►
From YouTube: Boise City Council - Work Session
Description
Tuesday July 12, 2022 at 3:30 PM MDT
B
You
and
first
up
we
have
a
eric,
is
not
here.
Okay,
we've
got
interim
budget
changes.
B
C
C
Eric
stanton
is
at
least
on
time
today,
so,
just
as
you
can
see
from
the
handout
in
front
of
you,
there's
four
ibcs
today
I'll
run
through
them
quickly
and
if
there's
any
questions
feel
free
to
ask
follow
up
so
the
first
one
is
just
to
move
human
resources,
security
funding
from
the
library
in
the
existing
dollars
from
the
library
into
the
human
resources
department,
where
the
invoices
are
actually
being
paid.
So
it's
not
changing
the
overall
budget,
it's
just
reallocating
where
the
funds
are
sitting.
C
The
second
one
is
for
a
new
sorter
at
the
downtown
library.
This
has
been
a
contemplative
project
for
years.
It
was
almost
in
last
year's
annual
budget
and
was
ultimately
pushed
and
is
now
going
coming
through
as
one
of
our
enterprise
portfolio
projects.
C
This
would
just
add
a
sorter
to
the
library
that
would
allow
staff
to
spend
less
time
returning
books
to
shelves
and
do
some
of
the
at
least
bulk
sorting
up
front.
So
it's
just
individual
bins
that
can
be
taken
up
to
the
different
areas
rather
than
having
to
go
through
each
and
every
single
book
for
all
the
departments
and
that's
a
280
000
that
would
be
funded
by
the
enterprise
portfolio
fund
and
the
capital.
Here.
I'm
sorry
in
the
operating
contingency
account.
C
The
third
one
is
there
at
the
morris
hill
cemetery
there's
currently
a
one
columbaria
and
or
one
can
barrio
wall,
and
they
want
to
extend
that
to
get
three
more,
which
is
their
long-term
plan
and
the
reason
to
get
all
three
now,
rather
than
just
the
one
incremental
one
that
they
need
is
having
granite
matches.
C
So
they're
already
going
to
have
issues
matching
the
existing
granite
wall,
that's
there,
and
this
would
just
allow
three
more
to
be
ordered
that
well
at
least
those
three
would
all
match,
and
although
this
is
net
coming
out
of
capital
fund
balance,
at
least
50
000
of
it,
that's
not
covered
by
the
heritage
fund.
Ultimately,
the
city
is
made
whole
when
these
the
niches
in
these
columbaria
are
actually
sold.
C
So
it's
out
of
pocket
today,
but
ultimately
will
be
cost
neutral
to
the
city
over
time
and
then
finally,
there
is
in
this
year's.
In
the
23
proposed
budget,
there
was
700
000
to
for
primrose
park,
which
was
the
new
park
that
we
is
that
on
gary
lane
and
the
old
fire
station
site,
this
funding
would
effectively
accelerate
450
of
that
funding
from
23
into
22.
C
D
C
And
and
that
this
ibc
is
approved
in
23,
we
would
bring
a
subsequent
ibc
to
reduce
the
funding
in
23,
so
it
would
ultimately
be
remain
a
700
000
project.
This
is
effectively
just
moving
450
of
that
impact
fee
funded
project
by
the
way
into
22,
and
then
we'd
reduce
it
on
the
back
end
again,
so
the
project
would
remain
constant.
It's
just
a
matter
of
timing
of
the
funding,
and
so
I
apologize
that
I
kind
of
rifled
through
those.
But
if
there's
any
questions
or
follow-up
happy
to
answer.
E
Madam
mayor,
one
quick
question
on
the
mausoleum
walls:
the
the
money's
coming
from
the
heritage
fund.
So
as
we're
paid
back,
will
it
pay
back
the
heritage
fund
or
will
it
go
into
the
park's
budget.
C
I'll
have
to
get
back
to
you
on
that
definitively,
but
I
believe
that
the
way
it
works
is
it's
just
it
just
goes
into
the
parks
operating
budget,
I
believe,
is
where
the.
E
Because
I
know
the
heritage
fund
is,
is,
I
think
at
least
part
of
it
is
donation
funded
for
specific
projects?
So
I
just
don't
want
to
short
it
at
some
point.
C
Oh,
oh,
that
I
can't
answer
for
you,
so
the
funds
that
are
coming
from
the
heritage
fund
are
either
unallocated
or
interest
earnings
that
don't
have
specific
allocations
associated
with
it.
Okay,
so,
in
other
words,
there's
no
money
that
needs
to
be
returned
to
the
heritage
fund.
It's
it's
all.
Cities.
E
A
B
B
Are
you
presenting
also
on
this
topic,
or
are
you
here
for
great
okay,
great,
we'll
start
with
josh,
and
this
is
a
presentation
on
718
18th
street
and
it's
in
accordance
with
an
ordinance
or
permit
see
I'm
trying
to
wing
it
by
not
looking
my
notes
that
I
remember
I
was
on
council,
I
think,
or
when
we
approve
this,
and
so
it's
you've
come
back
to
give
us
an
update
in
accordance
with
the
requested
council,
yeah.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
madam
mayor
members
of
council.
This
is
a
slightly
unique
item
before
you
tonight.
F
In
2018,
a
facade
easement
was
approved
for
the
union
block
building
on
idaho
street,
between
eighth
and
capital
and
as
part
of
that
facade
easement,
there
was
a
requirement
placed
on
the
application
with
the
associated
work
that
is
going
to
take
place
with
that
that
they
come
back
to
a
city
council
work
session
for
approval
of
the
glass
block,
pavers
that
were
going
to
be
placed
in
the
sidewalk
and
I'll
go
into
some
detail
and
some
illustrations
about
what
that
means,
but
they
are
required
to
come
back
tonight.
We
have
physical
samples
here.
F
If
anybody
want,
we've
got
a
fun
little
prop
if
anybody
wants
to
touch
it
but
kind
of
a
just,
a
quick
refresher,
so
the
union
union
block
building,
of
course
again
on
the
north
side
of
idaho,
between
8th
and
capital,
certainly
a
well-known
building
on
the
national
register
and
the
local
landmark
so
the
applicant
when
they
came
through
the
for
the
facilities
back
in
2017,
proposed
some
subterranean
work
to
the
basement.
They
were
increasing
the
basement
floor
heights.
Four
to
ceiling
heights
and
creating
a
kind
of
unique
sick
situation
along
idaho
streets
with
a
window.
F
F
That
would
provide
some
light
into
into
that
basement
through
a
well
with
a
excavated
wall
that
would
allow
that
in
so
again
the
requirement
placed
on
that
was
for
the
applicant
to
come
back
tonight.
There
was
some
uncertainty
back
in
2017
about
what
the
treatment
of
those
pavers
would
be.
It
would
be
some
kind
of
combination
of
solid
block,
transparent
block.
The
applicant
has
proposed
a
transparent
block,
certainly
it
you
cannot
see
detail
through
it.
F
G
A
G
F
Thank
you
appreciate
that,
so
there
is
a
and
I'll
bring
this
up,
but
there
is
a
ridge
on
the
edge
of
this
will
provide
some
additional
traction
as
well,
but
yeah
again
the
applicant's
looking
into
some
surface
treatments-
and
I
he's
here
for
questions
anything
he
could
add.
But
with
that
I
think
I
would
stand
for
any
questions.
The
council
has.
E
G
E
I'm
remembering
correctly,
the
reason
we
asked
this
to
come
back
was
to
ensure
that,
as
this
treatment
was
put
in,
that
the
the
surface
was
both
not
slipped
slippery
and
that
the
structure
of
it
was
such
that
you,
you
know
it
wouldn't
break
through,
and
so
the
etching,
I
think,
takes
care
of
the
slippery.
