►
From YouTube: Citywide Advisory Committee
Description
For Zoning Code Rewrite
A
All
right,
it
looks
like
we're
at
301,
so
we
still
have
a
few
people,
trickling
in,
but
we'll
let
them
join
as
they
are
permitted
to
do
so.
We'd
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
zoning
code,
rewrite
citywide
advisory
committee
meeting.
This
is
a
regularly
scheduled
meeting
for
thursday
july
15th
and
we
will
be
talking
about
parking
landscaping
and
building
design
as
we
move
forward.
A
We
just
ask
that
you
be
ready
to
learn
and
do
your
best
and
really
actively
listen
to
one
another,
as
we
move
forward
using
kindness
as
our
our
key
process
and
then
thinking
with
an
open
mind.
Think
of
thinks
about
our
community
as
a
whole
and
then
really
thinking
about
some
of
our
project
goals,
and
you
guys
each
have
those,
as
well
as
the
city's
vision
and
the
mission
which
is
ultimately
to
create
a
city
for
everyone.
A
No
matter
who
meet
you
are
as
we
move
forward.
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
when
do
we
transition
into
from
virtual
meetings
to
in-person
meetings
and
we're
working
behind
the
scenes
for
that
and
we'll
visit
with
you
again
at
our
august
meeting
and
let
you
know
if
that
transition
is
right
for
us
in
september.
So
if
you
have
additional
comments,
go
ahead,
and
let
us
know
about
those
we
heard
from
16
of
you
in
our
survey.
A
So
that
was
that's
a
great
turnout
and
we
appreciate
you
providing
comment
in
regard
to
that
and
then
also,
as
you
receive
your
minutes
from
this
meeting
once
I
present
those
to
you
tomorrow,
you're
going
to
notice
that
in
your
post,
citywide
advisory
committee
survey,
there's
going
to
be
an
additional
section
at
the
bottom.
That
says:
hey
do
you
have
any
other
questions
or
comments
that
you
want
to
give
to
us?
That
may
not
be
specific
to
those
comments
that
we
talk
about
today
pertaining
to
parking
landscaping
or
building
design.
A
We
had
a
recommendation
from
one
of
our
citywide
advisory
committee
members
and
so
we've
integrated
that
so
feel
free
to
use
that
if
you
have
additional
comments
that
you'd
like
to
share
with
us,
as
dawn
has
said
multiple
times,
we're
gathering
comments
in
any
way
that
you
want
to
provide
those.
So
that's
just
one
more
avenue
that
that
you
can
provide
that
information
to
us
and
the
larger
project
team.
A
So
really
I
just
wanted
to
get
us.
Kicked
off
let
you
know
that
we
are
considering
transitioning
to
that
in-person
meetings
and
then
welcome
you
and
thank
you
for
being
here
with
us
today
and
then
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
turn
this
over
to
dawn,
elliott,
our
consulting
partner
with
clarion
associates
and
he's
going
to
take
us
through
those
three
big
questions
for
us
and
then
I'll
just
be
facilitating
in
the
background
and
we'll
also
welcome
any
comments
from
our
committee
members.
So
take
it
away,
dawn.
B
Thank
you
very
much
good
to
see
such
a
continued
good
turnout
of
this
group.
It's
we're
working
our
way
through
this
and
it's
not
easy
going.
Some
of
these
are
very
technical
topics.
B
Today's
are
a
little
bit
more
fun
than
some
in
the
sense
that
a
lot
of
people
have
opinions
about
these
topics,
and
so
I
hope
we
get
good
discussion
and
and
maybe
also
hear
from
some
people
we
haven't
heard
from
before
on
the
group
here,
although,
as
I've
said
and
as
andrea
said,
we
don't
need
to
hear
it
here.
We
can
hear
it
in
writing.
We
can
hear
it
other
places.
Let
me
share
my
screen
and
see
if
I
can
do
that.
B
B
There
you
go
so
hang
on
a
second,
let
me
switch
them
around
here
and
we'll
work
it
out.
Just
a
second!
Let
me
get
over
here.
Let
me
get
over
here
how
about
now.
B
You
know
I've
only
been
doing
this
for
15
months
during
covet
you'd
think,
eventually,
even
I
could
be
trained,
so
apparently
not
okay.
So
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
beginning,
just
here.
Obviously
it's
july
15th,
you
have
seen
this
diagram
many
times.
I
hope
you
have
noticed
that,
although
it
is
slow
progress,
it
is
progress.
We
are
moving
ourselves
from
left
to
right
along
here,
still
accepting
input
on
the
module
one
and
we'll
continue
to
do
so.
B
We
are
we're
working
towards
having
public
comment
on
module,
two
getting
it
in
front
of
you
and
then
getting
it
in
front
of
the
public.
You
know
by
the
next
meeting,
that's
our
goal
and
so
we're
we're
going
to
kind
of
hit
another
benchmark
very
soon
here.
So
I'm
going
to
do
this
and
say:
let's
go
back
to
the
breakdown
very
briefly
in
module,
2
module
1
was
districts
and
uses
module.
Two.
B
We
broke
down
into
kind
of
a
four-month
system
here
and
we
did
it
deliberately,
because
lots
of
people
have
opinions
about
lot
and
building
design,
particularly
height,
particularly
setbacks,
particularly
how
close
it
can
be
to
other
things.
We
we
pushed
for
a
separate
session
on
that
it
was
technical.
It
will
remain
one
that
I
think
people
will
comment
on.
As
the
module
comes
out,
we
had
last
month
on
these
three
issues
of
kind
of
the
fabric
of
how
the
city
grows
and
redeveloped
meaning
subdivisions.
How
do
you
stay
from
sensitive
lands?
B
How
do
you
achieve
access
and
connectivity?
So
it
really
is
a
city
for
everyone,
even
those
who
are
mobility,
impaired.
Those
are
kind
of
the
framework
of
how
you
build
a
city
and
that's
why
we
wanted
to
talk
to
them
in
one
group
and
today,
parking
landscaping,
lighting
and
other
development
standards,
which
I
I
would
be
surprised
if
people
don't
have
opinions
about
them.
B
Our
goal
is,
as
we
did
with
module
one
to
get
this
revised
and
ready
and
presented
to
you
so
that
our
meeting
in
august
can
be
walking
through
orienting
you
to
it
and
highlighting
changes
or
things
that
we,
you
know
you
you
need
to
know
right
up
front.
These
are
big
changes
or
they're,
not
big
changes
or
there's
been
a
lot
of
conversation.
That's
our
goal
for
august.
B
So
let
me
pause
for
just
a
second
and
I
think
what
I'll
do
is
let
andrea
honcho
this
it's
hard
for
me
to
have
all
my
screens
up
at
one
time
to
see
everybody
and
see
all
these
different
presentations.
So
what
I'm
going
to
say
is
andrea.
Could
you
tell
me
whether
anybody
has
a?
B
Right
then,
we'll
move
on
in
the
interest
of
time
it's
a
nice
summer
day,
so
I
did
want
to
point
out.
As
as
background
for
this,
we
have
three
questions:
we're
going
to
talk
about
three
topics.
You
could
talk
about
anything
and
I'll
highlight
some
of
the
other
things
as
we
go
along
that
you
may
want
to
have
comments
on,
but
boise
has
a
very
robust
system
of
design
review
and
in
the
current
ordinance
you
have
these
two
systems.
B
B
They
offer
a
lot
of
guidance
and,
as
we
have
said
before-
and
it's
not
I'm
not
pointing
a
finger,
the
more
guidance
you
give
on
design
the
more
detailed
it
is,
the
more
likely
it
is.
What
you
ask
for
on
page
15
cannot
be
done
on
the
same
site
at
the
same
time
as
the
one
you
ask
for,
on
page
40.,
the
more
you
say,
the
more
likely
it
is
that
on
a
site
with
a
particular
building
program
or
development
proposal,
this
and
that
cannot
be
optimized
at
the
same
time.
B
So
we
have
been
asked
early
on
and
we've
had
this
question.
Are
we
going
to
refine
this
and
the
short
answer
is
the
design
review
system
is
not
part
of
module
2,
it
will
be
part
of
module
3..
No
one
has
asked
us
to
get
rid
of
it
you'll.
Unless
someone
really
changes
course
here
on
the
path
of
the
city,
leadership,
no
one
has
said,
get
rid
of
design
review
and
we
do
not
plan
to
get
rid
of
design
review.
B
However,
having
said
that,
in
our
early
kickoffs,
there
were
a
lot
of
comments
about
how
this
process
takes
a
lot
of
time.
There
are
debates
about
whether
we're
trying
to
optimize
what's
on
page
15
or
page
40
or
page
67,
and
it
adds
time
expense
and
unpredictability
to
the
process.
That
is
not
pointing
a
finger
at
boise.
B
I
I'll
go
out
on
a
limb
and
say
that's
true
of
every
discretionary
design
review
process
when
cities
adopt
them,
it's
because
they
think
the
advantages
outweigh
the
disadvantages
that
they
get
better
design
and
the
better
design
is
worth
the
time,
expense
and
unpredictability
of
going
through
the
process.
No
one
has
asked
us
to
dismantle
that
process.
B
They
have
asked
us
all
the
way
from
the
beginning,
blueprint
boise
talks
about
improved
design,
many
times,
often
that
you
want
a
better
designed
built
environment
than
you
have
had
in
the
past,
and
so
what
we
have
done
is
refer
to
these
two
documents
and
I'll
talk
about
this
more
later
incorporated
basic
ones,
things
that
frankly,
we
are
recommending
do
should
not
be
negotiated.
B
B
We
understand
there
are
different
ways
of
solving
design
problems,
but
we're
not
really
interested
in
negotiating
the
fundamentals
of
pedestrian-oriented
design
or,
if
it's
not
an
urban
setting,
less
pedestrian-oriented
design,
and
we
acknowledge
that
there's
a
lot
of
it
that
can
be
negotiated
and
can
be
refined,
so
you'll
see
that
we
have
referred
to
this,
and-
and
this
is
not
just
building
design,
it
covers
other
things
in
here.
It
covers
things
that
overlap
with
parking
with
landscaping,
with
lighting
with
other
things
in
both
of
these.
Now
in
your
current
ordinance,
these
two
are
overlay
districts.
B
They
are
another
layer
of
zoning.
We
said
six
months
ago.
You
don't
need
to
make
them
overlay
districts
and
the
more
overlay
districts
you
have
the
harder
the
code
is
to
administer.
Take
these
things
keep
your
guidelines.
Your
shoulds
in
these
documents,
take
the
fundamentals
of
design
and
put
it
in
the
code
that
you
could
basically
put
those
in
as
standards.
That's
why
they're
in
module?
Two?
That's
why
in
module?
One
we
said
do
not
carry
these
over
as
overlay
districts
as
another
layer
of
zoning.
Most
cities
do
not
it's
not
necessary.
B
You
just
write
them
down
for
this
type
of
development.
The
following
are
required
so
and
I'm
raising
it
now
to
start
because
again,
it's
not
just
building
design
it
overlaps
with
site
design
where
the
parking
is
landscaping,
lighting
et
cetera,
so
the
basics-
and
we
are
exercising
judgment
here,
of
what
other
medium-sized
cities
that
are
fairly
auto
oriented,
but
striving
to
create
a
transit
system
to
create
areas
of
urbanism
and
activity
centers.
B
B
If
the
boise
design
guidelines
say
you
shall
comply
with
this,
it's
a
shall
not
a
should.
Then
you
need
to
comply
with
it.
But-
and
this
is
we
had
to
think
this
through
in
person-
there
is
stuff
that
clarion
recommends
does
belong
in
the
code.
You'll
see
that
in
module
two
there
is,
there
are
shells
in
these
two
documents
that
are
very,
very
detailed.
B
Very
detailed
for
the
topics
that
they
address
and
that
we
recommend
do
not
come
into
the
code
because
they
would
add
a
lot
of
length
and
even
though
they're
shalls,
we
think
there
is
a
high
likelihood
they
would
need
to
be
negotiated
and
traded
against
each
other,
and
so
we
have
left
them
in
these
two
documents.
So
these
documents
don't
just
con
at
the
end
of
this
process.
If,
if
the,
when
the
new
code
is
adopted-
and
you
have
put
some
of
the
basics
in
here-
you'll
still
need
these
two
documents.
B
Probably
what
will
happen
is
that
the
things
that
we've
taken
into
the
code
will
be
taken
out
of
these
documents.
