►
From YouTube: Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting
Description
Monthly meeting for the City of Boise's Zoning Code Rewrite Citywide Advisory Committee. This meeting streams on YouTube, where the public can view it.
A
Okay,
I
think
we're
ready
to
get
started.
Everyone
we're
at
about
305,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
material
to
cover
today,
just
to
kind
of
walk
us
through.
We
promised
to
deliver
a
lot
of
goods
to
you
last
time,
and
so
hopefully
we're
going
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
we
are
also
challenged
to
hey.
Let's
talk
about
some
of
these
things
in
greater
detail,
and
so
hopefully
we
can
start
that
as
well.
A
A
If
you
need
to
cough
or
you
don't
want
somebody
to
hear
you,
you
can
always
turn
that
off
and
it'll
go
to
red,
but
we'll
go
ahead
and
get
started.
It
is
may
26th
and
it
is
the
cac
meeting
for
the
zoning
code
rewrite
so.
A
A
Yeah,
we
have
andy
erstad.
We
have
chris
vanderstow
don
elliott,
francis
fuji
gabby,
hart
kelly
tagg
marissa
keith,
and
we
also
have
which
that's
not
showing
richard
llewellyn
and
marissa
keith,
and
we
also
have
two
attendees
that
will
hang
in
there
and
hopefully
we'll
get
to
hear
from
them.
At
the
very
end.
E
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
you
again
for
for
doing
this.
Everybody
that's
here
on
the
committee.
As
I
said
before,
I
recognize
what
incredible
public
service
this
is
to
spend
your
lives
volunteering,
to
talk
about
the
zoning
of
your
city.
E
So,
thank
you
very
much,
and
and-
and
I
want
to
give
a
lot
of
thanks
to
lena
and
andrea
and
and
deanna
in
particular-
who've
been
hard
at
work,
since
you
last
saw
them
seeking
to
come
forward
with
some
ideas
today
related
to
the
zoning
which
really
goes
back
to
modules
one
and
two
and
proposes
you
know,
based
on
the
feedback
we've
heard
and
through
this
public
process.
Let's,
let's
think
about
some
ways
to
do
this.
E
That
might
be,
we
think
more
in
the
direction
of
an
approach
that
solves
the
problems
we're
seeking
to
solve,
but
in
a
way
that's
commensurate
with
the
physicality
of
the
city
versus
more
of
a
cookie-cutter
approach
to
the
zoning.
So
they
have
to
go
through
with
you
today.
Some
you
know
fairly
detailed,
I'd,
say
explanations
of
where
that's
evolved.
Since
you
last
discussed
this-
and
this
is
good-
you
know-
so
you
all
can
get
into
some
detail
here.
It's
not
just
high
level
discussion.
E
It's
it's
get
into
the
weeds
a
little
bit
and
and
talk
through
what
of
these
solutions?
You
think,
are
good
ones
and
and
give
us
some
direction
on
on
how
to
continue
to
pursue
them,
because
the
idea
is
that
we're
going
to
be
working
with
this
committee
to
work
through
these
ideas
such
that
we
can
get
to
some
additional
public
meetings,
even
in
the
summer,
to
start
talking
with
residents
of
boise.
E
Thinking,
okay,
in
that
third
phase
and
as
we
discuss
processes,
how
can
we
make
these
things
as
simple
to
do
as
possible,
because
they're
in
the
direction
that
we
want
for
the
city?
So
so
it's
an
important
presentation
and
discussion
with
you
today
and
and
look
forward
to
to
your
feedback
and
direction
on
where
things
have
gotten
so
appreciate
it,
and
that
that
is
it.
F
Thanks
tim,
I'm
just
going
to
do
a
little
bit
of
a
recap.
We
kind
of
talked
about
this
last
meeting
and
then,
where
we're
at
right
now
and
then
the
steps
kind
of
moving
forward.
This
is
our
outline
for
today
I'll
kind
of
go
over.
The
outreach
summary
deanna
will
go
over
the
proposed
module
one
and
module
two
framework
changes
and
then
next
steps,
as
tim
said
kind
of
some
of
that
summer,
and
what
to
expect
from
us
upcoming
and
then
any
comments
and
discussion
that
we're
going
to
have
after
that.
F
We
went
to
each
neighborhood
planning
area
and
had
seven
of
those
meetings
and
then
several
other
stakeholder
meetings
throughout
the
community
as
well,
and
a
large
survey
that
was
taken
by
the
community
as
well
as
more
technical
experts.
Like
you
all,
I'm
gonna
appreciate
all
those
feedback.
We
had
a
lot
of
comments
that
we've
kind
of
sifted
through
from
all
different
members
of
the
community
and
that's
really
important
as
part
of
the
entire
community
engagement
process.
F
As
we
go
through
this,
so
if
you
remember
we
did
a
module
one
outreach
summary
that
was
probably
about
last
spring.
We
have
a
summary
report
that
is
about
95
done.
I
have
copies
available
here.
It
needs
to
go
our
graphics
team
before
we
kind
of
publish
that
on
our
website.
That'll
also
include
all
of
the
public
comments
that
we
received
from
both
of
those
surveys.
There
was
about
5
600
comments
that
people
put
in
that
survey,
so
those
are
all
organized
by
questions
and
then
people's
responses
as
well.
F
You
can
use
that
time
to
read
those
comments
if
you'd
like,
but
of
course,
we'd
like
to
present
this
to
the
community
and
make
sure
it's
accessible
for
everyone,
so
that
should
be
ready
for
the
next
week
or
two,
but
I
do
have
a
copy
of
the
word
version
here
before
that
kind
of
gets,
finalized
and
prettied
up.
So
it's
a
little
bit
rough,
but
you
can
still
pretty
much
get
the
entire
report
together.
F
Really
I
want
to
talk
about.
This
is
kind
of
how
we'll
look
to
move
forward
as
well.
Some
of
the
overarching
themes
that
we
had
from
community
outreach
and
in
the
survey
they're
pretty
in
line
with
one
another
of
the
same
kind
of
overarching
themes
that
we
heard
protect
sensitive
lands.
As
we
all
know,
the
foothills
area
is
really
important
to
us,
and
that
was
an
up
voted
number
one
on
one
of
the
questions,
without
a
doubt
that
protecting
some
of
the
sensitive
lands
is
very
important
to
the
community.
F
We
heard
that
whatever
that
looks
like
we're
still
trying
to
figure
that
out
dana
will
kind
of
touch
on
some
of
those
as
well
connectivity
how
people
get
around
the
city,
whether
that's
walkability,
bicycling
cars,
all
different
types
of
connectivity,
but,
as
tim,
you
know,
kind
of
mentioned,
making
sure
that
everything's
connected
in
the
community,
not
all
areas
of
boise
the
same
as
we
went
to
each
of
those
neighborhood
planning
areas.
F
The
number
one
topic-
and
this
was
true
in
the
survey
as
well-
that
reduction
in
parking
that
we
presented
was
very
hot
topic
throughout
all
of
our
meetings
and
in
the
survey
as
well,
and
then
the
removal
of
the
density
calculation
as
well
people.
I
think
it
was
just
a
little
bit
unsure
in
their
heads
of
what
that
actually
meant
so
from
here.
C
Fancy
okay,
so
it's
good
to
see
you
guys
all
again,
and
this
is
kind
of
the
the
framework
that
we
wanted
to
lead
with,
to
convey
the
the
pivots
that
we're
making
or
the
changes
that
would
be
different
from
the
draft
that
you
saw
in
january
february
march
after
the
community
feedback
survey
feedback
your
feedback.
C
We
feel
pretty
good
about
the
the
groupings
of
these.
These
four
ways
that
we
want
to
see
in
the
code
express
the
changes
that
that
everyone
was
looking
for.
C
So
the
first
is
really
this
recognition
and
hearing
from
from
the
community,
and
you
all
that
we
we
have
great
neighborhoods
and
they're
very
different
from
each
other,
and
we
want
to
preserve
that
variety
in
a
way
that
they
can
continue
to
be
great,
doesn't
mean
that
they
stay
exactly
the
way
that
they
are
right
now
and
that
they'll
never
change,
but
that
we
don't
just
apply
a
cookie
cutter
approach
across
the
city
and
hope
that
the
the
quality
and
the
variety
of
those
neighborhoods
stays
the
same
so
being
kind
of
intentional
about
where
growth
is
and
and
what
kind
of
growth
that
is.
C
C
The
third
is
really
thinking
through
how,
if
we
have
these
goals
around
climate
change,
climate
action
and
and
housing
affordability,
how
do
we
really
ensure
that
we
have
a
strategy
to
produce
those
type
of
projects
to
meet
our
goals
and
so
we'll
walk
through
some
of
the
incentives
or
performance
enhancement
strategies
that
we're
looking
at
with
different
kinds
of
housing
and
mixed
use
areas
and
then
to
show
it
share
with
you
all
today
an
approach
we
would
like
to
take
to
really
recognize
that
we
don't
want
to
develop
everywhere.
C
Tim
has
has
said
this
pretty
much
right
from
getting
here
that
that
we
have
great
places
and,
and
then
the
places
that
we
we
love.
We
we
should
be
thoughtful
about
how
we
protect
those
places,
specifically
in
the
foothills
and
then
south
of
of
the
city,
as
you
get
out
into
the
the
desert
area,
so
we'll
share
with
you
an
approach
we
we
want
to
try
today
on
that.
Let
me
go
to
the
next
slide.
C
And
I
don't
know
if
deanna
you're
going
to
start
to
jump
right
in
on
that,
what
we
mean
but
happy
to
give
you
the
micro,
oh
clicker
and
mic.
Oh
yeah.
I
think
I
did
it.
G
Okay,
there
you
go
okay,
cool
and
we
feel
good
to
keep
going.
You
know
yeah,
let's
do
it.
Okay,
so
jessica
kind
of
outlined
the
framework-
and
we
have
spent,
like
tim,
said
the
last
month
really
saying:
okay,
if
this
is
the
direction
that
we
want
our
code
to
go,
how
do
we
then
actually
get
the
code
to
realize
that
this
direction
this
framework,
so
I'm
going
to
walk
through
which
what
I
try
to
what
we
all
try
to
balance
between
all
right?
This
is
how
it
connects
to
these
framework
items.
G
How
do
we
get
nitty-gritty
enough?
So
you
could
see
how
we're
pulling
levers
within
the
code
to
realize
this
idea
of
great
cities
have
a
variety
of
neighborhoods,
so
you'll
see
we
added
r1a
back
in.