I
guess
the
the
structure
around
this
will
be
what
to
hold
hold
those
blocks
in
place.
B
D
So
my
name
is
ken
howell
and
address
is
817
west
franklin
street
and-
and
I
love
your
question
because
of
course
I'm
doing
a
lot
of
thinking
about
that.
How
are
we
going
to
support
these
glass
blocks
and
so
yeah,
I'm
now
debating
with
myself
as
to
what
I'm
thinking
about,
but
I'll
just
blurt
it
out?
But
let
me
tell
you
what
the
what
the
fallback
position
is.
D
D
But
I
suppose,
a
month
or
six
weeks
ago
I
about
the
idea
of
the
fact
that
this
is
this
glass
is
very
tough.
It
will
not
crush
without
more
than
a
thousand
pounds
per
square
inch
pressure
and
it's
three
inches
deep.
So
I
thought:
can
we
make
a
truss
out
of
these
glass
blocks
and
so
working
with
my
structural
engineer?
D
The
span
is
six
feet
roughly,
and
he
said
yes,
you
can,
if
you
find
the
right
glue
to
hold
the
blocks
in
place.
Okay,
so
now
I've
been
looking
at
all
kinds
of
glues
and
it's
a
huge
big
multi
worldwide
industry
that
is
growing
like
crazy,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
has
actually
happened
at
this
point,
but
next
time
you're
flying
in
the
plane
and
looking
out
at
the
wing,
there's
a
very
good
chance.
D
It's
going
to
be
glued
on
and
not
riveted,
and
because
the
glues
are
extremely
adhesive
and
they
don't
kind
of
the
rivets.
D
Excuse
me
the
pressure
to
the
to
them
and
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
uniform
connection.
So
I'm
not
finished
with
that
research
and
we'll
you'll
all
be
relieved,
and
I'm
relieved
too
that
the
building
department
isn't
going
to
allow
me
to
go
forth
without
without
some
independent
testing,
and
so
we'll
do
that,
if
necessary.
But
anyway,
there's
two
solutions.
E
Thank
you
that
yeah
that
I
think
answers
my
question.
H
One
question:
I
think
that
since
we,
since
we
looked
at
this
application,
we've
done
a
lot
around
ada
accessibility
and
making
sure
that
all
of
our
surfaces
downtown
are
accessible
and
I'm
curious
if
any
additional
work's
been
done
on
that.
That
was,
I
think,
if
I'm
remembering
in
2018
was
kind
of
my.
H
Sorry,
I'm
on
a
new
microphone,
so
maybe
I'm
not
doing
a
good
enough
job
just
as
far
as
surface
treatment
and
accessibility
by
folks
who
might
use
a
service,
animal
or
a
cane
or
you
know,
might
otherwise
need.
H
D
H
And
as
far
as
the
surface
goes
because
this
glass
block
that
we're
seeing
has
a
ridge
around
it
will
that
I
mean
are
people's
canes
hitting
it
is.
Is
that
going
to
be
a
problem?
H
D
Yeah,
I
don't
well.
First
of
all.
Yes,
I
don't.
I
don't
think
so.
One
of
the
reasons
that
I'm
attracted
to
using
glass
blocks
is,
of
course,
it's
been
used
in
sidewalks
for
generations.
I
mean
it
goes
back
nearly
100
years,
and
so
that
was
one
of
the
reasons
now
this
small
edge,
I
mean,
I
guess
you
have
a
glass
block
up
there.
You
can
kind
of
see
that,
yes,
it
would
give
some
feedback,
I
suppose,
to
somebody
using
a
cane,
but
it
certainly
isn't
going
to
interfere.
I
don't
believe.
H
Okay
and
in
the
I'm
sorry,
madam
mayor,
in
the
long
time
that
these
have
been
used,
because
I
don't
think
it's
a
treatment
that
we
currently
have
anywhere
in
boise,
which
is
why
all
the
questions
there
hasn't
been
any
concern
with
the
ada
community
or
anything
like
that
with
the
surface
treatment.
D
D
H
G
Just
to
amplify
the
pro-10's
concerns,
which
I
think
are
quite
valid,
is
there:
is
there
a
possibility
for
us
to
make
sure
that
that
happens?
I
know
that
you
know
one
of
our
art
pieces
in
one
of
the
tunnels.
G
I
think,
was
very
vibrant
lots
of
movement
in
terms
of
the
design,
and
you
know
I
learned
from
a
constituent
that
folks,
who
have
epilepsy,
that
type
of
condition
that
that
can
be
triggering,
and
these
are
things
that,
unless
you
have
that
it's
hard
to
see
that
or
or
take
that
in,
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
a
possibility
for
us
to
have
that
question
answered
by
the
community
itself,.
F
Absolutely,
madam
mayor
members
of
council,
so
there
are
standards
in
ada
about
in
terms
of
deviations
and
surface
and
what's
allowable,
I
won't
quote
what
it
is,
but
it's
either
a
quarter
inch
or
a
half
inch.
It's
somewhere
in
that
range,
we'll
make
sure
that
the
building
department,
as
part
of
the
review,
takes
a
look
at
that
we'll
confirm
that
it
does
comply
with
ada
standards.
For
that
vertical
deviation.
F
H
Thank
you
that
answers
my
question.
I
appreciate
council
member
sanchez
helping
to
come
up
with
a
solution
to
that.
E
Okay
with
that,
then
I
move
approval
of
the
use
of
the
glass
block
as
presented
for
drh1700571
at
718,
west
idaho
street,
in
the
union
block.
H
Would
the
maker
of
emotion
of
the
motion
entertain
a
a
change
to
the
motion
and
that's
that
well.
E
H
H
F
E
I
Mayor
members
of
council,
I'm
here
to
give
you
an
update
on
the
zoning
code,
rewrite
which
has
been
in
process
for
quite
some
time
as
we're
about
to
begin
some
additional
public
meetings.
So
we
wanted
to
present
to
you
where
we
stand
with
our
recommendations
that
we'll
be
making
in
public
starting
this
week.
I
This
here
is
the
agenda
for
our
open
houses
that
begin
on
thursday.
This
week,
we
have
three
of
them,
scheduled
over
the
next
two
weeks
to
review
new
versions
of
modules,
one
and
two
which
I'll
get
into
in
a
minute
talk
about
our
next
steps
in
the
process.
We'll
have
time
for
q
a
at
each
of
these
open
houses,
and
then
we
will
have
some
time
for
breakout
into
groups
to
talk
about
specific
issues
in
more
detail.
I
The
public
meetings
and
discussion
around
what
have
been
called
modules,
one
and
two
which
have
to
do
with
the
zoning
districts
in
the
city
and
how
uses
are
permitted.
That's
module
one
and
module
two
being
the
design
specific
standards
within
the
ordinance
those
public
meetings
concluded
in
the
spring.
I
So
since
april,
we've
been
working
on
significant
adjustments
to
modules,
1
and
2,
which
I'll
review
with
you
tonight
and
we'll
then
go
out
and
have
these
public
meetings
over
the
next
couple
of
of
weeks
such
that
we
can
get
feedback
hear
what
the
community
is
thinking
about.
The
shifts
that
we've
made
and
be
prepared
to
move
into
module
three
such
that
we
can
stay
on
schedule
and
seek
to
get
the
zoning
ordinance
completed
by
next
summer.
