►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Work Session
Description
March 1, 2022 @ 3:30 PM
B
A
B
A
C
C
So
those
are
what
we've
heard,
but
we
really
want
to
give
you
the
opportunity
to
tell
us
what
you
are
thinking
provide
us,
the
direction
that
we
need.
As
we
continue.
Our
community
outreach
efforts
throughout
the
month
of
march
and
half
of
april.
So
with
that,
I
would
love
to
hear
any
comments
that
you
have
and
then
we'll
be
available
for
any
questions
that
you
might
have
as
well.
A
A
E
E
Lots
of
things
to
to
be
excited
about,
especially
the
fact,
for
instance,
that
we're
allowing
more
units
on
single-family
lots
that
we're
allowing
more
units
in
general,
especially
excited
about
the
ideas
of
figuring
out
ways
to
reduce
the
amount
of
parking
required
so
that
we
can
use
land
more
efficiently,
but,
of
course,
the
devil's
in
the
details.
We
all
know
that,
and
so
for
me
once
we
got
into
the
details,
there
were
some
things
that
you
touched
on
here.
E
It's
not
necessarily
built
on
what
we'd
like
to
see
get
built,
especially
in
new
environment,
or
you
know
your
blank
cloth.
What
would
you
do
with
it?
And
so
I'd
like
to
suggest
that?
Maybe
we
flip
that
on
its
head,
that
we
decide
what
is
it
we
would
like
to
see
get
built
both
in
the
mixed-use
zones
and
in
the
single
family
zones?
What
kind
of
pattern?
E
E
We
have
a
lot
of
built
environment
in
this
city
that
is
not
like.
The
central
bench
is
not
like
the
north
and
east,
and
it's
not
like
the
old
post
neighborhood
up
on
fairview,
but
in
fact,
is
built
from
1966
forward
after
our
existing
code
was
in
existence,
and
those
neighborhoods
are
a
different
pattern.
E
I
think,
than
what
we
had
historically
and
what
we
hope
to
move
toward
and
so
figuring
out
those
exceptions
that
ensure
that
the
folks
who
live
in
those
neighborhoods
and
the
context
of
those
neighborhoods
today
can
go
forward
in
a
productive,
high
quality
of
life
way,
while
still
encouraging
the
new
built
environment
to
get
built
in
the
ways
that
I
think
many
of
us
have
envisioned.
We'd
like
to
see
so
without
getting
into
more
details
to
me,
that's
the
high
level
set
of.
F
What
I'd
hoped
yeah
I
agree,
and
when
I
was
kind
of
going
through
module
two,
I
was
looking
at
it
from
the
lens
of
what
this
is
a
forward-looking
document.
This
is
a
forward-looking
set
of
statute
and
we
want
to
create
something
that
is
consistent
with
our
vision
for
the
future
of
boise,
not
necessarily
boise,
as
it
is
right
now,
but
you
know
what
we
want
to
see
in
20
years
when,
as
this
zoning
code
is
aging,
what
do
we
want?
F
Boise
to
look
like,
and
so
I,
as
I
was
reading
through
a
lot
of
those
setbacks
and
height
limitations.
I
was
really
thinking
well,
this
is
you
know
this
feels
very
suburban
to
me.
It
doesn't
encompass
things
like
bound
crossing.
It
doesn't
encompass
some
of
the
areas
that
are
so
successful
in
our
city
and
a
lot
of
those
areas
wouldn't
be
able
to
be
built
under
the
proposals
in
module
two,
and
so
I
I
was
thinking
about
things
like
height
in
a
mixed-use
activity
center.
F
G
G
And
many
of
the
you
know,
but
not
many
but
a
lot
of,
for
instance,
perfectly
wonderful
homes
in
the
north
end
just
couldn't
be
built
today
or
the
75
subdivision
rule
for
lots,
makes
it
almost
impossible
for
large
neighborhoods
with
large
lots
to
redevelop
into
density
and
infill.
And
I
don't
think
that's
you
know.
I
think
it's
a
symptom
of
one
of
the
challenges
that
the
council
president
and
pro-tem
brought
up,
which
is
in
my
mind-
and
this
is
not
my
area
of
pure
expertise
by
any
stretch,
but
it
feels
like
the
structure
of
module.
G
I
have
several
pages
of
notes
of
specific
examples,
but
the
running
theme
is
oftentimes
in
order
to
get
to
the
city
we
want
in
this
code
we
have
to,
we
would
have
to
find
an
exception
or
go
through
a
process
or
sometimes
write
the
exception
into
the
code,
and
I
think
we
can
do
better.
I
think
we
can
write
the
code,
that's
what
we
want
and
then
create
exceptions
for
the
things
we
don't
want.
G
H
Yup
my
thoughts
at
this
point
are
pretty
consistent.
I
think,
with
what
everybody
else
has
already
said.
There's
been
several
circumstances
over
the
last
two
years,
where
I've
voted
no
for
proposals
that
I
wondered
about
yes
for,
but
I
didn't
think
that
it
fit
a
predictable
development
pattern
and
what
was
sort
of
alarming
to
me
was
when,
in
our
first
kind
of
feedback
session
that
we
got
from
the
public
somebody
said
well,
is
council
going
to
support
this
as
written
and
what
all
of
a
sudden
I
kind
of
realized
was
if
it's
not
broad
enough.
H
H
And
if
we're
truly
trying
to
focus
on
having
a
more
walkable
bikeable,
less
car
centric
city.
I
still
think
that
a
lot
of
the
parking
requirements
are
way
too
big
for
for
most
of
the
stuff
that
we
see
on
there
and-
and
I
would
love
to
explore
how
we
could
really
take
a
look
at
parking
and
make
sure
that
we're
not
requiring
too
much
so
that
we're
creating
empty
parking
lots
in
the
future.
That
may
not
be
needed.
G
One
other
thing
that
I
wanted,
I
meant
to
bring
up
earlier
because
I
think
we
all
have
said
so
far.
Flexibility
is
good
the
challenge
and
I
don't
completely
know
how
to
solve
it,
is
that
you
know
what
we
want.
I
think
is
flexibility
without
ambiguity,
so
you
can
create
a
ton
of
flexibility
in
the
code
by
just
inserting
the
word
may
into
every
sentence
and
that's
not
the
goal,
because
we
want
the
public,
current
residents,
developers
etc,
to
be
able
to
look
at
the
code
and
predict
what
will
happen.
G
A
broad
and
open
enough
code
that
the
community
can
be
flexible
in
how
it's
building
moving
into
a
neighborhood
living
there,
etc
without
worrying
that
the
code
will
restrict
them
in
some
way.
So
the
code
is
flexible
in
the
sense
that
it
doesn't
vest
discretion
with
a
planner.
It
doesn't
vest
discretion
with
the
city
council.
The
code
is
flexible
in
a
sense
that
it's
permissive.
G
They
sometimes
don't
bring
projects
to
us,
because
under
our
current
code
they
can't
tell
if
it
would
be
allowed
and,
and
then
their
deal
falls
apart,
part
the
issue
there
is
that
that
means
we're
not
seeing
things
that
we
would
approve
we're
not
seeing
things
that
we
would
be
like.
Yes,
this
is
great.
We
want
it,
and
so,
when
I
say
flexibility
in
the
code,
it
needs
to
be
predictable
from
the
public
side
as
well.
I
Thank
you,
I'm
I'm
struggling
with
the
same
as
patrick
with
you
know
this
free
flow
conversation.
I
I
have
a
couple
of
comments.
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what's
been
said,
something
that
I
think
I've
heard
over
and
over
again
from
folks
is
that
that
the
level
of
predictability
that
council
member
halliburton
said
is
important.
