►
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.
C
There
we
go
that
was
unfortunate.
I
apologize
good
afternoon
today
is
one
of
our
regularly
scheduled
citywide
advisory
committee
meetings.
So
I
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
get
us
kicked
off.
This
item
will
be
both
a
hybrid
event,
so
it
is
available
virtually
as
well
as
in
person.
We
do
have
two
individuals
in
boise
city
hall
as
part
of
the
citywide
advisory
committee.
Oh
three
and
several
of
us
virtually
and
then
we
do
have
a
couple
of
individuals
that
were
unable
to
attend
today,
but
they're
going
to
catch
up
via
the
youtube.
C
We
also
have
four
meeting
members
from
the
public
that
are
also
here
to
join
us,
so
we
may
hear
from
them
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
so
we
just
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
get
kicked
off
and,
of
course
welcome
you.
Last
week
we
had,
or
last
month
we
had
the
opportunity
to
kick
off
the
city's
vision
with
some
of
our
goals
and
some
pivots
that
we
have
taken
as
a
result
of
our
community
outreach
that
took
place
as
part
of
module,
1
and
module
2..
C
C
D
Should
I
use
this,
I
should
thank
you,
andrea
and
I'll,
just
start
by
again
thanking
everybody
on
the
committee
for
continuing
to
work
through
this
zoning
rewrite
process
which
is
such
an
important
one
and
really
greatly
appreciate
the
time
you're
giving
to
this
and
emotion
you're,
giving
to
it
and
everything.
So
thank
you.
D
Today's
agenda
really
is,
is
just
about
a
couple
of
specific
items
which
have
come
up
that
we
want
to
talk
about
so
the
first
one
relates
to
kind
of
housing,
diversity
in
single-family,
neighborhoods
and
I'll
speak
to
that
and
go
through
an
idea
we
had
after
your
last
meeting
to
for
you
all
to
consider
and
for
the
public
to
consider.
D
So
that's
one
topic
for
today.
The
second
topic
is
related
to
the
regulations,
as
they
relate
to
shelters
in
the
city
which
have
been
a
discussion
item
among
this
group
and
within
the
community,
of
course,
to
a
large
degree,
and
so
we
have
that
item
here
today
and
then
I
think
the
third
piece
of
the
agenda
really
is
around
where
we
go
next
in
terms
of
public
process
and
public
meetings,
which
will
be
coming
up
pretty
soon.
So
I'm
going
to
lead
us
through
this
first
discussion.
D
D
We're
seeking
to
build
and
those
kind
of
framework
statements
around
how
we're
trying
to
take
the
city
where
we're
trying
to
take
the
city
have
to
do
with
having
a
great
variety
of
neighborhoods,
acknowledging
that
welcoming
that
protecting
that
and
enhancing
that
directing
development
where
there
is
planned
public
and
where
there's
public
investment
or
public
services
and
infrastructure
now
or
where
there's
planned
public
investment
really
thinking
through
how,
in
everything
we're
doing
we're
seeking
to
in
in
a
fundamental
way,
design
the
regulations
such
that
we're
producing,
affordability
and
and
and
we're
ensuring
more
sustainable
practices
are
used
and
how
we
build
the
city
and
then
the
last
one.
D
Is
that
we're
being
protective
of
certain
places
and
we're
getting
clear
that
we
don't
intend
to
develop
everywhere?
That
nature
is
a
critical
thing
and
that
relationship
between
nature
and
urban
and
boise
is
something
that
makes
the
city
what
it
is.
So
we've
got
to
be
careful
about
that,
so
the
next
slide.
This
is
getting
into
again
what
I
mentioned
thinking
through
ideas
related
to
how
we
again
within
the
context
of
what
you
heard
last
month.
Are
there
ways
we
could?
D
We
could,
I
would
put
it:
are
there
ways
that
we
could,
frankly,
more
surgically
and
more
practically
enable
some
diversity
of
housing,
type
types
and
single
family?
And
so
the
question
here
on
the
top
of
the
screen,
of
course,
is
there?
Is
there
a
way
within
the
direction
that
we're
now
taking
to
still
allow
for
some
small
scale,
diversity
of
housing,
types
in
our
single
family
neighbor?
D
It's
a
great
question,
and
and
and
and
in
furtherance
of
these
other
goals,
not
just
the
housing
diversity,
but
the
other
things
that
we
talked
about
in
the
last
slide.
So
so
what
I'm
presenting
today
is
an
idea
related
to
that
and
so
we're
interested
in
discussing
it
with
you
and
then
with
the
community
as
we
go
out
into
more
public
meetings.
D
So
in
this
particular
case,
as
you
remember
from
last
time,
we're
saying
that
we
would
keep
the
single
family
zones
that
we
have
in
the
city
that
in
the
last
round,
we
were
proposing
to
consolidate
the
three
into
two
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
so
we're
stepping
back
and
we're
keeping
the
r
one
eight
a
b
and
c
in
this
proposal.
So
in
this
case
we're
saying
this
proposal
is
again
looking
for
a
more
surgical,
practical
way
to
do
this,
potentially
within
the
r1b
and
r1c
zones.
D
Could
we
have
a
a
provision
within
the
ordinance
which
permits
a
diversity
of
housing
types
on
particular
lots?
Provided
you
meet
certain
specific
standards
and
I'm
going
to
go
through
those
and
explain
what
we
were
thinking
they
would
be
here.
They
are
so
among
the
things
that
we've
been
talking
about
is
again
the
relationship
between
housing
and
transportation.
D
You
know
that
we
shouldn't
be
thinking
of
these
things
independently,
but
where
we're
trying
to
get
more
density
and
we're
trying
to
get
people
potentially
that
that
ideally
wouldn't
have
to
drive
so
much
or
even
own
a
car
we've
got
to
take
into
account
the
transportation
aspect
of
that
we
can't
think
about
them
independently.
So
what
we're
thinking
is
that
if
in
the
r1
and
our
r1a
or
r1b
and
r1c
districts
that,
if
you
met
these
criterias
you'd,
be
available
to
do
some
some
some
diversity
of
housing
types.
D
So
if
you're
within
300
feet
of
a
collector
or
minor
arterial
or
within
a
quarter
mile
of
a
property
zone
mx3
last
time
we
went
through
the
mx-3
that
would
be
the
zone.
That's
that's
applied
to
trans
the
the
transit
corridors
in
the
city,
so
this
would
be
the
corridors
of
state
street,
fairview
and
vista.
D
So
you
remember
in
our
reshaping
the
mx
zones
to
be
commensurate
with
transit,
accessibility
and
infrastructure,
we're
proposing
this
mx3.
So
this
is
saying
that,
if
you're
in
these
single-family
zones
and
you're
within
a
block
or
300
feet
of
a
collector
or
minor
arterial
or
within
a
quarter
mile
of
the
property
zone,
mx3,
then
second,
if
you're,
if
you
have
alley
access
or
you
can
park
to
the
rear
of
the
building,
that's
the
second
criteria.
D
The
next
criteria
would
be
that
europe,
it's
a
vacant
lot
or
it's
a
lot
where
the
improvement
value
is
a
relatively
small
percentage
of
the
overall
value
of
the
property.
The
reason
for
this
particular
provision
is
just
getting
to
the
issue
that
we've
heard
from
so
many
that
we
don't
want
to
create
regulations
that
result
in
the
destruction
of
existing
structures
or
in
particular,
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing,
for
instance,
where
we
have
it.
D
So
we
don't
want
to
inadvertently,
encourage
that
here
now
one
addition
to
this
particular
criteria
that
I'd
like
for
you
to
consider
that
we've
been
talking
about
and
since
we've
drafted
this,
for
you
is
another
aspect
of
this-
that
could
be
helpful,
would
be
you're
a
vacant
lot.
The
improvements
are
a
small
percentage
of
the
value
of
the
property
or,
if
you're,
going
to
use
the
existing
structure
as
part
of
the
overall
development
of
the
lot
so
say
you
were
going
to
build
four
units
on
the
lot.
D
You
use
the
existing
structure
and
put
two
units
in
those,
and
then
you
build
a
second
structure
that
has
two
you
would
qualify
for
that
as
well.
So
so
this
one
is
trying
to
get
at.
You
know
some
of
the
issues
we
heard
publicly
that
people
are
concerned
about,
and
then
the
other
criteria
is
that
you
haven't
had
an
approved
demolition
permit
within
the
city
in
the
last
three
years
again
trying
to
protect
ourselves
against
people
demolishing
structures
just
so
they
can
build.
D
You
know
multiple
units
on
them,
so
so
this
proposal
again
be
more
surgical.
Perhaps
more
practical
is,
if
you
have
a
lot
within
those
zones
that
meets
these
criteria,
then
you
would
be
eligible
for
this
and
then
so
what
would
you
be
eligible
for?
You
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
So
this
is
what
would
define
what
you
then
could
build.
If
you
met
those
criteria
you
get
you
get
up
to.
You
can
build
by
right
up
to
four
units
on
the
on
the
site
period.
D
D
You
can
go
above
that
you
can
go
above
eight
and
go
nine
to
twelve
and
under
those
circumstances
you
have
to
have
two
units
dedicated
to
affordability.
Now
I
I
do
think
that,
to
a
larger
degree,
what
would
happen
in
these
cases?
You
you
get
a
level
of
affordability
with
all
of
the
units,
probably
because
you're
going
to
be
they're
going
to
be
smaller
units.
D
You
know
they're
just
going
to
in
and
of
themselves
be
more
affordable
than
what
you
otherwise
would
have
had,
but
we're
saying
once
you
go
above
four
you're
going
to
have
to
dedicate
some
to
affordability.
So
the
one
other
thing
I'll
mention
about
this
is
that
what
where
this
is
a
draft?
Obviously
just
for
discussion,
but
we're
saying
if
once
you
get
above
four,
you
meet
your
parking
requirements,
as
you
always
would
up
to
four
units.
D
Once
you
go
above
four,
you
get
a
fifty
percent
reduction
in
the
parking
that
you're
required
to
provide.
So
this
is
a
this
is
just
something
to
discuss
and
think
about
and
talk
about
within
the
community.
But
the
thing
for
me
about
it
is:
you
know
where
we
were
headed
before
we
were
saying
we're
going
to
consolidate
the
single-family
zones
and
they're
all
going
to
allow
four
units
on
every
lot.
D
D
So
in
thinking
about
as
a
practical
matter
where
these
properties
would
be,
you
know
it's
got
to
be
on
a
main
road,
probably
within
a
neighborhood,
because
it's
got
to
be
a
collector
or
a
minor
arterial.
So
it's
on
the
main
road
in
that
area
or
it's
within
you
know
a
short
walk
of
those
transit
corridors.
D
You
know
you,
you
have
to
have
a
minimum
frontage
you
have
to.
We
want
to
be
protective
of
existing
structures
and
all
these
kinds
of
things
so
we're
baking
in
that
they're
protected
in
this
criteria
through
the
demolition
requirement,
as
it
relates
to
those
permits
through
the
stuff
related
to
vacant
lot
or
you
know,
and
so
forth.