There's
no
need
to
say
it
twice,
but
what
will
be
left
is
not
the
stuff
we
put
in
the
code,
but
some
shells
and
the
shoulds
shoulds
means
it
doesn't
say
you
have
to
do
this.
It
says
boise
wants
you
to
do
this
in
this
kind
of
a
cooperation,
so
this
is
these.
Two
documents
are
fundamental
to
this
conversation.
Today
they
will
reign.
In
effect,
parts
of
them
have
been
brought
in.
B
B
So
let's
talk
about
parking
and
loading
by
the
way
parking
loading
also
includes
kind
of
stacking
of
drive-through
uses.
If
you
have
them.
So
what
are
the
trends
or
have
two
or
three
slides
and
then
we'll
ask
our
parking
question
there
are
well,
I
don't
know
any
code
that
has
increased
its
parking
requirements
generally
over
the
past
two
decades.
Most
of
them
are
reduced.
B
This
is
a
tricky
issue
because,
even
though
I
know
we
have
many
people
on
this
committee
that
are
very
invested
in
parking
and
very
much
would
like
either
them
reduced
or
eliminated
altogether.
We've
had
a
couple
of
eloquent
writings
and
statements
in
our
meetings
about
just
get
rid
of
them.
I
have
to
tell
you:
there
are
many
people
in
every
major
city
who
think
the
problem
is
just
the
opposite.
Who
think
the
problem
is
that
there's
not
enough
parking
because
it
can't
park
conveniently
so?
This
is
even
though
this
meeting
may
not
reflect
it.
B
We
need
to
take
it
seriously.
There
are.
There
will
be
voices
all
the
way
through
the
process
saying?
Well,
no,
you
guys
got
it
wrong
now.
Having
said
that,
I
don't,
with
a
few
exceptions,
very
few
exceptions.
When
we
review
codes,
we
look
at
the
rates.
We
compare
them
with
other
cities
that
we
think
are
comparable
in
various
characteristics
and
usually
they
go
down.
So,
but
let's
talk
about
this,
we
have
had
at
least
a
couple.
People
say
eliminate
them.
That
is
a
trend.
It
is
happening.
B
There
are
cities
out
there
that
have
said
we're
not
going
to
regulate
this
anymore.
It
is
more
trouble
than
it's
worth
and
history
shows
that,
despite
our
best
efforts,
we
tend
to
over
require
it
now
when
people
say
eliminated,
it
is
much
more
often
done
for
downtown
than
other
places.
Fifty
percent
of
the
downtowns
in
america
don't
have
parking
minimums
the
other
50
percent.
B
Do
I
can't
tell
the
difference
so
for
downtowns,
you
know,
uses
come
uses,
go
buildings,
go
up,
buildings
get
redeveloped,
buildings
come
down
and
the
truth
is
downtowns
in
many
places
operate
as
a
general
pool
of
parking.
If
the
rates
go
up
over
here,
I
start
parking
over
there,
so
it's
very
common
to
eliminate
them
for
downtown
and
it
is
increasingly
common
to
either
reduce
or
eliminate
them
for
activity
centers
for
mixed
use
and
non-residential.
B
It
is
still
relatively
rare
for
cities
to
say
in
our
residential
districts
we
are
eliminating
parking
requirements.
I
think
we'll
have
a
robust
discussion
about
that.
The
there
are
clearly
examples
out
there
of
cities
that
have
said
where
buffalo
new
york
has
just
said.
We
don't
do
this,
we
don't
do
this
we'll
let
the
market
figure
it
out
and
there
are,
and
there
are
others
so
maximum
parking.
B
Should
there
be
cases
in
which
you
may
not
provide
that
much
parking.
The
classic
example
is
shopping
malls
that
the
banks
want
to
see
enough
parking
for
the
day
after
thanksgiving
the
biggest
parking
day
of
the
year.
Most
planners
would
say
that
is
a
really
bad
way
to
use
land.
You
don't
plan
anything
for
the
biggest
possible
day,
especially
when
the
biggest
possible
day
is
twice
as
much
as
most
of
the
other
days.
We
don't
you
just
don't.
Do
that.
That's
landing
efficient,
so
increasingly
people
codes.
Are
they
all
have
this
conversation?
B
Do
you
need
maximum
parking?
Yes,
we
should
have
it
or
no
when
they
adopt
it.
Increasingly,
our
opinion
is
they
don't
just
say
the
maximum
is
125
of
the
minimum.
The
maximum
is
150
percent
of
the
minimum.
It
turns
out
that
creates
a
lot
of
unintended
consequences.
So,
instead
the
trend
is
to
focus
and
say
this.
B
These
uses
like
shopping
centers
are
the
ones
that
are
most
likely
to
over
park
in
ways
that
spread
things
apart,
make
them
less
walkable
harder
to
get
to,
except
in
a
car
and
tailor
maximum
parking
to
the
things
that
are
actually
creating.
What
what
plans
like
blueprint
boise
say
are
problems
these
create
walkability
problems.
You
know
if
I
own
a
little
shop
at
somewhere
and
I
have
four
parking
spaces
or
I'm
going
to
build
one,
and
the
question
is:
do
I
have
four
or
six
parking
spaces?
B
150,
you
know
the
minimum,
it's
more
the
maximum
six.
Who
cares?
It
doesn't
matter
the
difference
between
four
parking
spaces
and
six
doesn't
create
a
walkability
problem.
So
increasingly,
they're
tailored
more
codes
are
requiring
bicycle
parking,
more
codes
of
requiring
electrical
vehicle
charging
to
be
in
larger
lots
and
or
saying
we'll
reduce
your
parking,
we'll
either
require
it
or
when
you
provide
it,
we
will
reduce
the
amount
of
minimum
parking
you
need.
B
There
are
usually
multiple
ways
to
adjust
things
downward
to
reflect
the
fact
that
you're
near
transit
availability
of
public
parking
there
are
I've
written
at
least
10
different
ways
that
you
that
recent
codes
have
said
if
you're
near
public
parking.
Fine,
if
you
have
on
street
parking
fine,
if
you
provide
us
van
pool
and
carpool
places,
we're
reduced
proximity
to
transit,
is
more
likely
you'll
ride
the
bus,
you're,
reduced,
etc
and
increasingly
parking
is
required
in
most
contexts,
not
every
context
to
be
behind
or
beside
the
buildings
in
most
mixed-use
and
non-residential
areas.
B
Are
there
still
arterial
corridors
where
it
makes
sense
to
have
the
parking
on
the
street?
But
the
street
is
so
big
that
the
truth
is,
it
will
never
be
pedestrian-oriented
and
it
doesn't
matter
there
are
some.
If
those
of
you
know
colorado
or
denver
colorado
boulevard
is
like
an
eight-lane
arterial,
very
important,
very
congested
on
saturdays.
My
personal
opinion
is
colorado,
boulevard
will
never
be
pedestrian
oriented.
There
will
never
be
people
strolling
down
colorado
boulevard
and
having
lattes
under
umbrellas.
B
It
doesn't
make
sense,
and
so
in
areas
like
that,
sometimes,
where
there's
high
volumes
of
car
traffic
and
not
a
realistic
sense
that
this
will
be
a
a
pedestrian
quarter,
they
often
say:
well,
we
don't
care
so
much
whether
you
put
parking
behind
the
building.
Albuquerque
has
a
category
of
roads
and
and
design
standards.
It
says
basically
hey,
we
know
what
this
road
is
for,
it's
getting
from
the
north
side
of
albuquerque
to
the
south
side
of
albuquerque,
that's
what
it
does
and
we
are
going
to
zone
appropriately.
B
This
is
a
commuter
road,
high
volumes
fairly
fast
nobody's
going
to
walk
along
this
road.
We're
going
to
be
reasoned
about
this,
so
I
showed
these
two
issues
because
I
showed
this
in
a
webinar
the
other
day.
The
top
the
top
picture
is
a
true
parking
congestion.
That's
a
problem
if
those
guys
are
parked.
B
The
bottom
is
not,
you
know,
that's
my
block
and
I
have
neighbors
who
say
where
it's
all
parked
up
and
I
think
no,
I'm
sorry,
that's
not
all
parked
up
so,
but
this
is
this
is
what
we're
gonna
have
to
talk
about.
I
wanted
to
show
you
when
you
see
module
two.
This
is
just
a
clip.
Please
don't
memorize
this,
because
it's
just
a
clip
to
show
you
how
it's
organized
it
will
say,
on
the
left
hand,
column.
B
What
are
the
uses
we're
talking
about,
and
this
assumes
that
you
keep
them,
because
I
think
we
have
you
know.
People
may
say,
let's
just
repeal
them,
but
if
you
don't
repeal
them
and
module
two
has
not
the
draft
itself
at
as
of
this
meeting
as
of
right
now,
until
somebody
tells
me
otherwise
has
not
taken
out
this
chapter,
the
left-hand
side
is
the
list
of
uses
which
matches
up
with.
What's
in
the
use
table,
the
middle
is
your
current
standards
and
you
have
three
parking
overlays.
B
These
are
like
your
design,
overlays,
we
said:
don't
do
that.
Just
put
them
in
here
map
the
areas
in
the
parking
chapter
and
say
and
right
before
this
table,
it
says
here's
a
map.
If
it's
p1,
you
are
not
required
to
have
parking,
that's
the
core
of
your
downtown.
You
already
have
done
that.
I
don't
want
to
have
a
column
in
here.
That
says
not,
if
not
applicable,
all
the
way
through
so
before
the
table
we
said,
p1
is
not
applicable.
B
P2
and
p3
are
lesser
reductions,
so
there's
a
general
thing
and
then
there's
a
map
that
says
p2
and
p3
have
reductions
and
and
that
those
tie
we
have
not
proposed
a
remapping
of
those
areas.
It's
a
transfer
of
your
overlay
districts
into
standards
now
on.
The
right
is
the
recommended
and
we
have
changed
those
we
have
done
our.
What
we
think
is
our
job.
We
have
gone
through
and
put
a
minimum
on
there.
This
clip
shows
only
one
in
this
clip.
B
We
have
not
distinguished
between
general
p2
and
p3
for
brewpubs,
exactly
the
recommendation,
and
this
clip
is
three
per
thousand
and
it
doesn't
distinguish
other
portions
of
the
table.
We
do
other
portions
of
the
table
where
you
currently
say
less
is
possible
in
p1
in
p2
or
p3.
We
do
carry
it
forward.
We
did
not
throw
that
away.
However,
in
a
number
of
cases
we
looked
at
the
standards
around
the
country,
and
we
said
the
standards
you
have
for
p2
or
p3
are
the
national
standards
emerging?
So
why?
If
you're
all?
B
If
it
reaches
city
council,
we
will
take
out
that
middle
section
and
all
we'll
have
is
the
right
and
the
left.
The
point
of
it
in
now
is
to
allow
you
to
see
wow.
They
really
reduce
that
I
hate
that
or
wow.
They
really
reduce
that.
I
love
that
the
point
we've
learned
over
time,
it's
very
hard
to
footnote.
B
These
changes
just
show
them
in
the
table
and
when
you
adopt
it,
take
out
the
middle
column
and
leave
it
with
what
the
new
one
is
so
last
one
our
next
slide,
I
think
here
is
parking.
Adjustments.
This
table
on
the
left
is
a
table
that
will
appear
in
module
two
that
talks
about.
How
do
you
reduce
parking
when
you
are
having
mixed
use
and
the
emerging
practice
around
the
country
is
something
like
this?
B
That's
what
that's
how
it
works
if
it
was
the
bottom
left,
if
you
had
multi-family
dwellings
next,
other
commercial,
you
would
add
it
up
and
you
would
divide
by
1.3,
and
so
that
is
the
shared
parking
adjustment,
which
is
intended
to
be
much
more
objective
and
much
more
predictable
than
what
you
have
now
parking
adjustments.
I've
listed
them
there
shared
is
the
table
on
street
parking,
motorcycle
parking,
affordable
housing,
transit,
supportive
adaptive,
reuse,
transportation,
management
and
adjustments.
B
Those
third
excuse
me.
Fourth,
fifth
and
sixth:
bullets:
affordable
housing,
transit,
supportive
housing
and
adaptive
reuse
housing
are
not
new
they're
in
your
affordable
housing.
Bonus
ordinance
that
council
adopted
a
year
ago
when
we
were
just
getting
going
on
this,
but
but
they
they
are
parking
reductions
related
to
affordable
housing.
They
don't
stand
on
their
own
part
of
our
job.
