I don't understand this statement: "Another request by Google, which council members reluctantly agreed to, was a lengthy 20-year time frame in which the entirety of the project can be built. Tymoff said the timeline is necessary to account for "market cycles" that the project will experience, along with a high-cost early investment in residential development that is only recovered in later office phases."

If the high-cost early investment in residential development is only recovered in later office phases, you'd think Google would be VERY interested in getting to the lucrative office phase as quickly as possible. Using that as the justification for why a LONGER timeframe is needed doesn't make any sense.

Sure, the "market cycles" excuse might make sense (though I don't think Google's profitability is really market cycle-driven), but I'm sure the Council could have requested built-in triggers (such as a month-for-month delay for every month the local unemployment rate or commercial office vacancy rate is above a certain percentage) that would have provided the flexibility Google's rationale is claiming to need, without giving a 2-decade blank check right out of the gate without any recourse.

I think the City Council just got played like a banjo on Google's justification.

If this is the proposal that included 4 AC for (public) school and it has 4.6 AC for public park then, out of 40 AC total that is already 22% public dedication (direct public benefit). Add then the dedicated BMR or other form of low cost housing - 2.4 AC - that becomes 27% of the land for public benefit. right?

Make the plan, approve it, lock it in and give Google the timing options it wants. Grab the 27.5% of land for public at the start of the process - no strings attached. Matichak is not an urban planner - what did Councilwoman Hicks say?

When they say "affordable housing," they really mean housing that is affordable to Google workers.

The term they're trying to avoid is "low-income housing." NIMBY

It was the same deal over the bridges. Google bending over backwards and everybody grinding axes and checking the gift horse in the mouth... it sounds great and done with good intention, thankfully it isn’t Amazon keeping the room at 62 degrees. Housing should be built by the city in conjunction with the federal government at moffet. Live mas Mt. View....heh he... double down not red light green light

This project looks to me like a dramatic improvement over the existing land use in that area. I hope it gets built quickly. I am glad to see that most of Council is green-lighting rather than gas-lighting it, and I would like to see it support this project in any way possible.

I agree with "g".
BTW - I have been informed that my assumption of The 4 AC public school give, in this area, is in error. Since "Lenny" usually knows his housing, I guess the percentages are in error! (drat)