►
From YouTube: Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting #8 - 5/20/21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
I
also
wanted
to
reflect
a
little
bit
on
our
agenda
for
today.
So
everybody
knows
where
we're
headed.
I
believe
that
we'll
have
all
of
our
city-wide
advisory
committee.
Members
present,
with
the
exception
of
one
so
jessica
aguilar,
had
a
conflicting
meeting,
so
she
will
not
be
able
to
join
us
today,
but
she
will
be
back
with
us
in
june.
A
We
have
quite
a
bit
to
cover
today,
so
we're
going
to
open
up
and
talk
a
little
bit
about
module
one.
So
if
there's
any
residual
thoughts
in
regard
to
that,
then
we're
going
to
move
on
to
a
presentation
and
some
discussion.
That's
going
to
really
open
up
that
module,
2
discussion
regarding
design
and
development
standards,
so
we'll
be
working
on
that
for
the
majority
of
the
meeting,
and
so
we'll
be
asking
you
really
three
key
topics.
You
know
what
are
you
looking
for
in
those
regulations?
A
We'll
also
talk
about
some
heightened
transition
and
then,
as
I
noted,
we
do
have
some
attendees,
so
we'll
talk
about
them
or
talk
with
them
at
the
end
as
well.
If
they'd
like
to
communicate
anything
with
us
and
then
we
also
before
the
meeting,
we
had
quite
a
bit
of
talk
about
housing,
affordability
and
those
type
of
things.
A
A
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
continually
engage
our
stakeholders
and
our
citizens
through
the
process
making
sure
that
we're
getting
a
really
great
balance
between
those
traditional
euclidean
based
zones.
Form-Based
zoning,
as
well
as
performance-based
zoning,
making
sure
that
we're
incentivizing
and
getting
great
design
and
a
diverse
mixture
of
land
uses
improving
the
user
friendliness
to
make
sure
that
everybody
can
use
the
document
once
we
complete
it
and
making
sure
we
have
a
streamlined
development
review
process.
A
A
All
of
these
ideas
then
help
us
draft
our
upcoming
module,
which
will
be
module
number
two
focusing
on
those
design
standards.
So
we
do
expect
everybody
to
participate.
Some
of
you
do
feel
comfortable
vocalizing
your
opinion.
If
not,
we
do
have
follow-up
surveys
and
we
encourage
you
to
always
fill
those
out
and
you
can
always
reach
out
to
any
one
of
us
as
well
be
happy
to
to
take
notes.
A
Talk
to
you
work
through
anything
that
might
be
on
your
mind
to
those
type
of
things,
but
as
we
move
forward,
we
just
ask
that
you
be
prepared
and
ready
to
share
all
of
your
thoughts
and
ideas,
really
thinking
globally
about
our
community,
so
that
going
back
to
that
mission
of
creating
a
city
for
everyone
being
kind
to
one
another
really
actively
listening,
and
so
that
would
include
not
interrupting
others
and
then
really
being
ready
to
learn
and
do
your
first
best.
So,
but
you
guys
are
a
really
great
group
oftentimes.
A
We
don't
even
have
to
go
over
these
things,
but
that's
just
going
to
give
us
a
guide
of
where
we're
headed
today
and
we'll
set
the
stage
as
we
start
the
beginning
of
topics
that
are
going
to
lead
us
to
the
drafting
of
module
2..
So
with
that,
I
want
to
go
ahead
and
hand
it
over
to
don
elliott,
who
will
be
here
presenting,
and
we
also
have
gabby
heart
as
well.
So.
B
B
B
It
looks
like
you
might
have
to
go
down
to
the
bottom
and
do
the
presentation,
motor
or
slide
show
up
at
the
top
that
keys
yeah
there
we
go
swap
it
over
there.
We
go.
So
let's
go
to
the
next
slide.
B
Okay,
we
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
module
two
and
andrea.
I
didn't
know
we.
This
is
what
we're
gonna
cover
today.
Basically,
we're
gonna,
as
andre
said,
talk
about
the
complexity
of
the
current
standards
and
then
talk
about
two
of
the
basic
things
that
are
of
many
much
concern
to
many
people
in
terms
of.
Besides,
what
use
can
you
do
in
what
district,
but
the
density,
the
intensity,
the
form
the
fit
and
among
those
height
and
transitions
of
height,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we're
going
today?
B
C
So
we
have
a
couple
of
people
so
daniel
do
you
want
to
get
us
started
and
then
we'll
follow
up
with
chris.
D
Sure
thanks
andrew
yeah,
I
was
sorry
to
miss
the
last
meeting,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
couple
things
again.
You
know
so
impressed
with
the
work
that
continues
to
happen
by
both
city
staff
and
the
consultant
team.
So
really
appreciate
all
your
efforts.
There
were
a
couple.
You
know,
topics
that
I
think
are
probably
deserving
more
discussion,
and-
and
probably
I
don't
know
that
10
minutes
is
going
to
be
enough,
because
I
just
want
to
flag
two
issues
that
and
they
may
come
up
in
module
two.
D
It
was
a
little
unclear
for
me
reading
through
module
one.
You
know
where,
where
the
edges
were
so,
one
topic
is
just
the
adu
rules.
That
begin
on
page
199
of
the
draft
that
went
out-
and
you
know
I
think,
in
this
draft-
you
basically
have
carried
forward
the
city's
current
policies
that
were
adopted
two
years
ago,
and
I
think
it
just
would
be
good
to
have
a
conversation
about
how
how
well
are
those
rules
working?
What
have
we
seen
like?
D
We
have
there
been
more
adus,
how
many
more
there
are
still
restrictions
in
there.
That
adu
advocates
you
know,
would
like
to
see
removed
or
some
edu
advocates,
including
me,
would
like
to
see,
remove
and
I
think
it'd
just
be
good
to
have
a
conversation
about
both
the
owner
occupancy
requirement,
the
parking
requirements
and
the
size
limitations.
I
think
all
those
are
are
functioning
as
constraints
on
adus,
and
you
know
I
just
I
think
would
be
good
to
get
a
sense
of
the
group
of
where
we
are
on
that.
D
I
think
it
would
also
be
great
to
see
some
of
the
data
about
how
you
know
what
has
changed,
because
we've
had.
We
have
two
years
of
experience
with
these
new
roles
and
are
we
getting
the
adu
production
output
that
we
might
hope
for
our
city?
So
that's
one
topic.
The
other
topic
is
again
in
the
same
section,
which
goes
to
under
section,
I
think,
yeah,
f,
sort
of
which
goes
to
kind
of
the
floor.
D
In
for
duplexes
triplexes
in
in
existing
residential
zones,
floor
area
ratios
setbacks,
there's
a
whole
list
of
kind
of
conditions
that
go
with
those,
and
I
I
think
that's
just
and
I
think
that's
part
of
actually
kind
of
part
of
this
module
two
discussion,
but
I
do
want
to
just
flag
that
there
are
different
views
about.
You
know
how
to
do
that
and
then
certainly
other
cities.
You
know
step
up
the
far
with
the
number
of
units
and
we
can
talk
about
the
pros
and
cons
of
that.
So
those.
A
A
Okay,
perfect
yeah.
So
it's
it's
relatively
recent,
but
we
can
look
at
some
of
those
numbers
and
get
them
to
you.
How
many
we
were
approving
prior
to
that?
How
many
we've
approved
since
that
and
get
you
some
information
and
then
also
look
at
some
of
that
information,
and
we
can
bring
it
back
for
discussion
and
we
can
do
the
same
for
duplexes
as
well,
so
that
was
actually
recently
revamped
as
well.
A
So
we
just
added
some
open
space
requirements
trying
to
be
consistent
with
the
substandard
law,
ordinance
that
is
currently
in
existence
in
those
types
of
things.
So
we
can
certainly
look
at
that
as
a
group
and
so
I'll
get
you
some
information
for
the
next
meeting
and
then
hopefully
we
can
start
to
to
talk
about
some
of
those
things
as
well.
E
Hi,
so
my
question
is
hopefully
relatively
quick,
so
looking
through
module
one
and
then
also
just
like
looking
on
the
city
website,
I'm
wondering
when
we're
going
to
see
maps
of
the
zones.
So
we
have
like
the
new
zones
sort
of
listed
out
and
sort
of
the
changes
to
that.
But
the
maps
that
exist
on
the
city
website
are
still
the
current
zone
zoning
code.
So
I'm
curious
since
I
didn't
find
any
maps
if
any
one
do
exist
or
two
when
we
can
expect
that
to
happen.
E
So
I'm
especially
interested
in
the
mixed
use
zoning
and
how
that's
expected
to
change,
because
I
imagine
that,
especially
along
like
transit
corridors
and
in
in
some
of
these
transition
areas,
that
there
will
be
a
change
in
zoning
to
represent
some
of
these
mixed-use
zones.
And
so
I'd
like
to
see
what
areas
are
sort
of
being
targeted
for
that.
If
that's
already
been
decided
or
if
that's
still
an
upcoming
discussion
that
we
haven't
had
yet.
B
Andrea,
can
I
tackle
that
one,
you
betcha,
so
we've
that
the
question
has
come
up
earlier:
you're,
not
the
first
to
ask
and
say
wow,
it's
kind
of
hard
to
visualize
what
people
have
in
mind
without
a
map.
We
have
advised
that
the
earliest
we
would
recommend
that
you
do,
that
is
after
module.
Two
goes
public
because,
right
now
there
is
no
map.
I
haven't
drawn
a
map,
I
don't
think
staff's
run
a
map,
but
if
we
did
draw
a
map
drop,
draw
a
map
and
said
well.
B
This
is
this
is
how
you
should
think
about
it.
When,
when
you
read
module
one
and
you're
looking
down
this
column,
where
would
it
apply?
The
first
question:
that's
going
to
come
up
is
well
how
tall
would
it
be?
How
much
parking
would
that
require?
How
much
of
the
lot
can
it
cover?
Does
it
have
to
be
close
to
the
street
and
those
are
module,
two
questions,
and
so,
in
our
experience
you
kind
of
have
to
have
in
your
hands
a
proposal.
B
Even
though
it's
just
a
proposal,
it's
a
draft
that
talks
about
uses
and
form
and
landscaping
and
parking,
because
that
way
people
can
stare
at
it
and
they
can
have
an
answer
to
their
questions.
Oh
they're,
talking
about
five
story,
buildings
in
that
area,
they're
only
talking
about
two
story:
buildings
in
that
area,
and
so
our
our
suggestion,
the
third
module
is
on
process
and
process,
doesn't
affect
who
can
do
what?
Where
with
what
quality
standards?
B
And
so
we
think
you
could
have
a
discussion
of
that
as
early
as
when
module
two
goes
out,
but
we've
we've
suggested
to
the
city
that
you
not
do
it
before.
That.
G
Hi,
andrea
and
everyone
else,
it
is
a
short
time
to
comment,
so
I
will
be
brief.
I
did
some
submit
some
comments
for
modular
one.
G
My
question
or
comment
really
has
to
do
with
the
public
engagement
process
and
educating
the
public
as
to
this
entire
process
for
rezoning,
and
I
appreciate
the
information
that
you
sent
out
about
all
the
opportunities
the
public
would
have,
but
also
you
know
in
our
meetings,
we
have
the
opportunity
or
the
recognition
of
the
fact
that
this
is
a
really
big
picture
process,
but
with
the
people
I
talk
to
and
some
of
the
sessions
I've
listened
to
outside
of
this
group.
G
This
whole
process
reminds
me
of
how
a
bill
becomes
a
law,
it's
a
real
sausage
making
process,
and
I
would
like
to
suggest-
and
you
know
maybe,
if
there's
time
now
or
some
point
in
the
future,
how
do
we
explain
this
process
better
to
folks
who
are
not
involved
in
this
committee?
G
That
it's,
you
know
why
the
modules
are
designed
like
they
are
don,
just
addressed,
why
the
maps
aren't
out
there
yet,
because
you
know
where
I
live
is
different
than
where
people
in
the
northwest
or
the
southwest
live
which
are
not
as
developed
as
my
environment.
G
So
you
know
I'm
really
hoping
that
we
have
an
opportunity
in
the
future
as
to
how
we
can
better
communicate
this
entire
process,
whether
it
be
from
the
city
or
from
us
as
citizen
advisory
committee.
Members.
B
Andrea,
I
figured
that
andrea
or
diana
would
address
that
in
terms
of
the
plans
for
outreach.
But
it's
a
great
comment.
It's
my
only
comment
would
be
it's
very
thoughtful
comment.
I'm
sure
it's
on
many
people's
minds
keep
in
mind
there
are.
There
are
four
parts
of
this
come
each
one
gets
a
comment
and
when
the
whole
picture
is
put
together,
there's
another
round
of
comment
we
need.
I
I
think
your
point
goes.
Yeah,
there's
some
logic
to
that.
But
the
public
may
not
understand
that
or
they're
they.
B
They
have
not
had
a
chance
to
understand
the
flow
of
it
and
the
fact
that
the
fact
that
they
don't
see
why
the
gears
are
turning
in
the
way
the
gears
are
turning
doesn't
mean
that
it's
a
backdoor
deal
that
that
in
fact,
there's
a
logic
behind
it
that
could
be
explained
to
the
public.
I
think
that's
your
point
and
I
agree.
G
It
is
and
I'll
just
tag
on
to
that
a
little
bit
as
a
former
government
employee
involved
in
nepa.
It's
it's.
The
process
is
like,
and
my
apologies
to
anybody
who's,
a
vegan
making
sausage
you
know-
and
it's
just
very
complicated.
So
when
I
try
and
share
to
folks
what's
going
on,
you
know
the
questions
that
come
back
to
me
in
my
small
little
group
and
then
to
others.