You
know
we
are
largely
infill
city
at
this
point
unless
we
have
major
development
in
certain
areas.
I
So
I
think
we
have
to
think
about
what
that
looks
like
my
biggest
concern
is
that
we
allow
the
market
to
do
what
it
needs
to
do
to
help
us
drive
down
prices,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
that
opportunity
to
do
that
in
ways
that
help
the
help-
those
who
want
to
live
here.
So
I'd
like
to
see
you
know
more
opportunities
for
for
larger
numbers
of
folks
to
be
able
to
to
have
housing
in
the
city
of
boise.
But
I
know
this
is
what
this
is
all
about.
I
A
Councilmember,
I
was
just
wondering
I
didn't
catch
something
you
said
I
was
hoping
you
could
repeat
it
for
me.
You
said
you
want
to
be
sure
that
we
can
allow
the
market
to,
and
now
of
course
I
didn't
interrupt
you,
so
I
didn't
get
it
right,
but
allow
the
market
to
help
us
and
then
something-
and
I
I
didn't
catch
that
part
and
I
think
that
was
key.
I
There's
a
different
level
of
parking
need.
I
think
there
was
definitely
an
issue
about
parking
in
west
boise,
particularly
on
the
for
four
plexes,
and
I'd
like
to
get
some
clarification
on
exactly
how
much
parking
would
be
the
minimum
there.
But
I
do
think
there's
areas
of
the
city
where
you
have
to
have
a
car,
and
I
think
we
need
to
be
mindful
of
that.
Not
it
not
everyone
can
bike
or
walk
to
work
in
areas
of
the
city.
H
And
I
guess
just
to
be
clear
as
far
as
parking
goes,
I
think
specifically,
where
we
need
to
address
is
more
on
the
office
and
the
commercial
side
of
things.
There
may
be
some
slight
inconsistencies
that
I
think
I
sent
some
specific
details
over
in
some
residential
areas.
I'm
not
particularly
concerned
about
things
that
I
saw
in
there.
I
think
it's
more
of
the
commercial
and
office
that
we're
looking
at
and
typically
seeing
places
that
are
severely
over
parked.
H
You
know
90
of
the
time
and
making
sure
that
we're
using
that
land
the
best
way
that
we
possibly
can.
So
I
do
agree
that
when
it
comes
to
neighborhoods
and
when
it
comes
to
houses,
we
do
definitely
do
do
need
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
proper
parking
there.
The
commercial
office
space,
in
particular,
some
of
the
smaller
office
and
commercial
space,
is
where
I'm
particularly
concerned.
D
Thank
you
appreciate
it.
Like
councilman
beijing,
said,
I'm
not
an
expert
when
it
comes
to
this
stuff,
so
I'm
just
going
to
go
based
on
what
I've
read
and
maybe
it
might
be
semantics,
but
I
don't
know
if
it's
a
technical
term
to
the
industry,
but
I
know
how
I
receive
it.
When
I
look
at
it
when
I
see
something
that
says
protecting
existing
neighborhoods.
D
But
if
there's
anything,
I've
learned
from
from
this
experience
as
a
renter
for
nearly
oh
gosh
more
like
12
years
now
that
we
need
to
do
whatever
we
can
to
diminish
that
attitude
of
that
newcomers
to
our
community
to
our
neighborhoods
are
are
going
to
harm
the
existing
neighborhoods.
So
if
there's
something
we
can
do
to
just
change
that
language,
I
think
we're
perpetuating
that
mentality
when
we,
when
we
say
things
like
protect
the
neighborhood,
so
that's
my
two
cents.
G
I
want
to
jump
in
on
that
because
it
I
agree
with
you
completely,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
things
to
unpack
in
that
one
is
a
legacy
to
some
concerning
language
like
just
a
phraseology
right,
but
the
other
is
that
protecting
existing
neighborhoods
without
a
really
clear
explanation
of
what
it
is
kind
of
feels
like
protecting
the
status
quo
and
part
of
what
we're
responding
to
is
the
status
quo,
not
working
we're?
Not.
We
don't
have
enough
places
for
renters
in
our
city.
G
We
don't
have
enough
places
for
people
making
the
median
income
to
live
and
so
protecting
existing
neighborhoods.
It's
almost
like
a
prism.
You
can
look
at
it
from
different
sides
and
see
different
things,
but
this
was
something
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up,
because
in
the
current
drafts
protecting
existing
neighborhoods
section,
there
are
some
references
to
protecting
things
that
aren't
recognized
as
rights
under
idaho
law,
for
instance
sunlight
or
views,
and
I.
G
H
G
Even
really
exist
in
idaho
law,
and
so
this
was
something
I
wanted
to.
You
know
expressly
bring
up,
because
I
think,
if
we're
going
to
use
concepts
like
protecting
existing
neighborhoods,
we
need
to
be
really
clear
about
what
we
mean
and
we
need
probably
not
to
be
granting
any
more
rights
or
any
more
rights
to
veto
than
currently
exist.
F
One
of
the
things
reflected
in
module
two
is
the
it's
continuing.
The
status
quo
of
adus
only
being
allowed
on
owner-occupied
sites,
owner-occupied
lots,
and
I
know
that
this
has
been
controversial.
I
know
we've
heard
a
lot
of
feedback
from
neighborhoods
who
would
like
to
protect
the
status
quo
and
only
allow
adus
on
owner-occupied
lots,
but
I
think
that
we
should
seriously
look
at
if
that
is
a
smart
policy
for
a
city
moving
forward.
F
I
know
a
lot
of
property
owners
who
would
love
to
have
two
rental
properties
on
one
lot
and
that
doubles
density
in
a
really
easy
way
for
renters.
So
I
think,
as
we're
having
this
conversation,
that's
something
that
we
should
really
be
considering.
I
think
it
could
be
an
easy
way
to
build
density
into
existing
neighborhoods
in
a
way
that
honors
their
history.
G
E
For
me,
I
needed
to
see
that
again
yeah
exactly
so.
I
think
I
think
I
heard
support
for
kind
of
flipping
what
we
have
today
in
one
that's
built
with
suburban
setbacks
to
one
that's
built
with
the
setbacks
and
dimensional
standards
that
we
want
to
see
and
with
exceptions
for
context,
and
I
won't
call
them
protections
but
exceptions
that
recognize
and
respond
to
the
context
of
what's
around
it.
E
So
to
that
end,
the
dimensional
standards.
I
think
many
of
us
feel
that
they're
very
generous,
especially
in
the
r1c
zone,
that
the
setbacks
don't
necessarily
encourage
what
we
want.
As
an
example,
I
would
say:
there's
a
20-foot
front
setback
15-foot
under
some
circumstances,
it's
assumed
that
it's
from
the
right-of-way
line,
but
if
the
right-of-way
goes
to
the
back
of
sidewalk
and
the
sidewalks
attached
20
feet
is
actually
you
know
is
different
than
if
the
sidewalk's
detached
and
it's
20
feet.
E
So
I'd
like
to
get
very
specific
on
that
and
try
to
encourage
actually
that
we
have
less
right-of-way,
more
private
space
sidewalks
in
easements
and
a
setback
from
the
back
of
sidewalk.
That's
not
nearly
as
generous.
That
still
puts
you,
20
feet
from
the
street,
still
puts
you.
You
know
a
a
long
ways
from
the
activity
that
that
you
need
to
be
from
if
you're
a
residential
property,
but
it
also,
if
that's
the
standard,
I
think,
would
encourage
more
efficient
use
of
land
and
less
right-of-way.
