►
Description
Modern Zoning Code, Day 4
A
All
right
good
evening,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
Boise
City
Planning
and
Zoning
commission
public
hearing
just
a
couple
things
before
we
start
out
with
tonight's
proceedings.
Everyone
from
the
public
entering
the
hearing
virtually
has
been
automatically
muted
and
cannot
speak
as
the
I
or
there
is
a
chat
function
in
Zoom.
There
is.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
A
D
C
E
D
E
Wanted
to
start,
but
just
by
thanking
all
of
you
for
your
time
and
commitment
to
the
city
and
to
this
process,
spending
the
last
couple
days
hearing
testimony
and
considering
this
application,
and
it's
greatly
appreciated
so
for
today
we're
going
to
move
into
q
a
of
Staff
after
questions.
As
the
chair
mentioned,
the
commission
will
move
into
deliberation
and
Iraq
recommendation
to
council.
Today
is
the
fourth
day
of
hearing
for
the
modern
zoning
code
application.
E
We
began
on
Monday
with
a
staff,
presentation
and
question
from
the
commissions,
and
then
we
moved
into
testimony
heard
from
13
neighborhood
associations,
Tuesday
and
Wednesday.
There
was
further
clarification
and
questions
of
staff
and
we
had
139
members
of
the
public
provide
testimony
we're
able
to
move
into
staff
rebuttal
last
night
which
closed
the
public
testimony
portion
of
the
hearing
so
for
tonight
questions
for
staff
I'd
like
to
introduce
you
to
the
team.
We
have
Diana
Dupuis
Andrea
tuning
and
Lena
Walker
myself
that'll
be
available
for
questions.
E
Everyone
has
microphones
today
and,
as
you
ask
questions
we
might
just
need
a
few
seconds
if
we
need
to
get
up
a
slide
if
needed.
To
answer
the
questions,
when
the
commission
moves
into
deliberation,
we
do
have
two
applications
in
front
of
you
to
consider,
so
the
first
is
DOA
230001.
This
is
a
zoning
code,
amendment
to
appeal,
repeal
and
replace
chapter
11
of
the
current
code,
and
we
also
have
CPA
230001
as
comprehensive
plan
text
amendment
to
replace
references
to
the
previous
zoning
districts
with
the
new
proposed
zoning
districts.
E
E
B
Okay,
thanks
Jessica,
just
real
quick
before
we
get
to
questions
I
just
want
to
remind
we
have
a
few
new
faces
in
the
audience
tonight
so
tonight.
Just
so
everybody
understands
the
process
moving
forward
tonight,
we'll
make
recommendations
to
council
and
then
city
council
will
again
go
through
this
process
in
June.
So
you
do
have
additional
opportunity
to
provide
public
comment
to
city
council
before
their
hearings
in
June.
So
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
about
that.
F
E
F
F
Last
night
and
and
today
or
well
really
last
night,
we
were
trying
to
figure
out
like
how
procedurally
to
to
handle
the
rest
of
this
evening
and
I.
Think
several
of
us
like
to
explore
just
making
straight
up
or
down
without
Amendment
motions
for
the
the
two
items,
the
zoa
and
the
the
CPA
and
then
doing
a
third
motion
to
create
a
trailing
resolution
to
the
city,
Staffing
Council
that
lists
our
concerns
and
suggested
changes.
So
it's
a
it's
not
a
binding
resolution,
but
we
can't
really
do
anything
binding
on
this
anyway.
F
F
D
F
D
B
B
And
I
think
we're
in
a
position
right
now,
where
I
think
we
all
have
a
lot
of
thoughts
and
considerations.
Not
so
much
Redline
exact
comment
changes
in
the
document,
so
we
were
just
trying
to
think
of
a
big
picture
method.
To
give
you
all
those
ideas
now,
obviously
we're
being
recorded.
So,
there's
there's
another
method
right
that
people
are
going
to
hear.
E
B
F
F
So
the
last
one
on
the
old
list
was
electronic
sign,
dwell
time,
20
versus
eight.
This
is
dewan's
issue
and
I
added
I've
added
four
more
issues.
One
is
the
VRT
memo
dated
April
20
2023
seems
like
we
should
talk
about
that
and
try
and
deal
with
that.
That
was
Elaine
Clegg.
The
next
was
the
elimination
of
minor
land
divisions.
That's
an
interesting
question
because
it
pushes,
as
far
as
I
can
tell
it
pushes
like
all
these
r1c
splits
into
the
subdivision
process,
which
is
a
lot
longer
and
goes
to
council.
F
F
There
I
think
we
heard
a
lot
of
people
talk
about
that
I
think
that's
a
very
reasonable
request
and
the
last
one
I
just
heard
from
my
friend
Betty
Berman
solo,
who,
sadly
did
not
testify
is
she
wants
us
to
think
about,
and
we
heard
this
from
the
southwest
data.
County
Alliance
Marissa
about
the
water
pressure
out
there
in
Southwest
Boise
in
those
private
Wells
I
think
we
ought
to
talk
about
it,
I'm
not
sure,
there's
a
lot.
We
can
do
about
it
in
this
code,
but
I
think
we
should
at
least
discuss
it.
B
B
H
Good
evening
Commissioners
for
the
record
Andrea
tuning
with
Planning
and
Development
staff,
we
can
give
you
a
brief
synopsis
of
that,
so
the
industry
standard
is
eight
seconds.
If
you
evaluate
standards
across
the
country
they
do
range
from
anywhere
from.
There
is
no
requirement
to
being
completely
prohibited.
A
lot
of
them
do
fall
approximately
at
eight
seconds.
The
city
has
received
some
comments
in
regard
to
brightness
of
the
sign,
so
we
evaluated
that
as
well
as
the
distraction
that
takes
place
with
the
changing
of
that.
H
F
H
As
a
follow-up
to
commissioner
Gillespie,
we
did
look
at
National
Data,
nothing
at
the
local
level,
so
we
do
know
that
if
there
is
a
static
sign
that
provides
less
distraction
and
would
ultimately
have
the
least
amount
of
results
we've.
Unfortunately,
there
isn't
anything
that
we
have
locally,
that
we
could
evaluate
just
that
common
knowledge
that,
as
changes
do
occur.
There
is
some
distraction.
F
B
H
Yes,
if
you'll
just
give
us
one
brief,
second
to
get
our
slide,
so
we
do
have
the
Wildland
Urban
interface
and
it
is
ultimately
intended
to
reduce
the
risks
that
are
attached
to
humans
and
animals
and
where
they
converge.
It
is
extremely
important,
as
a
part
of
that
we
coordinated
with
our
fire
department,
Idaho,
Fish
and
Game,
as
well
as
a
number
of
residents,
and
as
part
of
that
there
was
a
Minor
error.
H
So
you
did
hear
comments
in
regard
to
fencing
and,
ultimately,
currently
it
does
require
a
perimeter,
solid
fence
to
deter
deer
and
Elk.
We
would
like
to,
as
we
move
forward,
make
some
potential
modifications
to
that,
and
there
are
really
a
couple
of
components
to
that,
recognizing
that
fencing
should
not
be
required.
However,
there
are
some
design
standards
that
if
fencing
is
utilized
ensuring
that
it
is
non-combustible
and
then
the
last
one
is
ensuring
that
we
have
some
type
of
solid
fencing
or
screening
around
large
animal
feed.
H
B
D
D
B
I
Can
I
can
we
add
I?
Think
the
Southwest
data
Alliance
also
asked
about
the
200
feet
buffer
on
the
drive-through
and
I?
Looked
up
the
revised
code
today
and
I
believe
it's
still
the
same,
but
I
just
need
a
confirmation
of
that.
I
think
we're
actually
requiring
200
feet
on
that,
but
I
I
just
wanted
to
verify.
Like
so
I
think
there
is
a
current
200
repeat
buffer
in
the
new
Revised
Code.
A
E
J
Low
hanging
fruit
that
we're
talking
about
now
and
questions
I
had
a
list
of
questions
that
I
was
going
to
ask
of
staff
and
then
based
on
those
answers.
I
was
getting
either.
You
know
XM
off
or
propose
them
back
to
the
commission
for
inclusion
on
this
list.
So
that's
kind
of
where
I
was
thinking.
I,
I'm
feeling
a
little
out
of
sync
with
how
we're
doing
this.
B
Yeah,
that's
great
I
think.
Maybe
there's
really
not
a
not
a
specific
order
here
tonight.
So
I
think
I
think
it's
fire
away
at
this
point
John
and
then
you
know
we'll
get
to
a
point
where
we're
all
pretty
satisfied
with
our
I
think
our
questions
and
then
we
can
really
start
to
hone
in
on
changes.
Okay,.
H
J
K
We
want
the
drive
through
to
be
behind
the
building
and
not
Street
side,
but
that
comes
at
the
potential
expense
of
if
there's
residential,
located
behind
the
parcel
than
to
achieve
that
objective.
We're
willing
to
go
down
to
10
feet
to
the
nearest
residential
lot
and
when
we're
when,
if
that
is
not
so
if
that's
not
allowed,
if
we're
not
going
to
try
to
do
that,
then
then
it
looks
like
there's
some
language
where
it
still
could
end
up
being
Street
side,
but
I.
H
Commissioner
Danley,
that
is
correct.
We
do
have
policies
in
both
the
existing
ads
well
as
the
proposed
code
that
does
require
either
a
wall
or
Landscaping
that
will
provide
some
sound
abatement.
It
will
also
provide
some
visual
screening.
So
if
we
have
headlights
those
types
of
things-
noises
that
are
occurring,
that
we
do
have
the
ability
to
provide
that
buffer
between
that
residential
and
Commercial
interaction.
L
I
think,
on
top
of
that
and
all
but
I
think
is
the
MX2
Zone.
It
is
required
to
be
mostly
enclosed,
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
about
how
that's
reading
so
the
way
I'm
reading
that
is
it's
covered,
and
then
it's
got
a
solid
wall
that
comes
down
in
front
of
it,
but
the
two
end
walls,
the
cars
come
in
and
then
they
go
out,
those
don't
have
roll-up
doors
or
anything
on
them,
they're
just
open.
So
it
would
just
be
that
kind
of
full,
solid
canopy.
Is
that
correct.
H
F
Which
is
the
cup
conditions
and
the
change
in
the
cup
conditions,
so
I'm
gonna?
Let
you
guys
pull
that
up.
I
think
that's
a
pretty
important
change
in
that
we're
trying
to
narrow
the
meaning
of
adverse
impact.
Could
you
all
talk
about
the
city
talk
about
why
you
wanted
to
do
that
and
what
you
think
that
the
net
effect
will
be.
B
F
A
F
H
All
right
Commissioners,
so
we
did
evaluate
our
all
of
our
findings
so
very
closely.
We
wanted
to
ensure
that
we
were
getting
exactly
what
we
needed
to
become
a
vibrant
City.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
existing
conditional
use
findings
do
have
seven
different
findings.
Some
of
them
are
not
applicable
to
all,
but
the
majority
of
them
are
so
the
first
five
are
applicable
to
every
conditional
use
permit.
So
often
we
heard
throughout
the
public
testimony
specifically
in
regard
to
the
fourth
one.
H
H
So
when
we
look
at
how
that
compares
to
our
proposed
codes,
ultimately
we
wanted
to
ensure
that
we
were
getting
the
best
that
we
could
so
the
proposed
use
will
not
create
any
material
negative
impacts
to
uses
in
the
surrounding
area
and
any
material
negative
impacts
will
be
mitigated
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
or
the
public
benefits
of
the
proposed
use
outweigh
any
material,
negative
impacts
of
the
proposed
use.
That
cannot
be
mitigated
and
ultimately,
that
takes
a
close
look
at
levels
of
service
and
how
those
are
happening.
H
Oftentimes
within
the
city
of
Boise,
we
have
a
level
of
service
F
on
a
specific
roadway.
The
entitlement
is
oftentimes
there,
so
we
can't
eliminate
any
type
of
impact,
but
we
certainly
can
mitigate
for
that.
We
can
ensure
that
we
have
continuous
pedestrian
facilities.
We
can
provide
for
alternative
and
active
modes
of
transportation,
so
we
can
provide
for
walkability
bikeability
in
all
of
the
components
that
make
our
city
truly
vibrant
in
everything
that
we
are
looking
for
and
healthy.
E
E
If
I
can
type
in
on
this
to
you,
Mr
chair
at
Community
Gillespie,
so
the
next
slide,
if
we
could
go
to
that
one
as
well
or
maybe
that's
not
it
sorry,
so
in
the
existing
code
it
says
vicinity
in
the
proposed
code.
It
says
surrounding
area
either
one
are
defined,
but
the
word
choice
is
this
intending
to
imply
the
same.
E
And
if
I
could
speak
to
two
other
items
on
the
proposed
code,
a
suggestion
we
might
have
for
consideration
is
adding
an
and
right
next
to
that
last
or
so
that
there's
either
no
material
impact
in
the
surrounding
area
or
any
material.
Negative
impacts
will
be
mitigated
and
or
the
public
benefit
of
the
proposed
use
outweigh
any
material,
negative
impacts
and
then,
additionally,
that
term
the
maximum
extent
practical.
There
is
a
definition
in
the
code.
That's
provided
that
we
could
put
up
to,
because
there
were
some
questions
about
that.
K
B
K
Well
and
recognizing
that
we
can't
require
off-site
improvements
for
certain
pieces
too.
So
how
do
we?
The
mitigation,
can
only
go
so
far,
but
awareness
of
and
decisions
for
you
know,
is
a
little
bit
different,
so
I
think
I
do
think,
though,
having
some
sort
of
a
definition
of
distance
would
be
helpful.
H
Commissioner
Schaefer,
you
could
certainly
recommend
that
we
did
not,
because
with
every
application,
we
try
and
look
at
things
context
specific,
so
oftentimes
we
are
adjacent
to
different
types
of
things,
whether
you
might
be
next
to
a
park
a
school.
Perhaps
you
have
a
street
that
separates
you.
Those
are
very,
very
different
than
immediately
adjacent
and
a
similar
use.
So
we
evaluate
that
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
which
we
find
to
be
the
best
evaluation
technique.
Okay,.
F
As
someone
who's
had
many
an
abstract
discussion
with
James
about
adverse
impact,
I'm
sympathetic
to
the
idea
of
trying
to
narrow
it
down,
I
wonder
if
this
doesn't
go
a
step
too
far,
far
and
I'm.
Looking
at
that
and
I'm
thinking,
why
do
we
need
all
that
bit
on
on
the
public
benefit
the
or
and
I,
because
I'm
not
sure.
M
F
A
a
bigger
development,
a
bigger
building
in
the
bench
and
there's
a
concern
about
the
adverse
impact
of
the
traffic
on
the
roads.
We
don't
argue,
we
don't
really
ever
argue
well
that
adverse
impact
is
offset
by
the
public
benefit
of
creating
more
dwelling
units
right.
We
we
talk
about
that
that,
in
fact,
the
the
volume
on
the
roads
isn't
that
extensive
or
you
know
it's
just
not
Material,
so
we
do
kind
of
bring
in
materiality
with
the
simple
definition
we
use
now,
but
I've.
M
Good
evening,
Commissioners
for
the
record,
James
Smith
Deputy
City
attorney.
Thank
you
for
the
question,
commissioner
Gillespie
and
we've.
Yes,
we've
discussed
these
kind
of
things
at
length,
just
just
as
a
bit
of
perspective
and
I
want
to
be
careful
not
to
speak
too
far
on
this
in
terms
of
the
planning's
intent
on
this,
but
as
as
we
see
sitting
behind
you
there,
we
see
the
commission
this
this
August
body
wrestling
with
this
question.
M
You
know
at
at
length
about
what
is
an
adverse
impact
and
and
what
is
the
the
type
of
development
that
that
you're
supposed
to
approve
on
a
conditional
use
permit.
So
when
the
proposed
code
says
public
benefit,
the
intent
is
actually
to
raise
the
bar
in
the
sense
that,
if
you're
finding
material
impacts
that
is
significant
impacts
that
you're
not
able
to
mitigate
it.
It
asks
you
to
weigh
those
against
and
so
public
benefits.
M
F
B
L
I
think
on
the
cup
in
this
kind
of
ties
in
Beauty,
but
on
the
cup
findings.
A
lot
of
the
comments
that
we
received
was
about
not
waiting
for
build
out
to
see
the
benefits.
I
see
some
of
these
kind
of
requirements
that
we
might
set
where,
whether
it's
a
trail
or
something
like
that
and
so
my
mind
automatically
goes
to
a
construction
site
where
it's
all
fenced
off
and-
and
you
know
you
don't-
want
people
walking
through
that
site,
while
they're
trying
to
build
something.
L
It's
just
it's
dangerous
and
it
can
be
a
really
a
real
Hazard
and
so
I
100
understand
why
we
wouldn't
want
to
require
somebody
to
do
that,
because
you
are
bringing
people
into
a
potentially
dangerous
area
by
doing
that.
But
I
was
curious.
What
thoughts
the
city
had
on
requiring
some
of
those
benefits
up
front
yeah.
B
B
B
H
Okay
for
the
record
Andrea
tuning,
we
have
given
this
quite
a
bit
a
thought
and
really
we
think
that
again
we
evaluate
things
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
So
when
we're
talking
about
an
amenity
that
might
be
adjacent
to
a
construction
site,
it's
certainly
not
appropriate
to
have
people
going
to
or
through
that
area
for
safety
purposes.
Now
there
is
a
different
perspective
that
when
it
is
a
larger
Community
serving
amenity,
that
might
be
a
trail
or
something
like
that
that
may
be
away.
H
So
we
did
not
include
that
as
part
of
this,
we
believe
that
discretion
should
be
utilized
on
that
case-by-case
basis
and
allow
the
the
determining
body
to
appropriate.
Whatever
is
the
appropriate
way
for
us
to
handle
that,
so
it
could
be
through
a
phasing
project
or
ensuring
that
the
trailhead
is
you
know
secured
before
first
occupancy
is
given,
and
just
because
everything
does
have
such
a
unique
circumstance,
we
thought
we
would
leave
that
leeway
to
the
deciding
body.
Okay,.
D
J
Of
the
time
to
do
it,
tree
canopy,
so
on
153,
so
just
as
a
reference
on
our
new
code,
the
use
standards
for
is
this
a
question.