So
anyway,
this
was
a.
D
E
F
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
clear
on
the
terms,
because
mx3
is
the
new
zone.
So
what
is
that
equivalent
to
the
either
the
current
zone
or
we
had
the
middle
zone?
Is
it
like
an
mxa?
What
would
that
be?
Well.
D
The
mx3
just
to
reminder
it
only
applies
to
state
fairview
and
vista,
okay
and
and
the
mx3
would
be.
I
think
it
was
within
an
eighth
of
a
mile
or
something
of
of
those
streets,
so
those
streets
were
chosen
because
they're,
where
we
have
the
best
transit
service
and
where
we
expect
transit
service
to
only
be
enhanced
over
time.
So
we
wanted
a
little
bit
more
density
and
height
in
those
particular
areas.
D
G
Yeah,
I
can
do
that
and
just
so
location-wise,
so
it's
any
commercial
district
that
was
on
state
vista
fairview.
We
also
picked
up
pathway
corridors,
so
any
commercial
district
on
federal
way,
okay
and
then
there's
very
little
of
this,
but
on
the
green
belt,
as
well
as
community
activity
center,
so
very
small
amounts
of
the
community
activity
centers
like
near
the
mall,
so
things
like
that
and
those
standards.
I
could
show
it,
but
it's
60
feet
so
mxa
is
60
feet
and
it
has
specific
design
requirements
to
support
walkability
and
transit.
G
So
much
wider
sidewalks
the
uses
their
support
of
more
active
use.
So
no
car
washes
no.
So
it's
places
people
want
to.
F
G
Should
have
printed
out
maybe
like
a
cheat
sheet
for
you
all.
So
maybe
next
time
we
will
r1b
is
we're
actually
not
proposing
any
changes
to
r1b.
So
if
you're
in
r1b
now
you'll
be
in
r1b
and
it's
the
same
density
requirement,
which
is
4.8
and
then
9
000
square
foot
minimum
lot
size,
so
those
would
stay
the
same
r1c.
We
are
doing
smaller
lot
sizes
up
to
3,
500
square
feet
and
I
think
it's
12.1
or
just
12
12.,
just
12
units
per
acre.
C
And
kelly,
to
give
you
an
idea
of
how
that
disperses
throughout
the
city
of
boise,
we
have
6.32
of
our
total
land
area
in
the
city
of
boise,
that
zoned,
r1b
and
28.76
of
our
total
land
area,
which
is
r1c.
C
H
First
of
all,
thank
you
to
staff
like
a
huge
thank
you
for
getting
that
turned
around
so
quickly.
You
guys
addressed
one
of
our
comments
from
the
last
meeting.
It's
amazing
that
you
got
this
much
done
on
this
particular
portion
of
the
code,
and
I
love
it
that
it
addresses
the
missing
middle
question.
H
One
of
those
first
questions
that
we
had
when
we
started
this
endeavor
and
it's
one
of
those
elements
really
that
we
do
need
to
take
special
attention
with,
because
it
is
the
way
that
boise
was
traditionally
developed
before
there
was
a
zoning
code,
many
of
our
most
popular
you
know
highly
desirable.
Neighborhoods
really
were
developed
along
these
same
building
models,
these
housing
types,
and
so
it's.
I
love
that
it's
in
the
code
now
this
is
wonderful.
H
It's
also
a
really
great
way
for
us
to
try
to
achieve
that.
Naturally
occurring
affordability.
When
we
talk
about
adus
and
tiny
homes,
which
I've
been
kind
of
focusing
on
for
the
last
few
years,
they're
so
disproportionately
expensive
to
build
when
they're
detached
or
when
they're
a
single
structure,
a
single
project
when
you
take
the
same
type
of
the
same
housing,
type,
the
same
kind
of
design
and
you
combine
them
together
into
four
plexes
and
small.
You
know
neighborhood
multiplexes.
H
You
have
the
ability
to
take
advantage
of
the
economy
of
scale
with
projects
like
that
and
if
they
can
meet
the
neighborhood,
where
the
neighborhood
already
is,
and
they
obey
the
laws
of
the
neighborhood.
You
have
this
really
great
overlap
of
all
of
these
interests
that
can
kind
of
come
together,
beautifully
kind
of
like
the
way
design
is
supposed
to
work
right.
H
So
I
really
like
that-
and
I
just
have
a
couple
of
questions
like
clarifying
questions
and
one
of
the
first
one
really
is
the
proximity
requirement,
so
within
300
feet
of
a
collector
road,
one
of
the
challenges
that
I've
had
and
I
think,
a
lot
of
other
small
builders,
local
builders
and
homeowners
that
have
wanted
to
do.
Projects
within
like
the
housing
density,
bonus
and
and
others
have
had
a
hard
time
finding
what
the
status
of
their
nearby
road
was.
H
So
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
plan
for
kind
of
a
real-time
accessible
map
that
would
show
us
what
our
arterials
and
what
the
collectors
are.
I
don't
know
if
that's
boise
city
determines
that
or
if
that's
achd,
and
how
that
would
work
between
the
two
departments
but
having
access
to
that
real
time
would
be
really.
H
C
Just
gonna
pause,
I
do
so.
The
community
planning
association
makes
those
designations
and
achd
has
it
available
on
their
website,
but
our
gis
system,
through
the
city
of
boise,
also
has
that
available
to
you.
So.
H
Awesome
solve
the
problem
in
30
seconds
or
less.
Thank
you.
No.
I
just
didn't
notice
that
that
tab
in
there
when
it
appeared
so
the
average
setback,
the
average
kind
of
adjacent
or
neighborhood
setback.
H
I
think
the
only
thing
I
would
say
to
that
really
is
just
be
mindful
of
the
fact
that
many
of
our
r1b
r1c
have
all
a
lot
of
non-conforming
buildings
that
are
right
up
against
the
zero
lot
line.
So
we
would
probably
just
need
to
make
sure
that
that
was
a
that
was
an
exception
in
the
code.
If,
if
we
wanted
to
alleviate
any
kind
of
confusion
with
those
and
then
is
there
a
reason
that
it
is
average
and
not
just
going
by
the
rules
of
the
zone,
r1br1c.
D
D
And
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
had
any
thoughts
about
that,
but
on
our
side,
but
but
that's
what
I
was
thinking
is
this
related
to
the
structure,
not
the
underlying
zoning
setback,
because
we're
trying.
Basically
the
purpose
of
this
is
such
that,
if
you're
building
in
this
way,
you're
doing
it
in
a
way
that's
compatible
with
your
neighbors.
I
mean,
in
terms
of
you
know
how
much
of
the
lot
you're
occupying
how
much
space,
you're,
leaving
and
so
forth.
So
rather
than
the
zoning
district
requirement.
G
I
have
a
true
question
because
this
actually
happened
on
my
block.
I
think
they've
made
my
whoever
developed
my
house
and
five
other
houses.
At
the
exact
same
time.
G
So
and
now
now
five
of
our
houses
are,
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
difference
or
not,
but
I
can
see
both
ways
are
confused.
Are
so
maybe
it's
a
percentage
it's
an
average
up
to
if
you're,
what
you're
redeveloping
is
greater
than
half
of
the
block,
then
it
doesn't
apply
or
something.
C
H
Yeah,
that's
fair!
Thank
you
yeah!
I
just
it
comes
up
all
the
time,
almost
every
property
I
do
in
an
r1c
there's
a
non-conforming
garage
or
an
old
edition.
That's
right!
You
know
non-conforming
on
the
side.
Sometimes
it
is
the
front
but
and
then
r1b
we
have
just
tons
of
barns
that
are
just
built,
haphazard
in
the
backyard
somewhere,
and
so,
if
we're,
if
we're
averaging
those,
I
think
that
might
end
up
with
some
issues
but
yeah.
Thank
you
for
workshopping
that
the
demo
permit
just
a
quick
question
about
that.
H
Does
the
demo
permit
apply
to
the
lot
or
the
owner
so
are
we?
Are
we
controlling?
I
guess
the
history
of
the
lot.
Are
we
trying
to
maintain
some
integrity
there
on
on
the
lots
that
we
don't
have
any
we're
closing
loopholes
on
the
on
the
lot
history
for
demolition
or
is
it
owner
based.
D
Well,
the
intention
here
was
that
it
would
be
the
lot
yeah,
because
we're
not
we
just
want
to
you
know,
protect
against
a
regulation
resulting
in
the
destruction
of
an
existing
house,
so
yeah,
and
it
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
the
owner.
It
does
has
to
do
with
that
lot
and
that
that
house,
okay.
H
Yeah,
thank
you,
I
think
the
other
ones
we
kind
of
addressed.
I
just
had
a
couple
of
questions
really
about
you
know
with
the
map
and
and
the
proximity
requirement
for
being
near
a
collector
or
an
arterial
again,
if
there's
time
for
the
staff
or
maybe
that's
on
us
or
someone
else
to
kind
of
go
through.
That
and
kind
of
you
know
workshop
that
across
the
city
and
make
sure
that
we
don't
unintentionally
disqualify
too
many
of
our
parcels
doing
that.
H
If,
if
the
quarter
mile
or
the
300
feet
requirement
really
is
in
that
goldilocks
zone,
and
we
we
feel
good
about
that,
we
don't
disqualify
accidentally
too
many
parcels
by
doing
that,
it
would
be
good
to
know
just
just
so
that
you
know
once
it
gets
codified
that
we've
we've
looked
at
that
pretty
closely,
but
the
I
love
I
love
the
the
code
section
that
you
came
up
with
this
is
yeah
really
encouraging.
Thank
you.
C
J
Thanks
thanks
andrea
yeah,
like
byron,
said
thanks
for
the
quick
effort
on
this.
K
K
Well
I
don't
know
if
you
have
it
ready
for
screen
share,
but
I
think,
as
I
have
reflected
since
the
last
meeting
and
then
especially
with
the
presentation
that
that
we
just
had
when
you
look
at
boise
zoning
map
like
on
the
either
the
citizen
portal
or
yeah
this.
K
There
is
a
tremendous
amount
of
r1c
a
lot
of
yellow
and
I
think
the
disparity
or
differences
and
the
areas
that
are
zoned
r1c
are
pretty
severe.
I
mean
we're
talking
about
a
zone,
that's
applied
in
areas
like
mcmillan
and
cloverdale
in
the
same
zone
as
applied
in
parts
of
boise's
north
end,
the
bench
parts
of
the
east
end.
K
I
I
don't
want
to
assume,
but
I
think
many
of
us
would
easily
identify
that
the
environment
in
those
areas
is
quite
a
bit
different
from
an
infrastructure
standpoint
from
a
pattern
standpoint,
and
so
my
question
is:
if
this
new
model
could
respond
to
that
in
a
way
to
where
there's,
not
the
series
of
requirements
that
we
just
went
over
for
those
areas
that
I
think
are
more
inclined
to
accept
and
integrate
projects
like
we're
talking
about
because
they
have
the
alley
access,
naturally,
because
they
have
proximity
to
downtown
or
other
major
areas
of
employment,
and
I
don't
want
to
beat
the
problem
with
the
euclidean
hammer.
