curiosity
and
real
answers
and
and
sometimes
I,
you
know,
I
think
learning
a
little
bit
more
about
their
point
of
view
and
making
those
adjustments.
I
I've
really
enjoyed
watching
you
throughout
this
entire
process
and
the
city's
lucky
to
have
you.
J
So
thanks
Tim
and
there's
some
folks
from
the
advisory
committee
that
are
here
tonight,
I'm
a
little
jealous
of
all
of
you
and
some
of
the
time
that
you
got
to
spend
together.
Having
some
of
these
really
really
interesting
discussions.
I
didn't
know
about
the
Pokemon
go
thing
that
might
have
been
fun,
but
thinking
in
a
big
group
of
amazing
people
who
care
about
the
city,
how
we
can
make
it
better
and
what
you
want.
J
An
Innovative
idea,
I
think
it
was
Ethan.
I
mean
Innovative
idea
about
a
conditional
use
permit
for
exploring
reduced
parking.
I
think
it's
incredible
that
somebody
can
bring
an
idea
like
that
to
the
table.
Our
staff
can
digest
it
to
see
if
it's
actually
possible
and
a
group
of
City
Council
Members
can
have
the
guts
to
actually
adopt
something
that
they
think
is
going
to
improve
the
city.
J
J
Anything
that
was
even
perfect
today
would
not
be
perfect
tomorrow,
and
that
was
outlined
with
the
new
technology.
That
might
we
have
no
idea
what
the
future
will
bring
and
letting
perfect
be.
The
enemy
of
a
really
really
good
plan
going
forward
would
be
an
absolute
disaster.
So
I,
don't
know
that
perfect
is
the
goal,
but
moving
towards
perfect
always
trying
to
make
it
more
perfect.
Is
that
goal
there
were
some
people
who
asked.
J
We
need
to
have
proof
that
this
will
work
and
there's
some
things
that
we
truly
don't
know
and
there's
probably
some
things
in
here
that
we
might
get
wrong.
But
that's
how
Innovation
goes
right.
You
try
something
new.
You
try
something
bold.
If
it
works
great,
you
keep
moving
on
it.
If
it
doesn't
work,
you
do
something
different.
You
make
adjustments
and
you
move
on,
but
there
are
things
in
here
that
we
know
will
work,
and
you
know
this
is
where
I'll
kind
of
share
my
personal
story
and
then
I'll
then
I'll
end.
J
J
It
was
right
next
to
a
dairy
farm
I
played
in
the
canal.
That
was
basically
the
drainage
from
the
dairy
farm.
This
is
not
the
kind
of
canal
that
you
should
be
playing.
There's
a
lot
of
canals
that
you
shouldn't
be
playing
in
but
like
this
is
not
the
kind
of
water
that
you
would
want
to
be
playing
in,
but
that
was
that
was
my
playground
and
my
when
we'd
go
to
the
grocery
store,
we
would
have
to
drive
five
miles
when
my
dad
drove
to
Hewlett-Packard.
J
J
We
were
riding
my
bike
around
on
you
know
just
these
country
roads
that
same
neighborhood
today
that
same
lot
that
I
lived
on
now
has
four
houses
on
it.
It
has
more
people
who
live
in
that
area.
There's
the
Optimus
football
field,
Parks,
that's
right
across
the
street.
There's
a
mountain
bike
park
right
up
the
road.
There's
a
bike
lane
that
goes
down
to
the
grocery
store,
there's
an
elementary
school
right
across
the
street.
There's
hundreds
of
kids
in
that
neighborhood
riding
their
bicycles
around
with
each
other.
J
G
Mad
at
Meijer
one
suggestion
this
has
obviously
been
a
massive
effort.
There's
a
ton
of
documents
online
I
think
it
would
be
really
helpful
to
have
all
of
the
Amendments
and
the
new
code
based
on
the
memos
well
in
advance
of
any
city
council
decision
on
it
on
the
web
page,
so
that
people
can
see
the
entire
document
before
it
goes
to
First.
Reading.
