►
From YouTube: Citywide Advisory Committee
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
All
right,
it
looks
like
everybody's
getting
situated.
It
is
three
o'clock
and
we
are
here
today
for
our
august
19th
citywide
advisory
committee
meeting
for
the
zoning
code
rewrite.
A
I
want
to
go
ahead
and
bring
up
our
agenda
and
we
can
go
through
that,
just
like
we
normally
do
today.
We
do
have
our
meeting
and
we
will
be
discussing
really
the
module
two
structure
and
overview
a
little
bit
about
some
dimensional
standards,
and
then
we
also
want
to
go
over
some
new
material
or
some
major
changes
that
we
are
creating
as
part
of
module.
A
So
where
we're
at
right
now
is
we're
continually
working
on
those
things
and
we're
going
to
keep
you
apprised
as
new
information
comes
about,
but
we're
thinking
we're
probably
going
to
need
another
month
or
two
so
anticipate
on
module.
2
coming
back
to
you
sometime,
this
fall
is
is
what
we're
thinking,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
solid
engagement
plan
and
we
have
a
solid
module
too,
that
we
feel
comfortable
presenting
to
the
community.
A
So
I
do
want
to
take
a
look
at
our
vision
because
that's
what
we're
using
as
a
city
and
clarion
as
we
craft
module
two
we're
really
trying
to
create
that
city
for
everyone
and
making
sure
that
we're
creating
self,
safe
and
healthy
city
for
everyone,
a
home
for
everyone,
movement
for
everyone,
a
clean
city
for
everyone
opportunity
for
everyone
and
then
making
sure
that
we
are
actually
engaging
everyone
as
well,
so
we're
taking
into
account
the
vision.
A
So
we're
working-
and
we
know
and
are
we're
so
thankful
that
you're
helping
us
work
through
this
as
well.
So
as
we
know,
there's
20
of
us-
and
we
are
all
kind
of
a
sounding
board
for
a
lot
of
these
ideas
and
giving
us
directions
and
raising
all
of
the
right
questions
for
us
to
ask
and
be
able
to
address,
and
we
thank
you
for
that.
Rules
of
engagement
haven't
changed
so
we're
just
gonna.
A
Do
our
personal
best
be
ready
to
learn,
being
patient
and
respectful
to
one
another
listening
actively,
of
course,
being
kind
and
thinking
openly
and
thinking
in
a
community
mindset
and
then
being
prepared
and
ready
to
share
our
thoughts.
B
All
right
well,
thank
you
and
a
good
introduction
henry
I
did.
I
would
second,
I've
been
watching
the
chat
box
and
there's
been
some
endorsement
for
the
additional
time.
I've
done
a
lot
of
this
over
there
over
the
last
quarter
century.
B
The
key
issue,
as
I
probably
have
told
you
before,
is
not
how
fast
clarion
can
write
or,
frankly,
it's
not
even
how
how
fast
we
can
deliver
it.
It
is
it
is
how
clearly
we
can
think
through
these
issues
and
make
sure
they
are
internally
consistent
and
then
explain
it
to
people.
So
that
is
my
personal
feeling
is
that
this
is
time
well
spent
and
and
it
it
is
good
thing
to
try
to
figure
out
and
here's.
B
The
reason-
and
I've
said
this
before
too
every
action
that
government
takes
has
reactions
in
the
marketplace
and
when
you're
trying
to
do
sustainability
and
you're
trying
to
do
affordability
and
you're
trying
to
do
connectivity,
we
can
all
think
of
good
ideas.
The
question
is:
will
they
get
in
the
way
of
other
ideas
and
what
do
they
cost?
They
always
cost
something
either
in
terms
of
price
or
in
terms
of
missed
opportunities
to
do
something
else
more
than
this,
and
so
that's
that's.
Why
we're?
B
I
think
it's
wise
to
take
the
time
to
walk
through
these
issues
carefully.
Frankly,
if,
if
you
guys
don't
understand
it,
I
think
you
do
understand
it
so
far,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
we
we
walk
through
them
carefully.
If
you
don't
understand
it,
the
public's
not
going
to
understand
it,
and
so
we
do
need
to
to
make
take
our
time
to
do
this.
B
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
share,
we
have
a
fairly
short
presentation
today,
but
it
covers
a
fair
amount
of
ground
and
I
won't
leave
time,
as
we've
always
said
to
to
to
do
it.
Let
me
see,
if
I
can
do
this,
can
I
chat?
Do
you
guys
have
you
know
which
screen
do
you
have
the
full
screen
or
the
presenter
mode.
B
B
B
All
right:
well,
let
me
do
something
here.
Let
me
try
something:
I'm
sorry,
I'm
gonna.
Do
it
a
different
way
and
we'll
just
do
it
I'll?
Do
it
a
different
way?
Let's
try
this.
Let's
try
this
you'd
think
after
a
year
of
zoom
we'd
be
better
at
this,
but
anyway
you
getting
it
now
or
not.
B
D
B
Well,
I
will
warn
you
guys.
I
have
had
some
unexpected
and
a
very
unusual
computer
problems
today.
So
maybe
that's
what's
going
on
right
here.
I
try
something
else.
A
B
Right:
okay:
okay,
given
that
it
doesn't
look
great,
it
looks
great
okay,
fine,
let's
get
going
so
you
have
seen
this
timeline
before
the
green
bar
is
is
where
we
are
right.
Now
we
are
working
on
public
input
for
module,
two
we're
trying
to
get
to
that
public
input.
B
What
I
want
to
point
out
is
very
simply,
is
that
the
blue
bar
on
the
right,
wendy
and
others
and
and
andrea
have
been
very
clear
that
we
need
a
lot
of
time
to
think
it
through
at
the
end,
when
we
have
got
the
drafting
and
the
questions
through
there's
a
lot
of
time
there,
the
fact
that
we
are
going
to
take
a
month
or
maybe
more
to
get
to
this
module
two
does
not
mean
we're
running
out
of
time
at
compared
with
other
cities,
where
I've
worked.
B
You've
left
a
lot
of
time
to
think
it
through
and
get
it
right
at
the
end.
We
are
to
some
extent
borrowing
from
that
that
time,
but
I'm
not
worried.
I'm
not
worried
about
it
at
all,
because
the
amount
of
time
you've
left
was,
in
the
same
spirit
aimed
at
a
lot
of
public
engagement
and
understanding.
So
here
we
go
may
june
july.
This
differs
because
today's
meeting
is
not
going
to
be
about.
Excuse
me,
today's
meeting
is
going
to
be
key
things,
but
the
next
meeting
is
not
going
to
be
walking
through
the
ordinance.
B
So
what
we're
going
to
cover
today,
dimensional
standards
in
more
detail,
sustainability,
resilience,
incentives,
access
and
connectivity,
parking
operations
and
other
now.
That
sounds
like
a
lot.
We're
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
the
first
part
of
this,
because
it
is
complicated,
so
I'm
going
to
move
on
and
I'll
just
here.
B
I
want
to
review
the
structure
a
little
bit
just
because
it
has
different
from
what
it
is
before.
As
I
said
before,
dimensional
standards
and
I'll
talk
about
it
more
in
a
minute.
One
of
the
new
things
we
have
done
is
the
incentives
for
sustainability
and
resilience.
I
want
to
make
sure
people
understand
that
access
and
connectivity,
as
we've
said
several
times,
is
a
brand
new
chapter.
B
It
is
usually
buried
in
the
middle
of
subdivision
standards
and
public
works
standards
and
site
planning
standards
in
many
codes,
and
the
point
is:
let's
highlight
it
because
blueprint
boise
says
now:
multi-modal
efficient,
not
only
transit,
but
walkable
bikeable
people-friendly
connection
is
a
priority.
Okay,
so
it's
its
own
chapter,
I'm
gonna
walk
through
a
little
bit
of.
What's
in
that
chapter,
parking
has
got
some
significant
changes
and
we
need
to
walk
through
that
too,
and
then
operations
and
maintenance
is
a
brand
new
section
so
and
then
we'll
stop
for
questions
at
each
time.
B
So
I
am
we're
one
level
up
now.
What
is
the
structure
of
module?
Two
we
have
presented
this
before.
It's
been
refined
a
little
bit,
you'll
notice
that
the
lines
on
the
right
there
are
more
lines
on
the
right
weren't
you
trying
to
streamline
this
dot
yeah
we
are,
but
we're
also
trying
to
consolidate
and
address
things
that
that
were
not
in
the
old
structure
so
or
not
not
adequately
in
there
and
we're
trying
to
integrate
the
subdivision
stage.
I'll
talk
more
about
that
in
a
minute.
B
The
stage
at
which
you
plant
lots
and
lay
out
streets
and
parks
and
drainage
trying
to
integrate
that
better
with
the
rules
that
govern
okay,
I
own
a
piece
of
land
and
I
want
to
redevelop
it
or
it's
vacant
land,
and
I
want
to
develop
it.
That's
just
to
avoid
the
jargon
subdivision
is
the
creation
of
the
lots
and
the
streets
and
the
roads,
many
of
which
are
given
to
the
city
and
then
become
public
infrastructure
and
form
the
framework
going
forward.
And
then
now
you
have
got
a
framework
lots
streets,
parks,
drainage.
B
B
It
is
you
know
what
do
you?
Where
do
you
have
to
avoid
sensitive
lands?
If
you
look
over
at
the
left-hand
side,
there
is
no
such
section.
There
is
historic.
Excuse
me,
hillside
and
foothills
great,
and
that
is
good.
You
guys
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
that.
That's
one
form
of
sensitive
land,
floodplains
and
other
things
are
another
form,
so
this
is
collecting
in
one
place.
Where
are
the
things
that
the
city
wants
us
to
avoid
when
we
lay
out
lots
and
lots
of
items,
access
and
connectivity?
B
I
just
talked
about
parking
and
loading
landscaping
is
already
addressed.
Although
we've
strengthened
it
building
design
is
addressed
in
more
detail,
as
I
described
last
time
some.
You
have
it
now
in
your
design
review
process,
but
a
lot
of
that's
outside
the
ordinance
and,
as
we
said
before,
the
key
things
are
being
brought
into
the
ordinance
exterior
lighting
is
a
new
section.
You
already
have
historic
street
light
districts,
some
places
where
you
want
a
particular
type
of
light.
B
B
So
the
list
is
longer
in
the
new
one
of
topics
than
the
old
one
part
of
that
is
trying
to
align
it
with
blueprint
boise
the
rest
of
it
is
trying
to
integrate
subdivision
better
and
to
describe
it
oriented
in
a
way
that
people
understand
all
the
things
they
need
to
do
as
they
move
forward
with
development
better
than
they
do
currently
so
see.
If
I
can
do
it
now,
so
I'm
going
to
go
quickly
through
these
next
slides,
but
I'm
this
is
a
little
bit
of
a
rehash
from
last
time.
B
B
These
are
the
basic
rules
in
this
case
of
how
big
is
your
lot?
How
big
does
it
have
to
be?
How
much
of
it
can
you
build
on?
What
else
do
you
need
to
get
on
the
lot
like
open
space
or
something
else
or
parking
in
addition
to
your
building
and
your
accessory
buildings?
So
it
is.
This
is
kind
of
the
zoning
district,
so
the
building
blocks
of
zoning.
B
B
Second,
how
close
will
it
be
to
me
and
then,
if
you're,
into
planning,
it's
kind
of
like,
and
will
we
be
looking
at
a
parking
lot
or
we've
been
looking
at
something
else,
and
so
I
just
want
to
go
through
the
various
things
we
talked
about
last
time,
lot:
area,
minimum
very
simple:
in
most
codes,
including
yours,
there
is
a
in
each
zone,
district
neighborhood
a
size
of
a
lot.
That
is
a
minimum.
B
Now,
if
you're
historic
and
somebody
a
long
time
ago,
plotted
that
lot
smaller
than
the
current
ordinance
allows,
that's,
okay,
you
could
still
build
on
it.
The
code
addresses
that,
but,
as
you
create
new
lots,
the
framework
going
forward,
how
big
does
a
lot
have
to
be
and
how
wide
does
it
have
to
be
because,
from
your
neighbor's
point
of
view,
they
don't
know
how
deep
your
lie
is
when
they
look
across
the
street,
it
is
a
moral
function
of.
Are
they
about
the
same
character?
B
I
am
in
terms
of
spread
out
nest
from
each
other.
Is
there
light
and
air
across
the
street
or
in
a
different
part
that
are
similar
to
the
light
and
air
you
don't
have
to?
You
can
have
more
dense
development,
but
why
do
we
worry
about
lot?
Width
answer
has
a
lot
to
do
with
perceived
character,
maybe
more
than
lot
area,
because
you
could
you
can
you
don't
know
how
deep
that
parcel
is
across
the
street
could
be
quite
deep,
could
be
bigger,
could
be
smaller?
