►
From YouTube: Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting
Description
Monthly meeting for the City of Boise's Zoning Code Rewrite Citywide Advisory Committee. This meeting streams on YouTube, where the public can view it.
A
B
D
E
A
A
We
have
been
very
busy
at
work
since
our
last
time
we've
gone
ahead
and
finished
up
our
community
engagement
for
our
Consolidated
and
module
3
efforts,
so
we're
going
to
have
an
opportunity
to
share
what
we
heard
from
that
endeavor
with
you
and
then
we've
also
identified
as
a
result
of
those
community
outreach
efforts,
as
well
as
all
of
the
conversations
that
we,
as
the
Citywide
advisory
committee,
have
had.
A
We've
identified
some
key
ideas
that
we
would
like
to
talk
about,
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
we
vet
those
into
the
final
document
before
we
get
it
submitted
in
February.
So
we'll
go
ahead
and
kick
it
off
Lindsay's
going
to
give
us
a
brief
overview
of
what
community
engagement
looked
like
for
us,
then
we're
going
to
have
Lena
and
Deanna
kind
of
walk
us
through
some
of
those
key
ideas
that
we'd
like
for
further
discussion
to
take
place.
Then
we're
going
to
talk
about
that.
A
H
Thanks
Andrea,
so
I'm
gonna
go
and
just
kind
of
take
us
back
to
when
we
started
this
project.
I
wasn't
even
here
when
some
of
this
project
started
it's
taken
several
years
and
super
proud
of
this
entire
team
and
department
and
City.
That's
really
taken
a
lot
of
resources
and
folks
to
come
together
to
get
us
to
a
point
that
we're
at
now
and
we're
excited
to
finally
get
it
to
the
finish
line.
H
So
this
is
just
a
brief
overview
of
the
entire
process.
I'll
have
more
details
as
I'm
trying
to
calculate
everybody
that
we
heard
from
all
the
different
Outreach
that
we
did,
but
this
is
just
kind
of
a
big
picture.
Quick
numbers
we've
had
about
29
almost
30
Community
conversations
that
we've
been
out
talking
to
folks
in
Residence,
we've
had
23
I,
think
I'm
almost
correct
on
that
of
this
advisory
committee
meeting,
which
is
once
a
month
pretty
much
which
is
right
on
par
and
we've
done
five
different
surveys
throughout
the
community.
H
Getting
almost
7
000
responses,
we've
had
35
and
I
know.
That
number
is
even
more
than
that
stakeholder
meetings
of
our
partners
throughout
the
community.
We've
gone
in
front
of
city
council
seven
times
and
then
in
front
of
all
of
our
commissions
and
committees
over
12
times
throughout
this
entire
process
as
well.
So
that's
just
a
quick
overview
and
I'll
have
some
more
details
before
our
next
one.
Just
kind
of
a
good
recap
of
you
know
a
several
year
process.
H
H
So
as
a
recap
to
our
last
round
of
community
engagement,
it
was
focused
on
module
three.
We
did
five
that
were
kind
of
focused
all
around
the
city
at
our
local
high
schools
and
also
at
our
Ada
County
library,
and
then,
when
we
did
one
online
as
well.
We
also
did
some
Outreach
events,
just
with
some
stakeholders.
H
We
did.
Several
of
you
are
involved
with
our
neighborhood
associations
and
we
joined
them
for
a
really
well
attended
and
great
conversation.
With
our
neighborhood
collaborative
visioning
group,
we
went
to
a
Boise
State
Urban
studies
class.
We
presented
to
the
Uli
developer
product
Council
and
also
spoke
with
Marissa
and
some
folks
with
the
Safe
Streets
Advocates.
This
is
also
just
ones
that
people
asked
us
to
come
present
or
we
reached
out
to
them.
H
So
as
we
have
these
five
Community
conversations
we
collected,
we
did
a
short
five
question
survey
as
people
entered
in
just
so.
We
could
get
a
good
idea
of
who's
attending
our
events.
H
We
probably
had
about
60
65
percent
of
folks
take
this
survey,
so
that
gives
us
you
know
it's
not
100
accurate,
but
at
least
a
good
representation
of
what
we
know
so
that
just
a
couple
of
the
stats
that
we
grabbed
was
about.
80
percent
of
folks
are
homeowners
and
with
that
eight
percent
of
them
live
in
a
single
family
home.
H
We
heard
from
10
of
11
planning
areas.
So
that's
pretty
good.
We
had
good
representation
from
everywhere
in
the
city
about
quarter
of
the
folks
that
we
heard
from
were
55
to
64
years
old
and
about
19,
which
was
the
second
highest
were
between
34
and
44
years
old.
H
So
I'm
going
to
go
over
just
a
couple,
large
themes
and
then
a
few
smaller
themes
that
we
heard
as
well,
and
then
we
can
stop
and
hear
any
other
information
that
you
guys
might
have
heard
in
front
of
the
community
or
things
that
we
might
have
touched
on.
So
just
some
large
themes
that
we
heard.
We
really
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
the
neighborhood
meetings
and
developer
meetings
that
occur
before
development
and
making
sure
that
those
are
quality
are
really
key
to
success
and
in
creating
great
projects.
H
There's
also
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
about
a
standardized
form
that
we've
even
talked
about
here.
That
if
you
know
a
neighborhood
puts
together
the
comments
that
they
heard,
maybe
the
developer
signs
off
on
it
and
then
submits
that
that
would
be
on
the
record
just
to
create
more
of
a
formality,
so
folks
feel
comfortable
of
like
Yep.
This
is
actually
what
was
said
so
there's
lots
of
discussion
around
that
and
I
know.
Our
group
has
continued
to
keep
that
conversation
going
of
what
might
be
included
in
that
form.
H
The
second
one
is
consistent:
predictable
public
hearing
process
for
all
parties.
So
just
understanding
you
know
if
you're
a
neighborhood
association.
When
will
you
be
involved
in
the
process
if
you're,
maybe
a
developer
or
it's
a
smaller
project?
What
that
process
looks
like,
and
everybody
feels
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
if
they
know
what
their
expectations
are.
H
The
interdepartmental
and
agency
Review
Committee
really
positive
feedback
on
that
overall,
making
sure
we're
having
more
conversations
versus
just
some
of
the
transmittal
that
we
currently
do
so
lots
of
continued
conversation.
I
know,
we've
had
meetings
with
our
partners
as
well
as
achd
and
they're,
also
very
receptive
to
some
of
those
conversations
and
what
that
might
look
like.
H
So
this
kind
of
has
a
lot
on
it.
I'll
start
with
the
first
one.
We
did
have
comments
that
came
in
focused
around
module:
one
module
two
which
we
were
happy
to
receive.
We
tried
to
keep
it
focused
to
module
three,
but
there
were
some
folks
that
showed
up
talking
about
5G
cell
tower
ordinance
and
where
it's
currently
located.
H
You
might
not
be
aware,
but
a
year
ago,
there's
a
Code
amendment
that
that
took
place,
and
there
were
just
some
folks
that
showed
up
with
concerns
around
that
and
we
passed
along
that
we
would
have
our
legal
team
look
into
it
and
that's
currently
still
where
that
kind
of
sits
right
now
in
one
of
our
first
neighborhood
conversations,
you
know,
a
lot
of
folks
spoke
up
because
we
do
have
quite
a
bit
of
weight
in
our
neighborhood
associations,
they're
a
valuable
part
of
our
city
and
in
part
of
the
development
process,
but
we
also
understand
that
they're
not
completely
a
full
representation
of
our
neighborhoods.
H
H
So
a
lot
of
people
interested
and
as
Andrea
kind
of
alluded
to
a
couple
times,
other
jurisdictions
used
that
and
we've
used
it
in
the
past,
with
the
re-emergence
that
hearing
examiner
for
this
code
rewrite
collaboration
with
other
partner
cities,
we're
constantly
meeting
and
discussing
with
the
county
and
the
other
cities
and
kind
of
making
sure
they
understand
the
direction
that
we're
headed.
H
The
Community
Development
tracker
that
we've
gone
over
with
you
guys
everybody's
been
really
receptive
to
that
I
think
that'll
be
a
great
tool
for
the
city
moving
forward
and
I
think
we
even
have
some
short-term
goals
of
what
that
can
do
in
long-term
goals
that
maybe
it's
probably
going
to
take
more
time
to
build
out,
but
where
we're
at
right
now
we're
really
happy
and
kind
of
feeling
really
good
about
the
direction
that
that's
headed
consideration
for
keeping
a
neighbor
notification
for
type
2.
H
That's
just
kind
of
one
of
the
details
that
we
received
as
we
broke
out
those
different
application
types
these
next
to
kind
of
go
hand
in
hand
and
Andrea.
Let
me
know
if
I'm
missing
anything
on
this
concerns
about.
When
is
the
appropriate
time
and
the
process
for
information
to
become
public,
and
we
kind
of
heard
about
this
I
think
from
Shell,
and
maybe
a
few
other
developers
too
of
you
know
before
a
neighborhood
meeting.
H
If
they
feel
like
a
project
is
public,
is
that
maybe
the
right
place
or
right
time
when
they
know
their
project
could
change
a
ton?
They
might
not
want
to
receive
negative
feedback
quite
yet
or
they're.
Not
they
don't
feel
comfortable
sharing
that
information
so
trying
to
hear
both
sides
of
it
as
well,
and
then
that
last
comment
about
standardized
form
for
neighborhood
and
developer
meeting.
We
heard
quite
a
bit
as
well
lots
of
discussion
and
we'll
look
forward
to
that
conversation
in
the
future,
and
so
that's
kind
of
it
on
community
engagement.
H
If
anybody
has
any
questions
or
thoughts
before
we
move
on
to
other
topics,
we're
happy
to
take
those
now.
H
Oh
one
other
thing,
while
I'm,
oh
I'll,
go
back
we'll
have
our
full
Outreach
summary
report,
probably
ready
in
the
next
two
weeks.
We'll
make
sure
we
email
that
to
you
guys
and
give
any
other
key
updates
that
we
might
have
for
you
before
our
January
CAC
meeting,
because
we're
working
on
a
few
details
for
that
meeting
and
any
other
Council
presentations
that
this
team
will
probably
have
in
the
upcoming
week.
So
anyways
yeah.
H
H
I
And
so
the
next
part
of
the
agenda
and
I
think
Lena
and
I
both
can
jump
tag
on
this,
but
really
we
want
to
have
more
conversation
with
you
all
we
have
on
the
screen.
Some
prompts
of
things
we've
heard
and
you
know
we
want
to
use
this
as
a
city-wide
Advisory
Group,
to
talk
about
these
issues
as
the
staff
were
going
back.
I
think
we
mentioned
this
last
time
we
met.
I
We've
been
going
back
once
a
week
through
the
code
almost
going
Page
by
Page,
considering
all
of
you
know,
reevaluating
kind
of
making
sure
the
code's
working,
and
so
we
have
some
other
important
topics
that
have
come
up
since,
as
we've
been
going
through
this
and
as
we
did,
the
module
3
Outreach,
even
just
some
of
them
directly
coming
from
you
all
so
I
think
we
want
to
just
pause
and
have
a
conversation
about
them
before
we
move
kind
of
into
finalizing
the
document
I'm
going
to
go
over
all
of
them
and
then
maybe
we
could
stop
and
talk
about
whatever
kind
of
jumps
out
to
you.
I
So
the
first
was
we've,
and
this
was
actually
Sheldon
just
emailed.
This
I
think
last
week,
but
we
received
some
feedback
on
the
affordable
and
sustainable
incentives.
As
many
of
you
know,
when
we
did
the
revise
module
one
and
two
we
tied
increases
to
density,
around
allowances
for
different
product
types
to
the
requirement
for
the
provision
of
income,
restricted,
affordable
housing
and
following
certain
sustainable
development
requirements,
so
we've
tied
them
together.
We've
received
some
feedback
that
you
know
that
wow
that's
admirable,
it
might
not
actually
be
getting.