K
But
you
know
one
way
of
thinking
about.
That
is
the
same
way
that
you
really
admirably,
I
think,
address
the
mixed
use
zone
as
the
provision
of
an
additional
zone,
or
in
this
case
potentially
some
again.
I
don't
this,
isn't
I
don't
think
the
perfect
solution,
but
some
type
of
urban
overlay
for
r1c
that
again
responds
to
that
really
stark
difference
that
we
have
in
that
zone
across
the
city
limits.
K
D
D
We
can't
do
that
because
there's
quite
a
few
r1c
neighborhoods
that
don't
have
alleys
predominantly
so,
let's
permit
it
anywhere,
provided
you
can.
You
can
put
the
parking
in
the
rear,
that's
the
main
issue,
and
in
cases
where
you
don't
have
alleys,
you
would
have
a
single
drive
out
to
the
road.
So
so
I'm
not
you
know
the
your
point
is
a
great
one
about
the
the
variety
of
neighborhoods
within
this
r1c
zone.
D
I
do
think,
however,
that
this
provision
would
address
all
of
those
neighborhoods.
The
design
related
to
the
structures
would
be
different
because
the
nature
of
the
structures
within
these
neighborhoods,
given
the
era
within
which
they
were
built,
is
quite
different,
so
the
you
so
you've
got
an
architectural
issue
there,
but,
but
anyway,
that's
that's.
My
only
response
to
this.
K
Well,
thanks
for
that
tim,
I
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
do
need
a
little
bit
more
time
to
let
this
absolutely
marinate
and
consider
more
if
there
there
might
be
an
opportunity
to-
and
I
agree
you
know-
you're
leaving
the
door
cracked
open
for
this
essentially
across
the
entire
city,
by
allowing
an
r1c.
K
My
question
is
just
more
maybe
in
along
the
lines
of
is,
are
all
of
those
requirements
needed
in
certain
areas
where
I
think
they're
more
inclined
to
support
that
capacity
of
housing
just
by
their
existing
pattern
or
proximity
to
place.
So
thank
you.
I
just
need
to
marinate
on
it.
Some
more.
H
H
Certainly
everyone
in
the
design
community,
that's
tried
to
reconcile
the
euclidean
zoning
with
the
different
development
patterns
that
have
happened
in
boise,
but
you
know,
boise
is
not
the
only
city
where
this
has
happened
and
if
we
want
to
just
bluntly
divide
the
two
development
patterns
into
two
and
call
one
of
them
kind
of
grid
style
development
which
you
see
in
the
north
end
and
then
suburban
development,
which
you
would
see
per
your
example
by
macmillan.
H
I
think
the
one
requirement
putting
my
architect
hat
on
really
quick
and,
as
I
was
going
through
the
case
studies
on
my
own,
just
sort
of
looking
at
what
kind
of
small
neighborhood
scaled
multi-family
would
work
in
a
suburban
environment.
I
think
parking
in
the
rear
is
a
very
difficult
requirement
to
hit,
but
one
one
element
or
one
fact,
of
suburban
development
that
works
in
our
favor
are
wider
lot
sizes.
H
That
gives
us
a
little
bit
more
room
for
that
driveway
to
get
all
the
way
to
the
back
and
certainly
corner
lots,
have
a
huge
advantage
for
this
type
of
multi
neighborhood
scale,
multi-family
development
too,
because
you
have
the
ability
to
bring
not
quite
alley
access,
but
access
towards
the
rear
of
a
corner
property.
So
those
two
factors
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
and
it
might
not
be
perfect,
but
you
know
just
kind
of
going
down
that
road
myself
a
little
bit.
H
That's
where
I
landed,
and
I
I
think
there
are
quite
a
few.
You
know,
building
types
that
we
could
make
work
there,
but
with
a
adjustment
of
any
other
kind
of
requirement
on
parking
location.
I
think
that
would
be
you
know,
staff's
already,
really
busy.
I'm
sure,
but
that's
something
that
we
could
discuss
maybe
is
is
if
there
are
some
fine-tuning
aspects
to
that
requirement,
that
would
that
would
benefit
the
suburban
style
lot,
possibly
but
yeah.
Thanks
for
bringing
that
up.
C
L
Okay,
good
yeah,
thanks
for
getting
to
those
of
us
out
here
on
the
internet
and
let's
see
I
have
some
comments
and
some
questions.
First
of
all,
I
I
guess
I
I
like
the
attempt
to,
I
guess-
have
a
have
a
more
specific
and
kind
of
algorithmic
approach.
L
So
I
I
like
that
in
general
and
I
think
it's
it's
a
movement
in
a
good
direction.
I
also
like
the
the
mandate
of
requiring
affordable
units
if
you're
gonna
get
to
higher
usages
there,
but
let's
see
so
I
heard
so.
You
know
again-
and
this
will
be
with
my
perspective,
from
the
edges
of
the
city,
where
we
may
have
collector
roads
that
don't
have
sidewalks
and,
of
course
this
is
just
an
achd
designation.
It
doesn't
necessarily
transmit
to
kind
of
realities
on
the
ground.
What
how.
B
L
Are
designated
by
achd
versus
walkability
connectivity,
etc?
L
I
think,
especially
as
you
get
out
towards
the
edges
of
boise,
probably
southwest,
especially
so
that
I
I
think
I
would
be
curious
about
a
map,
but
I
think
almost
all
of
northwest
boise
would
be
within
these
requirements
in
terms
of
the
distance
from
various
road
types
or
zone
types.
L
That
might
be
a
little
bit
of
exaggeration,
but
I
bet,
but
I
bet
75
of
my
neighborhood
would
be,
and
so
then
you
know
is
this
same
level
of
kind
of
intensity?
Is
it
appropriate
for
areas
that
are
on
the
edges
tim
mentioned
that
was
designed
for
infill
and
again,
I'm
not
sure
that
we
have
a
definition
of
infill
still.
L
So
I
I
would
like
to
hear
one
if
we
do,
but
you
know
in
my
neighborhood
and
southwest
boise,
and
maybe
not
so
much
west
boise
anymore,
we'll
get
annex
annexations
in
from
developers
large
areas,
you
know
50
acres,
100,
acres
or
whatever,
and
would
I
guess
so
first
of
all,
is
this
intended
to
apply
to
those
kind
of
large
developments?
Is
this
capped
at
9
to
12
units,
or
could
it
be
kind
of
aggregated
and
bunched,
so
you
could
end
up
with
a
large
homogeneous.
L
You
know
rent
rental,
neighborhood
or
development,
because
that's
the
trend
now
with
these
big
new
developments
that
kind
of
takes
advantage
of
of
these
bonuses.
L
I
think
if
it's
kept
to
the
smaller
and
truly
infill
lots,
I
think
that's
that's
a
I.
I
hope
that's
how
it's
intended
and
I
think
that
would
be
assuaged.
Some
of
my
concerns
about
kind
of
using
it
as
a
way
to
kind
of
facilitate
sprawl
on
the
edges.
Part
of
the
issue
there
is
that
25,
I'm
curious
how
you
came
up
with
the
25
of
the
value,
because
it
reminds
me
of
the
the
areas
of
change
in
our
comp
plan
where
you
know
we
look
at
the
ratio
of
built
value
over.
L
L
As
a
as
a
means
for
catalyzing
that
kind
of
development,
so
that
25
value-
I
think
you
know
so
much
of
the
kind
traditional
little
farmstead
that
has
been
divided,
still
has
a
house
most
of
those.
I'm
thinking
will
be
fall
under
that
category.
If
they
have,
you
know
a
half
acre
or
an
acre
of
land,
so
that's
kind
of
another
kind
of
destabilizing
factor
that
would
increase
kind
of
annexation
of
the
edge
and
destabilizing
the
edge,
which
I
think
is
a
problem
in
our
growth
patterns
out
in
these
areas.
L
So
I'm
curious
where
that
25
came
from
and
then
yeah
and
again
yeah.
What's
the
intent?
What's
the
maximum
size
of
this
could
could
a
developer
kind
of
easily
aggregate
up
a
bunch
of
parcels
to
do
this
on
on
a
big
scale.
So
that
would
be
one
of
my
concerns.
But
again
I
I
like
the
thoughts
towards
detail
and
trying
to
be
kind
of
specific
and
the
affordability
component.
So
thanks.
D
Okay,
thank
you
richard
for
that
question.
It's
a
great
question
and
it
will
help
us
clarify
this
in
the
ordinance
itself,
because
this
is
drafted
to
for
infill
conditions.
It's
not.
The
purpose
of
this
is
not
for
large
pieces
of
property
where
you're
building
a
new,
neighborhood
or
subdivision.
The
purpose
of
this
is
an
individual
lot.
D
You
know
that
you
have
in
an
existing
neighborhood,
so
we
need
to
clarify
that
as
to
the
applicability
of
this
as
it
relates
to
infill
versus
kind
of
greenfield
style
development
so
we'll
we
will
absolutely
do
that
and
with
regard
to
the
25
percent,
that
was
that's
not
there's
been
no
deep
scientific
analysis
of
this.
It
was
really
just
a
start
to
say
to
to
make
a
point
which
is
we're
we're
trying
to
protect.
You
know
existing
buildings
and
the
thought
was
should
that
provision
be
that
the
building,
whether
the
building's
habitable
or
not?
D
Maybe
it
should
be
that
we
ended
up
saying
hey
what
if
the
building
is
a
small
percentage
of
the
overall
value
of
the
property,
maybe
25
percent
isn't
the
right
number.
We
we
welcome
ideas.
You
have,
as
it
relates
to
how
to
address
that
issue
of
not
encouraging
the
the
demolition
of
buildings,
with
this
ordinance
so
certainly
open
to
ideas
as
to
whether
there's
a
different
percentage
or
even
another
approach
entirely.
G
And
just
to
add,
I
think
yeah
we're
trying
to
figure
out,
because
the
example
you
gave
richard
of
a
small
farmstead
on
an
acre
lot
likely
that
person
could
subdivide
anyway.
And
so,
how
can
we,
you
know,
tie
some
sort
of
functional
thing
to
at
least
enable
this
type
of
more
affordable
housing
or
tie
it
to
the
incentive.
M
Ryan,
if
you
want
to
go
ahead-
and
I
just
I
do
want
to
do
a
quick
time
check
too-
that
we
do
have
the
two
other
like
shelter
and
transportation
that
we
want
to
get
to.
So
just
so
we're
all
mindful
that,
but
please
go
ahead.
You
have
time.
I
First
of
all,
I
just
wanted
to
thank
this
position
of,
of
I
hesitate
to
use
the
word
protection
because
that
triggers
people,
but
well
we've
stepped
back
and
we're
looking
at
preserving
residential,
as
is
but
in
something
you'd
said.
You
said
tim
that
one
word
that
stood
out
to
me
was
surgically.