B
Here
was
to
take
those
and
put
them
in
here
and
use
the
same
terminology
and
they
have
been
adjusted
to
line
with
the
other
changes
we've
made
as
we've
drafted
the
code,
so
they're
not
identical,
they
are
intended
to
be
not
more
generous,
not
less
generous.
We
didn't
try
to
renegotiate
the
deal,
but
we
had
to
align
it
with
different
uses
and
different
districts,
and
so
it
is
intended
to
be
a
conversion
of
what
council
approved
a
year
ago,
integrated
into
a
general
section
of
the
different
things
you
can
do
to
reduce
parking.
B
So
we
also
that
you'll
see
in
the
chapter
when
we
do
it.
It
also
addresses
drive
through
facilities
and
stacking
areas,
and
it
addresses
parking
lot
design.
It
does
not
address.
The
chapter
here
doesn't
address
parking
lot
landscaping,
because
we
believe
that
landscaping
should
be
designed
by
the
site
designer
all
as
one
and
I'll.
That's
our
next
topic
after
our
break
is
landscaping
in
our
the
way
clarion
recommends
is
that
parking
lot.
B
So
what
the
parking
chapter
says
is:
thou
shalt
landscape
per
the
parking
section
of
the
landscaping
chapter,
and
then
this
chapter
also
deals
with
loading
facilities,
so
blueprint
boise
says:
create
incentives
such
as
reduce
parking
requirements,
deferred
development
impactives,
which
we
have
not
addressed
in
here
so
far
or
I
have
not
planned
to
address
because
it's
an
impact
fee
question:
when
specific
trans
transit
demand
management,
transportation,
demand
management,
parking
techniques
are
implemented.
B
B
Sometimes
it's
a
request
to
do
more,
but
a
tdm
is
a
transportation
demand
management
plan
that
basically
says
in
blueprint:
boise
open
the
door
to
people
who
have
a
plan
to
do
a
better
job
than
just
the
reduced
parking
requirements
and
allow
them
to
put
the
plant
in
front
of
the
city
and
reduce
the
parking
requirements
to
reduce
the
amount
of
parking
for
crimes
establish
maximums.
I've
just
explained
that
promotes
provision
of
safe,
secure,
bicycle
parking,
shower
locker
storage
facilities.
So
those
are
all
things
that
blueprint
boise
said.
B
So
the
question
is:
should
minimum
parking
standards
be
removed
and
if
so,
where
I
know
it's
been
raised
and
where
should
maximum
parking
standards
apply?
I
know
this
group
well
enough
to
know
that
if
you
have
a
separate
comment
on
a
different,
a
parking
topic,
you
will
feel
free
to
comment.
B
So
that's
the
question:
do
what
could
you
han
show
the
chat
box
andrea?
While
we
do
this.
A
Yes,
so
patrick
spouts
had
a
question
if
you
could
go
back
to
the
slide,
that
has
the
here's
what
the
current
and
proposed
it
was
an
example
sheet
of
parking
right
there
and
he
asked.
Can
you
convert
the
space
per
seat
into
approximate
spaces
per
set
footage
simply
because
it's
hard
to
compare
without
a
conversion
factor
and
then
patrick
also
has
his
hand
raised,
and
so
we
may
want
to
hear
from
him
to
see
if
he
wants
to
elaborate
on
that
comment
at
all.
Okay,.
B
So
the
answer
to
patrick's
first
question
is
no:
no
there's
not
a
not
there's,
not
an
exact
conversion
factor
once
again.
There
are.
It
is
not
it's
not
necessarily
a
bad
practice
to
have
parking
based
on
seats,
but
it
really
it
in
places
like
schools
and
universities.
B
It's
hard
to
it's
sometimes
hard
to
do
because
which
seats.
Usually
it
means
the
seats
in
the
biggest
assembly
areas,
but
sometimes
the
assembly
area
is
almost
never
used
and
what's
really
relevant
is
the
seats
in
the
classrooms,
and
you
don't
want
to
add
up
all
the
seats
in
the
classrooms
because
they're
not
all
occupied
at
the
same
time,
and
so
when
possible
we
move
away
from
per
employee.
I
really
don't
like
per
employee,
because
employees
come
and
go
today
we
are
employ
20.
Tomorrow
we
employ
25..
B
B
In
our
opinion,
that's
the
easiest
way
to
do
this,
because
everybody-
and
we
sometimes
have
developers
say,
can
I
do
net
floor
area,
meaning
let's
ignore
elevator
wells
and
stairwells
and
storage
rooms
and
things
like
that
yeah
we
could,
but
every
city
measures
those
differently.
It's
almost
it's
a
much
easier
because
every
building
application
or
site
plan
tells
you
how
many
feet
of
gross
floor
area.
You're
gonna
have
just
adjust
them
to
to
say.
B
We
think
this
converts
into
the
following
amount
of
gross
floor
area
and
patrick
the
conversion
is
not
the
same
for
every
use
in
some
cases.
I
did
this
work
and
so
going
through
here
and
saying
you
know
they
say
you
know
so
many
per
three
seats.
I
could
apply
a
factor
and
get
to
a
number
but
wow
we're
looking
around
and
that's
still
too
high.
B
Most
cities
have
a
lower
number
than
that
or
a
higher
number
than
that,
and
so
there
are
conversion
factors,
but
it's
not
a
standard
conversion
factor,
and
we
didn't
just
do
that.
We
went
through
and
said
what
they've
paid
us
to
do
is
to
look
at
what
other
cities
require
and
whether
it's
adequate,
and
so
that's
what
we've
done
it.
You
could
derive
a
conversion
factor,
but
you'd
find
it's
different
in
each
in
many
cases.
So.
C
B
And
that
I
I
sympathize
with
you
for
the
reason
I
said
I
won't
take
more
time
to
say
it's
hard
for
us
to
tell
it
all
depends
on
how
you
would
have
counted
the
seats.
A
So
currently
our
restaurants
do
talk
about
per
seat,
but
when
we
talk
about
office
or
retail,
we
talk
about
gross
floor
area,
and
so
when
you're
in
a
mixed
use
zone-
or
you
know
perhaps
a
strip
mall
or
something
like
that-
you
know
tenants
change
over
time
and
so
oftentimes
close
gross
floor
area
provides
a
little
more
consistency
for
you
so
that
you
can
start
to
integrate
restaurants,
and
then
you
know
if
for
some
reason
that
doesn't
thrive
there,
we
can
then
integrate
a
retail
use
relatively
easily.
A
A
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
was
just
typing
up
a
response
to
what
patrick
was
asking
and
don
kind
of
touched
on
this
a
little
bit
so
the
for
a
comparison
you
might
be
looking
at
a
restaurant
or
a
brew
pub
and
you're
gonna.
Look
at
the
occupant
load,
that's
required
by
the
building
code,
and
that
will
tell
you
you
know,
for
this.
Many
square
feet,
for
example,
tables
and
chairs.
D
D
So
I
I
agree.
It's
not
readily
clear
how
it
relates
from
the
left
to
the
right,
but
I
was
hoping
that
that
could
kind
of
help
explain
or
explain
this
comment.
Sorry.
B
Oh,
no,
that's
helpful
it's!
You
know.
This
is
one
of
those
areas
of
code
writing
where,
frankly,
I
I
I'm
not
trying
to
evade
the
conversation.
If
we
want
to
plow
into
it
in
more
detail
offline,
we
can
do
that.
I
think
the
real.
This
is
one
of
those
cases
where
kind
of
like
the
use
table
it
is
in.
In
our
opinion,
we
try
to
footnote
the
changes
so
that
we're
being
transparent
people
know
and
those
who
care
those
who
have
a
restaurant
can
go
through
and
say
wow.
B
I
would
have
had
to
do
this
much
and
I
know
the
new
really
do
that.
Do
I
think
that's
fair.
The
bottom
line
is,
is
this
what
you
want
is
this
in
my
mind,
it
is
more
important
to
know
whether
that
next
to
the
right
hand,
column
is
in
the
opinions
of
those
who
do
these
things,
builders,
neighbors,
but
also
builders
and
engineers,
and
bankers
and
financers.
B
Does
that
seem
right
and-
and
I
mean
very
clearly
does
that
seem
more
than
the
city's
going
to
require,
because
if
a
bank
requires
more
often
they
do
more,
I
you
the
the
goal
of
that.
Next.
To
writing.
Column
is
not
to
guess
what
the
banks
will
do.
B
It
is
to
achieve
the
two
things
that
cities
are
supposed
to
achieve
through
parking
ratios.
If
you
decide
to
keep
them
avoiding
traffic
congestion,
avoiding
people
double
parking
and
screwing
up
the
road
system
and
the
circulation,
which
is
a
public
safety
problem
because
they
provided
inadequate
parking,
that's
a
legitimate
public's
health
and
safety
issue.
That's
why
parking
frame
in
the
beginning
and
secondly,
legitima-
is
avoiding
overflow
parking
in
the
neighborhoods.
It
is
not
fun
to
live
next
to
an
activity
center
and
have
people,
reuse
buildings
or
build
new
buildings.
B
Didn't
matter
they'll
just
park
three
blocks
away
in
the
neighborhood,
I'm
not
saying
that's
an
engineering
problem,
I'm
saying
it's
a
political
problem.
Most
people
will
stand
up
and
say
you
know
what
and
I've
been
in
these
meetings.
You
know
they're
people
parking
in
and
blocking
up
our
block,
not
because
they're,
just
the
public
radio,
but
to
go
to
something
five
blocks
away,
and
that
seems
like
a
job.
The
city
should
have
foreseen
and
not
done,
and
so
anyway,
those
are
the
two
points.
B
Neighborhood
overflow
parking
is
usually
considered
a
valid
reason,
and
traffic
congestion
is
a
very
valid
reason
other
than
that
we're
not
supposed
to
be
guessing
what
the
market
wants.
This
is
this
is
public
protection
numbers.
E
Yeah
thanks
andrea,
so
don.
I
just
have
a
question
before
we
I
pop
in
with
parking
minimums.
Are
there
are
most
cities
still
calculating
in
residential
zones,
parking
minimums
per
living
unit,
or
are
any
cities
really
looking
at,
because
that
that
provides
a
little
bit
of
punishment?.
E
Lots
specifically
as
we're
talking
about
you
know
allowing
triplexes
and
four
plexes
on
smaller
lots.
You
know
requiring
parking
ratios
the
same
way
that
we
calculate
densities,
you
know
places
an
undue
burden
on
smaller
lots.
The
smaller
the
lot
is
right.
So
I'm
wondering
if,
if
other
cities
are
calculating
outside
of
the
the
living
unit
ratio.
B
A
few
not
many
most
are
still
doing
a
per-dwelling
unit
system.
We
I'll
I'll
answer
your
question
a
different
way,
rather
than
having
a
different
ratio
for
small
lots.
I
have
seen
some
parking
standards
that
basically
exempt
small
lots
from
both
commercial
and
residential
parking.
They
just
set
a
number
5
000
square
feet,
7
000
square
feet,
7
500
square
feet
and
say
this:
these
are
small
lots.
They
were
planted
a
long
time
ago
and
we
can
have
standards
as
to
how
much
building
can
occupy
that
lot
and
you
can.
B
If
this
person
has
to
provide
more
parking
when
they
reuse
it,
and
so
we
just
exempt
small
lots
from
parking
requirements
more
often
in
commercial
and
mixed
use
than
in
residential,
but
sometimes
in
residential.
So
I
haven't
seen
a
kind
of
a
two-tiered
approach
and
yes,
it's
mostly
done
by
dwelling
unit
and
and
the
fix
is
not
to
have
two
ratios
in
my
experience.
It's
to
exempt
things
that
you
think
are
going
to
have
a
very
hard
time
complying.
G
A
So
I
do
have
some
comments
in
the
chat,
so
ultimately,
patrick
has
stated,
requiring
more
parking
generally
means
more
expensive
and
fewer
housing
options.
The
hard
tradeoffs
with
housing,
opportunity
and
better
transit
and
walkability
make
me
want
to
substantially
reduce
them.
Yep
and
roberta
also
stated.
I
have
not
seen
car
share
options.
Take
off
here
in
boise,
for
example,
zip
car,
which
operates
similar
to
the
bike
share
option.
It's
handy
with
proposing
increasing
more
bicycle
parking,
as
well
as
more
electrical
vehicle
charging
stations
to
reduce
car
usage
and
promote
car
share
options.
Okay,
that's.
B
Good,
let
me
play
devil's
advocate
guys.
This
is
a
big
deal
this.
If
we
we
we're
going
to
have
this
debate,
go
on
a
few
people
have
weighed
in
here,
you
already
have
p1
downtown,
you
say:
look
let
the
market
figure
this
out.