E
That
means
more
lands
on
the
tax
rolls
frankly,
and
if
you
did
it
in
a
way
that
said,
if
you
do
this,
and
you
have
an
alley,
then
you
do
get
a
parking
reduction,
because
now
you
know
that
we
can
use
the
street
parking.
I
went
and
looked
at
the
neighborhood
in
west
boise.
That
was
spoken
about
it
that
but
the
meeting
out
there
and
every
unit
has
a
double
driveway
and
there's
no
on-street
parking,
that's
really
feasible,
and
so
the
on-street
parking
is
now
gone
to
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood.
E
E
I'm
not
going
to
pretend
to
tell
you
exactly
what
those
measurements
are,
but
I
think
you
understand
what
what
that
might
be
so
dimensional
standards
that
way
dimensional
standards
in
height,
we
talked
about
allowing
the
kind
of
product
that
might
reduce
costs
so
that
people
would
be
more
likely
to
find
a
reasonably
priced
home,
whether
owner
occupied
or
rented
at
35
feet.
It's
really
difficult
to
build
a
three-story
building.
E
If
you're
going
to
build
a
stick
plex
today,
a
new
product
that
can
be
built
on
a
very
small
footprint,
it
really
needs
to
be
three
stories,
and
so
everything
I've
read
said
that
for
those
you
need
a
40
foot
height
limit,
at
least
so,
for
instance,
look
at
that
height
limit,
especially
in
the
r1c
and
our
nr2
in
the
r2.
In
fact,
it
could
be
bigger,
it
could
be
taller
yet
in
the
r1c
potentially
allow
smaller
lots
if
you
give
up
the
right
to
extra
units.
E
E
No
setbacks
build
two
lines
parking
if
it's
to
the
side
again
right
to
where
the
bill
2
line
is
with
a
screen
wall,
but
don't
let's
not
waste
a
lot
of
land
in
those
very
important
places
on
things
like
sevex
and
don't
force
one
owner
to
have
to
buy
it
all.
In
order
to
get
the
zero
setback
in
between
buildings,
we
should
be
allowing
it
incrementally
and
then
finally,
for
me,
the
the
parking,
I
think,
is
something
that's
contextual,
but
I
think
there
are
places
no
parking
for
very
small
businesses.
E
Those
are
typically
locally
owned.
Those
are
things
we
want
us.
They
traditionally
have
not
needed
parking
in
our
traditional
neighborhoods.
I
think
we
can
get
away
with
that
and
then
finally,
I
didn't
see
any
regulations
or
any
guidelines
from
the
city
about
streetscape
and
various
things
like
that.
E
H
H
But
then
also
sometimes
we
have
some
minimum
lot
widths
as
well,
and
maybe
I
need
to
build
some
understanding,
I'm
not
quite
sure
why
those
are
always
needed
in
all
of
our
different
types
of
zones.
If
we
have
the
lot
max
or
the
minimum
lot
width
already,
you
know
what
is
that
minimum
or
the
minimum
lot
size?
What
does
that?
Minimum
width
get
us,
and
so
I
guess
that's
kind
of
like
a
statement
and
a
question
that
I
ran
into
on
a
variety
of
different
areas.
E
Well,
for
me,
the
minimum
lot
size
is
too
big.
That's
why
I
suggested
that
maybe
something
we
could
consider
is
allowing
those
to
be
split
even
further
in
return,
for
you
know
not
having
the
right
to
do
four
units
on
the
further
split.
For
instance,
the
you
know
the
smaller
lots
we
can
get
the
more
housing
we
get
on
those
on
the
on
that
land,
yep.
E
G
For
that
one,
and
I
think
we
need
more
flexibility
there
because
in
you
know
mixed
use
downtown
a
building.
I
think
it's
perfectly
reasonable
to
ask
for
80
feet
and
so
the
laudable
goal
of
reducing
the
number
of
zones.
I
think
in
some
cases,
has
resulted
in
just
sort
of
a
blending
and
averaging
of
all
the
permissibility
across
those
previous
zones.
G
And
I
guess
for
me
I
would
say
the
default
rule
for
the
new
blended
zone
should
be
the
most
liberalized
rule
from
the
oldest
of
the
zones
in
that
set,
and
then
we
can
tweak
and
adjust
from
there
to
create
restrictions
against
the
things
that
we
don't
want.
I
want
to
touch
briefly
on
the
sustainability
one,
because
it's
up
there
or
I'm
sorry
the
incentives
one
because
it's
up
there,
I
don't
know
where
other
people
had
concerns,
but
mine
was
with
the
sustainability
incentive
which
is
near
and
dear
to
me
anyway.
G
I
think
it
has
either
six
or
seven
different
benchmarks
that
a
builder
or
developer
can
hit,
and
then
they
qualify
for
this
incentive
and
as
I
was
reading
them,
I
think
they
need
either
three
or
four,
and
I
was
reading
them
like
gosh.
If
the
developer
did
two,
that
would
be
great,
and
so
I
wonder
if
we
reduce
the
number
of
things
they
need
to
hit
watch
for
the
next
10
years
and
see
how
many
of
them
are
hitting
them
and
then
gosh.
E
I
would
agree
with
that
one
with
with
one
exception:
I
don't
know
that
parking
reduction
should
be
a
sustainability
incentive.
I
think
if
we
want
parking
reductions,
we
ought
to
say
we
want
parking
reductions
and
well.
Certainly
sustainability
is
supported
by
non-um,
motorized
transportation
use
not
sure
for
me
anyway.
That
one
is
quite
the
way
to
get
it.
F
One
thing
that
I
hear
when
I
go
out
in
the
community
and
talk
to
people
is
their
desire
to
have
walkable,
neighborhoods
and
walkable
commercial
opportunities
in
their
neighborhoods,
and
so
I
think
that
it
would
behoove
us
to
make
sure
that
you
know
maybe
a
conditional
use.
Yes,
definitely
a
conditional
use
permit
would
be
needed
for
a
bar
in
a
residential
zone
like
would
we
grant
that?
I
don't
know,
but
I
think
that
they
need
to
be
allowed
in
commercial
zones
regardless
of
how
far
from
a
residential
zone
they
are.
F
F
It
does
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we
want
to
do
for
the
future
of
our
city,
and
I
think
also
you
know,
there's
some
things
that
need
to
be
outright
allowed,
like
people
creating
artists
and
enterprises
in
their
home
or
in
residential
zones
that
aren't
outright
allowed
here,
and
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
concern
about
businesses,
creating
car
traffic
and
neighborhoods
and
that
type
of
thing.
But
I
really
think
that
these
things
can
coexist
in
a
way
that
we
shouldn't
discourage
with
zoning.
E
For
me,
that
brings
up
one
more
thing
on
the
the
r3
zones:
don't
allow.
I
I'm
I'm
a
little
unsure
why
we
have
r3
zones,
they
don't
allow
any
mixed
use.
They
allow
limited
food
service.
I
think
I
can't
remember
exactly
what
it's
called
and
nothing
else.
So
essentially,
what
we're
saying
is
that
our
three
zones
are
for
big
apartment
complexes
and
they
can't
have
anything
else
in
them,
except
big
apartments,
and
I'm
I
I
I
would
almost
be
in
favor
of
just
getting
rid
of
them
and
making
all
of
them
mixed
use
activity.
E
E
E
E
I
I
believe,
if
we
make
it
less
complicated
and
more
clear
and
move
more
toward
building
mass
and
footprint
rather
than
setbacks
and
so
forth,
we
probably
don't
need
to
move
in
the
direction
of
so
much
more.
Dr,
I
think
if
we
adopt
the
neck
neck
code
guidelines
or
something
similar,
it
will
also
reduce
the
amount
of.