I
listen
to
well
what
about
affordable
housing
which
reflects
a
lot
of
the
emails
and
what
about
parking
and
what
about
this?
G
A
And
I
that
those
are
really
great
comments
and
roberta
you
and
I
had
an
opportunity
to
chat
about
that
yesterday
and
or
the
day
before,
and
I
think
that
those
are
all
really
great
so
we're
taking
those
into
consideration
and
trying
to
figure
out
the
best
way
to
communicate
to
everyone
so
that
they
understand
that
there
are
multiple
opportunities
for
them
to
participate
throughout
the
process
and
then,
at
the
end
too,
once
we
consolidate
all
of
those
draft
modules
which
will
be
three
there'll,
be
additional
opportunity
to
comment
as
well
and
then
we'll.
A
You
know
also
try
and
utilize
normal
language
and
try
not
to
use
difficult
terms
that
are
very
technical,
because
oftentimes
people
don't
understand
what
technical
terms
are
unless
you
are
in
the
business,
so
really
communicating
to
people
clearly
and
concisely,
and
so
we'll
continue
to
do
that.
So,
if
you
have
additional
comments
in
regard
to
that,
you
know
always
let
us
know,
because
we
can
certainly
do
that
as
well.
So
we'll
we'll
go
ahead
and
update
some
of
our
materials
to
make
sure
that
we're
reaching
as
many
people
as
we
can
most
effectively.
G
And
I'll
add
one
more
thing,
so
I
lie
I'm
making
up
for
my
lack
of
verbal
communications
in
the
past,
and
that
is
how
how
do
we
become
more
engaged
or
how
do
you
as
the
city
and
the
consultants
or
my
colleagues
in
this
volunteer
committee?
G
How
do
we
do
a
better
job
in
communicating
this,
because
I
think
we're
all
coming
from
our
own
perspective
like
why
I
got
onto
this
committee
or
why
so
and
so
got
onto
this
committee,
and
I
hope
that
we
could
have
a
more
detailed
conversation
amongst
ourselves
at
some
point
as
to
how
we
could
help
this
process
move
along
because
my
idealistic
little
world.
I
hope
that
we're
all
here
for
a
unified
outcome.
A
Let
them
know
about
all
the
opportunities
that
they
have
so,
whether
it's
signing
up
for
our
newsletter
and
email
list
participating
in
one
of
our
community
conversations
filling
out
a
survey,
those
types
of
things
and
we're
doing
our
best
as
well
to
get
out
on
social
media
to
do
interviews
with
some
of
our
news
outlets.
Those
types
of
things
as
well,
so
just
share
that
information
openly
and
freely,
and
if
they
have
questions
you
can
always
direct
them
back
to
us.
A
A
A
Yes,
so,
ultimately,
we
would
like
to
have
preliminary
comments
by
june
1..
Now
that
is
just
to
get
us
in
that
really
good,
standings
and
good
footings
to
understand
the
big
things
that
our
people
are
concerned
about.
But
as
we
go
through
the
process,
you're
going
to
notice
things
that
that
maybe
not
they
don't
jive,
maybe
they
conflict
with
one
another,
those
types
of
things,
so
you
always
have
the
ability
to
provide
us
comments.
So
you
can
provide
us
comments
via
email.
You
can
give
us
a
telephone
call,
we'll
take
notes.
A
You
can
put
that
in
those
surveys
that
you
receive
at
the
end
of
our
city-wide
advisory
committee
meetings
or
you
if
you
have
a
hard
copy
and
you
have
notes
or
sticky
notes
whatever
that
is.
However,
you
edit
best
or
communicate
best.
That's
the
way
to
do
it.
So
just
get
that
to
us
and
we'll
make
sure
that
we,
as
a
project
team,
have
that
information,
as
well
as
the
clarion
consulting
team
as
well.
B
And
I
would
just
say
that's
for
the
benefit
of
people.
They
comment
in
the
chat
box
was
she's
deadline
driven.
She
just
needs
to
have
a
date.
I'm
the
same
way
tell
me
when
I
have
to
get
it
done,
but
I
want
to
be
clear
if
you
show
up
in
november
with
a
comment
on
module,
one
it
will
be
taken
seriously.
B
B
If
the
earlier
we
get
the
comments
on
uses
in
districts,
the
faster
we
can
roll
it
into
our
thinking,
if
everybody
hates
x
and
doesn't
think
it
should
be
allowed
in
boise
at
all
consultants
shouldn't
be
spending
a
lot
of
time
thinking
through
the
parking
standards
for
x,
because
it's
kind
of
a
waste
of
time,
and
so
that's
an
extreme
example
that
doesn't
happen.
But
my
point
is
the
more
we
can
get
sense.
Andrew
can
get
a
sense.
This
is
still
up
in
the
air,
the
better.
B
We
can
let
that
guide,
how
much
time
and
energy
we
put
into
fleshing
out
module,
2
and
down
the
road
and
say
you
know
this.
Is
we
got
to
think
about
it?
Maybe
this
one's
going
to
go
away?
Maybe
we
shouldn't
spend
so
much
time
on
it
right
now,
because
it's
still
debatable
as
to
whether
this
is
going
forward
so.
H
Hey
everybody,
I
guess,
dawn
just
kind
of
answered.
What
I
was
thinking
here
is
like
this
module
one.
Is
this
set
in
stone
or
do
we
have
still
some
flexibility
here,
because
you
know
I'm
not
agreeing
with
consol
consolidating
and
losing
the
restrictions
on
some
of
these
protected
areas?
H
So
I
mean
I
I
just
want
to
know
that
we
can
still
you
know
correct
some
of
this
and
on
another
point,
is
the
communication
that
we've
had
there
really
hasn't
been
any
outside
of
this
group.
I
know
I've
sent
out
some
stuff
and
I
always
wait
to
the
last
minute
to
do
it,
and
then
we
get
a
little
bit
of
reaction
from
it.
But
you
know
if.
E
Everybody's,
you
know:
what
are
we
doing.
H
B
B
Well,
I
would
agree
with
proposition
x
as
long
as
a
and
b
and
c
were
true
and
then
somebody
says
well,
I
don't
agree
with
c
or
b,
but
I
agree
with
a
can't
do
it,
you
have
to
put
it
in
writing.
All
this
reflects.
Is
that
having
done
the
outreach
we've
done
and
had
the
discussions
we've
done,
staff
approved
us
to
say
this
is
good
enough
for
public
discussion.
This
is
what
we're
we
are
willing
to
say.
This
is
out
there
for
public
discussion.
B
So
how
do
we
figure
this
out
and
how
do
we
explain
how
we
figured
that
out
and
I'll
I'll
tell
you
in
advance?
I
think
their
main
thing
is
going
to
be
well,
which
set
of
comments
will
bring
us
closer
to
the
blueprint,
boise
vision,
that's
where
we
got
to
go,
but
I
I
guess
my
point
is
it's
not
at
all
set
in
stone.
B
There
are
going
to
be
three
more
comprehensive
rounds
for
comments,
and
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
there's
one
after
that,
as
part
of
phase
four
often
happens,
you
put
it
all
together,
you
go
out
for
a
comment.
People
make
a
bunch
of
comments,
you
change
it
and
then
they
want
to
see
it
again
and
comment
again.
B
Now
I'm
not
committing
boise
to
that,
but
they've
built
a
lot
of
time
into
the
end
of
this
process,
in
expectation
that
that
will
happen
that,
in
fact,
despite
multiple
rounds
of
comments
on
the
modules,
there
will
be
additional
comments
on
the
consolidated
draft
and
there
will
probably
be
continued
discussion
after
that.
That
needs
to
be
sorted
out
before
this
moves
forward.
So
brad
it
is
nothing.
None
of
this
has
been
set
in
stone.
B
It's
just
the
nature
of
zoning
work
that
you
have
to
put
it
in
writing
and
even
though
you
may
not
agree
with
it,
the
effort
that's
been
put
on
the
table
so
far
is
an
attempt
to
balance
the
competing
comments.
We've
heard
back
and
forth,
it
isn't
all
on
one
side
or
all
in
the
other.
It's
an
attempt
to
balance
that
and
your
comments
make
clear
and
I'm
not
surprised.
I
think
a
number
of
people
say
well,
I
don't
it
doesn't
reflect
the
balance.
A
B
Will-
and
let
me
just
lay
a
little
foundation
that
gaby
is
going
to
handle
the
first
part
of
this
presentation,
we're
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
timeline
for
module
two.
Just
as
we
talked
about
the
my
timeline
for
module
one
in
an
earlier
thought
process,
we
had
allowed
less
time
for
module
two.
We
argued,
and
we
agreed
with
the
city
that
you
need
more
time.
So
many
people,
and
even
in
the
chat
box
today
have
said
I
have
a
hard
time.
Reading
module
one
without
module.
B
Two
and
among
the
many
things
that
people
care
about
are
height
density
form,
lot
coverage.
What
does
it
look
and
feel
like
yeah?
Okay?
I
can't
visualize
this
use
until
I
know
how
big
it's
going
to
be.
So
this
whole
session
is
about
that.
There's
a
lot
more
in
module,
two
that
we'll
cover
in
june
and
july.
This
one
we've
asked-
and
I
guess
I'll
just
say
the
words
we're
gonna
slow
down,
because
the
dimensional
standards
are
complicated.
B
Some
of
you
eat
and
breathe
this
and
and
understand
it
before
you
woke
up
this
morning
and
because
this
group
has
been
created
with
a
wide
divergence,
a
wide
diversity
of
opinion
me,
including
people
who
do
not
spend
their
lives.
Looking
at
zoning
ordinances
at
all
and
and
don't
speak,
the
language,
probably
we're
going
to
slow
down,
because
it's
important
to
understand
the
various
moving
pieces
of
this.
B
And
if
we
rush
through
it,
there
are
going
to
be
people
saying
I
you
lost
me
at
3
30
and
I
couldn't
follow
what
was
going
on
after
that.
And
so
the
first
part
of
this
is
to
talk
about
how
we're
going
to
go
about
module,
2
and
then
to
present
the
tools,
the
toolbox
of
things
that
cities
use
to
govern,
form,
height
density
intensity,
floor
area
ratio.
B
Just
to
try
to
see
if
we
can
get
a
foundation
of
that
people
understand
what
those
terms
are
and
also
a
an
understanding
that
using
a
whole
lot
of
tools
makes
the
code
very
complicated
and
then
we're
going
to
ask
some
key
questions
related
to
it.
So
we're
going
to
do
kind
of
how
do
you?
How
do
you
think
about
this?
What
do
the
terms
mean
then
some
trends
then
some
key
questions
for
discussion.
So
gabby,
would
you
take
it
from
here.
F
Sure,
thanks
don,
so
just
as
a
reminder
of
where
we're
at
in
the
larger
zoning
code
rewrite
process,
we
have
the
public
draft
of
module,
one
posted
and
available
for
comments
and
now
we're
shifting
into
module
two,
the
design
and
development
standards,
which
is
what
we're
talking
about
today.
F
So
the
plan
calls
for
compact
and
walkable
development
that
supports
transit
transitions
between
non-residential
or
higher
intensity,
residential
and
the
adjoining
neighborhoods,
and
to
ensure
that
infill
and
redevelopment
within
established
neighborhoods
is
compatible
and
uses.
Zoning
tools
like
building
heights
and
setbacks.
To
ensure
that
compatibility.
F
So
before
we
get
into
our
discussion
questions
it's
important
that
we
walk
through
some
of
the
basics
of
these
dimensional
and
form
standards
and
like
don
mentioned
after
we
get
through
this
and
then
and
the
next
slide,
we'll
pause
to
see
if
anyone
needs
any
clarification
on
the
actual
concepts
or
terms
because,
like
don
said,
we
know
not,
everyone
here,
lives
and
breathes
zoning.
But
since
we
do
we're
happy
to
answer
those
questions
and
that
way,
when
we
get
into
the
discussion,
we
can
all
be
on
the
same
page,
all
right.
F
F
However,
in
low
density
residential
districts,
it's
common
to
keep
lot
size
and
width,
but
there
are
a
few
communities
that
have
gotten
rid
of
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
and
only
have
a
minimum
lot
width
requirement
so
that
the
street
appearance
of
the
lot
is
consistent
with
the
surrounding
properties.
But
the
lot
size
itself
does
not
have
to
match.
F
Next
on.
The
list
is
residential
residential
density,
which
is
usually
measured
in
maximum
dwelling
units
per
acre,
and
this
is
another
standard
measure
to
include,
but
in
communities
that
are
more
concerned
with
form
they're,
sometimes
being
replaced
with
more
form-based
standards
like
building
types.
That
say,
here's
the
type
of
building
that
fits
in
here
and
we're
not
going
to
limit
you
to
a
maximum
number
of
dwellings.
So
long
as
you
fit
this
building
type
and
next
is
maximum
development
intensity,
which
is
sometimes
regulated
by
floor
area
ratio.
F
F
F
First
about
far
so
far,
plural
area
ratio
was
developed
primarily
for
suburban
green
field
development
and
it
turned
out
actually
to
be
a
good
way
to
measure
traffic
generation
so
that
traffic
engineers
could
look
at
raw
land
and
before
a
particular
development
was
planned,
you
could
run
the
numbers
about
the
kind
of
traffic
that
might
be
produced
based
on
the
type
of
development
that
was
being
proposed
and
see
if
the
rose
can
handle
it.
F
So
if
you
look
at
this
graphic,
you
can
see
that
three
very
different
building
forms
are
placed
within
the
same
lot
area
based
on
a
0.5,
1
and
2
floor
area
ratio
and
later
in
the
presentation.
Don
is
actually
going
to
talk
about
some
other
tools
that
are
being
used
to
regulate
development
intensity
instead
of
far
and
then
finally,
for
setbacks.