I
Yeah
I
did
Madame
mayor,
so
the
ordinance
will
be
posted
on
the
website.
The
Friday
before
the
June
27th
meeting
is
that
correct
can
I
get
like
a
yes
and
then
we
will
also
see
it
come
back
to
us,
either
at
work
session
or
in
special
business
before
it's
actually
read
for
the
first
time
to
ensure
that
all
of
the
changes
that
we
proposed
are
in
there
and
made.
G
I
You,
madam
mayor
I,
just
want
to
add
a
couple
of
a
couple.
Extra
little
notes.
Here
number
one
is
I
want
to
address
the
the
deed
restriction
for
affordability,
I
think
that
our
best
case
scenario-
and
this
also
goes
back
to
the
affordability
or
sustainability
standards.
If
this
is
wildly
successful-
and
we
see
a
bunch
of
people
using
this
in
the
first
year,
I
think
that
going
back
to
those
standards
and
making
them
less
permissive
and
a
little
bit
more
prescriptive
would
be
totally
appropriate.
I
It
protects
our
Farmland,
it
lets
us
have
amazing,
Farmers
coming
and
bringing
us
their
produce
every
single
week
at
the
farmers
market,
and
it
does
that
with
less
transportation
and
fewer
emissions.
It
preserves
our
River,
and
these
are
you
know,
really
the
things
that
are
special
to
us,
along
with
having
a
wonderful
place
for
everyone
to
enjoy
Boise
in
the
way
that
they
want
to.
So
that's
all
I
got.
Thank
you.
C
What
a
city
would
look
like
in
that
blueprint
exercise
or
the
hundreds
of
boiseans
that
participated
in
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
at
the
time,
the
council
at
the
time
that
took
that
and
then
accepted
it,
and
then
each
and
every
one
of
you
who
are
here
who
have
been
through
these
Halls
or
have
been
online
to
help
shape
this
ordinance
that
we
have
tonight.
I
also
want
to
thank
staff,
I.
C
Think
the
council
president
pro
tem
put
it
so
well
that
you
have
done
and
helped
us
do
what
we
sought
to
do,
which
is
create
a
plan
for
our
community
that
we
love
deeply.
That
will
carry
us
into
the
future,
but
in
a
Boise
way,
that's
unique
to
as
you
reference
the
the
landscape
in
which
we're
blessed
to
find
ourselves
that
Embraces
our
history
of
coming
up
with
Innovative
gritty
ways
to
do
the
right
thing
without
necessarily
copying
another
place,
and
you
helped
us
do
that.
C
The
citizens
advisory
committee
that
spent
hours
and
hours
and
hours
the
last
three
years,
I'm
hearing
from
so
many
people,
learning
together
and
then
hearing
from
so
many
people
and
debating
issues
that
we
even
heard
about
last
night
and
that
brought
us
these
or
this
ordinance
each
in
in
this
Council.
That
will
be
voting
unanimously
and
I.
Think
that
that
is
so
important
because
and
I
appreciate
it
and
I
didn't
mean
to
get
like
this.
But
this
shows
us
as
boiseans
always
do
where
it
matters
most.
C
You've
got
to
have
opportunities
for
people
and
families
that
can
thrive
and
we're
so
lucky
here
to
have
a
place
where
you
can
have
neighborhoods
like
our
grandparents
had
and
where
we
can
work
now
to
make
sure
that
our
grandkids
have
neighborhoods
like
their
great
grandparents
will
have
had.
And
that
is
what
will
create
a
thriving
City.
And
it
has
been
so
incredible
to
now
see
a
whole
generation
of
young
Professionals
in
their
20s
and
30s
that
are
total
Geeks
about
planning.
C
But
it's
not
about
planning,
because
it's
about
people
it
is
planning.
But
fundamentally
it's
about
people
and
that's
what
this
community
and
this
city
has
always
been
about,
and
while
there
are
many
things
that
were
fearful
that
we
will
lose
as
we
grow.
The
thing
that
we
won't
lose
as
we
change
is
that
fundamental
connection
that
we
have
to
each
other
into
this
place.