B
B
C
E
E
The
specific,
separate
outdoor
spaces
that
have
to
be
outside
of
a
setback,
for
instance,
I
think,
could
prohibit
the
typical
fourplex
product
from
being
built.
Maybe
we
don't
want
that
product.
So
if
we
don't
want
that
product,
what
product
do
we
want?
And
let's
figure
out
how
that
r1b
works
to
actually
easily
allow
that
product
to
get
built?
But
for
me
otherwise
the
r1b
does
fit
with
the
context
of
where
most
of
it
will
be
applied.
G
I'll
pick
you
back
there,
I
think
that's
right,
but
I
wanted
to
underline
the
council
president's
comment
that
the
individual,
specific
rules,
setbacks,
open
space
out
of
sight
to
set
back
lot
size,
etc
in
that
zone
may
add
up
to
there
really
not
being
very
many
viable
multiplex
type
properties
to
be
built,
and
that
would
be
an
example
of
the
earlier
concern.
The
high
level
concern
I
expressed
where
our
bottom
line
goals
are
right
on
track,
but
then
the
specifics
are
tangling
us
up
as
we
try
to
get
to
them.
C
Thank
you
and
then
for
a
parking
follow-up.
We
heard
us
talk
a
little
bit
about
single
family,
we're
moving
in
a
positive
direction
for
single-family,
duplex,
triplex
and
four-plex.
We
would
like
to
see
a
reduction
in
commercial.
Is
there
any
thoughts
in
regard
to
multi-family?
Are
we
comfortable
where
we
are?
Do
we
need
a
positive
momentum
in
a
different
direction?.
G
Well
I'll
jump
in
the
parking
formulas
that
I
saw
and
I
tried
to
do.
Some
math
with
in
small
multi-family
buildings,
add
up
to
a
lot
of
parking
because
we
use
fractions
for
infants
and
then
we
round
up
and
then
we
get
to
a
certain
number
and
we
need
an
ada
space.
But
then
it
has
to
be
an
ada
space
that
accommodates
a
van
which
is
functionally
another
parking
space
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
you're
to
a
passerby
like
way
over
parked.
G
E
And
for
me,
the
other
thing
on
the
parking
that
we
could
consider
is
the
context
I
think
councilmember
willis
talked
about
it.
Well,
if
it's
a
place
that
is
very
walkable
that
does
have
good
transit
access.
We
already
allow
reductions,
but
let's
look
at
that
closely
and
see
if
we
can
allow
even
more
or
maybe
even
get
rid
of
them
all
together
in
the
perfect
location.
A
A
I
Andrew
I
had
a
quick
question
about
a
triplex
or
a
multiplex.
Can
you
describe
how
much
parking
is
actually
available?
Is
it?
I
only
saw
one
spot
and
that
concerned
me.
So
can
you
give
me
some
clarification
if
you
have
a
duplex,
how
much
parking
is
the
minimum
walk
me
through
that
really
quickly?
Please.
C
Madam
mayor
counselors,
if
you
were
to
build
a
duplex
today,
you
would
be
required
to
provide
two
parking
spaces
per
unit,
so
that
would
be
a
total
of
four
under
the
new
code.
You'd
be
required
one
parking
space
per
unit
for
a
total
of
two,
and
that
would
also
happen
for
a
triplex.
So
if
you
were
under
the
proposed
code,
you
would
provide
three
parking
spaces
for
the
three
units
and
then
the
one
anomaly
with
the
four
plex
is
now
once
we
have
a
four
unit
or
greater.
C
C
D
Mayor
as
as
I'm
reading
this,
some
of
the
things
that
are
give
as
given
as
examples
is,
protecting,
you
know
somebody
being
able
to
access
sunlight,
protecting
folks
from
light
pollution
protecting
folks
from
commercial
lighting.
That,
to
me
would
be
compelling,
is
it
is?
Are
there
health
concerns
regarding
this?
That
would
be
compelling
to
me
if,
if
by
bringing
this
development,
we
could
be
taking
that
into
consideration.
Because
to
me
when
I,
when
I
hear
protection,
I
really
hear
protection
like.
Are
you
protecting
somebody
from
an
adverse
condition?
D
That's
that's
not
just
about
well,
wouldn't
it
be
nice
to
have
my
view.
Wouldn't
it
be
nice,
but
is
this?
Would
this
be
harming
like
real
harm?
Is
it
causing
and
is
it
putting
particular
neighborhoods
in
a
position
where,
where
there,
where
they
don't
get
these
amenities
like
sunlight,
like
clean
air,
that
sort
of
thing
so
for
me,
that's
what
it
would
be
compelling.
G
I'll
jump
in,
I
think
number
one
protecting
our
neighborhoods
means
people
are
safe
number
two.
It
means
people
of
all
walks
of
life,
single
people,
families,
elderly
people,
have
a
place
to
live
there
number
three.
It
means
people
have
access
to
economic
opportunities
in
one
way
or
another,
whether
they're
working
from
their
home,
whether
they
want
to
start
a
business,
whether
they
can
commute
to
where
it
is
that
they
work
this,
and
then
you
know
number
three
that
there's
some
open
space
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood.
G
G
Protecting
a
neighborhood,
in
my
mind,
means
protecting
the
neighborhood,
safe,
accessible,
open
economic
opportunity,
all
walks
of
life.
That's
a
neighborhood
to
me.
That's
that's
what
we
want
to
protect.
So
for
me,
that's
the
north
star
and
that's
not
the
same
as
not
allowing
development
of
a
certain
kind
or
protecting
certain
uses
from
other
uses.
It's
it's.
You
know
a
neighborhood
is
something
much
more
abstract
than
that,
but
those
values
I
think
I
just
described
kind
of
get
to
the
heart
of
it.
E
Protection
to
me
is
not
buffers,
that's
the
other
thing.
That's
in
this
code
that
bothers
me
a
bit
that
somehow,
if
we
put
a
barrier
between
issues
and
that
use
it's
going
to
be
okay,
to
put
the
use
there,
protection
to
me
is
making
sure
that
the
context
of
whatever
the
use
is
is
the
right
context
for
that
location
and
built
in
such
a
way
that
they're
compatible
side
by
side
without
a
buffer
buffers
create
divisions.
E
C
E
B
A
A
A
But
this
is
just
in
time
for
spring
and
summer
and
festival
season
and
when
so
much
of
the
community
is
ready
to
get
back
together
and
celebrate,
and
so
I
wanted
to
get
this
in
front
of
council
for
work
sessions.
So
then
we
can
move
ahead
and
give
some
certainty
to
blocks
of
businesses
and
others
that
are
looking
forward
to
encouraging
gathering
this
summer.
J
Madam
mayor
council
members,
thank
you
for
having
me
here
today,
I'm
going
to
switch
things
around
a
little
bit
here.
I'm
happy
to
be
here
today
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
festival
block
ordinance
and
to
really
provide
you
an
overview
of
the
ordinance
that
is
being
proposed.
So,
as
the
mayor
mentioned,
we
are
taking
a
look
at
the
history
today.
How
we
got
to
where
we
are
today
the
input
that
we
had
from
stakeholders
and
the
goals
that
they
put
forth
and
worked
with
us
to
achieve.
J
J
J
So
with
regards
to
this
particular
ordinance,
it
was
stakeholder
initiated.
So
the
actual
bas
block,
along
with
a
local
attorney
who
was
looking
at
alcohol
code
within
the
city,
came
to
us
and
said
hey.
How
can
we
make
festival
blocks?
How
can
we
make
events
work
with
businesses
in
various
locations
and
we
did
initially
start
the
conversation
very
specific
to
the
bas
block
itself.