We
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
the
front
and
rear
setbacks
run
from
side
to
side
on
the
lot
and
then
the
side
yard
setbacks
make
up
the
space
in
between
those
two.
F
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that,
based
on
the
list
of
tools
and
descriptions
from
that
previous
slide,
that
I'm
right
in
interpreting
that
different
zones
and
areas
are
likely
going
to
have
different
tools
from
this
list
applied.
So
there
will
be
different
tools
used
in
low
density
versus
high
density,
residential
versus
mixed
use
versus
commercial
that
it's
that
each
of
the
zones
will
have
their
own
sort
of
mix
of
these
tools.
B
That's
right,
I
want
to
say
one
more
word
before
we
move
on.
Just
gabby
did
a
great
job,
but
just
while
we're
staring
at
far
again
for
those
of
you
who
didn't
wake
up
saying
far
in
the
morning,
it's
the
ratio
of
the
square
footage
in
the
building,
which
is
you
know
it
could
be
on
several
floors.
But
it's
the
total
of
all
the
square
footage
of
all
the
floors
of
the
building
compared
to
the
square
footage
of
the
lot
on
which
it's
placed,
which
is
why
that
first
example
says
well.
B
If
it's
0.5
your
building
could
have
half
as
many
square
feet
in
it
on
a
one-story
building,
as
there
are
square
feet
on
your
lot.
That's
a
0.5
f.a.r.
But
if
you
look
to
the
right
of
that,
oh,
but
it
could
be
two
stories
that
occupy
one
quarter
of
your
lot.
And
so
that's
that's.
When
we
talk
about
f,
a
our
floor
area
ratio,
the
ratio
of
the
floor
area
of
the
building
to
the
lot
on
which
it
is.
H
Sorry
guys,
I
got
a
phone
call
there,
I'm
trying
to
get
away
from,
but
how
does
this
apply
to
this
bonus
density?
It
doesn't
seem
like
this
is
happening
in
these
high
density
subdivisions
that
are
five
feet
apart.
You
know,
how
is
how
does
that
work
with
with
this
this
formula
here.
B
Well,
the
we're
trying
to
explain
the
basic
tools
here.
Some
of
the
some
of
the
existing
developments
were
approved
with.
Could
you
go
back
to
one
slide
gabby,
so
different
developments
currently
were
approved
with
different
combinations
of
these
rules
and
when
the
city
approves
a
development,
it's
one
of
two
things
it
either
in
that
zone
district.
There
is
a
set
of
tools,
not
all
of
these
tools.
B
Some
of
them
are
in
that
existing
district
in
which
that
development
took
place
in
boise
and
it
qualified
that's
option
a
is
it
qualified
and
it
said
the
side.
Setback
is
five
feet.
If
you
want
to
know
why
the
buildings
are
five
feet
apart,
it's
because
the
selling
code
said
you
can
be
five
feet.
Apart
now
I
will
say
by
point
of
reference:
it
probably
seems
very
crowded
to
people
who
who
haven't
seen
it.
The
building
code
is
different
from
the
zoning
code.
Building
code
has
to
do
with
fire
safety
and
structural
integrity.
B
Will
this
building
stand
up
and
last
long
enough
to
not
hurt
the
people
in
it
and
be
safe
from
fire
and
not
spread
the
fire
to
the
next
building?
In
most,
fire
codes
allow
a
five-foot
setback
without
having
fire
rated
walls
or
extra
construction.
So
when
you
say
you
know,
that's
outrageous,
it's
a
character,
discussion
that
the
city
approved
the
city
approved
it
and
when
they
ran
it
by
the
fire
marshal,
usually
the
fire
marshal
says
works
for
us.
That
is
a
national
fire
safety
standard.
B
It
could
have
been
10
feet
or
15
feet
or
20
feet,
and
sometimes
they
are
that
much.
But
I
guess
the
question
your
br.
The
answer
to
your
question.
Brad
is
either
that
development
that
you
have
in
mind
met
the
combination
of
dimensional
standards
that
applied
in
that
zone
district
or
the
city
approved,
negotiated
zoning.
B
That's
that's
a
pud,
that's
a
planned
development
and
that
is
negot,
legalized,
negotiated
zoning
and
it's
legal
because
they
took
it
all
the
way
up
and
city
council
said
yep
we'll
do
that,
and
so
so
it
was
a
deal
they're,
your
elected
leaders
and
they
even
if
the
district
said
10
feet,
I'm
making
up
this
example
said:
10
foot,
side
setbacks,
the
guy
said
I
need
five
to
make
this
work
city
engaged
in
negotiations
and
at
the
end
of
it
they
said.
We'll
approve.
Five
is
the
short
answer
to
it.
B
B
Are
there
any
other
questions
just
about
the
tools
we
we're
going
to
refer
to
these
in
terms
of
trends
as
to
where
some
things
are
going
and
then
ask
you,
questions
about
you
know
what
blueprint
boise
clearly
says:
we
want
things
to
fit
in
what
how
do
we?
How
do
we
best
think
through
that
issue?
We're
going
to
ask
you
those
questions,
but
before
we
do
any
more
questions
about
setbacks,
far?
B
Okay,
all
right,
let's
go
on
there,
so
I
do
want
to
say
this.
This
is
the
question.
This
is
the
first
question
before
we
take
a
short
break.
Boise's
current
residential
zone
district
dimensional
standards
control
the
following
things,
so
we
showed
you
a
list
just
for
vocabulary,
so
you
would
know
before
we
plow
into
a
very
technical
topic,
what
the
who
the
players
are
who's
on
the
court.
B
You
control
minimum
lot
size,
minimum
lot,
width
street
frontage,
which
is
often
a
different
measure,
meaning
how
much
of
the
building
needs
to
come
up
to
the
front
of
the
lot
and
occupy
the
front
of
the
lot
open
space
on
per
lot.
How
much
open
space
do
you
need
on
your
development
lot
and
all
of
these
differ
district
districts?
It's
not
one
size
fits
all.
B
It's
a
separate
set
of
rules,
often
more
than
one
option
within
a
zone
district,
but
this
is
the
things
that
you're
controlling
minimum
lot
size:
minimum
block
width
street
frontage,
open
space
on
the
lot
front,
side,
rear
setbacks.
These
are
minimums,
that's
the
the
list
of
minimums.
You've
got
to
do
at
least
this,
and
just
to
conceptualize
this.
What
this
is,
is
you
take
a
square
piece
of
paper
like
a
piece
of
paper
and
the
developer
says?
Well,
what
could
I
put
on
this
lot?
B
Well,
the
paper's
got
to
be
at
least
this
big
before
I
can
build
on
it.
If
it
could
be
smaller,
I
could
get
more
of
them,
but
it
has
to
be
at
least
this
big
and
this
wide
okay,
that's
my
piece
of
paper
sure
help
me
if
a
paper
was
smaller,
no,
it's
that's
the
size
of
paper.
You
got
to
work
with
la
and
street
frontage
open
space.
Okay,
I've
got
to
take
out
the
following
amount
of
open
space.
B
That's
off
the
table
because,
somewhere
on
this
lot,
I
got
to
keep
it
open
for
usable,
open
space
and
the
front
side
and
rear
setbacks.
Okay,
I
can't
draw
on
the
first
three
inches
of
the
paper
I
can't
draw
on
the
back
two
inches
of
the
paper.
I
can't
draw
on
the
right
and
left
sides
of
one
inches
of
the
paper
and
then,
if
you
turn
the
paper
sideways
and
say
well,
what
can
I
do?
B
Maximum
height
and
lot
coverage
says:
okay,
maximum
height
says:
well,
whatever
you
build,
it's
got
to
be
no
taller
than
this
and
lot
coverage
says,
and
the
footprint
of
the
building
can't
exceed
this
percentage
of
the
whole
lot.
So
those
and
those
are
maximums.
That's
why
we
listed
them
separately.
This
you
kind
of
figure
out
what
portion
of
the
piece
of
paper
you
can
draw
your
development
on
and
the
maximum
say.
B
Okay,
you
got
that
now,
don't
you
can't
go
above
x
and
you
also
can't
cover
more
than
y
and
the
guy,
and
it
very
commonly
happens
that
and
I'm
just
laying
this
out.
So
you
understand
how
it
works.
The
guy
says:
wait
a
minute.
After
after
setting
aside
the
open
space
and
the
setbacks,
I
started
with
the
right
lot
size
I
set
about
the
setbacks
and
I
put
out
the
open
space
and
I've
got
x
left
to
build
on,
but
the
lot
coverage
says
you
can
only
cover
point.
B
You
know
seven
five
of
x
and
the
developer
says
why
and
the
answer
you
know
I
gave
you
the
open
space
you
wanted
and
the
codes
that
say.
In
addition,
in
addition
to
usable
open
space
that
there'll
be
things
that
you
can
actually
use
on
this
site,
we
don't
want
it
all
covered
with
tarmac
and
buildings.
We
want
rainwater
to
be
absorbed
into
the
soil
and
we
want
it
open.
B
B
The
more
rainwater
goes
into
the
ground.
The
less
has
to
go
into
pipes.
That's
a
good
thing.
In
many
places,
so
that's
what's
for
control
and
I
guess
the
question
we
just
wanted
to
throw
out.
I
see
we
have
two
hands.
Is
let's
talk
about
residential
right
now,
because
I
think
it's
as
much
concern
to
many
folks
on
this
group
downtowns
and
activity
centers.
We
can
talk
through
separately.
B
Let's
try
to
focus
the
discussion
on
residential
when
you
think
of
your
neighborhood
and
what
it
means
to
fit
in
with
your
neighborhood,
which
of
these
is
most
important,
if
you
say
all
of
them-
and
you
say
all
of
them,
but
from
a
builder's
point
of
view,
it's
difficult,
because
each
regulation
shrinks
the
envelope
of
things
that
you
can
do
and
unintentionally
that
tends
to
drive
up
housing
costs.
So
we
need
to
talk
about
it.
So
I
don't
know
who
had
their
hand
up
first
andrea
to
do
or
just.
I
Great,
so
this
this
is
a
difficult
question.
I
don't
think
there
is
probably
any
right
answer
from
a
you
know
from
my
point
of
view,
from
an
architectural
point
of
view,
I'm
gonna
pick
a
few
and
and
kind
of
say
it's
a
combination
of
them.
I
think
it's
probably
a
little
bit
of
everything.
It's
you
know
your
setbacks.
That
kind
of
maintain
open
space
like
don
was
saying,
and
then
it's
kind
of
a
combination
of
your
your
height
and
far
thinking
back
to
previous
discussions.
I
We
had
on
this
group
about
compatibility
of
buildings
and
discussions.
I've
had
with
some
of
my
co-workers
that
they
live
in
neighborhoods.
You
know
the
neighborhood
has
this
character
and
then
somebody
built
a
it's
a
two-story
house.
Their
house
is
a
two-story,
but
the
florida
floor
heights
are,
you
know
much
higher,
so
maybe
they're
a
taller
house,
and
it
doesn't,
you
know
windows,
don't
quite
align,
it
doesn't
quite
fit
in.
I
So
those
are,
I
guess,
kind
of
what
I'm
leaning
towards
I.
I
do
think
that
there's
something
there
for
open
space
and
open.
You
know
not
paved
area.
How
that
factors
in
if
it's
open
space
or
how
you
define
that
I
think
is,
is
important
as
well.
I
J
Baron
yeah,
thank
you
for
the
question
don.
I
think
neighborhood
characters
such
as
slippery.
You
know
term,
because
it's
been
weaponized
by
neighborhood
groups
and
others,
I
think,
to
try
to
avoid
or
redirect
the
conversation
around
change
and
growth
in
given
neighborhoods.
But
in
my
experience
you
know
I
work
on
preservation
projects,
historic
preservation,
projects
and,
in
my
experience
the
a
and
b
are
far
more
critical
questions
in
suburban
development.
It
has
kind
of
more
to
do
with
development
form
and
the
age
in
which
those
neighborhoods
were
built.
J
Those
can
more
gracefully
integrate
a
variety
of
housing
types
and
I
guess,
give
a
little
bit
more
granularity
to
the
kind
of
designs
that
are
possible
to
be
placed
in
those
neighborhoods
and
still
be
able
to
fit
in.
So
it's
less
a
question
really
of
a
and
b,
in
my
opinion
for
our
established
neighborhoods,
our
old
gridded
neighborhoods,
because
the
the
ability
for
those
to
accommodate
a
variety
of
changes
just
seems
to
be
a
lot
more
readily
available.
K
There's,
as
byron
mentioned,
there's
a
lot
of
places
with
a
variety
of
lot
widths
that
can
vary
quite
a
bit.
Street
frontages
can
vary
quite
a
bit
on
lot
open
space,
also
highly
variable
in
a
lot
of
places,
and
the
neighborhood
still
has
a
congealed
feel.
But
really
you
know.
So
if
I
was
going
to
say
one
of
them,
probably
the
front
step
back
and
I'm
sure
at
some
point
height
would
be
as
well,
not
that
I
think
all
of
them
need
to
be
the
same
height.
K
B
B
We,
let's
just
give
it
another
minute
once
again
at
the
point
was,
and
this
is
good
feedback.
This
is
good
feedback.
Patrick's
question
is
a
good
one.
That's
it's
one
that
planners
ask
themselves
over
time,
codes
get
more
complex
people,
add
regulations,
there's
something
bad
built
or
people
don't
like
it.
So
they
add
a
regulation.
B
This
is
your
once
in
a
generation
time
to
say:
okay,
which
don't
we
need,
which
could
we
do
without
it's
hard
once
you're
used
to
using
something
it's
hard
to
imagine
without
it,
but
I
will
tell
you
there
are
and
gabby
said
there
are
things
on
here-
that
some
cities
upon
reflection
are
saying
that
would
be
one
last
box
to
check
and
we
think
it
would
not
change
the
nature
of
the
neighborhood
richard.
