►
Description
Live teleconference meeting of the Mountain View Environmental Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 18, 2021.
A
B
Being
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
state
of
california
executive
order,
n-29-20
dated
march
17
2020
in
the
state
of
california
executive
order,
n-8-21
dated
june
11
2021,
all
members
of
the
epc
are
participating.
This
meeting
by
video
conference
with
no
physical
meeting
location
members.
The
public
wishing
to
observe
the
meeting
may
do
so
on
youtube
at
mountainview.gov
youtube.
B
B
C
B
C
C
B
There
are
none
to
review
at
this
meeting.
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
oral
communications.
This
portion
of
meeting
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
epc
on
matters
they're
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
allowed
to
speak
on
any
topic
for
up
to
three
minutes
during
this
session.
State
law
prohibits
the
commission
from
acting
on
any
non-agendized
items.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
address
provide
a
comment
on
a
non-agenda
item?
B
B
C
Thank
you
chair.
I,
although
I
do
not
have
a
statutory
conflict
of
interest,
I'm
recusing
myself
from
this
agenda
item
out
of
an
abundance
of
caution
to
avoid
any
potential
perception
of
a
conflict
due
to
the
fact
that
google,
one
of
the
major
land
owners
in
the
gateway
master
plan
area,
contributes
financially
to
canopy
and
environmental
nonprofit
organization,
for
which
I
volunteer
as
a
board
member.
C
F
F
F
F
F
The
first
one
is
the
policy
idea
of
a
city
gateway
that
is
to
create
identifiable
gateways
as
you
enter
different
parts
of
the
city
and
as
you
enter
the
north
bay
shore
area,
the
gateway
area
is
a
prominent
area
as
you
enter
that
area,
so
there's
special
attention
given
to
the
area.
Additionally,
it's
along
shoreline
boulevard,
as
noted,
where
there's
an
interest
in
diversifying
the
land
uses
along
that
corridor
to
not
include
just
office,
but
include
a
variety
of
other
retail
and
residential
uses.
F
Here's
an
image
that
shows
the
existing
gateway
site.
Again,
it's
bordered
by
highway,
101
and
shoreline
boulevard
and,
as
you
can
see
in
the
foreground,
there
are
some
older
office
or
retail
buildings.
Excuse
me,
the
movie
theater
is
towards
the
rear
of
the
site,
and
then
there
is
a
large
surface
parking
lot
at
the
site
as
well,
just
to
fast
forward
to
kind
of
the
big
idea
behind
this
gateway
master
plan.
F
The
gateway
master
plan
also
importantly,
coordinates
improvements
across
this
roughly
30
acre
area,
coordinating
improvements
such
as
the
location
and
design
of
new
streets,
open
space
for
the
area,
as
well
as
some
utility
improvements.
It
also
emphasizes
multimodal
improvements
not
only
just
for
vehicles,
but
also
for
bike
and
pedestrians.
F
That's
an
important
concept
in
the
north
bay
short
precise
plan,
as
well
as
the
community
at
large,
and
it
also
creates
some
flexibility
in
a
perfect
world.
We
would
have
a
coordinated
development
between
the
two
major
property
owners,
but
the
the
way
the
plan
is
written.
It
does
allow
for
individual
development
on
either
of
the
major
property
owner's
sites,
and
so
that's
creates
some
flexibility.
Additionally,
there
is
land
use
flexibility
across
the
site.
A
F
Smaller
neighborhood
park
spaces
in
terms
of
kind
of
the
key
land
use
strategies
and
elements.
Here's
a
the
the
plan
area
showing
the
locations
of
new
streets
in
dark
gray
and
then
showing
in
colors
kind
of
a
greenish,
yellow
orange
and
blue
kind
of
the
smaller
land-use
sub-districts.
Within
this
gateway
master
plan
area,
we
have
the
residential
area
which
is
furthest
away
from
highway,
101
and
closer
to
future
residential
north
of
plymouth.
F
Moving
on
to
the
second
part
of
the
item
tonight,
general
plan
amendment
for
1555
plymouth
street
on
the
screen
is
a
map
showing
the
proposed
new
land
use
designation
for
that
parcel.
It's
currently
the
general
plan.