That
was
a
one
of
the
big
feedback
items
we
heard
was
you're
getting
rid
of
our
r1a
large
lot
zoning
districts.
G
So
we've
added
that
in
recognizing
that
we
do
need
to
have
a
variety
of
neighborhoods
within
our
city
and
you'll,
see
all
of
those
dimensional
standards
have
stayed
exactly
the
same
as
they
are
in
the
current
zoning
code
and
same
with
the
allowed
uses.
So
currently
in
r1a
you
can
do
a
single
family
home.
You
can
do
a
duplex
and
you
can't
do
an
adu.
G
You'll,
also
see
you
on
that
top
column
that
I've
circled
density.
We
also
added
the
density
calculation
back
in
really
to
provide
that
predictability
for
our
residents
so
that
they
can
understand
the
density.
That's
going
to
be
within
their
neighborhoods
and
so
you'll,
so
r1a
has
stayed.
The
same.
R1B
is
the
same
as
what
is
currently
in
the
code
and
what
we
presented
to
the
community.
G
One
of
the
big
things
I
do
want
to
pull
out
so
you'll
see
a
loud
uses,
which
is
the
third
fourth
row
previously.
In
the
last
draft
we
said
you
could
do
up
to
a
four
plex
in
all
neighborhoods,
and
that
was
really
the
cookie
cutter
approach.
We
talked
about
that.
G
And
so
what
we'll
talk
about
a
little
bit
later
is
we're
creating
a
requirement
that
if
you
do
want
to
do
a
fourplex
in
an
r1b
neighborhood,
it
has
to
be
affordable
and
it
has
to
be
sustainable,
so
we're
going
to
get
a
deed,
restricted,
affordable
housing
unit
there
in
that
neighborhood.
So
it's
really
directly
connecting
the
goal
to
have
four
plexus.
G
If
we
are
going
to
have
them,
we
have
to
have
the
right
type
of
housing
that
we
want.
So
then
you'll.
So
that's
that
the
play
between
allowed
uses
and
then
allowed
with
the
sustainability
and
affordability.
One
of
the
big
changes
that
you
will
see
is
height.
There
is
variety
across
the
residential
zoning
districts
in
height
now
previously
it
was
almost
all
the
same
height.
So
this
will
be
a
difference
for
a
lot
of
our
community
members.
G
The
larger
lot
residential
areas
are
still
35,
which
is
what
they
are
currently,
but
as
we
move
into
more
of
our
urban
neighborhoods
and
neighborhoods,
where
we
are
closer
to
areas
that
have
investment,
we
want
to
allow
more
development
potential
within
those
areas,
so
we
have
quite
a
bit
of
a
higher
height
limit
as
well.
We've
re
decreased
minimum
lot
size
for
r1c,
which
so
to
make
it
a
bit
more
consistent
with
the
city's
traditional
lot
plating.
G
So
we
took
a
list
of
okay.
Where
are
areas
that
we
have
investment
or
have
pretty
immediate
plans
for
investment,
and
let's
make
sure
that
that's
where
we're
growing
and
that's
where
we're
heading
the
best
highest
urban
development
that
we
can
so
obviously
it's
downtown.
We
have
a
ton
of
investment
in
downtown
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that,
as
we
have
new
development
there,
it
is
reaching
that
which
is
the
dark
blue.
G
Many
people
may
not
know
this,
but
we
have
routes
and
boise
that
run
every
15
minutes
during
the
commute
hours.
So
these
are
places
that
if
you
live
within
walking
distance
to
vista,
you
may
be
able
and
you
work
downtown-
you
can
easily
take
the
bus
or
some
folks.
You
can
take
the
bus,
every
15
minutes
back
and
forth
between
your
home.
So
we
want
to
see
the
most
intense
development
there
to
help
support
that
investment.
G
We
have
our
pathway,
corridors,
the
greenbelt
and
federal
bike.
The
federal
way
bikeway.
These
are
great
investments
that
we've
already
built
within
the
city
for
bike
and
pet
infrastructure,
and
we
should
be
putting
people
closer
to
that,
so
they
can
bike
and
walk
to
where
they
need
to
go.
And
then
we
have
our
regional
and
activity
centers
identified
in
blueprint,
boise
and
those
are
places
that
we're
envisioning
to
be
dense,
urban
or
not
necessarily
super
dense.
But
those
are
where
we're
seeing
community
activity
right.
G
This
is
where
we
want
to
have
a
spot
that
every
community,
every
neighborhood
could
walk
or
access
goods
and
services
nearby
where
they
live,
and
so
I'm
going
to
click
through
some
of
these
things
so
walk
through
all
of
the
investment
areas.
So
you'll
see
now
we've
created
zones
that
align
directly
with
those
investment
areas,
so
we
have
mx5,
which
is
the
mixed
use,
downtown
and
that's
what
we're
taking
now
within
the
downtown
planning
area,
anything
that
was
zoned,
commercial,
c2,
c3,
etc.
R0
will
become
mx5
within
the
downtown
planning
area.
G
We
have
our
mx4,
which
is
mixed-use
tod,
which
are
the
four
tod
stations
along
state
street.
Those
will
become
mx4
and
then
mx3
is
everywhere.
Those
other
investment
areas
that
I
described
the
best
in
class
transit,
the
pathway
system
and
our
activity
centers.
Those
are
mx3,
and
this
is
where
we
really
want
to
see
our
community
invest
in
growth,
and
you
know
to
in
order
to
have
that
variety
of
neighborhoods
everywhere
else.
We
want
to
see
our
growth
at
these
investment
areas
and
you'll
see.
G
We've
raised
the
height
limit
for
mx3,
so
that
would
maybe
have
been
a
lot
of
areas
that
were
previously
previously
zoned.
C2.
We've
raised
that
height
limit
now
to
60
feet.
G
And
then,
of
course,
there's
a
lot
of
other
types
of
commercial
within
the
city.
We
know
that
we
don't
always
have
to
have
the
most
intense
mixed
use
development,
so
we
have
what
we
call
mixed
use
general,
which
is
really
what
we
kind
of
see
happening
in
boise
right
now.
We
know
people
are
going
to
want
a
car
wash
are
going
to
need
a
car
wash
going
to
need
a
drive-through
restaurant
right,
we're
not
it's
not
going
to
disappear
from
the
city,
we're
just
going
to
focus
that
type
of
auto
oriented
development
at
mx2.
G
G
G
So
this
is
another
thing
as
we're
moving
towards
this
framework
of
moving
growth
to
where
we
have
investment.
We
recognize
that
this
is
going
to
set
us
up
to
potentially
have
some
conflict,
because
we
have
low
density
areas
and
areas
where
we
need
to
focus
our
growth
on,
so
that
we
can
maintain
other
areas
to
have
that
variety
of
neighborhoods
and
not
develop
everywhere.
G
So
we
recognize
there's
going
to
be
conflict,
especially
when
it's
within
that
1
8
mile
or
yeah
1
8
mile
buffer,
which
is
about
one
block,
so
we're
only
thinking
one
block
off
of
state
street.
If
we're
going
to
allow
a
building
up
to
60
feet
on
state
street,
that's
going
to
create
a
conflict
between
perhaps
the
existing
low-density
housing
and
that
60-foot
development.
If
we
limit
the
potential
of
that
new
mixed-use
zone
because
of
the
existing
single-family
home,
we're
not
realizing
the
growth
that
we're
hoping
to
achieve
in
those
investment
areas.
G
So
our
recommendation
is
to
convert
low
density
zones
with
just
within
those
buffers
that
1
8,
which
is
one
block
from
state
street
or
vista,
and
to
a
more
urban
residential
zones.
So
it's
still
residential,
but
we
would
move
them
from
say
r1c
to
r2,
so
that
that
residential
property
could
also
realize
the
higher
intensities,
and
we
can
see
investment
within
that
residential
area.
G
So
and
it's
very
small,
you
can't
see
it,
but
it's
not
a
dramatic
amount
of
property,
but
there
are
some
existing
lower
density
areas
within
that
one
eighth.
G
So
this
is
kind
of
our
scheme
of
where
we're
going
to
be
seeing
mixed
use
to
development
and
more
urban
development
within
the
city.
So
it
still
leaves
a
great
amount
of
the
city
as
it
currently
is.
G
And
so
then,
the
next
framework
was
to
really
a
great
city,
has
a
strategy
to
explicitly
produce
affordable
and
sustainable
development,
and
this
was
really
in
response
to
a
lot
of
our
communities,
saying
we're
just
increasing
development
potential
and
are
you
getting
affordable
and
sustainable
housing?
So
we
want
to
come
up
with
a
solution
to
really
bake
in
incentives
for
the
type
of
development
that
we
want.
G
So,
as
I
said
in
those
lower
density,
large
lot
and
suburban
traditional
zones,
so
r1a
r1b
r1c,
we
have
now
said
you
cannot
do
a
triplex
or
a
fourplex
unless
you
give
us
affordable
and
sustainable
housing
and
it's
explicitly
requiring
that
affordable
and
sustainable
housing.
So
if
you
wanted
to
do
an
triplex
in
r1b
or
r1c,
one
of
those
units
would
have
to
be
affordable
to
someone
earning
80
area,
median
income
or
less
as
well.
G
We
have
we
worked
with
our
public
works
team
to
say
you
have
to
have
it
be
affordable
and
it
has
to
incorporate
three
of
these
sustainable
building
features.
So
it's
going
to
support
clean
energy,
energy
savings
and
water
savings
and
then
our
next
one
was
in
that
mixed
use,
transit,
oriented
development,
so
mx4
will
remove
where
it
will
allow
the
development
to
go
above
60
feet.
G
And
then
just
reminding
this
is
actually
a
current
incentive
that
we
already
have,
but
recognizing
we
want
to
maintain
some
things
that
they
some
buildings
as
they
are
so
providing
an
incentive
for
adaptive,
reuse
and
then
our
last
framework
is
we
don't
want
to
develop
everywhere.
So
a
lot
of
what
I've
just
described
is
our
efforts
to
not
have
not
develop
everywhere
by
concentrating
growth
in
areas
where
we
have
investments.
G
We
didn't
have
that
in
the
previous
draft
and
this
is
going
to
provide
strict
development
standards
for
how
you
develop
basically
at
the
intermingle
between
the
wild
and
the
urban,
so
making
sure
that
we're
firewise,
as
well
as
treating
our
animals
sensitive
sensitively,
and
this
is
gonna-
be
in
module
three,
but
we're
really
charged
with
this
is
being
careful
about.