I
guess
for
anyone
and
staff
use
standards
for
duplex
Triplex
fourplex
a
lot
of
testimony
about
Florida
ratios,
not
there
anymore
and
I'm,
trying
to
understand
what
that
means
for
the
city.
If
we
remove
the
far
in
minimum,
open
space
seems
to
be
reduced
in
some
areas
from
what
the
testimony
we
heard
a
bit
of
it,
then
do
we
lose
tree
canopy
or
or
what
what's
the
risk?
G
Sure,
chairman
Schaefer
and
commissioner
Mooney,
so
a
couple
of
things,
I
think
that
the
the
recommendation
around
the
four
area
ratio
so
one
point
of
clarification
around.
That
is
that,
as
you
probably
know,
for
a
single
family
home
single
family
detached
dwelling,
there
is
no
requirement
for
lot
coverage
or
floor
area
ratio.
D
J
Helps
me
a
lot
because
what
I
and
what
I
was
hearing
and
a
lot
of
the
great
testimony?
Greg
austro,
for
example,
a
lot
of
those
graphics
he's
clearly
painting
a
picture
of
when
R1
sees
get
developed.
The
four
plexes
and
beyond
that
will
end
up
with
really
tight
development
in
the
on
those
lots,
but
that
tree
canopy
loss
will
be
offset
in
the
detached
sidewalk,
which
I
hadn't
thought
about.
So
I
think
that
helps
me
understand
a
little
bit
better
and
I.
Think
I
don't
have
a
I.
F
Chairman
yeah
commissioner
Mooney
or
if
I
might
John
so
that
to
me,
fits
in
item
four
multi-unit
and
Adu.
Rules
like
this
is
a
whole
constellation
of
stuff
along.
Are
we
comfortable
as
a
commission
or
what?
What
really?
What's
our
advice
on
the
rules
that
they've
proposed
for
multi-unit,
which
basically
is
saying
you
can
now
build
duplexes,
triplexes
and
quads?
F
If
you
meet
certain
conditions,
either
affordability
or
sustainability
on
a
lot
of
different
residential
districts,
foreign
I'm
very
interested
in
that
I
think
they're
aware
that
I
would
set
them
at
at
the
beginning
of
of
the
process,
but
I'm
really
interested
in
how
what
happens
like
how
many
are
gonna
get
built.
I,
don't
think
we're
gonna
see
a
rapid
and
vast
build
out
of
these
multi-family
units
in
in
the
neighborhoods
of
the
city.
F
For
many
years
it's
been
possible
to
do
some
of
this
already
and
we
just
you
know
as
a
percentage
of
eligible
Lots.
You
might
take
to
council
like
of
the
percentage
of
Lots.
Now
that
could
be
duplexes
or
tries
or
quads
how
many
have
actually
been
converted
from
single
family
I.
Don't
think
it's
a
very
high
percentage,
so
I'm
kind
of
comfortable
with
the
whole
multi-unit
Adu
framework
in
the
r
zones.
F
So
one
of
the
most
potent
points
that
we
heard
was
the
inequality
of
the
burden
of
change
in
our
city,
and
these
points
points
one
two
and
four
and
my
list
they're
the
points
that
really
have
the
opportunity
to
spread
that
density
burden
out
like
it's
kind
of
like
a
tax-based
problem,
the
broader
the
tax
base,
the
less
the
tax
has
to
be
so
the
broader
number,
the
broader
amount
of
space
we
make
eligible
for
density,
the
less
density
increase.
We
need
in
any
one
place.
D
F
K
Daily
I
want
to
touch
on
that
point,
but
I'd
like
to
also
get
in
back
going
back
to
the
tree
discussion,
because
it
was
definitely
brought
up
multiple
times.
So
I'll
start
with
one
of
the
things
in
a
note
that
I
heard
is
the
the
concern
of
the
deed
restriction
and
just
the
general
flexibility
there
with
adus
in
particular,
and
so
it
was
a
concern
brought
up
by
by
many
people
and
if
we
can
improve
that
language,
somehow
and
I'm
not
exactly
sure
how.
But
you
know
I
would
be
curious.
K
N
B
B
K
F
K
C
K
We
haven't
needed,
I,
think
50
year,
timeline
right,
and
so,
when
we
put
numbers
out
there
like
we
were
talking
earlier
about
notification
or
talking
about
CPU
distances,
I,
that's
great
I,
just
just
making
sure
that
number
is
rooted
in
something
that's
sensible
and
certainly
not
gonna
turn
around
and
bite
us
somehow
later
on.
That's
all.
B
D
B
E
Yeah
yeah
it's
on
chairman
Schaefer
and
commissioner
Danley
on
the
number
the
50
years.
So
in
the
spring
of
last
year,
we
had
a
Uli
task
force
related
to
housing
and
National
experts
come
in
looking
at
our
current
zoning
and
in
the
situation,
our
city
and
and
there's
different
strategies
throughout
the
country.
Sometimes
99
years
has
chosen.
You
at
least
want
to
be
above
30
years
for
some
financing.
E
It
could
be
any
number
we
felt
like
internally
50
and
after
talking
to
our
Housing
and
Community
Development
staff,
that
that's
that's
the
number
that
we
should
stick
with
for
now
and
then
understand
the
management
of
these
compliance.
With
these,
how
it's
working
and
then
we'll
have
a
you
know
a
rolling
Sunset
of
those,
but
that
could
be
something
that
we
look
at
I.
K
Obviously,
you
know
massive
massive
proponent
of
our
tree
canopy
and
our
street
trees.
One
of
the
things
I
want
to
make
sure
to
avoid
is
if
we
plant,
you
know,
type
Three,
Trees,
larger,
shade
trees
in
the
buffer
space
between
sidewalks
and
our
streets,
that
our
lovely
friends
at
Idaho
Power
don't
come
in
and
hack
off.
You
know
two-thirds
of
the
tree
canopy
because
that's
their
that's
the
way
they
do
it.
K
They're,
not
gentle
and
so
I-
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
aligned
with
that
because
the
whole
point
of
this
is
not
just
the
street
trees,
but
it's
also
a
mitigation
against
potential
trees
that
are
cut
down
right
and
so
ensuring
that
they're
healthy,
that
they
achieve
everything.
We're
getting
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
is
that
detail
when
they
do
grow
and
get
close
to
that
those
those
wires
which
they're
going
to
you
know
that
that's
considered.
So
it's
more
of
a
statement.
K
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
any
comments
on
that,
but
that
that's
one
thing
the
other
thing
I
was
going
to
say
is:
we
also
have.
Is
the
city
a
tree
planting
program
right?
We
have
a
pretty
robust
one
and
I'm
just
kind
of
thinking.
How
is
how
can
we,
this
code
tie
to
that
in
some
sort
of
a
mitigation
of
and
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
fee,
I
hate
to
go
down
that
realm
or
that
road?
But
how
can
we
use
that
program
to
mitigate
any
trees,
especially
the
large
shade
trees?
J
Chair
to
piggyback
on
that
please
so
the
previous
question
I
asked
about
the
fourplexes
and
up
and
boxy
and
that's
going
to
be
offset
by
the
street
trees.
They're
not
going
to
be
because
they're
going
to
there
could
be
some
huge
trees
on
that
existing
r1c
that
are
going
to
be
taken
out
and
we'll
never
get
the
caliper
inches
in
the
street
trees.
So
I
think
to
Christmas
point:
where
do
we
recover
that
right.
G
Chairman
Shaffer
Commissioners,
Moody
and
Danley
yeah,
all
great
questions,
I
mean
we
do
have
the
one-to-one
mitigation
requirement
that
is
existing
today
and
is
being
carried
over
in
the
proposed
code.
For
anything,
that's
one
and
a
half
caliber
inch
or
greater
I
think
that
a
piece
of
this
that
lives
outside
of
the
code
is
continuing
to
coordinate
with
our
Forestry
Department
very
closely,
which,
when
drafting
a
lot
of
our
tree
language,
we
did
speak
with
them
very
frequently
and
get
their
advice
about.
G
You
know
what
what
are
the
best
practices
for
mitigation
that
will
actually
get
us
the
largest
trees
and
also
thinking
about
sort
of
timeline
of
growth
for
canopy,
so
recognizing
that
some
trees
might
grow
very
quickly,
but
that's
not
necessarily
going
to
provide
the
longevity
that
we
really
like
in
a
mature
tree
canopy.
So
all
of
these
things
definitely
went
into
the
consideration.
G
G
So
that's
why
we
have
the
mitigation
program
in
place.
I
think
also
to
commissioner
Gillespie's
point
about
you
know
thinking
about
how
to
reduce
some
of
that
concentration
of
the
density
of
a
project
so
rather
than
having
very
large
sites,
always
developing
being
able
to
see
more
of
a
variety
and
option
of
housing
in
different
neighborhoods.
So
you
know
as
you're,
certainly
aware
of
some
of
the
struggles
with
off-site
mitigation.
G
That
can
be
great
that
we
have
that,
but
also,
how
is
that
mitigating
for
the
the
loss
of
tree
canopy
in
that
area?
So
thinking
about
the
scale
of
development,
that's
happening
and
again
having
that
trying
to
do
things
like
having
a
you,
know:
modest
parking
reduction
and
but
recognizing
that,
if
you're
willing
to
preserve
healthy
trees
on
site,
we
want
to
work
with
you
to
make
that
work
with
the
site
that
you
have
with
the
kinds
of
things
that
we
can
be
flexible
on.
B
B
So
I
believe,
as
it
is
right
now
with
achg's
requirement,
is
a
eight
foot
planter
strip
for
class
two
trees,
but
then
it's
a
10
foot
width
for
both
class
one
and
class
three.
Is
that
correct?
Is
that
your
understanding?
Okay?
So
this
so
I
think
there's
a
couple
references
in
the
code.
We
probably
want
to
make
sure
that's
correct.
I,
don't
want
to
create
a
situation
where
this
is
counter
to
achd
requirements
right
because
here
we're
saying
eight
foot
width
for
class
two
and
three
which
achd
wouldn't
go
for.
H
Commissioner,
Schaefer
yeah,
there
are
some
small
allowances
that
achd
does
allow
and
they're
currently
evaluating
their
tree
policy.
Currently,
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
available
and
oftentimes
when
there's
the
installation
of
a
root
barrier
system,
they
do
allow
the
smaller
planter
width
so
where
it
does
typically
require
an
eight
foot
planter.
They
do
allow
you
to
go
down
to
a
six
if
you're
utilizing
a
root
barrier.
H
B
H
Sure
we
can
certainly
do
that.
Our
current
code
allows
you
to
mitigate
on-site,
which
is
obviously
the
preferred
method.
So
if
you
are
needing
to
mitigate
it
would
be
one
tree
inch
for
every
tree
inch
that
you're
removing
that's
above
that
1.5
caliber
inches.
Now
there
is
an
alternative,
because
there
are
times
where
you
can't
accommodate
on
site
for
the
removal
of
the
trees,
because
they
are
excessively
large.
There's
too
many.
There
are
some
of
those
Alternatives,
and
so
we
currently
do
allow
you
to
contribute
to
our
Parks
fund.
H
They
have
a
formula
that
identifies
a
calculation
of
what
that
tree
is
worth
in
value.
You
made
that
contribution
and
then
they
track
where
it
is
and
they
ensure
that
the
trees
that
do
go
in
are
planted
within
your
area.
So
if
something
is
removed
and
in
West
Boise
we're
not
reforesting
in
East
Boise,
so
we're
trying
to
be
Equitable
if
a
tree
is
removed
in
a
certain
area
that
we're
actually
getting
that
tree
back
into
that
same
area
to
provide
those
benefits
to
those
residents.
D
B
K
Code
is
very,
very
similar,
very
similar
right,
yes
right,
just
if
I
can
yeah
I
think
that's
a
work
session
topic
that
we
need
to
have
we're
always
talking
about
needing
things
to
talk
about
and
to
learn
and
I.
I
would
suggest
that
would
be
a
great
thing
for
us
to
hear
30
minutes
on
it
tell
us
how
it's
working
the
successes,
because
I
don't
know
any
other
city.
That's
really
doing
that
and
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
hear
and
when
we
deliberate
and
think
about
this
issue
to
know
the
details
of.
O
J
B
O
J
C
F
F
J
B
D
H
Can
tell
you
is
today
when
we
evaluate
that,
if
you
are
simply
re-striping
your
parking
lot,
we
consider
that
just
maintenance
and
repair
as
long
as
you
are
matching
your
entitlement
or
approval,
you
can
go
ahead
and
do
that
now
there
are
different
types
of
things
so
over
time,
when
your
parking
lot
deteriorates.
What
happens
is
if
you
hit
certain
thresholds,
then
you
have
to
install
landscaping
and
so
the
way
it
works
today
and
our
under
our
current
code.
You
can
do
any
modifications
up
to
25
of
the
parking
lot
once
you
exceed
that
25.
H
If
you
fall
in
that
25
to
50
percent,
what
you
have
to
do
is
you
have
to
bring
the
parking
lot
up
to
standards
that
was
in
your
entitlements
and
then
also
make
sure
that
you
have
perimeter
Landscaping
that
meets
the
current
code.
Now,
if
you
go
above
50
now
you
have
to
bring
everything
up
to
code.
That
would
be
your
interior
Planters,
your
terminal
Planters,
as
well
as
your
perimeter
Planters.
So
now
we,
when
we
evaluate
what's
happening
in
those
existing
parking
lots
here,
I
think
you
again
see
those
those
thresholds.
K
So
that
lot
with
all
that
asphalt,
that's
going
to
get
really
really
warm
and
retain
a
whole
bunch
of
heat
right
is
cooking
right
next
to
where
people
are
living
and
that's
a
distinction,
because
it's
not
technically,
at
least
according
to
the
code.
A
parking
lot
is
technically
a
storage
shed
or
storage
outside
storage
unit
right.
So
a
distinction
and
I,
don't
know
how
many
more
of
those
we
may
get
I
think
it's
a
use,
that's
largely
going
away,
but
you
know
in
those
kinds
of
ins,
incidences
or
instances.
K
H
Commissioner
Danley
just
as
a
follow-up
years
ago,
we
did
certainly
allow
those
areas
to
be
paved
when
we
evaluated
our
Landscaping
ordinance,
I,
think
that
was
done
in
about
2015.
We
did
evaluate
that
and
so
auto
dealerships
outdoor
storage.
We
do
now
require
the
interior
planter
Islands.
There
is
now
a.
H
You
can
seek
alternative
methods,
so
if
you
were
to
identify
where
those
terminal
Planters
were-
and
you
perhaps
bring
forward
an
alternative
that
says,
I
can
provide
that
amount
and
square
footage
that
I
would
be
providing
and
I'd
provide
you
additional,
but
I
want
to
do
it
at
the
perimeter.
We
do
allow
some
of
those
cases
to
exist
to
accommodate
individual
users,
but
we
have
gotten
away
from
the
solid
surfacing.
G
Chairman
Schaefer
I
can
look
up
the
table
and
perhaps
give
you
a
more
detailed
answer.
Sure
in
a
general
sense,
I
would
say
again
through
many
conversations
with
Community
forestry.
One
of
the
things
that
we
talked
about
was
you
know,
aligning
our
code
with
the
availability
of
trees
and
nurseries
as
well.
So
we
don't
want
to
create
an
issue
where
the
caliper
of
tree
that
we
are
requiring
as
a
minimum
cannot
be
found
in
nurseries
in
the
Treasure
Valley,
which
is,
which
is
an
issue
that
does
come
up
with.
G
That
they
shared
with
us
and
so
wanting
to
make
sure
that
the
you
know
the
tree
selection
guide
that
Parks
puts
out
is
you
know,
providing
the
species
and
classes
and
types
that
are
necessary
for
a
healthy
tree
canopy,
but
also
aligning
our
regulations
to
recognize
that
we
need
the
trees
that
are
available
through
nurseries
and
that
also
sometimes
installing
very
large
caliber
trees
that
have
been
allowed
to
grow
up
outside
of
that
context,
can
create
issues
with
growth
as
well.
Absolutely.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
My
only
other
comment
on.
That,
though,
is
that
many
times
like
in
my
day,
job
I
will
specify
a
certain
size,
a
two
inch
caliper
two
or
three
inch
caliper
tree,
and
we
have
to
settle
for
a
bit
smaller
tree
because
that's
what's
available
so
I
just
don't
want
to
see
us
and
it's
hard
to
get
much
smaller
than
a
one
and
a
half
inch
caliper
tree.
So
that's
just
a
little
bit
of
you
know.
The
world
I
live
in
day
to
day,
so
I
appreciate
I
sort
of
suspected.
C
L
Trimming
up
the
trees,
have
you
had
any
discussions
with
Idaho
Power
about
underground
and
power
lines
where
possible,
and
things
like
that.
I
know
that
places
additional
easements
on
there,
which
probably
affects
the
size
trees
that
can
be
planted
and
not
100
sure
about
time.
But
if
you
had
any
conversations
about
underground
and
power
lines
and
things
like
that,
so
it's
not
as
much
of
an
issue.
H
We
have
had
a
number
of
discussions
with
Idaho
Power
we've
talked
about
both
overhead
and
ensuring
that
our
trees
are
not
growing
into
the
power
lines
and
they
aren't
trimmed
in
ineffective
ways
that
ruin
the
tree
canopy
for
both
The
Pedestrian
or
for
the
larger
community.
So
we
have
talked
about
that
and
then,
if
you'll
notice
in
the
code
as
well,
there's
also
a
segment
that
ultimately
talks
about
that.
If
there
is
some
type
of
utility
that
prohibits
you
from
planting
your
tree
in
the
ideal
location
you're
still
required
to
plant
that
tree.
L
H
B
J
Can
I
open
up
the
parking
discussion
with
table
11
1104.9,
so
it
this
is
an
easy
parking
question
that
I'll
start
with
and
I'm
sure
we'll
get
to
more
difficult
ones.
Retail
sales
Big
Box
360
000
feet
125
of
required
maximum.
We
heard
some
testimony
about
that,
and
so
what's
the
city's
thoughts
on,
why
not
let
the
commercial
vendor
determine
how
many
parking
slots
they
need
for
their
customer
base
rather
than
maximize
or
basically
capping
them.