J
With
regards
to
that,
we
took
a
look
at
the
goals
of
the
businesses
and
some
of
the
challenges
that
they
were
seeing
as
well,
which
included
accessibility
during
events.
So
what
does
that
mean
seems
like
it
would
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
have
a
lot
of
events
outside
of
your
business?
More
people
are
going
to
come
in,
more
people
are
going
to
see
your
business
they're
going
to
want
to
patronize
your
business,
but
at
the
same
time
those
people
are
there
for
a
special
event.
J
They're
focused
on
that
event
and
they
may
or
may
not
patronize
your
business
at
the
same
time,
because
of
that
event
right
outside
your
door,
it
may
exclude
people
or
make
other
people
who
might
otherwise
come
and
see
your
establishment
not
come
in
because
of
that
other
event
that
they
may
not
have
any
interest
in
or
might
not
want
to
fight
the
crowds
etc.
So
pros
and
cons
of
having
events
right
outside
your
door.
J
So
the
request
was
really.
How
do
we
become
more
engaged
as
a
business?
How
can
we
economically
potentially
benefit
more
if
we
were
involved
in
those
special
events,
so
the
request
specifically
came?
Can
we
have
alcohol
flow
in
and
out
of
our
specific
businesses
in
to
these
special
event,
areas
I'll
back
up
a
little
bit
because
current
code,
current
alcohol
laws
do
not
allow
that
to
occur.
The
city
has
an
open
container
policy,
so
there
is
no
open
container.
J
That
is
allowed
on
the
street.
We
have
some
license
premise
issues.
You
can
only
keep
your
alcohol
within
your
licensed
premise.
You
cannot
have
alcohol,
leave
your
premise
or
go
on
to
another
licensed
premise,
so
those
were
all
things
that
we
discussed
in
order
to
have
the
open
container
we
needed
to
change
code,
or
we
needed
to
have
a
mechanism
in
which
to
do
that.
J
As
such,
we
initially
talked
about
let's
just
open
up
and
make
these
areas
open
container
areas
and
had
that
discussion
really
came
into
some
additional
challenges
and
unintended
consequences.
If
we
were
to
move
forward
in
that
direction,
if
we
move
strictly
to
open
containers
in
certain
areas,
that
would
mean
anybody
at
any
time
day
or
night
could
come
in
and
have
an
open
container.
I
could
bring
my
six
pack
and
sit
on
the
bench
outside
of
one
of
these
businesses
24
7..
That
is
also
an
unintended
consequence.
J
That
was
not
something
that
we
wanted
to
see
so
because
of
that,
and
because
of
the
liabilities
that
we
saw
with
these
businesses
and
their
alcohol
licenses
potentially
being
at
risk.
If
people
left
their
establishment,
if
people
came
into
their
establishment
also
the
risk
to
patrons
if
they
left
an
establishment
not
knowing
and
had
an
open
container,
they
could
get
an
open
container
violation.
The
way
the
current
code
is
written.
So
again,
how
did
we
alleviate
and
address
all
of
those
concerns?
J
J
At
a
very
high
level,
we
took
a
broad
perspective,
so,
as
I
mentioned,
the
bask
block
came
to
us
and
said
hey.
How
can
we
achieve
this
for
our
block,
but
the
ordinance
itself
was
really
written
from
the
broad
perspective
of
how
could
we
implement
this
across
the
city
and
how
could
we
make
it
work
across
the
city
with
that?
It
would
become
a
festival
block
designation,
as
outlined
in
this
proposed
ordinance.
J
J
J
J
With
all
of
that
being
said,
talking
again
at
a
high
level
of
the
proposed
ordinance,
we
are
doing
a
consideration
from
all
of
the
block
businesses
and
the
residences
in
those
areas
and
requiring
75
percent
support
within
a
block
that
is
seeking
that
festival
block
designation.
So
we
ensure
that
it
meets
the
needs
of
that
particular
block.
J
Yes,
madam
mayor
councilmember,
it
would
be
of
the
actual
businesses
part
of
the
application
process
and
I'll
walk
through
that
in
a
minute
is
to
know
each
and
every
business
that
is
located
there,
and
so
we
would
need
contacts.
That's
obviously
operated
as
a
separate
business
within
that
albert
sense
and
would
be
recognized
as
such.
Okay.
E
J
Madam
mayor
councilmember
clegg,
we
would
look
at
individual
businesses
and
again
I
think
that
becomes
you
know
the
entity
and
how
they're
set
up.
So
if
the
food
court
itself
manages
all
of
those
different
businesses,
it
would
likely
be
one
if
they
all
were
a
separate
entity
and
had
different
owners.
They
would
be
looked
at
separately.
I
Madam
mayor,
I
had
a
question
sure:
go
ahead.
Jamie
help
me
understand
the
legal
definition
of
open
containers.
Are
we
just
talking
about
it
would
be
open
container
in
outside
spaces
or
within
these
blocks?
If
it's
open
container,
could
someone
take
that
and
go
into
a
business
that
may
not
serve
food
or
may
not?
Have
an
alcohol
license?
Walk
me
through
that.
J
Madam
mayor
councilmember
willetts,
so
a
bit
more
complex.
So
currently,
if
someone
had
a
drink
that
they
purchased
an
alcoholic
drink,
they
could
take
that
out
into
the
festival
block
zone
not
into
other
businesses,
not
into
other
businesses
that
have
licenses
with
alcohol.
If
that
makes
sense,
so
what
we
would
do
within
that
festival
block
is,
we
would
designate
a
very
specific
zone,
it
would
be
signed,
so
they
would
know
there
would
be
barriers
that
we
would
put
up.
J
J
J
E
E
It
doesn't
require
them
to
produce
a
document
with
a
reasoned
statement
or
findings
of
fact
or
something
that
would
be,
then
the
thing
that
we
could
go
back
to
on
an
appeal
or
that
you
could
all
look
at
when
you're
considering
it,
and
I
guess
I
would
just
like
to
suggest
that
we
should
require
some
kind
of
reason,
statement
that
we
can
hang
our
hat
on
and
not
just
a
recommendation.
Does
that
make
sense.
E
J
Madam
mayor
councilmember
clay
that,
in
fact,
is
not
within
this
code.
We
do
refer
everything
back
to
what
we
call
our
31a,
which
is
our
general
business
provisions,
and
it
does
require
that
if
we
deny
an
application
that
we
do
have
to
have
a
reason
statement
in
that
denial
letter
that
we
provide
to
them.
So
in
that
particular
case
with
regards
to
a
suspension
or
a
denial
or
a
revocation,
it
would
be
included
in
that.
J
J
All
right,
madam
mayor
council
members,
when
we
take
a
look
at
the
operation,
so
it's
great.
We
know
what
the
code
says.
We
know
the
reason
behind
it.
How
are
we
going
to
operate
this?
So
if
an
event
is
not
a
special
event
or
determines
not
to
opt
in
to
the
open
container,
they
can
do
that.
So
again,
this
is
a
special
event
applicant
that
would
determine
this
based
on
their
special
event.
J
So
if
that
is
the
case,
open
containers
would
not
be
allowed
and
alcohol
would
not
be
allowed
to
exit
the
business
so
pretty
straightforward
if
an
event
wanted
to
be
the
sole
alcohol
provider
or
caterer.
They
could
also
do
that.
We
ran
into
this
because
many
people
that
have
these
events-
alcohol
is
their
primary
means
of
raising
alcohol
and
they
want
the
revenue
from
all
of
those
alcohol
sales.
So
we
still
give
them
the
event
organizer
the
option
to
be
the
sole
provider
of
alcohol.