I
A
summary
of
major
themes
that
came
through
the
public
process
around
modules,
one
and
two,
you
know
the
concerns
related
to
a
generic
approach
to
the
application
of
these
regulations
across
the
city,
such
that
it
was
somewhat
of
a
one-size-fits-all
approach
to
how
we
deal
with
our
neighborhoods.
That
was
a
theme
that
was
expressed
in
a
variety
of
ways,
also
that
we
needed
to
somehow
calibrate
the
regulations
such
that
they're
sensitive
to
the
infrastructure
that
we
have
in
the
city
and
our
ability
to
grow
such
that
we're
not
extending
ourselves
and
requiring
additional
infrastructure.
I
So
in
in
considering
those
things.
The
team
that's
working
on.
This
came
up
with
these
themes
for
how
we
actually
go
about
adjustments
to
modules,
one
and
two,
as
we
prepare
to
go
back
and
speak
to
the
community
about
this.
So
the
team
being
the
planning
team
and
the
department
of
planning
and
development
services
led
by
jessica,
zlag
and
then
the
zoning
team,
andrea
tuning,
lena
walker,
deanna
dupree
and
then
lindsay
moser
from
community
engagement.
I
Who've
all
been
working
pretty
furiously
on
this
to
respond
to
the
ideas
that
came
from
the
public
process
and
seek
to
prepare
something
that
we
feel
is
a
compelling
alternative
to
where
we
were
headed
before
that
we
hope
you'll
be
compelled
by
as
well,
and
the
community
will
see
that
we've
listened
and
adjusted
such
that
there's
a
lot
here
that
they
can
get
excited
about.
So
I
will
start
to
go
through
those
changes.
So
one
is
related
to
this
variety
of
neighborhoods
questioned,
acknowledging
that
we
have
neighborhoods
that
have
relatively
low
density
and
large
lots.
I
We
have
many
suburban
neighborhoods.
We
have
traditional
single-family
and
mixed
housing.
Neighborhoods
we've
got
compact
neighborhoods
and
we
have
urban
ones
so
recognizing
that
what
part
of
what
makes
boise?
What
it
is
is
that
we
have
this
variety
and
that's
not
something
to
work
against.
It's
actually
something
that
should
help
frame
how
we
create
a
new
ordinance
as
a
reminder
to
everybody,
the
ordinance
we
have
dates
to
the
1960s.
I
This
chart
here
shows
some
changes
from
where
we
were
headed
before
in
modules,
one
and
two,
and
also
some
changes
to
way
to
the
way
the
ordinance
works
today.
So
the
headlines
here
as
it
relates
to
the
changes
that
we
made
coming
out
of
modules,
one
and
two
are
that
we
you'll,
probably
remember
previously,
had
proposed
to
consolidate
the
single
family
zones
from
three
consolidate
the
three
into
two
and
then
change
the
minimum
watt
sizes
within
what
would
be
the
two
that
resulted
from
that
and
and
make
them
more
similar.
I
And
so
one
thing
we're
doing
is
saying.
No,
we
shouldn't
do
that.
We
should
stick
with
the
three
and
keep
the
three
single-family
districts
that
we
have
today
and
maintain
the
density
requirements
that
we've
got
in
the
current
ordinance,
with
some
exceptions
that
I'll
speak
to
then
we
also
tied
increases
in
density
to
affordability
and
and
sustainability
requirements.
So
again,
another
common
theme
was,
if
we're
giving
away
density
to
through
this
ordinance
rewrite,
but
we're
not
tying
that
directly
to
affordability
and
sustainable
practices.
I
So
we
have
corrected
that
in
this
version
and
and
here's
the
things
that
we
have
done
as
it
relates
to
the
mixed
use
zones.
So
we
really
want
the
mixed
use
zones
to
be
applied
strategically,
so
that
we're
addressing
the
potential
of
downtown
that
we're
addressing
the
changes
that
are
happening
in
the
investment.
I
That's
going
on
on
state
street
that
we
acknowledge,
we've
got
some
corridors
in
the
city
that
are
different
than
others,
where
we
have
our
best
transit
service,
for
instance,
that
being
state
vista
and
fairview
that
we
now
have
our
pathways
plan
and
corridors
in
the
city.
That
really
are
intended
to
be
about
mobility
in
ways
other
than
driving,
and
then
we've
got
this
dates
to
the
blueprint,
boise,
the
identification
of
regional
and
community
activity
center.
So
the
point
here
is
to
get
very
specific
about
these
places
in
the
city
and
design.
I
Mixed-Use
zones
that
are
commensurate
with
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
in
these
denser
places
in
the
city
going
back
to
where
we
were
headed
before
it
was
a
much
more
blanket
approach
to
the
whole
city.
There's
there's
one
technique
here
that
we'll
use
in
the
previous
mixed-use
zones
we'll
make
everything
down
so
in
this
case
we're
trying
to
be,
as
I
said,
particular
about
it
as
it
relates
to
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
city.
I
So,
first
as
it
relates
to
downtown
importantly,
extending
the
downtown
district,
which
would
now
be
called
mx-5
and
converting
where
we
we
have
very
suburban
zoning
still
in
the
downtown
area,
these
commercial
districts,
you
see
them
there,
c2
c3,
c4
and
r0,
which
are
remnants
of
a
suburban
era
in
the
footprint
of
downtown,
converting
those
as
well
into
this
mx-5
and
essentially
putting
in
place
the
zoning
that's
needed
in
downtown
boise
to
further
the
development
of
boise
and
its
ability
to
handle
a
significant
amount
of
the
city's
growth
within
that
footprint.
I
So
that
is
part
of
this.
The
second
piece
is
along
the
state
street
corridor,
identifying
those
locations
where
transit,
oriented
developments
have
been
designated
specific
locations.
There's
four
of
them
for
a
zone
called
mx4,
where
technically,
we
would
not
have
a
density
or
height
limitation.
However,
should
I
come
back
to
this
part?
There
might
be
another
slide
about
this.
That
gets
into
the
detail.
I
I
will
come
back
to
this,
but
it
this
the
the
point
is
that
this
mx4
district
is
really
for
these
four
locations
on
state
street,
which
are
different
than
other
places
in
the
city,
because
this
is
where
we
want
our
densest
development.
That's
tied
directly
to
the
transit
that
we're
seeking
to
invest
in
in
boise,
so
the
mx4
would
apply
to
only
those
areas.
I
The
next
version
is
the
mx3,
which
is
a
district
where
we
limit
its
application
to
those
transit
core
those
those
I'm
sorry
streets
in
the
city
where
we
have
the
best
transit
service.
I
That
again
is
is
state
street
outside
those
tod
locations
and
then
fairview
and
vista.
So
in
these
streets,
what
we're
proposing
is
mx3,
which
would
be
up
to
60
feet
in
height
it
would.
This
is
envisioning,
you
know
denser
single
denser,
mixed
use,
residences
and
so
forth
up
to
60
feet.
So
these
are
the
streets
where
we
really
concentrate
on
design
such
that
people
can
walk
and
and
get
to
transit,
and
it's
it's
a
more
urban
condition,
so
that
would
apply
to
those
corridors
as
well
as
these
activity
centers.
I
I
You'd
have
this
conversion
to
r2,
and
then
you
would
go
back
into
the
neighborhood.
So
so
that's
a
new
aspect
of
this
proposal
that
we're
presenting
now,
then
we
have
mx2,
which
is
conventional
commercial
uses
that
are
more
auto
oriented.
So
this
is
the
places
where
you
would
have
your
single
story-
commercial
and
drive
through
and
so
forth.
Acknowledging
that,
of
course,
we'll
continue
to
have
commercial
development,
that's
more
conventional
and
and
auto
oriented
in
its
design.