H
J
J
But
in
this
case,
why
not
let
that
commercial
entity
go
beyond
the
maximum
if
they
stay
in
the
same
footprint
I
if
they
use
other
parking,
Technologies
lifts
build
a
parking
garage,
but
they
still
keep
their
footprint.
So
it's
not
taking
up
space
in
our
city
for
cars,
but
they're
just
going
up
with
their
cars
was
that
an
opportunity.
H
Yeah,
that
is
certainly
an
option
for
us
to
consider.
Ultimately,
we
want
to
plan
our
city
around
the
day-to-day
activities,
not
for
Peak
user
times
so
oftentimes
when
we
do
talk
about
Black,
Friday
or
Christmas
time,
there's
a
period
of
five
to
seven
days
where
parking
lots
are
utilized
to
the
maximum,
yet
the
remainder
of
the
year
they
often
remain
empty.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
utilizing
the
land
the
best
that
we
can
and
giving
all
of
the
right
opportunities
for
landscaping,
parking
and
Mobility
as
well.
F
F
F
D
F
So
I
guess
my
thinking.
John
is
one
of
the
land.
You
know
the
language
and
the
variants
allows
for
an
exceptional
use.
So
if
someone
comes
to
us
and
says,
look
I
want
to
put
this
business
here.
It's
an
allowed,
use,
I'm,
doing
everything
it
right,
but
based
on
the
use
I
want
to
put
there
here's
my
calculation
can
I
get
10
extra
spots.
F
H
Yes
and
if
you'll
know,
if
you'll
notice
above
on
the
overhead,
there
was
the
way
to
adjust
the
parking.
So
it's
ultimately
a
request
to
exceed
maximum
parking.
And
so
there
are
findings
that
are
attached
to
that,
rather
than
your
traditional
variants,
because
a
variance
has
very
specific
findings
that
there's.
D
H
D
E
F
D
F
Would
be
I
would
really
encourage
us
to
see
if
we
can't
find
a
residential
like
an
r1c
or
R2
R3
area,
or
you
know,
maybe
it's
in
the
downtown
district
or
a
parking
overlay
or
something
but
I'm
I'm
really
interested
in
helping
our
development
community
and
our
buyer
Community
have
those
options,
for
you
know:
zero,
Park
residential,
because
a
lot
of
the
zero
parking
stuff
downtown
is
giant
apartments
and
you
know
giant.
You
know
larger
commercial
spaces.
D
G
You
know
we
really
wanted
to
encourage
the
Adaptive
reuse
of
buildings
rather
than
seeing
the
loss
of
existing
buildings,
and
so
you
will
see
there
that
in
the
residential
zones
there
is
the
ability
to
get
a
50
reduction
in
parking.
If
you
are
reusing
that
existing
building
and
then
in
the
mixed
use
zones,
whether
it's
mixed-use,
neighborhood,
general
or
the
MX3
mixed
use
active.
G
If
you
are
reusing
an
existing
building,
then
you
are
not
required
to
provide
additional
parking
Beyond
what's
already
on
the
site.
So
recognizing
that
you
know,
if
you
have
a
commercial
building,
that
you
are
adaptively
reusing
into
residential
and
whatever
parking
existed
at
the
time
that
that
building
was
originally
built.
We
would
allow
you
to
do
that,
because
that
would
allow
more
adaptive
reuse
to
happen.
K
K
Now,
if
there's
no
parking
minimum
that
we
have
now
well
guess
what
we're
still
seeing
we're
still
seeing
applications
that
come
with
parking,
so
the
private
sector,
the
market,
the
developers
are
not
going
to
the
absolute
minimum
like
there's
some
fear
of
well,
it's
gonna
happen
there.
No
one's
gonna
build
any
parking,
that's
not
what
we're
seeing
now
and
with
our
own
existing
code
in
place.
That
market
is
absolutely
still
saying.
K
F
Yep
Mr
chairman
yeah,
quick
question
for
the
staff
guys
so
I
was
looking
at
the
parking
tables
under
use,
which
was
the
wrong
place
or
impart
the
wrong
place.
Where
are
the
tables
by?
Is
there
a
specific
parking
table
that
shows
parking
requirements
by
Zone
like
the
mx's
that
you
were
just
talking
about
where
there
isn't
I
can't
easily?
Remember
where
that
is.
G
B
J
Yeah,
so
that
kind
of
brings
up
a
good
point.
That
was
that
we
heard
often
as
well
and
I,
think
we
just
mentioned
it
tonight
of
how
difficult
it
is
for
a
layperson
to
read
the
code
and
understand
how
to
get
to
get
to
different
periods
in
the
code
and
the
suggestion
that
an
executive
summary
would
help.
J
Maybe
some
maybe
some
ways
to
simplify
I
know
it's
going
to
be
second
nature
to
the
planners,
and
hopefully
it
will
eventually
become
more
familiar
with
it,
but
maybe,
as
someone
jumps
into
it,
there's
a
way
to
simplify
it
and
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
for
a
lay
person
or
especially
since
we're
encouraging
r1c
Property
Owners
to
maybe
do
something
with
their
property.
We're
entitling
them
to
do
more.
So
it's
got
to
be
easy
for
them
to
use.
L
I
think
one
thing:
that's
really
helpful
on
the
website
now
and
a
lot
of
this
really
building
code,
but
I
think
it
could
easily
relate
to
planning
code.
Is
these
little
Flyers
that
you
get
like
if
you're
building
a
house
like
it's
got
the
Flyers
of
applicable
codes
and
things
like
that
for
residential,
something
like
that?
There's
probably
something
for
the
existing
code,
but
little
flyers
and
things
like
that
with
the
graphics.
Those
are
really
nice
and
helpful
for
things
like
that
too.
Yes,.
G
G
I
think
was
the
term
that
was
used
of
coming
up
with
ways
that
would
improve
on
our
current
process,
even
regardless
of
the
code
that
we
have
to
sort
of
synthesize
all
of
the
information
throughout
a
zoning
ordinance
and
tailor
it
towards
specific
things,
so,
whether
it's
a
property
owner,
an
r1c
small
business
owner
somebody
who
wants
to
do
affordable
housing
projects.
So
that
is
definitely
something
that
we
are
tracking
to.
Okay,.
F
Milk
yeah
I
mean
I
would
just
say:
look,
there
is
no
free
parking.
Someone
always
pays
for
parking,
it's
not
free
and
the
question
we
have
now
is
who's
subsidizing.
Who
and
if
we
eliminate
or
reduce
parking
minimums,
we
reduce
that
subsidization
from
people
who
don't
consume
parking
to
which
is
now
occurring.
So
people
who
don't
consume
parking
are
now
subsidizing.
Those
who
do
through
higher
rents,
higher
building
costs-
or
you
know,
increased
Road
costs.
I
just
think,
is
a
matter
of
long-term
policy.
F
We
should
make
the
people
who
use
parking
and
pay
and
one
of
the
ways
you
pay
for
parking
is
you
have
to
spend
time
driving
around
looking
for
a
parking
spot,
so
I
I,
I'm,
okay,
with
that
I'm,
okay
with
parking
congestion
and
then
moving
to
metered
parking
and
all
that,
because
that's
the
only
way
you
can
control
parking
and
make
the
people
who
use
it
pay
for
it,
which
is
you
know,
an
essential
part
of
of
the
strategy.
We're
trying
to
use.
D
F
That
would
be
my
answer
to
to
those
folks
that
yeah
yeah,
by
the
way
the
street
parking
is
a
public
good
right.
So
you
know
the
city
can
do
things
like
issue
neighborhood
parking
permits
or
restrict
certain
streets.
I
personally,
don't
think
the
city
should
do
that,
but
it's
within
the
City's
power
to
issue
neighborhood
parking
permits
and
try
and
do
all
that
I
think
that
that's
the
wrong
idea,
but
but
they
can
do
that.
B
Thought
into
this
issue
with
minimums
and
maximums
over
the
week
and
I
think
that
the
code,
the
proposed
code
strikes
a
nice
balance
between
you
know:
incentivizing
minimums
and
not
allowing
too
many
maximums.
You
know
if
we're
trying,
if
we're,
if,
if
Society,
is
trending
towards
less
car
use
and
we're
trying
to
tend
that
direction.
I
think
this
code
does
a
nice
job
of
striking
that
balance
of.
What's
here
now,
where
are
we
going
or
where
are
we
trying
to
get
to,
and
maybe
in
six
in
the
next
60-year
rewrite
of
this
code?
B
You
know
there
are
no
minimums
right,
but
we're
not
there
now.
You
know
I
think
we're
in
a
hopefully
urbanizing
condition
in
Boise,
and
we
have
to
find
that
balance
between
minimums
and
maximums
and
kind
of
make
everybody
happy
and
I
think
that
this
code
does
a
nice
job
of
doing
that.
That's
my
that's!
My
take
yeah
Mr.
J
I
Time
I
think
we
heard
testimony
yesterday
that
you
know
people
driving
into
Boise
they're,
not
just
I
mean
we
can't
penalize
everybody
for
driving
a
car.
Those
are
the
workers
who
are
the
construction
workers
who
work
in
Marsing
the
people
coming
in
because
they
can't
afford
to
live
in
Boise,
so
I
think.
At
the
same
time
you
know
they're
car
dependent
because
we've
pushed
them
out
and
so
I
understand
that
there's
a
little
give
and
take
there,
but
I
mean
at
the
same
time
they
they
park
because
they
are
doing
services
for
Boise
downtown.
B
L
F
F
L
F
O
K
Just
want
to
add
something
that
hasn't
been
mentioned
on
this
subject
and
literally
today,
teaching
this
subject
in
Mountain
Home
last
week
in
Fruitland
in
just
part
of
the
day,
job
streets
need
friction
if
they
have
friction,
they
operate
as
we
want
them
to
operate,
which
is
slower
speeds.
Safer
speeds
speeds
that
if
a
collision
were
to
happen
with
somebody
who
happens
to
not
be
in
a
car
is
survivable.
On-Street
parking
is
a
way
to
provide
friction.
K
The
places
where
on-street
parking
is
provided
but
not
used
is
where
you
see
motorists
typically
exceeding
the
speeds
that
we
want
them
to
travel
at.
We
have
a
city-wide,
you
know
sort
of
20
mile
an
hour
blanket
policy
in
residential
areas.
Good
luck,
because
a
lot
of
our
streets
do
not
self-enforce,
and
we
can't
off.
We
can't
have
our
Police
Department,
be.
You
know,
constantly
bombarded,
as
was
pointed
out
with
129
officers
short
as
it
is
to
go,
do
the
enforcement
for
us,
so
on-street
parking
absolutely
has
a
role
with
regard
to
Public
Safety.
F
So
this
is
the
biggest
issue.
This
is,
in
my
estimation,
the
most
impactful
change
in
the
code
in
terms
of
spread,
increasing,
spreading
density.
So
I'd
like
to
ask
the
city
staff:
why
did
we
go
so?
The
current
square
footage
for
r1c
is
5000
at
one
point
in
some
Doc
drafts,
I
believe
we're
at
four
now
we're
at
3
500..
F
H
Foreign
ER
Gillespie,
yes,
we
did
it
take
a
quite
an
evaluation
of
the
r1c
zone
and
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
the
majority
of
the
r1c
zone
is
located
within
our
compact
land
use
designations,
and
so
we
used
that
comp
plan
land
use
designation
to
also
create
some
framework
for
us.
And
so,
if
you
take
a
look
at
the
allowed
densities,
they
say
ultimately
say
up
to
15
dwelling
units
up
to
15
dwelling
units
to
the
acre,
and
so
we
always
kept
that
as
a
piece.
H
In
the
back
of
our
mind,
there
were
also
a
number
of
notes
throughout
the
comprehensive
plan.
That's
directly
noted
that
planning
and
development
services
should
reduce
the
lot
size
and
increase
the
density
in
the
r1c
So.
Currently
we
are
at
eight
dwelling
units
to
the
acre
and
we
knew
that
we
needed
to
ultimately
increase
that,
but
we
wanted
to
stay
within
the
parameters
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
so
you'll
notice
on
here.
It
does
specifically
note
that
the
density
range
is
the
6
to
15
dwelling
units
to
the
acre.
F
F
F
F
I
think
I
understand
that
my
next
question
is
is
related
to
us
really
a
data
question,
so
Chris
Runyan
did
a
great
job,
presenting
some
data
on
the
East
End
in
it,
and
it
made
the
point
that
this
change
affects
all
neighborhoods.
Even
these
so-called
you
know
inner
protected
neighborhoods.
That
I
think
you
know.
You
heard
some
people
saying
that
this
change.
Never
these
changes
never
affect
the
North
End
and
Eastern.
Well,
this
change
does
now.
F
Chris
was
using
it
as
a
bad
thing,
I'm
kind
of
saying
it's
actually
a
good
thing,
because
it
shows
that
this
particular
change
affects
all
areas
of
the
city
which
I
think
is
really
good,
but
I'm
wondering
if
the
city
could
provide
data
to
the
council
and
the
public
on
the
number
of
properties
that
might
be
divided
into
how
many
parcels
and
some
guesses
to
how
fast
that
process
might
occur.
Based
on
the
data
of
how
fast
we're
already
seeing
land
divisions,
I'd.
B
F
You
to
provide
that
data
to
the
city
council
on
us
as
a
way
to
pace
and
gauge
that
change
in
these
r1c
areas,
because
I
think
it's
a
sensitive
issue.
I
my
judgment
is
it's
not
going
to
occur
very
fast,
other
people
disagree
and
so
I'd,
like
I
hope
we
can
have
a
data
driven
discussion
with
the
city
council
about
this
issue.
H
Commissioner,
Gillespie
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
components
to
that
that
we
really
want
to
analyze
clearly
that
sometimes
you
can
take
7
000
square
feet
and
divide
that
number
and
say:
oh
3,
500
square
foot,
Lots,
that's
two,
but
that's
not
always
the
case.
Sometimes
you
don't
have
the
street
Frontage
that
you
need.
Sometimes
an
existing
home
is
located
in
the
location
that
would
prohibit
you
from
creating
a
lot
that
is,
that
could
be
substantiated.
H
M
F
F
Did
you
take
into
a
crown
Street
Frontage
in
his
redlock
green
light
analysis
yesterday
he
said
he
did
I,
don't
know
if
he
did,
but
I
would
think
it
would
be
possible
to
at
least
take
a
few
sample
areas,
and
do
that
analysis
and
say
these
are
the
lots
that
are
dividable
today
and
if
we
implemented
this
zoning
code.
These
would
be
the
lots
that
would
be
dividable
in
the
future
and
if
you
could,
if
you
can't
do
it
uniformly
across
the
whole
set
of
parcels
in
the
city
pick
a
few
geographically
dispersed
neighborhoods.
F
B
Mr,
chair,
I'm
gonna,
just
real,
quick,
John,
I'm
gonna,
go
to
you
next
I'm
gonna
disagree
slightly
with
commissioner
Gillespie
on
this
one
I
completely
agree
with
staff
that
it's
that's
a
really
difficult
egg
to
crack
right
because
there
are
so
many
circumstances
with
existing
buildings
and
every
application
for
a
lot
split
is
going
to
be
different.
So
for
me
the
question
that
I
wrote
down
last
night
was
how
many
lot
splits
do
we
have
per
year.
I.
B
Think
for
me,
that's
a
better
metric
to
understand
how
much,
how
much
is
this
happening
every
year
right
and
that
I
think
you
could
use
that
as
a
better
projection
theoretically
moving
forward,
that's
just
my
my
take
on
it
because
it's
just
a
really
really
difficult
question
and
it's
I
mean
the
other.
The
other
easy
way
to
do,
it
is
to
say
well
12.4
units
per
acre.
How
many
acres
of
r1c
are
in
the
city
right.
That's
the
easiest
way
to
find
that
absolute
worst
case
scenario
right
or
the
most
density.
B
J
J
O
I
I
can
add
to
this.
One
thing
that
I
think
is
important
to
note
is
with
our
incentives
in
the
r1c,
where
you're
you
have
the
ability
to
go
up
to
four
units,
if
you're
opting
in
to
incentive
one,
and
that
includes
the
ability
to
subdivide
as
long
as
the
sum
of
the
units
created
equals
the
minimum
lot
size.
C
D
B
B
K
And
so
I
understand
the
point
of
the
lot
being
smaller
and
all
of
that.
But,
having
seen
some
of
those
examples,
I
think
that
it's
imperative
that
that
be
that
fear
be
laid
or
explained
some
way
that
hey
what
we're
trying.
What
we're
proposing
here
will
no
longer
accommodate
that
and
here's
the
following
ways.
C
K
F
F
F
I
Also,
we
have
the
comprehensive
plan
that
talks
about
like
just
getting
rid
of
a
button
chip
product
and
putting
into
landfill
I
mean
that's
not
really
good
use
of
I
mean,
if
you're
just
tearing
down
an
entire
house
and
if
the
house
is
modest,
it's
probably
a
little
bit
more
affordable.
So
if
you're
putting
up
like
even
if
it's
a
multiplex
or
something
and
they're
like
high-end
I
mean
you're,
probably
putting
more
expensive
homes
in
there.
So
I
do
think
that
there's
some
issues
against
it,
maybe
not
I
mean
I.
I
Just
can't
picture
them
like
taking
down
a
house
and
then
putting
in
you
know
more
density
and
then
it
being
cheaper,
I
I
think
that's
the
concern
of
some
people,
I
mean.
Are
we
getting
rid
of
like
more
reasonably
priced
homes
or
smaller
homes?
Just
so
that
we
can
throw
high-end?
You
know
duplexes
up
and
I've
seen
some
go
up
and
they're
nice,
but
they
are
more
expensive
and
then
we
just
got
rid
of
everything
and
threw
into
a
landfill.
So
we
didn't
even
recycle
or
reuse.
You
know
the
materials
we
had.
O
Just
one
point
of
clarification:
Mr,
chair,
I,
think
the
duplex
yes
and
to
hold
that,
but
anything
above
that
in
the
r1c
neighborhood
is
only
enabled
through
the
incentives.
So
you
will
be
getting
an
income
restricted,
affordable,
housing
piece
with
that.