Land
use
designation
is
high
intensity
office
and
the
proposal
is
to
amend
that
to
mixed
use
center
north
bay
shore.
That
would
be
the
same
designation
as
the
larger
adjacent
gateway
area,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that
this
partial
is
relatively
narrow
and
by
combining
it
with
the
gateway
designation.
F
So
staff
is
recommending
that
amendment
and
then
lastly,
this
project
also
includes
some
minor
north
bay
shore,
precise
plan
amendments,
some
text
edits
to
the
master
plan
section
of
the
precise
plan
to
clarify
some
of
those
policy
changes
and
then
also
some
additions
to
the
bonus,
far
review
guidelines,
which
is
an
addendum
to
the
precise
plan,
and
I
can
speak
more
to
that
later.
But
essentially
we
are
trying
to
finish
up
the
final
allocation
of
the
bonus
fbr
former
bay
shore,
so
these
review
guidelines.
F
There
are
a
series
of
minor
changes
to
some
of
the
mobility
chapter
maps
that
we're
bringing
forward
as
well.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
I
just
would
like
to
note
that
on
the
call
to
tonight
we
have
several
of
our
consultant
team
members.
Chris
sensing,
our
urban
design
consultant
christy
weiss
and
tyler
rogers,
our
sql
consultants
and
dan
rubins
are
our
traffic
engineer
from
fear
and
peers.
F
B
G
G
That
dimension
would
also
be
at
the
intersections
as
bull
belts
so
that
the
crosswalks
that
are
shown
in
the
street
sections
occur
as
just
as
narrow
at
the
intersections.
When
you
cross
the
street,
it
feels
like
the
street
is
narrower
and
it's
easier
to
walk
across
and
just
because
there
wasn't
a
diagram.
I
wasn't
sure
so.
I
was
just
asking.
If
that
would
be
the
case
and
that's
it.
F
Yes,
as
you
know,
in
many
of
our
intersections,
we
do
have
that
bulb
out
and
I'm
not
exactly
sure
for
this
plan,
where
we
can
show
that,
but
certainly
we
can
follow
up
with
our
public
works
department
and
look
at
some
to
clarify
where
we
might
be
able
to
include
that
if
at
all
in
the
master
plan
or
at
least
reference
a
city
standard.
So
thank
you
for
that
comment.
F
Thank
you
chair.
Over
the
past
several
years
we
have
had
some
economic
analysis
done
at
various
stages
of
the
north
bay
shore,
precise
plan
implementation,
both
pre-co
good
and
a
little
bit
postcoded,
but
the
analysis
that
has
been
done
by
cyphon
associates.
Our
main
economic
analyst
really
does
present
the
idea
that
it
is
challenging
to
develop
at
north
bay
shore,
and
we
know
that
from
not
only
the
analysis
but
from
recent
projects
such
as
the
1255
pair
avenues
to
broader
development.
F
There's,
definitely
a
challenges
with
not
only
the
fees
but
also
with
the
costs
of
construction,
and
also
the
changing
demand
for
different
land
uses,
particularly
office,
but
also
retail.
So
we
understand
that
that
it
is
a
challenge
we
are
taking
forward.
Some
amendments
to
our
parkland
fee
ordinance
this
this
year,
but
also
I
just
wanted
to
remind
the
commission
that
this
is
a
long-term
plan,
so
the
land
uses
and
all
the
standards
that
you
see
in
this
plan
is
for
a
long-term
build
out.
F
I
J
Can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
dynamic
and
of
the
two
landowners
and
the
gateway
parcels
are
in
the
gateway
area,
and
I
was
struck
by
by
some
of
the
concepts
from
zai
west
and
just
wonder
what
the
relationship
has
been
like
with
staff
in
terms
of
collaboration
and
thinking
through
this
their
their
thoughts
on
this
plan.
It
seemed
like
they
were.
They
had
a
lot
of
concerns
and
google
was
largely
supportive
and
I'd
love
to
understand
that
context.
A
little
better.
F
Sure
so
staff
has
been
working
closely
with
both
google
and
sci
west
for
a
number
of
years.
Now,
for
the
first
phase
of
our
interaction
was
really
trying
to
help
the
two
property
owners
come
together
to
try
to
you
know,
propose
a
joint
development
plan
for
the
area
that
was
several
years
of
discussions
with
between
them,
as
well
as
with
staff.