J
We
also
see
that,
with
things
like
tastings,
you
might
buy
a
ticket
and
do
tastings,
but
they
might
not
want
people
going
in
because
they
have
a
number
of
vendors
that
are
sponsors
of
their
events,
to
go
into
another
business
and
have
alcohol
flow
out.
So
again.
In
those
cases,
alcohol
would
not
be
allowed
to
exit
businesses
and
it
would
not
be
an
open
container
area.
It
would
be
contained
to
the
footprint
of
that
event.
On
that
festival
block.
J
So
then,
when
we
talk
about
open
container,
there
are
also
options
for
how
those
are
operated,
so
open,
container
configurations,
option
one
is
the
special
event
applicant
doesn't
seek
a
catering
permit.
They
don't
want
to
have
anything
to
do
with
alcohol.
They
set
up
their
event.
They
set
up
their
band
their
speakers.
What
have
you
and
they
just
allow
patrons
to
go
into
the
businesses,
get
drinks
and
come
back
into
that
open
container
zone
on
that
festival.
J
I'll
walk
through
these
next
sections
a
little
bit
more
quickly,
and
if
you
have
questions,
please
stop
me,
but
the
request
for
designation.
So
basically,
we
would
have
an
application
from
one
business
on
the
block
that
business
would
have
to
be
a
licensed
alcohol
provider
and
they
would
provide
payment
to
us
with
that
application
to
begin
the
process,
we've
not
yet
determined
how
much
that
payment
would
be.
We
have
that
standard
methodology
that
we
use
to
cover
our
administrative
costs.
J
Once
we
get
down
to
some
of
the
direction
from
you
today,
we'll
be
able
to
pinpoint
that
and
we'll
have
to
have
a
public
hearing
on
that
fee
portion
at
some
point
in
time.
However,
when
the
provider
actually
applies,
they
will
need
to
provide
us
with
copies
of
their
state
city
and
county
alcohol
licenses.
J
If
the
minimum
requirements
have
been
met,
then
what
we
would
do
is
set
up
a
public
hearing
to
get
additional
feedback.
Direct
written
notice
within
businesses
within
300
feet
would
be
provided
along
with
general.
Public
input
would
also
be
sought
and
we
would
hold
those
public
hearings
once
we
had
that
staff
would
make
a
recommendation
for
council
consideration
and
further
action.
F
J
J
Madam
mayor
councilmember
sanchez-
that
is
not
something
that
we
have
considered
at
this
point
in
time,
because
we
have
a
designation,
but
then
special
events
actually
apply
for
the
use
of
that
area
currently
per
the
special
event
ordinance.
We
have
not
limited
the
number
of
special
events,
but
certainly
something
that
we
we
have
considered
and
may
consider
in
the
future.
J
If
approved,
there
are
some
festival
block
requirements
that
need
to
be
taken
care
of
things
like
signage.
That
would
need
to
be
put
in
place.
Maybe
some
additional
staffing
considerations
to
minimize
the
risk
to
both
patrons
for
open
container
violations,
as
well
as
the
businesses
and
making
sure
that
their
license
is
compliant
with
current
codes.
J
So
with
that,
I
will
stand
for
any
questions
that
you
have
seek
your
input.
Once
we
have
your
input,
we
will
update
the
ordinance
accordingly,
it
will
be
moved
on
to
a
first
reading
calendar.
If
that
is
the
desire
of
the
council,
then
we
will
work
towards
system
development,
implementation,
community
outreach
and
then
would
like
to
recommend
his
staff
that
we
have
an
annual
review
of
this
ordinance
to
see
the
successes
and
challenges
that
we
have
seen
throughout
the
first
year.
F
Kind
of
mayor
so
jamie,
I
recently
heard
from
a
constituent
about
a
new
endorsement
on
alcohol
licenses.
I
can't
remember
if
it
was
from
the
county
or
the
state.
I
can't
remember
who
licenses
alcohol
premises
that
there's
a
sidewalk
cafe
endorsement
that
folks
can
seek.
Do
you
know
anything
about
that?
How
it
would
interface
with
this
would
would
alcohol
premises
need
an
additional
endorsement
on
their
alcohol
license?
How
would
that
all
work.
J
J
All
of
us
do
as
entities
as
either
part
of
the
footprint
of
that
business,
or
they
can
do
catering
permits,
depending
on
their
setup,
so
there's
a
couple
different
nuances,
but
I'm
not
aware
of
a
specific
endorsement.
Typically,
that
just
goes
along
with
their
licensed
premise
from
the
state
level
down
to
the
city,
okay,
but
I
will
look
into
that
and
see
if
there
is
a
specific
endorsement
that
has
been
added
thanks.
I
appreciate
it.
Yeah.
E
A
With
the
updates
or
addendums
presented
today
by
council,
thank
you
great,
thank
you,
and
now
we'll
have
bree
jump
right
to
in
with
us
about
e-scooters
and
just
as
a
refresher.
We,
we
discussed
this
as
a
city
gosh.
It
was
at
the
beginning
or
in
the
midst
of
covid
and
wanted
to
partner
in
this
experiment,
and
then
things
got
way
late
and
so
brie
is
back
now
with
the
steps
that
we
need
to
take
to
be
able
to
move
forward
as
a
vision.
K
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
council
members,
I'm
here
this
afternoon,
as
the
mayor
said,
to
review
the
upcoming
micro
mobility
pilot
and
the
proposed
code
amendments
supporting
that
I'm
joined
by
tyler
johnson
from
code
compliance.
If
we
have
any
specific
questions
about
e-scooter
compliance
I'll
go
into
the
details
of
the
pilot
a
little
bit
more
later,
but
just
a
general
overview
of
the
pilot
boise
was
approached
in
october
of
2020
to
be
the
first
city
in
the
country
to
pilot
these
new
devices.
K
The
deployment
area
that
we
have
proposed
for
these
devices
is
in
the
central
part
of
downtown.
This
allows
us
to
have
a
little
bit
more
visibility
where
our
code
compliance
teams
are
already
on
the
ground
and
really
be
able
to
test
that
performance
closely.
They
can
be
ridden
outside
of
this
deployment
area,
but
they
must
be
rebalanced
back
into
it,
and
this
is
where
they
would
start
their
day
during
this
time,
we're
asking
spin
to
rebalance
the
rest
of
their
fleet
into
other
places
outside
of
the
downtown
core.
F
K
K
K
And
on
your
screen,
you'll
see
the
proposed
code
amendments
that
support
this.
As
we
started
reviewing
this,
we
noticed
our
code
was
really
specific
to
two-wheeled
devices
for
e-scooters
and
e-bikes.
So
the
first
change
here
is
the
definition
of
e-scooter
changing
it
to
include
devices
that
have
three
wheels,
establishing
and
defining
a
pilot
program
as
a
study
that
would
not
exceed
six
months,
and
it
would
allow
mobility
operators
to
study
the
feasibility,
duration
and
adverse
event
of
a
mobility
proposal
before
they
would
officially
ask
to
bring
them
on
our
streets.
K
And
finally,
the
last
change
recommended
here
is
to
strike
the
requirement
stating
that
every
person
operating
in
a
bike,
e-bike
or
e-scooter
would
have
at
least
one
hand
on
the
handlebar,
while
they're
being
remotely
operated.
There
is
no
physical
hand
on
the
handlebar,
but
it
would
be
incredibly
difficult
to
do
this
anyway
as
to
operate.
An
e
by
three
scooter
you
would
have
to
to
power
the
device,
so
you
would
need.
E
K
A
G
Yeah
yeah
can,
I
propose
maybe
an
even
better
idea.
The
the
point
of
the
one-hand
requirement
is
that
we
want
people
to
be
in
control
of
the
vehicle
and
we
still
want
these
people
remotely
operating
these
things
to
be
in
control
of
the
vehicle.