I
You
know
working
with
these
neighborhoods.
What
does
that
mean?
Is
that?
Does
that
mean
that
there
might
be
an
overlay
type
of
deal,
or
are
you
going
to
leave
it
up
to
planning
and
zoning
to
work
through
specific
areas?
You
know
that
yeah,
that
kind.
D
Of
deal,
I
guess
first
in
terms
of
that
word,
surgical,
which
might
not
be
the
best
word
to
use,
but
but
the
reason
I
used
it
was
just
kind
of
to
contrast
it
with
where
we
were
headed
before
which
was
more
of
a
one-size-fits-all
across
the
whole
single-family
zone.
So
in
this
case
I
was
thinking
it's
another
word
might
be
more
precise.
You
know
that
it's
versus
a
a
blanket
approval.
D
It'd
be
according
to
the
code,
so
the
what
this
is
proposing
is
that
we
come
up
with
these
standards
that
would
be
permitted
within
these
two
zones:
r1
b
and
r1c.
So
that's
why
we
have
brought
these
specific
provisions
to
you,
so
we
could
discuss
them
and
we'd
like
to
get
to
a
set
of
conditions
under
which
this
would
be
applied.
You
know
that
that
then,
would
be
permitted
in
those
two
zones,
so
it
wouldn't
be
an
overlay.
It
would
just
be.
I
Yeah
just
quickly
I've
been
trying
to
think
about
how
to
make
affordable
housing
in
any
sense
really-
and
I
don't
know
much
about
it.
But
what
is
this?
What
is
the
thought
on
manufactured
homes
being
brought
in
because
it
is
probably
one
of
the
cheapest
forms
of
of
construction
right
now
is
to
bring
in
a
modular
unit
and
have
it
set
down.
C
C
All
right,
I
think
that
was
a
really
good
discussion
that
really
got
us
started
on
housing
forms
and
how
we
can
integrate
the
missing
middle
housing
into
our
neighborhoods
in
an
effective
way
that
really
integrates
so
they
become
part
of
the
neighborhood.
As
we
talk
about
who
does.
Oh
sheldon
has
a
question.
I
don't
see
it.
N
I
was
questioning
whether
or
not
I
should,
but
I
just
really
really
quick
points
on
the
last
issue
of
affordability
and
just
keep
it
here,
because
it's
I
wanted
to
reread
it
again,
but
one
of
the
things
I
heard
I
think
it
was
from
richard
in
regards
to
annexation
and-
and
I
I
get-
I
appreciate
that
this
wasn't
necessarily
intended
to
be
for
those
areas,
but
I
I'd
like
the
group
to
perhaps
consider
if
there
should
be
an
affordability
requirement
when
developers
are
coming
to
annex.
N
I
see
that
in
many
communities
that
I
work.
If
that
you
know
I
that
could
be
something
to
consider
which
would
require
a
little
bit
less
homogeneous
of
of
design,
perhaps
and
also
of
into
you,
know,
residents
one
point
and
then
in
regards
to
the
demolition,
can
you
go
back
so
I
like
this
idea
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
there
was
a
reason
why
it
doesn't
it's
not
more
specific
to
housing
in
particular.
N
In
other
words,
I
see
what
you're
trying
to
do,
and
I
just
I
don't
know
that
25
is
the
right
percentage,
but
I
just
wonder
why
there
wouldn't
be
a
third
bullet
that
says:
if
there's
existing,
you
know
habitable
right,
inhabitable
or
safe
and
stable,
or
whatever
words
multi-family
development
on
the
site.
N
It
it
wouldn't
be
applicable
unless
you
were
increasing
the
number
of
units,
so
in
other
words,
there's
a
duplex
on
the
site.
That
is,
you
know,
sort
of
naturally
occurring
developer,
couldn't
go
down
and
demolish
it,
because
there's
two
sort
of
affordable
units
there
that
are
being
used
and
they're
safe
and
stable
and
they
meet
code.
You
know
at
least
building
code.
You
know
from
that
perspective
and
a
developer
couldn't
go
in
and
take
those
down
unless
they
were
replacing
them.
D
Yeah
that's
helpful.
Thank
you
shellin.
This
is
tim.
The
we
did.
I
did
mention
in
reading
that
one
that
we
wanted
to
add
another
or,
if
you
have
this
condition,
and
that
condition
would
be
if
you
have
an
existing
structure,
that
if
you
utilize
that
existing
structure
and
the
new
development
that
you
would
qualify
for
this
as
well,
but
what
you're
talking
about
is
even
a
little
bit
different
than
that,
and
then
I
think
that's
very
helpful
that
again,
but
it
gets
to
the
same
point.
N
N
Specifically
right
and
then
did
I
understand
if
you
do
the
five
to
eight
units
or
you
do
the
nine
to
twelve
dwelling
units,
there
is
an
automatic
reduction
in
parking.
That's
coupled
with
your
affordability
clause.
N
N
Yeah,
I
think
this
is
interesting.
I'd
like
to
study
it
more,
but
I,
like
you
know,
I
think
it's
an
interesting
point.
I
think
it's
just
interesting
work
that
you
guys
have
done
so
that's
those
are.
N
Those
are
my
two
points
about
annexation,
more
sp,
more
specificity
and
the
demolition
you
know
in
in
addition
to
the
ones
that
you
maybe
have-
and
you
know
I
think,
I'd
like
to
look
at
the
80
ami
versus
the
120
percent
for
first
for
sale,
see
if
those
make
sense
in
my
brain
but
otherwise
great
work
thanks
thanks
for
listening.
C
Which
actually
provides
us
a
really
great
transition
when
we
talk
about
housing
forms
we
actually
have.
The
city's
mission
is
to
create
a
city
for
everyone,
and
so
really
looking
at
housing
options,
for
everyone
is
going
to
be
one
of
our
main
charges
and
multiple
meetings.
We've
had
the
topic
of
shelters
come
up,
and
I
know
that
the
citywide
advisory
committee
had
an
outside
meeting
and
we
wanted
to
allow
you
the
opportunity
to
share
what
you
guys
had
to
come
up
with
with
the
larger
group.
C
So
we
could
talk
about
that
as
a
discussion
as
well,
but
we
wanted
to
kind
of
outline
just
a
little
bit
about
what
we
are
thinking
and
how
we're
thinking
about
how
emergency
shelters
can
be
located
throughout
our
code,
and
you
know
most
of
that
will
be
located
in
the
zoning
code,
but
there's
some
other
locations
where
some
things
might
be
appropriate
as
well.
So
we've
actually
identified
three
major
considerations
for
us
to
take
a
look
at
and
we're
thinking
that
number
one
we
want
to
evaluate
the
process.
C
So
how
does
a
shelter
come
about
through
the
process?
And
so
are
they
required
to
have
a
pre-application
meeting
or
a
pre-design
meeting?
What
is
their?
What
does
the
process
look
like?
Who
evaluates
whether
a
shelter
is
appropriate
or
not,
and
and
then
ultimately
you
know
what
that
appeal
process
would
look
like,
and
so
a
lot
of
that's
going
to
be
found
in
module
3
that
we're
going
to
be
visiting
here
very
shortly,
but
as
we've
gone
through
modules,
1
and
module
2,
we
have
started
to
create
the
framework
for
that.
C
So
you're,
going
to
see
definitions
of
what
a
daytime
emergency
shelter
is
what
an
overnight
emergency
shelter
is
when
we
evaluate
the
use
table
as
well,
where
those
emergency
shelters
should
be
located
throughout
the
city
of
boise
and
then
also
those
objective
criteria.
So
is
there
you
specific
standards
that
might
be
appropriate
for
that
specific
land
use
as
we
evaluate
it
further,
and
so
we're
going
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
on
the
next
slide,
but
before
we
get
there,
we
also
think
that
there
might
be
an
appropriate
licensing
component.
C
That
falls
as
part
of
this,
and
so
we've
actually
have
two
different
other
examples
that
we
can
utilize
throughout
the
city
of
boise.
So
if
somebody
is
serving
alcoholic
beverages
on
a
sidewalk
cafe,
they
ultimately
have
to
have
an
alcohol
permit
to
do
that
and
there's
a
licensing
piece
that
actually
goes
with
that.
The
same
goes
for
child
care
facilities.
C
C
We're
also
looking
at
pursuing
a
good
neighbor
agreement,
and
if
you
followed
the
interfaith
application
there,
something
very
similar
was
required.
So
ultimately
it
is,
and
we
can
actually,
we
actually
have
somebody
from
housing
that
can
kind
of
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
what
that
means.
C
But
it
really
is
a
invitation
for
business
owners
and
surrounding
property
owners
to
to
communicate
with
the
shelter
so
that
they
have
a
direct
number
where
they
can
contact
them
in
the
event
that
they
have
questions.
They
have
concerns
those
type
of
things
so
that
there's
an
open
communication
line
that
is
there
and
then
really
talking
about
you
know
what
their
facility
looks
like
so
looking
at
those
some
of
those
objective
criteria
too:
we've
kind
of
bucketed
those
into
five
specific
components.
C
Looking
at
where
smoking
shelters
can
be
located
on
the
site,
so
specifically
20
feet
from
a
perimeter
property
line,
also
prohibiting
camping
on
the
property.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
if
an
individual
is
visiting
a
shelter
they're
using
it
in
the
appropriate
way
and
they're
staying
inside
the
shelter,
not
necessarily
in
the
parking
lot
and
then
evaluating
noise
during
certain
hours,
then
we
also
need
to
take
a
look
at
parking
because
that
can
really
restrict
what
can
happen.
C
C
Our
is
our
line
of
thinking
and
alignment
with
where
you
guys
are
looking,
and
then
I
guess
a
really
important
component
for
us
to
also
think
about
is
is
that
we
have
also
identified
that
this
should
be
an
administrative
approval.
So
if
you
meet
this
criteria
it
would
be
and
you're
in
the
appropriate
zone.
Then
you
would
be
approved
from
a
zoning
standpoint.
C
O
I
think
this
is
a
fabulous
start.
I
think
it's
really
well
well
thought
out
in
its
infancy,
if
you
will
and-
and
there
are
a
few
more
things
in
there-
that
I
think
should
be
evaluated
and
and
looked
at
the
maybe
the
the
maximum
bed
count
and
numbers
might
have
certain
triggers.
In
other
words,
maybe
at
anything
over
200
beds
has
a
different
level
of
review
or
something
of
that
nature.
O
But
I
I
think
the
administrative
aspect
of
this
is
is
huge
to
kind
of
address
the
challenges
that
that
exist
in
our
in
our
city
and
and
will
continue
to
exist
in
our
city
until
there's
some
type
of
equilibrium,
which
will
still
will
still
have
homelessness.
O
So
I
I'm
really
in
support
of
kind
of
going
down
this
direction
and
and
evaluating
using
the
site,
characteristics
and
the
design
guidelines.
I
I
would
say
we
should
be
looking
at
some
best
practices
that
that
exist
around
and
exist
in
the
in
in
other
states
as
as
well.