Obviously,
that
did
not
materialize,
which
is
why
we
are
in
this
position
where
the
city
is
bringing
forward
this,
this
gateway
master
plan
and,
as
a
city
initiated
master
plan.
F
We
have
had
more
of
our
focus
on
kind
of
the
city
standards
that
we
wanted
to
see
and
we
have
been
in
contact
with
both
property
owners
not
as
much
as
before,
but
we
have
a
check
in
with
them
from
time
to
time,
but
again,
as
a
city
initiated
plan,
we
wanted
to
put
forward
the
policies
and
standards
we
felt
were
best
for
the
city,
while
still
involving
them.
In
some
discussions.
B
Okay,
this
next
section
is
for
public
comment.
Would
any
member
of
the
public
on
the
line
like
to
provide
comment
on
this
item?
If
so,
please
click
the
raise
hand
button
in
zoom
or
star
9
on
your
phone
phone
users
can
mute
and
unmute
themselves
with
star
6.
The
abc
clerk
will
start
the
timer
to
let
you
know
when
your
time
is
up.
Claire
quran
are
any
attendees
looking
to
speak.
B
I
Okay,
yeah
bruce
england
speaking
for
mound
view
coalition
for
sustainable
planning
and
green
spaces
mountain
view.
Just
very
briefly
we're
very
supportive
of
the
plans
here.
The
intentions
and
partnering
with
google
and
sky
west
and
other
developers
in
the
area
sounds
like
really.
Great
partnership
will
be
developed
through
this
green
space's.
Mound
view
is
particularly
interested
in
landscaping
choices
so
specifically
native
john
tolerant
climate,
resilient
pollinator-friendly
plants
and
not
removing
trees
if
possible,
and
that
might
be
outside
of
what
you're
talking
about.
I
But
nonetheless
I
wanted
to
say
it
and
then
yes,
storm
water
management,
too,
is
an
important
detail,
but
by
and
large
seeing
the
work
that
google,
in
particular,
has
done
in
the
north
bay
shore
area.
We
did
a
bike
ride
through
the
silicon
valley,
bicycle
coalition,
the
other
day
went
through
the
shorebird
bird
sanctuary
area
was
very
impressive.
The
whole
thing
is
really
good.
I
think
that
that
area
is
coming
along
very
nicely
and
seeing
housing
up
there
in
east
wisman.
K
K
Fantastic.
Thank
you
well
good
evening,
chair
cranston
and
commission
members.
I'm
bill
vieira,
I'm
with
west
development.
I
sincerely
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
to
comment
and
to
join
you
tonight.
I
appreciate
this
has
been
a
long
process
and
unfortunately,
30
years
in
the
real
estate
business,
I've
been
engaged
in
a
number
of
master
plans
and
planning
processes
all
over
the
country,
and
this
one
while
nuanced
is
certainly
been
interesting.
K
It's
important
to
us
as
well.
You
know
we
provided
what
we
thought
was.
You
know
real
world
and
relevant
information
as
to
the
types
of
uses
that
were
being
proposed
and
the
development
challenges
with
implementing
each
one
of
those,
and
we
appreciate
completely.
This
is
a
complex
project.
It's
a
it's,
a
complex
environment
that
we're
all
working
within,
and
while
we
appreciate
all
the
efforts
to
assemble
this
information,
unfortunately,
we
do
feel
that
some
of
our
input
has
largely
been
dismissed,
but
I
think
for
us
what's
most
disappointing.
K
Is
that-
and
it
was
touched
on
a
moment
earlier-
the
master
plan
is
still
completely
void
of
addressing
any
means
as
to
how
to
account
for
the
economic
disconnect,
and
in
so
doing
it
really
creates
kind
of
an
infeasible
dream.
If
you
will
that
the
gateway
will
be
developed
in
a
manner
that
was
envisioned
by
the
community.
K
You
know
and
the
mere
act
of
reallocating
the
office
which
we
all
know
is
the
currency.
It
essentially
removed
any
remaining
means
to
pay
for
this
vision,
and
so
this
is
still
indeed
the
case.
It
honestly
it's
a
fatal
flaw
and
there's
a
stunning
silence
as
to
how
it
tends
to
address
it
through
this
master
plan.