It
might
be
too
difficult.
I
So
is
it
worth
separating
it
doing
a
and
or
kind
of
situation
where
you
can
provide
affordable
housing
or
build
to
these
high
sustainable
development
requirements?
We've
also
heard
some
feedback
on,
not
necessarily
our
rental
area.
Median
income
limit,
which
is
for
some
of
ours,
is
80
percent
of
the
area,
median
income
or
60,
but
we
have
an
ownership
opportunity
in
there,
which
is
at
120
percent
of
the
area
median
income.
We've
restarted
received
some
feedback
about
that
specific
number.
So
wanting
to
have
a
conversation.
I
If
anyone
has
insights
into
you
know
what
is
the
market
providing
what's
accessible
in
terms
of
getting
a
mortgage
for
those
ownership
products
and
that's
typically,
where
we
got
that
number
from
because
it's
tied
to
the
ability
to
take
on
a
mortgage,
then
we've
done
some
minor
changes
to
Industrial
zones.
I
guess
maybe
maybe
it
was
better
just
to
stop.
Let's
stop
at
that
and
see
if
anyone
has
any
ideas
about
the
affordable
and
sustainable
incentives
and
things
of
that
nature.
If
you've
heard
feedback
from
your
communities.
G
Hi
there
this
is
Brad
Nielsen
I
was
wondering
about
sustainability
and
who's
responsible.
For
that
I
mean
how
is
a
developer
responsible
for
sustainability,
and
what
do
you
mean
by
sustainability
is
that
you
know
utilities
schools?
I
I
can
give
you
the
specific
requirements
we
put
into
the
code,
which
was
one
that
it
needs
to
be
clean
energy,
so
it
either
has
to
be
all
electric
the
development.
So
a
developer
chooses
what
the
energy
source
is
going
to
use.
So
it
has
to
be
all
electric
or
geothermal,
as
so
not
using
natural
gas.
Basically
in
the
development
which
that's
what
our
climate
action
division
has
told,
us
is
one
of
the
single
best
things
we
can
do
to
reach.
Our
carbon
emission
goals
is
to
use
a
clean
energy
source.
I
So
that's
one
of
the
requirements,
though
developers
feel
different
ways
about
the
provision
to
be
all
electric
one
is
then
incorporating
water
savings
right.
Water
is
the
other
one
yeah
incorporating
water
saving
measures,
so
they
need
to
show
us
that
the
development
is
going
to
use
I
think
it's
15
less
water.
I
It's
projected
to
use
15
percent
less
water
than
a
typical
development,
so,
whether
it's
water,
efficient
resource
or
appliances,
things
like
that
they
would
have
to
incorporate
that
into
their
development
and
the
last
one
is
same
requirement,
but
for
Energy
savings
so
that
they
would
have
to
show
through.
Maybe
it's
a
more
energy
efficient,
Windows
different
the
way
they've
designed
it
would
use
15
less
energy
than
a
typical
building.
E
Yeah,
so
it's
not
sustainability
in
this
big
sense.
It's
it's
very
specific
that
you
have
to
incorporate
measures
that
will
address
Energy
savings
and
less
water
consumption,
which
is
something
that
you
know.
Builders
do
developers
do,
and
not
always
so
this
this
was
intended
to
encourage
more
of
that.
G
I
understand
that
that's
in
building
aspect
of
it,
but
when
you
know
all
systems
are
stressed
already
just
take
hospitals,
for
instance
right
now,
maybe
even
schools.
G
You
know
I,
don't
see
how
how
I'm
not
sure
how
to
put
it
I
mean
putting
a
big
development
in
in
a
stress
situation.
Already
saving
money
on
arguably
clean
energy
I
mean
there's
argument
on
both
sides
of
that.
So
I
don't
know
if
I'm
making
any
sense
here,
but.
C
C
For
example,
if
you
read
the
city's
climate
action
roadmap
document,
one
of
the
things
that
it
talks
about
is
that
you
know,
if
we're
looking
to
a
future
of
trying
to
think
about
sustainability,
particularly
in
terms
of
energy
usage
through
our
buildings
that
there's
an
equity
concern
in
the
future
that
if,
if
we're
looking
at
Rising
energy
costs
or
Rising
water
costs,
some
of
those
retrofits
on
existing
homes
can
be
very
expensive.
C
Not
everyone
has
the
ability
to
do
those
things
on
their
own
and
having
those
retrofits
can
potentially
also
make
the
resale
value
of
a
home
much
higher.
So
there's
a
lot
of
different
Equity
concerns
that
can
come
into
if
we
recognize
that
getting
Sustainable
Building
practices
can
be
expensive
and
can
be
a
barrier
and
we're
not
really
thinking
about
it
through
the
lens
of
also
having
some
provision
for
it
with
housing
that
is
also
affordable.
B
I
can
see
it
both
ways.
I
think
one
of
my
concerns
is
that
if
we
don't
have
any
provision
in
there
for
kind
of
green
appliances
or
water
saving
or
electricity
saving
is
that,
then
that
comes
with
higher
bills
for
the
people
living
there
and
if
they're
already
under
in
housing
under
the
affordability
section,
it
means
it.
Income
is
limited
as
it
is,
and
then
they
also
get
to
have
inefficient
appliances
to
increase
their
bills.
So
maybe
there's
some
happy
medium
that
can
be
reached
there.
J
This
is
Byron
I
just
had
a
question
about
the
the
pushback
or
the
questions
that
you
all
received
on
the
120
Ami
for
the
ownership
model.
What
were
people
pushing
for
lower
Ami?
Okay,
like
by
a
substantial
margin,
yeah.
I
J
Okay,
I
mean
there
are
just
some
limitations,
I,
don't
this
seems
obvious
to
anybody
in
the
building
industry,
but
there
for
affordability
requirements,
they're
just
limitations
to
what
it
costs
to
build
a
home,
no
matter
how
basic
or
how
small
it
is
for
people
who
have
been
doing
like
accessory
dwelling
units,
one
of
our
smallest.
You
know
housing
types
that
you
can
build.
J
It
costs
currently
somewhere
between
250
and
350
000,
to
build
like
a
600
square
foot,
Adu
detached.
So
when
we're
talking
about
housing
units
and
especially
the
ownership
model,
where
there
is
no
administrative
oversight,
there
is
no
government
subsidy.
There
is
no
grant
program
or
anything
else,
artificially
buying
down
the
cost
of
construction
and
therefore
the
cost
that
these
units
arrive
to
the
market.
J
There's
just
a
there's
a
certain
number
and
that
number
changes
every
year,
of
course,
and
it's
so
so
closely
tied
with,
are
taught
into
our
our
local
building
economy,
because
the
people
constructing
those
homes
have
to
make
a
a
living
wage.
Their
ability
to
afford
to
live
in
the
city
is
directly
tied
to
their
job,
which
provides
housing
for
everyone
else
around
them.
J
So
there's
just
a
limit
to
that
and
I'm
wondering
if
we
can
do
a
better
job,
not
only
as
a
group
but
those
of
us
in
the
business
of
just
helping
people
understand
the
profound
difference
between
ownership
model
and
Rental
model.
I.
Guess
not
really
a
question.
Sorry,
but
just
a
suggestion.
K
Thank
you,
I
feel
really
super
strongly
about
the
positive
value
of
separating
the
affordable
and
sustainability
incentives
conceptually
we
we
have
these
as
incentives,
because
they
are
things
at
the
city
and-
and
we
think
are
good
things.
Things
we
want
to
see,
and
my
fear,
with
the
way
that
is
currently
structured,
is
that
these
good
things
that
we
want
to
see
will
rarely
be
used
because
you've
got
to
kind
of
do
all
the
good
things
all
at
once.
K
In
order
to
receive
a
benefit
to
me,
a
very
positive
outcome
would
be
if
a
large
fraction
of
the
new
developments
we
see
in
the
cities
find
that
taking
advantage
of
the
opportunities
provided
by
these
incentives.
Providing
the
good
things
we
want
and
receiving
a
benefit
in
return
would
be
done
on
a
very
large
fraction
of
the
developments
in
the
city.
You
know
if
the
incentives
were
set
up,
such
that
you
know,
75,
80
percent
of
new
builds
say
yeah,
we're
going
electric,
only
no
natural
gas.
We
like
the
way
this
changes
our
options.
K
That
would
be
an
incredible
win
and
if
we
said
no,
you
know
you
only
get
it.
If
you
do
this-
and
you
do
this
other
affordable
thing-
and
you
have
to
structure
your
product
in
this
way
and
this
and
that
and
almost
nobody
used
these
and
we
got
five
or
six
projects
that
use
these
incentives,
and
we
have
you
know
a
city-
that's
still
70
80
percent,
using
natural
gas,
for
example.
That's
some
that's
a
much
worse
outcome
and
also
not
you
know
an
enormous
amount
of
affordable
housing
coming
from
it.
L
Foreign,
this
is
Ian
I,
just
want
to
kind
of
build
off
of
what
everybody's
saying,
I
think,
there's
kind
of
a
difference
between
what
we're
talking
about
with
large
developments
and
small
developments,
so
I
understand
kind
of
the
equity
issues
that
you
could
run
into
and
requiring
a
homeowner
to
renovate.
With
these
sustainable
incentives,
granted
the
incentives,
I'm
pretty
sure
we're
talking
about
parking
reductions
right
and
what
what
else
are
we
talking
about?
For
these
incentives
just
to
clarify.
I
So,
just
to
clarify,
there's
two
kind
of
types
of
incentives:
there's
the
more
residential
zoned
incentives
which
would
allow
you.
If
you
were
not
one
of
our
R1
neighborhoods,
you
would
be
able
to
go
up
to
four
units
on
a
lot.
So
that's
the
incentive
is
being
able
to
build
more
units
because
you're
only
allowed
right
now
in
an
R1
Zone
to
a
duplex
or
up
to
two
units.
So
it
would
allow
you
go
up
to
four.
I
If
you
provide
two
of
the
four
or
one
of
the
three
units
at
80,
Ami
and
then
the
sustainability,
so
those
ones
aren't
a
parking
reduction,
it's
actually
increased
density.
We
do
have
that
strategic
infill.
That
does
have
some
parking
reduction
and
also
increases
in
density.
But
then
the
mixed
use
zones
are
essentially
a
parking,
a
large
parking
reduction.
E
With
the
exception
of
mx4,
this
is
Tim,
so
the
when
we're
thinking
about
the
affordable
housing
incentive,
the
the
one
that
is
that
we've
talked
about
most
over
the
summer,
was
the
actual
increase
in
density.
You
get
if,
if
you
in
in
single
family
zones
and
also
in
the
mx4,
if
you
provide
affordable
housing
at
those
income
targets.
L
You
know:
sustainable,
affordable
incentives
which
I
I
understand
that
I
I'm
all
for
it,
but
I
understand
the
other
side
of
the
argument,
and
then
we
have
big
developments
which,
if
they're
going
for
parking
reduction,
I
mean
I
my
they're
they're,
more
able
to
absorb
some
of
that
cost
and
from
experience
I
mean
we're
all
on
a
lot
of
these
large
multi-family
projects.
We're
already
doing
all
of
those
sustainable
things
anyway,
we're
already
doing
mostly
most
entirely
electric
we're
putting
more
efficient
pictures
in
you
know,
stuff
of
that
nature.
L
So
I,
don't
think
that's
a
far
I.
Don't
think
it's
a
difficult
ask
for
larger
developments.
Then
again
we're
not
really
saying
you
get
more
density
for
the
larger
ones.
It's
more
of
a
parking
reduction,
so
I
think
separating
those
and
making
sure
those
stay.
Separate
is
probably
a.