B
You
don't
know,
but
you
do
see
how
wide
the
lot
is
so
again
and
the
provisions
in
the
code
allow
some
averaging
of
that.
Okay,
they
can
be
flexible,
but
they
have
to
hit
an
average.
That's
two
measures.
Three
is
street
frontage
minimum.
Basically,
the
distance
along
the
front
property
line,
the
front's
on
a
street
or
alley
so
well
don!
Didn't
you
just
talk
about
with
yes,
but
you
get
pie-shaped
lots
and
you
get
other
kinds
of
logs,
and
so
the
point
is
okay,
but
how
much
of
this
has
to
be
on
the
street?
B
So
we
can
get
a
driveway
in
if
we're
going
to
get
a
driveway,
some
don't
or
for
just
spacing
out
of
utilities,
and
things
like
that,
so
lot
width
is
measured.
It's
kind
of
an
average
lot.
Frontage
is
how
much
of
it
has
to
be
on
the
street
for
these
purposes,
usually
access
and
characters
open
space
as
a
minimum
of
the
total
area.
You
just
look
at
the
graphic.
You
can
tell
it's
like
lot
size.
B
B
The
back,
the
sides
parking
setbacks,
minimum
meaning
do
you
have
to
set
the
parking
back
further
in
different
areas,
a
either
in
a
commercial
area,
because
we
don't
like
looking
right
at
cars
right
up
on
the
street
or
be
in
a
house,
because
we
want
the
car
to
be
off
the
street
and
not
overhanging
the
sidewalk
and
a
lot
of
newer
codes
are
saying
this.
We
don't
really
want
to
push
the
houses
back
from
the
street.
We
want
to
make
sure
the
cars
are
off
the
street
and
into
a
sidewalk.
B
B
We
want
them
off
the
street
and
newer
codes,
kind
of
say,
there's
a
different
question:
how
far
the
parking
has
to
go
back
and
how
far
the
building
has
to
go
back,
because
the
building
might
be
okay
to
come
closer
to
the
street,
for
the
sake
of
affordability
than
the
parking
does
and
again
do
you
have
to
do
this?
No,
but
these
are
common
measures.
Now
we've
covered
six
different
ones:
dimensional
standards,
sorry
building
height
maximums.
This
is
very
traditional
for
flat
roofs
for
answered
roofs
for
gable
roofs.
B
B
B
What
are
we
proposing
and
and
how
does
it
work,
so
we
got
some
feedback
even
initially
after
the
last
couple
meetings
you
know
don,
you
know
what
use
clarion
seems
to
know
what
he's
talking
about,
but
this
is
very
confusing.
I
don't
know
how
to
read
this,
I
don't
know,
will
the
building
be
bigger
than
it
is
before?
Will
it
be
taller
than
it
is
taller?
Question
is
easy.
You
just
compare
the
old
and
the
new
heights
and,
frankly,
they're
not
much
change,
but
will
it
be
bigger?
Will
it
be
more
massive?
B
Am
I
going
to
be
able
to
build
bigger
because
I
might
be
able
to
get
more
units
in
and
make
them
more
affordable?
There
are
the
the
feedback
we
got
back.
Is
we
understand
the
words
you're
saying
and
we
don't
understand
what
it
means
for
the
neighborhood
or
the
character
of
the
area,
and
so
I
want
to
walk
through
some
a
couple
of
examples.
B
It's
on
the
left
column,
it's
on
the
right
column,
but
it's
only
for
residential,
most
newer
codes,
say
in
all
in
the
downtown
area.
In
the
activity
centers
that
we've
talked
about
quite
a
bit.
You
know
it
might
be
a
historic
small
lot
that
has
a
small
store.
We
actually
don't
care,
we
tried
to
get
houses
and
multi-family
and
places
where
people
live
to
be
about,
or
at
least,
if
they're
way
different
in
size.
We
have
a
reason
for
it.
B
B
Well
now
they
do
form
smaller
format,
grocery
stores,
or
we
have
plenty
of
grocery
stores
that
are
smaller,
that
are
from
the
old
days
that
are
still
operating.
So
this
is
a
change.
We
have
kept
it
for
the
residential
neighborhoods.
We
have
not
kept
it
for
the
mixed
use
in
commercial
neighborhoods.
Frankly,
that
is
a
trend
in
the
last
10
years,
and
I've
never
heard
anybody
complain
about
it
nobody's
no
wow.
We
got
some
strange
stuff
happening
because
you
got
rid
of
those
measures.
I
don't,
I
won't
put
words
in
your
mouth.
B
This
has
not
been
controversial
around
the
country.
Let's
skip
some
minimum
street
frontage.
We
after
we
talked
about
the
layers
of
regulation
in
boise,
one
of
the
things
we
came
up
with.
We
don't
think
we
actually
need
that
there
are
plenty
of
codes
out
there
who
do
not
have
that
measure.
So
it
is
not
being
carried
over
as
opposed
to
a
lot
with
yes,
not
frontage,
no
density
per
acre.
This
is
something
to
pay.
B
Attention
to
dem
city
is
usually
used
for
residential
development,
and
you
now
have
a
number
of
measures
that
say
this
many
units
per
acre
is
fine,
no,
no
more
than
that.
We're
taking
your
acreage,
we're
counting
your
houses
and
your
units
and
we're
saying
that's
too
many
bring
it
down.
B
As
I
have
talked
about
before
on
these
things,
it's
not
a
very
accurate
measure
of
how
it's
going
to
look
and
feel
to
people,
because
you
could
take
a
given
density,
number
and
cluster
it
all
in
one
area,
even
with
minimum
lot
sizes
or
put
it
all
in
another
area
or
stretch
it
out
along
the
road.
We
could
address
it,
but
that
means
you're
you're
saying
we
have
a
number
and
the
number
creates
unintended
consequences.
So
we're
going
to
add
a
bunch
of
regulations
to
make
them
more
consistent.
B
Better
practice,
we
think,
is
to
say
if
you
define
the
height
the
envelopes
and
the
lot
size,
how
many
houses,
how
are
they
separated
from
each
other
and
the
unit
per
acre,
is
actually
an
output
of
that
rather
than
an
input-
and
this
is
a-
I
won't
say
like
the
first
two
are
very
common,
most
new
codes.
Do
it
this
this
one,
I
will
say,
is
always
a
discussion
item
more
new
codes
than
not
some.
I
think,
significantly
more
than
not
decide
to
go
this
way.
We
do
not
need
a
density
per
acre
number
here.
B
Let's
deal
with
the
form
of
the
buildings,
are
they
too
tall?
Are
they
too
close
together?
Are
the
lots
too
big
or
the
lot's
too
small?
Are
they
too
close
to
the
road
define
that
and
the
number
comes
out
and
and
frankly,
this
is
an
important
affordability
tool
for
a
reason.
I'll
talk
about
later,
it's
kind
of
an
artificial
number
g
don.
I
could
have
gotten
this
many
houses
on
lots
that
size
giving
you
your
own
space,
but
you
just
cut
it
in
half
and
said.
I
can't
do
that
many.
So
that's!
B
This
is
important
because
people
are
going
to
get
you're
going
to
get
questions
about
this
as
we
go
down
the
road.
If
you
don't
already
have
questions
open
space,
yes,
but
we
have
not
done
it
per
unit.
So
there's
not
there's
a
there
is
not
an
open
space
per
unit,
we're
defining
that
through
basically
setbacks
and
things,
and
how
much
of
the
lot
you
can
cover
maximum
building
height
is
the
same.
I
mean
if
there's
no
height
is
a
height.
No,
no
change
in
how
you
measure
it.
B
It
applies
to
everything
except
it
applies
to
everything
the
same
way
it
does
today
maximum
and
building
building
setbacks.
Still
there
maximum
parking
minimum
parking
setbacks,
still
there
maximum
lot
and
building
coverage
industrial
only
because,
basically,
that
that
is
an
industrial.
It's
not
usually
carried
over
into
the
commercial
areas.
So
what
does
this
mean
I'll
walk
through
an
example
in
a
minute?
It
means
that,
yes,
we
want
residential
character
preserved.
Yes,
we
want
open
space.
B
Yes,
we
do
not
want
to
measure
and
regulate
and
have
people
check
more
boxes
than
they
need
to
in
order
to
get
there.
So
you
can
see
some
of
the
boxes
that
came
out
and
others
that
you
can
see
that
in
many
of
these
downtown
residential,
only
there's
some
of
these
that
still
apply
to
residential,
because
we
care
more
about
it
there
than
you
do
in
the
mixed
use
and
activity
centers,
because
they
can
contain
a
variety
of
different
they're
not
supposed
to
be
all
the
same.
B
It's
downtown
it's
an
activity
center,
some
big
properties,
some
small
properties,
yeah,
there's
a
height
limit,
but
I'm
not
trying
to
micromanage
the
architecture.
The
feel
of
every
building
is,
is
between
25
and
50
feet
wide.
We
don't
care
it's
an
activity
center.
So
that's
philosophically,
what's
going
on
here
now
here's
here's
the
case.
I
wanted
to
make
a
minute
ago
maximum
dwelling
units
per
acre.
This
is
the
case.
B
It
forces
buildings
of
a
stated
size
and
shape
to
contain
fewer
larger
units
than
they
otherwise
could
have,
even
if
they
could
provide
the
parking
spaces.
So
this
is
why
communities
are
generally
getting
rid
of
that.
Even
though
clarion
is
saying,
we
don't
need
density
controls,
the
density
controls
are
there
they're,
not
in
the
form
of
an
artificial
dwelling
units
per
acre
number,
and
here
are
the
examples
you
have
a
10
unit
per
acre
limit
that
you
got
a
half
acre
site
and
you
got
10
dinner
rolling
in
it
per
acre.
B
Okay,
I
can
get
five
units
and
I
got
five
parking
spaces
or
market
says
you
know.
People
need
affordability,
we
need,
we
could
get
eight
acres
on
there
and
park
eight
cars
and
still
meet
the
open
space
requirements,
and
that
would
be
good
for
affordability.
B
If
we
think
that's
too
much
of
the
lot
occupied
by
parking,
then
talk
about
talk
about
setbacks
and
talk
about
whether
you're
going
to
require
that
much
parking
etc.
But
the
point
this
graphic
is
intended
to
say
for
a
building
of
the
same
size,
it's
the
same
size
and
it's
got
the
parking
for
the
units
at
the
same
rate,
we
would
have
done
a
dwelling
unit
per
acre
often
acts
as
a
cramp.
Because
what
do
you
do
as
a
developer?
B
I
can
only
build
a
building
this
tall
and
it
has
to
be
this
part,
and
I
can
only
put
five
eight
units
in
it.
I
will
probably
build
bigger
units
and
more
expensive
units.
I
would
have
liked
to
do
eight
smaller,
more
affordable
units,
but
you
won't
let
me-
and
so
that
is
the
rationale
behind
getting
rid
of
that
number.
Now
in
non-residential,
we
talked
about
last
time
we're
going
to
take
a
break
in
a
minute
here
in
a
minute,
so
I
talked
about
dwelling
units
per
acre
for
residential.
B
This
is
maximum
floor
area
ratios
for
non-residential.
So
again
we
are
not
we.
We
are
recommending
that
in
most
cases
that
comes
out
because
it's
a
very
poor
way
to
do
building
form.
You
guys
have
a
blueprint
boys.
He
talks
a
lot
about
the
quality
and
the
style
and
the
design
of
development,
and
then
you
have
a
very
sophisticated
design
review
standard
that
is
shaping.
Buildings
far
tends
to
be
the
analogy
for
non-residential
kind
of
an
artificial
cap.
B
Even
if
you
could
build
a
building
that
met
our
numerical
standards
and
the
design
review,
people
thought
it
was
a
fine
building.
That's
too
much
building
on
this
site,
it
is
usually
used
when
it
was
developed.
It
was
in
60s
and
70s
as
a
suburban
development,
because
once
you
know
far,
you
can
generate
car
counts.
How
many
cars
are
going
to
be
developed
in
a
downtown
area?
It
is
used
sometimes,
and
is
you
and
is
often
not
used
at
all,
because
it
is
by
the
time
you
get
downtown.
You
have
controls
over
these
things.
B
You
have
very
good
controls
in
boise
under
the
current
system,
and
it
turns
out
to
be
just
an
artificial
constraint.
So,
once
again
it
can
force
the
building
to
be
smaller
and
the
height
and
setbacks
would
otherwise
allow.
Even
if
there's
adequate
parking
do
we
care
that
it
fits
in
absolutely
you
do
that
through
setbacks
and
open
space
at
height
and
form,
do
we
want
to
force
it
to
contain
less
than
it
would
have?
Otherwise,
even
if
it
fits
in
clarion's
argument
is
no,
we
actually
don't,
and
so
that
is
the
rationale
behind
that.
B
R1C
today,
which
is
you
know,
a
residential
district,
a
standard
residential
district
in
boise
that
has
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
the
cities
planted
and
zoned
as
r1c.