You
know
there
are
other
relevant
issues,
but
the
bottom
line
is
that
you
know
we
appreciate
the
city
needs
to
conclude
their
process,
but
without
the
buy-in
and
the
support
of
both
property
owners.
K
It's
it's
not!
It's
not
really
right.
I
did
see
in
the
staff
package
a
letter
from
google
and
while
I
completely
understand
their
perspective
and
their
approach,
you
know
they
own
nearly
all
of
north
bayshore
and
they
can.
They
have
the
ability
to
defer
or
to
spread
out
the
impacts,
but
it
doesn't
change
the
master
plan.
Oh
I'm
sorry,
I
was
just
going
to
conclude.
It
doesn't
change
the
fact
that
it
relies
on
more
than
one
party.
G
Well,
I
think
the
last
speaker
speaks
to
probably
the
the
the
elephant
in
the
room
and
then
the
largest
issue.
I
think
at
least
for
me
personally.
I
was
fairly
excited
about
this
plan.
There
are
lots
of
things
to
be
excited
about
and
I
don't
need
to
go
into
all
of
them,
but
part
of
the
excitement
is
that
at
some
point
it
does
get
built
out,
and
I
understand
it's
a
long-term
process,
but
but
to
hear
that
the
two
major
property
owners
disagree
about
the
feasibility
to
such
an
extent.
G
H
H
There
seems
to
be
I'm
kind
of
missing
the
transportation
part
that
always
seems
to
come
up
and
it
came
up
with
the
precise
plan
when
we
went
through
that-
and
you
know
it's-
it's
we're
we're
relying
on
other
agencies
to
to
help
us
kind
of
solve
this
issue
of
the
enormous
amount
of
mobility
in
and
out
of
this
area.
You
know
when:
how
is
that
gonna?
How
is
that
really
gonna
work?
We
talked
about.
H
H
So
we
can
kind
of
start
and
move
forward,
because
I
think
this
is
what
the
overall
intent
of
kind
of
developing
this
gateway,
but
we
still
seem
to
be
at
a
an
impasse
that
I
you
know,
I'm
kind
of
at
a
loss
of
you
know
what
it.
What
are
the
next
steps,
and
how
do
we
really
make
this
move
forward
like
we
would
you
know
we'd
like
to
see
it
just
start?
So
that's
that's
kind
of
my.
You
know
immediate
thoughts
anyway,.
L
L
I
assume
that
there
must
be
a
reason
for
something-
and
I
just
wasn't
here
to
hear
it,
and
so
I
I
tend
to
stay
a
bit
quiet
sometimes,
but
I
you
know,
I
am
concerned
that
there's
there
appears
to
be
a
lack
of
general
agreement
between
two
major
land
holders
that
we're
looking
to
make
this
plan
a
reality.
That
concerns
me
and
there
may
be
good
reason
for
it.
L
How
many
people
are
going
to
come
back
to
the
office.
It's
a
good
question
and
I
think
I
I
could
be
very
easily
persuaded
that
the
analysis,
that's
in
the
master
plan
is
a
good
one.
I
just
would
love
to
see
a
little
bit
more,
perhaps
from
staff
kind
of
reassuring
me
that
they've
gone
back.
They've
they've
got
fresh
data
about
what
the
trends
are
and
those
that
data
and
that
understanding
has
been
sort
of
baked
into
the
numbers
that
are
in
the
master
plan.
L
J
I
think
thank
you,
yeah.
I
appreciate
that
comments
from
my
fellow
commissioners.
I
think
what
I
what
I
appreciate
most
about
the
city
lead
master
plan.
Is
the
efforts
to
continue
the
momentum.
I
think
the
vision
for
north
bay
shore
is
an
ambitious
one
and
it's
long
term
and
we
require
as
many
pieces
and
to
come
to
fruition
and
the
gateway
is
critical
to
that.
I
think
and
understanding
the
mobility
and
connectivity
piece
is
critical.