L
Yeah,
thanks
listening
to
byron
and
patrick
made
me
think
a
little
bit.
Yeah
it'll
be
interesting
if
we
can
differentiate
in
some
way,
even
though
we
may
have
the
same
zoning
districts
between
you
know
out
where
I
live
versus,
you
know
near
you
know,
greenfield
development
versus
you
know
in
towards
that
grid
structure.
L
I
was
thinking
I
would
agree
with
patrick
in
a
lot
of
places.
The
front
setback
is
probably
going
to
be
important
but
kind
of
out
here
it
seems,
like
I
kind
of
would
say
it
would
be.
The
reverse
and
the
rear
set
back
is
kind
of
the
most
important,
because
that's
where
that's,
where
so
many
things
of
the
more
traditional
and
and
by
traditional
here,
I'm
really
really
pre-dating
that
mid-century
suburbia
fill
but
but
still
tr.
L
You
know
small
farmstead,
type,
building
and
character
to
the
extent
that
that
can
be
remain
somewhat
intact,
both
for
historical
and
many
other
reasons.
Yeah
that
you
know
it's
maybe
kind
of
the
rear
setback
becomes
pretty
important,
so
not
to
say
that
I
disagree
with
patrick,
I
think,
probably
a
lot
of
places.
That
would
make
more
sense
on
the
front,
but
but
in
the
kind
of
more
agricultural
areas
that
rear
setback
does
get
kind
of
important.
I
personally
don't
care
how
close
somebody
is
this
street,
but
that's
me
anyway.
Thank
you.
B
Well,
you've
raised
a
good
point,
though,
because
the
reason
patrick
between
the
two
of
you,
you
raised
the
two
arguments:
why
setbacks
haven't
gone
away
front
setbacks
have
to
do
with
street
character.
You
just
you've
heard
richard
doesn't
think
it's
that
important,
but
some
people
do
and
other
people
say
it
is
the
back
setback,
because
I
don't
actually
want
my
neighbor
looking
out
his
second
floor
window
into
my
backyard.
It's
a
privacy
issue
back
here,
and
so
yes,
it's
an
affordability
issue.
B
I
will
say
that
many
communities
are
allowing
more
of
the
lot
to
be
covered
to
allow
more
housing
and
they
are
doing
that,
but
it
always
faces
this
issue.
Well,
I
don't
want
to
expand
my
house.
I
don't
want
to
redevelop
my
house
and
I
frankly
don't
want
my
neighbor
looking
over
into
my
backyard
and
so
back.
That's
one
of
the
reasons
why
backyards
remain
a
topic
for
the
for
the
reason
I
think
richard
was
hinting
at,
but
yeah
brad.
H
Yeah
I
mean
we're
talking
about
these
older
style
neighborhoods,
they
don't
seem
to
exist
anymore
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
we're
even
trying
to
create
such
thing.
You
know,
we've
got
all
these
houses
packed
together
with
no
front
yard
or
backyard,
and
people
are
hanging
out
in
their
garages.
H
B
B
You've
raised
it
two
or
three
times
whether
this
is
a
good
thing
going
forward,
it's
happening
because
the
city
approves
it
and
it
happens
because
whatever
the
land
developer
paid
for
the
land
has
to
be
divided
among
the
houses
that
they
sell
and
when
you
put
more
houses
closer
together,
you
can
divide
what
is
often
extremely
expensive:
land
costs
over
more
houses
and
bring
them
in
at
a
lower
price
point.
If
you
don't-
and
you
say
no,
we
would
like
to
have
you
know.
Historically,
I'm
making
this
number
up.
Historically,
we
had
10
foot
setbacks.
B
Let's
stick
with
that.
Let's
stick
with
50
lot
coverage
and
10
foot
setbacks
that
what
made
boise
great
and
let's
stick
with
that.
That
is
a
choice
you
can
make.
The
issue
is
now
the
very
expensive
land
costs
are
being
divided
over
fewer
houses
and
those
fewer
houses
are
going
to
cost
more.
That's
why
it's
happening
so.
H
Seems
like
what
made
boise
great
is
disappearing
if
not
gone
already.
All
we
want
to
do
is
stuff
more
people
in
here,
and
I
I
just
don't
understand
that
and
that's
my
whole
reason
for
being
here.
I
don't
know
why
we
have
to
stuff
so
many
people
into
boise.
H
You
know
if
you
look
at
nampa
and
caldwell,
I
think
they're
slowing
down
on
stuff,
because
they
just
don't
have
the
infrastructure
to
keep
bringing
people
in.
How
are
we
gonna?
We
don't
have
enough
fire
stations,
we
don't
have
enough
water,
we
don't
have
enough
doctors.
I
just
don't
understand
why
we
keep
wanting
to
stuff
people
in
here.
Well,.
B
Brad,
the
short
answer
is
you
can't
stop
them
they're
either
gonna
live
in
boise
or
they
live
outside
of
boise,
and
we
we.
We
talked
about
that
a
couple
while
a
little
while
ago
that
I
think
in
blueprint
boise
and
like
many
other
cities,
they
had
a
hard
discussion
at
the
time.
The
plan
was
made
and
said
there
are
downsides
to
having
more
people
in
the
city
and
there
are
downsides
to
forcing
them
out
of
the
city.
B
B
That's
that's
the
only
that's
the
only
adage
the
only
americans
hate
worse
and
density
and
sprawl,
or
you
can
flip
it
around.
The
only
thing
americans
hate
more
worse
than
sprawl,
is
density
they're
both
true.
So
I'm
sorry
to
go
off
on
that
tangent,
but
I
was
trying
to
be
responsive
to
you're
you're,
making
a
very
consistent
point
which
we
do
understand.
A
B
B
Alright
gabby,
I
want
to
they're
only
two
strands:
two.
There
are
only
two
sides
here
before
I
break,
but
I
did
want
to
talk
about
this.
One
is
look
at
the
first
bullet,
then
don't
look
at
the
graphic
yet
I'll
talk
about
that
in
a
minute.
The
first
bullet
is
basically
fars
floor
area
ratios
and
are
increasingly
not
used
as
measures
of
intensity
in
newer
codes.
B
If
you
are
a
pure
form-based
code
believer
remember,
we
talked
about
this
two
or
three
times
over
the
past
four
or
five
months.
Then
you
believe
the
building
form
and
its
fit
and
flexible
uses
within
that
building
form
are
how
you
govern
a
great
city
and
if
you
buy
that
or
to
the
degree
you're
on
the
spectrum
saying
that
matters
more
to
me,
many
newer
codes
are
saying
we're
not
measuring
far
anymore.
It
is.
B
We
are
because
it
because
it
could
lead
to
a
one-story
building
over
the
whole
lot
or
a
two-story
building
over
half
the
lot
or
a
four-story
building
over
a
quarter
load
or
an
eight-story
building.
We
don't
know
what
we're
gonna
get.
It
is
a
measure
of
traffic
generation,
as
gabby
said
better
than
it
is
in
tennessee,
so
I'm
just
there
are
many
cities
that
have
this
discussion
and
decide
to
keep
it,
and
there
are
many
cities
that
have
this
discussion.
That
say
we
don't
want
to
do
this.
We
are
not
going,
we
are.
B
B
Most
of
them
still
say
the
more
units
you
put
in
there,
the
more
parking
you're
gonna
have
to
have
I
mean
we,
you
could
repeal
parking.
There
have
been
strong
arguments,
been
made,
nobody's
dwelt
on
that
and
we'll
talk
about
that
down
the
road
in
a
couple
meetings.
B
But
the
point
is
if,
if
people
do
say,
I'm
not
going
to
measure
far
anymore,
they
usually
do
say,
but
but
the
more
you
put
in
here,
the
more
you're
going
to
have
to
accommodate
it
in
parking.
So
it
is
not
like.
Well,
we
don't
care
completely
the
last.
The
second
thing
I
wanted
to
show
you
is
contextual
setback,
and
several
of
you
have
brushed
up
against
this.
The
example
on
the
right
is
just
a
diagram
that
was
in
our
files.
B
Increasingly,
especially
for
older
neighborhoods
codes
are
saying
your
front
setback
is
either
the
average
on
your
block
face,
or
it
is
the
or
somewhere
between
your
neighbor
to
the
left
and
your
neighbor
to
the
right.
We
don't
have
a
number
in
mind.
This
neighborhood
was
built
and
those
are
contextual
setbacks.
B
B
B
You
can't
do
10
houses
on
10
lots,
you
look
up
and
down
your
block
and
you
do
what
your
neighbors
did
to
fit
in
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
That
is,
those
are
all
contextual
standards.
We've
even
seen
some
say,
the
mass
of
the
house
has
to
be
close
to
your
neighbors.
I
once
wrote
a
code
that
says
when
you
tear
down
a
house
and
build
a
new
house,
it
cannot
be
less
than
75
percent
as
big
as
the
house.
That
was
your
neighbors
on
that
block
and
it
can't
be
more
than
125.
B
We
are
not
interested
in
mcmansions
next
to
bungalows.
We
are
going
to
say,
buy
it
accordingly.
This
neighborhood
wants
to
have
contextual
building
massing.
They
want
to
know
that
you
are
not
going
to
have
by
twice
as
big
the
biggest
house
on
the
block.
There
is
a
fabric
here
and
they
propose
to
city
council
that
that
fabric
be
maintained
through
contextual
standards
and
city
council
approved
it.
So
I'm
just
pointing
out-
and
so
some
of
you
said
you
know,
older
neighborhoods
are
different.
B
It
is
quite
possible
to
say
in
neighborhoods
established
before
the
effective
date
of
this
zoning
ordinance,
the
following
rules
will
apply
and
it's
usually,
you
will
fit
in
with
the
fabric
in
areas
zoned
into
this
afterwards,
after
the
code
is
adopted,
we're
more
flexible.
We
don't
need
to
have
two
different
districts.
B
We
can
have
one
set
of
standards
for
alley,
loaded,
older
developments,
and
we
could
have
one
set
of
standards
for
newer,
suburban
developments
that
is
more
flexible
or
different
and
less
focused
on
fabric,
because
they're
building
the
fabric,
there
is
no
fabric,
the
developer
is
creating
the
fabric.
Well,
a
lot
of
fabric
can
work,
and
so
those
are
two
trends
going
on
here.
Let's
take
one
more
slide:
gabby,
if
again,
okay
and
then
the
following
one
is
this:
one
brad
is
disagrees
with
this,
and
that
is
fine.
B
He's
been
very
articulated
saying
it
in
general.
Before
the
reason
I
just
said,
land
prices
have
to
be
recouped
somehow,
through
the
development.
The
trend
often
around
the
country
is
to
say
we
are
going
to
create
we're
going
to
allow
lower
lot
sizes
or
lower
lot
whips.
B
The
the
typical
suburban
development
after
the
war
often
runs
70
feet
wide
and
a
lot
of
code
say
70
feet
wide,
and
that
is
in
many
cases
a
front
loaded,
ranch
house
with
a
garage
was
said:
that's
a
70-foot
lot,
but
many
parts
of
older
cities-
and
you
probably
have
places
in
boise,
were
planted
on
25-foot
lots.
They
were
built
on
25
or
37-foot
wide
lots
and
a
number
of
newer
codes
are
saying
we
are
willing
to
have
a
zone
district.
That
does
that,
because
hey
I
mean
look
around
that.
B
That
was
a
perfectly
fine.
Neighborhood
people
love
it.
They
live
in
it.
It's
smaller
houses,
it's
bungalows,
it's
smaller
places,
but
there's
no
problem
with
the
lot
size.
It's
not
un-american
to
have
a
25-foot
lot.
Our
city
was
already
built
this
way.
So
why?
Wouldn't
we
let
people
to
do
that
in
the
future,
and
so
they
do
not
do
it.
In
every
zone
district,
but
they
often
are
going
there
and
in
some
cases,
going
below
25
feet
substantially
below
25
feet.
B
So
once
again,
I
want
to
be
clear:
boise
doesn't
have
to
do
any
of
these
things,
but
you
are
rewriting
your
development
code
for
the
first
time
in
a
while
and
and
you're
struggling
with,
affordable
housing,
and
these
are
some
of
the
things
that
folks
often
do
when
they
rethink
their
development
standards,
their
dimensional
standards
going
forward.
So
I
think
we're
ready
for
a
break.
If
you
are
andrea.
C
B
Right,
I'm
assuming,
even
though
the
cameras
are
coming
on
slowly,
I'm
hoping
people
make
it
back.
So
we
have
two
questions
related
to
this
topic.
I
apologize
for
those
of
you
who
think
we're
in
the
weeds
we
are
in
the
weeds.
That's
that
the
nature
of
this
topic
is
it's
very
weedy
it'd
be
nice.
If
it
wasn't,
we
can
try
to
simplify
it.
Part
of
our
point
in
the
first
part
of
this
presentation
was
it's.
It
may
be
weedier
than
it
needs
to
be.
B
You
know
it
doesn't
need
to
necessarily
have
as
many
controls,
but
that's
what
we're
trying
to
flesh
out
with
you
folks,
but
so
here's
the
first
of
two
questions
and
I
think
we'll
try
to
take
about
10
minutes
on
each
one
of
these
two
questions
and
then
and
then
leave
some
time
over
if
we
want
to
at
the
end
for
public
comment
and
affordable
housing
density
intensity
form.
This
has
come
up
several
times,
and
this
is
one
of
the
two.
I
think
big
questions
that
has
people.
B
B
You
got
a
lot,
you
got
a
piece
of
paper,
there's
a
box.