So
some
language
that
says
you
know
something
like
remotely
operated
shall
be
directly
under
one
person's
control.
At
all
times
you
can't
run
six
of
them
at
the
same
time.
K
And
that
was
it.
The
next
steps
here
would
be
getting
this
on
the
first
reading
calendar
and
subsequently
bringing
you
the
pilot
contract
for
review
and
approval
and
then
immediately
beginning
some
community
outreach
to
get
folks
prepared
for
what
they're
going
to
see
out
there.
I'll
stand
for
any
questions.
A
All
right,
I'm
seeing
lots
of
nods.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you,
and
next
up
we
have
doug
holloway
doug
is
here
to
present
a
proposal
on
the
steps
that
meet
the
intent.
The
council
has
shared
with
parks
department
of
ensuring
that,
as
we
set
aside
as
we
acquire
and
set
aside
open
space
and
other
parcels,
there's
protections
that
go
beyond
us
and
so
doug
has
the
policy
proposal.
L
Good
afternoon,
thank
you,
madam
mayor
council,
members,
a
pleasure
to
be
back
with
you
again
to
discuss
our
lasting
protection
of
parks
and
open
space.
If
you
recall,
madam
mayor
council
members,
we
were
before
you
in
november,
giving
you
a
brief
outline
of
where
we
were
at
at
that
point.
In
time
we
were
given
some
direction
to
go
back
and
continue
to
look
at
different
assets
that
we
have
to
bring
back
a
confirmation
on
what
is
available
as
far
as
what
can
be
protected
in
the
future.
L
A
lot
of
our
reserve
is
across
different,
our
collaborative
consortiums
that
make
up
the
rigid
river
system.
So
some
is
in
the
city
limit.
Some
is
not,
and
so
we
we
would
propose
that
that
we
look
at
those
properties
and
make
sure
that
we're
including
them
in
an
asset
protection
program.
But
when
we
were
talking
about
park
space,
we
were
just
focusing
strictly
on
what
we
have
inside
the
city
limits
and
again
that
goal
is
to
prevent
anything
other
than
their
intended
uses
when
we
either
received
or
purchased
those
assets.
L
So
we
did
look
at
a
number
of
different
properties.
We
looked
at
a
total
of
103
park
sites
and
that's
both
our
developed
and
undeveloped
sites.
We
have
a
total
of
14
open
space
reserves
that
we
reviewed,
and
then
we
also
reviewed
our
25
miles
of
green
belt,
and
what
we
discovered
is
that
there
is
nothing
in
any
of
the
documents
that
we
looked
at
for
all
of
the
assets
we
have
in
our
inventory.
L
That
would
prevent
this
council
from
from
creating
a
lasting
protection
over
all
of
those
assets
and,
as
council
and
mayor
are
aware,
a
large
number
of
the
assets
we
already
have.
We've
received,
either
from
a
donation
agreement
or
in
a
purchase
cell
agreement
that
actually
does
provide
a
protection
over
that
asset
currently
and
and
when
we
look
at
what
we
have
we
have-
and
this
is
what
madam
mayor
council
members
asked
us
to
go
back
and
take
a
look
at.
We
do
have
eight
of
our
14.
L
Reserves
are
already
already
have
language
and
deed
restrictions
that
protect
them.
35
of
our
103
park
sites
also
already
have
those
protections
in
place,
and
then
there
was
an
ordinance
passed
in
1971
as
part
of
the
boise
river
greenbelt
comprehensive
plan
by
the
city
council
at
that
time.
That
preserves
the
entire
green
belt.
To
for
the
public
in
perpetuity,
so
the
greenbelt
itself
is
completely
protected,
currently
protected
as
well.
L
The
first
would
be
to
bring
a
policy
to
you
in
the
form
of
a
resolution
for
resolution,
for
you
to
vote
on
and
adopt
that
would
place
a
deed
restriction
on
all
public
parks,
open
space
and
also
the
green
belt
and
then
would
be
recorded
as
the
property
is
protected
for
its
intended
use.
So
the
language
would,
in
the
deed
restriction,
as
dictated
by
the
policy
that
you
would
pass
through
resolution
would
provide
that
overall
protection
for
everything
that
we
have
in
our
asset
inventory
now.
L
As
binding
of
an
action
that
we
can
that
we
can
put
on
our
property,
so
if
there
is
some
issues
in
the
future
with
future
councils
that
there
would
be
some
sort
of
legal
action
that
could
occur
so
the
the
next
steps-
and
I
actually
will
pause
there
since
that
is
what
our
legal
team
is
asking
for-
you
to
consider
via
resolution
I'll
pause
there
to
see.
If
there's
any
questions
before
we
move
to
what
what
could
would
be
considered,
the
next
steps.
F
L
Madam
mayor
council,
pro
tem
woody-
yes,
absolutely
that
would
be
part
of
the
policy
would
address
what
we
currently
have.
It
would
address
what
we
would
acquire
and
we
could
put
a
clause
in
there
that
even
that
during
annexation,
any
future
sites
that
would
become
part
of
the
city
limits
would
also
be
included
into
that
deed
restriction
as
well.
G
That
mayor,
yes,
one
question
and
one
comment:
the
question
is,
as
I
understand
it,
nothing
in
this
policy
would
prevent
us
from
acquiring
property
that
we
intend
to
use
in
the
future
for
some
non-open
space
purpose,
for
instance,
building
a
water
treatment
facility
or
adding
something
near
the
airport,
but
allowing
the
public
to
use
it
for
a
decade
or
two
as
open
space.
Until
we
get
to
the
point
in
time
where
we
plan
to
use
it
for
its
ultimate
purpose,.
L
Madam
mayor
council,
member
of
agent-
yes,
we
have
kicked
around
whether
we
wanted
to,
and
it
would
be
really
the
next
considerations
here
on
steps.
So
the
two
things
that
would
come
to
council
would
be
from
our
legal
team
would
be
the
the
potential
policy
for
your
consideration
for
you
to
review
ahead
of
time
to
look
at
to
give
suggestions
on
before
it
would
be
drafted
into
a
resolution
and
then
come
back
to
you
for
consideration.
So
that
would
be
one.
The
second
would
be
a
legal
memo
coming
from
our
legal
team.
L
That
would
give
you
the
verbiage
on
the
language
of
how
we
would
apply
the
deed
restrictions
that
would
give
us
the
opportunities,
then
to
build
in
some
of
the
verbiage
that
really
needs
to
be
applied
like,
for
example,
there
are
utility
easements,
for
example,
that
we
have
that
aren't
really
park
related
intended
uses,
but
they
are
legal
requirements
that
we
must
have
over
over
property
and
particularly
in
a
lot
of
our
reserves.
So
we
would
need
to
make
sure
we're
capturing
that
kind
of
language.
L
So
a
future
council
couldn't
say
you
know,
that's
not
part
of
the
park
and
could
create
a
legal
issue
for
a
future
council.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
we
capture
those
in
both
the
policy
and
the
deep,
particularly
in
the
deed
restrictions.
So
we'll
outline
some
of
the
hopefully
capture
everything
that
we
currently
have
to
deal
with
on
our
properties
that
really
are
part
of
a
park
a
park.
L
It
may
not
be
today's
attended
use,
but
in
20
years
from
now
it
could
be
an
attended
use
in
a
park,
and
so
I
think
outdoor
gyms,
for
example,
which
have
become
the
craze
over
the
last
10
years
20
years
ago.
They
weren't,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
the
language
is
such
that
it
gives
flexibility
for
future
councils
to
be
sure
that
the
park
is
still
being
maintained
for
its
intended
use,
but
doesn't
exclude
requirements.