G
G
So
that's
a
lot
of
information
and
I
think
the
next
the
rest
of
the
session
is
just
discussion.
A
Yeah-
and
I
think
we'll
just
start
with-
you
know
like
what
do
you
think
about
the
framework?
Does
it
match
what
we
heard
with
the
outreach
summary?
Do
you
have
concerns
with
a
specific
piece
of
that
or
how
it
might
be
integrated
into
the
the
zoning
ordinance
or
maybe
you're
really
excited
about
something
that
we
talked
about
and
how
it
will
integrate
so
we'll
just
kind
of
open
it
up
to
the
group-
and
I
know
roberta,
had
her
hand
raised.
D
I
jumped
ahead
to
beyond
the
discussion
as
to
how
I'm
going
to
process
all
this
like,
for
instance,
when
you
were
going
through
the
new
zoning
areas.
This
was
my
cheat
sheet,
you
know,
and
how
will
you
do
a
translation
in
the
next
revision
of
the
module
to
explain
what
the
current
is
and
just
jump
to
what
we
have
now,
because
that
would
work
for
me.
A
Ultimately,
I
think
the
story
will
be
what
you
saw
today.
What
you'll
see
reflected
in
the
zoning
code
will
ultimately
be
you'll,
see
you'll,
be
able
to
track
that
via
footnotes.
You'll
see
very
similarly.
So,
where
you
had,
you
know,
mx
1
was
once
lod
once
c1d.
A
All
of
those
things
will
still
be
intact
for
you,
so
that
you
can
see
how
they
have
transitioned.
You
probably
won't
be
able
to
see
the
the
multiple
transitions
that
have
happened
so
from
existing
to
our
first
attempt
to
now.
We
think
we've
we've
got
it
right,
because
we've
heard
from
the
public
and
we
have
really
taken
a
deep
dive
into
what
best
practices
tell
us.
A
A
Francis
has
also
noted
that
she
appreciates
your
the
thought
process
and
the
changes
that
have
been
made
in
response
to
public
input,
especially
appreciating
the
proposal
to
create
that
new
03
for
the
open
space
zone.
So
now
we're
caught
up.
H
It
seems
like
an
unbelievable
amount
of
work.
You
guys
have
done
in
the
last
30
days,
so
really
impressive,
and
thank
you
very
much.
I
just
wanted
a
second.
I
think
andy's
comments
on
the
mixed
use
zones.
From
what
I
just
heard.
It
sounds
fantastic.
It
addresses
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
I
had.
We
talked
last
month
about
how
there
were
really
four
mixed-use
zones
previously,
and
it
felt
like
a
few
of
the
zones
that
exist
today.
H
We're
trying
to
be
shoehorned
in
between,
and
I
think,
expanding
that
to
the
five
will
really
work
well.
I
also
feel
like
the
increased
height
limits
on
some
of
these
mixed-use
zones,
address
some
potential
down-zoning
arguments
that
there
were
for,
like
the
lo
and
the
ro
zones,
and
also
just
help
the
city
get
towards
its
density
goals
and
then,
lastly,
I
think
clustering,
some
of
the
more
intense
development
along
the
transit
corridors
makes
so
much
sense.
So
I
really
like
everything
that
I
heard
about
that
makes
you
sounds
great
work.
I
Is
this
is
this
on
now,
okay
yeah?
I
I
agree
some
really
good
updates.
I
love
the
affordability
and
sustainability
piece.
I
especially
appreciate
that
50-year
time
frame,
that's
great.
I
do
have
one
comment,
though,
on
the
the
planned
public
investment
areas
and
those
are
on
existing
corridors
transit
corridors.
I
If
you
spend
any
time
riding
the
bus
or
trying
to
get
from
southwest
boise
into
the
downtown
core,
that
is
non-existent
folks,
and
so
I
just
you
know,
we
need
denseness.
Someone
once
told
me
that
you
need
density
in
order
to
have
a
sustainable
transit.
We
need
transit
in
southwest
boise.
How
do
we
achieve
that
in
a
way
that
is
acceptable
to
the
residents
that
live
in
that
area
in
terms
of
density,
but
also
in
terms
of
providing
a
reliable
transit
system
to
move
into
the
core
and
to
other
areas
of
the
city.
G
Yeah,
I
guess
it
that
a
great
comment,
I'll
just
add,
really
quick
and,
I
think
jessica.
You
probably
have
even
more
to
add
to
that,
but
in
our
purpose
statement
for
mx3,
which
said
it
defines
like
best
in
class
transit.
We
say
that
this
zone
can
be
expanded
as
public
investment
is
made
and
planned.
G
So
we
would
hopefully
anticipate
a
future
where
we
could
have
more
access
and
more
areas
of
planned
public
investment,
but
yeah.
It
was
kind
of
trying
to
balance
the
comments
we
heard
where
you're
we're
just
going
everywhere
and
instead,
let's
be
thoughtful
and
focused,
but
that
we
know
there
may
be
more
planned
public
investment
into
the
future
and
that
that
land
use
can
follow
that
or
work
with
that.
I
And
I
guess
one
one
follow-up
to
that
is
a
lot
of
times.
The
land
has
been
developed
and
yeah.
I
guess
maybe.
I
I
When
you
already
have
some
level
of
I
don't
know
what
the
proper
term
is,
I'm
not
a
planner
but
just
yeah.
It
makes
it
a
little
more
challenging.
C
Well,
I
was
thinking
it's
kind
of
tied
to
the
process,
conversation
too.
So
how
do
we
approach
requests
for
rezones?
C
C
I
think
that,
right
now,
with
the
way
that
we've
treated
the
mx3,
it's
it's
that
the
whole
like
chicken
before
the
egg
of
you
need
density
for
transit
need,
transit
for
density,
the
state,
vista
and
fairview
are
the
three
that
are
the
best
in
class.
So
that
is
where
there
is
the
transit,
the
15
minute
headways.
So
we
can.
We
feel
confident
about
the
the
current
mx3,
but
I
think
you
know
we
have
to
kind
of
think
through
them
like
well
what
what?
C
What
does
that
transit
service
looks
like
to
become
a
new
mx3
like?
Is
it
the
relationship
with
brt
and
in
our
agreements
with
them
of
like?
If
we're
we're
looking
to
change
or
invest
in
this
corridor
and
make
it
a
different
kind
of
mixed-use
zone?
What
is
the
appropriate
level
of
transit
service?
We
need
to
support
that
and
like
when
does
that
happen,
and
I
think
this
gives
us
a
way
to
evaluate
like
is
the
condition
right
or
if
it's
not
like
what
other
levers
need
to
be
pushed
or
pulled
on.
G
G
Yeah,
so
you
have
the
45
foot
height
limit,
and
so
it
doesn't
preclude
and
there's
no
density
calculation,
so
there
can
still
be
multi-family
mixed-use
development
there
that
could
be
transit.
Supportive
development
is
just
not
60
feet
as
well.
You'll
notice,
like
a
good
example,
is
broadway.
I
think
many
people
could
agree
that
broadway
could
be
a
best-in-class.
G
You
know
note
where
we
should
be
putting
mixed
use
development
there
and
we
think
that
probably
there
will
be
potential
for
a
best-in-class
transfer
out
every
15
minutes.
However,
we
don't
have
that
now,
but
if
you
look
on
broadway
we
have
activity
centers
and
so
there's
a
couple
darker
red
on
broadway
that
will
have
those
nodes,
because
that
was
identified
in
blueprint
voice.
G
Yes,
those
activity
centers,
so
you
can
still
build
and
we
see
that
kind
of
all
over,
even
through
overland
there's
the
darker
red
activity,
centers
and
that
can
help
drive
transit,
but
it's
being
more
concentrated
on
where
the
more
intense
development
can
be
at
those
activity.
Centers
not
along
the
entire
corridor.
G
The
regional
ones
are
one
quarter,
so
boise
town
square,
mall,
micron
and
the
hp
campuses.
Those
circles
are
a
little
bit
larger.
J
First
of
all,
I'm
really
encouraged
by
what
I
just
saw
I
mean,
and
that
that's
a
lot
coming
from
me,
but.
J
J
You
talked
about
this
high
investment
areas.
Maybe
you
can
explain
that
a
little
bit
more,
but
if
we're
gonna
invest
in
certain
areas-
and
I
know
transit's
always
the
concern,
if
we
can
get
the
busing
there
I
mean
can,
are
we
going
to
remap
the
whole
busing
system
to
accommodate
these
areas
that
we
want
to?
You
know,
invest
in.
J
I
know
that
there's
something
going
on
with
the
boise
or
the
bus
system
right
now,
there's
some
other
people
there
with
some
management
and
changes
there,
and
I
understand
that
there's
only
like
30
people
riding
the
bus
right
now.
Every
day
you
know,
we've
got
a
25
million
dollar
budget
with
the
buses
and
30
people
a
day
ride
them.
So
what
are
we
doing
to
encourage
people
just
to
get
on
the
bus,
whether
we
invest
in
it
or
not?
How
we
get
people
on
the
bus.
J
I
don't
really
understand
your
this
vista
15
minute
you're,
saying
the
bus
is
going
to
show
up
every
15
minutes.
Is
that
what
you're
it
does
now?
Okay,
I'm
not
aware
I'm
just
asking,
and
why
is
it
only
in
that
area
that
this
is
happening
in
and
as
long
while,
I'm
on
the
bus
subject?
J
Why
don't
we
use
busing
for,
like
the
fair,
you
know
we
have
thousands
of
people
down
at
the
fairgrounds.
Why
don't
we
utilize
the
busing
to
bring
people
in
you
know,
have
them
park
at
the
mall
and
have
a
special
bus
system?
For
that,
and
I
know
that's
not
happening
right
now.
So
what
are
we
doing
to
get
people
on
the
bus
really
is
what
my
main
point
here
is:
we're
wasting
a
lot
of
money.
C
Well,
I
mean,
since
we're
not
brt,
we'll
just
speak
to
our
right
now
in
front
of
us
opportunity
with
vrt,
because
changing
leadership
is
always
an
opportunity,
so
kelly,
her
executive
director
is
stepping
down,
and
so
there's
an
executive
search
committee
being
formed
and
the
city
will
be
represented
on
that
search
committee,
and
I
think
that
that
just
creates
this
opportunity
to
have
these
conversations
with
them
more
so
in
a
different
way.