That
may
strengthen
this
a
little
bit
more
as
well
so
happy
to
throw
throw
in
some
energy
and
pulling
on
the
rope
with
everyone
else
to
get
this
to
the
right
location.
C
O
A
great
great
question,
andrea
as
I'm
as
I'm
looking
at
it,
we
kept
hearing
in
in
the
most
recent
series
of
public
hearings
that
best
practices
should
be
the
the
driving
factor,
and
we
certainly
don't
disagree
with
that.
Determining
what
the
best
practices
are
is
is
a
minefield
of
objectivity
and
so
stating
that
it's
34
square
feet
per
bed
and
designated
sleeping
areas
may
or
may
not
be
best
practices.
It
may
not
net
the
result.
O
It's
really
in
the
areas
that
are
communal
areas
that
you
want
to
make
sure,
there's
adequate
program,
space
and
adequate
square
footage
to
accommodate
the
the
numbers,
the
numbers
of
clients
that
would
be
utilizing
those
facilities,
the
other.
I
think
the
other
thing
that
I
kind
of
am
mulling
through
right
now
and
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
take
drew's
drew's
comment
that
I
need
to
it
needs
to
gestate
a
little
bit
in
my,
in
my
mind,
is
that
you
know
we
don't
we.
We
certainly
want.
J
O
This
a
a
series
of
criteria
that
are
achievable,
in
other
words,
that
that
they
they're
so
onerous
and
so
challenging
that
you
couldn't
achieve
them,
even
if
you
were,
if
even
if
you
had
the
perfect
scenario-
and
that's
that
goes
back
to
my
comment
about
the
square
footage
per
bed,
it's
really
the
square
footage.
O
The
collective
square
footage
for
program
uses
and
the
the
other
thing
that
popped
out
in
my
mind,
was
the
there's.
There's
a
number
of
homeless,
shelter,
models
that
range
from
10
to
20
beds,
to
400
beds,
and
what
we
found
was
depending
on
what
the
model
of
the
shelter
is.
O
If
it's
a
if
it's
a
24,
7
shelter
and
it
has
wrap
around
services
such
as
health,
mental
health
care,
physical
health
care,
counseling,
job
training,
education,
those
criteria
create
different,
I
think
different
opportunities
for
the
shelters
to
be
successful,
and
so
you
know
we
should
probably
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
semantics
of
an
emergency
shelter
versus
a
wraparound,
24,
7,
shelter
and
and
the
size.
Is
it
a?
Is
it
a
10
bed
shelter?
Is
it
a
we
kept?
O
O
You
know
the
numbers
have
to
be
a
little
bit
higher
before
you
can
get
st
house
and
st
lukes
and
terry
riley
to
commit
to
placing
in-house
shelter
or
in-house
services,
and
those
are
those
are
the
things
that
some
of
the
objective
zoning
criteria
we
may
want
to
expand
on.
F
Well
and
actually
annie
touched
on
one
of
the
questions
I
had,
which
is
what
defining
what
an
emergency
shelter
is.
I'm
on
right.
Okay,
because
you
know
in
in
throughout
the
west
end,
there
are
a
lot
of
temporary
emergency
shelters
where
you
know
when,
in
the
winter
time,
they're
open
they're
closed
at
the
other
time.
So
would
those
fall
under
this
criteria
and
it's
mostly
in
churches
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
that
that's
one
immediate
question
I
had.
F
F
It's
all
worked
beautifully,
it's
managed
beautifully.
I
was
thinking
about
city
light.
We
talked
about
the
structure
because
they
have
all
of
those
elements
with
the
exception
of
one
thing-
and
I
think
is
really
important-
is
the
intake
having
a
space
that's
protected
from
the
weather,
but
they're
both
buildings,
they
were
one
was
a
church
and
one
was
a
home.
F
So
there
really
isn't
an
outdoor
space
for
them,
so
there
are
times
especially
in
the
evening
when
they're
doing
their
check-in,
because
there's
a
kind
of
elaborate
process
they
have
to
go
to
to
check
in
where
there
are
folks
outside
and
on
the
sidewalk
and
so
forth.
So
I
think
that,
and
the
only
time
that's
ever
really
a
concern.
F
Our
neighborhood
is
because
there
are
lots
of
women
and
children
and
there's
a
lot
of
traffic
in
that
area,
so
they're
in
the
street
and
trying
to
cross
the
street
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
to
have
a
safe
space
for
them
to
do
that,
but
and
then
on
the
neighborhood
agreement.
So
that
would
go.
I
mean
that's
part
of
the
overall
process
prior
to
a
staff
approval
correct,
so
they've
gone
through
all
of
these
steps
before
so
they've
met
all
this
criteria.
F
G
Or
is
it
it's
a
condition
of
approval
and
then
they
can
get
their
certificate
of
occupancy
once
they
show
compliance.
G
P
So
casey
any
gender
pronouns
are
path
home
manager
in
housing,
community
development.
The
intention
what
we
found
is
a
good
neighbor
agreement
is
really
just
about
establishing
communication
lines
for
problem
solving
in
the
neighborhood,
and
those
conversations
have
not
resulted
in
productive
development
of
communication
pathways
or
adjustment
to
operational
procedural
plans,
while
there's
being
a
decision
made
in
another
body
in
city
government.
So
part
of
what
we're
positing
here
is
that
it
would
go
through
the
zoning
process,
which
has
objective
criteria
that
it
has
to
meet.
P
One
is
that
they
invite
business
owners
within
a
thousand
feet,
representatives
from
the
neighborhood
associations,
within
one
fourth
of
mile
and
at
minimum
two
representatives
that
have
real
property
within
a
thousand
feet
and
then
other
city
staff
that
they
find
applicable
so
think
emergency
departments,
whoever
and
then
the
second
one
is
that
that
good
neighbor
agreement
structure
has
a
provision
of
a
communication
line
which
is
a
phone
number
and
a
point
of
contact
for
them
to
respond
to
community
concerns.
And
then
what
is
their
minimum
process
for
responding
to
those
outside
of
that?
P
P
They
go
out
and
pursue
it,
and
then
their
certificate
of
occupancy
won't
be
issued
until
they
meet
compliance
with
the
minimum
things
that
we
feel
like.
We
can
objectively
say.
Yes,
they
did
perform
this
or
no,
they
didn't
perform.
That.
F
C
C
So
when
we
utilized
that
that
was
specifically
just
based
on
a
proposal
that
we
threw
out
there,
we
knew
that
that
was
going
to
evolve
over
time,
and
so
yes,
so
we
would
eliminate
that
and
say
that,
yes,
now
there
are
appropriate
locations
where
that
these
uses
should
be
located,
and
we've
identified
those
to
be
our
mixed-use
zones,
mx2,
3,
4
and
5,
and
then
utilizing
this
criteria
to
say
no
they're
appropriate.
And
so
at
this
point
we
have
recommended
that
up
to
300
units
be
administrative,
as
we
heard
andy
had
recommended
that.
C
C
You
know
we
tried
to
think
about.
You
know
what
is
interfaith
so,
just
as
an
example
they're
providing
200
beds
in
that
specific
location,
and
we
thought
well
what
happens
if
they
should
ever
have
a
need
to
expand.
You
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
giving
these
shelter
locations
the
opportunity
to
expand
in
the
future
if
those
needs
do
arise.
So.
H
Let's
pop
on
really
quick
and
talk
about
the
cac
social
meetup,
since
I
organized
it
and
brad
was
there
and
others.
We
were
really
cognizant
of
not
doing
any
business,
of
course
behind
the
scenes
outside
of
our
meeting
time.
So
really
what
it
was
was
a
good
opportunity
for
a
lot
of
us
who
didn't
have
a
lot
of
experience,
doing
shelter,
uses
and
and
going
through,
that
permitting
process
to
kind
of
fill
in
the
gaps
of
our
our
knowledge,
and
it
was
specifically
I'll
speak
for
myself.
H
The
300
foot
requirement
proximity
requirement
that
was
in
module,
1
and
2
was
kind
of
my
triggering
point.
I
wanted
to
kind
of
figure
out
whether
or
not
that
was
going
to
automatically
disqualify.
You
know
too
many
parcels
for
to
be
realistic,
and
so
the
proposed
changes
here
are
really
great
and
again
I'll.
Just
speak
for
myself.
H
I
really
like
seeing
the
granularity
of
breaking
apart
the
the
different
types
of
shelters
that
that's
a
great
sign,
and
I
know
all
of
you
are
spending
a
lot
of
time,
not
sleeping
and
working
on
these
changes.
So
I
really
appreciate
all
the
work
that
you've
put
into
that,
so
I
don't
have
any
other
comments
really.
H
I
think
it's
great
that
we
have
people
like
andy
erstad
in
our
committee,
that
have
specific
expertise
in
this
field
that
can
comment
more
specifically
to
these
requirements,
but
our
at
least
in
my
part,
the
social
meetup
was
really
helpful
for
us
to
kind
of
share
information
and
kind
of
get
on
the
same
speed
and
develop
an
understanding
of
what
type
of
knowledge
we
lacked
in
this
particular
field.
It's
kind
of
highly
specialized.
So
thank
you
for
all
your
work
on
this
too.
C
And
then,
before
we
capture
anybody
else's
comments,
and
we
do
have
some
chat
that's
going
on,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
is
aware
of
that.
So
shelin
has
noted
that
she
appreciates
andy's
comments.
Permanent
supportive
services
at
high
needs,
housing
sites
and
shelters
are
critical.
It
works
better
for
everyone,
but
it
only
works
if
we
allow
enough
units
to
pay
for
the
cost
of
those
services.
C
So
we
need
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
we
move
forward
I.e
allow
the
number
of
units
so
that
the
supportive
services
can
occur,
and
then
we
also
have
both
andy
and
roberta
concurring
with
that.
So
that's
a
good
base
for
us
and
then
we
do
have
richard
with
his
hand,
held
up
and
followed
by
andy.
L
Yes,
I
can
yeah
hear
me.
I
should
be
off
of
mute,
you're,
good,
okay,
thanks
yeah,
so
I
have
not
been.
I
wasn't
really
involved
with
in
the
interface,
but
I
did
follow
it
because
it's
in
our
larger
neighborhood-
and
so
I
you
know-
did
I'm
kind
of
aware
of
of
at
least
what
proponents
of
what
they
would
call
alternative.
L
Best
practices
discussed
a
lot
and
what
what
a
big
part
of
the
debates
were
about,
and
so
one
I
didn't
see
anything
here
about
any
requirements
for
service
providers,
so
I'll
just
kind
of
go
through
a
little
list
here
and
it
seems
important,
I
think,
having
these
out
on
the
edges
of
the
city
without
any
service
providers
would
be
questionable,
at
least,
although
of
course,
a
lot
of
people
might
prefer
that
they're
out
far
far
away
from
anything
else.
L
L
You
know
we
call
state
street
or
highway
44
through
northwest
boise,
for
example
a
best-in-class
transit
line,
but
there
are,
you
know
essentially
a
two-mile
stretch
to
our
neighborhood
without
a
single
bus
stop.