H
M
When
it
comes
to
heating,
I
was
under
the
impression
that
currently
still
there's
the
gas
is
quite
a
bit
cheaper
for
the
inhabitant,
but
that
may
change
down
the
road
Etc,
so
I'm,
just
kind
of
curious,
where
we
are
with
that
and
then
also
to
I,
guess
a
little
bit
to
Byron's
comments,
I'm
wondering
where
the
like
tiny
houses
would
fit
into
this
cost
if
we're,
including
those
when
it
comes
to
this
125
or
120
percent,
median
income
or
other
forms
of
housing
that
are
movable
containers,
manufactured
homes,
Etc
and
obviously
that's
a
kind
of
an
in-between
area.
M
E
The
this
would
apply
to
any
house
that
you're
building
that
meets
those
income
requirements
so,
whether
it's
a
Adu
that
you're
selling
or
it's
a
you
call
it
a
tiny
house,
a
small
structure
or-
or
you
know,
some
of
the
Strategic
infill
stuff
that
could
include
attached
housing
of
different
types,
whether
it's
Cottage
Court
or
a
small
apartment
building,
but
you're
selling
the
individual
units.
In
all
those
cases,
these
incentives
would
apply
and
you
would
have
to
meet
those
income
thresholds
if
you're
and
it'd
be
120
percent
as
currently
written.
C
C
Yes,
you're,
correct
that
currently
to
heat,
a
home
with
gas
would
typically
be
quite
a
bit
cheaper
than
heating
it
through
all
electric
again
I,
think
it's
helpful
to
kind
of
look
at
the
climate
action
offices
documents
and
that
climate
action
roadmap,
because
they
they
spell
it
out
pretty
well
of
the
the
reasoning
behind
taking
a
shift
to
all
electric.
It
has
to
do
a
lot
with
thinking
about
energy
costs
in
the
future
and
energy
Supply,
availabilities
and
shifts
that
are
happening
in
electric
power
versus
other
kinds
of
heating
and
energy.
C
So
I
think
that's
the
main
thing
and
then
also
I,
think
Marissa.
You
brought
this
up.
That
Appliance
really
does
make
a
big
difference
there
as
well,
so
there
are
pretty
wide
variability
in
the
costs
from
electric
energy
depending
on
how
efficient
those
appliances
are
or
how
efficient
the
design
of
the
home
is.
So
that's
a
factor
in
it
as
well.
I
And
actually
I
just
want
to,
and
that's
why
we
chose
in
the
language
of
the
incentive
to
say
they
just
need
to
show
a
15
reduction
in
energy
use.
Not
so
it's
not
necessarily
all
coming
from
Appliance.
It
could
be
coming
from
the
design
of
the
building,
which
I
think
could
have
a
greater
influence
on
your
energy
costs.
I
H
L
If
I
could
respond
to
that
show
and
I
I,
are
you
asking
about
condos,
because
that
would
be
my
assumption
right.
If
we're
talking
about
large-scale
developments,
we're
talking
about
condos
and.
N
D
L
Yeah
to
respond
to
your
question:
I
I,
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
I
I
was
referring
to
rentals,
as
you'd
said.
That
being
said,
you
wouldn't,
if
you're,
building
a
we're
getting
into
semantics,
but
if
you're
getting
if
you're
building
a
subdivision
with
houses,
you're-
probably
not
going
to
be
trying
to
get
this
incentive,
because
you're
not
going
to
be
asking
for
a
parking
reduction
because
people
want
to
park
their
cars
at
their
houses.
So
I
don't
know
that
it's
a
irrelevant
question,
but
anyway.
I
And
this
DNA
I
I
to
Ian's
Point
yeah.
This
would
be
for
the
parking
reductions
that
Ian
was
referencing
is
in
our
MX
zones,
which
we
would
not
be
supporting
a
large
single-family
subdivision
and
remember
those
are
the
specific
areas
we
want
to
direct
our
high
intensity
development
so
that
yeah
this
incentive
would
be
more
typical
to
condo
product
if
you're
doing
ownership,
potentially
a
town,
home
project
or
larger
multi-family
rental.
E
That
is
the
case
if
you're,
if
you're,
only
speaking
of
larger
scale
projects,
because
the
the
incentives
in
here
are
very
geared
towards
smaller
scale
projects
when
it
comes
in
addition,
additional
density,
so
it
would
absolutely
apply
in
those
cases.
I
guess
the
differentiation
we're
making
right
now
in
this
discussion
is
large
scale
versus
smaller
scale,
but
it
certainly
would
apply
there.
K
This
is
Patrick
online.
May
I,
ask
the
city
representative:
why
something
like
the
parking
reduction
for
sustainability
isn't
considered
an
R2
and
R3
from
talking
to
developers.
My
understanding
is:
that's
a
rate
limiting
step
for
townhouse
to
vet,
townhouse
and
similar
development
in
those
zones
and
we'd
get
some
new
more.
You
know
moderately
affordable
housing
components
at
least
less
so
than
a
single
family
home
that
would
be
environmentally
sustainable.
From
that.
E
E
First
of
all,
there's
a
parking
reduction
in
all
single
family
from
two
units:
two
two
spaces
to
one:
there's:
also
parking
reduction
incentives
associated
with
the
Strategic
infill,
which
is
a
single
family,
Zone
smaller
scale
addition
to
this
ordinance
and
is
there?
Is
there
a
parking
reduction
associated
with
going
to
four
units
if
you're,
if
you
do
affordable
and
sustainable
in
the
single
family,
is
it
but
there's
a
reduction
because
we're
going
from
two
to
one
I?
Just
don't
want
anyone
to
leave
here
thinking
the
parking
reductions
are
only
limited
to
MX
zones.
I
I
think
that's
good
feedback
to
say
we
discussed
that
yesterday.
Was
it
yesterday,
we're
considering
that
we
haven't
got
to
that
section
in
the
code,
but
we
did
hear
feedback
from
the
community
of.
Why
are
there
some
zones
that
don't
have
an
affordable
or
sustainable
incentive
which
would
be
the
R2
and
the
R3,
so
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
piece
of
feedback
to
give
us
to
consider.
Should
we
expand
these
incentives
to
the
R2
and
the
R3.
A
And
Patrick,
if
I
could
just
ask
a
follow-up
question
too,
so
we
know
that
we
have
incentives
for
some
of
our
residential
zones,
excluding
R2
and
R3.
We
know
that
we
have
some
incentives
for
specifically
the
MX3
and
mx4.
If
we
were
to
offer
our
incentives
to
the
R2
and
R3,
do
you
think
we
should
tie
them
to
affordability
or
sustainability?
Do
you
think
we
should
offer
parking
reduction
or
all
of
the
above
or
are
there
other
instances
that
you
would
think
would
be
appropriate.
K
Thank
you.
My
personal
judgment
and
I
know
that
I
am
not
the
median
voter.
So
I
always
keep
that
in
mind
with
respect
to
my
answers
on
this,
but
is
that
I
I
think
they
should
be
titrated
so
that
these
incentives
are
often
used
because
we're
getting
good
things
that
we
want
from
them.
So
when
we
tie
multiple
requirements
together,
be
that
affordable
and
sustainable
or
other
pairs
of
types
of
requirements,
it
reduces
the
probability
they'll
be
used,
so
I
think
targeting
one
key
thing.
K
We
want
with
one
thing
the
developer
would
get
and
allow
them
to
say
I'm,
going
to
go
on
this
pathway
and
go
for
this
incentive
and
get.
This
thing
is
to
me
more
likely
to
achieve
that
goal
of
making
them
used,
often
in
which
case
either
affordable
or
sustainable,
and
then
have
a
meaningful
incentive
that
makes
certain
types
of
projects
more
workable
in
those
zones
than
might
not
have
been
before
again,
it
may
be
an
additional
parking
reduction,
though,
as
Tim
said,
there
are
some
them
already.
K
I
know
that
I've
looked
at
the
math
of
that
with
some
developers
and
one
additional
spot
less.
Somebody
may
change
the
math
may
not
but
there's,
but
at
a
conceptual
level.
My
answer
is
one
key
thing:
we
want
one
key
thing:
they
get
versus
tying
a
bunch
together
in
a
daisy
chain
that
may
never
get
used.
E
Sorry
to
be
so
particular
about
differentiating
in
this
case,
but
the
reductions
that
we
have
for
parking
single
family,
all
of
the
the
the
allowances
that
we're
giving
for
additional
density,
the
the
up
to
the
four
units
and
the
Strategic
infill
and
single
family.
None
of
the
parking
reduction
is
incentive.
We
should
never
say
the
word
incentive
when
it
comes
to
the
to
the
single
family
reductions.
Those
are
just
reductions
and
it's
from
two
spaces
to
one
per
unit.
So
it's
not
one
space.
E
J
This
is
Byron,
can
I
Workshop
this
just
a
little
bit
more
get
to
belabor
a
point,
but
if
we're
talking
about
well
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
so
we're
talking
about
separating
the
affordable
and
sustainable
incentives,
meaning
that
a
developer
would
then
choose
one
or
the
other
correct
and
that
would
cut
loose.
E
And
yeah
you
wouldn't
choose
one
or
the
other.
You
would
have
to
do
both
the
way
it's
written
now
right.
E
J
That
what
that
means
is
that,
okay,
so
playing
off
of
that,
are
there
additional
incentives
that
we
haven't
looked
at
to
date?
That
might
be
enticing
additional
incentives
for
anyone
who
does
decide
to
tie
them
together
so
making
only
one
required
for
a
density
increase.
But
if
you
want
to
take
both
of
them,
maybe
a
reduction
in
open
space
requirement
or
something
else
like
that
might
be
another
enticement
for
developers.
I,
don't
know.
H
And
there
are
a
couple
comments
from
Richard
that
I'll
just
read
out
like
read
out
loud
quickly.
He
said:
if
most
developers
meet
these
desirable
incentives,
then
we
should
have
stronger
standards.
The
incentive
should
be
for
going
above
and
beyond
the
expected
and
Francis
said.
I
agree
with
Richard
and
Richard
still
had
his
hand
raised,
but
I
wasn't
sure
if
you
just
hadn't
lowered
that
yet
or
not
Richard,
but.
C
Okay,
well,
this
is
Lena
again
do
we
want
to.
We
can
always
come
back
to
these
if
we
want,
but
we'd
have
a
couple
more
to
get
through.
So
if
we
want
to
move
on
to
sort
of
the
next
point
on
the
slide
so
for
industrial
zones,
we've
heard
a
lot
of
feedback
of
sort
of
concerns
and
ideas
about
how
we
can
improve
those,
and
so
we
wanted
to
just
kind
of
give
in
an
update
on
that.
C
So,
for
instance,
well,
I
guess
I'll
get
to
teach
you
in
a
minute,
because
that's
what
zone
changes
and
that's
next,
you
know
there's
been
some
concerns
about
light
industrial
uses
Richard
in
particular.
You've
brought
up
some
concerns
about
warehouses
and
idling
trucks,
and
so
that's
you
know
something.
That's
still
kind
of
ongoing
of
specifically
thinking
about
how
warehouses
are
treated
as
one
single
use
in
the
code
is
currently
written,
and
you
know
is
that
something
that
we
should
be
re-examining.
B
C
Know
residential
use
versus
residential
Zone
in
terms
how
of
how
we
would
look
at
buffering
requirements.
So
do
you
want
to
if
it's
all
right,
I
could
go
over
kind
of
some
of
the
changes
that
we've
looked
at
as
staff
in
our
review
and
a
couple
of
those
are.
We
are
trying
to
look
at
how
we
can
match
the
requirements
for
buffering
and
mitigation
or
if
there
are
potential
impacts
that
would
restrict
a
placement
of
an
industrial
use
as
written
in
the
code.
C
Currently,
it
says
that
if
it's
adjacent
to
a
residential
Zone-
and
we
would
like
to
have
that
changed
for
to
reflect
residential
zone
or
a
residential
use
on
the
land
that
is
adjacent,
so
it's
not
specifically
tied
to
Zone
and
that's
going
to
take
some
additional
work
in
terms
of
how
we
get
those
numbers
exact
and
so
we're
looking
at
that
now
and
I
think
that
those
are
really
the
the
main
things
that
have
come
up
about
concerns
in
industrial
and
kind
of
tied
to
that
is
that
there
are
a
couple
different
changes
to
the
zoning
framework,
so
T2
that
technology,
Zone
and
HS
the
health
services
Zone,
are
being
brought
back
into
the
zoning
framework.