You
can
shape
your
development
within
on
that
lot
and
how
big
is
that
box
related
to
that
lot?
Basically,
what
does
it
have
to
fit
it?
Those
are
de
facto
form
controls
you
also
regulate
by
maximum
dwelling
units
per
acre
in
residential
zones
and
maximum
floor
area
ratios
in
other
zones,
often,
and
and
sometimes
so,
here's
the
question:
do
you
need
to
do
it
and
here's?
I
I,
the
architects
probably
have
strong
opinions.
B
The
the
concern
is
this:
we
have
run
onto
numerous
codes
around
the
country
and
I
cannot
tell
you
to
what
degree
it's
true
in
boise,
yet
we're
we're
just
starting
to
write
module
two
where
the
sum
total
of
the
development
controls
we
said
earlier
on.
B
That's
a
perverse
thing.
Many
communities
feel
that's
a
perverse
thing
in
the
sense
that
you've
just
given
up
for
dwelling
units
for
character,
the
the
the
guy
says
I
could
have
built
ten
you're
having
me
build
six
and
I
could
have
parked
all
ten
of
them.
Whatever
your
parking
stand
is,
I
could
have
parked
all
ten
of
them
and
I
could
have
satisfied
them
right.
So
that
is
one
and
then
floor
area.
I
won't
be
labor
the
point.
We
made
it
earlier
that
it's
a
it's
an
interesting
tool.
B
It's
it
was
developed
for
raw
land,
but
most
of
boise
is
I
mean
you
have
a
raw
land
development
and
you
will
continue
to
have
it,
but
it
is
increasingly
not
used
for
urban
areas.
For
the
reasons
we've
said
earlier,
so
we
have
three
hands
up
already
andrea.
Aren't
you.
J
Thanks,
andrea
thanks
don,
I
strongly
think
that
both
are
unnecessary
in
most
zones.
I
would
make
an
exception.
I
think,
for
the
large
lot
zones,
those
and
especially
when
they
apply
to
like
a
suburban
development
form,
probably
do
need
to
follow
one
or
both
of
those
a
or
b
or
both
the
floor
area
ratio
specifically
is,
is
over
and
and
density,
is
overwhelmingly
punishing
in
small
lot
development
in
our
current
code
and
has
prevented
everything
down
to
an
adu
from
being
built.
J
So
I
would
argue
against
either
one
of
them
being
necessary.
Specifically,
since
we
have
a
lot
of
other
levers
that
we
can
use
to
kind
of
control.
The
density
in
other
ways,
like
setbacks,.
I
Yeah,
I
I
think
I
generally
agree
with
what
byron's
saying
that
in
most
development
most
you
know
land
most
land
uses
maximum
building
units
and
maximum
floor
ratios
are
kind
of
unnecessary.
I
With
with
some
caveats,
I
think
you
know,
when
you're
getting
into
multi-family
projects,
they're
always
going
to
be
pushing
for
that
max
floor
area.
Max
dwelling
unit
and
kind
of
setting
that
number
purely
based
off
of
you
know,
a
somewhat
arbitrary
number
is
is
difficult,
especially
when
you
can
make
it
work
as
don
was
saying.
I
do,
however,
think
when
we
get
into
some,
you
know
to
address
brad's
concerns
when
we
get
into
some
of
these
residential
neighborhoods
floor
area
ratios
can
be
beneficial
because
then
you
don't
run
into
big
mansions.
I
Next,
to
you
know
a
single
family
ranch
to
be
sensitive.
To
that.
I
think
florida
races
might
be
beneficial
in
some
some
zones.
I
guess
is
what
I'm
saying.
B
If
I
could
respond
to
that,
I
wished
as
soon
as
we
got
into
this
presentation.
I
put
one
more
thing
up
at
the
front
of
the
presentation,
which
is
that
I
I
hear
I
I
heard
exactly
what
you
said
ian
and
I
I
get
it
one
of
the
things
that
does
upset
people
is
when
you
have
an
older
neighborhood
or
a
neighborhood
that
has
basically
two-story
houses
with
pitched
roofs
and
you
wind
up
with
box
houses
with
three
stories
that
are
in
the
same
iphone.
B
B
If
everybody
else
in
the
block
is
building
pitch
roof
buildings,
you
need
to
fit
in
with
pitched
roof
building,
so
it
could
be
far,
but
other
places
have
done
it
through
a
forum
control
where
they
say
look.
The
whole
issue
is,
is
not
the
square
footage
of
the
building.
It's
the
fact
that
you're
building
a
type
of
building
that
is
out
of
out
of
fit
with
the
neighborhood,
and
so
we
are
going
to
do
that
through
a
forum
control
over
the
shape
of
the
building.
So.
C
I
Yeah,
so
sorry
real
quick
to
comment
on
that,
I
I
understand
how
that
works,
and
I
I
do
struggle
with
it,
because
I
I
don't
want
to
limit
design
or
style
or
creativity
for
that
matter.
But
I
guess
there
are
pop.
You
know
there
are
ways
around
that
you
can
have
a
regulation
for
pitched
roof
and
for
flat
roof
buildings
in
the
same
zone.
So.
C
K
Thanks,
I
think
both
of
these
are
unnecessary
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
positive
step
forward
for
our
city
if
we
didn't
use
these
two
techniques,
I
think,
generally
speaking
as
don
has
kind
of
alluded
to,
they
are
proxies
for
other
things
that
we
care
about
and
they're
kind
of
a
heavy
hammer.
It
hits
a
lot
of
aspects
of
development
when
we
actually
have
more
specific
concerns
that
we
address
with
other
tools
in
the
toolbox,
and
I
believe
these
probably
have
an
abnormally
high
ratio
of
unintended
consequences
to
these
particular
aspects.
L
Yeah
not
to
not
to
have
a
trend
here
of
coming
on
after
patrick
and
saying
the
reverse,
I
actually
I
I
don't
really
understand
the
second
floor
area
ratios
that
the
need
for
them.
They
do
seem
yeah.
So
I
just
I
haven't,
put
a
lot
of
thought
into
it.
I
don't
I
don't
understand
them,
so
I
right
now
could
could
be
happy
if
they
don't
exist.
Density
is
kind
of
you
know.
L
It
is
the
catch-all
for
everything
else
and
it's
the
kind
of
the
easiest
thing
that
people
understand
and
when
it
comes
to
you
know,
planning
for
services.
You
know
schools,
sewer
water,
etc.
It's
kind
of
the
most
obvious
thing,
and-
and
that
is
just
a
very
straightforward
measure.
I
agree-
it
doesn't
say
everything,
but
I
would
have
a
really
hard
time
seeing
a
successful
code
that
did
have
had
no
density,
maximums
yeah.
I
guess
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that.
Okay,.
D
Yeah,
I
think
I
agree
with
patrick
on
both
that
I
think
I
think
we
could
achieve
our
objectives
without
having
without
using
these
and
having
contextual
base,
whatever
other
tools
we've
talked
about
today.
D
Don
one
thing
I
do
think
about,
though,
is
you
know
his
boys
you
know
is
like
is,
as
we
start
creating
these
I
mean
you've
talked
a
lot
about
like
maintaining
neighborhood
character,
and
I
know
that's
been
something
that
has
been
you
know.
I
think
the
mayor
is
that
she
wants
to.
You
know
like
that's.
That's
that's
one
objective
of
this,
but
we
also
know
that
neighborhoods
change
you
know
and
that
they
don't
like
you
know.
We
want
boyd
to
expect
boise
to
look
exactly
like
you
know,
have
the
same
character
100
years
from
now.
D
D
D
B
Well,
the
there
are
two
short
answers
to
that
and
again
the
there's:
a
balance
of
change
and
stability.
That's
what
we're
having
this
discussion
for.
That's.
Why
we've
asked
these
questions?
What
what
does
it
matter
to
you?
There
are
two
general
things
that
cities
often
talk
about.
One
is
this
is
the
sum
total
of
the
setbacks.
The
lot
coverage
the
open
space
and
the
lot
width
is
eyes
unnecessary.
Is
it
too
too
conservative?
Could
we
change
that
and
many
places
do
because
they
have
people
coming
in
for
variances?
B
B
We
should
one
answer
is
to
allow
more
of
the
piece
of
paper
to
be
built
on,
so
that
is
one
of
them
and
the
other
one
is
to
say,
but
let's
put
a
limit
on
that,
so
that
when
we
look
at
those
things-
and
we
say-
that's
not
very
different
than
its
neighbors-
we
could
accept
that
amount
of
physical
change
in
here.
The
second
part
is
what
we've
put
out
in
module
one
and
if
you
fit
into
that,
what
module
one
essentially
says
is
in
the
low
density,
residential
neighborhoods.
B
If
you
fit
into
that
fabric,
you
can
do
two
or
three
units
in
this
building,
so
the
change
is
allowed
by
occupancy
and
by
the
different
uses
that
are
allowed
to
allow
the
city
to
evolve
so
part
of
it
is
how
much
is
too
little.
How
much
is
to
physical
change
and
you're
exactly
right,
most
places.
You
know
if
a
new
house
was
torn
down
and
built,
and
it
was
a
nice
house.
People
wouldn't
even
ask
is
that
a
five
foot
setback
or
a
four
foot
setback
or
a
three
foot
setback
or
a
seven
foot?
B
Seven,
they
don't
ask
it,
it
fits
in,
and
so
it's
a
combination
of
some
degree
of
physical
change
and
some
degree
of
use,
flexibility
and,
frankly,
in
the
end,
we
take
all
the
comments
we've
gotten
back.
At
least
I
predict
this
is
what
the
city
will
do
and
say
which
of
these
get
us
closer
to
blueprint
boise,
which
does
say
we're
going
to
do
both
it's
a
general
answer,
but
that's
that's
kind
of
the
process
we're
going
through
right
now.
B
That's
why
we're
spending
a
whole
session
trying
to
draw
you
out
on
this?
I
I
agree
with
whoever
said
it
earlier.
Neighborhood
character
is
very
important,
but
I'm
not
going
to
let
you
get
away
with
that.
What
do
you
mean
by
neighborhood
character,
height,
roof,
shape,
backyards,
front
yards
side
yards
lot
coverage
open
space.
What
matters,
because
that's
where
we
can
find
the
flexibility
to
let
boise
change
well,
like
people
say
I
can.
I
can
live
with
that
degree
of
change
in
my
neighborhood.
H
Yeah,
I
think,
everybody's
getting
the
impression
I
don't
like
people,
but
you
know
it's
really
beside
the
point.
What
I'm
here
for
is
to
save
the
neighborhoods
that
are
existing.
You
know.
H
I
particularly
I
I
live
in
a
place
where
I
have
a
half
acre.
It
is
a
lower
income
area,
at
least
in
the
in
the
past.
It
has
been
what
I
worry
about
and,
of
course
I
worry
about
my
area
because
that's
where
I
live,
I'm
worried
about
since
it's
a
half
acre
that
we
can
put
three
two
or
three
houses
in
there
and
which
will
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
As
roberta
said
in
comments
there,
you
know
if
people
want
to
live
on
top
of
each
other.
H
You
know
in
apartments.
You
know
if
that's
how
they
want
to
live.
If
you
want
to
live
in
a
tight
neighborhood,
that's
great
bye
there,
but
I
bought
where
I
bought,
because
I,
like
the
character
now,
somebody
wants
to
knock
one
of
them
old
houses
down
and
put
a
single
house
back
in
it
great.
I
I'm
all
for
that,
but
put
three
houses
in
there.
Two
houses
in
there
that
changes
the
whole
dynamic
of
the
neighborhood.
Besides
losing
the
value
of
the
neighbors
around
it.
M
Yeah
hi,
I
think
most
of
my
comments
have
already
been
made
in
the
chat
but
yeah
I
I
guess
I
would
just
agree
with
or
have
been
previously
made.
I
would
agree
with
those
that
suggested
that
either
maximum
dollar
units
and
maximum
floor
area
ratios
aren't
necessary.
M
I
don't
think
that
they
do
what
they
intend
to
do,
especially
when
you
think
about
you
know,
unit
size,
number
of
bedrooms
and
one
one
person
made
the
comment
about.
You
know
making
density
a
tool
for
planning
in
regards
to
infrastructure
in
schools,
and
I
just
I
think,
there's
other
ways
to
do
that
outside
of
just
a
density
number.
M
So
I
just
you
know
I
think
as
a
I
just
think
it's
I
just
don't
think
that
tools,
it
does
what
it
says.
It's
gonna
do
and
it
doesn't
protect
character.
I
say
that
in
air
quotes
because
I'm
not
I
don't
know
what
really
protect
character
means,
but
that's
that's
my
two
cents
thank.
B
You
we
have
had
a
lot
in
the
chat
for
those
who
aren't
watching
the
chat
and
for
the
public
there's
a
good
bit
of
additional
information
and
feedback
being
given
in
the
chat.
So
can
we
move
on?
Let's
do
this,
so
we
can
keep
moving
if
that's,
okay,
let's
go
on
to
the
next
one!
That
was
just
another
last
question
for
the
focus
question
before
we.
If
we
have
time
open
it
up
for
more
on
affordable
housing,
etc,
height
and
transitions.
B
So
once
again,
we've
said-
and
some
of
you
know
that
I
was
privileged
to
talk
to
city
council
about
this
couple
nights
ago
in
a
briefing
just
to
let
them
know
how
it
was
going
and-
and
you
know,
they're
they're
very
well
aware,
there's
a
tension
in
blueprint
boise
between
saying
new
development
has
to
fit
in
and
allowing
taller
buildings
to
accommodate
sustainable,
efficient,
responsible
growth.
So
how
should
you
resolve
that
tension?
B
The
most
the
poster
child
of
this
is
a
street
frontage
on
a
collector
street,
not
the
biggest
street
in
boise
a
medium
size,
but
it's
not
a
local
street.