Then
you've
got
these
p2
and
p3
gradations
out
from
downtown.
No
one
has
really
complained
about
it.
Clarion
was
the
one
who
said
yeah,
you
know
we
don't
object,
but
you're
doing
this
wrong.
It
shouldn't
be
an
overlay
district.
Are
you
doing
it
in
an
awkward
way?
B
B
When
you
want
nodes
of
service
and
again,
we've
got
zone
districts
to
talk
about
small
ones
and
medium
ones
that
are
intended
to
be
located.
You
know
medium
ones
where
it
can
support
transit,
smaller
ones
where
they
can
be
sources
of
locals
or
daily
goods
that
don't
require
you
to
get
in
the
car
and
go
somewhere.
B
B
B
H
You
so
don
you
know,
I'm
thinking
of
current
activity,
centers
like
hyde
park
and
as
someone
whose
partner
has
lived
a
block
away
from
hyde
park
for
20
years,
the
parking
you
know
it
just
extends
to
the
adjacent,
and
then
you
know,
like
maybe
a
two
or
three
blocks
radius
from
the
hyde
park
area.
So
I
can
see
why
you
could
have
some
folks
in
those
area
in
activity.
Centers
like
hyde
park,
be
opposed
to
eliminating
parking
for
businesses,
but
I'm
actually
thinking
of
you,
know
the
state
street
corridor.
H
B
Bit
on
that
or
anybody
else
who
wants
to
weigh
in
so
another
alternative
would
be
along
the
state
street
corridor,
let's
treat
it
like
p2
or
p3,
it's
not
downtown,
we
don't
wave
them
all
together,
and
so
you
don't
have
to
do
it.
We
say
just
as
downtown
has
a
penumbra
circles
of
reduced
parking
around
it.
State
street
isn't
p1,
it's
not
downtown
boise,
but
it's
more
like
p2,
there's
a
good
there's,
a
good
bus
system
and
there
will
be
a
better
bus
system.
B
Let's,
let's
do
some
reduced
version
in
there
so
that
you
know
if
I
was
showing
you
a
different
page
of
this
table
it
might
have
in
the
recommended.
P2
is:
is
x,
square
x,
spaces,
that's
the
one
that
ought
to
apply
and
if
we-
and
so
maybe
the
one
possible
alternative
is.
A
Okay,
we
have
some
comments
that
are
also
coming
in,
so
byron
says
that
he
fully
agrees
that
parking
minimums
should
be
waived
in
activity.
Centers
roberta
has
said
you
know,
the
issue
is
more
likely
one
for
business
owners
as
a
lot
of
people
will
not
walk
to
shop.
Why
she
would
you
know
a
lot
of
her
friends
or
affiliates
would
not
go
to
locations
where
they
don't
have
parking.
A
C
I'm
sure
my
opinions
won't
be
surprising
to
anyone,
but
I'll
get
them
from
the
record
and
one
I'm
touching
the
hyde
park
question.
I
live
near
hyde
park
and,
like
there's
parking
in
front
of
my
house
all
the
time,
but
you
know
I'm
attracted
to
here
because
I
like
the
walkable
area
and
I'm
happy
that
people
use
it,
and
I
think
that's
it's
great
that
hyde
park
exists
and
if
we
required
large
amounts
of
parking
for
it
to
exist,
it
wouldn't
be
like
that
at
all.
C
So
that's
a
that's
something
that
a
lower
parking
standard
allows
to
exist.
It's
kind
of
a
question
of
like
what
do
we
want
to
see
and
if
we
like
the
hyde
park
thing
that
is
partially
the
world
you
get
and
yes,
there's
some
congested
street
parking.
That
is.
That
is
a
consequence
that
comes
from
this,
but
I
think
the
benefits
are
super
super
large
and
that's
why
I
want
to
live
here
and
judging
by
the
prices
in
the
north
end.
J
B
C
That's
my
real
view,
but
then
we're
talking
within
what
you
made
clear
with
the
realm
of
the
political
possible.
So
I'm
I'm
working
toward
consensus.
I
I
am
convinced
you
know
the
shoot,
etc,
etc,
that
on
the
merits,
it
works
out
well,
and
you
may
have
to
do
more
to
manage
street
parking.
You
know
you
may
have
to
permit
for
residents
and
things
like
that.
C
That
would
involve
some
changes
and
that
may
not
be
a
political
winnable
battle,
but
as
far
as
like,
I
am
deeply
convinced
if
you're
asking
what
is
like
good
for
a
city
that
when
you
come
out,
the
other
side
is
a
better
place
with
a
huge.
You
know:
positive
consumer
surplus
and
a
happy
happy
situation
would
be
removing
them
entirely.
The
housing
piece
is
key,
but
everything
else
can
work
out
quite
well
and
there's
others
showing
that
it
can
be
done
and
a
lot
of
places.
B
That's
very
true,
okay,
so
I
want
to
be
clear
and
and
patrick's
kind
of
hinted
at
something
which
is
that
an
alternative
view
of
this
would
be.
I
have
never
seen
a
pure
version
of
this,
but
it's
emerging
in
places
around
the
country,
we're
not
going
to
tell
you
how
much
parking
you
have
to
have
on
your
site,
we're
going
to
tell
you
we're
going
to
expand
our
neighborhood
protection,
permit
systems
and
just
say
we're
going
to
tell
you
where
you
can't
park
there
are.
B
It
is
easier
for
us
to
do
that
and
less
land
inefficient
and
more
walkable
to
have
builders
and
developers
scratching
their
heads
over
how
much
they
really
need,
rather
than
selling
a
minimum.
So
there
is
an
alternative
look
at
this
and
saying:
why
are
we
telling
him
how
much
this
guy
needs?
Why
don't
we
just
tell
him
where
he
can't
park
and
they'll
figure
it
out
so
anyway,
I'll
happy
to
take
the
next
hand.
A
J
As
I've
kind
of
seen,
what's
happened
on
the
ground
not
just
on
paper
but
on
the
ground
and.
F
J
You
know
out
in
the
neighborhood
like
ours,
which
you
know
the
divergent
opinions
of
ache
and
voicing
the
way
that
the
neighborhoods
can
kind
of
fall
to
the
cracks
in
terms
of
how
standards
are
implemented
or
not.
Implemented
really
has
given
me
pause
and-
and
I
think
some
really
poor
decisions
have
been
made
out
here,
because
they
call
it
a
rural
area.
J
Even
though
they're
you
know
we're
building
three
or
four
story
apartments,
and
they
say
that
spails
are
appropriate
and
how
this
interacts
with
parking
may
be
fairly
complex,
but
basically
it
means
that
on
the
street
parking
it
then
pours
out
farther
into
the
street,
and
especially
when
you
couple
this
with
intersections
that
are
not
up
to
standards
right
off
the
state
street.
Where
the
traffic
is,
you
know
six
miles
per
hour,
it
really
does
it
was
a
hazard
and
it's
going
to
pose
additional
hazards
and.
J
Me
to
a
point
about
space
street.
I
agree
with
esther,
I
believe
talking
we
about
the
remember,
there's
really
two
state
streets
in
what
is
now
boise
west
of
the
language
shopping
center
and
then
goes
to
itd's
jurisdiction
and
there's
all
sorts
of
problems
there.
We're
not
allowed
to
have
hov
lanes
on
that
section.
It's
unlikely
that
we'll
actually
have
any
bus
stops.
You
know
our
neighborhood
three
miles
or
so
about
the
eagle
in
in
the
fortunate
future
talking
to
ccdc
a
little
bit
ago.
K
J
And
having
the
continuation
of
so-called
transit-oriented
development
with
the
minimum
arguments,
but
we
don't
I
mean
that's
just
and
then
the
problem
when
you
don't
do
that
and
yet
you
pretend
you're
doing.
It's
just
causes
a
lot
of
problems
and
so.
J
J
M
Okay,
we
do
have.
A
A
hand
up
from
chris,
but
before
we
take
chris,
I'm
gonna
go
through
because
we
have
seven
comments,
so
I'm
gonna
quickly
run
through
those
and
then
just
for
to
keep
us
on
a
timely
watch.
We
have
you
know
five
to
six
minutes
left
to
talk
about
this
particular
question.
If
it
gets
really
in-depth,
you
know
we'll
understand
that.
There's
some
trade-offs
that
can
happen
later
down
the
line.
So
shelin
has
just
said
parking
requirements
should
be
related
to
access
to
services
and
multimodal
transit.
I'm
not
certain.
A
If
an
activity
center
is
the
only
place
that
would
meet
those
criteria,
I
feel
strongly
parking
should
be
reduced
in
order
to
help
incentivize
people
developers
to
design
around
people
and
not
cars,
at
least
in
multi-family
housing.
The
market
will
drive
the
parking
standards,
not
necessarily
the
code.
A
Chris
has
followed
up,
saying:
I'm
also
thinking
of
bound
crossing
where
there
is
walkability
factor
for
some
in
the
neighborhood
and
greenbelt
users,
but
also
people
that
come
from
across
the
treasure
valley
to
the
area.
So
some
parking
is
necessary
for
those
who
do
not
live
in
the
neighborhood
or
nearby,
but
reduced
parking
is
helpful
to
maintain
walkability
and
a
mini
activity.
Center
sort
of
feel
ian
has
followed
up
and
said.
I
agree
with
shelin.
A
That's
an
interesting
idea
of
market
driving
amount
of
parking
for
reference
hyde
park
could
most
likely
not
be
created
under
our
current
parking
standards.
Esther
has
followed
up
with,
I
agree
with
shelin
parking
should
be
reduced
in
order
to
help
incentivize
people
and
developers
to
design
around
people.
Not
cars,
roberta
has
said
bound
crossing
is
what
I
was
exactly
thinking
of.
Richard
is
very
garbled
and
richard
we
did.
Some
of
your
voice
was
garbled
and,
as
you
were
speaking
and
then,
let's
see
byron
has
said,
that's
a
good
point.
Chris.
A
My
hope
would
be
that
many
possibly
all
of
our
neighborhood
activity
centers
would
be
walkable
so
that
neighborhoods
would
be
able
to
meet
their
many
needs
within
walking
distance
right
now.
Hyde
park
and
bound
crossing
are
activity
centers
that
are
destinations
for
people
from
other
neighborhoods.
Looking
for
that
experience,
so
we've
got
a
lot
happening.
A
Chris
has
his
hand
raised.
We
also
want
to
hear
from
ben,
because
you
know
we
are
talking
about
not
only
commercial
or
mixed
use,
we're
talking
about
residential,
so
thinking
about
those
in
multiple
facets,
so
andrea.
B
F
So
yeah
just
one
quick
thing
in
relation
to
the
state
street
one
and
then
I
want
to
go
back
to
a
point
that
dawn
made
for
the
state's
recorder.
I
think
part
of
the
problem
is
that
once
you
get
to
glenwood,
half
of
the
street
is
garden
city
and
half
of
it
is
boise
which
creates
some
problems
and
how
you
would
actually
respond
to
creating
a
sort
of
activity
center
when
it's
not
all
under
boise's
jurisdiction.
F
So
I
think
that's
just
one
thing
that
may
contribute
to
some
of
that,
but
the
question
that
I
had
when
don
mentioned,
maybe
creating
places
where
you
can't
park.
I
just
wanted
some
clarification
on
that,
if
that
involves
things
like
neighborhood
parking
permits
for
residents.
F
So
when
I
lived
downtown,
we
had
parking
zones
that
were
free
for
residents
or,
and
you
got
like
a
sticker
and
allowed
residents
to
park
indefinitely
in
like
the
one
to
two
hour
parking
zones,
but
then
limited
parking
to
the
time
limit
for
anyone
that
was
coming
in
and
is
that
kind
of
the
idea
you're
thinking
of
or
did
you
have
other
ideas
for
the
where
you
can't
park
kind
of
that.
B
Was
that
was
the
primary
that
was
the
primary
reason,
a
increasingly
have
those
they're
kind
of
reluctant
because
they're
a
little
bit
labor
intensive
to
administer
and
also
when
you
have
guests,
you
know
how
many
people
do
you
have
a
sticker?
Do
you
have
a
car?
Do
you
have
a
permit?
You
can
hand
to
your
guests.