C
M
Yeah,
thank
you,
I
suppose
that
was
inevitable.
M
I
appreciate
those
changes
both
of
those
I
hadn't
thought
about
the
health
part
much,
but
the
pulling
the
t2
out
again
I
think
is,
is
a
really
strong
step
in
the
right
direction
and
I
and
and
also
looking
specifically
at
idling
Diesel,
and
the
reason
for
that
you
know
just
to
step
back
a
moment.
Is
that,
unlike
many
other
states
either
our
our
rdeq
cannot
regulate
mobile
sources
of
pollution.
So
it's
really
just
this
big,
empty
hole,
regulatory
hole
that
puts
people
at
risk.
M
When
you
can't
when
these
projects-
and
as
we
know
you
know
what
a
warehouse
is
anymore
is-
is
not
what
it
used
to
be
so
I
think
that's
a
really
positive
step
in
the
right
direction.
Our
landfill
is
still
in
allowed
use
and
I
mean
a
new
allowed
use
in
these
industrial
zones
and
I.
Ask
that,
because
that's
kind
of
a
similar
issue,
you
know
Idaho
Idaho
DEQ,
which
might
regulate
some
of
these
industrial
uses
if
they
could,
for
instance,
for
things
like
pfos.
M
You
know
those
for
forever
chemicals
there's
an
interesting
article
in
Bloomberg
about
a
year
or
so
ago,
with
Idaho
DEQ,
saying
well
we'd
like
to
kind
of
discuss
this
with
the
public,
but
we
feel
we
can't
even
mention
it
because
of
our
Idaho
laws.
They're
very
you
know
pro-business
and
and
anti-regulatory,
and
so,
if
we
have
things
like
landfills,
you
know
where
the
rules
are
that
hazardous
waste
can't
be
stored.
M
Well,
they're,
not
it's
not
like
something
like
pfos
is
not
currently
considered
hazardous,
even
though
it's
considered
to
be
toxin
toxic
at
one
drop
per
5,
000
Olympic
swimming
pools
of
our
lifetime.
You
know
it's
just
one
of
these
kind
of
regulatory
loopholes
and
kind
of,
and
reflects
the
fact
that
we
live
in
a
very
impoverished
regulatory
environment
that
it
puts
people
at
risk
if
we
have
expanded
industrial
uses.
So
anything
you
can
do
to
tighten
that
up
and
I
think
it
would
be
hard
because
you
know
it's.
The
requires
specific
information.
M
So
often
the
ideal
thing
is:
is
that
that's
all
built
into
the
zoning
code
right?
Because
it's
unreasonable
to
expect
you
know
our
planning
staff
or
our
officials
to
be
able
to
evaluate
what
needs
to
happen
at
a
buffer
between
residential
use
and
industrial
use,
and
a
lot
of
that
will
be
site
specific,
and
so
it's
a
very
hard
thing.
M
I
I
would
suggest
having
requirements
like
you
know
an
air
quality
model,
for
instance,
where
you
could
actually
look
at
site-specific
conditions
and
the
actual
magnitude
of
the
of
the
proposed
uses
in
some
states.
I
know
do
that
now
that
isn't
streamlined
and
that
isn't
making
things
predictable,
but
it
does
deal
with
the
actual
complexity
that
will
occur
for
the
people
who
live
there
in
the
future.
So
I
guess
that's
the
trade-off.
So
thank
you
anyway
for
for
moving
in
this
direction.
C
Thanks
Richard
for
those
comments,
this
is
Lena
again
and
to
answer
your
question:
yes,
sorry
I
forgot
that
change.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
it
up.
We
did
look
at
landfills
as
well
and
I.
Don't
have
the
code
in
front
of
me
at
the
moment
and
that's
the
one
thing
I
forgot
to
put
down
in
my
notes,
but
we
did
take
a
look
at
that
as
staff
and
and
make
some
changes
to
try
to
address
concerns
that
we
had
heard
about
that.
So
stay
tuned
for
that
and
yeah.
A
Richard,
because
that
was
my
section
of
expertise
they
gave
that
assignment
to
me
so
I
won
the
no
longer
allows
landfills.
I
too,
would
allow
them
through
the
conditional
use,
permitting
process
and
they're.
Just
to
give
you
an
idea,
the
amount
of
land
that
is
designated
I2
within
the
city
of
Boise
is
actually
very,
very,
very
limited,
so.
A
And
then
two,
when
we
talk
about
the
setbacks,
so
how
does
industrial
and
residential
integrate
well
when
they
are
next
to
one
another?
We
evaluated
and
established
kind
of
three
tiers.
So
it's
really
based
on
the
size
of
the
development,
so
anything
over
10
acres
in
size.
We
would
require
a
hundred
foot
buffer
between
the
parking,
Drive
aisles
or
building
from
that
residential
user
Zone
from
three
to
ten
acres
in
size.
A
That
buffer
would
go
down
to
50
feet
and
then,
when
you're
less
than
the
three
acres,
that
would
go
down
to
30
feet,
but
there
would
always
be
a
separation
as
well
as
a
landscaping
requirement
to
provide
that
visual
noise
abatement
type
buffering
there.
So
so
we
are
headed
that
way
to
ensure
that
you
know
we
are
achieving
the
social
justice
issues
to
make
sure
that
the
health
implications
are
considered
and
making
sure
that
it's
for
all
residents,
whether
it's
a
residential
zone
or
use.
C
Yeah,
so
we
can
go
on
to
the
next
one
unless
there's
any
other
comments
on
Industrial
or
or
things
that
folks
wanted
to
bring
up
on
that
topic.
So,
oh,
it's
right
in
front
of
me:
I
don't
need
it
on
my
computer,
so
a
couple
other
things
that
we
have
had
a
lot
of
discussion.
Around
is
height
limits
So
currently
in
the
MX3
and
mx4
Zone,
there's
a
height
limit
of
60
feet,
and
you
can
go
above
that
in
the
mx4.
If
you
have
those
you
know,
Meeting
those
incentive
requirements.
C
So
in
those
MX
zones,
you
know
we're
really
wanting
to
put
heavy
requirements
on
how
parking
works
and
not
wanting
it
to
take
up
a
lot
of
land
use
wanting
to
see
that
parking
put
underneath
a
building
wanting
those
activated
streetscapes,
and
so
we
tried
to
think
about
what
are
really
the
building
types
that
we
need
to
make
that
happen
and
what
is
the
height
that
you
need
to
achieve
that
building
type
and
building
form.
So
still
having
discussions
around
that,
and
you
know
if
you
have
additional
thoughts
on
it.
C
We've
heard
a
lot
from
this
committee
on
similar
topics,
but
wanted
to
open
that
up
again
and
we've
also
had
some
discussion
on
thinking
about
residential
Heights
a
little
bit
differently,
So,
currently
in
the
code
as
it's
written,
a
flat
roof
and
a
gabled
roof
are
kind
of
treated
the
same
in
terms
of
height,
but
some
of
the
feedback
we've
heard
from
the
community
is
that
the
massing
of
that
building
can
feel
really
different.
And
so
perhaps
we
should
consider
having
a
different
height
limit
for
a
gabled
roof
versus
a
flat
roof.
C
Another
way
that
we
could
potentially
look
at
that,
too,
is
thinking
about
things
more
in
terms
of
stories
rather
than
a
specific
height.
So
what
this
would
mean
ultimately,
is
we
would
kind
of
have
a
code
where
we
look
at
residential
Heights
a
little
bit
differently
than
we
look
at
height
in
other
zones,
and
so
it
doesn't
have
that
simplification.
That
can
sometimes
be
beneficial.
But
sometimes
we
sacrifice
a
little
bit
of
that
simplification
to
really
get
the
kind
of
standards
that
we're
looking
for.
So
that's
kind
of
where
that
conversation
is
now.
J
This
is
Byron.
I've
got
some
thoughts
about
it,
I
just
back
to
the
question.
I
think
we've
talked
about
in
the
past,
which
is
what
are
the
downsides
to
simply
just
counting
stories
rather
than
a
hard
hide.
What
are
the
on
the
regulatory
side
of
things?
What
is
the
downside
to
that.
J
Saying
yeah
from
the
from
the
regulatory
side
of
things,
so
you
know
when
I'm
talking
with
like
neighborhood
groups
and
I'm
talking
with
nervous
neighbors,
let's
just
call
them
nervous
Neighbors
about
the
height
of
a
development
or
or
anything
next
door
to
their
home,
the
language
that
they
tend
to
speak.
That
vernacular
really
is
more
in
terms
of
stories
rather
than
an
absolute
foot
height.
Most
people
cannot
estimate
what
55
feet
looks
like
from
the
ground
and
that's
understandable,
but
they
do
know
what
a
two-story
Building
looks
like.
J
They
know
what
a
raised
first
level
looks
like
they're.
You
know
the
comparisons,
I
guess:
visual
comparisons
that
are
available
around
you.
If
you're
having
those
conversations
in
a
neighborhood,
all
you
have
to
do
is
look
across
the
street
or
down
the
road
or
whatever
and
you've
got
them
right.
There,
I'm
wondering
on
the
regulatory
side
of
things
or
perhaps
on
the
legal
side
of
things.
Is
there
a
downside
to
simply
just
using
story
numbers
rather
than
worrying
about
foot
feet
height
at
all.
E
I
think
it's
just
that
it's
a
different
way
of
doing
it.
Byron
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
we'd
have
to
change
our
practice
and
people's
comfort
with
administering
the
ordinances,
but
that
is
certainly
achievable.
This
is
something
that
other
cities
do.
They
use
Stories
versus
height,
so
it's
it.
It
has
been
done.
It's
been
done
for
years
and
places
to
great
effect,
so
I
think
it's.
E
While
there
would
be
some
administrative
issues
for
us
to
address.
They
certainly
can
be
it's
it's
more.
An
issue
of
you
know
the
comfort
that
we
have
with
moving
from
feet
to
stories
as
a
community
and
that's
why
we're
bringing
this
up.
You
know
with
you
because
now
would
be
the
time
to
explore
it.
Okay
and.
I
I
I
think
one
question
we
have
had
two
internally
as
staff
is
I,
think
one
of
our
goals
with
the
setting
a
height
limit
as
we
want
or
not
whether
it's
a
height
limit
or
a
stories
limit.
We
want
a
variety
in
the
type
of
roof
lines,
we're
getting
so
that
it's
an
interesting
neighborhood
and
streetscape.
So
we're
just.
You
know
we're
worried
that
you
know
we're
curious
on.
What's
going
to
get
us
that
variety
that
we're
perhaps
looking
for
yeah
and
I
guess,
that's
kind
of
something
we've
been
struggling
with
is
thinking
through.
J
Andrea
since
you've
seen
it
all
locally,
is
there
any
worry
that
people
are
going
to
take
advantage
of
like
a
story
count
and
try
to
sneak
in
things
like
mezzanines
or
lofts
in
between
stories,
and
is
that
you
know?
Is
it
easy
enough
just
to
exempt
those
from
you
know
in
our
code,
language
make
sure
that
those
are
addressed.
A
You
know
that
was
one
thing
that
came
up
in
our
conversations
was
always
the
mezzanine
or
the
Loft.
Typically,
we
do
not
see
those
in
residential
zones.
We
just
don't
we've
most
commonly
seen
them
in
the
industrial
area
where
there
is
Warehouse
facility
and
they
use
that
mezzanine
or
Loft
area
for
their
offices.
So
I
haven't
seen
it
in
that
regard.
A
I
could
see
somebody
doing
you
know
very,
very
large
floor
plates
and
we
have
had
a
number
of
concerned.
