A quick touch on Macy's agreements before we head into the homelessness discussion. On the consent agenda are that company's agreements to pay an extra $3M into the affordable housing fund, and offer below-market-rate commercial space to retailers.
Some flexibility written in there in case "the mall is torn down" and there's no longer retail there, Carr says.
Wallach: "Why wouldn't the remedy for that condition be affordable office (space)" as opposed to nullifying the requirement to provide affordable space?
Wallach: "Why wouldn't the remedy for that condition be affordable office (space)" as opposed to nullifying the requirement to provide affordable space?
Carr: "We don't know there will be office space there either."
Wallach: "I'm uncomfortable with this expiration cause."
Wallach: "I'm uncomfortable with this expiration cause."
Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 1
Carr: These things are worked out through compromise. They wanted an end date to affordable retail space; we didn't. Our compromise was that it lasts in perpetuity as long as the mall is there.
"It's impossible to predict what Twenty Ninth Street will look like in the future. .... (It) may be v different in 30, 40, 50 years than what it does now," says an attorney for Macy's who is *maybe* named Charlie Smith...? or else using Charlie Smith's Zoom login
Wallach: I hear what you're saying, but it's unclear to me if Staple's became housing, would that trigger termination of this agreement on the other end of the mall?
Maybe-Smith: No. It's the immediately adjacent properties.
Maybe-Smith: No. It's the immediately adjacent properties.
Wallach: Why wouldn't you convert it to affordable office space?
Smith: And if at that time we came back to council for some new use proposal, the city could impose that requirement.
Smith: And if at that time we came back to council for some new use proposal, the city could impose that requirement.
Wallach wants more specificity than "parcels immediately adjacent to the East, South and West"
He instead wants a 500-foot radius, which would be.... larger than immediately adjacent properties. But OK.
I mean, immediately adjacent — to me — means literally the neighbors right next to me on either side. But I'm no lawyer, and everyone seems OK with this so... *shrug*
That brings Wallach on board, so everyone OK's this. Even Young, who voted against it.
The first time. Man, that wasn't clear, was it?
Man I hope we take a break before homelessness.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