So
that's
in
the
mx2
and
then
mx1
is
the
neighborhood
scale.
I
I
see
we
still
have
our
nice
photograph
of
this
location
on
the
bench,
but
the
mx1
is
a
neighborhood
scale,
mixed
use,
so
shorter
buildings,
you
know
not
dense,
not
as
dense
as
you
have
in
those
corridors,
but
again
intended
to
be
more
pedestrian
design
in
the
middle
of
a
neighborhood.
There's
good
examples
in
several
parts
of
boise
that
are
like
this.
So
that's
the
mx1
back
to
the
affordability
and
sustainability
requirements.
This
relates
to
several
aspects
of
the
proposal
we'll
be
presenting
over
the
next
couple
weeks.
I
So
we're
adjusting
that
requirement
to
say
that
if
you
do
go
above
what
you're
already
permitted
in
the
city
of
boise,
the
two
units
that
you
get
in
order
to
go
above
that
you
have
to
meet
these
requirements,
so
you
have
to
des
designate
units
for
affordability
and
you
have
to
meet
these
sustainable
practices
thresholds
in
order
to
get
that
additional
density.
So
that's
one
piece
in
this
ordinance.
I
A
second
is,
we
were
looking
for
a
way
to
more.
I
call
it
surgically
permit
small
apartment
buildings,
cottage
courts
density
within
single-family
zones
by
establishing
some
criteria
within
the
ordinance
that
addresses
the
concerns
that
we
heard
in
modules,
one
and
two
again
in
modules,
one
and
two
we
were
proposing
just
to
apply
the
density
across
the
whole
area.
I
So
a
change
now
is
to
say
no,
let's
try
to
take
what
we
learn
from
one
and
two
and
design
an
aspect
of
the
ordinance
that
allows
for
these
surgical
opportunities
for
infill
of
a
little
bit
greater
variety
of
housing,
types
which
we
have
so
many
of
in
boise,
so
I'll
go
through
that
now,
so
what
this
proposes
to
to
do-
and
it
says
in
the
r1b
and
r1c
zones,
if
you
meet
these
location
criteria,
this
is
available
to
you.
So
this
is
where
you
start.
I
So
the
location
criteria
is
that
you're
within
the
300
feet
of
a
collector
or
minor
arterial,
so
within
a
block
of
a
collector
road
or
minor
arterial
and
those
types
of
streets,
the
collector
and
the
minor
arterial
are
established
by
the
road
plan.
I
guess
that
achd
really
controls
right,
so
they
just
it's
been
designated.
What
is
a
collector
and
what
is
a
minor
arterial
as
well
as
a
local
street
and
all
those
things,
but
if
you're,
one
of
those
two
or
you're
within
a
quarter
mile
of
a
property
zone
mx3.
I
So
if
you're
within
a
quarter
mile
of
those
few
corridors
where
we've
got
the
best
transit,
then
this
is
available
to
you
as
well.
So
those
are
the
only
locations
where
this
is
available,
then,
and
again
back
to
the
all
the
discussion
we've
had
in
boise
over
the
past.
You
know
year
at
least,
let's
tie
these
things
to
the
infrastructure.
I
You
know
not
just
spread
it
across
the
city,
let's
be
precise
about
it
and
put
it
where
people
don't
have
to
drive
all
the
time
which
is
near
transit
and
on
our
our
more
main
streets
where
we
have
other
uses
and
all
those
kinds
of
things
walking
is
more
of
an
option
for
more
people.
So
once
you
get
past
those
little
crate
location
criteria,
you
get
into
the
site
characteristics.
So
the
lot
has
to
be
at
least
55
feet
in
width.
I
This
next
one
has
to
do
with
again
a
concern
that
we
heard
a
lot
of
which
is.
We
don't
want
to
do
anything
that
might
compel
people
to
do
away
with
existing
structures.
I
You
know
we
don't
want
to,
through
the
ordinance,
encourage
the
demolition
of
existing
structures
or
the
demolition
of
naturally
occurring,
affordable
housing
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
this
one
says
that
you
have
to
be
a
vacant
lot
or
a
lot
where
the
improvement
structure
value
is
no
greater
than
25
percent.
The
reason
for
that
was
to
say
if
the
property's
really
in
bad
shape,
then
okay,
it's
okay
to
to
to
replace
the
bill.
The
structure
that's
there
or
that
you
incorporate
the
existing
structure
in
in
what
you
do.
I
So,
if
you
do,
if
it's
any
of
those
cases,
if
it's
a
vacant
lot,
if
it's
a
a
building,
that's
in
very
poor
condition
or
if
you
incorporate
the
existing
structure
into
what
you
do
on
the
property,
then
you
can
do
this.
The
last
piece
is
that
you
don't
have
an
approved
demolition
permit
in
the
last
three
years,
because
again
we
don't
want
to
encourage
the
demolition
of
existing
structures
on
the
map
there.
I
You
see
in
yellow
the
properties
in
the
city
that
are
single
families
owned,
or
that
are
I'm
sorry,
r1b
or
r1c
that
meet
those
locational
criteria.
So
those
are
the
properties
that
are
zoned,
r1b
or
r1c
and
are
within
300
feet
of
a
collector
or
minor
arterial
or
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
property
zone.
Mx3
that's
in
yellow
on
this
map
doesn't
determine
what
we're
not
identifying
what's
vacant
and
that
kind
of
thing
that's
just
the
locational
criteria,
and
you
can
see
it's
very
well
distributed
around
the
city
geographically.
I
So
if
you
meet
those
criteria-
and
this
is
available
to
you-
then
you
get
up
to
four
units
by
right
on
those
properties.
I
Congratulations,
if
you
want
to
go
higher
than
four
units,
you
can
go
five
to
eight
provided.
One
of
those
units
is
designated
for
affordability
at
80
or
less
of
ami,
and
you
get
a
parking
reduction
of
50
percent.
So
if
you
go
above
four
to
eight
you,
you
can
do
that,
provided
one
is
designated
and
you
get
the
50
reduction.
If
you
go
above
eight,
you
can
go
to
12
if
two
of
the
units
are
designated
for
affordability
and
you
get
that
that
fifty
percent
parking
reduction
so
again.
I
The
effort
here
is
to
tie
these
things
that
we
want
to
increases
in
density
and
to
be
more
careful
about
how
we
apply
these
opportunities
in
the
city,
such
that
we're
addressing
the
concerns
that
everybody
has
around
access
to
transit
do
not
encourage
demolition
of
existing
structures,
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
that
is
a
new
proposal
that
is
in
this
ordinance
as
well,
and
these
are
just
some
examples
of
you
know,
there's
many
we
could
have
many.
I
But
it's
you
know
a
duplex,
it's
a
quadruplex,
it's
a
small
apartment
building,
it's
a
cottage
court
and
it
provides
an
amazing
opportunity
for
a
variety
of
people
to
live
in
these
neighborhoods,
so
that
proposal
that
I
just
reviewed
is
is
for
that
purpose.
I
So
that
was
the
second
piece
and
then
the
third
piece
of
this
new
proposal
that
relates
to
achieving
the
things
that
we
want
in
the
city
is
related
to
the
mixed
use
zones.
So
this
is
a
parking
reduction
in
cases
where
you're
providing
affordability
and
you're
using
those
sustainable
practices,
so
this
would
apply
to
the
mx3
and
the
mx4,
so
that
would
be
along
those
are
along
state,
vista
and
fairview.
Also
those
activity
centers.
I
So
every
in
the
in
those
locations
these
these
the
parking
reduction
in
this
case
would
be
available
to
you
if
you're
doing
the
affordable,
affordability
piece
of
it.