B
They
are
not
a
silver
bullet
behind
this,
but
that's
exactly
what
I
was
thinking
of,
but
I
do
see
it
happening
around
the
country
where
there
is
a
trend
for
more
areas
to
say:
look
we
don't
have
a
minimum,
but
but
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
address
we're
gonna
make
this
so
that
it
meets
the
needs
of
the
neighborhood,
meaning
don't
park
here
and
meets
the
name
needs
of
the
activity
center
remaining.
We
don't
have
a
minimum.
B
N
But
I'm
here,
thank
you,
andrea.
I'm
going
to
make
a
quick
comment,
and
you
tell
me
if
I'm,
if
I'm
off
or
not,
it
sounds
like
when
we're
talking
about
activity
centers.
As
a
group,
we
are
using
kind
of
a
lowercase,
a
lowercase
c
and
talking
about
hyde
park
and
other
places
where
there
are
activity
occurring,
but
I
think,
from
the
city's
perspective,
we're
talking
about
activity
centers
with
capital,
a
capital
c
as
designated
in
blueprint
boise
in
the
kind
of
comp
plan.
A
Yes,
so
when
we
are
specifying
throughout
our
code,
we
are
obviously
trying
to
implement
blueprint
voices,
so
we
would
be
referring
to
those
mixed-use
activity
centers
that
are
identified
throughout
our
comp
plan.
We've
got
neighborhood
activity,
centers
we've
got
community
activity
centers
and
we
have
regional
activity
centers,
and
so,
when
we
talk
about
some
of
those
examples,
so
we
might
talk
about
bound
crossing
or
the
mall
or
downtown
those
are
specified
as
activity
centers.
A
I
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
say
I
I
do
a
lot
of
home
visits
in
a
lot
of
neighborhoods
all
across
the
treasure
valley,
and
one
thing
I've
seen
probably
within
the
last
two
years
is
just
a
lot
of
doubling
up
of
families.
You
know,
as
housing
prices
rise,
we're
seeing
more
roommate
situations
and
adult
children
living
with
their
parents
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
which
means
that
there's
getting
to
be
more
cars
parked
on
the
street
in
the
residential
areas.
I
So
I
am
not
opposed
to
reducing
parking
even
within
the
big
nacs,
because
you
could
go
to
any
any
corner,
grocery
store
and
there's
a
lot
of
unused
space.
That's
just
you
know,
blacktop
heating,
up
the
air.
What
I
am
cautious
about
is
that
there
are
areas
of
town
where
there
is
no
public
transit
or
there
is
an
identified
bus
route
and
the
bus
comes
twice
a
day
which
is
not
adequate
and
so
having
some
sort
of
something
in
the
in
the
code.
I
That
kind
of
differentiates
between
you
know
different
areas
of
town
and
the
different
levels
of
service
we
have
for
public
transportation
and
then,
if
in
20
years
you
know,
southwest
boise
does
actually
get
a
bus,
stop
that
is
robust
and
and
utilized
widely
by
the
community.
Then
maybe
there
there
would
be
room
to
reevaluate
the
parking
standards.
If,
if
you
know
the
the
property
owners
wanted
to
come
back
and
and
see
if
they
could
reduce
parking
and
put
something
else
in
those
unused
spaces,
so
that
was
my
only
comment.
A
Thank
you,
and
then
we
did
have
a
comment
that
I'd
like
to
address
from
richard
as
well,
and
so
he
has
noted
that
the
south
side
of
state
street
becomes
garden
city
west
of
collister
beyond
glenwood.
The
major
issue
is,
the
jurisdiction
is
itd
rather
than
achd,
and
high
occupancy
vehicles
lanes
are
illegal
by
state
law.
A
This
means
no
bus
stops
in
the
near
future.
Ccdc
agrees.
It
may
well
be
10
to
15
years,
so
just
to
clarify
is
that
we
can
have
bus
stops
along
state
street
and
yes,
high
occupancy
vehicles
are
prohibited
by
our
current
state
law,
but
we
can
have
those
bus
stops.
So
we
do
have
a
state
street
transit
plan
that
takes
into
account
the
multiple
jurisdictions
along
state
street
talking
about
where
those
will
exist
and
and
how
they'll
exist.
So
it
may
just
be
stopping
at
the
curb
line
or
creating.
You
know
natural
pull-outs.
B
Several
people
raised
the
changing
nature
of
state
street
as
it
goes
through
the
community
and
out
of
the
community,
but
I
I
wanted
to
point
out
one
of
the
things
that
will
appear
in
module
two,
unless
somebody
tells
me
not
to
is
a
reduction
for
parking
minimum
parking
in.
In
addition,
you
got
the
table
and
then
you've
got
a
table.
Then
you've
got
some
conversion
factors
based
on
where
you
are
so
yes,
there
is.
B
You
know
in
the
clip
that
I
showed
you
there's
one
number
for
bar
restaurant,
but
it
makes
a
big
difference,
whether
it's
p2,
p3
or
general
or
somewhere
else.
Of
course,
what
it,
what
we
are
going
to
propose
and
what
most
modern
codes
have
is
a
set
of
reductions
and
the
way
you
draft
them
is
tricky.
So
I
think
several
people
will
be
interested
and
I'm
I'm
listening
hard,
how
you
draft
the
deduction
for
being
near
an
activity
center
or
a
transit
oriented
a
transit
line.
B
So
it
is
not
uncommon
to
say
if
you
are
within
an
eighth
mile
660
feet.
You
know
a
block
and
a
half
of
a
transit
stop
with
active
transit
service.
Then
you
can
reduce
this
by
a
certain
factor
which
tends
to
do
instead
of
having
to
map.
Well
it's
higher
here
and
it's
lower
there
or
it's
different
in
the
activity
center.
It
tends
to
calibrate
it
to
well.
Is
there
really
transit
there
or
not?
This
could
be
mapped
as
an
activity
center,
but
it
has
very
little
transit
today.
B
So
one
of
the
things
that
some
codes
do
is
to
say
a
if
you're
near
a
transit
center
with
headways
of
30
minutes
or
15
minutes
or
less
meaning
as
transit
expands
and
the
frequency
of
transit,
improves
and
more
people
ride,
because
they
don't
have
to
wait
a
long
time
for
bus
the
parking
standards
go
down.
So
I
think
a
couple
people
have
brushed
up
on
that.
B
You
know
it's
a
good
idea,
but
what
but,
but
there
are
places
that
don't
have
transit
and
will
not
have
transit
for
some
time,
and
so
the
way
we
can
get
at
that
is
simply
through
that
transit
reduction.
Don't
reduce
it
if
the
transit
is
planned
or
reduce
it
less.
If
the
transit's
planned,
but
it's
going
to
be
a
long
way
down
the
road
as
opposed
to
one,
that
already
has
a
stop
and
we
hope
that
frequencies
increase
so.
O
Hi
there
there
is
subject's
the
big
one
you
can
come
at
it
from
so
many
angles
here.
So
I'll
try
to
wrap
this
up
into
a
bundle
here,
but
I
know
it's
kind
of
hard
to
believe
for
a
lot
of
people
that
but
boise
was
more
of
a
rural
city
up
until
just
recently-
and
you
know,
our
activity-
centers
were
bsu
the
fair
grounds
and
downtown
and,
like
somebody
else
said,
hyde
park
could
not
be
an
activity
center.
O
If
we
had
to
meet
today's
standards,
high
park
used
to
be
held
in
the
street
down
by
lucky
level
13..
Since
all
these
people
are
here
now
they've
had
to
move
to
the
park.
That's
a
park.
You
know
it
doesn't
need
to
be
that
much
parking
there,
but
anyway,
everybody
knows
my
battle
is:
is
the
neighborhoods
and
protecting
the
old
neighborhoods
and,
as
marissa
had
said,
you
know
more
people
are
living
in
the
same
old
neighborhoods
where
families
are
doubling
up.
You
know
every
kid
drives
a
car.
O
Now
you
know
an
old
neighborhood
that
used
to
be
quiet
is
now
busy,
even
though
it
hasn't
changed
any
so
I
guess
transportation
is
probably
what
I
would
say
is
public
transportation
is
probably
the
answer
to
a
lot
of
this.
You
know
when
you
used
to
go
downtown.
You
were
prepared
to
find
have
to
look
for
parking,
a
good
parking
garage.
O
You
know
in
an
area
that
you
know
you
would
expect
to
go
there
now.
If
you
went
down
to
bardin
a
or
something
over
there
by
bsu,
you
there's
a
chance
you're
not
getting
in
there,
because
you
just
can't
there's
not
enough
parking.
So
my
suggestion,
I
guess,
is
to
upgrade
the
public
transit
or
even
add,
maybe
some
shuttles,
just
some
local
area
shuttles
to
move
people
around
I'm
not
opposed
to
minimizing
the
parking.
I
really
don't
care.
O
I
live
out
in
the
country
anyway,
so
it
doesn't
really
mean
anything
to
me,
but
if
it
reduces
those
black
top
areas
where
it's
really
hot,
you
know
that
kind
of
stuff,
I'm
all
I'm
all
for
it.
But
anyway,
that's
my
two
things.
Thanks.
K
B
A
A
B
A
All
right,
it's
4
10.,
so
I'd
like
to
welcome
everybody
back
while
we
were
gone,
we
did
have
a
couple
of
notes
that
were
sent
so
in
our
chat.
So
byron
has
said
as
an
architect
that
designs
housing,
a
reduction
of
just
one
space
per
dwelling
unit,
as
well
as
exempting
small
infill
lot.
Development
from
parking
minimums,
as
dawn
has
suggested,
would
make
a
huge
difference
in
housing
availability,
I'm
also
ideologically
aligned
with
the
removal
of
parking
minimums.
Where
possible.
A
Ian
has
responded,
stating
I
agree
with
brian
too
often
a
multi-family
project
becomes.
Oh
did
somebody
get
some
feedback
while
we
were
gone,
we
did
have
a
couple
of
notes
that
were
sent
so
in
our
chat.
So
byron
has
said
as
an
architect
just
one.
Okay,
let's
see
so
ian,
has
stated.
I
agree
with
byron
too
often
multi-family
projects
becomes.
A
B
All
right,
let's
talk
landscaping.
Another
popular
topic
just
go
through
a
few
slides,
and
I
won't
dwell
on
this
as
much
as
I
did
on
parking
one
of
the
things
about
many
landscaping
artists
is
that
they're
poorly
organized,
so
it
it
they
just
ramble
on
and
on
about
different
aspects
of
why
green
is
good
in
general.
B
A
lot
of
our
our
view
is
that
modern
codes
deal
with
this
and
in
terms
of
look,
there
are
only
about
four
things
that
you
need
to
do
you
need
to
buffer
the
street
frontage
if
everybody
loves
street
trees,
you
need
to
buffer
yourself
on
the
edges,
which
could
which
could
be
the
parking
lot
edges
too,
against
neighbors
that
are
similar
to
you
and
the
example
I
sometimes
give
is.
If
taco
bell
is
next
to
mcdonald's,
they're,
usually
not
required
to
buffer,
because
no
offense
to
either
company
it's
the
same
thing.
B
They
are
of
similar
scale
they're
of
a
similar
use
if
they
want
to,
they
can
but
there's
not
a
public
interest
in
buffering
the
same
thing
from
the
same
thing,
just
like
there's
not
much
of
a
public
interest
in
buffering
me
from
my
neighbor's
residential
house.
If
we
want
to
do
it,
we
could
do
it
not
sure
why
the
city
would
make
us
do
it.
It's
ended
at
things
that
are
different
uses
or
different
scales
or
intensities.
B
The
interiors
of
parking
lots
are
almost
always
required
to
be
landscaped.
Some
places
do
building
foundations,
meaning
if
you
got
a
big
parking
lot,
and
then
you
got
a
building.
You
do
some
plantings
along
the
foundation
because
it
breaks
up
this
large,
hard
area
of
concrete
parking
lot
or
asphalt
parking
lot
and
then
and
then
a
solid
building
facade,
that's
not
usually
used
very
often
in
urban
context.
B
You
can't
put
all
the
details
in
a
landscaping
chapter,
and
so
many
of
them
refer
to
a
known
or
a
recognized
american
society
of
landscape,
architects
set
of
samples
or
something
the
city
has
adopted
like
the
design
standards
I
referred
to
earlier
outside
the
code
because
it
quickly
gets
into
landscape
architect,
speak
which
only
landscape,
architects,
understand
or
need
to
understand.
I
said
there
are
only
four
things,
but
there
is
a
fifth
one.
There
are
places
that
are
saying
in
addition
to
doing
those
three
or
those
four
we
really
want
to.
B
We
want
to
either
get
a
certain
minimum
amount
of
tree
canopy,
or
we
only
get
minimum
green
area
per
lot.