Citizens
call
us
about
very
tall
buildings
that
seem
out
of
place
within
their
neighborhood
in
those
scenarios.
Those
have
always
met
the
35
foot
height
limit
that
we
have
today
in
the
r1c
zone
and
we
are
proposing
to
increase
that
to
40
feet.
We
pulled
some
information
to
look
at.
You
know
what
our
you
know.
A
Some
of
our
three-story
units
coming
in
at
today,
we
pulled
some
information
that
said
anywhere
from
35
or
31.
To
35
is
where
we
are.
My
guess
is
the
35
is
because
that's
where
our
cap
is
so
those
may
have
gone
taller
if
they
would
have
had
the
ability
to
do
so.
H
There's
one
comment
from
Richard
and
then
we
have
four
hands
raised
online,
so
we
can
go
there.
So
Richard's
comment
just
said:
moving
from
feet
to
story
seems
counter
to
form
based
design,
so
we
have
Kelly
and
then
we'll
go
Drew
Jessica
and
Sheldon
Kelly.
O
So
Richard,
actually
I
was
going
to
make
a
comment
similar
to
that,
because
I
can
think
of
a
couple
of
examples
in
our
neighborhood,
where
you
know
we
have
a
building.
That
is
more
traditional
with
a
a
gabled
roof,
that's
two
stories
and
then
we
have
modern
structure
that
has
you
know
where
they
have
the
angled
roof:
sloped
yeah,
sloped
I.
O
You
know
I
apologize
because
I
don't
know
all
the
technical
terms,
but
even
though
they're
the
same
build
same
size
or
height
or
you
know
two-story
buildings,
they
they
look
very
different.
How
they
and
and
the
one
with
the
slope
truth
is
adjacent
to
a
very
traditional
house
and
the
way
the
the
side
of
the
building.
That's
close
to
the
house.
There's
like
a
flat
wall.
You
know
we're
on
the
other
side,
it's
you
know
so
I'm,
just
I'm
trying
to
get
my
head
around.
You
know.
O
How
would
you
make
a
judgment
call
and
those
or
write
a
code
that
you
know
would
get
the
results
that
we
want.
I
mean
all
the
neighborhoods
talk
about
wanting
something:
that's
you
know,
cohesive
and
and
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
but
I,
don't
really
know
how
you
define
what
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
is,
and
if
it's
just
on
stories,
you
know
I
mean
we
have
examples
in
our
neighborhood,
where
roof
lines
have
a
very
different
visual
impact.
P
You
know
at
a
minimum,
probably
a
five
over
one
or
a
five
over
two
that
gets
to
stories
rather
than
height,
like
you've
said
so.
I
I
really
support
that
direction,
especially
in
the
mixed
use
zones.
P
I
will
say
that
I
think
the
design
guidelines
are
are
important.
Like
you've
said,
Podium
construction
is
cost
effective,
but
it
also
comes
with
a
lot
of
challenges
as
far
as
streetscape
active
activation
and
the
perception
of
the
project
to
the
to
the
community
around
it.
Folks
are
quick
to
say
well
just
put
a
coffee
shop
in
it,
but
not
every
building
needs
a
coffee
shop.
I
And
I
we
so
we
were
able
to
pull,
and
this
is
not
final
data,
but
we
were
able
to
pull
some
data
from
2
000
onward
and
we
have
building
permit
data
on
what
the
building
was.
How
many
stories
the
building
was
and
then
what
the
height
was.
So
when
we
look
at
a
five-story
building,
the
average
height
was
71
feet
tall.
So
just
something
to
think
about
when
we
go,
oh,
is
a
five-story
building
appropriate.
A
And
understanding
how
that
data
of
a
building-
that's
five
stories
in
height-
is
71
feet.
Our
current
code
would
not
allow
a
five-story
building
to
be
constructed
in
that
MX3
or
mx4
Zone,
and
so
we
need
to
look
at
is
that
the
product
that
we
would
like
placed
on
state,
Vista
and
Fairview?
And
if
it
is,
we
need
to
consider
allowing
that
height
to
go
greater
than
the
60
feet
that
we've
currently
identified,
and
so
we
have
pulled.
You
know
some
of
that
data.
Now
again
our
data
doesn't
tell
us.
A
A
F
Yeah
Andrea's
said
my
favorite
word
parking
structure.
F
F
F
F
York
I
was
in
New
York
too,
and
I'd
love
to
see
some
attention
paid
to
Future
parking
structures,
and
maybe
we
can
hide
them
better.
I
know
they're
necessary
evil,
but
maybe
we
can
figure
out
a
way
to
get
those
treated
differently
instead
of
just
like
yeah.
Here's
your
your
coffee
shop
on
the
ground
floor,
four
levels
of
parking
deck
and
then
housing
or
whatever
on
top
thank.
A
You
and
Jessica
we
have
really
focused
on
what
we
do
for
parking
garages
at
the
ground
floor
level.
We
I
don't
know
that
we've
fully
addressed
anything
above
that
first
pedestrian
level,
but
we
have
described
that
we
want
to
see
those
active
uses
located
there
and
not
including
stairwells
bike
storage,
those
type
things
those
have
been
classified
or
sold
to
our
community
as
active
uses,
and
those
are
not
the
active
uses
that
we're
looking
for.
A
N
Hey
I,
don't
wanna
I,
don't
want
to
take
too
much
time
because
I
think
most
of
what
I'm
trying
to
communicate
has
sort
of
been
has
been
said
in
different
ways.
But
I
appreciate
you
guys
taking
a
look
back
and
seeing
sort
of
what
is
being
built
where
and
I
would
I
think
it
was
Andrea
that
mentioned
that
five-story
building
is
coming
in
at
70
feet,
which
surprises
me
I
wouldn't
be.
N
So
if
you
know
the
maximum
foot
height,
the
maximum
height
in
those
areas
isn't
allowing
a
typical
five-story
building,
I
think
there's
a
problem
and
where
I
see
it
in
my
work,
which
is
you
know
in
multi-family
housing
and
not
in
necessarily
luxury
or
high-end
housing,
is
when
we're
trying
to
put
whether
it's
Podium
or
a
garage
or
a
mix
of
uses,
because
that's
what
we
think
is
either
because
either
it's
required
or
we
think
that's
important.
Based
on
the
you
know.
N
What's
going
on
in
the
in
the
area,
we
sometimes
we
are
often
finding
ourselves
Limited
in
sort
of
a
traditional
commercial
space
like
a
restaurant,
a
brewery
even
like
a
a
larger
coffee
shop.
N
You
know
you
really
do
need
13
feet,
I
think
with
a
commercial
kitchen,
it's
at
least
13,
maybe
even
higher
I'm,
not
certain
an
architect
in
the
room
could
tell
me
probably,
but
you
know
so
we
find
ourselves
really
having
to
back
down
from
that
and
doing
you
know
10
or
12
feet
so
that
we
can
get
the
units
on
top
and
then
that
commercial
space
on
the
first
floor
becomes
more
like
office
or
very
small
retail,
like
coffee
shops,
without
a
kitchen
or
you
know,
like
sandwich
shops
that
are
just
so
it
just
limits
and
that's
when
I
think
you'll
find.
N
H
You
have
nods,
yes,
challenge
a
couple
comments
that
came
in
the
chat,
one
from
Francis
just
saying,
I
appreciate
the
conversation
and
the
considerations
being
discussed
from
a
personal
perspective.
I
am
nervous.
I
am
a
nervous
neighbor
living
next
to
an
industrial
parcel.
The
owners
of
the
property
plan
to
build
five,
ten
thousand
square
foot,
30
foot
tall
industrial
buildings,
50
feet
from
our
property
line.
This
35
feet
may
be
the
code,
but
from
a
homeowner's
perspective,
unless
they
design
their
buildings
with
a
sloped
roof
or
a
tiered
building.
H
Our
concern
is
that
we'll
that
it
will
visually
be
extremely
oppressive.
We
are
negotiating
this
with
them
to
me,
using
a
height
reference
seems
more
understandable
than
stories
and
then
Drew
also
commented.
I
also
want
to
commend
some
of
the
recent
design
guidance
and
direction
from
the
city
that
preserves
alleys
or
easements
downtown.
Having
variety
on
blocks
simply
by
breaking
up
building
massing
is
a
great
way
to
improve
how
Dynamic
our
naturally
higher
density
areas
are.
D
L
This
is
Ian
I
think
it's
interesting
that
Jessica
brought
up
Washington
DC,
there's
some
really
I
lived
there
for
a
couple
years.
There's
some
really
cool
architecture
being
built
there
and
they
do
a
good
job
of
hiding
the
parking
one
thing
I,
don't
think
they
do,
and
this
comes
back
to
the
variety
of
building.
Heights
is
a
lot
of
the
new
developments
like
in
the
Navy
Yard
neighborhood
down
there.
L
They
all
end
up
being
the
same
height,
and
so
you
get
these
monolithic
blocks
that
have
kind
of
different
styles
on
them,
but
are
more
or
less
the
same
height.
And
so
one
thing
that
I
was
thinking
about
as
we're
talking
about
Building
height
limits
and
I.
Don't
know
this
is
necessarily
what
Byron
wants,
but
it
seems
to
me,
like
certain
certain
zones
and
that's
kind
of
what's
been
proposed.
L
Maybe
those
zones
are
the
ones
where
it's
stories
instead
of
height,
whereas
more
residential
and
areas
next
to
residential,
it
should
I
think
it
should
probably
remain
a
height
limit.
So
a
story
limit,
but
that's
my
personal
opinion,
so.
G
Just
this
is
Brad
just
throw
my
two
cents
in
I
personally
believe
that
it
should
be
restricted
to
a
height
I
think
if
we
just
make
it
levels
or
floors
that
you
know
we
can
expand
the
ceiling
on
on
a
structure
and
then
we're
you
know.
G
What
are
we
going
to
end
up
with
you
know
in
height
but
I'm
personally,
working
on
a
job
right
now
that
has
a
14-foot
ceiling
or
roof,
but
it's
got
a
25
foot
parapet
on
it,
which
seems
to
be
a
crazy
waste
of
height
and-
and
you
know,
I
understand,
Heidi
mechanical
units
and
and
that
kind
of
thing.
But
now
we
have
a
huge
snow
load
possibility
and
then
we
got
wind.
G
You
know
forces
I,
look
at
it
from
a
structural
standpoint
and
that's
more
expensive,
but
just
saying
I
think
we
should
keep
it
as
a
height
limit
instead
of
store
limit.
So.
A
That
would
allow
us
to
monitor
some
of
the
abuse
that
could
occur.
So
that
really
is
an
option
for
us
to
consider
as
well.
That
sometimes
gets
a
little
difficult
to
really
identify.
Where
do
you
draw
the
line
of
Maximum
Building
height
so
that
we
don't
have
those
incompatibilities
of
sloped,
roofs
and
those
types
of
things,
but
that
is
an
option
that
I'd
like
to
throw
out
there
too.
Just
in
case
somebody
would
like
to
consider
that
foreign.
H
That
came
in,
she
still
has
her
hand
raised,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
meant
to
but
Hillary
has
her
hand
raised
too
so
shelon
said:
DC
has
an
overall
height
limit
because
they
protect
the
view
of
the
National
Monument
National
Mall,
the
capital
to
the
Washington
Monument
just
for
perspective
and
then
Hillary
did
you
have
your
hand
raised.
Q
Only
kind
of
I
was
just
gonna
back
up
Andrea
and
say
that
you
can
draft
around
that
I
mean
as
a
lawyer.
We
draft
around
those
types
of
you
know,
either
or
or
you
know,
greater
of
lesser
of
type-
things
they're
more
of
an
administrative
burden
from
the
city
standpoint,
because
it's
just
you
know
more
more
boxes
to
check
to
figure
out
which
one
you
know
whether
something
qualifies.
Q
But
yes,
I've
seen
that
too
and
I
think
that
that's
probably
doable
and
some
of
these
zones,
especially
the
MX
things
where
you're
looking
at
where
you
do
want
to
see
a
variety
of
roof
lines,
but
you're
also
but
stories
matter.