Here's.
What
is
in
there
today
minimum
lot
area
with
separate
numbers
for
these
two
minimum
average
lot
width
with
separate
numbers
for
an
interior
lot
and
a
corner
lot:
maximum
street
frontage,
maximum
density
units
per
acre
and
maximum
open
space
per
unit.
B
The
proposal
that
is
still
under
and
I've
highlighted
in
red
the
things
that
we
are
trying
to
not
carry
forward
because
we
don't
actually
think
they're
needed.
So
here
we
go.
B
I
in
the
green
box,
without
drawing
a
picture
because
in
r1c
you
don't
you
can't
just
do
a
house,
you
have
other
things
you
can
do
so
and
we
have
it
set
on
the
numbers,
although
there
hasn't
been
a
lot
of
cry
to
change
a
lot
of
r1c
and
numbers,
no
change
in
the
maximum
building,
no
change
in
the
front,
rear
or
interior
side
setbacks.
That
means
where
your
lock
goes
up
against
your
neighbor's
lot,
no
change,
but
they
were
still
regulate,
meaning
they're
regulated
there.
You
had
to
control
before
you
have
the
street
side.
B
Setbacks
are
reduced,
the
closeness
you
could
get
not
to
the
front
but
to
the
side
street,
because,
frankly,
the
amount
of
space
you
were
recording
from
side
streets
in
this
area
was
higher
than
most
communities
would
would
require,
get
relative
to
the
front.
It's
not
you
don't
treat
every
side
street
setback
as
a
front
street
truck
in
most
codes.
It
does
tend
to
drive
up
housing
prices.
B
Average
lot
width
is
reduced
a
little
bit
in
that
area
and
you
could
see
what
we'll
put
it
out
there
and
then
the
dwelling
unit
acres,
I
won't
beat
the
drum
any
further-
is
reduced,
so
I
have
one
more
slide
to
go
through.
That
is
an
analogy
in
another
area,
but
I
we're
trying
to
talk
about
what
this
means
and
why?
B
Why
would
you
do
such
a
thing
answer?
Either
a
we
think
it's
belt
and
suspenders.
You
don't
need
both
those
controls
or
b
we're
deliberately
changing
the
controls
or
recommending
that
they
be
changed
in
the
name
of
affordability,
in
the
dream,
to
trying
to
get
boise,
to
adjust
to
a
much
more
difficult
world
to
build
and
to
afford
housing
in.
So
that's
the
things
that
are
going
on
and
that's
this
is
basically
and
I
want
to
repeat
again,
you
can
get
the
open
space.
B
Let's
talk
non-residential
there
is
a
this
is
the
c2
district
which
is
being
converted
into
mixed-use
activity
center.
So
if
you
harken
back
to
module
one,
we
kind
of
said
there
are
three
levels
of
activity:
centers,
there's
downtown,
there's
a
neighborhood
scale,
small
one
and
then
there's
a
medium
size
called
activity
center.
B
If
you
really
do
remember
from
back
there,
there
are
actually
two
versions
of
this
activity
center.
You
know
a
and
s
street
oriented
and
activity,
but
we
have
decided
to
use
a
the
activity
center
as
the
example.
So
here's
what's
measured
today:
heights
setbacks,
maximum
building
setbacks
which
were
new
minimum.
Let's
start
parking
setbacks
and
then
the
four
at
the
bottom
and,
as
I
said
in
the
earlier
slides
we
have
we
have
recommended.
We
are
recommending
that
those
ones
at
the
bottom
go
out
because
they
are
unnecessary
in
activity
centers.
B
Once
again,
this
is
not
citywide.
I'm
giving
you
an
example,
one
example
from
a
low
density,
residential
neighborhood
and
one
from
an
activity
center
and
saying
you
know
how
did
it
change
and
the
answer,
because
they're
they're
in
they're
going
to
be
in
tables?
That's
how
you
describe
them
and
in
the
case
statements.
So
what
does
it
all
mean?
Height
stays,
minimum
building
setback
stays
in
this
case
for
the
sake
of
walkability
and
pedestrian
action.
B
B
Remember
part
of
part
of
what
we're
doing
here
is
in
a
lot
of
blueprint
boys.
He
talks
about
activity
centers
and
the
answer
is,
and
we
want
them
to
support
transit
in
this
case,
in
a
mixed
use,
activity
center,
there's
a
height
increase,
reduced
minimum
and
new
setback.
Buildings
excuse
me:
reduced
minimum
and
new
maximum
building
setbacks
to
encourage
more
street
oriented
development
and
transit,
supportive
development,
no
minimum
lot
size
limitations
and
frontage
standards
will
allow
the
market
to
be
more
creative
and
how
it
meets
it
remember
this
is
an
activity
center
you're.
B
If
you
want
to
live
in
a
house
you're
not
living
in
this
activity
center.
If
you
want
to
live
in
multi-family,
you
could
go
into
a
multi-family
zone
or
you
could
live
in
an
activity
center,
in
which
case
you
need
to
expect
that
you're
in
a
mix
of
commercial
and
commercial
and
non-commercial,
and
so
we're
gonna,
say:
look
it's
gonna
quack,
it's
gonna!
It's
gonna
be
a
lot
like
a
commercial
center.
You
chose
to
live
there,
we're
happy.
B
So
I
just
I
want
to.
I
think
this
is
our
questions
at
this
point.
It
is
difficult
to
walk
through
this.
It
might
be
easier
if
we
could
walk
through
a
picture
g
dawn
under
the
old
code.
You
could
do
x,
but
under
the
new
code.
Is
why
and
here's
the
picture
of?
Why
and
I
don't
like
it,
but
we
haven't
settled
on
the
numbers
yet.
So
this
discussion
is
about
trying
to
simplify
and
promote
affordability
by
conceptually
removing
the
number
of
things
that
need
to
be
measured
and
checked
off.
F
Yeah
just
a
quick
question
for
dawn
on
the
slides.
It
was
hard
to
tell
if
the
things
that
were
in
red
were
just
for
our
notification
or
if
they
were
going
to
be
removed,
but
in
the
residential
zones,
are
we
still
distinguishing
yeah
between
interior
lots
and
corner
lots?
Just
wanted
to
check
on
that.
B
We
are
but
this
this
the
the
recommendations
say
yes,
but
you
do
that
by
just
saying:
if
you
have
a
front
setback,
it's
x,
if
you
have
a
side
set
back
it's
why
so
you
do
have
a
setback
which,
which
it
doesn't
make
the
lot
wider.
It
doesn't
force
the
lot
to
take
up
more
land.
It
forces
the
building
to
be
a
little
further
from
the
street.
So,
yes,
you
treat
corner
lots
separately,
but
you
don't
need
to
do
it
with
a
different
lot
area
or
a
different
lot
width.
F
Okay,
thanks
for
the
clarification,
what
about
like
subdivision
lot,
subdivisions.
F
The
establishment
of
lot
sizes,
so
if
we
have
a
minimum
lot
size
and
a
land
division,
will
the
interior
lots
have
different
minimum
lot
areas
or
lot
widths
than
corner
lots?
Well,.
B
B
Of
forcing
the
whole
lot
up,
we've
said
don't
force
the
lie,
and
I
think
this
is
typical
around
the
country.
Usually
you
don't
have
a
lot
of
white,
you
don't
make
them
do
wider
lots.
You
say
if
you
do
a
corner,
you're
gonna
have
to
set
it
back
further,
so
plan
it
accordingly.
If
you
want
to
but
or
design
it
for
a
smaller
or
a
corner
building
that
is
not
as
big
as
you're
doing
on
some
of
the
other
lots.
That's
all.
C
This
is
patrick
related
to
that.
I
don't
actually
understand
why
you
would
want
to
have
a
larger
setback
on
a
corner,
a
lot
unless
it's
like
a
visual
thing
about
safety
for
bikers
and
such
because
isn't
like
the
whole
street
like
the
space
between
buildings.
You
know
it's
like
kind
of
naturally,
there's
a
lot
more
space
at
that
point
than
there
is
between
buildings
and
interior.
So
what
am
I
missing
there?
It's.
B
A
good
it's
a
good
point,
patrick.
I
want
to
be
clear
if
we're,
if
I'm,
if
my
lots
are
facing
main
street,
they
all
have
to
have
an
ex
setback
along
main
street.
So
there's
no
difference
in
the
front
setback
on
the
street
that
you
face
and
that's
always
a
tricky
issue
in
every
car.
How
do
I
tell
which
one
I
face
now
we're
talking
about
the
corner?
B
Lot,
not
the
main
street,
not
the
entrance
the
side
street
and
the
reason
usually
is
that
if
you
just
left
it
the
same
that
side
of
that
building
that
faces
main
street
could
come
very
close
to
usually
it's
only
a
it's
a
small
setback.
It
could
come
very
close
to
the
street
fine.
I
understand
your
point,
but
why
do
we
care
it
would
promote
affordability
to
let
them
do
that?
It's
not
really
aesthetic!
It's
that
behind
that
lot.
One
lot
back
from
mainstream,
usually
in
a
residential
neighborhood.
There's
a
house
facing
the
side
street.
C
B
But
now
he's
looking
at
the
side
of
your
building
and
so
most
places
do
not
say
you
must
have
two
front
setbacks,
because
that
isn't
cost
issue
they
would
they
come
up
with
a
compromise
which
is
what
we're
proposing,
which
is
that
it
doesn't
have
to
be
as
far
from
it
as
it
is
the
facing
street,
but
it
can't
be,
but
but
you
can't
put
it
it
can't
be
as
close
to
the
street,
as
you
could
sure.
B
You
could
get
you
can
planters
talking.
Unfortunately,
I
hate
to
admit
this
for
a
while
over
glasses
of
beer
as
to
what
the
pro
how
to
solve
that
problem,
and
it's
there
is
no
right
solution.
You
just
find
one
anything
else
that
people
are
concerned
about
or
that
we're
unclear.
I
I
talk
fast
and
it's
complicated.
G
I'm
I'm
still
kind
of
struggling
with
on
the
minimum
street
frontage.
How
that
relates
to
the
size
of
the
house,
so
you
know
I
guess.
If
is
it
just?
Do
we
have
a
minimum
street
front?
It's
just
to
limit,
you
know.
Is
it
to
be?
You
know
five
or
ten
feet
back
from
the
lot
and
is
it
adjustable
based
off
of
the
size
of
the
building?
That's
going
to
be
put
on
I'm
trying
to
figure
I'm
trying
to
understand
that
ratio.
B
Usually
minimum
street
frontages
to
be
honest,
they
came
out
of
cul-de-sacs
because
or
let's
say
they
at
the
minimum
lot
width
in
this
area.
A
lot
of
older
america
was
was
planted
at
25-foot
lots.
Well,
let's
assume
that
this
is
a
post-war
and
it's
padded
at
a
50-foot
wide
lot.
Fine
does
that
55
does
that?
Does
that
mean
it
has
to
be
50
feet
wide
at
the
point
where
it
hits
the
street
and
as
we
went
into
post-war
era,
and
we
did
cul-de-sacs,
the
answer
was
no.
B
B
But
you
know,
if
I
say
it's
a
50-foot
wide
lot,
but
it
you
know,
but
it
can
be
as
narrow
as
it
wants
to
be.
We're
going
to
have
cul-de-sacs
and
curves.
Curves
are
the
same
thing
as
culverside
we're
going
to
have
a
25-foot
lot
of
which
12
feet
of
it's
taken
up
by
a
driveway.
We
don't
want
that.
We
don't
want
50
of
the
street
frontage
to
be
taken
up
by
driveways,
so
we
say
when
you
lay
out
your
lots.
B
Yes,
you
can
make
them
narrower
on
curves
or
interiors
of
curves
and
things
like
that,
but
you
can't
make
them
too
narrow
or
frankly,
a
sometimes
the
traffic
guys
want
it
separated
because
they
don't
want
driveways
right
next
to
each
other,
that's
kind
of
going
away.
Usually
it
is
because
we
don't
want
the
whole
street
frontage
to
be
driveways.
These
are
front
houses
and
now
there's
another
way
to
do
it,
though-
and
that's
I'm
glad
you
asked
the
question
because
another
rat
and
again
this
gets
back
to
affordability.
B
I
could
say
minimum
25
foot
front
front.
Excuse
me
street
frontage.
We
have
lots
of
different
sizes
which
make
the
ones
in
this
neighborhood
kind
of,
like
the
other
ones
in
this
neighborhood
enough
that
they
feel
good
about
what
their
neighbors
are
going
to
do
and
it's
kind
of
not
going
to
overcrowd
them,
and
then
we
have
a
number
50
and
it
gets
down
to
25..
B
The
other
way
to
do
that
to
achieve
the
same
goal
is
to
say
no
more
than
x.