So
that's
just
something
to
keep
in
mind.
So
a
Triplex
coming
in
one
of
the
three
units
will
be
income
restricted,
affordable
for
50
years.
Two
of
four
units
would
also
be
so
there
is
some
thought
and
intention
with
that.
The
duplex
is
something
to
consider.
O
F
Yeah
Mr,
chairman
I,
would
say
this
zoning
code
in
a
sense
has
a
downward
pressure
on
the
number
of
people
who
currently
tear
down
their
house
and
build
duplexes,
because
it
enables
the
creation
of
more
duplexes,
which
you
know,
makes
that
product
quote.
You
know
less
valuable.
It
increases
that
housing
units
yeah
in
a
neighborhood
which,
in
and
of
itself
I
think,
is
desirable
in
that
it
in
the
long
run.
That's
what
drives
down
the
prices,
even
when
you're
replacing
old
stock
with
new
stock
right
over
the
long
run.
F
That
process
leads
to
more
density,
more
housing
in
the
neighborhood,
which
I
think
improves
affordability
over
time.
I
don't
agree
with
the
argument
of
let's
never
tear
down,
affordable
housing,
that's
really
old
and
one
of
the
reasons
it's
affordable
is
because
it's
old
I
don't
agree
with
the
logic.
Well,
let's
not
tear
those
down
because
of
affordability,
because
over
time
that's
a
you
know:
a
bifurcates,
the
housing
market
into
really
crappy
stock
and
really
expensive
stock,
but
nothing
in
the
middle.
And
that's
what
I
worry
about
with
that
line
of
thinking.
L
The
naturally
occurring,
affordable
units
I
mean
that's
a
great
point,
I
mean
maybe
it's
something
about
them
being
healthy
places.
If
we're
gonna,
keep
that
existing
or
retain
that
existing
or
something
about
you
know
the
condition
of
that
existing
house,
because
some
of
them
I
mean
some
of
these
naturally
occurring
affordable
units
they're,
affordable
because
they're,
they're,
unhealthy
or
unsafe,
and
so
some
some
way
to
protect
the
safety
of
residents
and
some
of
this
adaptive
reuse.
It
could
could
be
welcomed.
F
You
we
had
a
discussion
about
height
and
you
talked
about
it
that
it's
a
little
bit
confusing
I.
Think.
Basically,
your
point
was
that,
because
we're
changing
the
way
we
calculate
height,
while
40
foot
is
bigger
than
35,
that
the
net
effect
is
to
keep
more
or
less
the
same
height
ability
and
the
same
number
of
stories
as
we
have
now
because
of
the
different
way
we
calculate
height
from
grade
and
all
that
stuff.
Could
you
just
go
through
that
and
and
check
my
argument.
H
Absolutely
commissioner
Gillespie:
when
we
started
out
with
the
modern
zoning
code,
we
really
took
a
look
at
what
is
going
to
be
the
right
place.
What
is
going
to
be
the
simplest
way
for
anyone
to
interpret
the
code,
and
so
we
really
had
always
had
some
concern.
There
was
lots
of
questions
that
surrounded.
How
do
you
measure
Building
height
and
So?
Currently,
what
we
do
is
we
say
that
you
measure
from
grade
to
the
midpoint
of
the
roof
line.
H
So
if
you
have
a
gabled
roof,
ultimately
the
mid
point
of
that
gabled
structure
would
have
to
be
35
feet.
If
we
were
to
measure
to
the
peak
it
could
be
40,
it
could
be
42
that
really
can
vary
based
upon
the
pitch
that
is
being
provided
there.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
measuring
was
really
quite
easy
for
everybody
to
understand
and
not
have
to
evaluate.
Do
Dormers
count.
Do
where
exactly
does
that
midpoint
happen?
Does
it
happen
from
grade?
H
If,
if
it's
at
a
high
point
and
on
a
hillside,
would
you
start
from
the
top
or
at
the
bottom
of
grade?
So
we
ultimately
said
you're
going
to
start
at
the
highest
point
of
grade
and
then
you
go
to
ultimately
the
top
of
your
roof,
and
so
yes
you're
going
to
see
a
number
that
might
change
specifically.
If
we
look
at
the
r1c,
it's
changed
from
35
feet
in
height
to
40,
but
it
doesn't
really
change
if
you're
using
the
peak
roof.
Now
we
also
said
we
heard
from
our
community.
That
said
boy.
H
We
really
have
concerns,
because
if
I'm
building
a
home
that
has
a
flat
roof
structure,
I
can
get
four
stories
in
within
that
40
feet
and
we
said
yeah
you're
right.
So
let's
make
it
be
40
feet
to
the
highest
point
of
the
roof
structure.
But
in
no
cases
should
it
exceed
the
three
stories,
and
so
that
was
really
how
we
evaluated
what
would
be
appropriate
in
the
r1c
for
the
building
height
you're,
going
to
see
slight
increases
in
the
R2
zone,
so
it
went
from
35
feet
up
to
45
feet.
H
So,
in
that
case,
it
did
give
a
little
bit
of
allowance
there
to
start
to
go
up,
but
that
was
really
to
make
sure
that
we
could
support
creativity
and
Innovation
through
a
variety
of
architectural
Styles.
So
we
don't
want
every
building
to
look
exactly
the
same.
We
don't
want
every
building
to
have
a
flat
roof
or
a
gabled
roof.
H
That's
what
makes
our
neighborhoods
really
interesting
and
enjoyable
to
be
in
again,
our
three
you're
going
to
see
a
slight
increase
from
45
to
50,
not
to
exceed
that
four
stories,
but
again
we're
evaluating
that
height
a
little
bit
differently.
So
you're,
probably
not
going
to
see
any
change
in
the
R3
similar
to
the
R1
see,
and
then
we
also
wanted
to
make
sure
that
all
of
our
building
Heights
aren't
the
same
in
every
Zone.
And
so
that's
why
you
see
that
incremental
increase
throughout
those
zones.
B
Andrea,
thank
you
for
that
summary.
That
was
well
said
very
clear
this,
and
this
just
to
be
very
clear,
too,
that
this
is
the
structure,
the
height
of
the
structure,
any
overrun
utility
structures
on
the
roof,
flat
roof
with
utility
structures,
or,
let's
say
an
elevator
right
that
is
not
included
in
these
Heights
correct.
H
Commissioner
Schaefer,
that
is
correct.
There
is
a
list
of
exceptions
that
do
allow
us
to
exceed
that
height,
and
so,
when
we
look
at
that
which
we
might
be
able
to
bring
up
for
you
sure
it
does
allow
for,
if
you
have
an
antenna
that
can
go
larger.
If
you
have
a
chimney
that
could
certainly
exceed
that.
But
we're
always
looking
at
no
that's
not
increasing
the
overall
square
footage
of
the
home,
the
bulk
of
the
home,
that
that
would
just
truly
be
an
impertinent
right.
L
H
K
Those
images
I
think
are
very
helpful
to
illustrate
in
the
real
world,
not
just
an
animation
or
not
just
a
rendering
right
of
the
types
of
examples
that
we're
talking
about.
So
my
suggestion
would
be
either
through
the
presentation
to
counsel
or
or
captions
somehow
in
the
code
that
demonstrate
the
height
of
these
examples.
I
think
would
be
very
helpful
for
the
for
the
council
and
the
public
moving
forward
to
have
a
point
of
reference.
B
F
D
K
F
So
this
is
the
Auto
R2
conversion.
This
is
in
the
the
transition
map
page
right
that
all
Parcels
immediately
adjacent
to
MX,
along
State,
Vista
and
Fairview,
and
within
1
8.
The
mile.
The
center
line
of
the
street
are
are
converted
to
R2
I,
just
I
guess
I
had
this
is
a
question
where
I
asked
for
that
additional
data.
It
showed
that
I
think
this
affects
roughly
A
Thousand
Eleven
Hundred
Parcels
in
the
city.
F
F
So
I
guess
my
one
of
my
first
questions
would
be.
There
was
a
fellow
who
presented
a
map
along
State
Street,
where
he
was
saying.
Look
these
guys
north
of
the
street
are
in
the
auto
R2
conversion,
but
these
guys,
which
he
alleged
should
be
were,
should
be
automatically
converted
were
not
so
he's
saying.
F
O
O
So
what
we
did
is
we
created
a
couple
clarifying
rules
with
this?
So
if
you
could
see
on
the
screen,
I've
said
the
first
rule
which
commissioner
Gillespie
you
read
out
loud
was
that
it's
within
1
8
of
a
mile
of
the
center
line
of
State
Street.
There
was
some
discrepancy
within
that
when
we
looked
in
Blueprint
Boise,
so
we
had
to
be
very
mindful
of
what
was
getting
captured
and
we
didn't
want
to
make
any
of
the
conversion
out
of
compliance
with
blueprint
Boise.
O
F
C
L
Based
on
this
map,
and
especially
with
the
blueprint
Boise
Port
piece,
all
of
these
Parcels
that
are
being
converted
could
have
been
rezoned
to
R2.
Under
the
current
code,
they
could
have
been
rezoned
to
R2,
based
on
their
compact
land,
designation
already
just
aren't
under
the
current
code,
and
that
would
have
a
greater
density
than
the
r1c,
but
they
could
have
already
been
like
that
would
have
already
happened
at
this
point.
L
J
Mr,
chair
yeah
different
topic,
but
the
this
chart
reminded
me
of
my
confusion
about
the
Sycamore
oval
overlay
and
how
that
transitioned,
through
the
modules,
were
there
some
changes
that
were
made
because
there
was
a
few
testimonies,
both
written
and
and
verbal.
Regarding
confusion
within
that
overlay.
H
Foreign
ER
Mooney,
if
you
remember
when
we
very
first
began
the
modern
zoning
code
when
we
went
out
and
we
evaluated
what
are
our
zones
and
what
are
our
overlay
districts?
We
had
originally
recommended
that
we
condense
some
of
our
residential
zones
so
that
ultimately
eliminated
the
r1a
zone,
and
so
our
largest
lot
would
have
began
with
the
r1b
zoning
density.
H
We
heard
quite
a
significant
amount
from
our
community
and
at
that
time
we
determined
that
no,
it
was
okay
for
us
to
have
a
variety
of
different
neighborhoods
throughout
the
city
of
Boise
and
we
looked
toward
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
land
use
designations
and
noted
that
we
do
have
different
designations,
and
so
it's
okay
to
ensure
that
we,
we
do
fall
within
those
zoning
densities,
and
so
we
have
implemented
r1a
back.
So
it
has
come
back
throughout
the
process
and
we
ultimately
brought
it
back
when
we
evaluated
module.
H
J
H
But
yeah
I
I,
don't
think
that
some
of
them
fully
understand.
So
we
do
have
a
number
of
different
character
overlays
throughout
the
city
of
Boise.
We
maintained
those
exactly
as
they
are
today,
so
anybody
that
lives
in
the
Sycamore
overlay
they
have.
They
have
maintained
the
r1a
zoning
with
no
changes
to
dimensional
standards
and
they've
also
maintained
their
overlay,
which
we
know
as
the
Sycamore
overlay.
K
D
K
A
K
Activity
center,
but
then
in
between
we're,
okay
with
drive-throughs,
so
it's
not
an
activity
center.
We
want
it
to
be
Tod,
but
we're
looking
at
land
uses
that
are
very
Auto
Centric.
In
some
cases,
we're
seeing
even
on
State
Street,
very
auto-centric
land
uses
that
are
by
right,
and
it's
to
me
it's
very
confusing
in
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
in
in
certain
instances,
I
fully
support
this
and
and
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we're
shooting
for,
but
where
I
think
we're
missing.
K
The
Mark
is
this:
while
we
are
not
only
looking
at
the
zoning
code
to
me,
the
opportunity
is
within
our
comp
plan
to
recognize
other
Gateway
corridors
in
this
city,
because
it's
not
just
about
Broadway,
and
it's
not
just
it's
about
State
Street,
Hill
Road
is
a
road
that
has
been
on
our
discussion
list
for
years
now
right.
How
do
we
enhance
Hill
Road
in
a
contextually
Accurate
Way
Ustick
is
historic.
It's
a
former
Town
site
it
had.
It
was
its
own
City,
Historic
lighting,
for
example,
on
you
stick
right.
K
We
know
later
Rose
Hill
up
by
the
cemetery.
We
have
so
many
streets
that
I
think
the
opportunity
is
in
front
of
us
to
not
just
through
our
code
but
also
through
our
comprehensive
plan,
acknowledge
that
there
are
so
many
other
streets
and
and
dust
neighborhoods
that
are
very,
very
worthy
of
additional
enhancements
and
treatments.
K
So
this
is
an
area
where
I
hope
our
city
council
looks
at
strongly
and
bolsters
the
rest
of
the
city
of
Boise,
because
when
we
look
at
those
gateways,
it's
pretty
much
like
Vista
to
the
east,
aside
from
State
Street,
well,
there's
a
whole
bunch
to
the
west
and
I
think
we
need
to
do
a
better
job.
Frankly
of
of
getting
into
those
neighborhoods
and
doing
treatments
and
and
such
that
is
sexual
to
that
part
of
our
city
as
well.
That's
a
comment.
K
O
C
B
O
M
B
Okay,
so
should
we
keep
running
over
missing
a
couple
of
Staff
people?
Can
we
go
ahead
and
yeah
as
people
trickle
back
in,
will
be
good,
all
right
staff
question
for
you
just
on
how
do
we
feel?
Has
there
any
more
thought
about
how
we're
going
to
approach
wrapping
this
up
tonight?
Do
we
feel
like
it's
necessary
to
do
from
a
memo
or
resolution
to
still
like
we
presented
earlier,
or
do
we
feel
like
this
discussion
is
going
to
be
adequate
record
Chris
Blanchard's
shaking
his
head
like
this,
is
adequate
record.
N
B
E
E
Well,
that's
all
observing
and
that's
the
point
at
which
you
you
decide
what
motion
you
want
to
make
and
how
you
want
to
make
the
motion
and
and
then
the
discussion
about
that
motion
and
you
can
amend
it
and
obviously
we
stay
tight
on
on
keeping
when
Robert's
Rules
of
Order
and
and
what
the
conversation
is
about.
But
you
know
our
intent
following
this
hearing
is
to
summarize
one
we'll
be
summarizing
the
discussion
and
questions
and
and
all
the
great
like
everything
that's
happened,
there'll
be
a
summary
of
that.
E
C
E
C
N
B
F
B
C
D
B
F
B
F
O
Commissioner,
Gillespie
so
I
think
there
has
been
some
misunderstandings
with
that.
There
is
not
a
minimum
height
limit,
it's
a
type
of
way
approval
process,
we've
created,
so
there's
an
allowed
form
and
an
alternative
form
and
kind
of
a
similar
thought
process
is
thinking
you
haven't,
allowed
use
and
a
conditional
use
if
you're
a
conditional
use
you're
not
forced
to
do
that.
It's
just
a
different
approval
process.
So
really
we
have
our
allowed
form,
which
will
be
approved
administratively,
which
you
see.
O
If
you
are
these
criteria
in
the
specific
Zone,
then
you
would
be
approved.
Administratively
you'll
still
have
interdepartmental
review.
They'll
still
be
thoughtful
staff.
Consideration
you're,
just
not
going
to
be
reviewed
at
the
hearing
body
level
if
you're
proposing
something
that
does
not
meet
that
allowed
form.
O
You
are
still
allowed
to
propose
that
you
would
just
be
reviewed
at
the
hearing
body
level,
and
these
would
be
your
findings
of
approval
that
you
see
on
the
screen,
and
it's
really
focusing
on
is
what
you're
proposing
going
to
help
contribute
to
the
ultimate
build
out
of
the
city
which
is
envisioned
for
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
we
don't
think
that
every
building
on
State
Street
needs
to
be
four
stories,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
really
looking
at
that
development
from
an
Urban
Design
lens
and
considering.
O
F
L
L
For
the
four
stories
so
three
stories,
you
know
things
like
with
a
lot
of
other
calculations.
You
know
that's
kind
of
The
Benchmark
that
you
trigger
elevators
in
residential
with
some
a
certain
number
of
units,
aerial
access
for
for
fire
and
stuff,
like
that.
So
you
know,
and
all
of
those
things
just
kind
of
create
the
the
a
little
bit
more
expense,
typically
with
a
building
like
that,
so
I
guess.
The
question
is:
where
did
the
four
stories
come
into
play
as
opposed
to
something
like
three.
O
Commissioner
Moore
good
question
again.
This
goes
to
what
is
the
ideal
form
we
would
like
to
see
in
those
mixed-use
areas
area,
so
thinking,
Podium
parking
and
some
sort
of
structure
on
top
was
our
thought
of
what
we
would
like
to
see.
We
don't
really
want,
and
we've
shown
this
slide
in
a
lot
of
public
engagement.
O
O
So
that's
where
our
thought
process
came
in
of,
if
you're
going
to
do
a
four-story
building,
it's
likely
going
to
be
a
more
urban
form.
Again,
that's
not
to
say
you
couldn't
do
a
third
story
building.
We
would
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
design
that
is
approached
that
is
proposed
really
helps,
contributes
to
those
goals
and
it's
not
gonna
deter
from
our
ultimate
build
out
of
this
of
the
street.
L
E
Mr
Moore,
if
I,
can
add
to
there's
a
red
asterisk
note.
There
that's
kind
of
important
to
follow
along
with
that,
but
even
if
it's
allowed
use
a
loud
form
and
as
a
type
2
application,
that's
administratively
approved
depending
on
the
type
of
project
and
these
bigger
projects
usually
fall
into.
This
they'll
still
have
to
go
through
design
review
Commission.
L
C
C
B
Shannon
c-u-p
number
eight
was
affordability,
definitions,
incentives
and
Effectiveness.
We
did
have
some
more
discussion
on
that
last
night.
Do
we
feel,
like
that's,
been
resolved
to
our
satisfaction,
or
do
we
want
to
bring
that
one
up
here
tonight
I
thought
my
my
concerns
were
were
addressed
last
night
in
our
discussion.
F
F
H
Commissioner
Gillespie,
that
is
correct,
so
the
public
has
seen
us
drafting
This
Modern
zoning
code
throughout
the
last
three
years.