Washington,
seattle,
indianapolis,
have
done
systems
like
that
where
they
say,
okay,
add
up
how
much
you
did
to
comply
with
our
street
frontage
edge
buffers
interiors
of
parking
lots
if
we
required
parking
foundations.
Are
you
at
x
percent
lot
coverage?
If
not
plant,
something
more?
I
don't
care.
If
it's
on
your
roof,
I
don't
care.
If
it's
on
a
patio
when
stared
at
from
space,
we
want
a
certain
amount
of
it
green.
B
It
could
be
a
vertical
wall
because
we're
looking
for
cooling,
we're
looking
for
carbon
dioxide
absorption
and
the
you
know
whether
you
hit
that
target
doing
in
the
first
four
or
not
will
vary
based
on
the
site,
but
if
you're
low,
because
you
have
a
very
big
site-
and
you
didn't
have
to
do
much
of
this-
you
need
to
do
more.
So
that
is
happening,
not
a
big
trend,
a
small
trend
around
the
country
of
cities,
saying
we.
We
got
a
number
in
mind,
not
just
a
goal.
B
We
got
a
number,
we're
gonna,
look
at
your
site
plan
and
expect
you
to
hit
that
number
and,
if
not
we're
gonna
say
so
so
bill.
Where
do
you
want
to
plant
some
more
stuff?
Almost
all
newer
codes
have
water
conservation
and
drought,
tolerance,
standards
too.
So
often
there's
a
chapter
right
at
the
beginning.
That
says,
there's
a
general
landscaping
when
we
say
plant
trees
and
shrubs.
What
are
they?
What
are
the
minimum
size?
What
are
the
minimum
species?
Or
can
you
not
plant
invasive
species
or
non-durable
species?
B
B
You
can
do
25
percent
of
it
and
if
you
do
you're
going
to
have
to
use
water
conserving
irrigation
tree
preservation
is
a
slow
trend
around
the
country,
meaning
everybody
kind
of
likes
old
trees
to
be
preserved
because
they
absorb
a
lot
more
carbon
dioxide
than
new
trees,
but
they
get
you
know
it
could
be
right
in
the
middle
of
your
lot,
your
development
site.
It
makes
a
lot
unusable
and
if
you
love,
trees,
you'd
say
well,
then
don't
build
there
and
the
property
owner
says:
that's
really
not
an
option.
I
own
this.
B
I
have
a
right
to
do
things
under
zoning.
If
I
keep
that
tree,
I
can't
build
anything
so
that
is
but
slowly
there
has
been
a
growing
trend
around
the
country
to
say
you
will
preserve
the
big
ones
or
replace
them,
and
if
it's
a
replacement,
it's
usually
not
one
inch
to
one
inch.
It's
more
you're
gonna
have
to
do
two
inches
for
the
one
inch
you
take
out
of
diameter
storm
water.
Integration
is
a
trend.
How
do
you
lay
these
out?
B
Either
we
encourage
you
or
we
require
you
to
do
your
open
space
and
landscaping
in
a
way
that
will
help
treat
stormwater.
So
we
don't
have
to
put
it
in
pipes
and
again
street
frontage
landscaping
always
deals
with
trees
and
materials,
and
is
it
one
for
40
feet,
one
for
35
feet,
one
for
60
feet
in
different
areas:
do
you
have
to
have
smaller
pedestrian
scale,
trees
in
very
urban
areas,
so
those
are
basics
and
then
in
buffers.
B
This
comes
out
of
some
of
your
design
standards
and
so
again
I'm
repeating,
on
the
left
hand,
side
kind
of
what
are
we
concerned
about
the
street
frontage?
I
talked
about
earlier
side
and
rear
perimeters
when
you're
different
from
something
else,
parking
lot
areas
and
then
buffers
between
uses
of
different
scales,
same
thing,
so
blueprint
boise,
says
water
conservation
and
it
tells
you
how
usually
zoning
ordinances
don't
talk
about
plumbing
fixtures.
They
sometimes
encourage
you
by
giving
you
a
bonus.
B
It
is
a
little
dangerous
for
zoning
to
get
into
the
exact
materials
or
the
exact
things
you're
going
to
use
to
build
your
building
other
than
sometimes
facades,
so
low
flow,
irrigation
drought,
tolerant
native
all
over
blueprint,
boise
high
percentage,
preserve
a
high
percentage
of
native
education
and
encourage
native
materials,
so
that'll
that's
in
blueprint,
boise
and
then
promote
landscape
materials
that
require
minimal
use
of
pesticides
and
fertilizers.
Those
are
among
the
things
it
says.
So
let
me
focus
on
this.
B
We
can
talk
about
anything
you'd
like
to
talk
about
from
the
things
I've
said
or
anything
you
want
to
talk
about,
but
there
is
seldom
much
debate
about
street
trees.
I
have
you,
don't
often
get
people
standing
up,
saying
I
don't
like
them,
and
usually
the
sisty
had
a
city
has
a
system
by
which
it
tries
to
create
continuous
tree
trees.
B
B
Are
there
things
that
you
can
think
about
in
your
neighborhood
or
that
you've
seen
built
or
that
you
did
build
or
design
where
you
walked
away
and
said
you
know
the
city
really
should
not
be
requiring
that
or
as
a
citizen
you
said,
I
don't
know
why
they
didn't
require
more
landscaping
on
that
site
to
buffer
it
from
what's
around
it.
So
I'll
be
quiet.
That's
the
question.
B
Well,
the
short
answer
to
that
is
two
parts
in
my
mind:
a
put
them
in
the
code
and
b.
You
know
here's
the
issue
there,
I
I
I
will
say
one
more
thing:
if
you
don't
put
them
in
the
code,
if
they're
just
advisory,
then
often
they
won't
be
followed.
I
hate
to
sound
like
a
jerk,
but
I
think
there's
a
huge
difference
between
a
shall
and
a
should
should
means.
Oh
you
want
me
to
do
it
great.
I
don't
want
to
do
it.
B
That's
not
a
very
powerful
position
to
be
in
the
the
hard
part
about
what
we're
all
gathered
to
do
is
to
say
what
is
a
shell.
So
if
you
put
it
in
and
it
you
know
and
it
works,
it
will
be
enforced.
I
will
say
this:
many
usually
the
way
zoning
works.
Is
they
look
at
a
site
plan?
Do
you
have
enough
trees?
Are
the
trees
in
the
right
place?
Is
that
enough?
Shrubs
is
the
parking
lot
got
landscaping?
Yes,
okay
check
mark,
go
pull
a
building
permit
and
we'll
inspect
it.
B
Sometimes
cities
don't
do
a
good
job
of
inspecting
to
make
sure
they're
actually
planted.
I
don't
know
whether
boise
does
a
good
job
of
that
or
not
most
cities
do
the
problem
is
five
years
later
it's
died.
Five
years
later,
somebody
new
owns
the
property.
I
share
the
frustration
that
richard's
expressing
I
I
as
a
planter.
I
walk
around
and
say:
don't
you
care
about
your
property?
All
your
trees
are
dead,
your
shrubs
are
dead,
they're
filled
with
trash,
and
so
there
are
enforcement
issues.
Module
two
will
include
a
new
chapter
about.
B
If
we
required
you
to
do
landscaping,
it
needs
to
stay
alive
and
it
is
a
violation
of
the
zoning
ordinance
not
to
keep
alive
and
keep
landscaped
the
areas
of
the
property
that
you
were
required
to
landscape
or
not
landscape.
When
you
got
your
approval
so
that
that's
unlike
zoning,
it's
something
you
point
to
in
the
zoning
ordinance
that
says
this
is
not
about
getting
a
building
permit.
This
is
about
how
you
operated
afterwards
and
signs
and
landscaping
and
lighting
are
the
three
areas
where
you
don't
want.
B
Somebody
coming
in
ten
years
down
the
road
and
saying
I
don't
like
that
lot,
I'm
gonna
put
in
this
one.
It's
got
a
lot
more
light.
It
does,
you
know,
hurts
the
neighbors,
but
hey
I'm
the
guy
who
owns
the
property,
not
realizing
that
that
was
part
of
your
site
plan.
You
needed
to
have
that
kind
of
a
light
to
protect
the
neighbors,
and
if
we
required
it,
then
you
are
going
to
have
to
maintain
it.
That
way.
A
B
Good
question:
roberta:
it's
a
great
question:
you
have
some
of
the
things
that
obliquely
get
at
those
things
in
in
foothills
and
hillsides
that
that
tend
to
get
at
that
trying
to
move
things
so,
whether
in
a
less
risky
areas
or
put
them
on
less
risky
areas.
However,
usually
it
is
in
if
we
were
to
address
wui,
the
wildland
urban
interface
and
wildfires,
and
frankly,
I
encourage
people
to
it's
usually
done
through
an
overlay
district
rather
than
through
landscaping.
B
It
could
be
done
in
landscaping.
For
example,
we
have
seen
ordinances
that
say
in
hillside
areas
or
areas
that
refer
to
this
map
over
here.
If
you
are
in
a
mapped
area
maintained
by
somebody,
the
state,
the
fire
district,
somebody
who
does
professional
evaluations
of
fire
risk
you've
got
to
do
the
following,
and
you
can't
put
the
trees
and
shrubs
within
30
feet
of
your
house.
B
That's
the
defensible
space
requirement
so
that
we
have
seen
it
done
and
we
could
do
it
if
we
want
to
pursue
this
I'd
like
to
scratch
my
head
a
little
bit
about.
Is
it
a
new
overlay
district?
We
didn't
include
in
module
one?
Is
it
revisions
to
some
of
your
the
woo
areas
tend
to
be
hillside
in
foothills
types
areas
but
hillsides?
Is
it
a
change
to
those
standards,
or
is
it
landscaping?
A
Yes
and
don,
that
would
be
a
really
great
fit
in
our
wildland
urban
interface.
So
we
actually
have
a
mapped
boundary
that
identifies
you
know
where
we
have
potential
fire
risk.
So
that's
where
that
would
be
appropriate,
and
then
I
have
two
ques
or
two
comments
from
the
chat
so
jessica
has
said.
I
would
like
to
see
xeroscaping
requirements
in
the
code.
A
So
that's
interesting
and
I'd
like
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
about
that.
Would
you
like
to
see
that
as
a
requirement
or
an
option
or
an
available
tool
for
you
to
use,
and
then
marissa
has
said,
every
subdivision
has
landscaped
berm
covered
in
grass,
which
is
not
water
wise,
and
we
should
be
thinking
about
that.
A
So
I'd
like
to
follow
up
with
jessica
first.
So
would
you
like
that
to
be
the
xeriscaping
to
be
an
actual
requirement
or
simply
just
an
option?
And
then
we
do
have
ian
with
a
raised
hand
as
well
as
byron,
so.
F
L
Oh,
I
would
love
to
see
and
would
love
feedback
from
the
any
landscape,
architects
and
design
folks
in
the
in
the
group
here,
but
I
think
especially
in
new
subdivisions
and
new
areas
of
the
development,
especially
like
south
of
town.
I
mean
we're
in
a
desert.
L
L
I
also
understand
the
conflict
that
we
have
about
maintaining
the
tree
canopy
as
well,
so
I
think
some
overlays
districts,
perhaps
in
new
development
areas,
say
south
of
town
and
even
in
the
foothills,
perhaps-
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
better
to
incentivize
it
or
make
it
a
requirement,
but
we
just
see
grass
grass
grass
everywhere
and
especially
the
summer,
not
only
fire
but
just
drought
and
water
usage,
and
I
think
it's
something
the
city
needs
to
be
proactively.
Looking
at.
M
A
A
I
know
some,
you
know,
california,
arizona
often
have
requirements
to
do
those
types
of
things,
and
you
know
so
that
kind
of
gets
into
preference
creativity.
So,
yes,
we're
going
to
definitely
want
to
think
about
water,
wise
we're
hearing
about
whales
drying
up
seeing
about
you
know
we're
hearing
about
depletion
of
our
aquifer.
We've
got
some
environmental
stewardship.
We
need
to
be
thinking
about
in
blueprint
boise,
so
you
know
just
keeping
those
all
thoughts
in
our
mind,
as
we
move
forward
is
great.
B
L
Interrupt
do
you
remember,
though,
like
I
just
know
in
designer's
view
where
we
looked
at
some
plans
and
we
can't
use
or
maybe
there's
a
limit
on
the
mulch
material
and
like
brock.
Mulch
is
not
permitted.