So
I
think
you
should
say:
transit
stops.
Transit
lines
are
very
vague,
so
then
I
didn't
see
much
about
sensitive
populations
and
and
protecting
those
are
we
concerned
about
schools.
L
Are
we
concerned
about
vulnerable
populations?
For
me
personally,
I
have
a
real
problem
with
the
idea
of
concentrating
these
in
areas
of
low
income,
and
I
think
that's
the
tendency
to
do
that
and
we've
already.
You
know
we
see
the
tendency
everywhere.
L
So
I
think
that
there
should
be
some
lower
income
protections
so
that
we
don't
you
know
that
these
are
can
only
occur
in
areas
of
higher.
You
know
medium
to
higher
incomes.
I
don't
like
the
idea
of
of
the
natural
tendency
to
segregate
cities
in
this
way
and
then
yeah
a
300
bed
wow.
L
Is
that
direct
the
direction
we
want
to
go?
I
understand
the
need
for
perhaps
having
a
few
shelters,
perhaps
one
or
a
couple
of
that
size,
but
do
we
really
want
to
encourage
that
model
by
everything
I
mean
frankly?
I
I
don't
think
so.
I
understand
that
in
certain
circumstances
and
in
certain
places
that
may
be
appropriate,
that
may
be
necessary
for
the
reasons
that
were
already
given,
but
what
a
huge
huge
impact
on
an
area-
and
that
gets
me
to
the
to
to
me.
L
The
breaking
thing
here
is
the
idea
that
this
should
just
be
administratively
approved.
Democracy
is
messy.
It's
you
know.
The
process
is
messy,
but
it's
necessary.
You
know,
having
you
know,
living
in
by
an
area
where
I
spent
a
year
of
my
life
fighting
a
waste
incinerator
that
was
just
administratively
approved
and
yet
was
going.
L
You
know
the
administrators
believed
that
it
was
going
to
be
a
zero
emission
project,
but
once
citizens
who
are
locked
out
of
the
process
by
the
way
started
looking
into
it
realized,
was
going
to
be
the
largest
point
source
emitter
of
mercury
in
the
state.
L
You
know
I
mean
these
are
the
things
that
happen
when
you
don't
involve
citizens
and
when
you
try
to
circumvent
the
the
messy
process-
and
I
understand
you
know,
democracy
and
process
is
when
it,
when
it's
a
project
that
I
support
or
when
it
when
you
support
it,
it
just
seems
unnecessary,
but
it's
necessary
and
and
so
for
me,
that's
the
real,
real
problem
here,
especially
when
we're
talking
about
you
know
big
big
projects
like
this
with
huge
impacts.
It
was
a
25
bed
unit.
L
C
L
L
Wouldn't
it
both
them
and
planning
and
zoning
in
a
meaningful
way
in
a
way
in
which
they
can
be
heard
early
in
the
process
so
that
they
can
influence,
bring
up
concerns
that
they
they
have
knowledge
that
they
have.
I
just
think
that's
critical
and
I
think
it's
critical,
even
you
know
I
find
in
in
projects
that
I
support,
because
we
don't.
Our
knowledge
is
not
perfect
when
it
comes
to
institutions
and
and
yes,
it
brings
in
the
messy
mess
and
the
and
the
unhappiness
and
and
political
pressure
etc.
L
C
And
then
we
actually
have
the
emergency
services
or
sorry
emergency
shelters,
and
so
those
are
actually
broken
out
into
two
separate
categories.
And
so
that
would
be
an
overnight
shelter
and
then
a
daytime
shelter.
An
overnight.
Shelter
is,
of
course,
where
we
are
having
individuals
stay
overnight,
and
let
me
see
if
I
can
find
that
facility
for
okay.
The
definition
is
a
facility
that
is
used
for
the
primary
purpose
of
providing
shelter
for
people
experiencing
homelessness,
up
to
24
hours
a
day
and
including
overnight
sleeping
facilities.
C
Then
we
also
have
the
daytime
shelter,
and
so
that
is
going
to
be
where
you're
not
staying
overnight,
and
that
is
specifically
identified
as
a
facility
that
offers
persons
experiencing
homelessness
a
place
to
rest
during
the
day
but
does
not
include
overnight.
Sleeping
facilities
accessory
uses
might
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
access
to
food,
seating
showers,
laundry,
restrooms
storage,
a
computer,
lab
phones,
fax,
a
mailing
address
and
places
to
accommodate
counseling
and
access
to
medical,
dental
and
legal
assistance.
C
C
Those
types
of
things
in
the
event
that
we
have
an
earthquake,
a
flooding
event,
those
types
of
things
and
so
and
hopefully
we'll
we
can
actually
provide
a
list
of
what
those
definitions
are
for
you,
so
that
you
have
an
understanding
of
how
we've
tried
to
break
those
up
up
a
little
bit
because
they
do
have
a
little
bit
different
component
to
them.
Oftentimes.
C
You
know,
like
valor
point,
you
know
those
have
leases
and
those
are
you
know
your
long-term
residents
shelters
are
on
an
as
needed
basis,
so
I
just
wanted
to
provide
that
as
a
little
bit
of
a
framework
for
you
as
well,
and
then
I
know,
casey
also
wants
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
licensing
as
well.
So
I
wanted
to
invite
him
up
right
after
we
hear
from
andy.
O
Thanks,
andrea,
I
richard,
I
think
you
hit
on
a
couple
things
that
I
was
going
to
talk
about.
So
thank
you.
I
don't
see
this
the
the
process
for
approving
as
an
administrative
approval
as
as
trampling
on
democracy.
O
I
think
it
I
think
it's
an
it's
a
process
and
any
part
of
the
zoning
ordinance
can
be
appealed
to
varying
bodies
within
within
the
city
from
planning
and
zoning
to
council,
and
so
I
don't
unless,
unless
there's
some
hidden
writing
in
here,
I
think
everything
that
that
we're
going
to
be
supporting
and
commenting
on
in
the
entire
zoning
ordinance
rewrite
has
has
the
ability
to
be
appealed
to
the
to
the
elected
body,
which
is
what
you
were
commenting
on.
So
I
think
I
think
we're
clear
on
that.
O
If
it
meets
all
the
criteria-
and
I
think
that's
one
of
the
real
big
sort
of
bars
that
have
to
be
achieved,
then
there
should
be.
I
believe
there
should
be
a
a
more
direct
path
and
again
at
any
time
there
can
be
an
appeal,
the
other,
the
other
thing
and
andrea.
Thank
you
for
going
over
the
definitions
of
the
of
the
different
shelter
types,
one
of
one
of
the
things
that
not
not
only
interfaith,
but
I
know,
city
lights
and
all
and
and
really
all
the
others.
O
If
there's
a
serious
weather,
condition
or
situation,
let's
say
winter
time
when
we
have
temperatures
dropping
below
10
degrees
or
zero,
which
which
does
happen.
O
O
O
So
I
I
still
think
this
is
a
great
start
and
I
think
it's
a
great
direction
and
starts
to
take
a
little
bit
of
the
challenge
away
from
from
the
from
the
process,
which
is
really
can
be
virtually
debilitating,
and
I
think
that
was
my
comment
earlier
was:
let's
make
sure
that
we're
not
making
all
of
the
requirements.
O
The
the
the
the
requirements
that
that
anyone
applying
for
a
permit
for
a
shelter
are,
are
achievable
requirements
and
not
inadvertently,
onerous
or
non-achievable,
which
then
says:
okay.
Well,
we
just
swiped
out
30
of
the
potential
locations
for
for
for
shelters,
so.
L
I
I'd
like
to
address
since
since
andy
commented
about
my
comments.
Could
I
have
just
a
moment
to
respond
to
some
of
that.
B
L
Yeah,
so
I
think
maybe
this
is
a
good
kind
of
prelude
to
moving
forward
towards
to
module
three.
I
I
will
andy
take.
I
I
will
disagree
quite
strongly
that
an
appeal
is
a
substitute
for
the
a
good
public
process.
The.
L
One
appeal
grounds
are:
are
narrowly
constrained,
I'm
only
parties
of
record,
although
in
this
case
perhaps
parties
record
be
different
because
there
wouldn't
be
parties
a
record.
But
you
know
appeals
are
just
they're
they're,
not
the
same
as
public
hearings
and
we've
seen,
in
my
opinion,
abusive
administrative
decisions
in
the
past
in
the
city
of
boise,
the
blue
valley
issue.
When
that
first
came
up
in
2018.
L
The
blue
valley
community
was
not
given
a
neighborhood
meeting
with
the
with
the
applicant
who
wanted
to
build
a
99
bay.
Diesel
terminal
center,
literally
120
feet
from
their
front
doors,
and
that
was
an
administrative
decision
not
to
give
require
a
public,
a
neighborhood
meeting
and
and
that
of
course,
then
yes,
they
could
appeal
and
they
did,
but
it's
a
very
onerous
process
and
as
we
move
towards
you
know,
discussing
module
three,
I
I
just
think
the
idea
that
appeal
is
a
substitute
for
a
robust
public
process.
P
Thanks
for
the
mike
again
just
on
andy,
in
particular
kind
of
to
your
point
in
some
of
the
other
discussion,
I
wanted
to
talk
about
like
where
best
practices
are
folded
in,
because
those
were
a
major
component
of
the
prior
discussion
and
if
you
actually
flip
back
to
the
last
screen
one
more
in
front
of
that
sorry,
I
know
almost
nothing
about
zoning
codes
and
what
was
really
helpful
yesterday
is
we
had
a
discussion
about
what
is
the
purpose
of
a
zoning
code
versus
what
would
the
purpose
of
licensing
be,
and
so,
when
we
were
looking
at
the
best
practices
that
came
from
40
plus
hours
of
community
engagement
on
what
shelter
should
look
like
just
in
the
hearing
process?
P
Notwithstanding
the
shelter
better
task
force,
we
looked
at
each
of
those
processes
and
decided.
Does
this
actually
live
in
zoning
because
it's
regulating
the
impact
of
the
property
on
properties
in
the
vicinity,
or
does
this
have
to
do
with
the
way
that
the
shelter
is
operating
internally
to
manage
behavior
and
different
work?
That's
happening
in
site,
shelter,
walls,
so
an
example
of
that
would
be
a
best
practice.
Is
that
shelters
should
be
designed
in
a
way
that's
informed
by
trauma-based
care,
and
what
that
means?
P
Is
you
design
a
shelter
to
provide
as
much
trauma-informed
design
components
that
limit
the
re-traumatization
of
people
who
are
staying
within
that
shelter
system?
And
there
are
like
physical
ways
to
do
that.
So
how
we
did
that
was
a
double
limiting
factor
on
the
size.
One
is
up
to
300
was
the
number
that
we
had
based
on
the
number
of
shelters
we
have
in
our
community
and
that
the
largest
one
is
just
shy
of
300,
which
is
boise
rescue
mission.