Percentage
of
your
front
lot
can
be
occupied
by
driveway,
so
I'm
not
forcing
your
lock
to
be
wider
than
it
needs
to
be,
but
I
am
saying,
if
you're
going
to
do
that,
you're
going
to
have
a
one
car,
driveway
or
you're,
going
to
have
a
narrower
driveway
we're
not
going
to
force
the
lot
wider
to
accommodate
a
wider
driveway.
Let's
let
the
designers
do
their
job
and
I
don't
want
to
just
take
this
conversation.
B
Some
people
love
cul-de-sac,
some
people,
don't
it's
just
that
the
earth
doesn't
lay
out
in
grids
whether
it
should
or
not
it
doesn't,
and
so
there
are
curves
and
the
issue
is,
if
you're
concerned
about
pedestrian-oriented
street
footage.
The
way
to
do
that
is
to
limit
the
amount
of
driveway
you
have,
rather
than
by
forcing
the
lot
to
be
wider
at
the
front
than
it
needs
to
be.
That's
the
philosophy.
H
H
Here
I
just
having
a
hard
time
finding
my
raised
hand
thing
so,
first
of
all,
just
make
sure
I'm
understanding
on
the
left
column
over
here
maximum
open
space
per
unit.
Is
that
supposed
to
be
maximum,
or
should
it
be
minimum.
H
B
Well,
you're,
thank
you
for
being
awake.
I
actually
did
it
and
see.
Who'd.
Ask
me
first.
So
thanks
richard.
H
Yeah
yeah
and
yeah
honestly,
it's
hard
for
me
to
understand
the
impact
of
removing
that.
I
understand
what
you're
you're
saying
that
the
constraints
are
still
there
or
there
are
constraints
there.
H
That
will
require
such
space,
but
it's
just
it's
it's
it's
harder
to
visualize
unless
you're
visualizing
an
entire
layout
right
or
entire,
and
I
guess
that
same
thing
occurs
with
density.
H
B
I
think
I
think
the
I
think
the
answer
to
your
question
is:
when
staff
has
done
its
review
and
and
has
kind
of
done,
I
think
they're
doing
this
informally,
but
probably
what
we
should
do
at
a
future
meeting
is
to
say
now
that
now
that
staff
feels
comfortable
with
these
numbers,
let's
see
how
many
do
online
per
acre
could
be
created
on
this
site
that
compared
to
what
might
have
been
done
under
the
cap.
That
was
there
previously
and
and
show
you
that,
but.
B
Do
it
without
numbers,
and
I
don't
I
don't-
have
the
numbers
yet
so
I
mean
they're
still
under
this
gun,
so
I'm
not
trying
to
be
coy.
Your
question
is
exactly
the
right
question.
Could
I
see
a
drawing
of
before
and
after
and
the
answer
is
I
can't
give
you
one,
but
we
could
take
something
like
r1c,
which
is
very
common
in
boise
and
say:
let's,
let's
do
it,
let's
take
a
five
acre
site
or
a
five-acre
neighborhood,
that's
being
done.
How
many
could
you
do
before?
B
H
Right
and
then
I
imagine,
service
providers
would
like
to
be
able
to
have
available
such
a
formula
or
maybe
upper
and
lower
back
well
upper
bounds.
I
guess.
H
Yeah
I
mean
at
some
point
right
because
otherwise
it
it's.
I
understand
that
this
things
are
still
constrained.
It's
just
it's
just
harder
for
the
average
person
to
kind
of
understand,
not
what
it
mean.
What
it
looks
like,
because
that's
different,
but
in
terms
of
you
know
how
many
kids
are
going
to
be
going
to
school
or
those
kinds
of
things.
B
B
The
problem
with
these
regulations
is
that
if
you
have
too
many
of
them,
they
never
grant,
they
always
take
away.
They
always
there's.
Oh,
I
checked
six
boxes,
but
I
couldn't
do
the
seventh
one,
so
I
gotta,
I
gotta,
put
one
less
house
on
there,
and
so
I
guess
my
my
my
point
is
yes,
you're
you're,
exactly
right.
B
B
I
think
the
so.
Your
comment
is
exactly
right,
but
I
think
the
fair
answer
is
to
say
a
we're
getting
smarter
about
how
much
regulation
is
needed
to
protect
neighborhood
character.
I
said
these
things
it's
about
neighborhood
character,
which
I
think
boise
citizens
care
about
a
lot
and
affordability,
and
so
we're
kind
of
rethinking
it
and
frankly,
the
answer
to
your
upper
bound
is:
we
could
do
it,
but
that
the
needle
is
kind
of
moved.
B
With
the
seriousness
of
the
affordability
issue,
saying
we
we,
the
predictability
of
traffic
counts
and
utility
flows
should
not
be
driving
the
fabric
of
our
cities.
It's
driving
costs
up.
We
would
rather
make
it
more,
affordable
and
then
rethink.
Okay,
then
how
do
you?
What
do
we
do
with
traffic?
We
don't
know
if
it's
going
to
be
more
fewer
units
or
fewer
larger
units,
and
the
answer
is:
that's
a
traffic
projection
problem
and
we
and
and
the
folks
who
do
that,
have
to
get
smarter
and
and
make
some
assumptions.
B
There
is
no
formula
rich,
but
they
have
formulas
if
it's
a
mixed
use
in
this
kind
of
a
context.
Let's
assume
it's
going
to
be
sixty
percent
residential
and
forty
percent
or
non
whatever
they
do.
I've
worked
with
them
on
them.
They
just
you,
have
to
go
back
and
scratch
your
head
and
say:
okay,
we
need
to
figure
out
traffic
flows
in
a
different
way.
B
B
Well,
I
understand
I'm
not
trying
to
I'm
explaining
the
reasoning
behind
it
by
the
way
I
didn't
answer.
Byron's
first
question,
which
is
the
red,
was
intended
to
indicate
things
that
are
coming
out.
So
minimum
blood
area
regulations
stay
in
the
separate
numbers
for
interior
and
corner
come
out.
That's
that's
what
that's
supposed
to
mean
and
the
bottom
one's
gonna
happen.
B
B
The
deletion
of
open
space
per
unit
is
going
to
be
troubling
to
some
people,
even
though
don
says-
and
we
show
some
examples
and
say:
look
it's
it's
not
much
more
dense
or
it
is
more
dense,
but
in
a
way
that's
politically
acceptable.
Yeah,
that's
a
price!
We
are
willing
to
pay
for
our
contribution
to
the
affordable
housing
challenge.
B
There
are,
even
though
we
we
try
to
make
that
case,
they're
going
to
be
people
saying.
Why
are
you
making
this
so
hard?
Why
don't
you
just
say?
Every
house
has
to
have
360
square
feet
of
open
space
or
every
apartment
common.
In
some
codes,
every
apartment
has
to
have
100
square
feet
of
open
space.
B
If
you
force
it
onto
the
site,
you
can
you're,
you
are
driving
costs
up
because
I
could
have
done
this,
but
for
the
fact
that
I
had
to
have
200
or
100
or
300
square
feet
of
open
space
on
each
site
on
e
or
add
to
100
on
a
balcony
or
on
a
patio
that
is
related
to
this
apartment
house.
B
As
the
affordability
challenge
has
gotten
harder
and
harder
and
we
don't
seem
to
be
making
much
traction
on
it.
A
number
of
newer
ordinances
have
said:
we
need
to
figure
this
out,
for
example,
in
subdivision,
newer
ones
say:
okay,
you
need
open
space,
kids
and
adults
need
open
space.
It
is
not
true
that
we
all
want
to
live
in
manhattan.
We
don't
always
want
to
live
in
denver,
we
don't
we
we
need.
B
B
You
figured
out
mr
designer,
because
having
it
nearby
could
be
much
more
cost
efficient
than
having
it
on
each
site,
and
so
that
yes,
aren't
you
paying
for
it
either
way
sure
you
are
but
but
you
are,
you
may
be
holding
down
the
cost
of
the
individual
dwelling
units
and
you
may
be
able
to
assemble
that
shared
open
space
near
the
residential
units
much
more
efficiently
than
you
could
say.
B
C
I
just
want
to
add,
in
addition
to
the
affordability
points
that
you've
made
from
a
usability
standpoint.
I
think
there's
strong
advantages
to
that
consolidated
model.
You
know
360
square
feet
on
every
little
lot.
Like
you
know,
it's
kind
of
could
might
just
be
a
little
sad
patch
of
grass.
That
is
hard
to
do
very
much
with
versus
a
a
bigger
space
that
could
be
a
park
or
what
have
you
that
has
ability
to
be
used
for
recreation
by
all
users
and
some
nature,
benefits,
etc.
B
D
A
We
are
seeing
some
comments
in
the
chat,
so
roberta
has
said
that
she
agrees
with
patrick
and
then
byron
has
elaborated
to
say
to
the
open
space
requirement.
Many
architects
and
designers
would
support
the
notion
that
well-designed
open
space,
a
possibly
smaller
area,
functions
better
than
underutilized
raw
area.
I
B
We're
about
an
hour
into
this,
we
can
keep
taking
chats
or
conversation,
but
this
was
about
when
we
were
going
to
take
a
short
break.
I
think
that's.
The
next
slide
is
is
a
short
break
and
there
we
go
and
then
we
have
four
much
shorter
topics
that,
to
be
honest,
I
think,
are
more
fun
than
this
until
and-
and
you
know
more
fun
to
discuss,
but
we
wanted
to
cover
four
things:
should
we
take
a
break
now
andrea
for
five
minutes.
D
A
D
B
A
B
D
B
D
B
B
All
right
good,
so,
let's
go
back
to
where
we
were
before
there.
We
go
all
right.
So
all
right,
several
topics
we
all
they're
shorter,
but
we'd
like
to
make
sure
you
have
a
chance
to
comment
on
them
so
incentives.
I
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
at
a
prayer
reading,
but
among
the
various
many
many
goals
of
blueprint
boise
is
promoting
more
sustainable
and
resilient
development.
How
do
you
do
that?
So
we
have
you
will
see
when
we
when
module
2
is
released.
B
B
So
one
of
the
two
key
incentives
you
already
have
housing
incentives,
the
one
that's
the
other
one
that
we
haven't
talked
about
is
sustainable
resilient
development
in
general.
This
allows
in
most
of
the
mixed
use
and
special
purpose
districts.
Frankly,
not
not
the
excuse
me
50
parking
reduction
in
residential
districts.
So
how
do
you
incent
it
in
residential
development?
The
draft
says
the
recommendation
says
through
parking
reductions
in
because
we
didn't
want
to
increase
heights
more
than
we
thought.
B
Would
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood,
on
the
other
hand,
in
mixed
use
and
in
special
purpose
districts
which
are
not
low
density
residential
districts,
a
10-foot
increase
another
floor
of
height,
so
we're
seeing
this
approach
used
in
other
medium-sized
cities
around
the
country,
but
basically
each
one
is
different.
So
what
do
we
mean
by
it?
Easy
to
say
the
words?
B
What
zoning
can
actually
do
is
work
on
about
five
things
and
I'm
just
gonna
give
you
a
little
background
mixed
use.
We
got
it
it's
in
the
activity
centers
in
module,
one
we
can
get
it
more
about
mixed
use,
reduces
building
traffic
and
bicycle
and
walking
trips,
because
people
have
options
to
make
the
trip
shorter
by
living
in
a
mixed
use
area.
And
it's
a
big
thing.
Walkability
connectivity
just
talked
about
the
fact.
Well
I'll
talk
about
it
after
in
the
next
slide,
but
ways
for
sidewalks
trails,
things
and
neighborhoods
to
have
more
connectivity.
B
That's
the
second
thing:
energy
conservation
and
renewable
energy,
water
conservation
and
food
and
urban
food.
I
can
get
there's
a
six
one
out
there
and
it's
called
rubbish
and
trash
and
recycling
we
got.
We
think
we
got
the
rubbish
and
pressure
recycling
in
module
one.
We
have
urban
food
in
module.
One
and
we've
talked
mixed
use
already,
so
I
want
to
focus
on
these
things.
B
What
would
you
reward
people
for
doing
so?
Basically,
building
orientation
and
pre-wiring?
The
draft
says
you
reward
people
in
these
ways
for
pre-wiring
buildings
for
solar
and
renewable
energy.
You
don't
have
to
do
it
because
sometimes
it
won't
work
and
sometimes
it's
expensive,
but
the
to
put
the
wiring
in
and
the
conduits
and
the
capacity
to
handle
solar
collectors
at
the
time
you
build
a
building
is
a
lot
cheaper
than
trying
to
retrofit
it
later.
B
So
having
that
ready
allows
it
to
be
allows
it
to
have
an
incentive
using
renewable
energy
sources
is
another
way
to
do
it.
Green
infrastructure,
meaning
on-site
storm,
water
retention
is
another
way
you
can
re-reward
that
and
water
efficient,
irrigation,
meaning
low
water
use
things
that
take
substantially
less
water
use
than
they
otherwise
would
have.
So
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
try
to
draw
something
up
here.