We've
also
been
working
behind
the
scenes
to
make
sure
that
we're
implementing
it
correctly
so
work
creating
all
of
these
baselines,
as
well
as
various
key
indicators
that
we
can
follow,
along
with
the
code
at
various
periods
in
time
to
ensure
that
they're
working
and
some
of
that's
going
to
be
for
affordability.
Some
of
that's
going
to
be
for
sustainability.
F
Chairman
yeah,
that's
the
right
approach.
I
urge
you
in
when
you
go
to
Council
in
your
slideshow,
basically
to
try
and
address
the
specific
testimony
we
heard
which
presented.
You
know
what
seemed
to
me
to
be
solid
numbers.
I
mean
we
didn't
cross-examine
the
guy.
It
was
one
anecdotal,
I,
think,
there's
actually
two
specific
people
on
the
public
record,
who
basically
made
the
argument
that
this
is
not
going
to
have
the
any
impact.
F
F
N
I
just
want
to
follow
on
that.
Maybe
it's
a
question
for
you
Jessica
or
Andrea
I'm,
not
sure,
but
Clarion
is
that
the
name
of
the
consultant
who
I
I'm,
assuming
you
know
they
they
write
code
all
over
the
country.
I
mean
they've
done
a
lot
of
this.
A
lot
of
assume
that
this
is
a
best
practice
and
they've
used
code
like
this
before
in
other
cities.
N
E
E
So
it's
not
exactly
modeled
after
any
different
city.
When
it
comes
to
the
incentives,
you
know,
that's
that's
very
much
foundationally
kind
of
created
in
a
way
because
we
cannot
do
inclusionary
zoning
in
in
Idaho.
So
it's
it's
as
an
incentive,
and
then
we
really
wanted
to
be
intentional
about
tying
sustainability
to
affordability
and
not
have
a
list
of
things
that
people
could
choose
from.
So
then
we
thought
too
about
the
relationship
of
the
residential
zones
to
the
mixed-use
zones.
E
E
It
will
take
us
evaluating
if
it's
being
effective
or
not.
Is
this
actually
happening
more
in
the
MX
corridors
right
now,
because
it's
it's
bigger
projects
or
people
seeing
the
opportunity
and
in
their
neighborhood,
so
we
fully
intend
to
probably-
and
this
is
an
absolute
priority
for
us
to
know
how
effective
that
these
incentives
are
going
to
be
and
to
monitor
them
and
track
them
and
and
and
promote
them
in
a
way,
even
that
you
know
the
housing
bonus
ordinance
of
tweet
heard
about
it.
E
It
does
take
time
but
like
what
can
we
do
to
build
into
our
process
continually
referencing
that
these
incentives
are
available?
We
will
make
it
really
user
friendly
and
easy
and
encourage
people
to
do
this
and
then
also
kind
of
watch
what
the
market
happens
there
and
and
adjust
as
we
go
so
so,
yes,
the
Clarion
I
mean
obviously
advising
us
the
whole
time,
but
this
is.
This
is
really
at
a
Grassroots
level
of
very
Boise
specific
proposal.
N
Thank
you
very
much
and
if
I
might
real
quick,
Mr
chair,
yeah,
yeah
I
have
to
think
that
you
know
I
mean
there
were
technical
experts
on
the
citizens.
Advisory
committee
and
I
would
think.
Like
Sheldon
Rodriguez
comes
to
mind
like
I,
mean
I
would
think
she'd
be
the
first
person
to
step
up
and
say:
okay,
this
isn't
going
to
work
if
it
were
not
going
to
work-
or
we
probably
would
have
heard
I'm
just
playing
devil's
advocate
here.
N
B
There's
the
point
I
was
gonna,
make
those-
and
we
had
shown
here
last
night
telling
us
it's
going
to
take
time
like
it.
It
takes
years
to
get
these
projects
constructed.
So
I
think
that's
the
part
here
that
ski
is
and
Jessica
saluded
to
that
that
let's
put
these
incentives
in
the
code
and
let's
we
gotta,
let
it
play
out
a
little
bit,
but
we
also
be
patient
because
the
Market's
going
to
come
into
play
too
right.
It's
just
the
time
it
takes
to
get
a
project
entitled
and
constructed
plus
changes
in
the
market.
D
F
Just
urge
the
city
to
be
responsive
to
that
testimony
you
can
find
out
which
ones
they
were.
The
analytical
testimony
and
I
do
need
to
give
a
shout
out
to
Lori
to
care
who
was
also
highly
critical
of
of
this
ordinance's
impact
on
affordability,
and
you
know,
I
I
think
she
would
be
critical
of
any
ordinance's
impact
on
affordability,
short
of
one.
F
That
does
things
that
we
really
can't
do,
but
I
do
urge
you
to
to
try
and
give
the
council
an
objective
assessment
of
how
effective
these
are
going
to
be,
because
that
seems
like
that's
an
important
part
of
the
whole
argument.
One
of
the
three
or
four
pillars
of
the
whole
density
strategy
is
that
it
creates
affordability
in
the
city.
So
it's
a
really
important
strategic
pillar
of
the
whole
shooting
match.
K
K
J
I
feel
obliged
to
talk
about
the
elephant
in
the
room
with
the
clean
energy
which
it
almost
seems
like
we're.
Picking
a
technology
here
and
I
understand
the
reason
for
that
from
an
incentive
perspective
and
not
a
directive
perspective,
but
are
we
is
the
city?
Okay,
with
this
and
and
since
Intermountain
didn't
make
the
make
themselves
available
for
Testimony
it
sounds
like
they
tried.
You
probably
ought
to
acknowledge
the
fact
that
they
do
have
a
reasonable
argument.
I'd,
like
I'd,
like
to
hear
our
counter
to
that
foreign.
J
It
does
Thanks
James
I
I
guess.
My
concern
is
that
I
lived
through
this
early
in
my
my
career,
where
I
bought
a
house
that
was
all
electric
and
it
was
impossible
to
heat,
so
I
ended
up
putting
in
gas
forced
air,
and
so
that's
that's.
My
perspective,
where
I'm
coming
from
is
that
we're
providing
incentive
for
a
technology
that
may
or
may
not
be
affordable
in
the
future
and
and
I'm
concerned
about
picking
a
technology?
F
Mr
chairman
no
I'd
like
to
pile
on
that
point
in
support
of
my
friend,
John
I
installed
these
wackadoodle
heat
pumps
with
variables,
speed,
compressors
and
upside
down
perambulators,
and
it
still
needs
to
do
gas
heating
about
three
months
out
of
the
year,
because
the
Energy
Efficiency
of
the
heat
bump
gets
too
low
when
the
temperature
gets
too
low.
So
I
couldn't
go
to
an
all.
I
couldn't
go
to
an
all-electric
house.
F
B
F
C
B
L
On
this
topic,
I
think
the
difference
with
with
some
of
those
systems
totally
and
with
you
know
some
of
those
this
proposes.
This
is
proposed
for
new
construction
as
opposed
to
kind
of
a
retrofit,
or
something
like
that,
so
the
building
would
be
designed
with
you
know:
Architects
and
Engineers
yeah
to
accommodate
this
system.
F
Yeah
so
I
think
like
this
one,
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
my
friend
Jennifer,
so
I'll
tend
to
support
it
as
it
is,
but
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
how
many
people
use
this
incentive
and
if
it's
not
working,
maybe
we
reframe
it
so
that
it's
not
all
electric.
It
focuses
on
some
other
Energy
Efficiency,
metric
and
I.
Think
we
can
make
that
change
without
a
taking
or
anything
I.
B
H
Commissioners,
just
as
a
follow-up,
so
when
we
look
at
the
incentive
package
that
we
have
offered
it's
important
to
not
only
that
we
are
giving
something
but
we're
getting
something
in
return
and
the
reason
that
we
have
selected
all
electric
at
this
point
is:
if
you
closely
look
at
our
climate
action
plan
which
our
public
works
department
created,
they
have
moved
us
toward
those
clean
energy
sources.
So
that's
really
where
it
originated,
and
so
there
are
multiple
components
that
go
with
that
clean
energy,
Energy
Efficiency,
as
well
as
water
efficiency.
H
J
John
yeah
I
I
agree,
commissioner
Moore's
counter
on
that
and
that
that
really
helps
Reign
but
frame
it
a
little
bit
better,
but
speaking
of
Public,
Works
and
geothermal.
So
are
we
going
to
expand
that
network?
Is
that
part?
Is
that
in
our
capital
budget
I
mean?
Are
we
I
mean
we
call
it
out?
I
would
assume
that
means.
We
are
encouraging
growth
in
the
geothermal
Network.
E
So
it's
it's
just
a
little,
but
we
have
recommendations
from
the
city
as
far
as
geothermal
and
the
desire
to
have
more
upticks
in
that,
and
especially
the
city
has
its
own
goals
around
our
buildings.
City-Owned
buildings
thing
that's
just
kind
of
the
one
piece
of
it
that
we
do
hope
that
people
take
advantage
of
the
geothermal
Network
that
we
have.
G
And
Commissioners,
if
I
could
just
add
one
thing
to
that
too.
Just
because
I
think
you,
you
point
that
has
kind
of
maybe
swirled
around
a
lot
of
the
discussion
that
we've
had
and
the
point
has
to
do
with
the
relationship
between
various
plans,
policy
documents
and
codes
that
the
city
operates
on.
So
when
we've
talked
about
our
process
of
drafting
with
both
the
public
Outreach
and
then
also
communicating
with
other
departments
within
the
city,
communicating
with
other
local
or
state
agencies.
G
It's
it's
important
to
point
that
out,
because
you
see
how,
with
each
the
creation
of
each
plan,
it
sort
of
moves
that
conversation
forward.
The
larger
policy
conversations
that
a
city
is
having
so
I
think
that
it's
a
good
question
and
it's
I
think
it's
helpful
to
illustrate
sort
of
how
all
of
these
documents
work
together
and
why
each
one
is
important
and
each
one
of
these
processes
of
creating
them
is
important.
So
appreciate
that.
B
B
K
K
That
never
happened
to
me.
I
think
it's
time
that
this
city
be
a
leader
in
that
and
I
think
that
it's
time
that
we
adopt
as
a
writer
to
this
somehow
someway
an
adequate
public
facilities
ordinance.
That
means
our
parks.
That
means
police
fire.
The
things
that
we
have
control
over
that
can
mean
schools.
K
The
roads
I
know
is
achd.
They
were
on
board
15
years
ago.
By
the
way
they
were
in
that
committee,
Transit
there's
other
ways:
we
have
impact
fees,
those
impact
fees
go
toward
that
adequate
public
facilities
ordinance,
so
the
mechanisms
and
the
foundation
for
that
program
are
already
in
place.
So
to
me,
I
think
it's
imperative
that
if
we
are
assuming
that
this
code,
when
we're
hoping
that
this
code
grows
us
in
the
right
ways
within
fills,
densities,
gets
more
of
the
housing
type
that
we're
wanting.
K
K
Well,
then,
I
think
it's
imperative
that
we
do
our
part
in
terms
of
the
other
side,
which
is
that
compact
of
delivering
the
services
that
we've
said
we're
going
to
deliver
and
so
I
feel
very,
very
strongly
that
somehow
Council
take
up
this
issue
with
an
adequate
public
facilities,
ordinance
and
we'd
be
the
leader
and
make
this,
hopefully
a
domino
throughout
the
Treasure
Valley,
because
I
think
it's
a
high
time.
We
do
that
foreign.
J
Infrastructure
The
Common
Thread
through
much
of
the
written
and
verbal
testimony,
was
concerns
about
densification,
especially
along
the
corridors,
and
can
we
are
we
equipped
to
do
that?
So
it's
a
pretty
basic
question
and
I'm
hoping
this
pretty
quick
answer
is
that
did
the
public
works
department,
there
are
Engineers
study
what
our
capacity
is
on
these
corridors
and
and
at
what
point
does
a
capital
Improvement
plan
need
to
include
budgetary?
You
know
investment
to
make
sure
we
can
identify
to
what
we're
planning
for.
E
C
E
As
a
tracking
to
that
and
same
with
fire
police,
you
know
other
Parks,
libraries,
other
Public
Services.
So
as
far
as
an
exact
corridors
and
the
code's
relationship
with
where
that
density
would
be
assumed.
No,
but
but
I
guess
they
would
say
to
commissioner
danley's
point
about
the
intention
of
this.
D
E
J
That's
I
wasn't
I,
wasn't
communicating
that
I
expected
the
sprawl
was
that
I
was
mostly
communicating
that
the
concern
that
I
heard
from
much
of
the
testimony
was
that
if
we
densify
along
these
corridors,
are
those
corridors
going
to
be
equipped
sewer
just
just
normal
public
infrastructure?
Is
it
there?
Is
it
in
the
ground?
If
it's
not
at
one
point,
do
we
think
we're
gonna
have
to
upgrade
it?
B
I
think
that
to
your
question,
though
Johnny
the
thought
process
is
your
at
some
point:
you're
always
going
to
have
to
replace
the
facility
right.
So
the
question
then
becomes:
are
those
facilities
being
maximized
in
a
more
compact
fashion,
or
are
we
spreading
them
out
and
building
more
and
more
and
more
and
and
have
to
replace,
more
and
more
and
more,
as
you
grow
further
out
right,
they
got
kind
of
the
Crux
of
the
issue.
It's
you
know.
B
D
J
B
Well,
the
staff:
you
can
sound
off
too
that
when
we
have
a
I'm,
a
development
project
as
proposed,
that's
exactly
what
part
of
the
entitlement
process
entails
right
is
the
review
by
the
city
Engineers
to
understand
the
infrastructure
adjacent
to
that
proposed
development
and,
and
what
is
needed
to
make
that
operational?
Is
that
a
fair
summary?
B
L
So,
if
I'm
thinking
about
put
doing
an
application,
I
have
to
get
go
to
Viola
and
get
an
assured
water
supply
Supply
letter,
as
opposed
to
a
will
serve
letter
similar
to
I
guess
like
a
fire
flow
letter,
or
something
like
that.
Just
saying
that
the
pressure
at
the
at
the
location.
So
what
would
be
the
difference
between
something
like
this
assured
Supply
or
assured
water
supply
letter
versus
like
say
a
fireflower
letter?
Something
I'm
familiar
with.
E
F
L
H
Commissioner
Moore,
that
is
correct,
so
we
have
50
years
identified
under
our
assured
water
supply.
So
as
previously,
you
had
given
the
example
of
today
I
provide
that
violia
can
provide
a
water
pressure
for
fire
suppression,
but
that
is
evaluating
today's
water
supply.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
they
are
being
able
to
provide
water
to
our
citizens
for
that
foreseeable
future
and
we've
identified
50
years
as
the
as
the
pinpoint
where
it's
of
importance.
L
So
for
I'm,
just
I'm
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
so
this
letter,
if
it's,
if
it's
in
town,
basically,
if
we're
doing
any
sort
of
infill
development,
this
letter
should
be
relatively
straightforward.
Now,
the
stuff
on
the
fringes,
that's
where
it's
going
to
start
getting
complicated,
whether
it's
through.
L
If,
if
you've
got
like
Well
Service,
that
might
be
a
little
bit
different,
but
if
you're
extending
water
or
something
like
that,
that's
where
it's
going
to
start
getting
complicated,
but
this
infill
development.
Do
you
anticipate
a
lot
of
issues
coming
from
something
like
that,
or
will
that
be
generally
standard?
O
Yeah
I
can
jump
in
I.
Have
our
notes
from
public
works
right
in
front
of
me?
So
yes,
I
we're
expecting
kind
of
a
public
water
utility
to
have
done
an
upfront
analysis
of
their
capacity
and
infill
development
would
use
that
analysis
to
demonstrate
the
50-year
water
supply
other
things
such
as
like
legal
water
availability,
Financial
capability
and
then
water
availability
and
quality
as
well.
O
So
that's
all
kind
of
within
the
technical
analysis
and
then
Fringe
development,
where
they're
proposing
some
new
private
water
supply
would
have
to
then
at
each
individual
development
demonstrate
those
technical
requirements.
So
it
would
be
kind
of
another
layer
of
review
to
make
sure
that,
if
we're
doing
Greenfield
development
in
our
desert
that
we
are
making
wise
decisions
with
the
private
water
utility.
B
F
It's
correct
right,
Mr,
chairman,
yes,
please
so
so
Marissa
was
taught
and
I
didn't
understand
what
she
was
asking
for.
I
think
she
was
asking
for
some
sort
of
analysis
of
the
impact
of
new
development
in
that
area
on
the
existing
Wells
and,
of
course,
new
development
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
use
Wells.
It
can
hook
up
to
the
city
system.
So
I
was
a
little
confused
by
that
Mr.
I
F
Asked
Betty,
who
was
here
Betty?
Are
you
still
here?
She
was
here,
Betty
Berman
solo
was
here
earlier
and
I
asked
because
she
did
get
a
testified,
so
I
said
Betty
what's
on,
what's
on
your
mind,
and
she
also
what
was
really
on
her
mind
was
the
drying
up
of
these
wells
in
the
Southwest,
as
other
residential
users
use
the
water
for
watering
and
not
for
watering
fields
which
replenishes
the
aquifer
right.
B
F
I
Don't
know
if
I
can
speak
to
that,
but
I
do
know
like
just
through
some
of
the
issues
that
are
going
on
in
that
area.
Some
people
who
have
dug
Wells,
it's
they're,
going
dry
and
they
believe
that
they're
going
dry
because
they're
capping
into
the
aquifer
and
then
as
they
take
more
water
out,
and
maybe
somebody
is
much
more
professional
or
understands
this
more
than
I
do,
but
as
they
tap
into
the
software
for
and
then
like
the
water
depletes
itself,
then
these
Wells
have
to
be
dug
deeper.
I
Homeowners
and
stuff,
and
so
what
they're
saying
is
like
who
already
have
Wills
there
so
because
it's
not
it's
almost
like
an
an
annexed
area,
so
what's
happening
is
like
as
new
development
comes
in
they're
tapping
into
the
aquifer,
they're
bringing
it
lower
and
then
the
wells
that
are
existing.
You
have
to
actually
dig
deeper
to
access
the
water
now.
