I think that makes sense. I went in really supporting it, but Union United brought up a couple of issues that 1) are important and 2) Shouldn't be terribly difficult to resolve.
Basically there were a few major questions. Some could be decided later (like "which of these two lots should be a park?) and some were pretty uncontroversial (clustering creative economy uses in one building so there's a more flexible space and creative economy people can collaborate from within the same building).
And there were a couple that were real issues.
* How will they make sure the traffic mitigation plan works? * How do they justify the request to pay a fee to reduce the total square footage of creative economy spaces? * The city and US2 don't own all the land in this plan: How will they get it? What if someone else wants to develop it?
I think the plan is *really close* to ready to approve. So, I hope US2 can get back to the board quickly with answers to those questions.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Update...
Date: 2017-11-21 07:39 pm (UTC)Basically there were a few major questions. Some could be decided later (like "which of these two lots should be a park?) and some were pretty uncontroversial (clustering creative economy uses in one building so there's a more flexible space and creative economy people can collaborate from within the same building).
And there were a couple that were real issues.
* How will they make sure the traffic mitigation plan works?
* How do they justify the request to pay a fee to reduce the total square footage of creative economy spaces?
* The city and US2 don't own all the land in this plan: How will they get it? What if someone else wants to develop it?
I think the plan is *really close* to ready to approve. So, I hope US2 can get back to the board quickly with answers to those questions.