I've
said
it
in
a
general
way,
but
I'm
gonna
say
it
in
a
more
specific
way.
B
If
I
can
just
a
second,
let's
see
if
I
can
figure
it
out
so
and
then
the
bottom
is
green
certification,
so
this
slide
sounds
like
they're
all
five
together,
but
basically
in
each
of
the
four
bullets
at
the
top.
The
draft
says
you
can
earn
these
bonuses
in
these
districts.
B
If
you
do
the
following
targets,
there
are
numeric
targets.
You
are
handling
at
least
x
percent
of
your
energy
needs
through
renewables
that
you
install
on
site.
You
are
handling
at
least
thirty
percent
of
the
stormwater
runoff
from
a
hundred
year
storm
on
site.
So
it's
not
this.
It's
not
a
free-for-all.
There
are
numbers
behind
each
one
that
say:
basically
you
you
need
to
meet
some
targets
and
the
way
it's
drafted
is
simply
that
you.
There
are
a
list
of
seven
things
and
you
need
to
do
four
of
them.
B
You
don't
have
to
do
all
seven
you
can
you
can
choose
which
of
the
four
things
you
can
do
and
that's
the
top
four.
So
there's
seven,
seven
different
numbers
you'll
see
them
when
the
drafts
released
and
you
don't
have
to
do
them
all.
You
have
to
do
four
of
them
and,
if
that's
true,
you
earn
either
a
fifty
percent
price
direction
or
a
ten
percent
increase
depending
on
the
zone.
District
you're
in
the
last
bullet
is
different.
B
It
says,
as
an
alternative
to
doing
four
out
of
seven
things
you
can
meet
a
given
certification
in
lead
or
the
livable
building
challenge
there
are
about.
Leed
is
the
best
known
one:
it's
a
rating
system
for
sustainability.
There
are
four
others
out
there
that
we've
run
into
there
are
more
than
that.
Actually,
that
are
commonly
used
that
basically
the
ordinance
says
you
don't
have
to
do
four
out
of
seven.
B
If
you
do,
if
you
get
a
certification
from
any
one
of
these
four
different
national
rating
systems
on
sustainability
or
another
rating
system
that
we
don't
know
about
today,
that
emerges
five
years
from
now
that
the
director
believes
will
have
the
same
effect
as
if
you
had
equal
sustainability
values
to
meeting
those
those
standards
in
the
four
named
rating
systems.
So
four
name
grading
systems
have
you
named
them
all?
Nope
they'll
come
up
with
another
one
and
they
keep
it
revolving.
B
So
you
could
come
in
and
say
guess
what
I'm
doing
the
new
one.
My
corporate
strategy
is
to
build
them
according
to
this
standard.
Can
you
have
it
well?
If
the
director
says,
I
think,
that's
doing
as
much
good
as
if
you've
got
a
certification
under
lead,
so
that
is
how
it
works.
I
just
want
to
understand
it's
a
two-way
system.
You
want
to
check
the
boxes
check.
The
boxes
you
want
to
get
certified,
get
certified
either
way
works.
B
So
you
don't
know
you
don't
horse
trade
them
in
in
return
for
x.
You
get
one
of
these
two
things.
If
it
is
something
that
goes
forward
for
an
approval
by
a
higher
body,
it's
not
an
administrative
decision.
It's
going
to
go
to
planning
commission
it's
going
to
go
to
council
for
some
reason.
B
The
draft
says
they
are
supposed
to
review
it
based
on
whether
it
meets
the
criteria
in
the
code.
They
are
not
supposed
to
go
back
and
say
well,
the
building
needs
to
be
a
floor
shorter.
You
earn
the
right
to
have
your
development
processed
with
the
bonus
when
you
commit
and
you
design
it
that
way,
and
you
and
and
that
is
not
supposed
to
be
a
negotiating.
That's
not
a
pud!
Oh
well!
I'm
almost
doing
this,
so
I
should
get
a
benefit.
B
So
that
is
the
approach
in
to
make
it
more
objective,
to
make
it
not
a
subject
of
negotiation
because
it
gets
extremely
messy,
but
basically
that's
the
approach.
So
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
just
I'm
going
to
say
you
know:
do
we
have
questions
about
that
approach?.
B
C
Questions
comments:
there's
a
distinction
yeah,
yes,
of
course,
yeah.
So
there's
to
me
a
little
bit
of
attention
between
holding
one.
In
my
view,
strongly
environmentally
friendly
reform
hostage
is
a
strong
word,
but
in
order
to
reduce
your
parking,
you
have
to
do
additional
things
when
parking
is
aligned
with
the
goals
of
the
other
things
you
want
to
achieve,
you
know
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
decreasing
permeable
surface
et.
J
C
All
localized
pollution
the
whole
the
whole
thing,
and
I
get
how
you
can
kind
of
given
that
the
environmental
stuff
is
probably
achievable,
to
hit
four
of
those
seven
in
a
variety
of
context
that
you'll
probably
end
up
in
a
situation
where
you
get
two
good
things
rather
than
zero.
But
we
are
holding
one
good
thing
for
the
environment
and
affordability,
etc.
Kind
of
in
reserve
to
get
even
more
is
one
way
that
I
view
that
okay,.
B
So
I
bet
you
raise
you
raise
a
a
big
question.
What
should
be
the
reward?
Well,
first
of
all,
we
think
in
module
two.
We
have
done
a
number
of
things
throughout
when
we
talk
about
sensitive
lands.
When
we
talk
about
parking
which
we've
talked,
which
I'll
talk
about
in
a
minute
frankly,
to
make
things
more
sustainable
and
resilient,
so
you
could
decide
we're
not
going
to
give
anything
where
it's
ought
to
be
in
the
base
standards.
B
Everybody
does
it
most
communities
come
out
and
say:
well
do
what
you
can
in
the
bay
standard,
though
we
push
back
on
that
and
most
communities
like
carrots
rather
than
sticks,
so
let's
offer
some
carrots
in
addition
to
doing
lower
parking.
Whatever
we're
doing
so,
I
I
the
threshold
question.
I
don't
take
too
much
time
on
this.
Is
I
think
what
patrick's
raising
is?
B
Should
we
be
rewarding?
Should
we
be
our
part,
our
reduced
parking
and
increased
height,
the
right
carrots
we're
trying
to
make
it
simple
and
understandable.
Another
height
of
building
in
a
mixed-use
zone
is
a
substantial
financial
incentive
reduced
parking?
Well,
if
you
had
already
reduced
the
parking
a
lot,
maybe
it's
not
so
much,
but
the
question
is:
what
is
what
should
the
carrots
be
if
there
are
going
to
be
carobs.
C
Since
I
started
started
that
comment,
I
like
the
increased
height
a
lot.
I
want
the
parking
reduced
one
way
or
the
other
I
just
wanted
it
to
be
always
reduced
and
then
use
the
increased
height
as
the
bonus
or
what
have
you
versus
only
reduce
it
in
the
circumstance
that
was
my.
So
I
want
to
be
very
careful
on
my
wording
on
that.
No.
B
I
got
it
and
I'm
not
trying
to
put
you
in
a
box
the
reason
we
didn't
offer
height
in
the
residentials.
We
could
offer
heights
in
the
higher
intensity
residential
zones.
But
the
point
is
we
didn't
want
to
offer
height
in
the
r1
b
and
r1c,
where
it's
kind
of
a
35
foot
neighborhood,
because
the
difference
between
a
two
and
a
half
story
house
and
a
three
and
a
half
story
house,
all
you
know
all
heckmay
broke
loose
break
loose
in
the
neighborhood.
That's
different!
B
You
can't
in
a
low
density,
residential
neighbor
you've
got
to
figure
out
something
that
is
in
most
neighborhoods.
If
you
want
to
do
it,
that's
great,
but
in
most
places
like
no,
no,
no,
no,
no!
No!
No!
We're
not
going
from
two
and
a
half
stories
to
three
and
a
half
stories
in
a
residential
neighborhood.
So
I
think
rich
had
his
hand
up
next.
H
Yeah,
excuse
me
yeah
thanks.
Well,
this
just
brought
up
a
question.
H
So
what
happens
and
I'm
not
necessarily
have
an
opinion
one
way
or
another
on
this,
but
what
happens
in
terms
of
shading
if
you
get
increased
heights
and
somebody
has
a
solar
installation
and
then
somebody
else
gets
maybe
a
bonus
so
that
wasn't
kind
of
a
predictable
thing
for
the
people
who
installed
the
solar
on
one
building
is
that
I
mean
maybe
it's
not
an
issue
just
with
one
floor
or
whatever,
but
how
do
you
kind
of
govern
access
to
solar
right,
solar
rights
yeah?
There.
B
You
go
ask
me
an
easy
one:
rich,
that's
a
tough
one,
the
the
short
we
can
partially
address
it
in
the
regulations.
I've
seen
a
lot
of
tests.
Denver
did
a
lot
of
tests
when
they
came
up
with
their
zoning
ordinance
in
2010.
B
I
was
not
involved
where
they
concluded
that
in
most
mixed-use
developments,
mixed-use
residential
excuse
me
mixed
use,
zone
districts
if
the
property
to
the
north
was
wider
than
some
number
50
or
60
feet
wide,
which
is
a
very
typical
we've
taken
out
the
minimum,
but
a
50
or
60
foot
wide
commercial
lot
is
not
uncommon
in
new
development
or
activity
center
development,
a
floor
of
a
you
didn't
have
to
worry
about
solar
access
except
in
the
depth
of
winter,
and
then
you
do
so,
but
the
bottom
line
is
for
most
development.
B
The
conclusion
I've
seen
in
a
lot
of
the
studies
is,
if
it's
a
very
narrow
lot
and
the
house
to
your
north
is
very
close
to
you.
You
could
have
a
problem
if
it's
a
reasonably
sized
lot
and
it's
a
reasonably
sized
setback.
You
probably
won't
have
a
problem
that
doesn't
answer
your
credit.
So
that's
the
we
could
deal
with
that
in
terms
of
setbacks
when
you
get
beyond
that,
there
are
communities
that
have
done
it.
B
I
have
not
written
it
into
this
draft
yet,
but
I'm
raising
your
I'm
taking
your
question
as
a
request
that
we
think
of
doing
it.
It's
it
is
most
communities
do
not
say
either
you
can
go
a
floor
higher
if
you
get
the
consent
of
the
guy
to
the
north.
That
he's
never
going
to
put
us.
So
he
doesn't
mind
if
you
do
it,
because
he
didn't
plan
to
put
a
solar
collector
on
it.
You
they
do
not
do
that,
because
that
engage.
B
That
requires
you
to
get
a
neighbor's
consent
for
something
it's
not
property
rights.
It's
it's
smiling
at
your
neighbor
and
hoping
he
likes
you
the
other
thing
they
don't
do.
They
don't
say
that
you,
as
a
person
who
might
someday
put
solar
on
your
building,
have
a
right
to
prevent
your
neighbor
to
the
south
from
adding
a
floor
to
their
building.
They
very
few
communities
have
done.
A
few
have
very
few
have
done
it.
They
usually
when
they
do
this
kind
of
thing.
B
If
they're
worried
about
shading,
they
try
to,
inter
they
encourage
informally
through
the
application
process,
a
conversation
about
it,
but
they
do
not
either
let
the
northern
or
the
southern
person
prevent
their
neighbor
from
doing
what
they
think
is
in
the
interest
of
the
environment,
so
that
that's
a
very
mushy
answer
rich,
but
it
gets
it
gets
complicated,
very
fast
and
in
general,
most
studies
do
not
make
the
condition
of
an
additional
story
contingent
upon
somebody's
agreement
that
might
get
shaded
by
the
additional
story.
H
Yeah
thanks
and
I
can
see
how
it
certainly
yeah
becomes
a
very
big,
a
very
big
question.
It
has
lots
of
tentacles
yeah.
I
I
just
in
the
in
the
in
the
context
of
what
we
were
just
talking
about
in
terms
of
rewards.
B
If
you
are
near
a
home,
a
single
family
home,
you
have
to
step
it
down
and
well
which
which
wins
my
extra
floor
of
bonus
or
the
neighbor,
and
the
answer
in
that
case
is
the
neighbor
so
that
if
you
are
close
to
a
single
family
or
two
family
or
35
foot
house,
you
can
use
the
bonus,
but
you
may
need
to
whack
off
some
of
the
part
of
that
floor
or
do
or
or
maybe
you're
lucky
you're
farther
away.
So
I
do
want
to
point
out.
B
The
worst
case
scenario
is:
oh,
I
happen
to
be
next
to
a
commercial
site
and
I'm
a
little
two-story
house
over
here.
The
answer
is:
when
that
happens.
The
code
says
the
little
house
wins
you're
gonna
have
to
you,
can
use
part
of
it
or
some
of
it
or
set
it
back
or
move
it
away.
But
you
all,
you
can't
use
the
bonus
as
a
way
to
get
away
from
the
neighborhood
protection
for
the
small-scale
neighborhood.