I
think
I
have
one
more
okay.
I
need
to
talk
about
here.
So
the
one
other
part
of
this
is
that
in
that
mx4,
which
is
along
state
street
those
four
pod
locations,
transit,
oriented
development
locations
in
those
cases,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
there
really
isn't
a
density
cap
or
height
limitation.
I
However,
there
is,
if
you
don't,
do
the
affordability
piece
so
in
the
mx-4,
even
along
state,
in
those
four
locations,
you
are
limited
to
60
feet.
You
can
only
go
above
that
in
cases
where
you're
that
you're,
providing
25
of
the
units
are
affordable
for
people
at
60
percent
or
below
for
50
years.
So
so
again
tying
the
density
to
the
affordability
and
sustainable
practices.
The
city's
been
making
a
priority,
and
then
the
last
piece
of
this
is
related
to
managing
growth
at
the
edge
of
the
city.
I
We
are
proposing
this
new
overlay,
which
the
wildland
urban
interface
you
see
here
within
the
kind
of
tan
color,
which
is
you
know,
we've
we've
had
some
some
requirements
in
various
city
codes
related
to
the
sensitivity
of
these
locations
that
are
prone
to
to
wildfire
and
are
places
where
we
have
that
more
interaction
than
other
places,
with
wildlife
and
creating
an
overlay
that
that
is
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
I
That
includes
a
variety
of
requirements
related
to
how
you
responsibly,
design
and
build
in
these
locations
is,
is
proposed
in
this
ordinance
and
then
looking
at
creating
an
open
land
series
of
open
land,
disc
districts
that
include
one
that
would
be
for
properties
that
are
intended
for
conservation,
not
for
any
particular
use.
So
we
are
proposing
a
a
collection
of
these
open
space
or
open
land
districts
that
would
be
included
here.
So
the
last
one
here
is
revised
annexation
policies
which
I'll
get
into
in
the
next
slide.
J
Ben
first
tim
thank
you
and
for
all
the
folks,
who've
been
working
on
this.
Thank
you.
It's
takes
a
lot
of
energy
to
listen.
It
takes
even
more
energy
to
be
open-minded.
It.
J
Your
mind
and
to
kind
of
reduce
some
stuff,
I
had
one
question
and
it
was
sort
of
like
this
weird
hypothetical
that
was
going
on
in
my
head
when
I
looked
at
the
maps
along
the
active
corridors
and
we're
really
proud
of
our
our
best
in
class
routes
that
we
have
with
vrt.
J
But
I
think
that
we
wish
that
there
were
more
best-in-class
routes
on
vrt
and
I
always
think
about
overland
as
an
example
and
in
my
head
I
was
thinking
well
if
we
had
a
best-in-class
route
on
oberlin
right
now,
which
is
probably
needed.
If
the
funding
was
there
to
do
it.
Would
that
really
change
the
way
that
our
maps
look
or
do
you
feel
like
this
is
still
kind
of
would
incorporate
things
like
that
in
the
future.
I
Yeah,
it's
a
very,
very
good
point,
one
that
we've
been
discussing
and
and
and
and
talked
about
whether
overland
and
broadway
would
be
included
in
the
mx-3
as
well
and
the
we
decided
at
this
time
not
to
include
them.
I
will
say,
however,
along
oberland
and
broadway:
we
have
activity
centers,
which
would
where
the
mx3
would
apply.
So
there
are,
as
you
move
along
those
streets
you
get
to
these
places
where
it
kind
of
comes
together
at
an
intersection.
I
So
we
have
proposed
some
activity
centers
along
both
of
those
streets,
but
the
other
part
of
the
answer
is
that
we
would
envision
that
the
mx-3
zone
would
be
available
for
other
streets,
provided
you
know
the
transit
we
make
that
investment
in
transit
along
those
along
those
streets.
So
so
it's
quite
possible
that
we
would
transition
over
time
on
overland
and
broadway
to
more
of
a
consistent,
mx3
designation.
I
J
B
H
H
Thank
you
madame.
Thank
you
tim.
This
is
a
huge
change,
and
so
I
just
have
a.
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
The
first
one
is
when
we
first
kind
of
went
into
this
process.
The
thought
was
is
that
we
would
go
to
a
more
form-based
code.
This
seems
like
we're
not
doing
that
anymore,
and
I
would
just
like
to
kind
of
explore
the
reasoning
and
the
thought
process
behind
that.
I
I
I
will
say
too,
though,
however,
that
that
that
we
expect
to
do
two
things:
one
is
in
module
three
get
into
some
form
based
expectations
that
we
should
that
we
should
have
as
a
community
as
it
relates
to
how
things
get
built
under
this
ordinance,
so
that
could
relate
to
the
approval
processes
that
could
relate
to
our
design
review
part
of
of
the
development
process.
I
I
You
know
to
someone
that
isn't
used
to
navigating
a
zoning
ordinance,
so
we're
discussing
trans
transitioning
from
the
legal
part
of
it,
which
we're
in
now
and
is
important.
We've
got
to
get
to
next
summer,
but
sometime
between
now
and
then
transitioning
to
doing
a
graphic
version
of
what
these
regulations
entail,
so
that
you
can
see
the
form
aspect
of
it.
So
that's
my
answer
and
I'm
going
to
stick
with
it.
H
It's
a
very
good
answer.
I
had
the
same.
I
had
the
same
analysis
as
you
kind
of
in
as
we
were
going
through
this
process.
It
was
like
this
is
not
you
know
it
just
seemed
like
there
was.
It
was
very
hybrid
form-based
and
very.
G
H
And
so
I
wasn't
totally
sure
how
that
was
going
to
work,
and
so
I
appreciate
that
answer
a
lot
and
then
my
next
question
is
around
parking
requirements
as
it
stands.
Right
now
are
our
parking
requirements
proposed
to
be
the
same
as
they
currently
exist.
Are
we
going
to
re-examine
our
parking
requirements
in
some
areas?
Overall,
you
did
discuss
a
little
bit
around.
You
know
incentivizing
density
with
reduced
parking
requirements,
but
I'm
talking.
K
H
K
Those
council
pro
tim
weddings,
so
we
have
evaluated
those
and
there
again
there
are
some
incentives
along
those
mx3
or
in
those
mx4
packages
that
if
you
do
provide
us
with
some
affordable
products,
you
know
we
are
willing
to
look
at
things
a
little
bit
differently
in
regard
to
parking
specifically
because
we
know
that
that's
where
our
transit
investment
is
or
we
have
active
transportation
options
for
individuals
to
utilize.
K
So
we'll
be
doing
we're
looking
at
that
on
those
specific
corridors,
but,
as
we
know,
we're
learning
more
and
more
as
we
continue
throughout
the
process.
We've
been
gathering
community
input,
and
so
we
really
want
to
hear
what
our
council
and
mayor
believe
what
our
community
believes
that
we
can
support,
but
we
do
have
to
really
make
a
shift
to
focus
on
people
and
places
rather
than
automobiles
and
parking
stills.
E
E
We
were
talking
about
doing
a
blanket
parking
reduction
on
high
capacity
transit
corridors
and
that
to
me
that
still
makes
a
lot
of
sense
that
that
the
investment
we
make
as
a
public
in
that
transit
should
be
worth
something
and
that
it
shouldn't
you
know
it
could
be
layered
with
the
other,
but
but
in
its
own
it
should
be
worth
something
which
I
think
provides
an
incentive
to
have
more
of
it.
Maybe
yeah.
I
E
So,
just
a
little
comment
on
that.