It's
got
traffic
on
it
and
it's
zoned
for
commercial
and
if
you
walk
down
it,
there
was
a
lot
of
single
family.
Excuse
me,
single-story,
auto-oriented
buildings,
I
mean
you
drive
in
you,
drive
out,
you
get
your
doughnuts
or
you
get
your
shopping,
you
do
it
or
go
eat
your
dentist's
office,
but
they're
not
centers
a
blueprint
boy.
He
talks
a
lot
about
centers.
B
Once
you
get
behind
that
facade
of
a
commercial
or
office
you're
into
residential
neighborhoods
and
that
edge
between
low
density,
residential
neighborhoods
and
higher
and
the
value
of
mixed
use.
Development
along
the
street
is
a
difficult
question.
One
of
the
way
we
sometimes
say
it
is
most
people
agree
and
blueprint.
Boise
says
both
of
those
are
true.
We
do
want
more
development
along
the
streets,
mixed
use,
development,
more
walkable
street
oriented
in
the
centers,
it
reinforces
transit,
but
this
is
where
you
could
put
multi-family
development
that
doesn't
disturb
the
single
family
neighborhoods.
B
But
how
do
you
get
from
two
or
three
story,
buildings
for
the
sake
of
discussion
today,
down
to
single-family
houses,
which
are
often
right
behind
them
or
very
close
to
them?
And
right
now
it's
not
an
issue
because
they're
one-story
buildings
along
the
street
but
they're,
but
in
many
plans
and
including
blueprint
boise,
it
says
no,
but
that's
not.
We
don't
think
that
ought
to
be
one
story.
Building
we
ought
to.
We
have
zoned
it
and
we
anticipate
it
for
being
taller.
So
next
slide,
which
is
our
last
one
I
think
gabby
yeah.
B
So
one
of
the
tools
that
is
often
included
is
simply
a
step
down
a
set
of
things.
Bigger
setbacks
from
the
longer
left
is
a
single
family
house.
In
this
drawing
it's
a
story
and
a
half,
then
there
is
some.
There
is
a
commercial
building
and
there's
a
dollar
commercial
building
to
the
right
and
many
newer
codes.
Just
say
we
just
need
to.
We
don't
need
to
have
a
debate
every
time
this
happens.
B
Usually
in
a
single
family
zone.
You
are
allowed
to
build
a
two,
a
two
story
house
and
that's
about
35
feet.
If
you
do
a
two-story,
pitched
roof
house,
sometimes
it's
lower,
occasionally
it's
higher,
but
for
the
sake
of
discussions,
35
feet
and
often
the
the
short
answer
to
this
question
is
where
you
back
up
against
single
family
neighborhoods.
You
need
to
have
a
bigger
setback
and
for
some
distance
next
to
the
property
line
that
vertical
line
next
to
the
house.
B
Your
building
can't
be
any
taller
than
that
house
basically
35
feet,
and
then
it
can
get
taller
to
the
two
or
three
stories
that
you
have
now.
This
is
tricky
on
shallow
lots,
because
sometimes
that
that
really
makes
it
hard
it's
only
a
half
a
block,
deep,
there's,
not
a
lot
of
building
area
there
before
you
run
into
the
single
family
neighborhood.
B
But
this
is
one
example
of
height,
step,
downs
and
additional
setbacks,
and
sometimes
there
are
restrictions
on
driving
lanes
and
parking
right
next
to
the
house.
But
I
guess
I'm
and-
and
the
picture
is
a
real
picture-
it's
from
denver.
It's
a
few
blocks
from
my
house
where
there
are
35
story,
old,
denver
houses,
but
the
commercial,
but
the
street
busy
street
on
the
right
was
zoned
for
three-story
buildings.
So
what
do
you
do-
and
this
is
just
a
visual
graphic
of
what
they
did?
B
They
had
to
build
something
the
size
and
height
of
a
house
in
the
area
of
the
lot
closest
to
the
house,
and
then
they
could
go
to
the
maximum
height
that
the
zoning
allowed
along
the
hot
the
busy
street.
I
just
like
we'll
just
throw
it
out
there.
This
is
not
the
answer.
This
is
to
help
you
visualize
this
edge
condition
and
the
way
some
cities
are
trying
to
think
about
it.
But
I'd
love
to
hear
anybody's
thoughts
about
this.
This
is
is
how
do
you
protect
the
neighborhoods?
J
Sorry,
for
raising
my
hand
every
time
don,
I
just
have
a
quick
clarification.
Question
so
are
are
any
other
areas
looking
at
incremental
changes
so
and
you
know
allowing
a
structure
next
to
a
two-story
structure
or
a
one-story
structure
to
be
one
story
higher.
If
it
changes,
you
know
if
it
gets
redeveloped
or
whatever
does
that
fall
under
contextual
standards
under
that
definition,
allowing
incremental
changes
through
a
neighborhood
to
allow
the
market
to
kind
of
dictate
where
the
highly
desirable
properties
are
and
let
them
densify
over
time.
Does
that
make
sense?
Yes,.
B
I
understand
your
question
as
a
matter
of
fact.
Years
ago
I
wrote
a
book
on
zoning
and
that's
that
we
had
a
chapter
on
that
called
dynamic
development
standards.
You
could
do
it.
It
gets
a
lot
of
discussion.
Very
few
cities
approve
it
for
hype.
They
they
do
the
times.
I've
seen
it
used
it's
around
downtown,
downtown's
tall.
The
area
around
downtown
is
not
just
a
commercial
area.
It
is
it's
going
to
be
medium
tall,
but
we
don't
have.
B
It
could
they.
What
you
have
to
think
through
is
how
the
market
will
respond.
Do
they
if
they
think
that
eventually,
let's
just
use
a
simple
example,
the
houses
are
only
two
stories.
The
zoning
says
you
can
go
to
four
stories
and
the
the
code
says
well.
First,
building
out,
that's
nearby
has
to
go
to
three
stories,
and
then
the
next
guy
can
go
to
four
stories.
Does
the
market
respond
by
waiting?
B
Does
it
not
do
because
they
think
if
they
just
wait
long
enough
for
someone
else
to
take
the
bait,
they
will
get
to
build
a
bigger
builder
building.
So
it
is
a
kind
of
unintended
excuse
me,
the
unknown
consequences
of
whether
that
will
spur
development
that
is
more
compatible
and
by
the
time
people
are
used
to
a
three-story
building
in
the
activity
center.
Then
they
probably
wouldn't
worry.
If
the
next
building
was
a
four-story
building,
or
will
it
result
in
nobody
doing
anything
because
they're
waiting
to
get
a
four-story
building.
E
Yeah,
so
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that
visual
and
like
some
of
the
discussions
about
the
transition
areas,
and
that
was
something
that
I
was
sort
of
playing
around
in
my
head,
but
like
this
gave
a
little
bit
more
of
a
concrete
understanding
that
I
think
is
helpful,
especially
for
like
the
transit
corridors,
where
you
know
if
we
want
to
build
up
mixed-use
housing
along
state
street.
But
you
know
the
next
block
is
residential,
like
what
are
some
of
the
options
for
that,
and
I
think
that
sort
of
helped
with
that.
E
E
So
you
know,
having
height
of
building
increases
is
something
that
I
feel
like
is
going
to
be
necessary,
especially
in
some
of
those
downtown
areas
and
so
the
especially
the
downtown
corridor.
This
is
where
I
get
questions
about
like
what
a
transitional
area
actually
ends
up.
Looking
like
so,
for
instance,
there's
a
pending
building
at
4th
and
idaho,
where
the
current
iccu
branch
is,
and
it
was
argued
to
be
too
tall
for
the
area,
and
I
used
to
live
right
across
from
that
lot.
E
So
I
know
the
area
very
well
and
right
within
a
block
of
each
in
each
direction
of
that
proposed
building,
there's
a
seven
and
an
eight
story,
residential
building
already
there.
But
people
were
saying
that
a
nine
story
building
was
going
to
be
too
tall
and
that
it
wasn't
going
to
work
in
that
area,
because
it's
peripheral
to
downtown
when
I
think
a
lot
of
people
would
argue
that
that's
still
the
downtown
sort
of
corridor
so
sort
of
deciding
like
what
is
that
transitional
area?
E
What
happens
when
we're
working
on
things
like
infill,
we're
seeing
you
know
all
the
development
along
front
and
myrtle?
That's
already
building
up
to
four
and
five
stories
and
if
we're
gonna
sort
of
fill
in
the
rest
of
those
areas
in
downtown
like
there's,
there
should
be
options
for
height
in
that
area.
But
then
what
does
it
look
like
on
the
other
side
of
broadway
from
downtown,
or
what
does
it
look
like
on
the
other
side
of
st
luke's
or
on
the
other
side
of
the
capitol
building?
E
And
what
would
those
transitions
actually
end
up?
Looking
like.
E
B
There's
not
only
the
paradigm,
I
showed
you
commercial
strip
of
a
three-story
building
down
to
a
residential.
There
are
more
significant
transition
areas
in
the
areas
around
downtown
you're
right
exactly
and
some
of
zoning
is
line,
drawing
and
others
as
as,
as
was
just
mentioned
a
minute
ago,
is
that
sometimes
the
lines
can
be
fuzzy.
They
can
depend
on.
What's
going
on
around
you
in
terms
of
how
much
or
what
you're
allowed
to
do
that
that
we
can,
you
can
write
those
kind
of
standards.
M
Oh,
I
just
had
a
question
for
I
think
you
dawn
or
gabby
in
those
areas
that
you
see
that
required
kind
of
setback.
Like
you
showed
in
the
image
denver.
I
think
it
was.
Do
you
find
that
all
of
the
new
development
looks
the
same?
I
kind
of
share
the
concern
that
an
architect
said
earlier
is
when
you
create
that
specificity
in
the
code
you
have
like
10
or
15
years,
where
every
new
building
looks
the
same.
It's
three-story
within
a
two-story
15-foot
area,
and
I
just
I
just
don't.
B
Well,
the
sure
sheldon,
the
short
answer
is
development-
happens,
as
you
know
gradually
over
time.
So
what?
If?
Let's?
Let's
imagine
that
law
was
in
place
in
boise?
You
know
you're
going
to
have
developers
come
forward
as
they
get
financing
or
his
buildings
want
to
do
to
build
a
three-story
buildings
along
the
commercial
court.
It
won't
all
happen
at
one
time,
you're
right,
20
years
from
now.
Would
you
have
three-story
buildings
along
the
corridor?
B
B
But
if
it's
a
valuable
corridor-
and
it
allows
three
stories
owning
you're-
probably
going
to
get
three-story
buildings,
whether
it
looks
boring
and
monotonous,
has
to
do
with
your
design
standards
which
we'll
talk
about
later,
but
in
terms
of
the
back
of
the
building
that
all
the
buildings
step
down
when
they
are
backing
up
against
residential
development.
You
know
my
experience
is
most
places
who
have
adopted
this
like
it.
B
It
works
because
it's
a
compromise
not
because
of
the
when
you
look,
you
can
imagine
looking
down
an
alley
where
the
right
side
was
commercial
on
the
left
side
was
backyards
of
houses.
People
are
pretty
happy
with
the
fact
that
the
part
of
the
building
that
is
near
their
residential
property
is
not
taller
than
what
they
had
and,
to
be
honest,
they're,
not
that
concerned
about
what
the
back
of
those
commercial
buildings
looks
like
they.
B
It
is
a
political
compromise
that,
yes,
it's
going
to
densify
and
yes,
the
part
of
it
that
is
closest
to
you
will
not
overshadow
you
and
and
so
that
I
think
your
question
really
is
about
the
street
frontage
and
I
think
that
has
more
to
do
with
design
standards
than
it
does.
I
mean
if
you
allow
three-story
heights
and
and
it's
valuable
land
you're,
probably
gonna
get
three-story
buildings
in
the
end.
M
Yeah,
no,
I
have
no
doubt
that
you
know,
especially
as
land
and
rents,
continue
to
rise,
maximizing
whatever
will
occur.
The
market
will
drive
that
absolutely.
I
guess
I'm
just
thinking
that
that
step
down
seems
like
the
it
seems
like
that's
a
way
a
lot
of
communities
are
going
and
I
I
was
thinking
their
needs.
M
B
L
Yeah
thanks
so
our
neighborhood
about
four
or
five
years
ago
kind
of
had
a
huge
battle.
I
was
only
peripherally
involved.
I
was
more
involved
with
a
waste
incinerator
that
was
also
proposed
for
our
neighborhood,
but
with
a
big
complex,
which
would
be
kind
of
more
typical
out
here.
Apartment
complex
of
you
know,
four
or
five
hundred
units,
or
so
and
after
a
two
or
so
year,
battle
two
or
three
year
battle.
This
was
kind
of
the
compromise
that
came
about,
and
it's
still
for
other.
L
You
know
for
many
reasons
in
part
because
of
the
battle
you
know
hated
by
anybody
who
lives
around
the
area
and
also
just
because
it's
ugly,
but
that's
all
their
question
issue,
but
I
I
do
think
that
the
the
step
downs
really
did
help
a
lot.
It
doesn't
solve
everything,
though.
What
I
hear
from
people
is
what
you
mentioned.
L
Privacy
is
a
big
deal
the,
however,
you
know
so
the
residential
area,
the
existing
residential
area,
was
on
the
north
side,
and
so
that
is
different
here
in
the
northern
hemisphere.
You
know
roughly
45
degrees
latitude.
L
It
does
make
a
difference
right
whether
or
not
that's
to
the
north
of
you
or
to
the
south
of
you
in
terms
of
sun,
and
I
personally
I
know
it's-
maybe
not
a
popular
view
among
some,
but
I
I
think
access
to
sunlight
is
pretty
dang
important,
and
so
maybe
there
should
be
a
difference
between
what
side
of
the
you
know.