So.
K
Ian
yeah,
I
have
some
first-hand
experience
with
that
working
in
another
city
where
they
actively
encouraged
you
to
do
solar,
and
I
was
working
with
a
client
on
the
project
and
they
actually
went
for
an
additional,
a
height
increase,
an
additional
story
and
they
had
neighbor
to
the
north
of
them
that
had
solar
panels,
and
so
they
had
to
then
negotiate
with
that
neighbor
and
there
was
a
whole
is
a
whole
ordeal,
so
it
does
get
quite
gray
and
squishy
and
difficult.
K
So
I
I
think
what
dom
is
recommending
towards
the
end
of
that
it.
You
know
the
neighbor
has
some,
the
residential
house
had
a
residential
building.
Has
some
you
know:
preference
over
the
commercial
story,
increase
that
that
makes
sense
to
me
to
the
previous
question.
I
would
say
you
know
carrots
or
sticks.
K
One
particular
incentive
that
I've
experienced
working
here
is
expedited
review
time
with
me
and
when
you
have
a
project
in
for
review
at
the
city,
you
know
the
city
is
quite
busy
so
in
a
shortened
review
period
by
meeting
some
of
these
green
requirements,
that
saves
money
and
it
helps
the
project.
B
Good
thought
good
thought.
You
know
it's
interesting
10
20
years
ago.
People
would
raise
that
issue,
and
I
said
you
know
I
don't
know
any
city,
that's
not
doing
them
as
fast
as
they
can.
But
you
know
the
truth
is
in
the
boom.
The
boom,
an
economy
we've
been
since
2010
or
2012
it.
It
does
make
a
difference,
and
that's
that's
worth
considering
that's
worth
considering
andrea
is
probably
slicing
her
hand
across
the
throat
saying
no,
no,
no,
I
can't
do
it
any
faster.
B
I
can't
run
any
faster
so
anyway,
but
it's
no
that's
a
valid
thought.
It's
becoming
increasingly
relevant
just
because
development
gets
harder
and
harder
and
and
more
complicated.
So
I
had
one
other
thought
there.
You
know
I
I
will
think
about
this.
This
is
not
a
recommendation
and
I
do
not
claim
that
it
is
a
practice
commonly
used
around
the
country.
B
B
Maybe
you
can
maybe
you
can,
but
we
know
you're
in
conflict,
the
neighbor
wins,
the
small
scale
house
wins
you
could,
and
I
bet
I
can
find
examples
of
places
that
say
that
same
principle
applies.
If
your
neighbor
has
already
installed
solar,
if
they've
had
already
installed
solar,
then
you
need
to
step
your
your
extra
floor
back
10
feet
or
something
like
that,
because
not
that
they
might
because
they
might
not
most
people,
don't
if
they
already
have.
We
still
give
you
the
floor,
but
we
acknowledge
that
that
is
a
value
of
the
community.
B
Just
like
protecting
low-density
residential
neighborhoods,
and
we
say
then
you
need
to
allow
this
guy
more
sunlight.
You
don't
make,
don't
make
them
negotiate.
The
code
should
not
make
you
enter
into
horse
trading
with
your
neighbor.
That's
a
terrible
principle
of
government,
but
you
can
accommodate
it
by
cutting
them
some
slack
anyway.
B
Unless
somebody
has
something
else.
Do
I
see
something
in
the
chat,
but
I
absolutely
agree
with
expedited
review.
Good
great
administrative
review
versus
public
hearing
came
in
from
byron,
andrea
can
I'm.
I
am
talking
more
and
we're
taking
we're
getting
good
comments,
but
is
it
time
to
move
on
to
the
next
one.
B
I
will
do
so
as
soon
as
I
get
my
cursor
in
the
right
place,
access
and
connectivity.
I
want
to
raise
just
two
things
here,
guys
it's
complicated.
I've
tried
to
put
it
on
one
slide,
but-
and
we
want
to
get
to
two
issues
after
this,
so
these
are.
There
are
a
lot
of
carry
forwards,
partly
because
achd
has
standards
and
it's
hard
to
get
away
from
them
and
they
they
are
their
standards
of
their
standards.
We
have
some
changes
to
the
cul-de-sac
standards.
We
have
maximum
block
lengths,
so
I
want
to.
B
I
want
to
focus.
Basically
I
don't
want
to
talk
about
the
first
bullet,
we'll
talk
about
the
rest
of
them.
So
there
are
new
requirements
for
sidewalks,
bikeways
multi-use
paths,
connections
designed
to
achieve
standards.
There
are
cross-accept
standards
when
you
have
a
mixed.
U
a
new
development,
not
a
retrofit.
A
new
mixed-use
development
or
non-residential
uses
you're
you
are.
B
You
got
two
parcels:
they're,
not
single-family,
neighborhoods
they're,
two
parcels:
do
you
have
to
provide
a
connection
to
the
next
adjacent
parcel
for
the
sake
of
circulating
between
parking
lots
and
between
buildings
or
walking
without
having
to
go
out
to
the
street
and
come
back
in
or
drive
out
to
the
street
and
come
back
in
the
draft
says
you
need
to
lay
them
out.
I
can't
make
ian
give
me
an
easement
for
his
people
to
go
across.
You
can't
do
that.
B
B
Gonna
run
into
each
other
and
sue
us.
Instead
of
mcdonald's,
they
were
going
to
mcdonald's,
they
weren't
even
eating
at
chick-fil-a,
and
so
the
bottom
line
is
wait.
It
is
very
hard
to
force
that
to
happen,
but
what
codes
do
is
to
say
you
need
to
build
it
as
if
it's
going
to
happen,
the
odds
are
good,
that
they
will
reach
some
sort
of
an
agreement
because
it
could
be
mutually
beneficial.
That's
one
of
the
requirements,
maximum
block
length
is
simply
super
blocks,
are
cheaper
or
bigger.
B
Blocks
are
cheaper,
there's
less
pipes,
less
roads
less
length,
but
they
raise
biking
and
parking.
So
there
is
in
here
a
maximum
block
length
if
you're
new,
if
what
it
says
is
I'm
planting
a
new
block
and
next
to
me
by
an
objective
measure,
most
of
the
line's
been
subdivided
and
their
blocks
average
x
in
length
and
width.
I
need
to
lay
mine
out
so
that
they're
about
within
25
of
that
it
can
be
a
little
higher,
can
be
a
little
lower.
B
You
got
to
respond
to
terrain,
but
you
can't
go
next
to
a
walkable
neighborhood
with
smaller
lots
and
and
do
a
super
block.
That's
not
for
the
sake
of
reducing
your
infrastructure
cost.
If,
if
that
area,
this
is
character.
If
that
area
has
a
walkable
character
based
on
a
lot
block
framework,
you
need
to
be
close
to
that
and
if
there
is,
if
you're,
not
near
development,
it's
raw
land
and
you
are
among
the
early
guys-
then
there
are
numbers
which
are
based
on
kind
of
average
urban
block
dimensions
plus
25.
Something
like
that
say.
B
You've
got
a
blank
slate
here
guys,
but
you
need
to
try
to
make
it
more
walkable
and
bikeable
with
smaller
blocks
that
allow
more
interconnections
now
I'll,
be
first
to
admit
don.
You
don't
get
it.
Roads
drive
up
costs.
Yes,
they
do.
The
goal
of
affordable
housing
runs
into
the
goal
of
blockability,
no
doubt
about
it,
but
that's
the
approach
that
the
draft
is
taking
is
yep.
Well,
this
is
an
area
where
there's
some
trade-offs
and
then
cul-de-sacs.
B
I
don't
know
if
I've
raised
this
with
you
guys
before
most
advocates
of
walkability
love
it,
because
it's
much
more
likely
you're
going
to
walk
than
if
you
walked.
You
had
to
walk
around
the
whole
block
developers
do
not
like
it
often
really
really
don't
like
it,
because
the
number
of
people
that
would
they
perceive
that
the
number
of
people
who
want
to
buy
those
two
lots
that
are
next
to
the
walkway
is
lower.
People
don't
want
people
to.
G
Really
yeah!
Well,
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
I
I
really
like
the
pedestrian
access
and
walkability
and
so
forth,
so
I'm
all
for
it
give
it
a
gold
star.
Okay,
all
right.
F
No
questions
just
wanted
to
agree
with
kelly
there
additional
connection,
especially
pedestrian
and
bike
connection
from
public
ways
into
development.
Around
housing
is
all
great
with
me.
I
love
it.
H
Yeah,
likewise,
I
think
connectivity
and
and
whatever
you
call
it
permeability
for
for
pedestrians
and
cyclists,
is
great.
I'm
not
a
fan
of
more
roads.
E
H
Kind
of
and
calling
it
you
know
to
make
more
walkable,
you
know
shorter
block
sizes
or
whatever,
where
it
doesn't
necessarily
fit
the
character
or
and
having
lived
in
l.a
when
the
apps,
for
you
know
finding
your
best
traffic,
your
best
commuting
route
became
more
and
more
available
cut
through
traffic
for
certain
places.
Just
becomes
terrible
when,
when
you
ki,
when
you
do
increase
that
car
connectivity
at
times
so
so.
L
H
Yeah,
a
big
fan
of
for
the
pedestrians
and
the
and
the
cyclists,
but
not
a
fan
of
making
bigger
pavement.
You
know
access
for
for
vehicles
thanks.
J
Yeah
just
chiming
in
agreeing
with
the
sentiment
that
others
have
expressed
about,
I
just
highly
favor.
You
know
that
pedestrian
access,
and
not
only
towards
roads
but
as
byron
mentioned
towards
you,
know
other
pedestrian
amenities.
Like
trails,
I
think
of
the
green
belt.
A
lot.
J
This
is
more
garden
city
than
say,
city
of
boise,
but
as
as
there's
more
development
along
the
river
as
somebody
that
has
like
lived
or
has
friends
in
those
neighborhoods
and
that
wants
to
get
to
the
river,
it
can
be
really
challenging
if
all
those
cul-de-sacs
end
and
there
ends
up
being
illegal,
trespassing,
anyways.
J
B
Let
me
mention
one
thing
before
we
go.
I
think
we
have
two
more
speakers,
but
I
did
I
didn't
put
a
bullet
on
here,
but
the
draft
does
say
it
lists
certain
things
that
frankly,
the
city
can
require
pedestrian
connection
in
the
context
of
new
layout
of
lots.
You
can't
retrofit
it,
but
when
the
lot
layout,
when
you're
reviewing
a
subdivision,
if
the
director
determines
that
it's
necessary
for
access
to
a
school,
a
park
trail
open
space,
so
that
is
in
there.
B
It's
it's
tricky
to
draft
right
because
there's
law
about
that,
but
in
fact
many
cities
have
done
it.
So
my
point
is
I've
listed
some
things,
but
there's
something
that's
not
on
here,
which
is
called
the
director
say:
hey,
let
him
let
him
get
to
the
park.
You
don't
you
know,
capture
that
park,
that's
a
public
park.
You
need
to
let
him
get
there.
So.
E
As
usual,
I'm
going
against
grain.
I
think
it's
a
bad
idea.
I
mean,
what's
the
point
of
a
cul-de-sac,
I
think
cul-de-sac
brings
privacy,
that's
why
you
move
into
them,
and
you
don't
like
the
example
of
access
to
the
river.
I
mean
that's
just
going
to
create
people
parking
in
the
cul-de-sac
and
walk
into
the
river.
You
know
it's
just
I
I
don't
like
the
idea
of
it.
I
prefer
privacy
myself
thanks.
Thank
you.
I
I
I
am
a
voice
in
support
of
pedestrian
and
you
know
biking
ways,
but
there's
just
a
couple
of
things.
I
wanted
to
mention
a
couple
counterpoints,
so
I
rarely
hear
in
my
line
of
work
developers
complaining
about
sort
of
the
edge
lot
that
has
to
be
next
to
the
walkway.
I
There
are
lots
of
ways
that
developers
can
deal
with
that
for
landscape
buffer
sensing
requirements.
Orientation
I
mean
that,
can
that
can
be
managed.
What
I
most
frequently
hear
are
complaints
about
requirements
for
walkways
that
are
effectively
a
road
to
nowhere.
You
know
areas
where
that
connectivity
is
never
going
to
be
established
through
a
neighboring
property
or
is
you
know,
the
neighboring
property
is
already
very
well
and
long
established
as
a
commercial
or
other
residential
development
that
doesn't
have
connectivity.
I
I
A
D
A
And
that's
a
great
thought:
hillary.
In
fact,
as
we
have
been
developing
the
trails
plan,
the
pathways
and
trails
planned
throughout
the
city
of
boise
we're
trying
to
wrap
that
up
at
the
end
of
august,
but
we
actually
have
just
scheduled
a
meeting
with
the
parks
and
recreation
department
planning
as
well
as
public
works.