J
This
is
Byron,
I
concur,
I.
Think
Andrea's
proposal
is
really
great.
I
I,
unless
there's
a
a
lot
of
additional
work
from
City
staff's
perspective
in
terms
of
review
seems
like
a
fairly
easy
thing
to
review
to
me,
but
that
would
kind
of
give
us
the
best
of
both
worlds.
J
K
I'm
sorry
I'm
not
actually
sure
how
that's
any
functionally
different
than
just
a
height
limit
if
it's
X
stories
up
to
a
height
limit.
Given
that
I'm
sure
the
building
code
has
a
minimum
height
limit
per
story,
implicit
in
it
currently
so
I'm
not
sure
how
it's
functionally
different
than
just
a
height
limit.
Just
the
actual
question.
A
Would
so
if
we
just
said
a
maximum
of
four
storage,
those
could
be
four
stories
that
have
18
foot
floor
plates
or
we
can
say
you
you
can
do
four
stories,
but
you
can't
exceed
65
feet
so
that
there
is
comfort
from
the
neighborhood
side
that
there
might
there.
The
sky
is
not
the
limit,
but
it
does
give
some
flexibility
for.
K
I
I
Instead,
we
used
to
measure
to
the
very
top
of
the
building
in
a
flat
roof
or
to
the
midline
in
a
gabled
roof.
So
now
we're
kind
of
creating
some
sort
of
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
disincentive
but
we're
perhaps
creating
more
bulk
in
the
flat
roof
and
less
bulk.
In
the
gabled
roof,
so
is
there
a
question
to
say,
should
there
be
different
height
limits
or
different
ways
to
measure
between
those
roof
lines
in
our
residential
zones?.
G
Hey
this
is
Brad
just
curious.
Maybe
an
architect
might
know
this,
but
as
far
as
sustainability
and
and
you
know,
Savings
in
insulated,
an
insulated
roof
I
mean
a
flat
roof
versus
a
gable
roof.
I
mean
what
is
there
a
benefit
to
the
Gable
growth.
J
Thanks
again,
not
really
no,
unless
you
want
to
so
there's
some
to
my
knowledge,
lead
certification
requirements
that
allow
you
to
count
the
insulating
properties
of
snow
during
the
winter.
That
would
be
the
only
thing
that
would
really
push
a
flat
roof
over
a
gabled
roof
necessarily,
and
that
really
only
gets
you
like
some
benefits
for
part
of
the
year,
but
it
really
just
comes
down
to
the
air
in
the
cavity
of
the
wall.
That's
what
that's!
What
slows
down
the
passage
of
heat
from
the
inside
to
the
outside?
So
not
really!
J
But
I
did
like
your
point
earlier,
though,
about
the
flat
roof
project
that
you're
working
on,
because
I
don't
know
if
Ian
would
agree
with
this
or
not,
but
there
is
kind
of
like
there's
another
fairly
substantial
pressure,
naturally
occurring
pressure
to
keep
buildings
at
a
certain
height
or
from
escalating
Beyond,
a
certain
height,
and
that
is
cost.
So
there's
like
there
are
construction
material
standards
that
keep
certain
buildings
on
module
or,
according
to
certain
modules,
like
the
the
size
of
a
plywood
panel,
for
example.
J
But
there
aren't
very
many
people
or
very
many
developers
that
are
interested
in
building
a
building,
that's
larger
than
the
one
that
they
need
really
we're,
trying
to
reserve
space
for
Building
Systems
in
between
the
floor
plates
and
that's
a
certain
like
Comfort
level
that
we
get
to
when
we're
planning
around
like
four
stair
systems
and
things
like
that.
J
But
no
one
wants
to
build
a
building,
that's
more
expensive
than
they
really
need.
And
so
that's
that's
one
kind
of
check.
I
guess
the
exceptions
to
that
might
be
a
skyscraper.
That's
really
trying
to
get
to
be
larger
than
another
skyscraper,
and
then
certain
homeowners,
I've
spoken
with,
are
very
concerned
about
the
feel
of
their
first
floor.
So
some
people
really
want
to
push
their
first
level
up
to
something
like
a
12-foot
ceiling
but,
like
even
you,
know
historic
buildings.
J
A
lot
of
the
buildings
we
have
in
the
North
End
have
10
foot
ceilings,
that's
something
to
keep
in
mind.
They
were
already
kind
of
pushing
the
limits
on
their
ceiling
space
back
then
really
just
to
keep
the
hot
air
above
their
head
level.
It's
kind
of
the
reason
why
they're
doing
that
so
long
answer
to
your
question.
C
Yeah
I
was
gonna,
say
thanks
Byron
for
the
education
and
ceiling
height,
any
other
thoughts
on
the
height
discussion
before
we
go
on
to
the
last
item.
C
C
If
you'll
recall,
the
way
that
the
code
is
currently
drafted
is
there's
a
pretty
strong
departure
from
current
state
in
terms
of
where
drive-throughs
would
be
allowed.
They
were
prohibited
in
a
lot
of
zones
where
they
had
previously
been
able
to
do
it.
So
there's
been
some
discussion
about
is:
is
there
a
possibility
or
an
appetite
to
maybe
expand
back
some
of
the
places
where
drive-throughs
could
be
allowed
say
in
the
excuse
me
in
the
mx1,
3,
4
or
5
zones?
C
If
there
were
really
strict
standards
about
how
that
drive-through
is
completely
contained
within
the
building,
it
has
to
be
in
the
rear
behind
the
building.
It
can't
be
near
the
street
or
interfering
with
the
pedestrian
environment.
So
we've
heard
a
lot
of
feedback
on
both
sides.
For
that
you
know,
I
know
that
you
know
we've
heard
from
a
lot
of
in
our
staff
discussions
that
we're
really
wanting
to
move
away
from
that
drive-through
dominant
environment
and
really
get
that
kind
of
walkable
streetscape.
That
is
so
much
of
the
goals
of
this
code.
C
So
it's
it's
very
much
like
many
of
these
issues,
something
that
we
we've
heard
a
lot
of
things
from
both
sides
and
we're
still
kind
of
working
through
how
that
would
fit
into
the
code
and
kind
of
where
we
come
down
on
it.
So
if
there
are
I,
don't
think
Ben
is
with
us
today
or
is
he
he
is?
C
Oh
he's
online,
okay,
great
so
I
know
Ben
you've
brought
up
some
issues
around
this
before,
and
so
we
wanted
to
kind
of
open
the
floor
up
again
for
that
and
just
sort
of
hear
feedback
on
what
folks
think
and
specifically
thinking
about
those
make.
So
it
makes
use
neighborhood
and
then
mixed
use,
active
mixed
use,
Transit
oriented
development
and
then
MX-5
that
downtown
Zone.
O
So
we
had
a
a
business
that
was
proposed
in
our
neighborhood
that
the
CVS
Pharmacy
that
was
proposed
on
state
streets
several
years
ago
and
the
major
objection
of
our
neighborhood
was
the
was
the
drive-through
and
the
you
know
if
the
entrance
of
the
drive-through
is
on
the
back
of
the
building,
so
that
that
would
prevent
someone
from
having
to
you
know,
break
their
car
on,
like
State
Street,
to
turn
into
the
structure
to
you
know
be
able
to.
O
You
know,
to
access
the
drive-through,
but
go
to
the
back
of
the
building
in
the
case
of
the
CVS
Pharmacy.
Well
then,
that
meant
that
they
would
be
driving.
You
know
into
you,
know,
turning
into
a
residential
neighborhood
and
then
act
entering
and
exiting
the
drive-through.
O
And
you
know
through
this
alley
area
or
you
know
basically
in
the
residential
neighborhood.
There
was
also
a
proposed
Starbucks
Coffee
drive
through
that
was
going
to
be
on
State
Street
and
then
the
primary
there
was
a
lot
of
challenges
as
to
how
they
were
going
to
make
that
drive
through
accessible.
O
You
know
because
it
was
going
to
be
at
a
you,
know,
17th
and
State,
where
it
would
require
people
to
turn
left
and
then
off
of
State
onto
17th
and
then
into
the
drive-through,
and
so
the
traffic
pattern
was
really
challenging,
but
also
you
would
have
if
the
drive-through
was
in.
The
back
is
like
what
they
proposed.
O
Then
you'd
have
the
Squawk
Box
in
the
back,
where
people
would
be
placing
their
orders,
which
would
back
right
up
to
a
resident,
so
that
I
mean
for
mx1
and
then
MX3
where
they're
backing
those
those
types
of
developments
are,
are
next
to
neighborhoods.
I
mean
I
I,
don't
see
where
the
concern
with
that
would
change,
and
even
if
it
was
inside
the
building,
I
I
don't
know
I
I'm
trying
to
have
a
hard
time
visualizing.
What
that
would
be
if
you
could
get.
O
If
there's
an
example,
you
could
share
where
the
drive-through
was
actually
contained
in
the
building.
If
there's
one
that
exists
in
town
that
that
would
probably
be
helpful
in
in
understanding
what
that
would
really
how
that
would
really
work.
O
But
I
do
know
in
those
two
cases
that
those
that
was
the
primary
objection
to
those
drive-throughs
was
the
fact
that
it
was
going
to
direct
the
cars
back
to
the
back
of
the
properties,
and
they
would
be
you
know,
the
residents
that
live
next
to
them
would
have
cars,
and
you
know
the
order
ordering
and
everything
taking
place
next
to
their
homes.
A
Some
of
the
examples
that
I
can
provide
for
drive-throughs
that
have
been
integrated
into
a
building
would
be
in
the
downtown
core
many
of
our
banks,
so
you
would
look
at
Key
Bank
on
Capitol
Boulevard
U.S
bank,
on
the
corner
of
Capitol
in
front
some
of
those.
What
we
do
end
up
with
with
both
of
those
particular
examples
are
accesses
to
the
street,
so
we
would
have
an
additional
access
to
the
street,
which
does
cause
issues
and
conflicts
with
pedestrians
and
bicyclists.
When
we
are
looking
at
those
areas,
so
you've
brought
up
the
mx1
Zone.
A
A
Mx-5
is
the
downtown
core,
so
we've
heard
mixed
reviews,
we've
heard
hey
the
allowance
for
drive-throughs
may
be
there,
particularly
when
we're
thinking
about
banking
or
Pharmacy,
not
necessarily
food
pickup,
but
then
we've
also
heard
I
think
this
goes
contrary
to
what
the
city
is
looking
for
and
so
I
guess
we're
hoping
for
some
feedback
from
you
guys
on
whether
you
thought
it
was
a
good
idea,
a
bad
idea.
Are
there
instances
whatever
where
it
might
be?
Okay,
those
types
of
things
so.
O
Andrea
those
two
examples
you
gave
if
I'm
visualizing
it
correctly.
Those
are
both
within
parking
garages
correct
so
to
it
to
for
the
the
banks
that
you
mentioned
so
so
everything's
kind
of
contained
in
within
the
parking
garage.
The
the
people
that
are
accessing
the
ATMs
are
driving
into
one
entrance
of
the
parking
garage
and
out
another.
Is
that
correct?
O
A
I
O
It's
because
now
I
see,
there's
there's
one
where
it's
in
the
parking
garage,
and
you
also
have
that
really
cool
bike,
storage
area
and
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
I
think
it's
off
of
Maine
and
you
know
so
I
think
if
it's
something
where
it's
contained
and
it's
also
within
the
regular
flow
of
traffic
I
mean
contained
where
the
the
noise
or
the
business
transaction
or
like
idle
vehicles
are
not.
You
know
going
to
be
something
that
would
be
interfering
with
the
residential
property,
whether
you
know
next
apartments
or
whatever,
then
I.
O
You
know
that
might
be
something
that
would
be
a
little
more
palatable
yeah.