We
call
home,
and
this
ordinance
and
the
process
that
we've
gone
through,
helps
us
capture
that
and
bottle
it
up
and
present
it
to
our
kids
for
theirs.
C
Here
they
want
to
be
able
to
buy
a
home,
but
until
then
they
need
to
be
able
to
rent
a
home
and
they
need
to
be
able
to
afford
that
rent
so
that
they
can
do
what
we
were
all
blessed
enough
to
do
and
that's
build
a
life
we've
heard
from
right,
retirees
I
think
it
was
Lorinda
rendy
who
said
that
the
last
code
passed
before
passed
before
she
was
born
and
now
she's
her
words,
not
mine.
A
senior
citizen,
and
it's
time
and
I,
found
myself
thinking.
C
We
have
15
children
on
our
block
and
next
to
me,
there's
a
Cottage
Court
on
one
side.
On
the
other
side,
there's
a
house
that
I'm
pretty
sure
is
renting
out
a
whole
bunch
of
rooms
across
the
street
from
me
is
a
Triplex
diagonal.
There's
two
single-family
homes,
then
a
tiny
home.
Then
there's
a
house
with
about
five
units
in
it
and
then
there's
a
house-
that's
probably
two
million
dollars,
but
all
of
us
know
each
other.
C
We
all
have
that
opportunity
to
engage
with
seniors
little
bitty
kiddos
everybody
in
between
and
the
kids
like
Fiona
can
cross.
The
street
offer
offer
a
cookie
ask
for
some
ice
cream
see
if
she
can
play
in
the
yard,
and
that
is
what
neighborhoods
all
around
the
city
were
before
the
last
code
and
they
can
be
again
as
we
create
space
for
the
people
that
call
this
place
home
today
and
into
the
future.
C
No,
my
I
I
keep
thinking
about
Mr
Bay,
House
bay
horse
I,
can't
quite
remember
in
the
garages
they're
going
to
be
things
from
this
this
week.
That
I
remember
the
geese,
the
garages,
the
meditation
a
couple
different
things,
but
when
I
was
born,
my
parents
lived
above
a
garage
and
and
I
guess
you
know
now
it's
called
an
Adu
in
a
tiny
Adu
above
a
garage
when
I
was
a
toddler.
We
lived
in
an
apartment,
complex
and
surrounded
by
other
families
that
were
doing
the
same.
You
know
when
I
was
born.
C
C
Employers
know
that
homes
matter
each
and
every
one
of
us
knows
that
homes
matter
no
matter
the
size
type,
as
you
said
that
we
need
all
the
different
types
of
homes
in
this
place
for
all
the
different
types
of
people,
all
the
different
types
of
Ages
and
we've
got
to
take
care
of
people
and
what
we've
seen
I'd
say
in
this
decades-long
process.
But
ultimately,
in
this
vote
is
the
boiseans
won't
turn
their
backs
on
people
and
that's
the
mistake.
C
Other
places
have
made,
and
we've
shown
time
and
time
again
that
we
won't,
and
so
you
know,
as
we
started
this
week,
I
knew
this
was
a
really
important
thing.
It's
one
of
many
tools,
but
it
is
singularly
probably
the
most
impactful
tool
that
this
Council,
who
has
prioritized
homes
for
people.
Despite
all
of
the
challenges
in
the
last
three
years,
this
Council
has
worked
to
ensure
that
we
have
homes
for
people
in
the
city.
C
This
is
truly
the
most
impactful
tool
and
that
we've
been
able
to
add
to
the
toolbox
and
I
thank
each
and
every
one
of
you
for
your
support.
Your
commitment
to
our
residents
and
our
neighborhoods
and
everybody
that
had
a
hand
in
it,
because
this
is
a
really
special
day
for
for
all
of
us,
but
importantly
for
our
kids
and
grandkids
and
the
neighborhoods
and
the
people
that
make
this
place.
The
city
that
it
is
thank
you
and
clerk.
Will
you
call
the
role.