So
we
can
talk
about
effective
lighting,
how
we
can
make
it
so
that
it's
effective
doesn't
adversely
impact
other
neighbors
that
it
is
safe,
but
it
we
also
need
to
take
into
account
both
human
and
animal
cycles.
A
So
we
can
impact
their
sleep
cycles.
Reproduction
cycles,
those
types
of
things
so
we're
trying
to
figure
out
a
really
good
way
to
do
a
lot
of
those
things.
I
did
want
to
follow
up
with
you
on
hillary
when
you
said
pathways
to
nowhere.
I'm
assuming
developers
are
comfortable
when
they
have
to
build
a
pathway
that
is
temporarily
nowhere
as
long
as
it's
in
a
plan
and
it's
going
to
happen
and
it
will
go
somewhere
in
the
future.
Is
that
correct.
I
I
H
I
F
Thank
you,
andrea,
sorry,
don.
I
did
actually
have
a
question
now
that
we've
been
talking
about
this
a
little
bit.
Is
there
a
way
to
incentivize
some
of
our
existing,
poorly
planned
or
poorly
connected
neighborhoods,
specifically
our
subdivision
neighborhoods,
with
a
lot
of
cul-de-sacs
a
lot
of
pathways
and
roads
to
nowhere
like
hillary
said
when
they
come
out,
and
I
guess
the
only
time
they'll
touch
base
with
the
city
in
the
future.
There
is
really,
if
they're,
looking
for
further
land
division
or
things
like
that.
F
Are
there
other
city
codes
that
kind
of
address
existing
neighborhoods
and
incentivizing?
You
know
increased
connectivity
over
over
time.
B
Not
much
byron,
it's
hard
for,
for
a
couple
of
philosophical
reasons:
it's
not
philosophical
overarching
reasons.
One
is
when
you
try
to
retrofit
the
past
and
make
it
better.
For
example,
let's
just
for
the
sake
of
discussion
trying
to
say
why
couldn't
we
go
back
into
these
neighborhoods
and
and
get
a
path
through
an
existing
cul-de-sac
to
existing
street?
B
What
you're
actually
asking
is
for
somebody
to
pull
out
their
wallet
and
and
do
something
either
give
up
land
or
build
something,
and
zoning
can
almost
never
make
you
do
that,
and
so
you
at
the
time
you're
laying
it
out
you
try
to
get
it
right.
B
The
question:
it's
too
it's
twofold,
usually
it's
very
rare
for
zoning
to
go
back
and
make
you
come
into
contact.
When
you
come
for
an
approval,
they
can
ask
you
to
mitigate
your
impact
so,
for
example,
what
if
what?
If,
on
the
example,
that's
drawn
on
the
screen
that
top
lot,
that
has
the
walkway
on
the
south
side
of
it
on
the
lower
side
of
it.
What
if
what?
B
If
that
was
one
lot
and
they
came
in
and
said,
but
we're
big
enough
to
be
too
large,
we
want
to
subdivide
and
do
two
lives
well
technically,
they're,
coming
in
and
asking
the
city
to
approve
something
and
in
principle
the
city
could
say
well
we'd
like
you
to
put
a
walkway
along
near
the
edge
of
the
side
of
the
thing,
but
it's
hard
to
it.
Technically,
there's
a
lot
of
law
on
that
that
says:
that's
not
his
problem
to
solve!
That's
a
city
problem
to
solve
the
city
can
buy
it.
B
City
can
try
to
talk
the
developer
into
doing
it.
You
can
do
a
lot
of
things,
but
you
can't
put
on
the
burden
of
a
particular.
Usually
the
developer
is
long
gone,
so
you're
talking
to
individual
property
owners,
none
of
which
can
be
required
to
bear
at
their
own
expense,
to
solve
a
problem
that
is
actually
a
a
city-wide
or
a
neighborhood-wide
issue
that
they
didn't
create.
So
at
the
end
short
answer
is
it's
hard?
It
probably
can't
do
it
so.
B
A
And
actually,
while
we're
getting
there,
we've
had
quite
a
bit
of
chat,
so
I
think
it'd
be
really
good
to
go
back
and
make
sure
that
we're
covering
all
that
so
everybody's
seeing
those
types
of
things
so
shelin
has
said
that
ian's
point
earlier
on
was
very
accurate.
That
expedited
review
of
building
permits
are
a
huge
bonus
here
in
boise.
A
For
example,
if
you
do
x
or
y
we'll
give
you
a
review,
will
complete
your
review,
an
entitlement
or
building
package
within
30
days
or
something
and
patrick
said,
I'm
really
skeptical
of
requiring
buildings
to
be
smaller
in
order
to
protect
a
light
for
a
solar
panel,
I
suspect,
if
you
did,
the
math.
The
climate
benefits
due
to
reduced
heating
needs
alone
of
another
attached
unit
in
the
new
building
may
outweigh
the
net
electric
benefit
of
given
solar
panels.
A
A
B
Well,
that's
true,
and
I,
although
we
didn't,
have
a
bullet
to
the
last
point
that
was
made
before
we
went
into
the
chat,
I
believe
the
draft
says-
and
I
usually
draft
these
to
say
if
you
know
the
director
can
adjust
the
connectivity
requirement.
If,
in
fact,
I
like
patrick,
where
you
know,
there's
no
reasonable
probability,
this
is
going
to
serve
a
public
purpose.
B
It's
impracticable,
you
can't
do
it,
there's
a
huge
grade
change
and
nobody
could
follow,
could
get
up
and
down
that
in
the
winter
anyway
or
there's
utilities,
but
a
lot
and
a
major
road
plan
through
there,
and
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
do
that.
So
there
is
usually
some
flexibility
built
in
there
where
the
director
says
you're
right.
This
is
going
nowhere
and
and-
and
it
is
technically
yes
in
practice.
No,
I
have
the
ability
to
waive
it
based
on
objective
standards
that
you
put
into
code
so.
B
I
don't
want
to
do.
I
think
we've
talked
about
this.
I
think
we
want
to
go
in.
I
want
to
get
to
the
next
one,
because
it's
parking.
This
is
important
for
people
to
understand.
We
can
go.
If
we
have
time
I'll
go
back
to
the
last
one.
I
should
have
covered
it.
First,
here's
a
map,
you
guys,
though,
that
know
the
code
understand
this
map.
The
dark
gray
is
p1.
That
is
the
core
of
your
downtown
and
there
are
no
parking
standards.
It
is
like
many
downtowns,
it
is
market
driven.
B
You
can
provide
parking
or
not
provide
parking,
but
it's
not
required
by
the
city
in
the
next
lighter
shade
of
gray
is
p2.
They
have
reduced
parking
requirements,
not
waived
lower
than
they
could
be
lower
than
they
would
otherwise
be
in
the
unshaded
parts
of
this
map.
So
dark
gray,
you
don't
have
to
do
it
next
shade
of
gray.
You
got
to
do
less
lightest,
shade
of
gray
p3
you
get,
you
can
do
even
less,
and
then
we
go
to
the
standard
parking
requirements
that
are
applicable
to
that
multi-family
or
whatever.
B
B
It's
a
western
city
that
is
largely
car
oriented
and
wanting
to
be
less
so
so
when
we
we
have,
we
have
taken
the
white
area
in
most
of
the
of
the
of
boise
and
reduced
the
rates
less
so
for
residential
than
for
others,
but
reduced
not
based
on
making
up
numbers,
but
based
on
comparing
them
with
what
other
cities
do
and
upon
review.
And
then
we
on
the
first
draft,
said:
okay,
so
now
that
we've
reviewed
reduced
this,
what
do
we
do
with
the
light
gray
and
medium
gray?
B
B
Maybe
we
should
just
adjust
this
gradation,
so
they're,
two
kind
of
well
p3
has
to
do
you
know
a
little
bit
less
and
and
pete
has
to
do
a
little
bit
less
just
adjust
the
sliding
scale
to
match
the
fact
that
the
standard
pity
parking
requirements
went
down,
as
patrick
has
advocated
several
times
upon
reflection
that
was
making
it
too
complicated.
So
a
draft
as
it's
going
to
come
forward
at
this
point,
says:
keep
the
dark
gray,
get
rid
of
the
light
gray
and
the
medium
gray.
B
They
are
the
differences
between
that
and
the
standard
city
parking
ratios
that
are
recommended
outside
the
court.
Don't
justify
the
complexity
of
a
sliding
scale
and,
to
be
honest,
this
map
is
unusual.
Most
cities
do
that
there
are
core
intense
areas
that
are
market
driven
and
their
standards,
and
and
but
I
want
to
be
very
clear-
it's
not
as
simple
as
it
sounds.
So,
for
example,
there
could
be
in
the
white
areas.
There
are
standards.
B
Fine,
there
are
also
reductions
if
you
share
uses
that's
good
because
they
don't
all
have
to
park
in
all
the
spaces
all
the
time.
The
reductions,
if
you're
near
a
transit
center,
they're
reductions
for
a
whole
variety
of
things,
so
white
is
not
one
size
fits
all
white
is
a
number
that
is
adjusted
up
and
down
based
on
the
need
for
parking,
the
availability,
parking,
the
need,
the
availability
of
transit,
so
white
is
a
lower
number
than
today
with
adjustments
and
the
the
recommendation
coming
forward
is
in
light
of
that
alternative
system.
K
K
It
okay,
now
that,
thanks
for
the
clarification,
I
guess
my
counterpoint
to,
that
is
why
not
just
increase
the
p1
area
to
encompass
p2
or
even
p3.
I
don't
know
just
throwing
that
out.
There.
B
Oh,
it's
a
it's
a
valid
comment:
I'm
not
going
to
put
andrea
on
the
spot
because
I'm
going
to
put
andrea
on
the
spot.
Have
you
guys
talked
about
that.
A
So
I
think,
as
new
parking
garages
are
built
further
as
we
move
to
the
west,
I
think
you
will
see
that
that
parking
overlay
expand
relatively
significantly
and
if
you're,
following
the
chat
drew,
has
asked
that
too
hey
can
we
increase
that
p1?
You
know
that
is
a
possibility.
I
think
the
city
will
take
a
really
good
look
at
that,
but
if
we
right-size
the
parking
city-wide
and
then
just
say,
we
know
that
the
downtown
area
doesn't
need
additional
parking
so
and
then
also
I
wanted
to
touch
base.
A
B
B
No,
that's
it's
a
good
point.
Patrick
has
raised
this
very
politely
many
times.
It
is
happening.
It's
not
happening
everywhere,
but
there
is
a
stream
of
cities
who
have
said,
particularly
for
commercial
and
multi-family
and
and
mixed
uses,
we're
not
going
to
regulate
this
anymore
and
and-
and
there
is
a
fair
chunk
of
evidence
in
my
mind,
except
where
the
overflow
would
go
into
low
density,
residential
neighborhoods-
that
it
works
out
just
fine.
L
L
B
Well,
I
I
have
less
faith
that
the
market
will
figure
it
out
in
areas
that
are
adjacent
to
r1b,
r1c,
low
density
zoning,
because
I
think
there
are
market
incentives
to
say
you
know
I
could
you
know
my
my
restaurant,
my
last
restaurant
needed
x
parking
spaces,
I'm
relocating
my
new
restaurant.
B
I
have
every
reason
and
believe
my
new
restaurant's
gonna
need
the
same
number
of
parking
spaces
per
square
foot,
but
I,
but
this
site
can't
accommodate
that,
and
you
know
what
they
can
just
park:
a
block
away
in
the
neighborhood
and
walk
in
here.
Well,.
D
B
Fine
for
the
restaurant,
not
so
fine
for
the
neighborhood
so,
but
in
your,
I
think
getting
at
your
point,
I
I
cannot
point
you
to
an
example,
but
one
of
the
logical
options
you
could
explore
is
we're
getting
rid
of
parking.
B
B
B
Yeah
I
mean
it's,
it's
I'm
like
so
don
who's.
Doing
this
I
don't
know,
but
instead
of
instead
of
saying
you
know,
we
have
a
number
that
everybody
has
to
meet
and
then
we
we
have
an
exception
for
downtown,
which.
J
B
By
far
the
norm
around
the
country,
there's
no
logical
reason.
You
could
say
why
don't
we
not
do
this
and
we
have
an
exception
for
areas
where
people
who
have
made
a
choice
to
live
in
single
family,
neighborhoods
or
low
density?
There's
an
equity
issue
there
right
I
mean
people
who
live
in
apartments,
get
a
deal
with
the
fact
that
the
market
could
screw
up.
People
who
live
in
houses
get
the
protection
that
it
won't
screw
up
near
them.
So
there
is
an
equity
issue
and
there
that
happens
all
the
way
through
the
code.
B
B
Any
other
questions
I
see
a
chat
thing
is
up.
Is
there
anything
we
need
to
review?
For
that?
I
see.
Okay,
p1.
I
guess
it's
the
same
thing
that
have
already
been
mentioned
so
andrea
anything
more
before
we
go
to
the
last
topic.