C
Yeah,
but
boys
contributes
quite
significantly
to
that
budget,
so
I
I
think
you
know
my
my
goals
in
those
conversations
is,
I,
I
think,
preservation
of
service
hours
and
growing
service
hours
is
the
priority.
C
J
Maybe
you
can
hear
me,
but
there
was
a
a
a
gal
interviewed
on
channel
seven
who
gave
up
her
car
for
a
week
and
walked
for
a
while
and
then
she
ubered
for
a
while,
and
then
she
got
on
the
bus.
J
She
was
the
only
one
on
the
bus
and
it
took
her
an
hour
and
a
half
to
get
15
minutes
away.
So
I
mean
that's
the
system
that
we
have
right
now,
so
hopefully
we
can
revamp
that
so
that
we
can
make
this
stuff
work.
C
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think,
a
whole
conversation
about
transit
is
something
we
could
always
have,
but
to
be
true
to
kind
of
getting
your
feedback
on
the
the
landy
side
of
of
the
coin
today
would
be
be
really
helpful
because
it's
it's
it's
just
as
important
as
the
transit
side
and
then
just
that
brt
isn't
in
the
room,
and
so
there's
only
so
much
that
we
can
speak
to
technically
a
staff,
but
I
will
yeah.
I
totally
hear
you.
It
needs
to
work.
None
of
this.
None
of
this
works.
G
Yeah-
and
I
would
say
too,
I
think
this
strategy
is
not
to
get
the
new
homes
that
are
created
along
vista
to
have
that
person
only
take
the
bus
forever,
but
it's
instead
being
realistic.
That
they'll
maybe
have
one
car,
and
you
know
if
they're
a
couple,
maybe
only
one
person
needs
a
car
and
they
take
the
bus
to
work
downtown
because
it's
really
easy
to
get
to
take
the
bus
from
vista
to
downtown
and
back.
G
But
it's
not
so
easy
to
take
the
bus
to
from
vista
to
the
southwest,
and
we
know
that
right
now,
but
this
system
is
really
directing
it.
So
you
can
reduce
some
of
your
trips.
Maybe
take
the
bus
to
work
because
you
don't
have
a
parking
spot
downtown
like
I
do.
I
don't
have
a
parking
spot,
so
I
can
walk
or
take
the
bus.
So
it's
just
it's
kind
of
giving
that
choice
and
direct
using
land
use
to
help
create
conditions
where
it's
easier
for
people
to
take
the
bus.
L
L
Is
such
a
is
a
question
that
keeps
many
of
us
up
all
night
every
night,
because
we
love
public
transit
and
and
want
to
see
it
thrive,
and
it's
so
important
to
think
about
the
land
use
part
of
it,
and
that
was
a
really
big
part
of
our
conversations,
as
we
tried
to
work
through
how
these
mx
zones
really
work
together
to
not
only
help
to
keep
a
variety
of
neighborhoods
in
our
city
but
to
really
create
a
system
of
connectivity
where
each
piece
of
this
puzzle
is
working
together
to
help
to
strengthen
so
we're
strengthening
the
quality
of
our
neighborhoods
and
we're
also
strengthening
the
quality
of
our
transit.
L
It
also
you
know,
thinking
about
the
mixed
use
general,
so
it's
maybe
not
on
a
best-in-class
transit
route,
but
one
of
the
things
we
really
took
the
time
with,
as
we
were
developing
these
zones
and
hopefully
we'll
be
able
to
get
into
this
more
as
we
get
into
the
outreach
later
this
summer
is
thinking
about
what
kind
of
pedestrian
environments
does
mixed
use
need
to
have.
L
So
maybe
it
doesn't
have
a
bus
that
comes
every
15
minutes
on
it,
but
you're
having
quality,
sidewalks
and
quality
urban
tree
canopies
that
allow
people
to
comfortably
walk,
whereas
before
a
10
minute
walk
to
a
bus,
stop
might
be
no
freaking
way.
It's
too
hot
out
now
it's
comfortable
and
I
actually
enjoy
it.
So
there's
many
different
ways
that
we
come
together
to
support
transit.
A
Marissa
right
before
you
go
kelly
online
had
said
that
she's
not
quite
clear
about
the
mx
zones
and
has
asked
so
is
mx1
the
newly
defined
mxn.
And
yes,
that
is
the
case.
So
we
they.
Ultimately
the
conversion
stays
the
same,
but
we
have
called
it
something
a
little
bit
different
because
we
have
integrated
the
new
mx
and
there
was
a
lot
of
mx's
that
we
were
trying
to
keep
track
of,
and
so
numerical
seemed
like
the
best
approach.
M
Okay,
hey
everybody
over
sorry.
Overall,
I
like
the
way
this
is
going.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
things
here
that
that
makes
sense.
M
So
I
appreciate
that
one-
and
I
I
see
things
from
more
of
a
southwest
boise
lens,
but
when
we
talk
existing
transit
versus
planned
transit
plans
for
various
agencies,
change
all
the
time
and
get
delayed,
and
so
I
I'm
hesitant
for
the
city
to
start
rebuilding
these
neighborhood
activity.
Centers
based
on
planned
things,
I
prefer
to
see
things
that
are
firm
and
funded,
and
then
we
look
at
making
changes
versus
10
20
years
down
the
road.
Maybe
we'll
have
this
in
place.
M
I
know
that
like
state
street
is
a
very
intentionally
planned
corridor
right
now.
Overland
is
not
on
anybody's
radar.
As
far
as
I
can
tell
so
just
you
know
one
of
those
differences
between
the
cities,
but
overall
I
like
the
way
this
is
going.
C
I
would
just
add
that
to
what's
on
the
screen
right
now,
the
map
that
is
really
reflective
of
today's
reality,
like
that,
that
is
the
corridors,
activity
centers
everything
that's
been
in
blueprint
boise
since
2011.
N
Okay,
great
yeah
in
general,
this
format.
Technically
it's
working
quite
well
so
everybody's
clear
and
they
have
their
own
microphones,
that's
very
helpful,
so
yeah.
I
think
I
can
echo
a
sentiment
of
a
lot
of
people.
N
My
neighborhood,
I'm
sure
we'll
appreciate
the
r1a
remaining,
at
least
as
a
as
a
zoning
district,
and
I'd
really
like
to
understand
more
about
this
managed
open
space
that
sounds
interesting
and
potentially
helpful,
and
how
that
kind
of
my
guess
was
there
when
I
saw
it,
is
that
it
kind
of
expands
the
some
of
the
intent
of
foothills
to
other
areas,
especially
south
of
the
city,
but
I
would
like
to
hear
more
about
that
is
also
I'd
like
to
I'm
having
seen
a
fire
across
hill
road,
and
everything
up
here
last
fall
like
to
kind
of
understand
where
that
wildland
urban
interface
zone
will
actually
be
kind
of
where,
where
is
the
interface?
N
I
guess
that
would
be
a
question
and
so
yeah
in
general.
I
see
these
things
as
positive.
I
will
kind
of
pile
on
a
little
bit
here,
though,
regarding
the
bus
thing
and
not
to
beat
it
too
much,
but
so
when
I
hear
state
street
is
best
in
class
and
then
we
have
15
minute
service,
you
know
I.
I
hope
you
all
remember
that
out
past
gary
lane
to
the
west
of
gary
lane
there
are
no
bus
stops
until
you
get
to
the
very
end.
N
So
there's
a
two
mile
stretch
there
along
state
street.
You
know
between
the
those
two
tod
nodes
in
which
there
are
no
bus
stops.
N
So
you
know
it's
it's
as
if
we
don't
have
any
bus
service,
essentially
except
for
the
very
kind
of
corners
there
and
you
know
yet
we
are
building
what
we
call
tod
developments
along
that
corridor.
So
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
the
r2,
not
that
we
don't
want
to
have
that.
It's
just
that.
N
N
I
guess
capital
in
a
sense
to
actually
get
you
know.
Bus
service
actually
stopped
buses
buses,
you
know,
bus
station
bus
stops,
etc.
So
I'm
just
throwing
that
out
there
and
then
one
thing
that
just
came
up.
I
just
heard
well
one
thing
that
we've
tried
to
push
for
my
neighborhood
is
at
least
getting
that
multimodal
path
along
state
street.
N
So
even
if
you're
a
mile
away,
if
it's
a
relatively
pleasant
and
efficient
means
of
either
walking
or
riding
a
bicycle
or
who
knows
a
scooter,
that's
that's
that's
helpful,
but
when
somebody
just
mentioned
tree
canopies,
yes,
that
makes
a
big
difference
and
in
our
neighborhood
we've
just
seen
that
we
in
you
know
areas
that
haven't
been
developed,
we're
getting
power
lines
overhead
where
we
never
had
them
before.
N
And,
of
course
that
means
no
big
tree
canopy.
So
that's
happening.
You
know
both
along
parks.
Magnolia
park
now
has
a
new
power
line,
and
I
guess
what
happens.
Is
it's
between
achd
and
idaho
power?
So
you
may
not.
You
know.
Boise
may
not
have
a
whole
lot
of
influence
there,
but
unfortunately
that
does
preempt
the
ability
ever
to
have
a
big
tree
canopy.
So
that's
something
I
never
even
thought
about
until
it
started
to
happen
to
us.
So
just
throwing
that
out
there.
G
Could
I
just
really
quick
to
richard
I'm
not
going
to
respond
to
everything
richard
said,
but
yes
to
state
street,
we
have
requirements
for
the
multi-use
path
on
state
street.
So
that's
something
we
really
really
want
and
can
now
with
the
code
rewrite
require
a
long
state
street.
So
that's
definitely
it
and
then
the
louis
we're
using
a
layer
that
was
mapped
from
fire.
So
it's
the
green
is
the
wui
boundary
and
I
believe
it's
mostly
hill
road
on
the
northern
edge.
A
And
that
was
a
joint
venture
for
the
city
of
boise
and
ada
county
in
the
1990s
and
so
we'll
be
making
sure
that
we're
bringing
that
to
the
forefront,
oftentimes,
it's
lost
and
people
don't
have
an
understanding
of
what
that
is
and
what
they
can
do
to
help
prevent
wildfire
to
help
cohabitate
with
our
our
flora
and
fauna
in
those
areas.
And
so
it
is
an
important
piece
that
we'll
bring
forward
not
only
for
pri.
You
know
public
safety,
but
for
us
to
also
cohabitate
well.