P
So
we
did
that
and
then
the
minimum
square
feet
per
bed
inside
of
a
designated
sleeping
area,
because
it's
demonstrated
that
if
you
can
give
people
enough
personal
space
that
if
they
do
have
a
behavioral
issue
that
they
have
place
to
self-isolate.
Even
if
it
is
in
a
single
room
but
enough
square
footage,
then
you
can
reduce
their
impact
on
other
people
within
the
facility
that
reduces
the
overall
chaos
within
the
shelter.
P
P
This
is
andy.
I
think,
where
a
lot
of
the
larger
components
of
best
practice
are
landing
either
in
terms
of
best
practices
for
shelter
operations
for
their
guests
and
or
public
safety.
So
there
are
kind
of
three
buckets
here,
general
required
information
which
I'll
let
you
all
read
through,
but
the
third
bullet
point.
There
is
alignment
with
emergency
shelter,
best
practices
which
may
include
low
barrier,
admittance
practices
and
a
housing
first
approach
among
others.
P
We
could
further
define
that
if
you
all
would
like
to
see
further
definition
and
likely,
we
would
base
those
on
the
stuff
that
came
out
of
the
better
shelter
task
force.
The
second
are
stand
rating
opera,
standard
operating
procedures
plan
and
the
third
is
emergency,
shelters,
building,
slash
facility
security
plan.
P
These
kind
of
we
put
in
two
different
buckets
because
standing
standard
operating
procedures
are
really
the
way
that
we
have
policies
and
procedures.
Internally
to
care
for
individuals,
and
then
a
security
plan
is
really
about
how
we
are
securing
the
building
and
there's
supposed
to
be
a
fourth
one
here.
But
the
last
kind
of
two
are
our
data
management
and
public
conduct
mitigation
plans
and
that's
where
they
really
spill
over
into
space
of
the
community
agreements
to
kind
of
adjust
operational
agreements
or
operating
procedures
at
the
shelter
based
on
community
feedback.
P
So
andy.
I
wanted
to
say
that
and
kind
of
demonstrate
how
those
two
things
really
work
together
and
the
reason
that
the
zoning
isn't
we
are
suggesting
or
had
suggested,
that
it
isn't
a
public
or
that
it
isn't
a
conditional
use
permit
is
because
council
and
regularly
people
and
city
leadership
don't
have
the
decision-making
criteria
established
and
it's
inappropriate
to
establish
some
of
those
conditions
as
part
of
code.
They
just
don't
fit
into
what
we're
trying
to
do,
and
you
heard
if
any
of
you
listen
to
those.
P
You
heard
a
lot
of
councils
strain
on.
It
seems
like
we're
trying
to
regulate
behavior
through
a
zoning
ordinance
which
is
really
about
land
use,
and
so
that's
where
we
split
those
two
things
kind
of
completely
and
there's
a
lot
more
work
to
do
in
defining
each
of
them
out,
but
that's
how
they
kind
of
work
together.
And
so,
if
any
of
you
have
feedback
on,
there
are
components
of
the
licensing
standard
that
actually
bleeds
more
into
impact
on
vicinity
properties.
P
That
would
be
helpful
feedback,
because
then
we
could
adjust
it
and
move
it
over
to
code
or
to
zoning,
and
then,
if
there's
anything
in
zoning,
that
you're
like
it
seems
like
you're,
really
trying
to
regulate
a
behavior
here
that
doesn't
have
a
substantiated
or
demonstrated
impact
on
surrounding
properties.
That
would
be
our
ability
to
then
move
that
over
to
licensing
and
figure
out.
P
None
of
them
related
to
anything
specific
except
one
comment
was
about
maybe
smaller
shelters,
but
there's
no
definition
or
best
practice
research
around
that
as
it
relates
to
zoning
code
for
impact
on
vicinity
properties
or
on
the
licensing
standards,
as
we
could
find
it.
So
I
did
go
through
all
the
public
comments
that
we've
received
on
those
outside
of
our
shelter.
C
Processes,
yes,
so
let
me
andy
has
said
thanks.
Casey
totally
agree
on
both
physical
space
and
operational
characteristics.
Then,
let's
hear
from
shellin
and
then
we'll
take
it
to
you
kelly.
N
I'll
be
quick,
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
note
like
I.
I
appreciate
what
casey
is
versus
licensing
and
they
are
separate,
but
I
just
I
just
so
I
I
concur
and
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
distinguish
those.
I
also
think
you
know
some
of
the.
N
Some
of
the
most
difficult
projects
are
the
most
important
projects
and
sorry,
there's
a
lot
of
background
noise
where
I
am,
but
those
those
important
projects
need
need
to
have
a
path
forward.
And
yes,
I
agree
that
a
perhaps
an
appeal
isn't
the
way
to
get
a
strong.
You
know
neighborhood
engagement.
I
think
I
would
argue
that
having
a
code
that
creates
a
lot
of
certainty,
both
around
land
use
and
licensing
standards
and
requirements,
is
a
much
better
way
to
get
fair
and
equitable
uses
in
our
community.
N
So
I
would
strongly
you
know,
support
the
idea
of
having
administrative
approval
of
certain
types
of
developments
when
they
meet
all
of
our
boxes
when
they
check
all
the
boxes
that
we've
gone
through.
You
know
a
multiple
year
process
in
in
creating.
I
think
it's
critical
and
I
I
mean
as
a
side
note,
I
would
just
ask,
as
somebody
who
thinks
that
you
know
our
tax
dollars
are
incredibly
important
and
should
be
spent
in
very
important
ways.
N
I
was
trying
to
get
stuff
done
at
a
local
level
during
the
appeal
process
of
the
la
of
the
interfaith
sanctuary
and
the
amount
of
resources,
time
and
money
from
our
local
government
that
was
going
into
that
appeal
process
with
virtually
no
additional
information
on
the
table
was
appalling
to
me
as
a
taxpayer.
N
So
that's
a
strong
statement,
but
I
guess
that's
I
think
it's
an
important
thing
to
remember
is
when
we
take
40
hours
of
testimony
with
really
no
additional
information.
It
is.
It
is
a
huge.
It
is
a
huge
tax
on
our
capacity
as
a
community.
F
So
I
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
and
so
one.
So
what
I'm
trying
to
sort
out
in
my
head
is
so
the
shelters
that
I
gave
as
examples
in
our
neighborhood
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
the
reason
why
they
work
well
is
because
they
have
all
of
the
support.
F
You
know,
because
the
pathways
house
has
terry
riley
and
you
know
all
of
the
other
things
that
are
associated
with
it,
and
so
is
this
intended
for
when
I
think
of
emergency
shelter
you
know,
is
it
for
shelters
of
kind
of
that
size
to
deal
with?
You
know
providing
emergency
services,
or
I
guess
my
concern
is,
if
there's
a
lot
of
other
smaller
shelters
that
are
not
providing
all
of
those
services
that
they
not
they
may
not
be
able
to.
F
P
Emergency
shelter
in
the
definition
that
was
read
earlier
is
literally
beds
at
night,
and
so
like
a
pathways
house
and
salvation
army
as
they're
operating
right
now
aren't
emergency
shelters,
so
they
would
have
a
different
zoning
requirement
that
happens
with
them.
This
is
just
thinking
about
where
places
where
the
main
reason
a
person
is.
There
is
because
they
have
no
other
home
to
be
in
and
don't
want
to
continue
wherever
they
were,
which
might
be
on
the
street
or
in
a
car,
and
they
need
a
bed
for
the
night.
P
There
is
a
level
above
that
that's
transitional
housing
units
and
those
have
a
longer
runway
where
essentially,
somebody
has
a
bed
and
then
plans
on
returning
to
that
bed,
but
it's
not
a
permanent
location.
So
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
literally
just
here
is
what
we're
providing
emergency
shelter
in
our
system.
P
P
So
the
women's
and
children's
alliance
can't
use
that
because
they're,
a
domestic
violence
service
provider-
and
so
they
can't
have
information
in
a
public
available
system
like
that.
Those
are
the
two
components
that
we
felt
really
strongly
having
an
operational
plan
with
some
level
of
services
that
are
described
at
your
discretion
and
then
a
data
management
plan.
P
Beyond
that
you're
trying
to
turn
shelter
into
something
that
shelter
isn't,
which
is
a
more
permanent
solution
and
while
interface
sanctuary
has
great
programs
that
are
helping
their
folks,
while
boise
rescue
mission
has
great
programs
that
are
helping
their
folks,
that's
not
the
primary
utilization
of
those
spaces,
and
so
it
falls
a
little
bit
outside.
We
think
of
what
we'd
feel
comfortable
licensing
on
or
what
we'd
feel
comfortable
as
part
of
the
zoning
coordinates
or
code.
C
Well,
I
think
this
is
a
really
important
discussion.
Does
anybody
else
have
anything
that
they
would
like
to
add?
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
to
our
third
piece,
but
I
would
like
to
quickly
go
over
what
is
next,
because
we
do
have
some
exciting
engagement.
That
is
going
to
be
happening,
and
so
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
lindsay
and
she
can
walk
you
through
that
and
then
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that
we
give
our
guest
attendees
an
opportunity
to
provide
any
comment
that
they
wish
to.
E
Thanks,
andrea
and
just
for
those
couple
slides
that
we
just
moved
past
really
quickly,
a
lot
of
the
questions
have
come
up
are
some
of
our
big
partner
agencies
and
the
meetings
that
we've
had.
So
we
have
met
with
achd
mbrt
and
we're
meeting
with
ada
county.
I
think
next
week,
as
well
kind
of
going
more
in
depth
of
everything
that
we've
been
talking
about
over
the
last
couple
weeks
with
you
all
and
then
we'll
be
out
in
the
community
as
well.
E
You
can
have
more
specialized
conversations
if
you
want
to
go
talk
about
some
of
those
four
major
goals
that
we
talked
about.
What
that
looks
like
maybe
in
the
mx3
zone
and
some
of
those
details
will
kind
of
have
the
opportunity.
So
that's
just
really
what
to
expect
from
us
and
then
you'll
see
us
again
back
in
the
fall
for
more
community
outreach
with
the
consolidated
draft
and
module
three.
F
First
of
all,
we
were
talking
about
this
last
night,
so
I'm
very
happy
to
see
the
20-minute
presentation
at
the
beginning,
just
from
past
experience
with
different
projects,
if
you
just
have
people
standing
there
with
boards,
I
I
think
it's
hard
for
folks
to
kind
of
grasp
everything
that's
going
on,
so
that's
fantastic
and
then
so
it
really
is
the
intent
just
to
kind
of
bring
everybody
up
to
speed
to
these
recent
changes
based
off
of
the
last
car,
the
last
cert
communications.
E
Yep
exactly-
and
I
think,
because
you
know
last
time
we
were
out
in
the
community-
we
said
that
the
next
step
was
module
three
and
then
all
of
us
didn't
feel
comfortable
moving
forward
module.
Three,
we
said
you
know
we
need
to
update
the
community.
We've
now
made
revisions
to
module
one
and
module
two.