It's
just
like
one
of
the
bad
examples
of
how
drive-throughs
have
not
worked
well
at
all
is
like
the
Dutch
Brothers
Coffee
on
State,
Street
and
15th.
That
creates
a
traffic
jam
on
two
different
streets
in
you
know
on
State
and
15th
in
the
morning.
The
way
that
that
one
is
structured
so
and
it's
a
nuisance
to
the
neighborhood.
O
So
you
know
there's
just
a
lot
of
trepidation
with
drive-throughs
I
think
we
just
need
to
be
very
careful
about
what
it
is.
K
This
is
the
closest
this
committee
will
ever
see
me
to
being
a
NIMBY,
so
on
this
topic,
I
think
it's
generally
makes
for
a
lower
quality
built
environment.
It
has
a
lot
of
externalities
as
we're
hearing
from
other
commenters.
K
The
benefits,
though,
such
as
they
are,
are
the
consumer
surplus
to
the
convenience
of
the
people
that
use
them
and
the
increased
business
activity
and
availability,
which
matters
to
some
degree
and
I'm
not
equipped
to
like
measure
that
somebody
could
do
it.
Econ
study
of
like
how
much
consumer
surplus
do
we
lose
if
we
decrease
the
propensity
of
drive-throughs
by
30
percent
I'm,
not
sure
how
much
like
value
the
citizens
we
lose,
but
from
a
built
environment,
perspective,
I'm
kind
of
enemy.
B
B
Makes
that
car
culture
that
we
we
have
in
our
country,
it
doesn't
do
anything
to
lessen
that
and
it
does
cause
a
lot
of
issues
with
you
know:
emissions
people
idling,
there's
a
reason
why
you
know
we
have
these
signs
everywhere
in
the
schoolyard
that
says,
turn
your
vehicle
off
so
I'm
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
them
generally,
and
especially
when
they're
anywhere
near
a
residential
use,
just
because
of
the
the
noise
that
can
happen
from
them
and,
interestingly,
like
for
impact
fees
for
the
highway
district,
you
pay
more
impact
fees.
G
This
is
Brad
one
thing
about
being
on.
This
committee
is
I'm
in
this
constant
state
of
confusion.
G
G
G
You
know
older
people
can't
get
out
of
their
cars,
so
it's
a
convenience.
Coffee
shops
I
mean.
Do
we
really
need
that
many
more
coffee,
shops
and
and
if
it
doesn't
work
there,
don't
put
it
there
I
mean.
Are
we
all
grown-ups
here?
G
I
agree
that
you
know
we
don't
need
it
so
much
I
mean
I
I
get
my
coffee
faster
if
I
get
out
of
the
car
anyway.
But
where
do
you?
Where
do
you
limit
these?
These
kinds
of
things.
C
Sure
and
Brad
just
to
respond
to
that
quickly.
This
is
Lena
again,
I
think
you're
touching
on
something
that
was.
They
came
up
in
discussion
about
this.
Even
of
you
know,
thinking
about
the
different
kinds
of
uses
and
how
they
use
drive-throughs.
So
specifically,
if
we're
thinking
about
the
mx1
so
that
mixed-use
neighborhood
Zone,
if
we're
really
wanting
to
get
a
neighborhood
sort
of
commercial
District
trying
to
accommodate
for
drive-throughs
and
the
types
of
site
plans
that
we
may
need
to,
you
know
work
with
an
applicant.
C
It's
really
kind
of
working
counter
to
the
goals
that
we've
set
for
that
zone
with,
but
even
within
that
there
was
discussion
about
well,
maybe
for
a
pharmacy
or
maybe
for
a
certain
kind
of
a
use.
You
could
see
the
utility
of
it
even
at
like
a
neighborhood
scale,
for
exactly
some
of
the
reasons
you're
describing
but
yeah
it's.
C
This
is
kind
of
why
we
wanted
to
open
it
up
again,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
facets
to
the
issue
and
just
to
clarify,
as
the
code
is
currently
drafted,
I
believe
drive-throughs
are
prohibited,
except
in
the
MX2
Zone,
where
they
are
conditional.
So
that's
that
was
a
pretty
intense
departure
from
where
things
are
currently
and
so
the
question
on
the
table,
just
to
be
clear,
is
not.
C
Should
we
take
where
drive-throughs
are
allowed
today
and
expand
them
further,
but
from
where
we
have
landed
in
the
draft
of
prohibit
them
in
all
mixed-use
zones,
except
for
MX2,
where
they
are
a
conditional
use?
Should
we
consider
with
new
ideas
about
how
we
could
perhaps
look
at
that
site
design
like
Andrea,
said
having
it
contained
completely
within
a
building?
Does
that
then,
maybe
change
our
approach
to
how
we
would
look
at
the
the
use
table.
A
A
R
Thank
you,
yeah
Ben,
zamzo
here
and
I
know
the
the
city
wanted
to
get
feedback
from
the
rest
of
the
committee.
I've
shared
some
of
my
feedback
on
this
issue
with
the
city
directly
and
Lena.
Just
brought
up
a
really
good
point
that
what
stands
out
to
me
is
just
the
stark
contrast:
the
the
intensity
of
the
Restriction
of
the
areas
that
are
available
for
drive-through
use.
It's
now
only
allowed
in
the
MX2
Zone,
but
also
with
the
kind
of
Summer
revision
of
module
two
and
the
zoning
map.
R
A
lot
of
the
MX2
got
converted
to
MX3
along
Fairview,
State,
Street
and
Vista.
So
in
the
current
draft
is
as
written
in
the
current
map.
It's
a
pretty
limited
amount
of
geographic
area
in
the
city
where
the
drive-throughs
would
be
allowed
and
any
future
drive-throughs
that
get
built
in
the
city
of
Boise,
and
you
have
to
imagine,
there's
going
to
be
several
over
the
rest
of
our
lives
and
through
the
the
lifetime
of
this.
This
zoning
rewrite
are
all
going
to
crowd
into
those
limited
Geographic
areas.
R
So
you
know,
we've
already
talked
about
the
uses.
That
was
one
point.
I
wrote
down
that
we're
not
just
talking
fast
food
coffee.
It
also
has
Financial
Services
Pharmacy
and
a
number
of
other
retail
categories
that
have
started
to
use,
pickup
and
or
drive
through
and
then.
As
far
as
some
examples,
Andrea
already
mentioned
that
the
Key
Bank
downtown
I,
want
to
say
Zions
might
have
an
in
parking
garage.
Atm
drive
up
as
well.
R
Panera
Bread
did
kind
of
a
Pergola
on
Franklin
by
Cabela's,
so
it's
not
enclosed
drive
through,
but
it's
kind
of
dressed
up
and
hides
the
cars
and
then
on
Vista
I
know,
there's
the
Jimmy
John's
and
the
Jack
in
the
Box,
which
were
both
built
to
kind
of
the
new
Urban
standards
to
to
put
them
up
against
the
street.
Just
if
anyone's
wanting
some
examples,
you
know,
I
I
can
definitely
appreciate
all
the
conversation
and
I
can
understand.
R
You
know
wanting
to
get
away
from
the
car
culture
that
having
drive-throughs
allowed
you
know
reinforces,
but
we're
talking
about
on
some
of
these
areas.
You
know
corridors
that
can
handle
45
000
cars
a
day.
So
you
know
maybe
on
Fairview
in
certain
mid-block
parts
of
of
let's
say
Fairview
and
Five
Mile.
For
example.
You
know
these
are
very
heavily
trafficked
corridors
and
will
be
I.
R
Think
where
I
finally
shook
out
on
the
issue
is
I
would
agree
that
in
the
mx1
dry
series
would
not
be
appropriate
in
the
neighborhood
setting
where
we're
trying
to
really
bring
new
Commercial
Services
and
uses
to
the
neighborhoods
that
haven't
existed
before
when
a
lot
of
those
MX
ones
were
previously
Lo
and
didn't
allow
commercial
uses
so
I
think
the
mx-1
I'm
I'm
personally
good
with
leaving
the
drive-throughs
out
and
I,
could
also
see
a
good
argument
for
the
community
center
portions
within
the
MX3
zones.
R
So,
as
I've
talked
to
Tim
about
you
know,
the
MX3
Zone
really
is
made
up
of
two
different
types
of
properties:
there's
the
community
centers
in
Blueprint
Boise,
but
then
there's
also
just
all
the
transit
areas
that
we've
identified
on
Vista,
Fairview
and
state
and
I
think
those
are
really
different
types
of
properties,
even
though
they
fit
within
the
MX3.
So
I
could
see
in
the
community
centers
of
those
really
important
hubs.
R
H
I
Q
For
it,
so
I
agree
with
everything
that
Ben
said
and
I
will
say.
This
I've
had
this
particular
issue
stuck
in
my
craw
ever
since
we
did
the
design
review
guidelines
way
way
way
back
when,
because
I
think
our
current
standards
are
already
too
restrictive
on
drive-throughs,
but
I
I
I
completely
agree.
You
know
with
everything
that's
been
said
about
the
Reliance
on
car
culture
and
I
I,
understand
that,
but
there
are
other
sort
of
impacts
for
not
allowing
drive-throughs,
many
of
which
been
laid
out,
but
someone
else
touched
on.
Q
You
know,
issues
of
accessibility.
It
was
one
of
the
it
was
actually
a
boon
during
covid
and
it
just
it
really
isn't
realistic.
I
mean
there
are
a
lot
of
businesses
that
are
expanding
their
drive-through
rollout,
especially
on
the
retail
side
and
I,
understand
that
you
know
people
look
at
that
and
they
say
well.
How
is
this
really
creating
value?
Q
Well,
it's
creating
value
in
the
form
of
a
diversity
of
tenants
and
a
diversity
of
services
available
to
the
community,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
businesses
that
now
simply
will
not
consider
space
unless
there
is
a
drive-through
option
and
they're
not
willing
to
fight
the
fight
with
the
city.
So
you're,
really
restricting
your
pool
of
businesses
out
there
that
you
can
attract
for
some
of
these
developments
and
if
the
the
entire
intent
of
this
is
sort
of
to
create
communities
where
people
have
access
and
where
there's
a
diversity
of
options
available.
Q
Q
One
of
the
things
that
I
do
want
to
point
out
is
that
a
lot
of
the
way
to
deal
with
drive-throughs
has
been
to
force
them
into
places
that
are
aren't
visible
from
the
street
and
every
single
one
of
those
measures
does
nothing
but
exacerbate
the
problems
with
the
impacts
to
the
neighbors
and
with
the
interaction
with
The
Pedestrian.
Q
There
are
ways
to
screen
drive-throughs
from
the
street
or
from
a
sidewalk
that
are
much
easier
and
less
expensive
than
trying
to
figure
out
all
of
the
negative
interactions
that
happen
when
you
force
a
drive-through
to
back
up
to
a
neighborhood
or
when
you
try
to
enclose
it.
That's
a
big
public
safety
risk.
There's
a
lot
of
reasons.
Q
We
don't
want
those
types
of
enclosed
tunnels
in
cities-
and
you
know
I
I,
just
I
think
we're
not
really
looking
at
all
of
the
negative
impacts,
because
you
know
this
is
maybe
an
unpleasant
fact
of
life
to
a
lot
of
people.
The
drive
are
here
for
now
they're
they're
here
to
stay,
at
least
in
the
short
term,
and
you
know
you
start
restricting
drive-throughs
and
you're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
other
negative
consequences
that
you
don't
that
you're
not
really
anticipating.
D
Q
R
Hop
onto
Hillary's
comments,
too
I
forgot
one
point,
and
she
reminded
me,
and
it
ties
in
you
know.
Hopefully
we're
successful
in
this
city
rewrite
to
add
much
more
housing
stock
for
all
the
people
who
are
inevitably
going
to
move
to
Boise
and
if
and
when
those
people
all
move
here
and
we
hopefully
have
new
construction
homes
for
them.
We
need
retail
to
support
that
population,
and
you
know
every
retailer
has
a
different
economic
model
of
how
much
volume
they
do,
how
much
revenue
they
do
and
therefore
how
much
they
can
afford
for
rent.