We
have
for
easements.
E
G
My
one
comment
was
just
along
the
lines
of
trying
to
tie
and
restrict
future
councils.
We
should
be
humble
about
that.
They'll
be
facing
challenges,
we
can't
even
predict,
and
so
we
don't
need
to
make
it
so
punitive
that
we
put
people
in
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place
designating
a
park
is
a
big
deal
already
and
if
somebody's
going
down
that
road
they're
probably
facing
a
real
crisis,
so
there
was
just
a
comment.
G
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
and
we've
got
one
more
item
before
we
have
to
move
into
executive
session.
Actually
so
we're
going
to
keep
this
one
to
15
minutes
as
well,
and
that
gives
us
a
bit
of
time
for
exec
and
we'll
be
eating
during
it
and
but
come
on
up
we're
going
to
go
through
the
cities
of
city
trees.
Challenge
now
welcome
land.
M
Madam
mayor
council
members,
thank
you
for
having
us
I'm
excited
to
be
here
today
and
I
know
lance
is
as
well.
I
am
before
you
today
in
a
different
role,
so
I'm
going
to
address
that
really
quickly.
Just
oh,
that's
right!
Congratulations!
There's,
no
confusion!
The
last
time
that
I
was
before
you.
I
was
the
open
space
division
superintendent.
I
am
now
the
parks,
superintendent,
so
city
of
trees
challenge.
Thank
you
happy
to
be
here.
M
The
city
of
trees
challenge
is
now
something
I
get
to
work
on
more
directly
and
I'm
excited
about
that
in
the
vein
of
council
member
beijing's
comments.
About
being
humble,
I
have
only
been
in
this
role
for
about
a
month,
so
I'm
happy
that
lance
is
here
and
obviously
council.
President
clegg
can
fill
in
some
of
the
gaps,
as
I
present
this
update
for
you
as
to
what
we
have
been
doing
in
the
last
year.
M
M
M
Obviously
treasure
valley,
canopy
network,
is
one
of
our
most
engaged,
the
nature
conservancy
and
some
nurseries
that
we
are
working
with
now
and
we'll
continue
to
try
and
broaden
this
partnership
base,
because
I
think,
as
lance
and
I
were
just
discussing
a
moment
ago,
the
success
of
this
effort
is
really
going
to
be
community,
based
we're
going
to
need
a
lot
of
partners
to
make
sure
that
those
hundred
thousand
trees
get
in
get
planted.
In
boise,
just
a
quick
note,
this
effort
does
align
with
a
couple
of
key
city
initiatives.
M
Obviously
our
climate
action
road
map,
there's
some
air
air
pollution
mitigation
discussion
in
there,
as
well
as
shading
our
community
and
then
the
america,
the
beautiful
initiative.
This
is
one
of
the
goals
of
our
of
your
your
work
to
protect
and
enhance
public
excuse
me,
natural
amenities
in
public
spaces,
the
last
two
years,
lance
and
others,
including
council.
M
President
clegg
have
worked
really
hard
to
lay
the
foundation
for
this
effort,
engaging
partners
and
then
also
building
using
this
as
a
platform
to
discuss
some
of
the
sticky
subjects
that
we
have
to
discuss
in
this
community.
With
regard
to
climate
change
and
and
equality
in
our
community,
trying
to
make
sure
that
that
everyone
has
the
opportunity
to
appreciate
the
clean
air
benefits
and
the
shade
benefits
that
trees
can
provide.
M
It's
a
great
opportunity
for
us
to
lead
locally
on
some
of
the
national
national
efforts
in
2021.
The
strategy
for
this
effort
was
to
work
to
give
trees
away,
make
it
easy
for
people
to
plant
in
their
yards.
We
engaged
volunteers,
we
provided
tree
giveaways.
We
identified
neighborhoods
that
had
a
low
canopy
cover
and
targeted
them
with
these
tree.
Canopies.
M
So
I
just
as
a
side
note
in
2020,
I
planted
14
trees
in
my
yard
and
made
sure
to
get
them
in
the
gis
database
and
that's
kind
of
what
you're
looking
at
right
now
there's
a
couple
depictions
here.
We
have
propped
up
a
technical
tool
to
help
us
track
our
impacts
in
our
gis
system.
So
thanks
to
our
folks
in
it
for
helping
us
with
that,
and
it
aligns
really
well
with
what's
happening
on
a
broader
scale,
nationally,
you'll
notice,
you
have
some
stickers
in
front
of
you.
M
One
of
the
efforts
that
we're
going
to
be
working
on
in
2022
is
trying
to
crowdsource
in
a
sense
tree
ownership
and
tree
planting
and
tree
stewardship
with
the
tree
captains
program
and
so
we're
working
through
details
on
what
that
might
look
like.
Now.
We
want
to
expand
our
partnerships
with
local
nurseries.
M
M
So
I
look
forward
to
seeing
how
those
numbers
demonstrate
the
work
that
this
team
has
been
doing,
and
I
went
through
that
very
quickly
because
I
assumed
today
that
I
would
have
not
very
much
time
so,
please
feel
free
to
ask
any
questions.
I'm
I'm
sure,
council.
President
clay
may
like
to
provide
some
context
as
well.
E
E
Sarah
mentioned
that
that
we've
stood
up
a
data
tool
thanks
to
danny
roof,
who
was
here
a
few
weeks
ago
on
another
issue
that
wouldn't
have
happened
without
him,
amy
and
steve
in
public
works
and
the
climate
action
plan
and
moving
that
forward
and
most
exciting.
I
think
this
year
with
our
folks
in
our
neighborhood
service
group,
the
tree
captain
thing
will
be
aimed
at
providing
equity
for
neighborhoods
that
that
don't
have
the
tree
canopy
today
and
show
lower
health
and
other
outcomes
than
than
some
of
our
other
neighborhoods.
E
N
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
and
council.
Yes,
it's
been
super
rewarding
to
work
with
council
president
clegg
to
make
this
happen.
As
you
can
see,
those
tree
numbers
are
not
huge
right
now,
but
the
routes
that
we've
developed
to
get
there
are
amazing.
We
have
several
nurseries
on
board
we're
going
to
be
having
a
celebration
at
one
of
those
nurseries
this
spring.
We
are
really
on
the
national
level
on
the
radar
for
doing
great
work
when
it
comes
to
climate
change
and
equity
and
we've
already
from
what
we've
created.
N
I
think
this
is
a
good
example
of
how
the
city
can
lead
and
the
community
can
follow,
and
so
we're
growing
those
roots
in
the
community
to
make
that
happen,
and
we've
already
been
able
to
receive
additional
funding
to
grow
from
a
lot
of
private
and
non-profit
organizations,
both
within
boise
and
outside
of
boise,
to
help
us
grow
this
for
the
next
eight
years.
So
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
council,
president
clegg
and
thank
you
all
for
the
support.
D
Madam
mayor,
thank
you.
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
presentation
and
thank
you
so
much
for
remembering
renters
and
the
challenges
that
they
face
when
they
too
would
like
these
amenities.
Council,
president
clint,
I'm
wondering
what
is
what
actions
being
taken
to
to
be
that
bridge
for
them,
so
that
renters
hate
asking
their
landlords
for
anything
so,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
us
would
love
more
trees.
E
All
right,
madam
mayor,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
move.
We
go
into
executive
session
personnel
land
acquisition
records
exempt
from
public
disclosure
pending
probable
litigation,
communicate
with
risk
management
regarding,
pending
probable
claims,
labor
contract,
idaho
code
74206,
one
b,
c
d.
F,
I
n
j.