J
Along
with
the
economic
feasibility
and-
and
I
I
guess
I
uncomfortable
the
the
master
plan
is
an
attempt
to
put
a
vision
out
there
and
will
vary
based
on
economic
analyses
and
and
many
factors
that
are
just
really
hard
predictions
to
make,
and
I
don't
think
we
will
have
all
of
the
information
and
I
think
we
need
to
do
some
level
of
planning
and
effort
to
to
move
this
forward,
and
I
think
the
comments
about
whether
this
is
economically
feasible
makes
me
at
least
pause
to
say
where.
Where
do
we
drive
and
say
this?
J
B
I
perceive
sometimes
as
understatements,
so
I'm
in
the
in
the
letter
from
psywest
martin.
He
a
statement
is
made
that
the
city's
own
financial
consultant
validated
that
the
master
plan
lacks
financial
feasibility
for
any
development
to
actually
occur.
That
seems
stronger
than
challenging.
Can
you
comment
on
that?
Please.
F
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
probably
exaggeration
on
both
ends
or
maybe
not
as
clear
definition
as
possible,
but
I
would
like
to
just
note
a
couple
of
things
again.
It
is
a
long-term
plan
and
certainly
the
the
numbers
that
we
know
are
are
very
challenging,
as
I
noted
the
fees
and
the
construction
costs.
That
being
said,
as
a
city-initiated
master
plan,
the
city
is
more
than
willing
to
entertain
proposal
from
either
cy
west
or
google.
That
might
say
well.
F
This
is
how
we
think
we
can
make
this
work.
Maybe
a
certain
land
use
amount
of
land
use
that
we
have
in
the
plan
is
not
realistic
and
we
propose
a
different
number,
that's
all
possible,
with
with
moving
forward
with
a
developer,
initiated
plan
that
might
suggest
or
recommend
some
amendments
to
our
city
plan
and
that's
always
been
an
option
available,
and
I
would
like
to
also
note
that
certainly
the
the
retail
numbers
are
challenging.
F
That's
a
continuously
challenging
environment
to
get
retail
built,
but
I
would
like
to
add
that
the
other
land
use
designation
makes
you
center
in
the
city.
We
have
two
one
is
here
at
gateway:
the
others
at
san
antonio
center
san
antonio
center
has
over
one
hundred
thousand
square
feet
of
retail
and
restaurant.
Their
phase
three
is
moving
forward
with,
I
think
another
fifteen
thousand
square
feet
of
retail
and
restaurant
again,
I'm
not
saying
that
it's
an
easy
build,
but
I
am
saying
that
it
is
possible.
F
In
addition,
google
is
proposing
twenty
thousand
square
feet
of
retail
within
this
gateway
master
plan
area,
in
addition
to
roughly
250
000
of
retail
and
restaurant
throughout
north
bay
shore.
So
again
not
saying
that
it's
it's
easy
by
any
means,
but
as
a
long-term
plan,
I
think
it's
something
that
we
are
proposing.
A
flexible
amount
of
land
uses
and
variety
of
land
uses
for
that
area
and,
just
to
reiterate,
we
would
be
open
to
a
developer
via
google
or
psi
west.
B
B
That
I've
had
with
the
gateway
in
general
is
that
it's
a
piece
of
a
much
bigger
area,
the
of
the
all
of
north
bay
shore,
and
in
this
particular
case,
one
of
the
two
landowners
has
the
ability
to
offset
any
concern
that
they
may
have
within
this
area
with
other
parts
of
their
master
plan
that
include
the
rest
of
joaquin
shorebird
and
the
other
one
is
pear.
So
I
you
know,
without
being
able
to
you
know,
have.
C
B
Only
two
landowners-
and
this
is
all
that
they
had
to
work
with
it's
hard
to
say
whether
google
would
be
as
enthusiastic
or
not
because
they
do
have
that
ability
to
trade
off
into
others,
as
martin
just
said
that
they
have
other
retail,
that
they're
proposing
in
other
areas
of
north
glacier,
where
psywest
is
kind
of
trapped
in
this
space
and
it
has
to
be
viable
in
this
space
or
it's
not
viable
at
all.
And
that's
my
concern
is
that
it's
that
it's
you
know
we're.
B
B
But
I
think
another
part
of
what
we
have
to
ask
ourselves
is:
is
it
likely
to
occur
and
right
now,
my
feeling
is
that
the
division
looks
great,
but
the
likelihood
of
it
actually
occurring
is
extremely
low,
and
for
that
reason
I'm
I'm
reluctant
to
move
ahead
with
something
like
this.