I,
like
all
of
this,
for
the
most
part,
I
think
you
know
the
devil's
in
the
details.
As
you
know,
I've
done
a
lot
of
this
around
the
state
and
smaller
communities,
and
so
some
of
the
details
that
I'll
be
watching.
E
You
don't
have
to
comment
on
them
tonight,
but
requirements
for
sidewalk
separation
from
the
roadway
so
that
active
transportation
is
a
preferred
alternative
connectivity
measurements,
especially
in
infill,
where
there's
larger
vacant
lots
that
don't
have
good
connectivity
today,
the
r2
transition
exactly
how
that's
going
to
work
in
terms
of
setbacks.
If
it's
at
the
alley
versus
at
the
street
those
kinds
of
things
whether
or
not
the
four
units
includes
the
adu
or
is
an
adu
still
on
top
of
that,
and
then
on
the
I
really
like
the
strategic
infill.
E
I've
been
asking
for
something
like
that
for
a
long
time,
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
that
we're
tying
into
60
ami
and
everything
else
to
80
and
that
mixing
those
two
might
be
confusing
and
maybe
somewhat
of
a
dis
incentive
and
maybe
60
becomes
an
even
higher
incentive.
E
But
I
wonder
if,
if
80,
even
in
the
strategic
infill
maybe
is,
is
worth
a
look,
so
oh
and
then
lastly,
the
neighborhood
marketplace.
E
G
Madam
mayor,
thank
you,
madam
mayor.
Thank
you
tim
just
to,
oh
sorry,
just
to
piggyback
off
the
council
president's
comments
about
infill.
So
on
the
way
we've
been
talking
about
it,
it
almost
sounds
like
we're
talking
about
rental
units.
If
I'm
taking
that
in
incorrectly,
can
you
illuminate
me?
I
I
have
a
personal
place
in
my
heart,
a
special
place
with
my
heart
for
infill.
It's
what
made
it
possible
for
me
to
be
a
homeowner
for
a
short
period
of
time.
G
I
was
in
one
of
those
we
used
to
call
them
tall,
skinny
houses,
and
you
know
I
think,
there's
probably
going
to
be
an
interest
in
folks
being
able
to
be
homeowners
again
and
having
those
smaller
units
be
available
for
purchase.
I
think
would
be
exciting
for
folks.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify.
Are
we
looking
at
home
ownership
for
some
other
smaller
units.
I
G
Thank
you
kim
tim,
just
a
quick
follow-up.
You
know
something.
I've
I've
mentioned
throughout
this
process
is
just
the
fact
that
you
know
as
we
do
this
work,
even
though
we
don't
speak
about
it.
Overtly.
G
Folks
have
not
done
well
when
it
comes
to
be
becoming
homeowners,
having
access
to
housing,
and
I
think,
we're
starting
to
see
evidence
of
how
the
last
couple
years
have
affected
folks,
who
already
have
to
deal
with
a
lot
of
issues
and
as
we've
learned
through
the
pandemic,
those
issues
have
just
been
highlighted,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're.
Mindful
of
that,
you
know,
we've.
G
Just
I
just
listened
to
our
local
npr
station,
do
an
interview
with
senator
melissa
in
wintro
about
racist
covenants
that
we
had
here
in
boise,
and
it's
important
for
our
community
to
know
that
our
community
was
structured.
This
way
intentionally,
there's
a
reason
why
we're
nearly
90
white
in
this
city?
It's
not
an
accident,
it
was
done
purposefully
and
I
think
the
work
that
we
do
now
has
to
be
purposeful,
as
well
as
we
undo
that
harm.
So
just
wanted
to
say
that
thank.
A
L
Director
keene,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
This
is
a
massive
effort
and
it's
a
big
lift
and
it's
something
that
has
to
be
done
and
it's
severely
out
of
date.
So
thank
you.
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
more
steps
to
go,
but
this
is
this
is
a
good
strategy
to
move
forward.
A
couple
of
comments
that
I
would
say
I
really
like
the
idea
of
more
mixed
use
around
major
corridors.
I
think
that's
really
smart.
It
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
L
L
I
am
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
parking
because
that's
something
we
heard
a
lot
about
in
west
boise
and
I'm
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
we're
adding
more
ability
for
more
density,
but
we
are
reducing
parking
in
certain
areas
of
the
city
where
people
are
going
to
drive.
I
know
that
we
want
to
give
them
alternatives,
but
the
fact
is:
there's
a
lot
of
driving
that
goes
on
in
west
boise,
particularly
if
you
have
a
young
family
and
you're
moving.
L
You
know
kids
around,
so
I'm
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
that,
but
I
know
that
we'll
hear
more
from
citizens
about
whether
they
want
that
or
not.
I
do
have
a
question,
and
I
got
several
emails
about
this
and
I'm
hopeful
that
you
can
walk
me
through
it
about
whether
this
new
zoning
rewrite
removes
more
public
comment.
If
you
have
like
a
homeless
shelter
that
wants
to
come
into
your
area,
we
heard
a
lot
about
that
with
interfaith
and
I've
gotten
several
emails
that
say
that
it
does.
I
Council
member,
yes,
thank
you
for
the
question
in
the
earlier
versions
of
modules,
one
and
two
you
might
recall
there
was
a
proposal
in
that
version
that
suggested
that
the
city
create
a
300-foot
buffer
from
residential
zones
in
order
to
permit
a
shelter
and
the
reality
of
that
is
that
it
would
have
made
it
impossible
to
do
a
shelter
anywhere
in
the
city.
So
so
that
was
not
a
workable
solution.
I
So
as
we
were
preparing
to
bring
forward
a
revision
to
modules
one
and
two,
we
initially
reviewed
with
our
community
advisory
committee,
a
new
proposal
that
we
were
considering
related
to
shelters-
and
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
council
member
willets.
That's
where
you're
hearing
about
this
from
is
the
discussion
we
had
with
the
community
advisory
committee
and
as
a
result
of
that
we're
we
are
going
to
to
keep
the
regulation
of
shelters
in
this
new
ordinance
as
it
is
today
and-
and
the
reason
for
that
is.
I
This
is
a
very
important
discussion
related
to
how
we
regulate
shelters.
It's
one
that
warrants
its
own
conversation
separate
from
this,
and
so
we
we
don't
want
to
distract
ourselves
from
the
work
that
we're
doing
here
related
to
a
generational
remake
of
the
zoning
ordinance
that
deals
with
the
basic
physical
structure
of
the
city
and
get
sidetracked
with
a
conversation.
That's
a
very
important
one
around
this
very
specific
use,
so
councilmember.
I
G
I
We
do
have
today
we
we
have
posted
the
the
at
five
o'clock
at
five
o'clock
today,
the
the
new
version
of
the
ordinance
that
incorporates
what
I
just
presented
to
you
will
be
available
online
for
everyone
to
see,
so
that
will
go
online
today.
The
new
actual
ordinance
related
to
the
presentation
that
I
just
gave
to
you,
then
we'll.
As
I
said,
we've
got
a
meeting
this
thursday
we've
got
one
on
the
18th
and
one
on
the
28th,
I
think,
are
the
three
dates
for
the
public
forums.
I
Council
has
received
the
notice
on
those
and
the
locations
they're
each.
I
think
an
hour
and
a
half
or
two
hours
so
we'll
be
at
hillcrest
library
this
thursday.
If
you
want
to
join
us
for
that
one
and
then
we'll
shift
after
this
into
module
three
so
that
during
the
fall,
that
will
be
the
discussion
which
relates
to
the
process,
changes
and
the
kind
of
administrative
aspects
of
the
ordinance
that
would
be
related
to
this
new
ordinance
that
we'll
be
presenting
to
council
next
year.