C
D
D
C
Without
having
to
affect
the
stuff
on
the
other
side,
so
you
could,
I
don't
know
it
seems
more
elegant
to
me
by
aligning
incentives.
But
you
know.
B
B
They
do
it
all
over
the
country,
but
it
is
often
the
city
who
has
to
say
all
right,
we'll
hire
a
couple
we'll
set
up
a
new
department,
we'll
we'll
hire
a
couple
more
ftes
to
manage
permits
and
what
happens
when
I
move
and
how
does
the
new
guy
get
a
permit,
and
do
I
get
a
guest
permit?
It's
not
right.
It's
not
rocket
science.
It's
just
work,
it
takes.
It
takes
administrative
capacity
at
the
city.
If
you
care
enough
about
it,
then
then
you
do
it.
You
pay
those
people
to
do
that.
Job!
A
So
our
city
does
have
some
residential
permitting
areas,
and
so
it's
actually
done
through
our
city
clerk's
office,
and
there
is,
you
know,
quite
the
enforcement
that
goes
with
that.
So
not
only
are
you
processing
permits,
but
you
also
have
to
enforce
it
and
that
enforcement
has
to
not
only
occur.
You
know
during
daytime
hours
it
often
has
to
occur
through
the
evening
hours
as
well,
depending
on
what
that
is.
A
So
there
is
that
that
we
do
have
to
take
into
account,
and
you
know
things
evolve
over
time
as
well,
so
I
mean
we
do
have
some
that
are
most
of
ours.
That
I
think
we
currently
have
now
are
either
adjacent
to
downtown
or
boise
state
university,
because
they
do
have
those
overflow
parking
that
if,
if
somebody
has
to
pay
for
parking
in
one
area,
they
kind
of
move
to
an
area
where
there's
that
path
of
least
resistance
and
they
park
there.
B
So,
but
we
have
several
ideas
on
the
table:
expand
p1,
get
rid
of
parking
beyond
p1
in
a
more
broad
brushed
way,
with
with
separate
rules
for
the
areas
that
are
close
to
residential
neighborhoods
or
option
three
expand
the
permit
parking
system
so
that
neighborhoods
that
say,
hey
we
want
one
can
get
one
and
the
city
enforces
it.
So
those
are
all
three
other.
I
just
all
three
of
those
are
on
the
table.
B
Let's
do
this.
I
want
to
do
this
very
briefly.
I
don't
think
it's
a
long
conversation
leave
a
couple
minutes
to
wind
up.
So,
as
I
said,
I've
probably
said
several
times.
This
is
a
new
chapter.
Zoning
in
its
pure
form
says
you
come
to
a
subdivision,
says
you
come
to
us.
We
tell
you
how
to
lay
the
lots
out.
We
tell
you
how
good
the
streets
and
parks
have
to
be.
You
give
them
to
us.
We
maintain
them
and
we're
done.
B
You're
done,
there's
no
continuing
obligation,
zoning
says
and
when
you
buy
one
of
those
lots
and
you
want
to
build
something-
you
come
to
us
and
we
tell
you
how
many
trees
you're
going
to
have
to
have
and
parking
and
how
tall
the
building
can
be,
whether
you
can
get
an
access
into
the
street
and
whether
you've
got
good
utilities
and
and
you're
done.
You're
gone.
Good
luck.
You
know
the
force
be
with
you,
but
the
newer
ordinances
often
say
no.
B
If
we
required
you
to
have
something
as
a
because
it
it
reduces
the
heat
island
because
it
reduces
glare
because
the
lights
are
low
enough,
that
they
don't
create
dark
skies
or
ignore
their
neighbors.
Because,
frankly,
the
sign
advertises
that
business
signs
are
an
issue.
The
sign
advertises
that
business
and
when
you
move
away
you
gotta,
take
it
down.
So
newer
code
say
there
is
a
continuing
obligation,
we're
putting
them
here.
This
is
the
chapter.
B
You
should
be
forewarned
that,
after
you
get
an
approval
from
the
city,
you
will
need
to
maintain
the
landscaping
if
it
dies,
you
replace
it.
If
the
exterior
lighting
is
required
to
be
no
higher
than
15
feet
near
a
single
family
house
or
20
feet,
you
cannot
replace
it
with
a
30
foot
fixture.
You
cannot
replace
it
with
something
else.
Noi
signs
need
to
not
be
decrepit
and
they
can't
be
totally
inaccurate.
You
can't
say
don's
muffler
shop
when
don's
muffler
shop
has
been
gone
for
years.
B
You
take
that
down
we're
not
telling
you
what
to
put
up
or
telling
you
it's
your
duty
to
take
it
down.
It's
no
longer
has
any
relationship
to
this
site.
Glare,
heat
noise,
fumes
vibration.
All
of
these
things
that
say
there
it's
a
mixture
of
nuisance.
How
do
you
operate
it,
but
not
just
how
do
you
operate
it?
The
new
things
on
this
list
are
landscaping,
buffering,
screening,
exterior
lighting
and
signs.
There
are
affirmative
obligations
in
addition
to
the
everything
below
that
is
hey.
We
could
have
cited
you
for
this
anyway.
B
You're
you're,
annoying
everybody
with
your
noise
there's
a
standard
for
that.
You're
vibrating,
your
neighbor's
property,
there's
always
been
a
standard
for
that.
We
can
enforce
it
through
nuisance.
This
chapter
says:
okay,
all
that
stuff
still
applies,
and
we
have
these
new
things
that
happen
in
new
codes
and
you
need
to
maintain
them
or
repair
them
if
they're
broken.
B
So
I
just
want
everybody
to
be
aware
of
that.
That's
a
change!
I
think
I've
only
had
one
or
two
clients
in
the
last
10
years,
who
said
now
we
don't
do
that
here,
most
of
them
say
gee,
I'm
surprised!
We
haven't
done
that
already.
You
know.
If
we
said
you
had
to
have
trees
along
the
street,
then
you
got
to
have
trees
along
the
street.
B
That
means
not
today
that
means
going
down
the
road
they
want
trees
on
the
street,
so
that
is,
I
just
wanted
to
call
your
attention
to
that,
because
it's
a
significant
change.
The
first
three
bullets
are
a
bit
of
a
change
from
what
you
have
today.
B
B
So
when
you
take
those
news
instincts
and
put
them
into
a
code,
we
haven't
written
the
third
module
about
processes
and
enforcement,
but
it
gives
the
city
the
option
under
whatever
law
you
know
idaho
law.
We
would
have
to
take
you
to
court
to
enforce
this
vibration
problem.
This
voter
problem,
this
noise,
this
heat
problem,
and
now
we
have
the
option
of
citing
you
onto
the
zoning
orders.
That's
a
lot
cheaper!
That's
a
lot
easier!
So,
let's
put
it
in
here,
and
that
gives
us
the
option
to
do
one
or
the
other.
It's
not
new.
K
I'll
go,
you
know,
I
there's
only
a
few
of
these
that
are,
I
guess,
exciting
to
me
really,
the
the
landscaping
one
I
see
as
being
interesting
and
probably
important,
because
you
know
ultimately,
somebody
could
buy
a
property
that
met
the
tree
requirements
for
the
city
and
just
decided
to
cut
down
a
tree
and
for
no
other
reason
that
they
didn't
like
the
tree.
So
you
know
I
I'm
generally
probably
in
favor
of
these.
I
don't
know
how
this
gets
written
into
the
zoning
code.
K
I
don't
quite
understand
that
yet,
but
the
lighting
one,
I
particularly
agree
with
especially
living
adjacent
commercial
area.
I
would
be
how
the
signage
one
would
plan
to
you
know.
Maybe
historic
or
older
properties
that
have
had
that
sign
there
for
years
and
new
owner
wants
to
keep
it
or
something
you
know.
Maybe
the
exception
to
that.
B
To
a
couple
answers
there
usually
is
an
except
you
don't
make
them
take
the
sign
down.
You
usually
say
you,
you
need
to
take
out
the
content,
that's
misleading
to
the
public
and
the
usual
justification.
Is
it's
a
traffic
hazard
to
get
the
public
to
think
it's
john's
mufflers
when
it's
not
don's
mufflers?
And
that's
so
you
you
don't
have
to
take
the
sign
and
keep
the
structure,
but
you,
but
you
do
unless
I
guess
your
point
is
like
the
citgo
sign
at
fenway
park.
B
You
know
there
is
a
process
for
saying
I
know
the
signs
misleading,
but
we
all
love
it
and
we're
going
to
keep
it
and
that,
but
that
comes
up
in
the
historic
preservation
stuff.
So
I
think
that's,
oh.
I
wanted
to
say
one
more
thing:
how
does
it
get
written
into
the
code?
Well,
you'll
see
when
we
release
module
two,
but
like
all
zoning,
this
is
complaint
based.
B
Basically,
if
you're,
if
somebody
calls
up
and
says
that
that
guy's
trees
are
all
dead,
he
you
required
him
to
buffer
me
from
him
because
he's
commercial
and
I'm
residential
and
the
trees
are
all
dead.
Then
the
city
goes
out
and
says:
yep
the
site
plan
says
they're
going
to
be
treason,
shrubbery
along
there
and
it's
gone
under
most
current
codes.
The
answer
is
gee.
That's
too
bad.
Under
this
proposed
code,
the
city
would
say
you
need
to
replace
that
landscaping.
That
was
part
of
your
site
plan.
So.
M
I
started
to
write
this
in
the
comments
because
I
noticed
how
late
it
was,
and
I
I
hearken
back
to
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
and
extending
the
time
for
module
two,
because
you
know
a
lot
of
this
for
us,
who've
participated
is
still
for
me
personally,
like
drinking
from
a
fire
hose
at
times
and
so
the
opportunity
and
to
engage
more
of
the
community.
Even
though
I
know
community
engagement
can
be
a
challenge
in
any
topic.
M
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
some
point
in
the
future,
where
we
could
talk
about
that
as
a
group
as
to
how
this
word
is
getting
out,
because
I
know
the
perceptions
of
the
people
that
I've
talked
to
it's
a
challenge.
It's
a
challenge
for
everyone.
So
what.
A
Yes,
I
I
think
that
this
is
a
topic.
That's
going
to
impact
everyone
throughout
the
city,
whether
you're
a
visitor
or
a
resident
or
a
business.
It's
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
matter.
It's
going
to
impact
you,
and
so
engagement
is
important.
You
know
over
the
next
month.
You
know
we
will
be
talking
about
some
of
those,
so
I
think
we
are
open
to
having
that
open
conversation
with
you
and
gathering
your
ideas
and
how
we
can
communicate
that
as
well
and
really
making
things
digestible
for
people.
A
As
you
said,
you
know,
not
only
is
it
a
lot
of
information,
but
sometimes
it's
really
complex
information
and
so
breaking
it
down
and
making
it
understandable
is
equally
as
important,
rather
than
just
taking
it
out.
So
we
can
certainly
bring
that
back
to
you
and
gather
some
thoughts.
Once
we
get
maybe
a
draft,
we
can
come
back
and
say:
hey.
Do
you
think
we
got
this
right
and-
and
let
you
guys
comment
on
that
because
it's
going
to
be
important,
especially
as
we
are
in
these
difficult
times.
M
M
Forward
to
maybe
having
a
group
discussion
or,
however,
you
choose
to
proceed
with
that.
B
I
think
it's
a
good
idea.
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
so
september
16th
is
the
next
meeting
I
will.
There
are
I'll.
Tell
you
the
I
don't
know
if
it's
good
news
or
bad
news
at
present,
I'm
hoping
to
be
out
there.
I
would
love
to
be
there
for
in
person.
Even
if
I'm,
the
only
one
sitting
with
andrea
in
a
room
and
the
big
asterisk
is
what
in
the
world
is
delta,
is
a
delta
variant
going
to
do
so.
We
will
not
do
anything
silly,
but
we
have
been.
B
We
tried
we
wanted.
I
I
wanted
the
city
originally
wanted
me
to
be
out
there
to
meet
with
you
folks
in
person.
If
possible,
now
didn't
work
in
august
we
were
planning
on
september.
We
will
not
be
stupid
if
it
doesn't
make
sense,
we
won't
do
it,
but
I
would
love
to
get
back
and
and
start
doing,
meetings
in
person
and
are
planning
on
that
for
next
month
unless,
unless
it's
an
unwise
thing
to
do
for
a
public
health
situation,
so
thanks.
A
All
right
well
thank
everybody
for
attending
and
for
all
of
your
great
comments.
As
always,
we
appreciate
you.
I
will
be
sending
out
minutes
probably
sometime
tomorrow
morning.
We
will
go
ahead
and
attach
a
survey
for
you
so
that
you
can
go
ahead
and
submit
any
comments
that
might
come
to
you
overnight
or,
as
they
might
pop
up
over
the
next
few
days.
We
always
keep
that
open
for
about
two
weeks.