If
you
are
talking
north
or
south
exposures.
L
So
yes,
I
think
it
would
help
if
this
was
built
into
the
code
to
begin
with,
so
it
didn't
have
to
come
about
after
a
huge
battle.
Two
though
I
still
hear
a
lot
of
issues
and
they're
more
about
kind
of
the
well
anecdotally,
half
the
people
who
live
along
the
nearby
streets
of
closest
street
have
sold
their
houses
and
moved,
sold
their
houses
and
moved
away.
L
You
know
after
the
first
year,
or
so
I
can't
confirm
that
but
of
of
the
the
new
apartment
complex
been
built,
but
I
do
hear
a
lot
of
complaints
about
people
coming
out
of
the
apartment,
building,
walking
their
dogs,
and
you
know
crapping
on
people's
lawns
and
things
like
that.
So
it
doesn't
fully
resolve
the
tension
between
these
very
different
kinds
of
land
uses
and
then
just
one
other
quick
point.
L
I
see
the
phrase
established
neighborhood
put
out
there
a
lot
and
I
just
want
to
say
that's
a
little
bit
of
a
trigger
out
here.
Most
of
my
neighborhood
is
not
considered
a
established
neighborhood
because
our
ratio
of
land
values-
well,
I
should
say,
built
value
over
land
value-
is
below
a
certain
threshold,
which
means
we're
not
established.
Even
though
you
know
our
neighborhoods
are
some
of
the
oldest
in
boise
and
we,
you
know
generations
go
back
with
families,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
we
mean
when
we're
talking
about
established
neighborhoods.
L
But
that
is
something
I
just
want
to
throw
out.
There
is
it's
it's
a
term
of
contention
for
us.
Thank
you.
B
C
B
The
short
answer
is,
as
I
tried
to
introduce
this,
I'm
happy
to
talk
about
it,
but
there
aren't
a
lot
of
examples
out
there
about
it.
It
if
you're
asking
how
do
people
do
it?
The
example
I
can
think
of
was
they
said,
look
your
height
as
in
this
area.
This
was
not
next
to
a
single
family
residential,
but
it
was.
There
were
residential,
neighborhoods
near
downtown.
There
was
downtown
and
this
was
kind
of
the
ring
around
downtown.
B
So
it
was
already
not
a
low
density
area
and
they
said,
take
a
look
at
your
property
and
the
tallest
building
within
500
feet
of
you.
Well
a
lot
within
500
feet
of
you.
You
can
build
that
tall
plus
one
that's
what
they
said.
So
it's
not
a
ratchet
down
effect
guys.
I
think
it's
been
said
two
or
three
times,
and
I
think
this
group
has
a
very
good
understanding.
I
think
it
can't
be.
B
I
mean
what,
if
everybody,
what
if
everybody
in
the
neighborhood
has
built
a
two-story
house,
but
one
person
has
a
bungalow
that
bungalow
is
not
neighborhood
character.
That
can't
be
do
same
thing,
the
other
way
around.
If
everybody
has
a
bungalow
and
one
guy's
built
a
two-story
house,
because
he
had
a
right
to
that,
doesn't
make
neighborhood
characters.
So
I
would
rather
a
drew's
ask
a
very
good
question,
but
it's
a
theoretical
question:
very
few
cities
do
this
and
every
way
of
drafting
it.
I
can
think
of
would
have
questions
like
this.
B
That
would
breed
other
questions
like
this,
so
it
would
read
other
questions
like
this,
and
so,
if
we
decide
to
go
that
way,
I'm
happy
to
have
the
conversation,
but
I
don't
want
to
mislead
people.
This
is
not
in
common
use
around
the
country.
We're
talk.
This
was
not.
I
want
to
be
very
clear.
The
question
andrea
just
read
is
not
about
the
step
downs
behind
commercial
uses.
It
was
about
the
earlier
question
about
whether
the
heights
could
depend
upon
prior
development
and
could
change
as
development
in
the
area
took.
H
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
make
a
quick
point
or
idea
as
far
as
the
zoning,
maybe
it's
a
little
off
subject,
but
loosening
up
restrictions
and
zoning,
I
think,
is
a
bad
idea.
I
think
that
maybe
we
should
strengthen
them
but
have
an
avenue
of
discussion.
I'm
sure
there's
a
term
for
that.
I
don't
know
what
it
is,
but
you
know
I
don't
mind
being
able
to
discuss
an
idea,
but
but
just
opening
the
door
for
anything.
That's
that's
a
scary!
That's
a
scary
idea!.
G
A
B
C
A
N
Yeah,
andrea
hi,
and
thank
you
for
acknowledging
the
participants,
I'm
looking
for
my
notes,
sorry,
but
my
question
was
more
along
or
my
thinking
is
more
along
the
fact
that
you
know
these
previous
codes
lasted
for
55
years.
N
We
know
that
climate
change
is
a
big
issue
for
for
us
and
I'm
just
wondering
about
how
we
build
into
the
these
zoning
codes,
the
flexibility
so
that
our
city
can
be
nimble
in
order
to
as
more
science
comes
along
as
we
learn
more
as
more
technology
comes
along
that
we
can
implement
practices
that
help
fight
climate
change.
B
It's
a
great
question:
can
I
can
I
try
to
answer
that
andrea
or
do
you
want
to
answer?
Okay,
a
number,
so
the
short
answer
is.
That
is
one
reason
why
newer
codes
try
to
allow
more
flexibility.
With
the
caveat
we
have
had
two
hours
of
discussion,
which
is
a
follow-on
to
others
about.
Okay,
at
what
point
does
change
run
into
neighborhood
character?
B
So
not
we
need
to
find
that
balance,
but
in
general
technology
changes,
building
types
change
and
the
climate
is
changing
faster
than
people
can
do
this
once
in
a
10
or
20
year,
rewrite
of
their
development
codes
and
so
building
in
flexibility
is
one
of
just
the
basic
philosophies
behind
behind
zoning
these
days,
because
we
don't
actually
know
what
adjustments
are
going
to
be
necessary
in
order
to
accommodate
climate
change,
and
that
means
also
the
flooding
impacts
and
the
drainage
impacts
and
the
storm
impacts
and
the
fire
impacts,
and
so,
among
other
things,
so
flexibility
is
that's.
B
B
The
second
thing
is,
we
have
tried
to
do
if
you,
when
we've
written
codes
for
a
couple
decades
now
trying
to
get
at
sustainability,
and
how
do
you
deal
and
adapt
to
climate
change
and
frankly,
reduce
the
emission
of
greenhouse
gases
that
is
growing
and
raising
the
temperature
of
the
earth,
and
so
there
are
about
five
things.
You
allow
renewable
energy
facilities
and
you
allow
more
of
them
in
places
where,
in
more
properties,
backyard
solar,
backyard,
wind
in
in
commercial
areas
in
industrial,
you
have
increased
connectivity
and
walkability.
B
So
more
things
can
be
done
by
the
bike
or,
if
you're,
in
a
car,
with
a
shorter
car
trip,
or
maybe
you
can
walk
so
connectivity
mixed
use,
because
if
you
people
don't
have
to
live
near
where
they
work,
but
if
they
want
to
live
near
where
they
work.
Most
cities
come
to
the
conclusion.
That
would
be
a
good
thing
to
allow
them
that
option
so
more
mixed
use.
B
Fourth
is
basically
urban
agriculture
allowing
more
places
in
the
community
to
produce
food
locally
so
that
less
of
it
has
to
be
transported
and
more
of
it
can
be
grown
and
consumed
locally,
and
the
fifth,
which
is
not
usually
in
zoning
codes,
is
really
trash
and
recycling.
So,
of
course
you
allow
it.
Sometimes.
You
include
uses
that
allow
the
recycling
industry
to
to
reuse
more
materials,
so
you
can
transport
fewer
materials
in
and
reuse
more
of
them,
so
that
you
don't
have
to.
You
can
reduce
vehicle
emissions
from
those
kinds
of
things.
B
B
We
will
continue
to
try
to
do
it
in
the
other
two,
for
example,
next
time
around
we're
going
to
be
talking,
among
other
things,
about
connectivity,
how
much
bicycle
car
and
walking
connectivity
should
boys
require
to
to
let
you
get
there
with
a
shorter
trip,
regardless
of
how
you're
getting
there?
That's.
That's!
That's
a
climate
change
issue
and
that's
going
to
come
up
in
the
next
meeting.
A
And
then
just
to
add
on
that
as
well,
I
think
you
know
putting
personal
and
property.
Safety
is
also
an
important
one.
So
we
have,
we
certainly
have
issues
with
the
boise
river,
as
well
as
our
foothills,
creating
flooding
or
fire
issues
that
that
can
occur
because
of
those
so
protecting
those
and
making
sure
that
we
are
building
away
from
those
is
is
a
really
good
way
for
us
to
be
a
little.
A
Thinking
about
some
of
those
things,
and
then
also
we
hear
a
lot
about
replenishing
our
aquifer,
so
making
sure
that
we
have
those
open
spaces
that
are
necessary
or
or
utilizing
less
water,
so
whether
that
is
through
alternative
landscaping,
water
capture,
using
gray
water.
Those
type
of
things
are
also
possible
as
well
and.
E
A
Even
you
know,
I've
had
people
say
how
can
I
think
about
things
in
a
forward-thinking
way,
and
so
I
say
you
know
today
we
often
have
gas
stations
that
we
hear
people
complain
about
because
there's
fumes
and
there's
noise
and
those
types
of
things
as
we
transition
to
electric
vehicle.
A
You
know
a
use
might
be
appropriate
to
allow
be
different
and
where
we
locate
an
electric
vehicle
charging
facility
or
convenience
store
versus
one
that
is
actually
serving
fuel,
those
types
of
things,
and
so
just
thinking
you
know
thinking
forward
about
how
things
could
change,
how
our
technologies
can
change
and
and
how
uses
and
really
making
sure
that
buildings
can
adapt
over
time
as
well.
So
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
adaptive,
reuse
or
you
know
we're
not
seeing
big
boxes.
A
A
O
O
It
references
blueprint
boise
as
the
basis
for
inclusion
in
that
district,
and
I
think,
just
as
a
general
rule,
if
you
want
to
make
this
whole
process
simpler,
more
simple,
the
referencing
blueprint
boise
should
be
as
limited
as
possible.
I
mean
it's
a
fairly
substantial
document
that
also
incorporates
by
reference
68
other
plans.
So
it's
one
way
for
development
to
be
challenged
is
just
go
back
to
blueprint,
boise
and
say:
well,
the
zoning
doesn't
agree
with
blueprint
boise.
You
can't
do
this.
O
The
other
thing
that
I
had
to
add
and
I'm
sure
everybody
wants
to
get
home
one
of
the
other
one
of
the
committee
members
referenced,
the
adu
section.
I
had
given
andrea
comments
on
the
adu
section.
I
think
that
that
requirement
for,
for
the
owner
of
the
property
to
live
on
the
property
as
part
of
a
condition
of
development
for
the
adu
is
the
only
place
in
the
code
where
development
rights
are
limited
or
granted
by
whether
the
owner
occupies
the
property
or
not.
O
I
can't
think
of
anywhere
else
in
on
the
commercial
side
or
the
residential
side.
I'm
not
even
sure
that
it's
legal,
but
that
aside,
the
the
practical
enforcement
of
that
once
the
abu
is
built,
say,
for
example,
if
somebody's
grandmother
were
to
build
an
adu
and
then
leave
it
to
the
family,
and
nobody
particularly
wanted
to
occupy
that
property.
O
So
the
family
then
left
to
dispose
of
the
property
and
then
dispose
it
to
a
limited
group
of
buyers
limited
by
code,
because
investors
can't
buy
that
property
unless
one
of
the
owners
wants
to
use
it
and
then
the
other
thing
I'd
say
that
is
it.
It
doesn't
really
recognize
modern
ownership
structures
like
llc's
and
family
trusts
and
such
where
ownership
may
not
be
entirely
clear
and
who
is
who
is
eligible
for
to
be
an
owner.
O
It
would
be
fairly
easy
to
include
a
tenant
resident
as
an
llc
member
for
the
duration
of
their
tenancy
and
then
write
them
out
when
they
vacate.
So
I
really
think
that
should
be
written
out
of
the
code.
It
seems
so
unworkable
and
so
unfair
to
to
property
investors,
and
I,
the
data
that
andrea
was
going
to
send
out,
may
not
indicate
the
number
of
investors
who
haven't
built
because
of
that,
and
I
I'm
one
of
them.
O
I
would
like
to
build
an
adu
but
can't
or
don't
choose
to
at
this
point,
because
the
restriction
deed
restriction
has
to
be
recorded
on
the
property
for
essentially
for
eternity.
If
the
adu
is
built
so
long
comments.
That's
all
I
had
to
say
thank
you.
B
Can
I
respond
to
the
first
one
if
I
could
just
so
everybody's
on
the
same
page
here
he's
right
that
when
we
in
some
of
those
purpose
statements
which
are
really
not
regulatory
but
they're
descriptive
in
module
one
about
he,
his
example
was
mxa,
we've
included
it
because
it
helps
people
read
it
in
the
absence
of
a
map
when
the
maps,
the
conversion
maps
are
in
discussion
once
we
get
through
module
two,
and
we
have
at
least
the
two
substantive
parts
of
this
and
maps
out
there
where
people
are
going
to
look
at
it
work.
B
The
city
is
going
to
have
to
identify
those
things
so
that
language
that
let
that
vague
language
near
or
in
blueprint
boise,
because
you
know
this
code
may
last
longer
than
blueprint
poise-
used
a
relevant
map,
a
relevant
plan
for
the
city
that
is
to
help
readers.