I
So
that's
where
we
are
and
I
wanted
to
speak
to
annexation.
I
know
this
is
something
that
council
has
been
has
been
on
your
mind
for
a
while,
as
it
relates
to
various
annexation,
requests
that
you've
gotten
and
and
wanted
to
just
kind
of
give
you
some
thoughts
that
we've
got
tonight
that
are
emerging
from
requests
that
we've
gotten
from
annexations
and
have
some
discussion
with
you
around
this
such
that
we
can
proceed
accordingly.
I
That
could
include
coming
back
to
you
with
a
policy
that
you
might
adopt,
or
it
could
be
just
a
memo
form
or
something
to
acknowledge
what
we're
thinking
about
in
accession,
but
wanted
to
give
you
give
you
our
thoughts,
because
we
are
facing
some
potential
annexations
in
particular,
particularly
on
the
south
side
of
the
city,
which
is
this
map
that
I've
got
here
which
I'll
get
into
in
just
a
minute.
I
But
but
let
me
say
first
of
all,
the
most
important
thing
I
think
for
the
city
of
boise
is
that
that
we,
that
we
are
very
careful
about
how
we
enable
development
through
the
actions
we
take
and
the
actions
being
annexation
and
zoning
of
property.
That's
currently
outside
the
city
and
careful
in
these
ways.
I
Careful
number
one
in
the
sense
that
we
can
actually
afford
that
development,
because
there
are
certain
places
in
the
city
where,
if
we,
if
we
annex
and
and
enable
development,
it's
going
to
require
an
ex
an
extensive
investment
in
public
services
and
infrastructure.
So
number
one
be
very
careful
about
steps
we
take
in
that
direction,
such
that
we're
not
kind
of
incrementally
taking
these
steps
down
a
road
of
really
some
problematic,
potentially
financial
implications
for
the
residents
of
boise.
So
that's
one
piece.
I
I
We
certainly
have
a
clear
sense
that
boise
should
be
part
of
the
solution
here
and
seeking
to
avoid
the
the
incredible
consumption
of
land
that
can
happen
in
a
region.
You
name
the
region.
We
can
talk
about
it
that
that's
happened
in
most
american
cities,
so
the
second
piece,
in
addition
to
the
financial
reality
of
it,
is
not
taking
these
steps
that
that
would
lead
us
down.
The
road
of
incredible
problems
related
to
some
critical
environmental
issues,
water
availability,
of
course,
being
high
on
them,
steps
that
we
take.
I
That
could,
in
fact,
encourage
you,
know,
know
destruction
of
of
of
nature
and
much
higher
carbon
emissions
and
all
these
kinds
of
things
that
result
from
this
and
and
becomes
a
condition
where
it's
impossible
to
really
serve
with
any
kind
of
transportation.
You
know,
which
is
the
thing
that
that
is
so
emblematic
of
most
cities.
So
so
that's
the
thing
you
know
we
got
to
be
careful
about,
and-
and
I
wanted
to
to
discuss
that
as
it
relates
to
the
south
side
of
the
city
and
and
some
thoughts
that
we
have
about
this.
I
So
this
map
is
obviously
centered
on
the
airport
and
that
this
map
happens
to
include
gallon
at
the
middle
of
it
and
then
showing
the
airport
runways
and
including
the
third
run,
one
runway
which
has
been
planned
south
of
gallon.
I
You
know
why
it's
where
it
is
on
the
right
side
and
on
the
left
side
is
southwest
boise,
of
course,
and
identifying
a
couple
of
properties
in
particular
the
darker
purple
property
is
a
development.
That's
called
locale,
so
you'll.
Remember
this
one,
which
was
annexed
by
the
city
years
ago
and
was
approved
for
over
2200
housing
units.
I
It's
in
purple.
Here
it's
under
development,
it's
early
in
its
development
cycle,
so
we
have
issued,
I
think,
less
than
300
permits
for
less
than
200.
I'm
sorry
permits
for
new
dwellings
at
locale,
so
it's
early
in
locale,
but
that's
in
purple
here
to
the
left
is
a
property.
That's
called
muriel
farms.
I
So
we've
been
looking
at
all
this
and
the
thing
that
we're
concerned
about
is-
and
this
this
is
a
good
area
to
focus
on,
as
it
relates
to
being
careful
about
public
investment
and
being
careful
about
taking
steps
that
enable
sprawling
development
and
our
feeling
is
that
really
we
should
be
sticking
in
this
area
to
development.
That's
that
already
is
served
by
infrastructure.
I
As
I
said,
where
we've
got
existing
infrastructure
and
it's
not
just
the
road
infrastructure,
we're
talking
about
sewer
infrastructure,
we're
talking
about
a
new
fire
department,
so
it's
a
variety
of
public
services
that
are
that,
are
you
know
to
be
considered
here,
and
so
I
will
say
about
the
the
urban
renewal,
district
and
and
another
thing
that
is
unique
about
it.
I
Of
course,
as
you
know,
and
part
of
the
reason
it's
where
it
is
is,
is
it
has
the
railroad
line
here
which
is
owned
by
the
city
and
potent
presents
a
unique
location
for
various
types
of
workplace
and
and
supportive
industry
related
to
making
this
a
place
where
we've
got
a
variety
of
businesses?
So
that
is
an
area
where
I
think
we
should
be
paying
close
attention
to.
I
I
I
will
say
that
that
we've
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this
over
the
past
several
months
and
visited
the
site
walked.
It
have
talked
with
all
city
staff
about
this,
of
course,
and
over
a
year
ago
I
think
it
was.
There
was
a
submittal
related
to
muriel
farms,
which
included
an
analysis
of
what
it
would
take
to
provide
public
services
there.
I
The
city
has
evaluated
that
and
feels
like
that
is
a
that
is
a
property
that
first
of
all,
there
has
been
a
lot
of
effort
to
to
to
put
in
the
infrastructure
that
would
enable
development
on
muriel
farms.
It's
really
surrounded
by
neighborhoods,
as
you
know,
so
it's
we've
got
the
dairy
farm
there
now
and
and
some
fields
that
are
planted,
but
on
the
north
and
the
west
are
existing.
Neighborhoods
that
are
already
built
on
the
east
is
locale,
which
is
under
construction
and
early,
but
it
will
become
its
muriel
farms.
I
I
We
think
that's
a
good
edge
to
the
city
as
it
relates
to
that
growth
on
the
south
side
right
now
down
to
the
new
york
canal,
so
we
will
be
supporting
that
moving
forward
to
planning
and
zoning
sometime
soon,
but
again
it's
it's
an
instance
where
we've
got
the
existing
infrastructure
in
place
or
substantially
in
place
to
serve
neurio
farms
and
where
we
would
really
restrict
things
is,
as
I
said,
east
of
orchard
and
and
west
of
the
industrial
on
on
west
of
84..
So
those
are
some
initial
comments
from
you.
I
Just
wanted
to
have
a
discussion
with
you
take
any
kind
of
questions
or
comments
you
have
such
that
we
could
accordingly
come
back
to
you
with
potentially
a
policy
that
you
adopt
or
or
some
parameters
around,
which
we'll
continue
to
evaluate
annexations
and
bring
them
forward
to
you
in
the
cases
that
we
feel
they're
appropriate.
So
questions
for
me
of
that.
H
Yeah,
thank
you.
Madame
tim.
I
I
think
that
this
is
such
a
new
concept
and
such
a
departure
from
the
way
that
we've
thought
about
annexation
in
the
past,
and
so
it
might
take
us
like
a
little
bit
of
time
to
sort
of
digest
it
and
figure
it
out.