E
We
still
have
our
timeline
that
we
need
to
stay
on,
but
we
think
it's
important
to
get
back
into
the
community
and
share
you
know
where
we're
at
and
then
what
the
next
steps
look
like
moving
forward
as
well,
and
you
all
are
invited
and
more
than
welcome
again,
it
was
great
to
have
all
of
you
at
our
last
outreach,
and
we
hope
you
know
to
see
what
some
of
these
upcoming
again
this
summer.
C
We
can
certainly
relay
that
casey
did
an
excellent
job,
addressing
shelters
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
pass
that
along
to
casey,
when
we
have
an
opportunity
now
before
we
close
out,
I
do
want
to
open
it
up.
We
do
have
a
couple
of
attendees
and
see
if
they
are
interested
in
sharing
their
perspectives
of
what
they've
heard
today
at
the
citywide
advisory
committee.
A
Yeah
hi,
it's
chris.
Can
you
hear
me
we
can
excellent.
Thank
you
yeah.
First
off
thanks
for
having
this
meeting,
I've
listened
into,
maybe
one
or
two
of
these.
So
I
do
appreciate
that.
I
appreciate
that
you,
you
post
them
on
the
website
as
well.
So
one
of
these
days,
when
I
have
countless
hours
to
watch
these,
I
will
try
to
do
it,
but
anyways.
This
is
helpful.
A
So
just
I
have
a
couple
questions
and
a
couple
comments.
For
the
first
part
we
talked
about
infill.
It
sounds
like
it's
going
a
little
different
route
than
originally
proposed.
I
guess
first
question
because
I
always
hear
about
this.
A
You
know
there
may
be
reductions
in
parking
for
additional
units
in
infill,
but
there
would
be
enough
requirement
to
provide
those
reduced
income
units
for
a
certain
amount
of
time.
Can
you
discuss
what
the
legal
requirements
are
that
ensure
that
actually
happens,
and
that
you
know
how
the
property,
as
a
property
transfers
through
future
subsequent
owners
that
that
stays
with
the
property.
G
Hi
chris
good
question,
so
what
we've
done
previously
and
what
we
plan
to
continue
doing
when
someone
gets
this
entitlement
before
they
could
get,
I
think
before
they
can
get
their
building
permit.
They
have
to
have
a
recorded
affordability
covenant,
and
so
that
would
say
it
would
outline
the
affordability
requirements
and
the
term
and
it
has
remedies.
G
So
if
you
do
not
are
not
in
compliance
with
that,
one
of
the
specific
revenues
is
the
city
can
sue
for
a
certain
amount
of
money,
and
so
that's
how
we
insure
and
that
deed
runs
with
the
land,
not
with
the
property
owner.
So
that
would
stay
for
the
lifetime
that
the
covenant
is
established.
A
A
C
So
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
be
patient
with
us
just
a
couple
of
more
days.
We
are
anticipating
that
we'll
have
a
new
zoning
conversion
map,
that's
released
on
july
12th,
along
with
the
revised
module,
1
and
2
revision
piece,
and
so
those
will
be
coming
out.
That's
going
to
give
you
a
new
purpose
statement
for
each
one
of
those
mixed-use
zones,
it's
going
to
provide
a
new
conversion
map
and
then
it
really
delineates
how
each
one
of
those
zones
is
a
little
bit
different.
C
So
when
you
are
looking
at
mxn
that
was
called
mixed-use
neighborhood,
as
we
have
revised
that
it's
now
called
mx1
instead
of
mxn,
and
so
it
does
really
focus
on
that
neighborhood
orientation
and
providing
those
goods
and
services
to
those
surrounding
residential
uses.
But
it
is
a
little
bit
different.
So
just
hang
tight
if
you
could
and
please
be
waiting
july
12th,
that's
coming
to
you
soon.
A
Great,
thank
you.
I
guess
just
something
that
echoes
another
comment
that
was
made
earlier,
and
I
think
this
helps
right
for
the
normal
person
in
our
city.
They
they
have
no
idea
how
to
read
city
code
and
interpret
it
so
a
map,
if
possible,
of
where
these
you
know.
We
talked
about
a
quarter
mile
buffer.
A
A
I
just
have
two
more
things
so,
with
the
multiple
unit
part,
I
get
that
if,
if
it's
not
a
multiple
unit-
and
it
just
goes
to
the
4
000
foot
lot-
is
that
going
to
just
be
a
one
unit
lot
or
would
it
still
be
available
for
two
units?
Because
I
know
when
we
talked
about
multiple?
It
talked
about
four
or
higher,
but
with
just
the
general
r1c.
A
C
Well,
that
really
is
dependent
upon
the
functioning
of
the
site.
So,
yes,
there
are
allowances
for
multiple
units
on
lots,
but
you
still
have
functional
requirements
that
you
have
to
meet,
and
so,
when
we
talk
about
setbacks,
so
now,
buildings
and
parking
have
to
be
set
back
from
property
lines,
a
certain
amount
for
the
r1c.
It
just
happens
to
be
50.
I
think
it's
15
for
the
rear
five
for
the
sides,
and
then
you
also
have
your
parking
requirements,
so
you're
always
going
to
have
to
meet
those
parking
requirements.
C
Even
though
that
there
are
some
allowances
in
some
of
those
scenarios
where
we
do
allow
for
parking
reductions
to
occur,
you're
still
having
to
meet
those
requirements,
and
so
by
the
time
you
build
in
your
setbacks
and
your
parking,
that's
ultimately
going
to
determine
how
many
units
you
can
provide,
but
that's
ultimately
going
to
be
dependent
on
how
large
is
your
site?
Is
your
site
large
enough
to
accommodate
those
units?
And
so
so
it's
really
going
to
be
a
sliding
scale
and
an
evaluation
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
If
that
helps.
A
If
you
met
all
the
criteria,
could
you
have
two
on
that
lot
or
three
I
mean:
can
you
assuming
we
me,
you
meet
the
criteria.
I
totally
get
all
everything
you
said
it
depends,
but
if
you
can
meet
those,
what
would
be
the
the
max
amount
of
units
that
you
could
put
on
that
lot?
That
was
outside
of
those
that
other
criteria.
C
C
As
the
size
of
the
property
changes,
so
it's
really
and
we're
unable
to
say
exactly
how
many
units
you
could
place
on
the
site
because
it
would
change
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
G
Q
C
Yeah
so
josh
also
when
we
talk
about
the
revisions
that
have
happened,
we
heard
a
lot
of
concerns
that
people
felt
very
uneasy
in
the
r1a
r1b
and
r1c
zoning
districts
that
there
was
no
cap
or
there
was
no
rhyme
or
reason,
and
they
were
looking
for
some
predictability.
And
so
with
that
we
have
brought
back.
C
We
are
proposing
to
bring
back
density
for
r1a,
which
is
still
the
same
as
it
is
today,
so
you'd
be
at
20
000
square
foot,
lots
r1b,
which
would
be
9,
000
square
foot
lots,
but
we
are
proposing
changes
that
would
allow
you
to
go
to
3
500
square
feet
for
an
r1c
lot
now.
So
in
those
cases
you
can
build
a
single
family
or
duplex
on
any
one
of
those
lots
straight
out
allowed.
As
long
as
you
can
meet
the
setbacks
and
the
parking.
C
Now
there
are
some
allowances
that
we
have
created
so
think
of
some
incentive
programs
to
create
some
of
those
sustainable
products
or
some
of
those
affordable
products
that
we're
looking
for.
In
those
cases,
that's
where
you're
going
to
get
some
relief
in
regard
to
that
density,
cap
or
you're.
Going
to
get
some
relief
as
far
as
what
those
parking
requirements
are.
So
that's
where
I'm
talking
about
that
you're
going
to
slide.
But
you
would
be
allowed
straight
out
as
single
family
or
duplex.
A
Yeah,
I
think
this
is
chris
as
well.
Thank
you
that's
kind
of
addressing
that
question
and
then
just
last
one
one
comment
on
the
shelter
criteria.
I'll
echo,
I
think
an
earlier
comment.
I
I
it's
hard
for
me
to
support
a
administrative
approval
in
that
type
of
situation,
and
I
get
that
people
will
have
an
opportunity
through
this
rezone
process,
to
make
comments.
But
we
got
to
be
honest:
most
people
aren't
going
to
attend.
A
It
just
doesn't
feel
right
to
me,
so
I
would,
I
would
definitely
suggest
keeping
somewhat
of
a
comment
period.
A
You
know
for
each
one,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
conditional
use
permit,
but
that
somehow
have
that
interaction
that
that
occurs
and
and
just
to
go
to
that
point,
because
that
comment
was
made
about
people
having
the
opportunity
in
this
code
read
zone
rewrite
to
talk
to
comment
out
of
the
eight
or
ten
meetings
we
have
of
this
there's
been
about
a
thousand
views,
so
that's
0.4
percent
of
the
population
of
boise,
so
we
know
people
aren't
going
to
be
involved.
A
C
Q
Just
a
little
bit
curious
about
the
similarly
to
the
shelter
administrative
approval
on,
I
was
curious
if
there
was
ever
a
consideration
to
have
some
type
of
review,
I
don't
know
if
it
would
be
even
anything
in
planning,
but
I'm
all
for
affordable
housing
and
and
getting
people
shelter
and
want
to
know
if
there's
anything
like
18
months
down
the
road
once
this
is
open.
Is
this
working
is
this?
You
know
some
type
of
type
of
built-in
review
process.
C
You
know
that's
an
excellent
question,
I
think
you
know
as
planners.
That's
always
our
goal
is
you
know
when
you
create
a
zoning
code
or
any
type
of
provision
or
policy,
you
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
effective
and
it's
doing
what
it's
intended
to
do
and
not
have
unintended
consequences
so
actually,
internally,
we
have
talked
about
creating
like
an
annual
review
to
where
we're
evaluating
what
projects
we're
seeing.
Are
they
the
projects
that
we
are
hoping
to
see?
C
Are
they
supporting
our
strategic
initiatives
and
our
our
long-term
master
plan,
which
is
ultimately
blueprint,
voicey
our
comprehensive
plan
and
and
then
evaluating?
Do
we
need
to
push
on
some
things
or
pull
on
some
things,
to
really
make
sure
that
the
code
is
doing
what
it
is
intending
to
do
to
support
a
viable
city?
Q
Cool
thanks
and
the
only
secondary
question
on
that
was:
is
there
a
provision
built
into
that
to
spread
those
shelters
out
a
little
bit
so
that
one
certain
area,
isn't
you
know
everything's,
not
a
hot
spot?
For
for
those
shelters?
You
have
those
services
spread
out
across
this.
C
There
is
no
provision
at
this
point,
but
you
know
that
that
is
a
good
recommendation,
so
I
think
we'll
take
that
into
consideration
as
we
move
forward
as
well.
You
know
all
of
these
comments
are
really
important
and
you
know
they.
They
force
us
to
really
think
very,
very,
very
hard
and
to
dig
even
deeper
than
we
have
looking
at
best
practices
and
what
others
are
doing
what's
been
successful
and
what
hasn't.