Thread by @shayshinecastle

Joseph: I was hoping Gidfar would say let's decrease the size and get more units there. I understand we can't get everything we want. But we can push the ball forward where we get something in between.

I mean, 1,300 sq ft 3BR places aren't that unrealistic. My own 3BR/2 bath is 1,100 sq ft. And it's perfectly fine.

Joseph asks that the Human Relations Commission be involved in the decision over landmarking, bc we also need to consider equity in this decision — especially bc it will reduce the number of homes that can be built.

Weaver: Idk that I've ever heard about HRC taking up a planning issue.

Joseph: Not the planning aspect. "For equity purposes, is landmarking this particular property within our values of equity?"

Brockett: "I appreciate you raising that issue. It's an excellent question and point. Idk that this is something we'd send the applicant to do another hearing on." But HRC could give feedback on the policy of landmarking vs. loss of housing.

Friend: I raised this q on a previous landmark. "To me, it's a larger q we maybe want to talk about at the retreat .... rather than a case-by-case" basis that isn't "getting at the heart of the issue."

Wallach: "I tend to be a v, v strong supporter of landmarking, but I'd ask staff to maybe hone their arguments on this particular piece of property. It doesn't meet state or national criteria. It's ineligible for landmarking on a historic basis."

"We're relying on a slender read here" to justify landmarking, Wallach says.

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 1

"It doesn't have to be an argument about landmarking vs. more housing," Wallach says, but I'd like a stronger argument for landmarking this building in particular.

Young: "I was trying not to weigh in, but I can't help myself."

Thinks the building is "cool" and could become "something really special for the community."

"When I think about 6 units of market rate vs. something the whole community can enjoy. I think a benefit for the whole community is better than 6 market-rate units," Young says.

Weaver: "It does sound to me like this is a big-picture question for the next council to talk about."

Firnhaber: The HRC hasn't had this kind of convo before. But we're happy to take it up.

Joseph's motion to bring this to the HRC fails to garner a second. Meaning it's going nowhere.

Llanes: There isn't anything in our code that currently addresses this. I would be much more in favor of a more holistic discussion at the council level.

Brockett: Can we ask HRC to take on this issue generally, even tho it's not this one particular case?
Joseph: And can they give us feedback on this particular case?

Llanes: I would have concerns about HRC commenting on this particular project. But general comments about the process would be OK.

Swetlik welcomes individual members of HRC to give their own personal opinions.

NRV: This is such unchartered territory that it might be better to talk about landmarking and equity generally.

Sounds like that's what we'll be doing in the future.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!

Damn I keep unrolling too soon.

Gidfar: Initially we were against this, but we've come around. The loss of housing was offset by Planning Board suggesting a fourth story on part of the site.