But
the
question
that
comes
immediately
to
my
mind
is
several
years
ago,
and
I
think
I
bring
this
up
every
few
months,
or
so
we
had,
it
was
a
it
was.
A
member
of
the
planning
department
came
up
in
front
of
us
and
said
we
could.
H
How
do
those
two
things
kind
of
intersect,
like
boise,
taking
on
our
share
of
treasure
valley
growth
in
a
way
that
is
urban
and
walkable
and
vibrant
and
kind
of
because
we
haven't
been
doing
that
right,
like
the
treasure
valley's
been
growing
huge,
it's
sprawling
boise,
we
haven't
really
been
building
that
much.
You
know
our
growth
is
less
than
one
percent
a
year.
The
rest
of
the
valley
is,
you
know
much
like
twice
or
three
times
that
so
I.
I
Just
would
love
your
thoughts
on
all
of
that.
Well,
thank
you
for
asking
that
question,
because
I
wouldn't
want
anyone
here
at
all
to
leave
thinking
that
somehow
I'm
suggesting
that
the
city
would
would
seek
to
stop
growing,
that
that
is
the
opposite
of
what
I'm
thinking
about,
and
actually
the
zoning
presentation
I
just
made
is
an
example
of
what
you've
just
discussed
council
member
weddings,
which
is
we
have
to
do
the
work
in
the
city
to
to
enable
this
kind
of
infill
and
more
urban
development
within
the
already
developed
areas
of
the
city.
I
E
Thank
you
well,
thank
you
tim
as
everyone
in
this
room
knows,
I've
been
a
proponent
of
the
lake
hazel
extension
for
a
long
time
more
than
that,
I've
been
a
proponent
of
an
expanded
industrial
growth
area
for
the
city
of
boise,
because
we
had
turned
our
back
on
industrial
growth
for
a
great
number
of
years.
E
What
we
haven't
done
in
the
time
that
I've
been
a
proponent
for
that
is
really
dig
into
what
does
that
mean?
What
kind
of
industrial
growth?
How?
How
should
it?
If,
if
we're
going
to
pursue
that,
are
there,
I
was
struck
that
you
didn't
talk
about
industrial
at
all
in
your
zoning
presentation.
How
would
we
zone
it?
What
are
the
sustainability
factors?
What
are
the
other
factors
that
would
make
it
worthwhile?
E
You
pointed
out,
we
have
this
incredible
infrastructure
existing
with
the
rail,
the
interstate
and
the
airport
that
doesn't
exist
anywhere
else
in
idaho,
and
if
we're
going
to
really
utilize
it,
we
should
be
thoughtful
about
how
we
utilize
it
not
just
use
it
up
for
stuff
that
could
go.
You
know
pretty
much
anywhere,
so
I'm
very
supportive
of
that.
E
I
want
to
clarify
a
couple
of
things:
you
talked
about
east
of
or
west
of
orchard,
but
we
have
some
land,
that's
already
annexed
east
to
the
east
of
orchards.
So
I
I
think
there
are
some
devils
in
the
devil
in
the
details
there
about
where
the
line
is
also.
I
think,
at
least
for
me
understanding
what's
existing
today,
how
much
of
that
land
that
we
have
in
the
urd
is
spoken
for
or
has
application
on
it,
how
much
we
still
have
available?
E
What
is
the
possibility
of
real
industrial,
not
just
warehousing
and
distribution
manufacturing,
and
how
could
we
envision
making
that
happen
in
a
way
that
would
be
a
real
asset
to
the
city
and
not
not
a
detractor?
So
I
think
I
think,
you're
absolutely
on
the
right
track
that,
especially
with
residential
growth,
we've
got
a
we've
got
more
than
enough
land
in
the
existing
city.
E
I
think
for
the
kind
of
run-of-the-mill
industrial
uses,
there's
still
land
also,
but
I
think
we
have
this
unique
opportunity
around
the
rail
and
the
freeway
and
the
airport
that
we
need
to
continue
to
be
really
careful
about.
And
actually
I
think
this
presents
in
my
mind,
an
opportunity
to
do
what
we
talked
about
a
decade
ago,
which
is
think
about
the
kinds
of
policies
that
would
support
the
kind
of
industrial
that
we'd
like
to
see,
including
sustainable,
closed
loops
and
those
kinds
of
things.
E
So
a
lot
of
things
going
forward
and
I
think
we're
at
a
point
where,
where
it
makes
sense
to
pull
in
really
really
think
thoughtfully
about
what
where
we
want
to
go.
B
L
Thank
you,
dr
kane.
I
had
a
I
had
a
question
about
margaritio
park.
I
I
was
hearing
farms
and
I
was
trying
to
better
understand
what
you're
talking
about.
So,
if
the
city
annexes
mcgradio
park
or
the
margarita
site
as
it
is
on
this
legend,
would
that
be
subject
to
the
open
space
policy
that
the
mayor
would
like
to
do
in
preserving
open
space?
How
would
that
fit
into
that.
I
Well,
council,
member,
what
I
was
referring
to
is
muriel
farms,
which
is
owned
by
the
mcgerdio
family
and
they
run
the
dairy,
that's
there
and
the
farm
that's
there,
but
that
is
different
than
the
mcgerdio
property
you're.
Speaking
of
on
this
map,
the
mcgowan
muriel
farms
property,
which
I'm
speaking
of
that
we've
been
evaluating,
is
on
the
new
york
canal
at
the
very
southern
end
of
maple,
grove
and
coal.
On
this
map.
J
Ahead
yeah,
madam
mayor,
just
a
quick
comment,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
people
like
the
least,
is
being
surprised
that
something's
going
to
happen
in
a
certain
area
that
they
thought
maybe
wouldn't
or
never
would,
and
I
think
that
that's
why
we
always
talked
about
a
predictable
development
pattern.
And
so
I
love
the
idea
of
having
further
discussions
of
examining
lines
and
policies
of
really
trying
to
give
expectations
to
our
community
members.
What
changes
they
might
want
to
see
in
the
future.
J
H
My
comment
is
this:
if
we
choose
to
not
develop
within
our
city
area
of
impact,
can
the
county
still
develop
within
our
city
area
of
impact
and
I
think
there's
a
trade-off
there
right,
because
if
it's
city
of
boise
development,
we
have
standards
and
we
have
different
requirements
of
that
development
where,
if
the
county
does
it
they,
you
know
it's
often
lower
density.
It
doesn't
necessarily
comply
with
some
of
our
the
requirements
that
we
have
around
different
housing
types
and
that
type
of
thing.
So
can
you
just
speak
to
yeah.
I
Yes,
the
the
I
won't
speak
to
the
legal
parameters
around
which
ada
county
can
enable
development.
You
know
in
our
area
of
impact
or
even
outside
of
it,
but
I
will
say
this
the
discussions
that
I've
heard
of
happening
in
this
region,
certainly
on
the
south
side
of
the
city
as
it
relates
to
these
issues,
are
headed
in
the
direction
that
I'm
speaking
of
here.
I
I
We're
all
facing,
and
they're
they're
going
to
become
much
more
acute
and
pronounced
and
and
ada
county
is,
is
looking
at
what
the
implications
are
of
plan
developments
outside
municipalities
in
ways
that
are
very
responsible
and
thinking
about
what?
What
can
we
actually
support
as
a
community
in
these
locations
that
are
outside
the
existing
municipal
jurisdictions?
So-
and
I
think
our
neighbor
to
the
west
and
south
keno
is
having
similar
conversations.
So
your
point
is
a
good
one.