Now
I
do
agree
with
him
that
in
general,
that's
probably
pretty
vague,
but
as
we
by
the
time
we
get
to
the
end
of
this
process,
there
will
be
a
map
accompanying
it,
and
the
intended
areas
for
mxa
will
be
clear.
So
he's
right.
A
Have
reached
our
5
p.m,
which
is
actually
the
end
of
our
meeting,
but
there
was
a
really
good
discussion
that
was
occurring
before
the
meeting
that
was
happening
via
email,
and
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
poll.
You
know
when
people
like
to
you
know
take
the
next
10
minutes
to
really
talk
about
some
of
those
things
and
because
I
think
that
there
are
some
things
that
we
should
point
out.
You
know
specifically
that
you
know
we
need
to
differentiate
between
general
affordability
and
then
income
restricted,
affordability,
that's
really
important.
A
If
you
followed
in
the
news,
she's
actually
created
a
number
of
positions
that
are
going
to
help
facilitate
that,
and
so
we
do
have
to
lean
on
other
facets.
The
zoning
code
can
do
a
lot
of
things
as
far
as
affordability
and
creating
opportunity
for
people.
So
I
really
think
it's
important
for
us
to
focus
on
the
things
that
the
zoning
code
can
do.
So
we
can
incentivize
things
through.
You
know:
density
additional
height,
those
types
of
things.
A
We
saw
that
when
we
created
the
housing
bonus
ordinance
that
you
know
there
are
some
other
ways
to
do
that
as
well,
but
even
looking
at
the
price
of
housing.
As
far
as
rentals,
our
purchasing
it's
important
that
we
can
reduce
costs
other
ways.
So
if
we
can
save
people
money
on
transportation,
that
is
a
really
important
way
for
them
to
be
able
to
to
save
some
funds
so
that
they
can
actually
use
that
for
housing
or
for
groceries
or
health
care
needs
things
that
they
need.
You
know
we
can
also
attract.
A
You
know
high
quality
businesses
to
make
our
economy
grow,
and
those
businesses
then
create
good
jobs
that
provide
high
paying
salaries.
They
provide
benefits
those
types
of
things
we
need
to
be
attracting
those
people.
We
need
to
be
encouraging
people
and
giving
them
access
to
educational
opportunities,
whether
it's
schools
or
training
programs.
A
All
of
those
types
of
things
help
contribute
to
making
people
create,
have
affordable
wages
to
where
they
can
afford
housing.
They
can
afford
transportation
and
they
can
support
the
services
that
are
in
their
their
town
and
their
city.
So
I
just
want
everybody
to
think
big
and
you
know
think
globally
and
us
as
a
community
when
we
think
about
affordability,
we're
really
looking
to
provide
housing
for
everybody
at
every
income,
not
specifically
our
low
income,
although
they
are
a
key
component
to
our
society
and
we
do
find
them
important.
B
Tonight
I,
since
you've
opened
this
up
and
we
I
see
a
chat
comment
that
people
would
like
to
spend
some
time
with
this
at
a
future
meeting,
and
I
think
that
probably
is
a
good
thing.
This.
B
This
is
a
really
complicated
project,
a
complicated
problem
challenge,
but
this
group
has
committed
to
meeting
to
work
through
a
lot
of
complicated
stuff,
and
this
is
what
I'm,
if,
if
I
let
me
just
see,
if
I
have
this
available,
if
people
would
bear
with
me
for
just
a
couple
of
minutes,
if
I
had
this
available,
I
would
I
would
share
a
document
with
you
very
quickly.
Just
give
me
a
second
here.
I
think
I
can
do
this
and
I
apologize
for
the
time.
B
I
thought
I
had
it
pulled
up
already,
but
I
then
do
it
here
quickly.
I
think.
B
Okay,
why
don't
you
share
it?
This
is
just
this
is
yep.
This
is
a
very
simple
graphic,
but
I
do
think
it.
It's
very
helpful
to
know
the
green
arrow
is
what
the
market
can
provide.
Obviously
that
changes,
but
it's
a
lot
of
things
in
that
box,
are
out
of
our
control:
construction
prices,
land
prices,
materials
prices,
labor
prices,
the
the
dark
part
of
that
of
that
bar
the
gray
bar
tends
to
be
the
lower
income
basis
and
the
market
can
sub
market
can
provide
a
lot
of
housing.
B
That's
who
provides
most
of
the
housing
in
america
when
you
get
to
the
gray
bar,
it
is
harder
for
the
market
to
provide
it.
My
view
what
zoning
can
do
is
looking
at
the
overlap
between
the
gray
bar
and
the
green
bar
and
saying.
If
we
changed
zoning,
we
could
allow
the
market
to
do
more.
B
On
the
left
hand,
side,
it
could
extend
that
green
arrow
to
the
left,
and
that
would
allow
the
money,
because
most
of
the
time
housing
for
the
low
for
the
for
the
gray
bar
areas,
very
low
income,
low
income
and
as
the
email
chatter
before
this.
This
session
was
pointing
out
even
100.
Ami
moderate
income
up
to
that
level
is
often
takes
some
form
of
money.
B
Now
in
the
where
the
gray
and
the
green
overlap
is
an
area
where
incentives
or
bonuses
or
parking
reductions
or
changes
in
zoning
can
help
the
market
do
what
would
otherwise
require
subsidies?
And
that's
a
lot
of
what's
being
talked
about
here
that
because,
when
you
get
off
the
left
end
of
that
green
arrow,
regardless
of
even
if
we
push
it
to
the
left
further,
when
you
get
off
the
left
end
of
the
green
arrow,
you're
gonna
need
money,
real
money
or
fake
money
called
tax
benefits,
but
you
can't
do
it
through
zoning.
B
The
subsidies
involved
in
trying
to
get
down
to
that
level
are
just
too
great.
You
can't
increase
the
prices
on
your
market
units
to
subsidize
the
low
low
income
units
enough
to
make
it
work.
Now
I
see
the
hands
going
up,
so
people
may
really
disagree
with
this,
but
I
find
this
a
helpful
way
to
think
about
it.
The
market
doesn't
need
any
help.
Doing
the
green
arrow
to
the
right,
the
market
could
do
more
of
the
green
and
gray
overlap.
B
If
we
fix,
if
we
fix
zoning
zoning
cannot
do
the
very
left
end
of
this
arrow.
It
needs
tax
credits,
it
needs
loans,
it
needs
free
land,
it
needs
housing
trusts,
it
needs
whatever.
So
I
will
stop
talking,
but
I
I
think
when
people
think
about
this,
I
sometimes
find
the
conversation
is
somewhat
confused
between
the
gray
and
the
green
overlap
which
zoning
can
do
and
we
don't
know
exactly
where
that
is
because
we're
trying
to
make
it
bigger
and
the
stuff
that
requires
heavy-duty
subsidies
that
it's
helpful
to
keep.
M
Well,
yeah,
I
think
that
I
think
this
is
such
a
big
issue,
and
I
don't
know
that
it
is
something
that
zoning
can
or
should
should
be
solving
really.
But
I
I
wholeheartedly
agree
with
dawn
and
your
image
is
good.
I
would
just
urge
people
to
look
at
what
I'm
calling
the
boise
spectrum
of
needs,
because
it
it
dials
that
dials
dawn's
image
down
to
the
city
of
boise
and
it
does
have
more
information,
and
maybe
when
you
first
look
at
it,
it
can
be
overwhelming.
I'm
happy
to
walk
through
it
if
anyone's
interested.
M
So
so
we
cannot
build
housing
without
money,
whether
that
and
it's
not
in
property
tax.
You
know
roberta
mentioned
in
the
taxes.
It's
not
in
a
property
tax
decrease
it's
in
it's
in
a
low
income,
housing
tax
credit,
which
is
the
number
one
way
that
affordable
capital,
a
affordable
units
are
built
in
this
country.
You
know
over
eight
billion
in
credits
are
given
to
people
who
have
a
huge
tax
burden.
Think
google
think
citibank,
think
retirement.
M
Think
banks
mostly
have
have
these
needs
for
credits
and,
as
the
tax
rate
increases
at
a
corporate
level,
the
need
for
tax
credits
serving
the
60
ami
and
below
also
increases.
So
that's
a
good
thing,
I
would
say
for
affordable
housing,
but
that
piece
between
80
and
120
ami
cannot
be
achieved.
It
is
not
bankable,
it
is
not
feasible
without
substantial
policy
and
or
money
to
create
it.
You
simply
can't
pay
your
mortgage
so
don.
I
agree,
I
would
just
say,
update
it
for
boise
and
yeah.
L
Yeah
yeah
so
showing
that
I
had
a
little
back
and
forth
there
in
the
email,
and
I
will
like
to
look
at
those
numbers,
because
what
I'm
hearing
reported
from
my
neighborhood
is
new
units
more
around
90
percent
for
apartments
ami,
and
that
is
important
because
you
know
where
we
set
those
thresholds
for
incentives
if
we
set
them
above,
what's
already
being
built,
of
course,
then
they
don't
help
and,
in
my
opinion,
have
negative
consequences.
L
But
to
the
larger
point,
I
think
zoning
is
incredibly
important
when
it
comes
to
affordable
housing
and
in
one
of
the
major
ways,
is
the
influence
on
our
existing,
more
affordable
housing
stock,
and
that
is
largely
in
that
gray
area
right.
I,
my
neighborhood,
has
a
fair
number
of
manufactured
home
communities:
they've
been
there,
some
of
them
since
the
60s
or
whatever
well
integrated
and
those
are
affordable
compared
to
anything
else.
L
They
have
problems
and
that
you
know
people
tend
to
get
kind
of
trapped
at
times
in
their
manufactured
home
if
they
need
to
move
and
they
cost
ten
thousand
dollars
to
move
et
cetera.
That's
a
another
issue
to
talk
about
with
tiny
houses
that
perhaps,
and
whether
or
not
they
really
need
to
be
on
foundations,
but
zoning
by
increasing
the
density
of
course
increases
land
value
of
zoning.
L
That
is
and
therefore
puts
more,
affordable,
housing
more
at
risk,
and
so
I
I
do
think
it
is
important
to
keep
that
in
mind,
a
fellow
by
the
name
of
patrick
condon,
who
came
to
boise
a
couple
decades
ago,
at
the
request
of
idaho.
Smart
growth
came
back
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
this
time,
at
the
request
of
vanishing
boise
and
he's
just
written
a
book
he's
from
vic
vancouver
and
he's.
L
He
supports
density
for
other
reasons,
but
in
terms
of
just
simply
affordability,
it
just
hasn't
worked
in
vancouver,
at
least
and
and
where
he's
he
has
looked
because,
as
you
increase
the
number
of
allowed
units
you
know
per
acre,
your
land
prices
go
up
accordingly.
So
anyway,
I
just
want
to
throw
that
out
there
that
is
directly
relevant
to.
Of
course
zoning,
so
thanks.
D
Yeah,
so
obviously
this
is
a
contested
area,
and
this
is
something
that
you
know
I
just
I
mean.
I
think
there
is
a
lot
of
evidence
that
and
don,
if
you
put
your
figure
back
up
again,
that
actually
you
know
adding
market
rate
housing.
You
know
the
solution
to
a
lot
to
affordability
is
to
increase
the
supply
of
housing.
D
You
know
55
000
new
market
rate
units
and
followed
the
chain
of
vacancies
right,
because
somebody's
got
to
move
into
that
and
where
did
they
move
from
and
so
what?
What
they
discovered
is
for
every
100
units
of
market
rate
housing
that
you
built
in
central
cities.
You
created
70
vacancies
and
census,
tracts
that
were
at
or
below
the
median
income.
D
D
What
we
can
do
is
is
build
enough
market
rate
housing
that
people
will
pay
for
that
that
they
can
that
the
older
units
become
affordable,
and
I
just
so-
I
think
you
know
so
absolutely
I
mean
the
reason
I
am
on
this
committee
is
because
I
believe
that
we
can
improve
the
zoning
code
and
allow
and
increase
the
supply
of
housing
here
and
that's
what's
going
to
address
our
affordability
problem,
because
we
have
so
many
examples
of
cities
that
haven't
and
you
can
you
know
we
have.
There's
we've
been
doing
an
experiment
across
this
country.
B
No,
I'm
you
know,
as,
as
somebody
said
in
the
chat
box,
it's
a
very
complicated
thing.
You
know
guys
if
this
group
I'm
glad
everybody's
willing
to
stay
another
10
minutes
to
talk
about.
We
could
talk
about
it
for
another
hours,
but
you're
coming
to
the
table
with
good
studies
on
both
sides
of
the
issue,
which
is
which
is
very
helpful
so
anyway,
we
will
continue
it
because
this
issue
will
not
go
away
and
we
need
to.
B
C
Yep-
and
I
think
sheldon
leaves
us.
A
With
a
great
quote
really
talking
that
there
isn't
a
silver
bullet
to
create,
affordable
housing,
there's
not
one
single
thing:
that's
going
to
do
that!
It's
really
a
combination
of
policy
money.
You
know
through
the
tax
system,
subsidies,
speed,
deferrals
density
and
really
a
reduction
in
some
of
the
barriers
that
zoning
creates.
So
some
of
this
we
are
going
to
be
in
charge
of,
but
others
will
be
outside
of
our
hands.
So
let's
just
keep
an
open
mind
and
really
think
about
our
community
and
making
sure
that
we
have
housing
for
everyone.
A
Oh
and
I
think
that's
it
so
our
next
meeting
will
be
on
june
17th
and
you
should
be
expecting
your
minutes
shortly
and
then
we've
got
some
research
to
do
for
you
as
well.
So
we'll
see
you
on
june
17th.