it is for what zoning code do we need working with the supervisor s office or something so they can do the lot split without having to artificially touch the existing building for no reason and build new units. that is what we need to do. i don t think it matters if we continue it or deny it. because they re probably not going to come back with a merger. right? even if they could figure out this issue and figure out how to build on the garage. it won t be this. right? it won t be a merger. i m comfortable going either way because i don t think we ll ever see this back as a ok. hopefully the code has some room for it to allow it to be mr. gladstone is walking up here. [laughter] we can t talk about it right now. but if there is a way to do it defrmly. you know, or it may be an s.u.d. or some other mechanism or changing to the zoning code to allow for this. this is fairly common where there is a garage on another buildable lot and we should encourage that. i m not r
that s where the rubber hits the road in this stuff. i don t think this is going to come back while i agree with commissioner hillis, but i think that having an open application is better than having no application and although it will come back to us as something completely different, or some other way of overriding our zoning code to do the thing that we sort of, you know, without the bureaucratic wording of our codes would want to see happen. i think it is easier to do that when you have an application penting that you are working on versus starting from square zero, nothing. commissioner moore? i m concerned about the psychology of people affected by it. when we put these things into indefinite continuance behind the scenes, things happen. right or wrong. which totally comes out of the limelight of those who will be affected by it and i m concerned that for that reason. i do not want to create ambiguity and uncertainty relive to what it could potentially do to the a
people, but is there public comment on this? we had it. did we not have it? we had it. we did call it. we did. a couple of people actually commented. can i say one thing no. no. unfortunately we re done with public comment. but thank you. commissioner moore? this requires further discussion as a discussion item, i think we should agendaize it as a generic discussion. and have the department talk to us in which zoning districts and what reason it is, and it is impossible, to have a clear metrics that we don t understand your double guessing. for this project to come back by the end of february as they re currently asking for. and there will be a foremost disclosure and robust discussion in the room being allowed to comment in public comment and take it further potentially as a policy discussion beyond what this project challenges us to do. but i appreciate commissioner johnson raising it to a level of much broader discussion. commissioners, i might recommend
think that having an open application is better than having no application and although it will come back to us as something completely different, or some other way of overriding our zoning code to do the thing that we sort of, you know, without the bureaucratic wording of our codes would want to see happen. i think it is easier to do that when you have an application penting that you are working on versus starting from square zero, nothing. commissioner moore? i m concerned about the psychology of people affected by it. when we put these things into indefinite continuance behind the scenes, things happen. right or wrong. which totally comes out of the limelight of those who will be affected by it and i m concerned that for that reason. i do not want to create ambiguity and uncertainty relive to what it could potentially do to the affected parties who are speaking in front of us, particularly because the issue was rent control and potentially b.m.r. completely unanswered