F
O
F
So
so
I
don't
see
a
role
for
the
city
in
adjudicating
private
Wells
and
their
impact
on
one
another
I,
just
don't
I
was
always
under
the
assumption
that
all
these
new,
these
annexations
and
these
subdivisions,
if
they
want
to,
can
I
even
thought
they
were
required
to
jump
onto
Viola
and
the
city
sewer
and
so
they're
drilling
a
private.
Well,
so
they
can
save
money
on
their
irrigation,
I,
don't
and
and
it's
their
property,
so
I
don't
see
I.
We
see
that
the
city
has
a
role
in
that.
B
B
H
B
D
H
Anytime,
you
are
in
the
city
of
Boise.
We
of
course
require
that
you
use
public
services,
so
sewer
water,
those
types
of
things
area
of
impact-
the
city
doesn't
necessarily
get
to
determine.
What's
occurring
there,
the
county
is
making
some
of
those
decisions.
Now
we
do
have
an
agreement
with
the
county
that
says
that
they
will
Implement
our
comprehensive
plan.
Sometimes
that
goes
well,
and
sometimes
it
does
not.
So
there
is
an
area
in
which
something
should
be
in
the
city's
future
and
so
that
they
may
not
be
tied
on
to
those
Services.
B
B
Great,
thank
you
and
that's
exactly
why
I
asked
the
question,
so
the
record
is
very
clear
about
what
the
requirements
are
and
they
were
not
I
mean
we
haven't
even
discussed.
The
fact
is
the
well.
Is
it
just
for
irrigation
right?
Is
it's
not
potable
use
right.
There's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
layers
to
this
well.
I
The
new
developments
coming
in
are
actually
hooking
up
to
like
Services
I
think
it's
the
existing
homes
that
are
already
have
you
know
they
take
their
resources
and
their
water
from
the
well
for
drinking
water
and
stuff.
So
it's
not
the
new
developments
that
are
reliant
on
the
well
I
didn't
wanted
to
make
that
clarity's
existing
homes
that
already
have
the
well
and
as
we
you
know
as
we
pull
that
water
down
more
I,
guess
I.
F
Guess
you
know
my
ultimate
question
to
the
city
and-
and
you
guys
is,
do
we
think
that
this
issue
is
able
to
be
addressed
or
should
be
addressed
in
Title
11?
Or
is
this
state
water
law
and
its
private
issues?
It's
private
Wells
on
private
land,
which
I'm
sure
there's
all
kinds
of
State
regulation
about
what
folks
can
and
can't
do,
and
the
government,
the
local
governments
I
mean
Wells-
are
a
big
deal
like
for
300
years?
E
I
say
the
short
answer
is
this:
is
title
11.
the
title
that
the
zoning
code
rewrite
is
about
is
about
development
blueprint,
Boise
speaks
to
annexation
and
Lupa
speaks
to
the
path
for
areas
of
impact
to
be
annexed
and
our
the
city's
super
moratorium
speaks
to
the
path
for
extension
of
the
City
sewers
line,
necessitating
annexation.
F
E
F
Yeah
we're
different
than
I,
just
don't
see
a
place
in
this.
What
what
I
think
Betty
and
Marissa
want
is
for
us
to
insert
some
language
that
basically
says
in
the
southwest
a
developer.
Putting
in
new
units
has
to
do
some
sort
of
analysis
and
proof
that
they're
not
sucking
their
neighbors
well
dry,
I,
just
don't
see
how
that's
workable
or
manageable,
because
it
sounds
like
a
private
water
matter.
M
P
P
I,
don't
have
a
mic
up
there
I'm
a
desk
tonight.
So
that's
why
I'm
popping
over
here
I
think
to
summarize,
as
as
succinctly
as
possible
as
Andrea
was
saying
earlier,
the
assured
water
supply
is
with
respect
to
Future,
looking
for
new
and
new
development
and
Redevelopment,
and
that
the
city's
position
is
Falls
within
our
Planning
and
Zoning
authority
to
ensure
that
there
are
adequate
resources
to
support
the
new
development.
P
When
we're
talking
about
the
wells
in
that
South
area
of
Boise,
where
the
wells
are
drying,
the
information
that
the
city
has
available
is
similar
to
what
one
of
the
Commissioners
commissioner
fernbrock
was
saying
earlier
that
these
Wells
are
shallow
to
where
they
are
tapped
into
a
false
aquifer.
The
concern
that
is
has
been
brought
forward
is
asking
the
city
to
do
something
with
respect
to
new
development
that
then
takes
away
land.
P
That
is
irrigated
that
replenishes,
that
false
aquifer
that
they
are
tapped
into,
and
so
it's
the
city's
position
that,
with
respect
to
that
private,
well
exemption
that
these
houses
have
drilled
in
you
know
have
their
private
Wells
under,
is
under
the
purview
of
state
law
and
that
to
go
back
and
do
something
with
respect
to
effect
or
potential
effect
on
private
Wells.
With
respect
to
new
development
is
likely
not
within
our
purview.
P
With
respect
to
whether
or
not
this
is
redundant.
It's
the
city's
position
that
idwr
by
having
that's
the
Idaho
Department
of
Water
Resources
by
having
the
availability
of
a
water
right,
does
not
equate
to
the
physical
availability
of
water,
which
I
believe
was
outlined
in
Idaho
Department
of
Water
Resources
comments.
Also
to
this
this
body,
whether
or
not
there
are
refinements
or
modifications,
is
yet
to
be
seen
with
respect
to
the
proposed
code.
But
the
city
is
taking
a
position
that
it
is
a
different
question
than
what
is
asked
by
other
state
agencies.
F
B
D
F
I'd
just
like
to
I'll
just
put
my
cards
on
the
table,
I
think
type
2
permit
should
have
the
same
notification
procedures
as
type
3
permits.
So
that's
a
specific
change.
I
would
make
I'm
in
favor
of
over
notification
I.
Think
if
we're
going
to
streamline
the
hearing
and
decision
making
process,
that's
one
thing,
but
the
notification
process
is
different
and
I
do
I
I
just
feel
that
way
from
sort
of
a
governance
perspective,
I
think.
D
F
Has
review
by
planning
director
on
page
327
of
the
paper
code
and
the
final
decision
is
by
the
hearing:
Examiner
there's
no
appellate
ability
and
I
would
like
to
see
appeals
come
to
this
Commission
and
then
ultimately,
I
suppose.
If
it
comes
here,
it
might
also
have
to
go
to
City.
Council
I
can't
remember
how
the
law
works,
but
variances
can
be
very
tricky.
They
can
be
either
very
small
and
I.
F
Think
a
hearing
examiner
can
can
make
a
wise
decision
and
can
be
the
court
of
first
hearing
but
variances
last
or
ever,
and
they
can
be
big
right
and
they
can
have.
You
know
an
in
a
significant
impact
because
they're
so
broad
it
couldn't
be
so
many
different
things
that
someone
comes
to
a
variance
for
it's,
not
all
just
sheds
and
driveways.
F
F
B
N
Yeah
Chris,
please
yeah,
I,
think
that
would
go
a
long
way
toward
a
laying
the
fear
that
we
heard
from
neighbors
out
there.
There
seems
to
be
an
imminent
sense
that
right
everything
is
going
to
be
there's
going
to
be
four-story
apartment
buildings
everywhere,
starting
the
day.
Council
adopts
this
code
and
I
think
yes,
the
more
notification
would
I
think
would
be.
That
would
go
a
long
way
towards
getting
people
settled
down.
B
L
L
O
L
So
if
we're
I
guess
the
and
I
guess
the
question
for
maybe
Milton
for
Chris
would
be
what
sort
of
public
notice
are
we
wanting
to
see
for
for
some
of
these
items,
because
you
know
that
does
have
an
effect
on
the
period
because
because
your
question
exactly
you
know,
are
they
is
it
posted
and
I
know?
If
it's
posted
there
is
a
waiting
period
or
is
it
a
male
or
is
it
a
published.
F
F
We
all
of
the
type
3
applications,
except
for
reclassification
of
historic
resource,
have
a
posted
X
and
they
all
have
a
male
X.
So
all
I'm
saying
is
I'd
like
to
see
that
General
type,
3
notification,
philosophy
implemented
from
for
all
type
2
permits
to
the
greatest
extent
possible.
Some
of
the
type
2
permits
I'm
just
looking
at
them,
like
a
flood
plain
permit
like,
is
it
possible
to
post
it
in
mail
notice,
I?
Think
so,
because
it
applies
to
a
specific
parcel,
an
alternative
sign
plan.
Again,
that's
on
a
specific
parcel.
F
L
H
Be
done
so
sometimes
when
we
notice
something,
we
notice
something
saying:
hey,
there's
going
to
be
a
public
hearing
for
this
particular
item.
In
that
particular
case,
we
typically
follow
what
lupus
says
for
those
General
guidelines
which
they
say
15
days
notice.
So
we
would
look
at
it
that
way.
There
are
some
times
where
we
as
the
city.
Currently
we
take
action
on
an
item
and
then
we
notice
after
the
action
is
taken
and
said:
hey.
H
We
have
approved
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
near
you
and
if
you
should
choose
to
appeal
that
here's
how
you
would
do
that
so
there's
there's
various
ways
to
do
that,
and
it's
and
also
notification.
You
know
everybody
believes
notification
occurs
differently,
so
some
of
that
is
through
a
publication
in
the
Idaho
Statesman.
Some
of
that
is
posting
on
the
site.
Some
of
that
is
receiving
a
postcard
in
the
mail
or
we've
talked
about
our
development.
Tracker
that
you
have.
You
are
alerted
that
something
is
occurring
in
your
neighborhood.
There's
lots
of
different
types
of
notifications.
H
F
F
B
L
B
F
H
As
a
follow-up,
so
if
there
is
a
hearing
we
would
always
notify
you
would
be
notified
of
that
if
the,
if
it's
an
appeal
hearing
or
a
traditional
hearing,
if
it's
an
administrative
review,
that
ultimately
means
that
a
staff
member
is
evaluating
the
use,
specific
standards
or
the
standards
we've
identified
in
the
code
to
make
sure
that
they've
met
those.
So
we
ultimately
just
need
to
identify
what's
right
for
us,
so
we
do
have
Lupa
that
guides
us
as
well.
H
So
that's
going
to
be
our
our
Guiding
Light
and
so,
of
course,
those
type
4
applications
as
well
as
conditional
use
permits,
are
always
going
to
say
we
are
properly
noticing
and
that
is
established
by
a
state
statute.
Anything
we
do
above
and
beyond
that
so
you're
going
to
see
a
number
of
applications
that
are
typed
through
three
we've
said:
no,
that's
really
important.
We
believe
that
our
community
needs
to
participate
in
the
process.
That's
why
we've
made
it
hearing
level
and
we're
noticing
to
invite
people
to
the
hearing,
so
that
part
is
already
done.
H
The
type
2
applications
are
really
those
administrative
applications
where
we're
just
evaluating
have
they
met
the
criteria,
so
do
they
provide
parking?
Do
they
meet
the
setbacks?
Do
they
meet
Building
height,
all
of
those
things,
and
so
yes,
there's
an
appeal
process.
How
far
do
we
want
to
notice,
knowing
that
mailings
are.
D
B
I
am
going
to
cut
you
off
right
now,
because
I
think
we've
beat
this
horse
right.
I
think
the
message
has
been
sent
and
it's
very
clear
that
we
heard
concerns
about
the
notifications,
especially
regarding
Appeals
and
I,
think
we
have
a
table
full
of
smart
staff,
people
that
are
very
familiar
with
this
code
over
here
and
I.
Think
they've
gotten
that
message
and
I
think
the
city
council
is
also
going
to
get
that
message
at
this
point.
Commissioner,.
F
Gillespie
one
five
second
comment:
so
if
that's
the
case
and
we're
gonna
notice
appeals
make
that
apparent
in
1105.1
the
summary
of
review
procedures,
because
as
it
is
now,
it
shows
no
notices
for
all
type
1
and
type
2,
and
that's
not
accurate
you're,
going
to
notice
the
appeals
so
that
needs
to.
We
need
to
just
the
the
table
itself.
F
B
J
You
Mr
chair,
so
Andrew
just
made
a
comment
about.
We
were
looking
we're
basically
looking
to
try
to
get
to
type
three
stuff
that
we
want
the
public
to
be
involved
in.
So
what
I
heard
I
think
we
all
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
about
the
fact
that
there
isn't
going
to
be
public
hearings,
especially
on
the
r1br1c
allowed
use
allowed
form
multi-family.
J
Is
that
a
type
2
approval,
I,
I'm,
I
I?
Think
that's
the
way
I
read
the
table,
so
my
question
is
I
think
we
would
all
well
I,
guess
again
speak
for
everyone.
We
would
be
willing
to
spend
the
time
to
hear
those
in
the
future
and
maybe
in
an
interim
period,
because
I
think
that's
what
we
heard
a
lot
of
concerns
about
and
if
it's
a
staffing
issue
then
I
understand
but
I.
Think
in
the
in
the
sense
of
public
transparency
we
would.
N
M
J
G
Commissioner
Mooney,
if
I
could
just
to
clarify
quickly,
I
may
have
been
hearing
your
sentence
incorrectly,
but
to
clarify
a
loud
use,
allowed
form
only
applies
to
mixed-use
zones,
so
that
doesn't
happen
for
r1br1c
or
for
R2
or
for
R3.
So
that's
only
in
the
mixed
use
zones
where
that
would
be
applicable
and
just
to
clarify
as
well
too.
Although,
yes,
also
to
your
comment
about
reviewing
those
things,
so
a
point
to
clarify
around
allowed
use
in
a
loud
form
is
that
the
use
may
be
allowed.
G
However,
major
design
review
would
be
required
for
any
large
project
right,
so
it
would
not
necessarily
go
before
this
body,
but
it
would
go
both
for
the
design
review,
commission
and
the
thinking
behind.
That
is
that,
if
the
use
is
allowed,
it's
not
necessarily
up
for
discussion,
it's
it's
recognized
in
the
code
that
that
use
is
appropriate
within
that
zone
and
that
land
use
is
allowed.
However,
there
is
great
you
know
bandwidth
for
discussion
about
what
is
the
appropriate
design
of
that
building?
G
Is
the
design
appropriate
to
the
context
of
the
neighborhood,
and
so
even
though
the
use
would
be
approved
administratively,
there
would
still
be
a
public
hearing,
because
that
project
would
then
have
to
go
to
Major
design
review.
So
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
clear
if
that
is
something
that
tends
to
fall
through
the
cracks
I
think
just
because
there
are
different
review
bodies
and
some
projects
go
through
multiple
review
processes,
so
administrative
approval
for
the
use
hearing
level
approval
for
the
design
could
be
the
case
in
in
a
lot
of
those
situations.
B
B
I
think
the
next
video
we
still
I
think
we're
at
12.,
unless
which
is
the
5G
and
the
wireless
discussion
which,
if
we
memory
serves
from
I,
believe
it's
Tim's
presentation
on
Monday
director
Keane's
presentation
on
Monday
that
really
5G
is
not
considered
or
Wireless.
Technology
is
not
considered
with
this
within
this
ordinance
update
staff
is
at
a
correct
summary.
B
F
Mr
chairman,
no
just
clarify,
so
there
is
a
section
in
here
on
it
does
have
our
rules
or
ordinance
on
wireless.
It's
in
here
there's
there's,
but
what
I'm
hearing
from
the
city
is
is
essentially
the
same
ordinances
was
passed
two
years
ago
and
so
there's
no
reason
to
revisit
it,
because
we
had
a
huge
public
debate,
two
years
or
less
than
two
years
ago,
and
that
ordinance
is
Incorporated
in
here.
So
it's
sort
of
I
think
what
director
Keane
is
saying.
It's
a
settled
issue
at
this
time.
F
B
B
K
So
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
the
timeline
of
this
and
I
do
think
it's
very
important
that
we
acknowledge
this
and
not
ignore
it.
So
I
appreciate
us
doing
that,
because
I
think
the
public
deserves,
at
the
very
least,
to
get
a
sense
of
of
I'm
just
going
to
say
my
thought:
I
don't
want
to
speak
on
many
and
behalf
of
anybody
else,
but
as
my
understanding
of
this
timeline,
it's
the
following.
This
code
really
started
about
five
years
ago.
K
Under
the
previous
mayor,
it
picked
up
steam
three
years
ago
and
continued
on
with
all
of
the
public
process
input.
The
committee
you
know
over
and
over
year
after
year
and
continued
to
get
refined.
Then
something
happened.
Two
things
happened,
one
the
previous
director
of
Valley
ride,
Kelly,
batasheim,
retired
she'd,
been
working
for
Valley
ride
and
was
the
head
of
VRT
for
about
two
decades.
She
was
done
so
she
retired.
K
Our
current
are
at
the
time
current
city
council
member,
who
has
an
incredible
passion
for
Transit
and
has
worked
all
over
this
country
in
transportation.
Issues
thought
it
would
be
wise
to
take
a
career
change.
So,
commissioner,
councilman
Clegg
decided
to
walk
away
from
this
place
and
go
down
the
road
and
take
up
and
be
the
executive
director
for
Valley
ride.
K
That
was
no
fault
of
anybody's.
That
was
the
circumstance.
The
mayor's
obligation
is
to
appoint
somebody.
She
did
the
other
thing
that
happened
not
going
to
get
into
these
details,
but
we
know
the
other
city,
council,
member,
Lisa,
Sanchez,
and
all
of
that
detail
whatever.
However,
that
shakes
out,
but
also
something
that
occurred
and
the
mayor
did
what
the
mayor
is
supposed
to
do,
which
is
appoint
somebody.
K
This
code
was
well
under
it's
what
underway,
and
so
because
of
that,
and
because
of
the
circumstances
that
we've
Fallen
now
those
laws
aren't
going
to
take
effect
until
January.
The
two
council
members
who
left
or
one
left
on
their
own,
the
other
one,
is
to
hold
their
issue,
but
nevertheless
I
think
I,
don't
under
I.
Don't
think
why
we're
here
at
this
point
should
be
stopped.
This
is
a
process.
That's
been
underway,
come
January,
there
will
be
elections.
That's
what's
going
to
happen.
Fine,
that's
what
the
state
decided
that
needs
to
be
done.