If
we
could
get,
I
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
effort
to
try
to
get
the
two
of
them
talking,
but
I
actually
I
wish
there
was
something
that
was
cut.
B
C
B
H
F
F
You
know,
I
think,
we've
certainly
notified
folks.
We
have
not
had
any
response
from
from
people
again,
the
the
smaller
property
owners.
There's
not
most
of
the
area
is
owned.
The
the
land
holdings
in
this
area
are
obviously
owned
by
google,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
type
of
outreach
or
input
we
might
get
from
small
property
owners.
To
be
honest,.
H
G
Yeah,
I
do
appreciate
the
need
for
the
city
to
to
move
forward
with
a
plan
much
as
commissioner
haymeyer
had
mentioned,
and
mr
alkire
had
mentioned,
and
that
because
of
the
years-long
efforts
and
nothing
was
happening
when
the
parcel
holders
were
trying
to
do
so.
The
city
needs
to
step
in
and
take
some
action.
G
I
do,
as
I
brought
up
earlier,
share
the
concern
about
the
viability,
and
so
I
had
just
a
couple
questions,
and
one
is
whether
there
are
potential
forthcoming
proposals.
Has
either
party
mentioned
that
we've
got
something
in
the
works.
We're
going
to
show
you
and
the
other
was
going
back
to
your
question
of
the
far,
and
I
know
it.
You
didn't
have
a
lot
of
time
to
discuss
it,
but
if
you
could
maybe
go
over
a
little
bit
about
how
that
office
far
is
going
to
the
bonus,
sorry
far
is
going
to
get
processed.
G
If
there
was
any
left
over
that,
maybe
it
could
come
to
this
area.
I
don't
know
if
that
would
be
helpful.
I
haven't
really
thought
that
through,
but
it
was
an
idea
that
stuck
in
my
head
as
a
potential
have
we
thought
about.
That
is
whether
pros
and
cons
of
that.
So,
if
you
wouldn't
mind,
maybe
going
over
the
bonus
far
and
then
speaking
to
that
other
idea,
that'd
be
great
thanks.
F
F
That's
the
first
thing.
The
second
thing
is
you
asked
about
other
proposals.
Besides
google
psy
west
had
they
didn't
submit
formally
a
plan
to
the
city,
but
they
did
release
a
concept
plan
several
months
ago,
and
you
know
if
the
epc
so
desires.
You
know
you
could
ask
if
bill
mr
rivera
is
still
with
us.
F
In
terms
of
the
bonus,
far
again
just
to
clarify,
we
have
250
000
square
feet
of
bonus
office
that
they
are
remaining
and
in
the
fall
we'd
like
to
send
out
postcards
to
property
owners
within
the
complete
neighborhood
areas,
telling
them
that
we
have
this
remaining
250
000
square
feet
of
bonus
office
that
they
are
and
we'd
like
to
the
council.
Would
like
to
allocate
this
remaining
amount,
probably
in
early
2022.
F
B
B
C
B
M
H
You
know
what
are
they
talking
about?
Are
we
gonna
face
this
project
in
so
everybody
can
have
a
small
piece
of
the
pie.
I
mean
it's,
it's
really
hard
at
this
moment
to
say
one
way
or
another
that
this
is
a
a
realistic
way
to
move
forward.
You
know
we're
talking
about
that.
One
particular
parcel
being
included
in
in
into
this
gateway,
and
if
it's
just
to
include
that
one
parcel,
then
you
know
that
to
me
seems
reasonable,
but
as
far
as
the
overall,
how
do
we
move
forward?
H
A
little
bit
more
reasonable
for
me,
because
I
don't
you
know
unless
we
have
their
ideas
and
it's
just
like:
well,
it's
not
financially
feasible!
Well,
what
what
do
you?
What
do
you
mean
would
be
financially
feasible?
What
are
you
looking
for?
Because
I
you
know,
I'm
not
hearing
that
and-
and
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
that
discussion.
F
G
G
I
think
what
is
sort
of
holding
me
back
is
just
the
degree
to
which
cy
west
had
stated
their
their
case,
and
I
don't
want
to
hold
back
the
process
necessarily
because
I
think
things
can
still
move
forward,
there's
room
and
time
to
move
forward,
and
it's
a
matter
of
how
do
we
do
that,
because
we
all
want
to
get
to
a
point
where
we
have
something
built
out
there,
that
we
got
the
housing.