A
Yep,
so
we,
our
current
landscape
ordinance,
does
allow
us
to
use
rock
mulch.
There
is
one
caveat
that
goes
with
that.
So
if
you
choose
to
use
a
rock
mulch,
you
are
required
to
provide
enough
species.
That'll
provide
50
coverage
within
five
years
of
planting
so
that
we
are
getting
that
coverage
that
we're
looking
for.
B
And
I
would
if
I
could
weigh
in
just
quickly
it
I
I
I
I
I'm
interested
in
this
conversation
most
newer
codes.
If
they
care
about
this
issue,
just
require
it.
They
just
set
standards,
no
more
than
x
can
be
irrigated
and
you
need
to
be
doing
y
amount
of
either
xeriscape
or
drought,
tolerant
and
native
vegetation.
B
The
reason
is
this:
when
people
say
incentives,
you
know
carrots
are
always
more
popular
than
sticks,
but,
frankly
I
don't
think
it
makes
sense
to
give
away
density.
We've
already
talked
about
parking
and
reducing
you
know
what
is
the
appropriate
intensity
for
planting
something
different
and
designing
it
somewhat
differently,
increasingly,
especially
in
the
western
u.s
people.
Think
we're
not
going
to
give
away
density
for
your
landscaping
choices.
B
We
are
going
to
give
we're
going
to
require
basically
or
we
will
require
less
if
you
do
more
less
landscaping
area,
if
you
do
more
of
it
the
way
we
want
it
to,
but
when
people
hear
this
word
incentive,
I
just
want
I
just
I
I
would
want
to
have
a
longer
conversation.
My
temptation
is
to
say
don't
give
away
density,
either
directly
or
indirectly.
It's
not
a
further
parking
reduction.
It's
not
a
further
lot
coverage
reduction.
It's!
B
It
is
simply
a
matter
of
deciding
what's
what's
good
for
boise
and
and
water
availability
plays
a
bigger
and
bigger
role
and
decide
what
the
rules
are
in
dual.
It
is
more
likely
a
regulation
than
an
incentive
these
days,
because
half
of
water
use
is
outside
the
house.
A
Okay,
so
we
do
have
some
additional
comments
followed
by
some
handrails,
so
roberta
has
said.
Yes,
we
need
to
address
the
wildland
urban
interface
and
fire
risk.
It
can
be
a
combination
of
both
depending
on
the
location.
Xeriscaping
would
be
great
and
she
would
like
to
see
that
increased.
However,
some
homeowners
associations
are
adverse
to
xeriscaping
and
it's
a
challenge.
A
Sometimes
in
the
area
richard
has
said:
there's
xeriscaping
or
water,
wise,
often
low
maintenance,
often
native
perennials,
and
then
xeroscaping,
which
is
lava,
rocks
gravel
with
very
few
or
any
plants
he's
a
fan
of
the
true.
You
know:
stylized
xeriscaping,
not
just
having
the
rocks
that
create
that
heat
island
effect.
Patrick,
has
followed
up
saying.
I
support
the
idea
of
having
a
menu
that
successfully
encourages
a
lot
of
this.
However,
I
do
worry
about
being
too
detail-oriented
or
specific
that
it
would
make
for
unexpected
and
unintended
details
at
the
site
level.
A
I
want
to
point
out
the
connection
between
the
issue
and
the
previous
one.
One
way
to
reduce
the
heat
island
effect
is
to
reduce
the
amount
of
parking
shelling
has
said.
I
think
water,
efficient
planting
and
irrigation
is
very
low
hanging
fruit,
as
a
requirement
devil
is
in
the
details,
but
this
is
2021.
We
need
to
require
it,
it's
good
for
the
environment,
the
community
and
it
does
not
add
any
additional
costs.
A
D
Yeah,
I
don't.
I
won't
belabor
the
point
that
I
I
agree
with
all
that
is
being
said.
It's
a
challenge.
You
know
we
live
in
the
city
of
trees
but
at
the
same
time
we're
very
firmly
in
a
drought
right
now,
and
it's
rather
warm,
so
you
gotta
you
gotta
balance
both
of
them.
I
think
it
would
be
interesting
to
explore,
I
believe,
marissa
said
this
overlays
for
xeroscaping
an
overlays
for
a
tree
canopy.
D
I
don't
know
you
know
if
it
makes
more
sense
around
downtown
core
and
some
of
the
maybe
older,
established
neighborhoods
that
have
a
tree
canopy
overlaid
that
encourages
people
to
keep
their
trees
or
discourages
them
from
removing
them.
Conversely,
and
then,
as
you
get
out
from
the
downtown
core,
as
you
get
further
away
from
the
river,
maybe
have
a
xeriscaping
overlay
where
there
is
more
options
available
to
you,
as
opposed
to
just
doing
the
landscape
buffer
or
the
sorry,
the
grass
buffer,
with
the
trees
planted
along
it.
So
I
think
all
very
good
points.
E
Geez
thanks
ian
for
setting
me
up
for
my
comments,
pretty
much
very
similar
comment
as
a
designer
one
thing:
I've
seen
with
conventional
parking
lot,
screening
methods
and
don
had
a
really
great
slide.
You
know
a
couple
slides
back
that
really
kind
of
shows
the
implications
of
what
happens
when
you
screen
a
parking
lot
so
heavily
that
what
you
end
up
with.
Are
these
small
unusable
strips
of
of
green
space?
Really,
the
only
thing
you
can
do:
yeah,
that's
a
great
slide
there,
don
thanks.
E
E
The
more
we
require,
those
screening
methods,
the
the
less
options
a
designer
has
to
take
on-site,
storm
water,
drainage
and
retention
into
account
into
larger,
more
usable
pieces
of
land
that
can
then,
I
guess,
do
double
and
triple
duty
by
not
only
increasing
the
amount
of
space
offered
for
large
plantings
like
trees,
but
also
outdoor
usable
outdoor
spaces
too.
E
As
a
designer,
you
really
do
want
to
kind
of
try
to
combine
as
many
of
those
useful
spaces
and
useful
components
together
in
and
give
your
owners
and
the
public
more
usable
spaces.
So
that's
one
downside.
I've
seen
just
with
conventional
parking
lot,
design,
conventional
landscaping,
buffer
requirements
and
certainly
burns
are
part
of
that.
E
Where
you
have
to
raise
the
land,
you
know
you
can't
retain
water
on
those
berm
strips
and
and
what
you
have
in
terms
of
privacy
is
kind
of
working
against
you
for
future
drainage
or
future
swale
storm
water
retention
on
site.
A
A
B
A
I
think
we
should,
in
the
essence
of
time
we
do
have
three
attendees,
so
I'd
like
to
leave
some
time
at
the
end
for
that,
so
let's
go
ahead
and
move
forward
and
we'll
catch
up
with
our
participants
at
the
very
end.
B
So
the
last
big
topic
that
we
wanted
to
highlight
today
also
one
that
people
feel
strongly
about.
Sometimes
we've
showed
you
the
cover
again.
I
talked
at
the
beginning
and
I
won't
repeat
what
I
said
earlier:
we
we
have
what
are
the
trends?
The
trends
are
to
have
general
building
design
standards
for
multi-family
and
for
not
for
single
family
for
multi-family
and
mixed
use,
and
not
and
sometimes
non
non-residential,
meaning
light
industrial
and
industrial
buildings.
The
usually
the
heaviest
zone
of
industry
does
not
have
them,
but
ever
below
that
industry.
B
These
days
tends
to
be
more
or
less
like
a
business
park
if
you're
building
a
new
one
so
get
the
basics
in
there.
Leave
the
design
manual
stuff
out,
focus
on
building
and
parking
location.
Is
it
near?
Do?
Does
the
city
care
in
this
context,
in
the
zone
district
where
the
parking
is
in
relation
to
the
building?
I've
already
tipped
my
hand.
B
Yes,
most
of
the
time
there
is
antipathy
towards
parking
lots
in
front
of
buildings
that
separate
pedestrians
from
the
building
entrances,
with
the
exception
of
inherently
spread
out
and
suburban
areas
where,
where
people
kind
of
say
you
know,
this
is
just
the
only
way
to
get
around
here-
is
a
car
and
the
most
convenient
place
to
park.
A
car
is
in
front
and
this
is
not
going
to
be
pedestrian
oriented,
so
there
are
places
where
street
enclosure
is
just
going
to
be
a
long
way
down
the
road.
B
This
can
be
defined
in
terms
of
no
more
than
x
square
feet
with
a
blank
wall,
or
it
can
be
found
as
in
no
more
than
x,
linear
feet
without
breaking
it
up
somewhere
a
protrusion,
an
inset,
a
change
of
materials
whatever
it
is
again
in
these
areas
bring
the
parts
the
concepts
of
the
citywide
design
standards,
not
guidelines,
standards,
the
share
of
those
that
are
shells
the
trend
is
to
say,
let's
come
up
with
admit
with
standards
and
then
define
the
box
of
administrative
flexibility
to
vary
from
those,
but
for
a
good
reason.
B
B
No
there's
a
defined
range
of
administrative
approvals
and
again
in
boise.
I
just
want
everybody
to
understand
this.
If
this
proposal
goes
forward,
there
are
things
in
the
code
and
an
ability
to
vary
them
for
design
reasons
in
the
code
which
settles
some
aspects
of
building
design
that
are
not
going
to
be
rehashed.
When
you
go
through
the
design
review
process,
they
are
intended
to
say
this
part.
B
You
know
we
may
debate
various
things
in
the
design
review
process
and-
and
you
guys
have
gotten
some
great
buildings
out
of
that
process,
but
we're
not
debating
it
all.
We
are
trying
to
set
a
threshold
in
the
code.
Do
you
have
to
do
it
this
right?
No,
do
most
cities.
Do
it
this
way,
yes,
and
don't
go
too
far,
do
not
try
to
be
the
architect.
I'll
say
this.
This
is
another
way
of
doing
it
again.
B
Usually
they're
graphics
like
this
in
the
code
with
with
illustrations
pointing
at
what
you're
talking
about
building
entrances,
facade,
articulation,
parking,
location,
transparency,
means,
windows
and
again
a
benchmark
at
the
bottom
saying:
look
if
there
are
other
shells
in
here,
they
they
are
shall
where
you
may
still
go
through
the
design
review
process,
but
the
but
those
are
those
are
shows
now
in
installment,
three
we
will
have
to
face
the
issue.
B
Should
everybody
who
goes
through
design
review
today
have
to
go
through
it
tomorrow
with
a
new
code
in
some
cities
they
say:
no,
if
you
could
get
this
basic
stuff
in
the
activity,
centers
or
small
scale
activity,
centers,
we're,
not
sure
you
should
have
to
go
through
design
review.
A
matter
of
fact.
A
majority
of
places
in
the
that
I
have
written
codes
for
would
not
require
discretionary
design
review
for
what
I
would
call
fairly
traditional
activity,
center,
multi-family
or
commercial
development.
B
You
do
right
now,
that's
something
we'll
deal
with
in
installment
three
and
the
last
one
is
simply.
There
are
other
chapters
just
to
let
you
know
we
have
covered
them,
exterior
lighting
light
tres,
preventing
light
trespass
onto
your
neighbor's
property,
dealing
with
the
energy
efficiency
of
the
lights,
because
lights,
just
like
landscaping,
takes
a
lot
of
water
use,
exterior
lighting.
If
you
buy
the
wrong
fixtures
in
american
cities
in
general,
absorbs
a
lot
of
energy
use
wires.
How
do
you
want
to
save
energy,
then
think
about
exterior
lighting
and
require
people
to
buy
energy?
B
Efficient
pictures
signs
has
been
reworked,
but
not
dramatically,
and
I
mentioned
earlier
that
operations
and
maintenance
is
a
new
chapter.
So
here's
what
blueprint
boise
says
you
know:
develop
illustrative
design
standards,
encourage
creativity,
performance-based
design
again
for
employment,
mixed-use,
commercial
and
neighborhood
development,
promote
adaptive,
reuse
of
historic
buildings
rather
than
demolition.
That
means
allowing
them
to
be
reused
without
you
know,
coming
up
with
design
standards
that
don't
make
it
hard
to
reuse.
Buildings
encourage
residential
infill.
We've
talked
about
that
incorporate
a
variety
of
features
which
could
be
materials,
architectural
detailing
facade,
articulation.
B
I
said
earlier
blueprint.
Boise
says
a
lot
of
words
about
activity,
centers
and
walkability,
and
sustainability
and
pedestrian
orientedness
and
also
building
design.