K
The
city
made
districts
we're
going
to
have
an
election
if
the
new
Council,
who
is
appointed,
whether
it's
the
existing
members
or
others
or
whatever
decides
to
undo
these
things.
They
have
that
right,
but
I
don't
understand
why
we
should
stop
three
years.
I,
don't
even
know
what
the
total
dollar
amount
is.
I'm,
gonna
guess
it's
probably
a
couple
million
dollars,
at
least
between
all
the
fees,
the
public
events
and
on
and
on
and
on
and
staff
time
why
that
should
stop.
B
B
J
E
We'll
we'll
need
time
to
go
through
that.
There
are
a
lot
of
recommendations
and
some
of
them
have
to
do
with
implementation
of
the
code
and
and
how
we
as
agencies,
work
together
and
others
had
like
specific
recommendations
to
change
elements
of
the
code
or
what
triggers.
What
so
noted
that
we
will
review
it
and
have
that
as
a
part
of
our
summary,
too.
Thank.
C
K
D
K
Don't
know
that
we
necessarily
address
but
I
just
make
it
I
want
to
make
sure
that
what
I
heard
from
testimony,
if
I
think
you
know,
is
important
to
to
elevate.
So
there
might
not
be
an
answer
here,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
to
do
right
by
some
of
the
folks
who
testified
and
at
least
try
to
bring
those
things
up.
K
A
couple
things
there's
three
things
here:
one.
There
was
specific
comments
regarding
language,
not
in
the
code
regarding
condo
and
manufactured
homes.
I
know,
I've
seen
some
things
in
manufacturing
homes,
I
know
that,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
to
allay
those
concerns,
and
if
the
staff
can
at
least
just
address,
we
feel
comfortable
with
with
those
two
issues
that
were
brought
before
us
foreign.
D
H
D
H
Communities
there
is
an
allowance
for
tiny
homes,
but
we
do
require
that
they
be
placed
on
a
foundation,
but
there
is
an
appendix
within
the
building
code
that
allows
us
to
evaluate
things
a
little
bit
differently
as
far
as
overhead
Heights
stairwells
those
types
of
things,
so
we
have
Incorporated
those,
and
we
think
we
think
we're
in
a
really
good
position
with
all
of
the
various
housing
options
that
we've
we've
provided
throughout
the
code.
Great.
J
E
Yeah
and
commissioner,
nearly
just
to
answer
on
the
tiny
home
piece,
so
the
city
currently
has
a
pilot
project
evaluating
tiny
homes,
the
those
who
choose
to
to
opt
in
those
who
are
homeowners,
that
would
like
a
tiny
home,
and
so
that's
still
in
Pilot.
So
we
didn't
bring
forward
any
inclusion
of
that
program
into
the
code
right
now.
That
would
be
something
we'd
come
back
for.
C
K
The
next
one
I
heard
was
sort
of
the
the
general
notion
of
how
a
neighborhood
association
plans
comply
with
don't
mix
well
with.
However,
with
this
new
ordinance
does
a
sort
of
an
analysis
if
you
will
was
suggested
so
obviously
we
have
numerous
neighborhood
association
plans
and
I
know
that
they're
all
cited
in
this
in
terms
of
their
their
General
applicability.
K
I
guess
this
is
probably
more
of
a
heads
up
for
Council
than
it
is
for
discussion
this
evening,
but
I
do
think
it's
important
that
somehow
those
those
plans
probably
be
elevated
in
the
discussion
a
bit
in
terms
of
how
they,
you
know
how
they
do
comply,
how
they
work
you
know,
and
that
sort
of
thing
and
I
think
the
public,
and
especially
those
neighborhood
associations,
would
appreciate
that.
So
that
that's
that's
one
thing,
you
don't
think
you
need
to
answer
that
or
anything
but
two
other
things.
One
is
a
quick
one.
K
This
might
be
cart
before
the
horse,
but
early
on,
we
heard
the
the
need
for
us
to
determine
measures
of
success,
and
how
are
we
going
to
measure
if
this
is
working?
We
know
that
Tim
has
mentioned.
You
know
that
at
the
end
of
a
year,
going
back
and
doing
that
and
I
think
that's
that's
fair,
but
as
as
it
relates
to
our
purposes
up
front,
you
know,
and
some
of
our
more
metrics
I
think
that
that
would
be
wise
for
us
to
do
too.
K
How
do
we
know
that
that
everything
is
working
from
some
some
sort
of
a
holistic
perspective
this
this
code
and
our
comp
plan
is
very
you
know,
supportive
of
numerous
goals,
so
I
think
our
measures
should
reflect
that
not
just
the
number
of
housing
units
or
or
what
have
you
I
think
it
needs
to
be
broader
than
that.
So
there's
one.
K
C
B
F
Code
performance
dashboard
that
has
five
seven
metrics
that
are
analytical
that
are
measurable
over
time,
where
we
can
set
a
goal
and
see
our
progress
to
that
goal
or
set
you
know
higher
low.
You
know
set
points
if
we
go
over
it's
bad.
If
we
go
under
it's
bad
I'm,
not
sure,
quite
what
the
metrics
are.
We've
discussed
a
bunch
of
them
the
take-up
rate
for
incentives,
new.
F
K
K
My
last
one
here
is,
and
I'm
I
need
to
lean
on
my
fellow
Commissioners
for
this
because
I
don't
remember
exactly
what
she
said
or
how
she
said
it,
but
I
know
exactly
who
it
was,
and
I
wrote
down,
rent
versus
fees,
and
it
was
the
young
woman
who
testified
in
favor
of
the
code
rewrite
but
specifically
was
lived
in
the
the
units
and
you're
shaking
your
head.
I'm
glad.
K
F
Was
about
Mr,
chairman,
so
I
think
the
specific
issue
is:
how
does
the
of
how
is
affordability,
the
the
numerical
value
defined
Does?
It
include
all
these
other
ancillary
fees
and
rent
and
I
think
what
she
other
I
think
two
people
mentioned
that
you
know
they
would
set
Rent
really
low,
but
they
would
require
like
six
months
of
rent
when
you
move
in
yeah
I
think
you
use
the
word
two.
D
O
I
can
speak
a
little
bit
to
this
and
I
think.
This
is
something
that
we've
had
some
experience
with,
with
the
housing
bonus
ordinance
and
then
through
our
Housing
Community
Development
Division.
They
do
affordable
housing
monitoring
as
their
day-to-day
business
and
we're
coordinating
with
them
closely.
O
As
Jessica
said,
we
want
to
make
any
developer,
taking
up
the
use
of
our
affordable,
our
incentives,
making
it
as
easy
as
possible,
so
building
a
guidebook
on
how
to
charge
rent
if
you're,
using
one
of
these
incentives,
how
what
are
rules
and
our
policies
are
there's
a
whole
list
here
shown
on
the
screen.
These
are
just
high
level
ways
to
go
about
more
monitoring,
affordability,
specifically,
the
unit
rent
cannot
exceed
30
percent
of
the
allowed
area.
F
B
F
Elimination
of
minor
land
division-
oh
yeah,
yeah
Ethan
Mansfield,
brought
this
up.
It's
a
super
interesting
question:
I'll
just
I'd
like
City
staff,
to
explain
why
they
did
it.
I
would
like
to
also
suggest
that
that's
important,
because
all
of
these
residential
lot
splits
that
we're
worried
about
if
there's
no
minor
land
division.
My
understanding
is
everyone
is
a
subdivision,
and
so
everyone
comes
to
us
and
then
counsel
and
and
I
think
that's
an
interesting.
G
Sure,
chairman
Schaefer
and
commissioner
Gillespie
I
can
take
a
first
stab
at
it
and
then,
if
you
have
follow-up,
questions
can
certainly
expand
on
those.
So,
yes,
you
are
correct
what
we
have
under
current
code
today,
and
this
was
a
change
that
was
made
not
too
far
in
the
distant
past.
I
want
to
say
maybe
about
five
years
ago,
or
so
we
added
a
provision
in
the
code
for
a
minor
land
Division,
and
so
that
says
that
you
can
create
up
to
four
buildable
Parcels
through
an
administrative
review
process.
G
G
So
it
does
go
through
commission
and
Council
same
as
it
would
today,
but
it
is
a
slightly
different,
not
quite
as
involved
process
if
it's
for
fewer
than
five
acres,
so
just
want
to
flag
that
too.
For
the
discussion
about
notification.
That's
another
aspect
of
thinking
about
it.
So
you
know
you
can
take
another.
Look
at
that.
G
That
extensive
review,
so
this
would
allow
us
to
go
through
that
interdepartmental
review.
If
there's
a
pathway
that
is
showing
on
the
pathways
plan,
we
can
make
sure
that
we
can
get
all
of
the
partners
to
the
table
so
that
that
pathway
is
being
put
in
the
correct
place
and
has
the
correct
Dimensions
things
of
that
nature.
So
does
that
sort
of
answer
your
question.
D
F
I
just
want
to
so
thank
you
for
directing
me
to
the
footnotes,
my
bad,
so
let
us
suppose
that
it
is
a
you
know:
a
small
parcel,
Maybe
8
000
square
feet
located
in
an
r1c,
and
they
have
50
feet
of
Street
Frontage.
They
want
to
divide
it
into
so
they
meet
all
the
new
dimensional
standards,
but
it's
obviously
way
under
an
acre,
and
it
only
so
it
hits
footnote,
7
and
footnote
eight
and
that
it
it
doesn't
meet
those
standards.
G
So,
commissioner,
Gillespie
the
way
that
that's
written
in
that
table,
the
answer
would
be
no
so
with
the
under
today's
process,
I
believe
with
the
minor
land
division
that
goes
through
that
record
of
survey,
even
though
it's
an
administrative
approval,
there
is
some
neighbor
notification
that
goes
with
that,
and
so
that's
certainly
something
to
to
think
about
and
consider.
This
is
what
this
is
showing
is
following
the
process.
G
D
G
F
A
F
No
hearing
right
because
they
can
be
done
administratively,
but
the
sum
you
know
a
one
acre
subdivision
which
could
create
I,
think
we
calculated
12,
Lots
or
10
Lots.
It
would
receive
the
subdivision
hearing,
but
it
wouldn't
be
noticed
to
me:
I
mean
just
I.
Think
that
doesn't
quite
make
sense
and
I
would
suggest
again
that
we
maintain
the
same
level
of
notifications
that
we
have
now
as
we
walk
through
these
changes
in
in
r1c
zones
and
if
in
a
year
or
two
or
three
years,
we
want
to
reduce
that.
B
B
J
Ahead,
John
under
incomplete
applications,
page
343,
I,
guess
it's
a
discussion
I
have
for
the
commission
as
well
as
a
question
for
staff.
Do
we
we
often
hear
applications
without
an
achd
project
report?
Is
that
what
you
would
you
would
staff
agree
that
that
happens
occasionally,
and
it's
been
frustrating
to
me
and
yet
it
says
here
we're
not
going
to
do
that.
Is
that
a
change
from
current
current
code
or
have
we
just
kind
of
overlooked
that.
H
Commissioner
Mooney,
so
we
will
certainly
transmit
to
achd
and
hopefully
that
they
would
provide
comments.
But
the
really
great
thing-
and
you
heard
commissioner
Alexis
Pickering
talk
about
last
night
in
her
testimony-
was
that
the
new
process
has
something
that's
really
unique.
It's
an
interdepartmental
review
and
it
brings
about
all
of
our
departments
that
are
in
the
city,
as
well
as
our
external
departments
that
that
are
helping
us
along
the
way.
So
that's
going
to
include
the
Idaho
Department
of
Transportation
achd.
J
Foreign,
so
another
process
question
349
speaking
time,
so
our
customary
practice
is
neighborhood
associate
basically
applicant
x
amount
of
time,
neighborhood
association
generally
matches
the
applicant's
time
is
how
shares
generally
handled
it.
Now
we're
saying,
by
code
we're
going
to
give
the
neighborhood
associations
five
minutes,
which
we
heard
in
testimony
both
written
in
verbal,
that
we'd
like
to
see
the
same
as
the
applicant,
so
I
think
I
think
we're
in
agreement
with
that,
but
I'm
curious
as
the
staff's
rationale
for
limiting
it
to
five.
E
K
J
J
K
M
Commissioner,
I
might
jump
in
there
if
I
understand
the
question
it's
about
what
what
penalties
are
available
there
or
increasing
them
or
adding
there
are.
Certainly
there
is
an
enforce
enforcement
section,
there's
a
remedies
section
that
that
lists
what
what
remedies
are
available,
and
that
includes
misdemeanor
violation
and
such,
but
for
reasons
that
that
I
hope
we
don't
need
to
get
into
for
purposes
of
this
hearing.
The
city
has
some
pretty
Stern
limits
from
under
Idaho
law
as
far
as
what
what
amount
type
of
fines
to
impose.
M
J
James,
it
does
somewhat,
but
but
really
I
think
this
is
the
point
that
we
were
hearing
from
the
neighborhood
association,
which
is
timeliness
of
enforcement
in
in
the
fire
season
vegetation.
That's
that
needs
to
be
taken
care
of
immediately
and
so
getting
something
to
happen
quickly
is
really
it's
not
necessarily.
They
mentioned
neighborhood
association
mentioned
penalties,
but
I
think
what
they're
really
looking
for
is
timely
enforcement
of
the
code
so
that
we
don't
have
a
fire
danger.
K
I
should
have
brought
this
up
earlier.
I
apologize,
but
I
think
it's
really
important
for
us
to
recognize
the
uniqueness
that
our
our
neighborhood
associations
as
far
as
I'm,
aware
I,
don't
think
any
other
city
in
our
state
has
them
when
we
met
when
I
mentioned
them.
In
conversations,
everybody
always
assumes
HOA.
We
know
that's
not
the
case
we
fund.
What
is
it
two
or
three
and
staff
can
point
this
out
to
me:
plans
a
year
to
the
tune
of
something
like
65
to
80
000
a
year
to
update
those
plans.
K
We
also
have
our
Live
program
where
we're
giving
neighborhood
associations
money
to
implement
some
of
those
plans
and
I
think
that
it's
really
important
that
we
keep
that
relationship
strong,
and
so,
if
it's
10
minutes
at
the
hearing
to
allow
a
collective
body
representative
of
a
geography
and
a
population
to
speak,
I
think
we
should
maintain
that
if
it's
notification
that
we
can
do,
you
know
a
great
job
on
and
keeping
them.
You
know
close
in
terms
of
the
line
of
communication
I
think
we
should
do
that
so
I
just
think.
K
However,
we
can
improve
on
those
processes
and
build
that
relationship
as
much
as
we
can.
We,
you
know
it's
a
good
thing.
I
know
not
every
neighborhood
association
is
all
that
active
and
some
are
certainly
more
active
than
others,
but
nevertheless
we
have
a
unique
thing
and
I
think
overall,
it's
a
it's
a
great
program.
L
So
my
only
question
remaining
is
Page
92
and
it's
just
a
clarification
on
item
number.
Nine,
the
exemption
from
the
fire
or
building
codes
and
I
think
I
just
want
to
confirm.
I'm
reading
this
right,
so
I
think
the
way
that
I'm
reading
it
is
the
historic
preservation
commission
can
exempt
a
pro
a
prod
property
or
Historic
Landmark
within
historic
district
from
application
of
firearm
building
codes,
as
long
as
it
complies
with
an
exemption
in
the
code.
D
G
Think
it's
because,
when
it's
referring
to
codes,
it's
referring
to
the
fire
and
building
codes,
not
this
code.
So
what
it's
saying
is
that
there
is
an
exemption
process
that
exists
in
the
fire
and
building
codes
and
that
this
code
is
allowing
the
historic
preservation
commission
to
give
projects
the
ability
to
pursue
that
exemption
process
under
those
other
codes
in
the
name
of
historic
preservation.
If
it's
felt
that
it's
necessary
does
that
clarify.
L
I
think
so
I
think
so
so
currently
or
Mr
chair
So,
currently
to
the
the
iebc.
Has
the
international
existing
building
code
has
an
exam.
She
has
a
historic
buildings
chapter
currently
under
the
code.
A
building
might
not
be
able
to
pursue
that
chapter,
but
this
section
gives
them
the
ability
to
is
that
is
that
correct,
I.
C
D
D
B
B
All
right
staff
well
done
tonight.
Thank
you
for
letting
us
pepper
you
with
questions,
appreciate
all
your
input
and
patience
and
kudos
for
flipping
through
all
of
the
presentations
and
the
code
and
finding
everything
so
fast,
so
well
done
very,
very
well
done.
Okay,
at
this
point,
gang
go
ahead.
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
call
for
a
motion.
Mr.
F
F
K
F
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
tonight,
I
will
organize
my
general
comments
and
support
of
the
new
zoning
code
in
three
parts.
My
support
for
the
code
centers
around
three
groups
of
ideas
and
judgments.
These
three
groups
are
one
the
density
strategy,
two
Equity
of
change
and
three
procedure
and
governance.
0.1.
The
new
zoning
code
implements
a
density
driven
strategy
for
managing
Urban
growth
in
Boise.
I
judge
that
this
strategy
is
the
strategy
most
likely
to
achieve
the
goals
set
in
Blueprint
Boise
and
the
adopted
neighbor
plans
neighborhood
plans.
F
F
A
no
growth
strategy
would
require
a
significant
government
intrusion
into
private
property
rights
in
the
free
market
for
real
estate
and
development.
I
judge
that
this
strategy
is
infeasible
in
the
current
legal
and
political
environment
in
Idaho,
and
indeed
in
the
United
States
from
a
values-based
perspective.
I
also
strongly
disagree
with
the
strategy
which
attempts
to
voice
change
on
other
communities
and
avoid
the
mutual
obligations
of
citizens
in
a
free
and
vibrant
Society.
F
A
second
alternative
strategy
is
to
continue
with
the
current
sprawl
strategy
as
implemented
in
the
1966
zoning
code,
while
very
feasible.
I
judge
that
this
strategy
will
significantly
under
perform
the
density
driven
strategy
across
most
goals
of
blueprint.
Boise
I
believe
that
this
performance
Gap
is
likely
to
grow
rapidly
over
time,
resulting
in
a
range
of
bad
outcomes,
including
deteriorating
City
finances,
growing,
affordability,
issues,
increasing
Geographic
inequality,
issues,
Rising
traffic
congestion
and
declining
Environmental
Quality
across
the
region.