We've
got
the
mixed
use
we've.
You
know
we're
at
least
getting
some
of
the
the
concept
in
play.
G
E
J
J
Development
at
north
bay
shore
is
unique
anywhere
else
in
my
country
and
as
a
result
I
mean
it
requires
us
to
make
some
tough
assumptions,
and
I
think
the
piece
that
was
most
compelling
to
me
from
from
staff's
comments
was
that
there's
this
openness
to
a
developer-led
proposal
about
what
the
economic
feasibility
would
look
like
for,
for-
let's
just
say
in
this
instance
cy
west-
that
doesn't
have
the
benefit
of
other
parcels
in
the
in
the
precise
plan
area.
So
I
think,
if.
J
And
you
know
eventually
get
to.
I
mentioned
that's
what
you
were
suggesting
about
some
kind
of
middle
ground
thinking
about
the
economic
analysis,
but
I
think
if
we
could
really
emphasize
that
the
openness
that
martin
was
describing
that
if
cyrus
or
google
wanted
to
come
forward
and
say
here's
what
it
would
look
like
to
pencil
out
to
us.
I
think
that
would
maybe
temper
some
of
the
conversation
that
we're.
B
B
I
would
be
of
a
mindset
to
say
something
along
the
lines
of
that
that
we
recommend
the
council
direct
staff
to
bring
that
kind
of
analysis
back
for
us
to
be
able
to
see
and
for
council
to
be
able
to
see
something
that
shows
at
least
a
road
map
to
viability.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
things
like
the
the
park
and
luffy's
and
those
kind
of
things
are
all
settled,
but
if,
at
least
if
it
says
here's,
here's.
C
B
Here's
the
degree
of
the
gap
that
we
see
today
and
here
are
additional
recommendations.
That
would
you
know
that
would
take
us
down
the
path
of
addressing
those
or
or
cy
west's
concerns
are
unfounded.
But
at
this
point
I
don't
I
feel
like.
If
we,
if
council,
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
make
a
good
decision
on
this
either,
and
so
I'm
I'm
basically
something
along
the
lines
of
it.
B
F
If
epc
is
not
comfortable,
making
a
recommendation
and
would
like
to
continue
this
item
pending
some
additional
information,
we
could
certainly
take
a
look
at
that
again.
I
I
don't
know
how
much
more
additional
information
we
could
provide,
that
would
kind
of
be
a
definitive
roadmap
to
ultimate
feasibility.
F
In
other
words,
if
our
economic
consultant
were
to
come
back
and
to
say
here's
the
gaps
and
shortfalls,
but
that
would
require
amending
adopting
a
new
fee
schedule,
for
example,
or
reducing
certain
fees
or
all
kinds
of
things
that
could
be,
could
be
a
longer
study,
and
it
may
you
know
we
may
not
have
the
the
will,
the
the
the
city
council
direction
to
actually
embark
on
that
again.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
have
embarked
on
a
project
to
reassess
our
parkland
dedication
fees.
L
I
guess
I
follow
a
question
for
martin
martin.
Do
you
feel
that
staff
have
enough
of
a
detailed
understanding
of
what's
missing
from
the
perspective
of
the
two
land
holders
involved?
Do
you
have
that
information?
Do
you
feel
like
you
understand
it
well
enough,
or
is
what
we're
missing
here,
really
sort
of
detail,
input
from
the
land
holders.
F
You
know
it
has
not
always
been
exactly
transparent
about
what
they
think
would
work
or
could
work
again
their
previous
proposal
again.
It
was
just
an
informal
concept,
but
I
want
to
say
they
proposed
approximately
2
000
residential
units
and
either
no
retail
or
very
limited
retail,
in
fact,
probably
no
retail
at
all
and
again,
that
was
just
an
informal
concept
that
they
released
and
I
think
it
had
some
qualifications
to
that,
and
so
that
would
we
would
probably
need
to
hear
more
directly
from
sy
west
to
understand.