R
And
it's
just
a
matter
of
fact
that
the
drive-through
tenants
have
modeled
it
out
that
they
can
pay
much
more
rent
than
the
non-drive
through
tenants.
And
so
as
we
look
to
try
to
build
some
of
these
mixed-use
projects,
the
more
dense
projects
at
today's
construction
costs
and
today's
land
values.
We
need
retailers
who
can
afford
to
pay
the
freight
to
kick
off
those
projects
for
us
developers
to
actually
bring
those
out
of
the
ground
and
by
ruling
out
the
drive-through
tenants
who
can
pay.
R
40
50
60
70
a
square
foot
in
rent
and
you
take
them
off
the
table
and
you're
stuck
trying
to
make
your
proforma
pencil
with
you
know
a
yoga
studio
that
can
pay
Seventeen
dollars
or
twenty
dollars
a
square
foot.
You
know
maybe
one
half
to
one
third
of
what
the
drive
through
tenants
can
pay.
It
really
makes
it
a
lot
more
difficult
to
make
some
of
these
mixes
project
pencil.
I
Thanks
and
can
I
just
really
fast
add
to
that,
because
I
think
there's
another
layer
to
consider
to
if
we're
moving
forward
with,
if
we're
remembering
the
allowed
use
alternative
form.
I
So
now
that,
let's
think,
if
we're
considering
adding
back
drive-throughs
in
kind
of
exactly
to
Ben's
point
of
we're
going
to
be
now
requiring
or
incentivizing
that
higher
intensity
form
so
four
stories,
five
stories
in
the
MX3,
you
know
a
drive-through
is
going
to
be
reviewed
in
that
we
may
not
be
seeing
the
single
story
drive
through
or
if
it
they
are
proposing.
A
single
story
drive
through
it's
going
to
be
going
through
public
hearing,
because
it's
not
meeting
our
allowed
form.
So
just
another
layer
of
review
on
drive-throughs
foreign.
M
Great,
thank
you
so
as
far
as
State
Street
is
concerned,
and
especially
State
Street
West
of
Glenwood,
you
know
we
talk
about
well
we're
a
car
oriented
culture
and
we
have
to
deal
with
what's
real
now
and
I,
hear
that
a
lot
from
people
in
my
neighborhood,
when
we
were
here
that
we're
a
best-in-class
Transit
along
State
Street,
and
yet
we
don't
have
a
bus
stop
for
two
miles,
and
yet
we
are
approving
Transit
oriented
densities
along
State
Street.
You
know
with
the
hopes
that
someday
we
will
have
bus
stops.
M
I
think
we
just
have
to
be
consistent
here.
I
think
that
if
we're
going
to
design
that
cityscape
for
walkable
local
shopping,
then
we
shouldn't
just
kind
of
think
well.
We
have
to
be
realistic
about
drive-throughs,
but
not
realistic
about
our
actual
bus
service
that
we
have
today.
M
So
I
I
would
oppose
drive-throughs
along
that
area
of
State
Street.
It's
also,
you
know
some
of
that
was
zoned
temporarily
as
the
our
new
pc
Zone,
which
of
course
a
big
proponent
part
of
that
was,
is
walkable,
pedestrian,
right
and
drive-throughs
weren't
allowed.
So
that's
not
necessarily
A
change.
For
some
of
that
stretch
and
then
also
Kensington,
the
Glenwood
well
Gary
Lane,
State,
Street,
mixed
use
or
split
use,
really
development
and
neighbors.
M
Were
you
know
one
of
the
things
the
neighbors
were
successful
in
getting
is
a
lack
of
drive.
You
know,
there's
no
drive-throughs
and
I
think
that
the
the
commercial
there
seems
you
know,
certainly
looks
busy
it.
It
seems
successful,
they're,
all
at
least
now
I
believe,
maybe
not,
but
it
did
take
a
while.
M
Maybe
it
would
have
been
faster
with
with
drive-throughs
but
I
think
that
was
successful
and
is
successful
not
having
drive-throughs,
so
I
I
would
say,
don't
you
know
either
we're
designing
the
streets
for
the
future,
as
as
we
like
to
say-
and
we
just
have
to
accept
that
we
may
be
suffering
in
the
interim
both
commercially
and
in
terms
of
not
having
bus
service,
but
I
think
we
need
to
be
consistent.
H
Thanks
Richard
and
Francis
had
a
comment
and
Hillary
kind
of
replied,
but
she
said:
is
there
a
correlation
between
the
number
of
retail
spaces
needed
if
a
business
does
or
does
not
offer
a
drive-through?
And
maybe
staff
could
answer
this
too?
But
Hillary
said
Francis?
Yes,
usually
they
can
tolerate
less
parking
where
they
have
a
drive-through
without
a
drive-through
you
need
more
parking
spaces
even
for
a
pickup
model
and
then
Andy
just
said
well
said:
Hillary
and
Ben
to
those
earlier
comments.
S
Has
been
a
great
day
and
a
lot
of
really
great
conversation,
I
I
truly
appreciated
it.
S
If
the
whole
public
could
understand
what
we
go
through
in
this
in
this
sort
of
dialogue
in
the
back
and
forth
I
I
one
comment
I
want
to
make
is
that
you
know
sitting
sitting
here
listening
to
this
I'm
I'm
sensing
that
there's
the
vilification
of
the
automobile
right,
big
bad
car,
puffing
out
smoke,
clogging
up
things,
creating
problems
and
and
I
want
us
to
to
sort
of
put
our
hat
on
and
look
into
the
future
where
we
are
still
going
to
have
cars
now,
they're
just
going
to
be
electric
cars,
and
so
some
of
the
negative
impacts
of
the
automobile
world
that
we
live
in
in
terms
of
emissions
and
things
of
that
nature
are
going
to
be
going
away
and
we
are,
we
are
going
to
still
have
the
the
vehicles
we
don't
have.
S
We
don't
have
the
transit
that
Portland
Seattle
all
of
the
communities
that
we're
modeling
after,
if
you
will-
and
we
don't-
we
don't
have
that
because
we
don't
have
the
density,
we
don't
have
the
critical
mass
and
it
will
be
quite
a
while
before
we
have
that
so
I
I
want
us
to
encourage
I,
want
to
encourage
us
to
sort
of
take
kind
of
the
the
notes
from
Hillary
and
from
Ben,
and
the
realization
that
you
know
if,
if
done
well,
drive-throughs
are
are
a
benefit.
S
If
done
poorly
yeah
they're
problematic,
but
don't
don't
I
I
guess
the
caution
is,
don't
don't
vilify
the
car,
especially
knowing
that
we're
going
to
be
going
to
zero
emission
based
cars?
For
you
know
we
have
them
now
and
and
more
and
more
of
their
becoming
part
of
the
process
or
part
of
the
consumer.
C
Yeah
Andy
just
one
follow-up
to
that
really
quickly
and
I
know
we
gotta
kind
of
transition
into
our
end
and
I.
Think
Patrick
you
had
one
did
you
want
to
make
a
comment
really
quickly.
K
C
Thank
you
for
that
and
then
Annie
just
really
quickly
to
the
follow-up
to
your
comment.
I
I
think
it's
a
good
one
I
think
just
to
present
the
sort
of
planner
perspective
a
little
bit
as
well.
Is
that,
yes,
that's
true
thinking
about
the
sort
of
historic
impacts
and
externalities
that
automobiles
bring
from
emissions.
C
However,
regardless
of
how
that
vehicle
is
powered,
the
way
that
it
impacts
our
land
use,
development
is
still
going
to
create
a
lot
of
barriers
to
the
kinds
of
walkable
environments
that
we're
looking
for.
You
know
kind
of
to
what
Richard
was
saying
about
trying
to
think
of
that
future
state
of
what
a
true
Tod
Corridor
could
really
look
like.
C
So,
yes,
cars
are
going
to
be
with
us
for
a
long
time,
even
if
they
Electrify,
but
many
of
the
challenges
that
cars
bring
to
getting
the
kinds
of
cities
that
we
would
like
to
see
and
be
able
to
live
in.
Those
challenges
are
also
going
to
be
with
us
for
a
long
time.
So
I
just
want
to
think
about
that.
Thanks.
S
Totally
agree
and
and
I
think
I
think
what
we
start
to
see
with
Ada
County,
Highway
District
and
the
plantings
is
limiting
access
points
on
and
off
of
properties.
So
you
limit
the
interaction
between
the
automobiles
I
think
those
are
all
part
of
a
well-defined
zoning
ordinance
all
also
and
so
again,
I
understand
this
pedestrian
notion
and
I.
S
Believe
me,
we've
done
a
number
of
projects
that
are
totally
centered
around
pedestrians
and
their
model
projects
in
the
city
of
Boise
and
and
so
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
saying
go
ahead
and
put
a
a
drive-through
everywhere,
but
I'm
saying
don't
eliminate
the
opportunity
to
do
that
and
couch
it
under
a
pedestrian
notion.
Let's
work
with
the
highway
district
in
terms
of
access
and
egresses
things
of
that
nature.
H
Thanks
everyone
there's
just
a
couple
comments
that
I'll
read
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
our
last
slide.
Francis
said
Thank
You
Hillary.
It
makes
sense
that
drive-throughs
would
enable
smaller
Footprints.
So
in
that
sense
it
seems
to
be
a
positive
despite
the
challenges
and
then
Richard
said,
but
we
are
building
without
parking
spaces
regardless
on
these
Transit
corridors.
S
A
So
that
will
be
the
next
big
release
of
the
document
that
we'll
have
given
Clarion
some
time
to
make
those
adjustments
we'll
be
able
to
insert
any
diagrams
or
illustrations
that
support
these.
These
Notions
that
we
have
throughout
the
code
and
then
we
will
be
moving
through
the
public
hearing
process.
So
just
because
the
Citywide
advisory
committee
meetings
will
cease
to
exist
after
January.
We
would
encourage
you
to
participate
in
the
public
hearing
process
and
so
we're
expecting
that
we'll
go
before
the
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
in
April
and
the
City
Council
in
June.
A
A
You
cannot
present
that
to
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commissioner
of
the
city
council,
you
certainly
have
that
ability
to
do
so,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we're
headed
next
and
how
this
process
will
evolve
and
how
you
can
participate
and
anybody
else
can
continue
to
participate
in
the
process,
and
we
just
thank
you
for
being
here
and
participating
and
giving
us
this
great
feedback.
It's
so
helpful.
D
A
So
we
did
go
over
those
detailed
processes.
We
will
have
be
implementing
some
of
those
I.T
systems.
So
just
because
we
have
a
zoning
code
does
not
mean
that
everything
is
a
go.
Our
zoning
applications
will
have
to
change
our
workflows
within
our
software
systems.
Do
have
to
change
so
we'll
be
working
consistently
on
that
to
make
sure
that
we
have
an
effective
transition
once
the
code
comes
into
effect.
We
also
have
some
Community
engagement
that
we
need
to
do
to
educate
people
on
how
to
use
the
new
code.
A
Not
only
are
frequent
users
like
our
developers,
but
we
also
need
to
educate
our
staff
on
how
they
can
use
the
code
and
are
elected
and
appointed
officials
too,
because
they're
going
to
be
our
important
decision-making
bodies,
so
that
is
really
critical,
so
last
CAC
meeting
will
be
January,
26th
and
it'll
be
2023.
If
you,
you
can
believe
that.
H
And
our
last
CAC
we'd
like
to
encourage
all
of
you
to
join
in
person
because
we'll
have
a
few
housekeeping,
but
it'll
really
be
a
celebration,
and
thank
you
for
all
of
your
time
over
the
last
couple
years.
So
we'll
have
some
goodies
that
meeting
as
well.
So
we
encourage
that
one
to
be
in
person
as
much
as
possible,
and
then
there
was
a
question
from
Kelly
that
came
in
about
the
conversion
map.