K
Yeah,
okay,
so
well,
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
incentives
for
affordable
housing
in
the
r2
and
r3
zones,
because
I
you
know
you
were
talking
about
how
in
the
are
the
r1
zones
in
order
to
allow
four
plexes
and
triplexes
and
so
forth.
You
know
there
was
a
an
incentive,
for
you,
know:
affordability
and
sustainability.
K
So
is
there
any
sort
of
incentives
that
are
still
going
to
be
in
place
for
the
higher
density
areas
that
already
allow
that
type
of
housing
to
encourage
affordable
housing
units.
G
Kelly,
I
think
that's
a
great
point.
We
don't
don't
have
the
incentives
currently
as
proposed,
but
I
think
that's
something
we
can
explore,
because
our
idea
was.
We
want
to
see
growth
in
those
more
urban
neighborhoods,
because
that's
kind
of
the
that's
the
framework
right
to
have
the
variety
and
so
we're
more
restrictive
in
the
lower
density
areas.
So
we
want
to
encourage
any
new
development
or
growth
within
those
more
urban
neighborhoods.
G
K
Yeah,
because
I
mean
we
already
like
in
our
neighborhood,
we
already
have
one
project
that
was
you
know,
ccdc
and
so
forth,
and
you
know
it
seemed
to
have
a
really
nice
model
of
the
types
of
you
know.
K
The
number
of
units
and
sort
of
a
sliding
scale
of
you
know,
availability
and
and
who
would
be
able
to
qualify
based
on
the
side
of
the
size
of
the
unit
and
that
sort
of
thing,
and
I
I
just
think
that
people
that
want
to
live
near
downtown
and
when
we're
talking,
affordable,
we're
also
talking
about
what
like
real
people,
can
afford
right.
It's
not
low
income,
it's
just
affordable,
and
so
you
know
having
something
that
would
be
an
option
or
some
sort
of
incentives
in
the
more
urban
areas.
O
To
clarify,
or
maybe
pose,
a
question
based
off
what
kelly
was
just
asking.
I
think
there
were
some
density
increases
in
the
mx
zones,
but
maybe
it
wasn't
affordability
based-
maybe
it
was
sustainability
based
that
was
proposed
previously.
Is
that
still
in
the
works
or.
G
G
But
I
thought
kelly
was
asking
about
r2
and
r3.
We
don't
have
yet
in
the
code
for
anything
in
r2
and
r3
got
it.
O
Okay
and
I
guess
to
circle
back
to
the
activity
centers
way
back
in
the
start
of
the
conversation.
Maybe
what
esther
was
starting
to
point
out?
How
do
we
create
or
not
create
a
feedback
loop
where
areas
that
are
being
invested
in
now
aren't
going
to
keep
seeing
more
investment
because
they're
on
transit
corridors?
O
A
That
was
good
and
I
think
we're
gonna
have
to
reevaluate
things
on
a
relatively
regular
basis.
How
does
our
bus
system
develop?
How
does
it
get
better,
as
things
become
best
in
class?
I
think
you're
going
to
have
to
constantly
revisit
those,
and
it
may
require
that
we
then
reclassify
things
as
a
city
to
a
different
zone,
but
to
avoid
the
down
zoning,
I
I
think
it's
going
to
progressively
move
up
the
ladder
rather
than
down
yeah.
O
I
I
think
that
totally
makes
sense,
and
I
guess
train
of
thought-
I
don't
know
if
this
makes
any
sense
or
it
comes
anywhere
close
to
something
we
can
point
out
or
do.
Are
there
development.
P
O
I
I
know
this
probably
isn't
zoning
related,
but
are
there
zones
where
we
can
encourage
economic
development?
I
don't
know
that
you
can
write
that
into
zoning
code
or
maybe
that's
not
necessarily
policy
policy
based,
but.
L
Well,
one
just
one
thing:
I
would
say
to
that
one:
yes,
that's
a
really
good
point
and
it
is
always
a
struggle
when
we're
thinking
about
zoning
of
like
kind
of
what
is
the
purview
of
the
zoning
code
right
because
it
touches
everything,
and
yet
it
also
has
limitations
for
what
specifically
it
handles.
L
But
to
that
point
I
think
what
we're
really
trying
to
do
with
this
framework
and
has
informed
a
lot
of
our
work
on
it
is
trying
to
create
a
clear
path
for
all
of
those
other
kinds
of
activities,
so,
whether
it's
the
transit
system
or
whether
it's
economic
development
we're
creating
a
very
clear
framework
to
show
how,
as
a
city
we
can
support
and
when
we're
able
to
can
lead
those
efforts,
as
opposed
to
everything,
just
kind
of
being
in
the
soup.
You
know
so
to
speak.
G
And
I'm
going
to
talk
about
just
a
conversation
we
all
had,
which
was
how
to
and
it's
there's
like
big
economic
development,
recruiting
big
employers
and
whatnot,
and
then
there's
the
small
economic
development
of
enabling
local
entrepreneurs
to
have
their
own
cafe.
Space
they're,
like
you
know,
making
it
easier
to
do
the
smaller
things
and
as
when
we
went
back
through
the
use
table
and
some
of
our
dimensional
standards,
we
kind
of
wanted
to
approach
it
with
the
favor
of
making
it
easier
for
smaller
things
to
happen.
G
So
I
didn't
really
touch
on
this
too
much.
This
was,
to
some
degree
allowed
in
the
previous
draft,
but
like
the
neighborhood
market,
cafe
so
having
really
small
scale
things
so
that
some
a
boisean
could
have
their
own
cafe
nearby,
you
know,
get
more
affordable
property
and
use
that,
instead
of
only
a
big
chili's,
no
offense
to
chili's
being
able
to
like
figure
out
the
parking,
the
design
the
you
know.
All
of
that
like
how
can
we
spur
that
type
of
boise
economic
development.
C
Oh
and
I
wanted
to
touch
on
two
since
the
slide
is
up
when
we're
talking
about
these
affordability
and
sustainability
requirements.
It's
not
an
ore,
it's
an
and
so
we're
saying
that,
if
we're
allowing
for
an
r1a
r1b
the
triplex,
fourplex
townhome
and
then
r1c
the
tribal
explore
plex,
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
list
that
you
can
choose
from.
If
we
really
want
to
be
intentional,
that
it's
sustainability
and
affordability,
both
of
those
are
required,
and
so
we
kind
of
lessened
the
the
soup
mixing.
C
We
just
intentionally
said
what
it
is
that
we'd
like
to
see
happen
and
to
view.
Those,
too,
is
that
if
you,
you
are
then
going
to
build
this
different
kind
of
product
in
those
neighborhoods
there's
a
public
benefit
that
would
be
realized
because
of
those
requirements
put
on
it
and
that
there's
a
way
that
you're
contributing
to
the
the
neighborhood
and
to
the
community
through
those
enhancements.
Q
I'm
next
all
right.
Thank
you
great
slide
to
be
on
too,
because
this
is
what
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
So
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
it
seems
like
we
rolled
back
the
the
fairly
progressive
residential
zone,
some
of
the
things
that
were
teased
out
in
module
two
was
that
because
of
public
comment.
A
I
think
it
was
a
combination
of
many
things,
so
it
was
public
comment
led
to
that
just
a
little
bit,
but
as
we
did
a
deeper
dive
and
actually
for
those
of
you
that
might
be
familiar.
The
urban
land
institute
actually
selected
the
city
of
boise
to
participate
in
a
housing
forum
and
they
took
a
deep
dive
into
what
our
programs
are
and
they
brought
in
specialists
from
all
over
and
they
specifically
told
us
that
you
know
a
number
of
jurisdictions
have
eliminated
single-family
dwellings
in
those
single-family
residential
zones
and
they're
they're.
R
A
Really
focus
on
those
areas
where
you
can
get
those
higher
densities,
where
you
can
get
people
close
to
their
services
where
they
have
transit
and
and
so
we
you
know
these
are
experts.
They
have
learned
from
other
people,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
reinvent
that
will.
So
if,
if
we're
not
going
to
get
a
lot
of
juice
for
that
squeeze,
we'd
like
to
move
on
and
and
really
focus
on,
where
we
can
get
that
juice.
Q
Yeah,
okay,
the
so
just
to
clarify
the
density
limits.
Come
back
are
those
in
addition
to
the
form-based
requirements
that
are
currently
in
module,
two
for
like
small
multi-family,
with
open
space
requirements
per
unit,
and
things
like
that.
A
Yes
and
you'll
see
that
density
only
came
back
for
r1,
a
b
and
c
so
r2
and
r3
still
have
you
know
that
open,
ended
and
they'll
be
based
more
on
that
functional
piece.
So
if
you
can
meet
the
setbacks
and
the
building
height
and
in
all
of
those
you
specific
standards
that
talk
about
form
and
bulk,
then
go
ahead
and
build
in
those
locations.
That's
where
we
want
them
to
be.
Q
Q
I've
been
doing
a
lot
of
case
studies,
specifically
around
r1b
and
r1c,
trying
to
find
some
missing
metal
housing
types
that'll
fit
with
what
previously
we
saw
as
module
2.
I'll
adapt
some
of
those
for
these
density
limits,
but
I
can
already
tell
you
that
a
number
of
those
are
going
to
be
kind
of
impossibilities.
Now
things
like
cottage
cords,
small
multi-family,
the
the
affordable
and
sustainable
requirements
that
are
on
duplex
are
on
triplexes
and
fourplexes.
Q
I
guess
I
would
I
would
question
how
the
housing
density,
housing,
bonus,
density
plan
or
program
went
or
has
been
going
internally
and
kind
of
find
out
what
what
are
the
limiting
factors
with
that
program,
because
we
aren't
seeing
a
lot
so
far.
Q
What
we've
done
from
the
current
code
to
what's
proposed
here
is
increase
the
complexity
of
that
process
quite
a
bit
and
built
more
cost
in
on
developing
a
thing
like
a
fourplex
already,
which
was
already
kind
of
like
a
small
builder
sort
of
scaled
project
for
them
for
them
to
do
so.
I
kind
of
worry
about
that
honestly,
not
to
mention
the
density
limits
on
r1c.
I
totally
get
why
we
have
r1a
and
b
back
under
those
controls,
but
r1c
at
12
units
per
acre
is
pretty
draconian,
especially
for
this
time
in
history.
A
Q
A
little
bit
it
because
the
it's
almost
like,
if
you
go
with
euclidean,
I
know
we
were
trying
to
hybrid
approach
with
euclidean
inform
base,
but
now
it
kind
of
seems
like
at
least
for
r1c
and
maybe
r1b.
