Laserfiche WebLink
zoning for this area was to provide additional opportunities for housing — not necessarily to <br />increase office density elsewhere in this project. Are we supposed to tell the surrounding <br />neighbors already greatly impacted that the project has been increased by a third? Is this what <br />you had in mind when you gave guidance to the developer that evening? This project has more <br />office space than the entire DTPP yet has less than one-fourth of the housing. <br />Before your study session (7/11/19 Project Plans) <br />265k Residential <br />549k Office <br />28k Retail <br />9k Childcare <br />852k TOTAL SQUARE FEET <br />After your study session (11/22/19 Project Plans) <br />571 k Residential <br />530k Office <br />28k Retail <br />8k Childcare <br />1,138k TOTAL SQUARE FEET <br />2: A bare minimum of affordable housing <br />The developer is requesting many concessions from the City including: <br />The purchase of city -owned land that currently houses an affordable housing complex <br />The abandonment of a stretch of Shasta <br />The destruction of a historic resource <br />The adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations that will disregard certain <br />impacts that cannot be mitigated <br />Given all this, why is the developer providing only the bare minimum number of affordable housing <br />units? I recognize that the developer is proposing deeper levels of affordability, but they can do <br />more. Imagine if we were solely judging the residential portion of this project. Greystar would be <br />required to provide 20% affordable. Now add 530k of office space into the mix and the affordable <br />housing impacts from the project become enormous. You are creating a greater demand for <br />affordable housing than this project can ever deliver. Why didn't the developer significantly reduce <br />the amount of office space instead of taking advantage of the change in zoning by switching office <br />space to other buildings and increasing their overall office density? <br />3: The destruction of a historic resource <br />The Perry Feed Shed is a historic resource worth preserving. The Final Environmental Impact <br />Report fails to adequately address preservation of the Perry's Feed Shed Building. The added <br />