This
is
one
of
the
things
which,
when
you
read
it,
you
kind
of
say
wow.
They
they
really
care
about.
Building
design.
This
plan
is
dwelling
on
it
more
than
many
plans
do
so.
Here's
the
question.
What
elements
of
building
design
are
most
important
to
maintain
the
character
of
boise
for
quarters
centers
neighborhoods
outside
downtown?
B
Let's
not
talk
about
downtown
right
now,
if
you
want
to,
of
course,
you
can
you've
got
a
pretty
sophisticated
system,
you've
gotten
some
good
stuff
out
of
it.
The
real
question
is
outside
of
those
areas
and
citywide
think
about
neighborhood
or
community
scale
or
other
activity
centers
or
the
state
street
corridor.
A
B
I'm
are
of
surprised.
We
got
some
designers
in
the
group
who
either
either
might
like
it
or
not
like
it.
I
won't
say
anymore,
we'll
just.
E
Sorry
for
taking
everybody's
time
for
every
single
one
of
these
questions,
but
I
think
to
don's
question
preservation,
certainly
very
important
needlessly
losing
some
of
our
iconic
and
character.
Building
structures
would
certainly
be
a
shame
and
should
be
incentivized
for
retaining
those
in
adaptive.
Reuse,
certainly
as
much
as
possible
scale
scale,
possibly
height
and
development
format
or
building
form
might
also
be
very
critical,
especially
in
activity
centers
around
neighborhoods,
but
almost
everything
else
seems
fairly
like
more
specific
than
I'd
want
to
be.
I
guess
for
a
comment.
B
That's
what
I
was
expecting
you
to
say:
byron!
No,
that's!
I
you've
been
very
consistent
in
your
in
your
advocacy
for
enough
flexibility
for
designers
to
do
good
work
and
your
your
comments
right.
There
are
very
consistent
with
the
position
so
understood.
C
I
echo
byron's
comments
and
and
agree
with
what
he
just
shared
and
to
add
something
meaningful
to
that.
I
want
to
point
out
that
sometimes,
when
places
get
very
prescriptive
about
things
like
articulation
and
changes
in
color,
you
end
up
producing
something
that
is
homogeneous
in
its
own
way,
because
it's
the
only
way
to
satisfy
the
design
requirements
and
that
homogeneity
of
new
builds.
It
can
also
be
undesirable
to
some
people
as
well.
B
B
In
those
initial
discussions
to
be
very
candid,
we
we
heard
a
lot
of
criticism
of
the
design
review
process
because
of
time,
expense
and
unpredictability,
and
I
I
I
will
be
happy
to
be
corrected.
What
I
heard
was
timing,
expense
and
citizens
feeling
that
it
was
operating
unpredictably
in
the
way
that
they
thought
this
result
would
not
have
come
out
of
that
process,
disappointed
in
not
the
quality.
Nobody
ever
said
that
that
that
they
expected
something
different.
They
don't
know
how
the
process
could
have
produced
this
result.
B
So
I
don't
want
to
dwell
on
this.
It
does
sound
to
me
like
when
I
heard
that
two
years
ago,
one
year
ago,
we
put
it
in
our.
We
put
it
in
our
assessment
and
we've
been
dwelling
on
it
and
that's
kind
of
the
approach
we've
taken.
I
will
say
in
this
committee
the
discussion's
been
very
different.
It's
been
very
much
people
who,
I
think,
like
the
current
process,
or
certainly
are
more
worried
about
making
these
objective
standards
and
they
are
worried
about
the
continuation
of
the
current
process.
B
So
somebody
clue
me
in
am
I
hearing
from
two
different
crowds,
or
did
I
mishear
it
the
first
time
because
this
this
group
has
been
very,
I
think
nobody
is
nobody's,
saying,
get
rid
of
the
design
review
process
and
let
me
do
what
I
want
to
do.
We
are
saying
be
careful
what
you
put
in
the
code
done,
because,
because
good
design
is
what
designers
do,
but
I'm
not
hearing
any
criticism
of
the
current
design,
review,
standards
or
process.
Do
you
love
them.
C
Since
you're,
following
up
with
my
comment,
I'm
for
liberalizing
them
as
you
would
expect
loosening
and
allowing
for
more
flexibility,
while
you
know
having
something
to
avoid
the
things
that
we
most
don't
like,
so
I
I'm
actually
sympathetic
to
those
complaints
that
you
heard
originally,
especially
with
the
unpredictability
I
would
rather
have
a
list
of
things
like
these
are
the
10
things
we
really
can't.
Let
you
do
rather
than
having
100
things
saying.
These
are
the
specific
things
you
must
do
and
have
some
of
them
be
a
little
contradictory.
C
A
I
don't
think
that
we
heard
it
specifically
toward
the
design
review
process.
I
think
that
we
heard
that
the
overall
process,
so
whether
you're
going
through
the
conditional
use
permit
people
specifically
developers,
felt
like
that
it
was.
It
was
very
weighty.
It
took
a
lot
of
time
and
time
is
money.
Those
are
the
things
that
I
think
we
heard,
but
we
do
have
two
hands
raised
and
one
of
those
individuals
is
actually
a
design
review.
Committee
member
jessica
aguilar
who's
going
to
give
us
some
feedback.
L
L
In
in
terms
of
what's
happening
in
in
their
neighborhoods,
like
the
new
iccu
building,
for
example,
there's
a
lot
of
community
involvement
in
that
project,
providing
us
feedback
and
I'm
afraid
if
we
put
these
standards
at
the
admin
level,
a
lot
of
folks
wouldn't
be
heard
as
to
their
concerns
on
projects
like
that.
I
wanted
to
make.
If
I
can
remember
what
I
think
patrick
said,
or
someone
said,
give
us
a
list
of
things
that
you
can't
do.
L
I
don't
know
that's
a
good
solution
either,
because
I
think
that
potentially
takes
creativity,
away,
opportunities
away
from
the
design
teams.
I'd
rather
see
new
options,
more
options
than
than
saying.
No.
L
If
you
will
ve,
we
call
it
ve
and
so
there's
a
couple
buildings
downtown,
for
example,
I
won't
identify
them
specifically,
but
what
we
approved
at
dr
is
not
what
got
constructed
and
we
didn't
have
an
opportunity
to
see
those
again
and
unfortunately
I
think
we,
the
quality,
went
down.
L
A
A
Patrick
is
excited
about
a
specific
literary
find
by
byron
and
he
is
pro-flexibility
fair
point
about
losing
creativity.
Shellin's
followed
up
with
also
are
there
any
statistics
on
how
many
projects
could
appealed
at
either,
dr
or
pnz?
If
it's
a
high
number,
then
the
process
doesn't
work.
In
my
opinion.
A
Yes,
I'm
an
affordable
housing
developer,
so
take
it
with
a
grain
of
salt.
I
suppose
I
can
get
that
information
and
follow
up
in
regard
to
that
richard
states.
From
a
neighborhood
perspective,
I've
been
surprised
at
how
much
the
overall
design
and
appearances
make
as
to
whether
a
large
development
is
eventually
accepted.
A
D
I
won't
reiterate
anything.
That's
already
been
said.
I
agree
with
most
of
the
sentiments
from
everybody
I
I
will
say
as
a
designer.
D
I
wouldn't
want
to
give
away
some
of
that
by
making
it
more
open-
and
I
guess
to
jessica's
point
you
know
if
it
gets
ve
that
needs
to
be
re-re-examined.
A
Statements
all
right,
I
don't
see
any
more
chat
happening
or
any
hands
raised,
but
it
is
4
52.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
give
ample
time
to.
We
have
three
attendees
with
us
today,
so
we
have
alexandra
manjar
diane
running
and
nina
shaffer,
so
if
any
one
of
them
would
like
to
visit
with
us,
I
encourage
you
to
go
ahead
and
participate
alexandra.
Did
you
want
to
say
anything
to
our
committee.
A
K
I
think
that
the
the
points
that
the
committee
has
been
making
the
questions
that
you're
asking
and
how
you're
responding
to
these
are,
you
know,
I
think,
obviously
there's
some
good
discussion
different
viewpoints
and
I
think
so.
The
views
that
I
have
have
been
mentioned,
though,.
A
M
Hi,
yes,
I
was
just
mainly
listening
so
that
I
can
learn-
and
it's
been
very
especially.
The
parking
stuff
is
very
interesting
and
the
landscaping
and
because
I
live
in
the
foothills
and
I've
had
my
own
home
firewise,
looked
at
and
also
because
the
east
end
neighborhood
association
is
about
to
embark
on
firewise
training
for
people
who
live
in
this
area.
M
We'll
have
our
own
programs
and
and
be
able
to
answer
people's
questions.
I
would
suggest
that
as
you're
looking
at
these
maps,
you're
gonna
perhaps
make
of
where
to
do
firewise
stuff
that
you
be
a
little
bit
more
broad
than
just
those
in
the
foothills.
There's
a
movie
that
the
firewise
program
has
a
video
and
it's
very
educational
about
just
how
far
fire
can
travel
and
right
now.
M
As
you
all
know,
we
are
in
a
precarious
position,
and
it's
not
just
going
to
be
here
in
the
in
right
here
where
I'm
in
l.p
heights.
It
could
be
in
the
north
and
it
could
be
anywhere.
So
I
think
that's
a
really
critical
thing
for
you
guys
to
make
sure
that
there's
plenty
of
stuff
in
the
in
the
zoning
regulations
that
require
that
kind
of
thing.
Thank
you.
A
G
No
worries,
yes,
it
is
nina,
but
it
wasn't
a
full
slaughter
yeah.
Thank
you
so
much,
I
think
a
lot
of
my
views.
As
alexandra
said,
his
has
been
shared
with
this
group
and
I
I'm
just
so
happy
to
hear
that
I'm
the
president
of
the
lust
district,
neighborhood
association
and
in
terms
of
the
design
standards.
This
came
up
in
our
meeting
this
week.
G
We
have
a
couple
development
projects
coming
in
that
we
are
we're
looking
forward
to
having,
but
we
would
like
to
see
more
more
thought
into
the
first
level
building
of
it
that
kind
of
provides
more
welcoming
feels
to
the
buildings
in
that
area
right
now
and
dawn
just
in
case
you're
not
familiar
with
the
area.
It's
it's
primarily
off-campus
student
housing,
which
is
we're
we're
very
close
to
boise
state.
G
So
we
get
and
we
support,
but
a
lot
of
them
haven't
really
implemented
the
mixed-use
zoning
in
the
area,
and
we
would
love
to
see
more
activation
on
that
street
level
that
engages
not
only
the
students
with
the
neighbors,
but
vice
versa,
and
allows
for
more
retail
development
in
the
area.
G
So
I
really
like
the
idea
of
focusing
on
that
first
level
to
be
very
pedestrian
friendly,
and
I
kind
of
think
about
that
with
the
activity
centers
as
well
as
is
putting
less
priority
on
the
parking
and
putting
more
priority
on
the
people
that
are
going
to
be
right.
Next
to
the
building.
Eventually,.
K
O
A
You
thank
you
nina
and
again
I
apologize,
you
can
call
me.
Andrea
it'll
be
an
even
exchange,
but
I
want
to
thank
everybody
today.
You
guys
we
had
excellent
conversation
and
I
don't
know
if
you've
been
tracking
about
the
participation
levels,
but
today
we
had
everybody,
but
three
people
verbally
participate
in
our
discussion
today
on
our
committee.
That's
awesome!
This
is
really
encouraging.
This
is
important
stuff.
A
A
As
always,
you'll
have
a
post,
citywide
advisory
committee
survey
and
we've
added
that
additional
section.
So
if
you
want
to
provide
additional
comments
that
go
above
and
beyond
what
we
just
talked
about
those
three
major
questions,
you
know
give
us
that
information,
that's
what
we're
looking
for
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
send
that
out
to
you,
we
had
excellent
attendees.
Today's
meeting
was
super
exciting
to
me,
so
I'm
very
excited
very
proud
of
all
of
us.
A
A
Well,
you
know,
if
not,
then
I
guess,
let's
adjourn
the
meeting,
and
we
will
be
back
in
august
on
that
third
thursday
and
it's
gonna
be
an
exciting
meeting,
because
we're
gonna
see
the
draft
module.
Two
we're
gonna
have
an
opportunity
to
navigate
what
that
looks
like
what
all
of
our
discussions
have
brought
forth.
So
we're
gonna
see
all
of
those
those
fruits
that
we've
been
working
on
for
so
long.
So
thank
you
again.
Everybody
and
we'll
see
you
in
august.