We
have
the
worst
of
both
at
least
the
way
I've
been
working.
Some
of
the
the
case
studies,
the
I
can
make
quite
a
lot
work
if
I'm
just
going
form
based
with
an
r1c
like
a
cottage
court,
something
like
that.
Q
Those
are
highly
popular,
but
the
density
limit
has
always
been
kind
of
an
arbitrary
limit
right.
It's
always
kind
of
an
abstract
limit
of
units
per
acre
that
it
didn't
really
ever
equate
to
much,
and
it
did
certainly
make
things
like
cottage
courts
and
small.
Q
You
know
medium-sized
neighborhood-sized
multi-family
projects
illegal
for
the
decades.
You
know
for
the
intervening
decades
when
that
came
to
pass,
but
the
I
can
make
everything
work
on
the
on
the
form-based
approach,
but
the
density
limits.
The
thing
that
like
will
kill
the
project
right
from
the
beginning,
because
it
it's
a
hard
pass
right.
Q
So
I
guess
I'm
I'm
gonna
make
some
comments
about
that.
I
think
that's
the
one
thing
that
I
see
more
than
anything,
I
like
the
height
limits,
they're,
really
helpful,
the
triplex
and
fourplex.
You
know
incentives.
I
think
we
just
have
to
really
study
the
housing
density
bonus
program
to
find
out
what
has
made
that
artificially
limited
and
make
sure
that
we
don't
do
that
to
the
tribe,
lysos
and
fourplexes.
G
Okay-
and
I
have
one
follow-up
question
with
that-
so
I
think
r1c,
the
35,
the
12
units
per
acre
is
based
off
of
be,
as
the
allowed
uses
are
single
family.
It's
basically,
where
you
have
to
have
a
lot
and
12
is
an
acre,
is
an
anchor
divided
by
3
500
in
this
case,
so
it
would
be
if
we
expanded
allowed
uses
in
r1c
to
allow
small
scale
multifamily,
then
that
density
limits.
G
Q
Yeah
thanks
for
that
clarification,
I
think
it
was
mostly
there
aren't
a
myriad,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
other
different
housing
types,
that
kind
of
fall
into
that
missing
metal
category,
the
ones
that
we
said
that
we
wanted
to
prioritize
that
eliminates
all
of
those
or
a
lot
of
them,
and
I'm
I'm
kind
of
off
the
cuff
trying
to
calculate
those
two
based
on
the
case
studies.
I'm
doing
but
I'll
go
back
and
check
and
just
verify.
But
it
seems
like
it
would.
S
Yeah
thanks
for
everything
you've
done
since
we
last
met.
This
is
great
work.
I
have
kind
of
a
list
of
questions,
maybe
I'll
ask
a
couple
and
just
pause
on
the
mx
5,
I
think,
is
what
my
question.
P
G
S
Okay,
cool
thanks-
and
I
I
think
at
a
comment
about
I
think
the
con
the
conversation
about
transit
is
a
great
one.
S
S
S
More
opportunity
to
look
at
what
you're
proposing
with
r2
as
it
relates
to
proximity
to
some
of
these
corridors
and
activity
centers
to
where
that
buffer
is
broader,
and
we
stretch
that,
where
we're
creating
a
little
bit
more
of
a
of
a
reach
in
those
areas
where
they
have
that
capacity
to
handle
the
growth,
the
density
and
you
can
much
more
easily
say,
I'm
within
walking
distance
to
that
bus
route.
To
that
grocery
store
to
my
desk
that
I
have
to
get
to.
S
And
I
I
do
worry
with
the
as
admirable
as
the
affordability
and
sustainability
requirements
are.
They
may
actually
act
in
off
in
many
cases
as
a
detriment
to
that
type
of
development
from
happening,
but
it's
a
it's
a
needle.
That's
going
to
be
hard
to
thread.
I
don't
know
I'm
not
proposing
any
silver
bullet
for
that
one.
S
But
I've
been
in
the
mindset
with
the
form-based
direction
that
we've
been
heading
a
lot
of
those
types
of
products
like
the
cottage
courts
fourplexes
you
name,
it
would
fit
really
well
within
the
fabric
of
those
neighborhoods
like
they
have
historically,
so
just
I'll
just
kind
of
stop
there
and
echoing
some
of
what
byron
said.
A
S
S
A
Well,
byron
has
been
doing
some
so
we've
been
examining.
You
know
what
our
wall
plates,
what
our
floor
plate.
You
know
what
does
a
floor
plate
look
like
what
do
roofline
structures
when
you
have
different
pitches
and
then
actually
your
foundation
too,
so
whether
you're
slab
on
grade
or
you're
actually
built
up.
So
he's
been
evaluating
that.
So
we
want
to
ensure
that
you
can
get
a
taller
floor
plate
within
that's
three
stories,
always
in
the
the
35.
A
You
know
when
you
get
to
45
that
you
can
do
a
four-story.
That
is
very
clear
because
we've
also
identified
a
measurement
difference
as
well,
so
previously
in
the
existing
code,
it
says
that
you
measure
to
the
midline
of
your
roof.
The
new
code
says
we're
measuring
to
the
peak,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
can
accommodate
for
those
three
stories
and
four
stories,
and
I
I
think
we're
confident
that
we
can
do
that
in
those.
A
J
J
A
No,
no,
your
setbacks
would
talk
about.
You
know
how
your
height
is
set
on
the
property
and
so
the
struct.
You
know
your
setbacks
are
going
to
identify
how
far
that
building
is
going
to
be
placed
from
that
setback.
The
building
height
would
allow
you
to
go
to
whatever
the
allowable
height
is
within
that
zone.
Q
I
was
just
going
to
ask
really
quick
while
we're
on
that
topic.
Was
there
a
reason
that
in
the
code,
we
didn't
go
with
limiting
the
number
of
stories
versus
just
an
overall
gross
height,
or
is
the
concern
really
about
projections
beyond
something
like
a
three-story
building
or
four-story
story
building.
Q
D
D
A
D
C
We're
gonna
make
sure
we
have
time
before
five
to
talk
about
our
outreach
strategy
and
then,
when
we,
when
we
come
back
to
you
in
june,
what
conversation
that
looks
like
and
in
july,
so
like
maybe
within
that,
we
can
also
see
about
how
we
have
a
vrt
person
come
or
does
it
need
to
be
a
different
forum
to
for
them
to
talk
about
how
they
they
go
about
their
planning?
Great
thanks,
yeah.
H
H
What
you
think
the
public
is
going
to
think
of
that,
and
that
was
my
original
question
then
I
liked
what
drew
had
to
say
and
as
a
follow-on
to
that
question,
could
that
one-eighth
of
a
mile
potentially
be
pushed
out
to
a
quarter-mile.
That's
two
blocks:
to
get
more
of
the
missing
middle
opportunities
in
the
r2.
A
We
wanted
to
evaluate
how
many
parcels
we
were
impacting
and
then
the
other
thing
is
is
to
clearly
be
able
to
draw
a
line.
So
where
does
that
happen?
Does
that
happen
at
the
alley?
Or
does
it
happen
at
the
street
and
from
our
public
impact?
That
we
heard
it
is.
Is
that
people
really
have
a
concern
about
that
interface
between
commercial
and
residential,
and
so
we
want
to
make
it
as
smooth
as
possible.
A
We
want
to
enable
development,
but
we
also
want
to
support
those
people
that
have
been
there,
and
so
it's
really
difficult.
You
know,
we've
heard
it
a
couple
of
times,
so
maybe
that
is
something
that
we
do
have
to
evaluate
further
and
and
take
a
look
at
how
the
public
will
react.
I
don't
know
you
know
we
heard
that
they
want
development
where
infrastructure
is
and
where
investment
has
occurred,
and
so
I
mean
those
things
are
very,
very
clear.
A
You
know
oftentimes.
We
hear
that.
Yes,
we
want
affordable
housing,
but
whoa
whoa.
We
don't
want
that
near
us.
I
I
think
that
that'll
probably
be
you
know
the
voice
that
we
hear,
but
I
don't
know
they
know.
Some
people
may
be
excited
that
they
have
new
opportunities.
So.
R
Andrew,
if
I
could
comment
on
that
and
as
being
a
member
on
dr2,
I
think
there's
going
to
be
pushback
to
expand,
go
from
eighth
to
quarter
half
wherever,
especially
along
state
street,
we're
seeing.
I
saw
that
at
dr
with
shellin's
project,
a
great
project
near
taft
elementary
and
there's
just
a
fringe
there,
not
a
fringe.
That's
not
the
right
word,
there's
just
an
area
there
that
our
larger
lots,
older,
community,
beautiful,
neighborhood
and
there's
folks
are
really
concerned
about
losing
their
quality
of
life
that
they
currently
have.
R
So
I
totally
agree
with
you
100
percent,
about
that
missing
middle,
but
I
think
there
will
be
pushback
along
state
street
along
to
the
north
of
state
street,
about
expanding
that
boundary.
If
you
will-
and
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
chime
in
if
I
could
add
a
couple-
other
comments-
economic
development-
I
think
that's
really
important
and
I
think
ccdc
and
the
urds
can
potentially
help
with
that.
And
I
think
that's
probably
a
great
mechanism-
and
my
question
to
the
team
is:
is
I'm
assuming
as
we're
looking
at
these
changes?
R
We're
also
looking
at
the
urban
renewal
districts
to
see?
If
they're
impacted
or
not
good
or
bad
or
or
maybe
some
areas
need
to
grow
or
shrink,
potentially,
what
are
we
doing
about
neighborhoods
today
that
I
would
classify
as
affordable
and
I'll
be
very
specific
because,
again
being
on
dr,
I
see
some
stuff
especially
happening
in
the
airport
area,
blue
valley
and
it's
zoned
industrial.
R
It's
affordable,
neighborhood
kind
of
got
the
raw
deal
on
the
whole,
how
they
were
annexed
in
into
the
city
a
long
time
ago
before
our
time,
but
I'd
like
to
see
that
community
protected
somehow,
because
I
think
it's
very
vulnerable
and
they're
providing
affordable,
it's
affordable,
housing
or
it's
a
very
affordable
community
right
now
and
I
think
it
should
be
preserved
and
I
got
to
believe
there's
other
communities
out
there.
How
do
we
protect
them
and
preserve
them
and
then
excited
about
the
open
area.