F
My
first
comment
about
this
is
that
the
current
zoning
code
does
lock
in
a
place
in
place
a
system
that
enables
rapid
change
in
some
neighborhoods
and
much
slower
change
in
other
neighborhoods.
A
major
cause
of
this
is
the
construction
and
distribution
of
the
residential
Zone
and
the
limits
these
zones
place
on
change.
F
F
For
example,
we
heard
great
testimony
from
Chris
Runyon
about
the
impact
of
the
proposed
r1z
lot
size
changes
on
a
neighborhood
in
the
East
End,
while
I
do
think
there
are
some
important
issues
about
how
we
manage
the
pace
of
change
in
residential
zones.
This
is
a
huge
step
forward
that
all
parts
of
the
city
are
now
included
in
the
density
and
change
discussion
in
a
substantive
way.
F
Without
this
new
zoning
code,
I
believe
that
the
western
and
southern
parts
of
our
city
will
continue
to
Bear
a
disproportionate
amount
of
change
and
accommodation
as
we
grow
by
creating
a
financially
more
efficient
City.
The
new
zoning
code
will
also
enable
the
city
to
better
meet
its
infrastructure
obligations
in
these
areas.
F
F
F
F
I
do
believe
that
the
city
should
provide
an
executive
summary
document
and
a
clear
before
and
after
table
of
changes
prior
to
the
city
council,
hearing
I
believe
the
city
is
open
to
any
suggestions
on
how
to
better
communicate
the
proposed
zoning
code
and
I
will
close.
Finally,
by
discussing
concerns
about
the
city
council
and
mayor
in
the
coming
November
election
in
Idaho,
we
have
a
rules-based
system
for
selecting
our
political
Representatives.
F
That
system
is
codified
in
election
laws
and
laws
relating
to
mid-term
vacancies.
These
laws
incorporate
the
community's
decisions
about
fairness
and
equity.
In
that
political
process,
this
system
has
produced
our
current
Council
and
mayor
who
have
the
authority
to
consider
zoning
changes
if
they
wish
to
those
of
you
who
would
like
to
delay
consideration
of
the
new
zoning
code
until
after
the
November
election
are
asking
this
commission
to
set
aside
our
rules-based
system
and
instead
Implement
our
personal
political
judgment
with
respect
to
democratic
representation
and
fairness.
F
B
D
C
B
K
This
morning,
when
I
was
reflecting
back
on
these
first,
these
first
three
days
and
even
into
today,
I
want
to
first
start
off
by
saying.
I
am
incredibly
proud
to
be
a
resident
of
this
city.
I
love
this
city,
I
adore
this
city,
the
people,
the
places,
the
environment
that
we
have.
It
means
everything
to
me
so
I
want
to
start
briefly
with
some
some
other
thank
yous.
I
want
to
absolutely
thank
the
public.
K
I
want
to
thank
the
people
who
spoke
out
against
the
code,
rewrite
because
I
believe
you
raise
a
significant
number
of
portion
or
issues
that
make
it
better.
I
think
we've
hashed
out
a
number
of
those
things
and
those
things
will
continue
to
be
exercised
in
the
coming
months
and
without
your
testimony
we
may
not
have
addressed
many
of
those
issues
so
I.
Thank
you.
K
I
want
to
thank
our
staff.
Our
staff
has
worked
tirelessly
for
literally
years.
All
of
you
here.
People
who
are
no
longer
here,
people
who
are
not
here
tonight
and
you
absolutely
deserve
a
tremendous
amount
of
credit.
It's
a
thankless
job,
but
tonight
I
want
to
thank
you,
including
our
attorneys
right.
You
never
get.
Thank
you,
our
Clerk,
and
even
our
I.T
guy
hi
Greg,
because
of
all
of
the
things
that
were
necessary
to
put
this
on
and,
of
course,
our
security
Personnel.
Definitely.
A
K
The
last
group
I
want
to
to
thank
is
this
very
Commission
I'm
so
proud
to
be
your
colleague,
you
ask
great
questions
you're
prepared
and
you
do
everything
that
you
can
for
this
city
to
be
better,
and
particularly
our
chairman,
Bob
Shafer,
who
I
think
deserves
a
tremendous
amount
of
credit
for
making
certain
that
this
four-day
process
was
handled
in
an
incredibly
professional
way.
So,
thank
you.
K
K
Our
own
current
U.S,
senator,
is
on
a
committee
on
finance
and
flat
out
was
quoted
in
the
U.S
Senate
in
testimony
is
saying.
Local
regulations
is
the
largest
barrier
to
affordable
housing,
meaning
both
sides
of
the
aisle
in
2023
are
actually
agreeing
on
something
for
the
most
part.
I
know
that
sounds
insane,
but
it's
actually
happening.
K
So
here
we
are
doing
our
part.
I
believe
perfect
is
the
enemy
of
good.
This
code
is
not
perfect,
however.
It
shakes
out,
it
probably
still
will
not
be
perfect,
but
we
can't
allow
that
to
be
a
barrier
to
our
future
and
I.
Think
it's
important
and
I'm
going
to
hit
this
note.
Last
zoning
zoning
forms
the
legacy
of
planning
right.
This
is
the
Planning
and
Zoning
commission.
K
It's
a
critical
that
we
take
the
first
step.
I,
don't
want
to
be
Cuna
they're,
going
to
see
thousands
of
homes
in
the
desert.
We
get
told
all
the
time.
We
don't
want
to
do
that,
so
we're
not
going
to
do
that.
I
don't
want
to
be
eagle,
they're
building
houses
in
the
Hills.
We
value
our
Foothills
very,
very
much
and
don't
want
to
build
in
the
Foothills
right.
K
So
I
believe
that
we
can
be
the
absolute
leader
in
this
Valley.
Last
thing
is:
this
is
absolutely
about
the
future.
I,
truly
believe
that
our
city
is
in
peril.
We
heard
it
from
our
testimony.
We
read
it
in
our
packet,
the
doers,
the
thinkers
and
the
problem,
solvers
of
the
Next
Generation
and
the
generation
of
that
can't
live
here.
K
When
that's
exactly
why
I
signed
up
for
this
gig
I
want
my
seven-year-old
and
my
nine-year-old
to
have
a
future
in
this
city
that
I
love
that
they're
growing
up
in
as
they
become
adults
and
parents,
and
if
we
don't
address
housing,
we
don't
give
them
the
opportunities
to
do
that.
I
believe
we
are
failing.
K
B
N
D
N
You
know
it,
we
really
rely
on
him
to
kind
of
be
the
not
only
the
memory,
but
the
conscience
too
and
I
do
want
to
commend
chairman
Schaefer
and
Vice
chair
Danley
for
really
professional
conduct
of
the
hearing.
The
city
took
a
lot
of
time,
and
there
were
people
were
worried
after
we
dealt
with
interface,
Sanctuary
man.
It
was
this.
N
This
was
a
raucous
place
and
I
think
people
were
concerned
with
how
this
was
gonna
go
down,
and
it
was
really
a
pretty
Pleasant
four
days
also
something
else
that
commissioner
Danley
referred
to
is
a
little
bit
of
History
too.
The
the
to
get
this
ordinance
passed.
What
a
Herculean
effort
this
is
right.
I
mean
this
is
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
cities,
tried
this
and
failed
a
couple
of
people
referenced,
Austin
Texas
right.
N
They
have
a
lot
of
money,
a
lot
of
skill,
a
lot
of
knowledge
and
those
guys
have
failed
at
this.
And
you
know
here
we
are
scrappy
little
Boise
and
we
got
this
done
and
to
the
residents
who
aren't
familiar
with
all
the
inside
baseball
I
mean
we
went
without
a
planning
director
in
in
this
City
for
18
months
and
that
director
Kane
could
come
in
here
and
even
remember
where
the
bathroom
is.
You
know,
let
alone
the
names
of
the
staff
and
and
most
of
the
staff.
N
N
This
code
has
just
begun:
it's
not
even
passed
yet,
so
it
really
hasn't
even
begun
yet,
but
this
should
be
the
beginning
of
it,
and
hopefully,
if
this
is
done
properly,
Lindsay
will
be
the
busiest
one
in
the
city,
because
there
is
a
tremendous
amount
of
Outreach
that
that
needs
to
go
on.
As
this
thing
gets
implemented
right.
We
can't
just
pass
this
code
and
say
done
we
compat
everybody
on
the
back.
N
You
know
we
owe
it
to
them
to
to
be
with
the
residents
of
the
city,
the
150
people,
whoever
that
showed
up
over
the
last
couple
of
days
here
to
testify
on
this
thing,
and
we
owe
it
to
them
to
be
with
them
as
we
implement
this
code
into
our
into
our
neighborhoods,
and
so
I
really
hope
that
that
the
city
will
continue
the
Outreach
I
mean
from
the
top
on
down.
It's
like
it's
got
to
be
a
mayor
thing,
Council
thing
staff.
N
Somebody
else
brought
this
up
already,
I,
think
Chris,
but
I
guess
this
is
going
to
go
into
my
cheers
and
cheers
section
here
is
that
the
people
who
showed
up
absolutely
fantastic,
Boise
residents
I
heartily
commend
you,
everybody
who
showed
up
to
testify
whether
it
was
for
or
against.
We
all
got
through
this
as
boycians
like,
like
only
we
can
and
that's
a
special
thing.
Like
Chris
noted,
you
know,
we
started
this
experiment
in
1863
and
the
city
is
the
only
voluntary
political
Association
that
you
have
right.
N
You're
born
in
America,
the
federal
government
created
Idaho
Idaho
created
Ada
County,
but
you
but
you
live
in
Boise
is
a
thing
that
can
come
and
go
it's
a
it's
a
corporation
and
the
residents
are
the
or
the
the
shareholders
of
that.
That
of
of
this
organization
called
Boise
and
this,
and
if
we
decide
we
don't
want
to
play
together
anymore,
we
can
dissolve
this
thing
and
go
away.
That
happens
all
the
time.
N
So
it's
a
special
thing
to
be
a
Boise
and
we
came
through
this
thing
and
we
came
through
it
together
and
I'm
really
proud
of
the
city.
For
that
my
dismay
through
this
process
was
the
day
April
12th
that
I
read
the
Boise
Dev
article,
where
they
donde
surveyed
the
neighborhood
associations.
Who'd,
actually
read
the
code.
N
I
live
up
on
the
bench
in
the
central
bench
neighborhood
and
in
that
new
Council,
District
3,
that's
going
to
be
up
there,
there's
10
neighborhood
associations
and
as
of
April
12th,
not
a
one
of
them
had
commented
on
the
code,
not
a
one.
Now
in
that
time
a
couple
of
people
showed
up
here
and
commented
on
it,
but
folks
we
cannot
function
as
a
city.
N
You
want
to
use,
get
back
on
the
horse,
pull
your
bootstraps
up
whatever
it
is,
but
get
get
organized
and
get
back
together
and
identify
that
person
that
you're
going
to
work
with
who's
going
to
represent
your
district
and
make
sure
that
they're
delivering
for
you
on
these
things.
So
that
can
be
started
now.
That's
another
reason:
we
don't
need
to
wait
until
those
people
are
elected.
N
B
L
But
I
don't
have
too
much
to
say:
I
mean
it's
been
covered.
Just
a
couple
of
items.
I
mean
first
of
all,
there's
no
way
to
thank
the
staff
in
the
city
enough
for
what
they've
done
and
I
think
my
colleagues
have
captured
that
pretty
well
on
top
of
that,
just
knowing
the
code
and
this
document
backwards
and
forwards
so
well
to
be
able
to
answer
all
of
our
questions
for,
however
long
we
were
asking
questions
tonight
and
tonight
was
not.
The
only
night
is
incredible.
So
thank
you.
L
I
think
we
heard
some
very
personal
testimony
from
members
of
the
public
and
I
think
that
that
brought
a
whole
multitude
of
different
perspectives
on
both
support
and
against
this
code,
and
it
was
a
very
personal
perspective
and
I
think
that
that
was
really
important
in
a
lot
of
these
discussions,
because
everybody
is
in
a
little
bit
of
different
situation
and
just
hearing
all
of
those
little
subtleties
and
all
of
all
of
those
different
instances
was
really
important.
But
ultimately
I
do
feel
and
I
think
that
you
know
our
staff
report
did
say
it
well.
L
I
mean
this
does
give
us
the
tools
and
the
mechanisms
to
allow
the
city
to
grow
and
I.
Think
that
that
that
captures
kind
of
exactly
the
intent
and
just
the
way
that
it's
kind
of
combining
the
comprehensive
plan
just
into
one
document
and
making
a
more
holistic
goal.
I
think
this
is
the
right
way
to
go
and
I
think
the
process
has
just
been
really
great
and
really
professional
and
I
mean
there's
not
much
more
to
say
than
that.
J
J
Since
we're
replacing
the
existing
code
and
basing
the
new
code
on
the
existing
comp
plan,
it
helped
me
to
go
back
to
the
Lupa
for
perspective.
For
me
as
a
new
guy,
and
when
doing
that,
I
was
reminded
of
some
things
as
I
as
I
thumbed
through
that
again,
and
the
following
statements
from
Lupa
were
helpful
to
me
and
I
apologize,
but
I'll
go
through
a
few
of
these
for
the
record.
J
I
think
the
disagreements
that
we
aired
out
over
the
past
three
years
and
most
recently
and
written
in
public
testimony
boiled
down
to
two
of
the
seven
themes
in
our
comp
plan.
Theme
number
two
is
a
predictable
development
pattern
and
a
big
statement
in
our
City's
Vision
here
is
establish
incentives
for
infill
development
that
will
and
that
will
require
development
that
pushes
Inward
and
up
as
a
priority
rather
than
out
theme.
Number
three
is
a
community
of
stable
neighborhoods
and
vibrant
mixed-use
activity.
J
Centers
are
comp
plan
specifically
called
out
the
need
to
revamp
the
city
code
and
develop
a
series
of
mixed-use
zoning
districts
to
promote
to
promote
a
more
Transit,
supportive
pattern
of
development,
and
we
see
that
in
this
code
rewrite
we
heard
that
the
loss
of
stable
neighborhoods
is
a
reason
to
not
recommend
approval
of
this
new
code.
We
heard
that
Inward
and
up
and
not
sprawling
into
the
desert
or
up
into
the
Foothills,
is
why
we
should
adopt
this
code.
J
We
also
heard
both
extremes
we've
gone
too
far
and
will
destroy
Boise.
We
haven't
gone
far
enough.
That
was
great
to
hear
and
it
makes
it
easy
for
me
to
land
on
the
perspective
that
the
city
staff
in
concert
with
the
citizens,
advisory,
Council
and
so
many
boiseans
that
participated
in
this
process.
You
have
landed
on
a
well-balanced
approach
to
our
future
to
wrap
up
I'm,
a
representative
on
this
commission
from
outside
the
city.
J
Boundaries,
I,
don't
live
in
the
city,
but
in
the
area
of
City
Impact
as
such
I
believe
it's
my
role
to
represent
the
perspective
of
those
on
the
outskirts
of
the
city
as
such
I'm
strongly.
In
favor
of
growing
up
not
out
so
that
the
rural
nature
of
the
edges
of
our
city
remain
and
the
Open
Spaces
and
the
agricultural
lands
on
our
outskirts
have
a
chance
to
last
a
little
bit
longer
as
we
grow
up.
J
Having
said
that,
I
truly
did
hear
the
voices
greatly
concerned
about
the
many
provisions
of
this
code
that
they
disagree
with
I
attended.
Many
of
the
opposition
events
I
followed
the
comments
on
social
media
I
watched
code
next
from
Austin
I
greatly
appreciated,
reject
Boise
upzone's
educational
efforts,
I
had
spirited
discussions
with
my
wife
and
sister-in-law
that
have
a
very
different
perspective
than
mine.
J
B
B
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
staff
and
director
Tim
Keane
for
all
your
support
and
your
input
this
week
truly
truly
helpful,
and
you
know
you've
been
right
here
with
us
this
whole
time
all
night,
these
last
four
nights
so
well
done.
We
appreciate
all
that
you
do
for
the
city,
fellow
Commissioners.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
support
this
week
really
appreciate
it.
B
Of
course,
then
this
week
want
to
thank
all
the
neighborhood
associations
that
provided
testimony
on
Monday
and
then
also
last
night,
and
then,
of
course,
all
of
the
folks
that
testified
Tuesday
and
last
night
as
well.
I,
truly
appreciate
all
the
passion,
both
in
support
and
against
this
zoning
code,
rewrite
I
think
that's
what
makes
Boise
great
right.
It's
people,
it's
all
of
us,
so
Kudos.
B
B
This
a
code
update
essentially
started
with
blueprint
Boise
of
course
years
ago,
but
these
last
three
years,
I
think
it's
been
a
very
lengthy,
thorough
process.
I
think
that
the
fact
that
the
city
pivoted
and
updated
modules,
one
and
two
speaks
volumes
to
the
understanding
of
what
was
in
that
those
initial
drafts
and
how
it
wasn't
going
to
work
moving
forward.
So
I
think
that's
a
really
terrific
example
of
how
strong
this
process
has
been
and
then
leading
up
into
these
hearings.
B
B
D
B
This
is
the
beginning
of
this
discussion.
It
will
continue.
I
encourage
the
public
to
reach
out
to
city
council,
provide
more
commentary
until
they,
of
course,
have
their
hearings
in
June
and
then,
of
course,
beyond
beyond.
June
is
when
we
can
assume,
perhaps
that
this
ordinance
becomes
reality,
that
we
will
continue
to
address
the
challenges
that
growth
and
development
have
within
this
Valley
I
was
born
and
raised
in
this
town.
I'm,
a
third
generation
boisean
I'm,
extremely
proud
of
this
town
and
I
think
chronic
great
path.
C
B
Okay,
thank
you
and
we
have
one
more
item:
CPA
23-1.
This
is
the
comprehensive
plan
Amendment
with
text
comprehensive
plan
Amendment
with
text
changes
to
a
company.
The
zoning
ordinance
amendment
to
ensure
the
comprehensive
plan
accurately
reflects
the
new
zoning
districts.
Mr
chair,
commissioner
Danley
I.