R
I
kind
of
the
first
thing
I
thought
of
when
you
showed
us
that
map
is
a
like
an
urban
growth
boundary,
that's
kind
of
what
I
see
it
becoming
and
I
I
think
that's
a
good
thing
potentially
for
us,
but
as
planners
you
guys
might
have
different
thoughts.
Maybe
that's
not
the
right
word
to
use
here,
because
I
know
it's
a
bad
word
in
washington
but
excited
about
that
too.
So
those
are
all
my
comments.
I
S
I
was
just
going
to
say,
like
you
know,
I
know
there
will
be
pushback,
but
if
we
talk
about
the
direction
that
community
want
ahead,
wants
to
head
and
the
vision,
if
don't
develop
everywhere
is
one
of
the
key
four
or
five
things
to
that.
I
think
that
does
require
like
a
really
hard
conversation
of
well.
Where
do
we
develop
and
what
does
that
look
like,
and
I
think
stretching
that
r2
should
be
part
of
that
conversation
or
looking
at
things
like
we've
talked
about
with
r1,
but
and
I'm
buying
into
that.
A
So
when
we
talk
about,
you
know
not
developing
everywhere,
so
of
course
it
does
talk
to
the
perimeter
which
does
include
our
foothills,
but
we
often
when
we
go
out
to
the
public
I
mean
always.
The
thing
that
we
hear
is
is
that
protect
our
foothills
protect
our
river,
and
so
we
also
need
to
be
looking
at
that
making
sure
that
we're
really
protecting
or
enhancing
that,
because
our
community
really
does
feel
like
that.
That
is
one
of
our
greatest
assets,
so
so
thinking
beyond
the
perimeter.
Also
internally.
A
None,
no,
those
are
those
outs,
they
are
an
entity
of
their
own,
so
they
have
their
own
guiding
documents.
So,
yes,
they
will
develop
now.
The
other
thing
is
is
when
we
talk
about
those
things.
As
we
have
garden
city,
we
have
connections
to
meridian,
star
eagle,
and
so
we
will
have
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
are
creating.
A
You
know
smooth
transitions
as
we
enter
and
exit
cities,
and
so
I
mean
there
will
have
to
be
some
coordination.
That
goes,
and
so
you
know
we
have
invited
them
and
we
do
send
them
all
of
our
updates
and
our
documents
when
we
release
them
so
that
they
can
understand
what
which
direction
we're
heading
as
well.
So.
A
So
electricity
versus
natural
gas,
those
types
of
things
really
valuing
our
water,
making
sure
that
our
water,
our
aquifer,
is,
is
replenished
and
and
maintains
its
current
levels
so
really
looking
taking
care
of
our
earth
and
making
sure
that
our
imprint
is
a
good
one
and
not
a
negative
one.
G
And
I
would
just
add,
when
we
think
about
like
our
impact
as
a
city
at
a
local
level,
some
of
our
greatest
causes
of
emission
is
transportation
and
building
and
which
is
like
heating
your
building
and
then
the
materials
you
use.
So
when
we
think
about
what
can
we
do
from
land
use
to
help
reduce
emissions
at
the
local
level
is
adjusting
our
building
material
so
that
they're
more
efficient?
J
And
I
I
obviously
we
were
in
communication
with
idaho
power
on
all
these
matters,
because
I
know
powers,
you
know,
obviously
got
a
power
charging
stations
and
you
know
economical,
building
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
so
they're
all
involved
in
all
these
conversations.
A
Yes,
they
have
been
invited
to
the
table
as
well.
They're
sent
this
document
so
all
of
our
utilities,
all
of
our
irrigation,
all
of
our
transportation
entities,
whether
they're,
brt
or
achd,
itd
hospitals,
school
districts.
You
know
we
have
kept
that
very,
very
broad
and
so
yep
we've
invited
them
to
the
table.
Some
of
them
haven't
come
so
we're
going
to
go,
knocking
on
their
door
here
shortly.
So.
A
O
While
we're
on
the
topic
of
sustainability,
I
wanted
to
circle
back
to
something
byron
said
about
the
affordable
and
sustainable
requirement.
You
know
deterring
some
smaller
developers.
I
agree
with
that,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
way
to
move
the
needle
forward.
I
think
they
will
have
to
adapt
to
get
to
that
point.
Having
worked
in
other
cities,
I
you
know
there
are
smaller
developers
that
they
they
get
there.
It
might
take
a
while.
O
They
might
not
be
happy
about
it,
but
you
know
I
I
I
think
it's
a
good
thing
question.
Maybe
first
for
you
all
is:
are
there
any
like
legal
and
potentially
potential
issues
with
putting
that
in
the
zoning
code
I
mean?
I
know
the
state
of
idaho
has
been
kind
of
resistant
to
some
of
the
affordable
measures
in
other
cities.
A
It's
not
an
exaction,
it's
not
an
inclusionary
type
thing
as
long
as
it
is
that
option,
and
so
people
have
the
option
to
develop
this
way
or
we
can
give
you
something
a
little
bit
extra
if
you're
willing
to
go
the
extra
mile
for
us
and-
and
we
talked
about
this
quite
significantly
internally
too-
and
so
not
only
thinking
about
today.
But
where
will
we
be
in
2050?
And
so
you
know
as
land
values
increase?
A
Q
Can
I
clarify
really
quickly?
I
just
yeah.
Thank
you
ian
for
reminding
me
the
sustainability
standards,
I
think,
are
a
great
way
to
do
that
in
fact
we're.
It
was
mostly
the
affordability
math,
just
making
sure
that
we
have
input
from
well
people
like
shellin,
our
other
local
developers,
so
they've
had
some
oversight
with
those
numbers.
Q
The
sustainability
issue,
though,
to
your
other
point,
you
know
we're
we're
years
behind
the
national
standards
for
energy,
for
energy
requirements
for
our
buildings
and
that's
artificially
set
by
the
state
of
idaho.
So
I
think
anything
that
we
can
do
on
that
front
would
be
really
helpful.
So
thanks
for
bringing
it
up.
A
We
do
have
richard
as
well
online,
so
once
richard
is
complete,
we'll
go
to
roberta.
N
Great
thank
you.
I
wanted
to
follow
up
with
a
comment
about
blue
valley,
which
I
appreciated
just
recently.
There
was
an
article
out
in
grist.
The
title
was
how
outdated
zoning
codes
are
fueling,
the
sprawl
of
e-commerce
warehouses,
and
it
was
specifically
talked
about.
You
know,
environmental
justice
issues
with
light
industrial
warehouses
and
how
essentially
zoning
codes
haven't,
kept
up
with
our
knowledge
about
the
impact
of
of
diesel,
etc
on
nearby
residential
areas
and
right
now
we
are
wrapping.
N
You
know
we
we
have
this
new
i1
zone,
which
you
know
folds
in
what
was
light
industrial
as
well
as
t1
and
t2
and
t2
being
you
know
large,
you
know
amazon
style,
size
of
e-commerce,
warehouses
and
yes,
places
like
blue
valley
are
are
not
protected
from
that,
and
you
know
they
used
to
be
protected
even
if
they
were,
even
though
I
know,
blue
valley
is
kind
of
an
odd
situation,
and
that
you
know
it's.
N
It
is
zoned
light
industrial
itself,
but
before
we
simplified
some
of
the
language
about
10
years
ago,
in
the
zoning
code
and
for
those
of
you
aren't
aware,
there
was
actually
a
lot
of
rewriting
of
the
language
in
the
zoning
code
and
it
used
to
say
before
ten
years
or
so
that
light
industrial
had
to
be
sensitive
to
things.
It
listed
out
the
adverse
impacts,
and
it
said
things
like
dust
fumes,
etc.
N
A
D
G
I
think
that's
a
good
question.
I
I
was
going
to
speak
to
the
rents
being
tied
to
the
area
median
income
and
that
changes
every
year.
So
so
as
a
community
or
as
wages
change
the
rent,
you
can
charge
changes
as
well
every
year
and
there's
a
that's
released
annually
by
that
the
housing
and
urban
development
from
the
federal
government-
and
we
have
that
on
the
city's
website
so
60
or
for
the
triplex
floorplex.
G
We
required
it
at
80
ami,
which
is
less
than
half
of
what
boise
residents
own,
and
I
knew
this
at
one
point.
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
over
40
000
a
year
for
a
family
of
three
and
then
for
the
more
urban,
the
mx4
incentive,
it's
at
60,
ami,
so
getting
even
more
deeply
affordable
units.
There.
R
G
We
have
so
well.
What
will
happen
will
be
there's
a
deed
restriction
so
as
they
build
the
triplex
or
fourplex.
In
order
to
get
your
building
permits,
you
have
to
have
a
recorded
deed
restriction
with
the
county
and
it
spells
out
the
affordability
covenant
and
then,
in
that
covenant
it
has
a
requirement
for
monitoring
every
year
where
they
have
to
submit
a
report
to
the
city
and
we
monitor
it
and
we're
exploring
options
as
if
this
is
so
popular
that
it's
beyond
the
city's
capacity
to
monitor.
T
D
H
T
Can
can
you
go
back
to
this
sorry,
can
you.
G
Yes,
so
try
by
definition
a
triplex
and
a
four-plex
is
a
rental
product,
because
it's
multi,
you
know
it's
a
rental
and
they're
all
on
the
same
lot,
however,
you
could
make
attached
single-family
homes
on
that
same
lot
and
subdivided
and
those
could
be
ownership
opportunities
and
our
requirement
for
that
is
less
than
120.
T
I
just
I
don't
want
to
get
nitpicky,
but
I
like
do
this
for
a
living,
and
this
works
really
well
for
a
rental
product
that
deed
restriction
gets
incredibly
complicated
in
a
homeownership
product,
especially
if
you're
only
enforcing
it
on
an
annual
basis.
G
Yeah-
and
we
have
heard
that
comment-
we
also
learned
through
the
uli
technical
advisory
committee
that
there's
an
ability
and
we've
had
actually
a
couple
developers
approached
us
previously
about
this,
to
deed
it
to
an
income
or
to
sell
it
to
say,
neighbor
works
or
a
land
trust
and
which
they
can
hold
the
ownership
of
the
product,
and
they
they
have
a
home
ownership,
affordable
home
ownership
program
that
they
can
work
through.
T
I'd
just
be,
I
think
it's
going
to
the
to
the
point
that
was
just
made
a
minute
ago
and
I'll
say
it
a
little
differently,
but
it
is
an
incredibly
difficult
and
we've
seen
it
in
many
many
communities
difficult
to
hold
on
to
those
deed
restrictions.
T
So
just
there's
lots
of
you
know
lots
of
people
that
work
on
this
in
this
in
the
industry,
but
just
be
very
mindful
of
of
those
words
and
how
they're
protected,
because
it
they
go.
They
go
very
often
in
homeownership
opportunities
I
know
drew
and
his
experiences
in
snow
country
in
colorado
have
certainly
seen
this.
T
So
that's
just
a
that's
just
like
hey
fyi.
This
is
this,
is
tough
stuff,
be
super
careful,
it's
not
the
same
deed
restriction
and
going
to
neighborworks
will
certainly
take
your
value
down
and
provide
some
other
challenges
that
that
the
city
might
face
or
that
the
developer
might
face
that
are
maybe
un
un
unthought
through
at
this
point.
It's
not
it's
just
something
to
be
aware
of.
T
Q
Good
hey
does
that
change
anything
if
we're
talking
about
say
a
a
fourplex
that
is
condominiumized
as
a
single
building?
Does
anything
change
with
your
answer.
T
No,
it
doesn't
change
in
regards
to
the
destruction.
The
deed
restriction
will
will
be
difficult
to
enforce
and
it
happens
all
the
time
deed
restrictions
are
enforced,
all
the
time
on
home
ownership
and
condominium
projects.
It
is
just
very
important
that
they
are
actually
enforced
and
title
companies.
Sorry,
hillary
are
not
very
good
at
it.
Q
G
And
we
could
talk
more
about
this,
but
this
has
been
done
in
boise,
where
you
work
with
a
land
trust.
I
mean
it's
not
been
realized
the
maximum
capacity
because
we
haven't
had
it's
been
really
based
in
philanthropy
and
goodwill,
but
we
could.
This
would
be
something
to
test
to
see
if
we
could
get
some
home
ownership,
affordable
product.
T
B
And
this
is
hillary.
I
don't
take
any
offense
at
that
because
am
no
longer
a
title:
company
and
b:
it's
not
a
title
company's
job,
so
no
problem,
but
I
will
second
what
shellin
is
saying
that
from
a
legal
perspective,
those
are
very
tricky
to
enforce
when
your
only
remedy
is
bringing
a
legal
action
against
somebody
else.
There
are
myriad
impediments
to
that
actually
happening.
S
O
S
Single
location-
and
yes,
it's
it's
complicated,
but
I
think
that
creates
a
huge
question
for
the
city.
Is
that
the
city
or
is
it
another
agency
in
the
area
that
you
could
work
in
partnership
to
fold
all
these
units
under
more
of
one
umbrella,
to
lower
the
risk
of
something
sliding
out
of
the
system,
especially
in
the
ownership
side?.
S
T
A
No,
I
think
these
long-term
implications
are
important
to
evaluate
you
know
not
only
if,
if
we
can't
enforce
it
or
that's
difficult,
then
you
know,
maybe
it's
not
being
done
right
or
you
know,
we
don't
need
to
make
the
same
mistake
as
another
community
has.
So
I
don't
want
to
cut
off
the
discussion,
but
we
do
want
to
tell
you
what's
coming
up
next
before
we
leave
today
and
then
we
also
have
two
attendees
that
would
that
are
out
there.
A
F
Cool
thanks,
andrea.
This
is
just
kind
of
our
last
slide
for
the
day
on
kind
of
what
our
next
steps
moving
forward.
This
is
really
the
first
time
that
we've
shared
with
the
community,
where
we've
been
what
we've
been
up
to
we've
been
very
busy,
and
I
have
to
give
huge
compliments
to
this
group
because
they've
had
huge
work
sessions
over
the
last
month.
F
That
has
been
a
lot
and
a
lot
of
time
and
effort,
and
really
us
listening
to
the
community
and
you
all
and
taking
that
to
heart,
to
try
and
make
some
of
these
changes.
So
what's
next,
basically,
we
have
decided
that
you
know
we
didn't
get
module
one
and
module
two
right,
and
so
we
didn't
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
into
module
three
outreach
this
summer.
So
this
is
kind
of
our
way
of
saying.
Okay,
we
didn't
get
this
right.
F
We
need
to
make
changes
and
we
need
to
share
that
with
the
community
before
we
can
continue
to
move
forward
with
this
process,
and
so
what
that
will
look
like
is
this
summer
july,
14th,
18th
and
28th.
We'll
do
some
open
house
style.
We
have
a
lot
more
planners
that
we've
kind
of
brought
in
to
this
entire
process
as
well.
F
It'll
be
more
of
an
open
house
style
just
because
doing
module,
1
and
module
2
all
together
would
be
really
hard
to
do
a
presentation
kind
of
like
we
did
before
so
we'll
kind
of
probably
do
it
more
topic
focused
that
will
have
each
planner
that's
more
nuanced
and
more
of
an
expert
specifically
if
it's
mixes
mixed-use
zones,
if
it's
parking
residential
areas,
whatever
that
might
look
like
we're,
still
gonna
work
out,
because
we're
continuing
to
send
edits
to
clarion
and
they're
continuing
to
come
back
to
us.
F
So
it's
more
of
a
fluid
process.
Now
we're
excited
about
that.
But
you
know
we
have
a
timeline
that
we
also
need
to
keep
moving
forward
and
then
still
plan
to
do
some
module
outreach
later
in
the
fall
as
well.
F
So
that
is
it
for
us.
We'll
give
you
more
details
as
we
finalize
over
the
next
couple
weeks,
what
these
look
like
and
locations
again,
we'll
have
a
lot
more
staff
kind
of
on
hand
as
well,
and
we're
excited
about
sharing
some
of
these
updates.
F
As
we've
said,
as
tim
kind
of
said,
you
know,
we
feel
a
lot
more
confident
standing
behind
these
changes
than
we
did
kind
of
in
our
last
outreach
and
those
of
you
that
attended
that
you
know
it
was
a
long
outreach
period
for
us,
but
that's
why
we
did
it,
and
I
really
think
that
we
took
those
comments
to
heart
and
now
we're
excited
to
present
these
in
the
summer
and
then
keep
this
process
moving
forward.
So
andrea
I'll,
let
you
take
it
over
from
here.
A
A
A
Actually,
I
think
any
of
them
and
we
do
have
the
ability
to
validate
your
parking.
Okay.
F
F
It
gave
us
an
extra
week
to
kind
of
get
some
of
these
things
in
order
too,
so
whether
we
have
to
reevaluate
if
that
changes
from
the
third
thursday,
we
know
this
is
the
best
capabilities
to
do
a
hybrid
portion,
but
if
we
have
to
adjust
this
meeting
just
bear
with
us,
because
this
is
booked
a
lot
obviously
and
for
our
commissions
and
city
council
and
everybody
else,
but
this
works
the
best
for
our
facilities
that
we
have
right
now,
but
anyway,.
A
P
Just
a
couple
things
one
of
the
things
I'm
concerned
about
with
the
affordability
and
sustainability
requirements,
and
this
kind
of
goes
to,
I
think
some
of
byron's
comments
and
maybe
challenge,
but
the
it
seems
to
me
that
those
affordability
and
sustainability
requirements
could
and
and
could
become
disincentives
to
doing
what
you
want
to
have
done
there
in
terms
of
producing,
affordable
housing
and
unless
it's
supported
by
funding
in
some
way.
Unless
that
you've
done
the
calculation
done.
P
Some
economic
analysis
on
it
that
to
show
that
in
fact,
allowing
those
kinds
of
densities
produces
the
kinds
of
returns
or
whatever
that
people
would
be
looking
for
to
so
they
could
would
want
to
do
those
kinds
of
things
do
do
that
affordable
housing
and
do
those
densities
and
additional
units.
The
other
thing-
and
this
is
actually
kind
of
countered.
What
my
concern
is
is
I'm
wondering
if
on
where
the
sustainability
and
affordability
requirements
are
laid
on.
P
A
A
Thanks
gary
and
just
to
kind
of
add
on
to
the
accessibility
topic,
we
have
heard
from
our
disability
task
force
here
at
the
city
of
boise
and
they've,
provided
us
a
number
of
comments
to
increase
visibili
visitability
to
really
make
sure
that
all
of
our
amenities
are
usable
by
people
of
all
abilities.
And
so
so
we
are
taking
a
deep
dive
into
how
we
can
provide
opportunity
for
everybody
to
experience
the
city
of
boise
equitably.
So.
A
K
F
F
Commission
yeah,
so
it's
another
commission,
that's
on
the
third
thursday,
so
I
see
to
see
if
there's
the
fourth
thursday
moving
forward
yeah,
yep
yep
and
we'll
try
nbn's
contact
as
much
as
possible
ahead
of
time.
This
one
we
decided
right
away.
Okay,
if
we
can
move
it
one
more
week
that
gave
us
an
extra
week
to
get
everything
together
and
this
room
was
available.
So.
C
We
had
to
bring
up
then
in
june,
whether
it's,
the
third
or
the
fourth
thursday.
Our
hope
would
be
is
that
we
we
have
the
revised
draft
back
from
clarion
by
that
date
and
then
we
can
look
at
this
all
and
a
lot
more.
There's,
there's
so
much
detail
and
to
to
really
I
mean,
thank
you
all
for
your
time
and
and
your
comments,
but
to
thank
staff
too.
U
Andrea,
this
is
andy
urstead.
I
would
echo
what
was
just
said:
staff's
done
a
fabulous
job,
and
I
like
this
forum
that
we
can
do
in
the
split
session
I'm
quarantining
because
cobot
has
struck
our
household
and
so
rather
than
create
this
as
a
super
spreader,
I
thought
I'll
just
I'll
zoom
in
and
it
and
it
works.
Well.
U
At
least
you
know
part
of
part
of
the
discussion,
and
I
think
that'll
go
a
lot,
a
long
ways
to
help
support
and
and
make
the
efforts
that
we're
doing
now
more
more
real,
realistic
and
meaningful.
U
If
you
will
this
process-
and
I
really
like
the
forum
today
in
the
format-
and
I
thought
the
comments
from
everyone
around
the
table-
were
insightful
and
and
informative
and
and
it's
been
an
important
aspect
for
all
of
us
to
know
that
the
staff
has
taken
this
back
to
clarion
and
looking
at
looking
at
many
of
the
components
that
were
brought
up
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
meetings.
So
thank
you
very
much.