F
L
Would
it
be,
would
it
be
appropriate
to
ask
mr
vieira
here
if
that's,
if
more
information
is
something
that
we
could
request
from
from
the
land
holder,
or
would
it
be
more
appropriate
to
direct
staff
to
kind
of
reach
out
to
the
land
holder
and
ask
for
some
of
this
additional
information?
Is
there
what's
the
best
means
for
trying
to
get
the
information
that
I
think
we
all
agree?
We
kind
of
want
to
see.
F
Well,
I
mean
I,
I
think
we
could
just
ask
mr
vera
that
directly
about
what
he
would
feel
comfortable,
responding
to
or
sharing
tonight,
and
if
there's
things
that
he
can
share
would
like
to
share
he's
free
to
do
that.
If
we
would
like
to
defer
it
more
to
the
the
staff
for
staff
to
take
a
look
at
things,
we
can
also
do
that
as
well.
So
I
would
defer,
if
mr
veer
wanted
to
comment
at
this
point.
K
B
So
it's
guess
what
I'm
hearing
from
commissioners
and
from
mr
alkir
is
a
a
lack
of
understanding
of
what
specific
changes
or
gaps
cy
west
has
identified
in
potential
actions
or
changes
to
the
plan
that
might
might
address
those.
Are
you
open
to
having
that
to
further
discussion
with
staff,
or
can
you
articulate
that
quickly
here
now
efficiently
to
it
to
address
the
commissioner's
concerns,
or
is
it
better
it's
better
that
it's
with
staff.
K
I
I
think
it's
entirely
appropriate
to
address
the
matter
with
staff.
Again
it
has
been
addressed
in
the
past
as
part
of
our
proposal
a
number
of
months
ago
to
build
a
full
residential
project
on
all
our
lands.
As
martin
mentioned,
you
know,
we
did
propose
a
rather
large
number
of
residential
units
to
hopefully
fill
in
the
balance
of
the
expected
residential
for
north
bay
shore.
You
know
the
the
the
issue
I
think
we're
all
confronted
with
is
there's
a
lot.
K
There's
frustration
in
that
we
want
to
do
something
we
all
want
to
do
something.
I've
been
trying
to
get
through
this
process.
Since
2013,
when
I
submitted
my
first
gatekeeper
application-
and
you
know
it's
been
recently
encountered
again
with
the
sobrato
project-
you
know
it's
it's
a
difficult
proposition
to
make
the
numbers
work
unless
there's
a
means
to
mitigate
the
impacts
that
are
already
existing
in
the
marketplace.
K
Office
has
always
been
the
one
product
that
has
been
able
to
afford
the
impacts,
and
you
know
the
subsequent
chipping
away
of
entitlements
on
the
gateway
site
further
exacerbates
the
problem
where
the
the
gateway
can't
unlock
itself.
Unless
there's
a
means
to
pay
for
things
or
absorb
fees
or
mitigate
fees
and
impacts
on
different
land
holdings
on
different
kind
of
product
development,
you
know
retail
is
probably
one
of
the
least
affordable
kind
of
product
to
build
in
this
marketplace.
It's
becoming
increasingly
so
so
it's
a
subsidized
component.
It's
an
amenity
feature.
K
We
know
that
we're.
We
were
willing
to
accept
that
in
our
our
multi-family
project,
but
still
when
you,
when
you
pack
the
multi-family
costs
together-
and
these
are
not
construction
costs,
necessarily
those
are
what
they
are,
but
their
fees,
their
impact
fees,
their
mitigation
costs
for
for
development
in
north
bay
shore.
Those
should
be
reassessed.
We've
we've
all
had
this
conversation
with
staff
in
this
process,
so
we'd
be
more
than
willing
to
sit
down
again
and
it's
not
something
that
just
we're
encountering
it's
it's
others
as
well.
It
should
be
looked
at
holistically.
K
It
was
discussed
as
being
needed
to
be
addressed
holistically,
and
yet
it's
kind
of
a
kick.
The
can
it's.
It's
almost
as
though
you
put
this
plan
in
place,
and
then
you
just
kind
of
go
on
about
it,
but
it
doesn't
ever
unlock
this
site.
This
site
just
can't
be
deployed
unless
there's
a
means
to
accommodate
what's
already
out
there,
but
we
would
absolutely
be
interested
in
sitting
down
and
trying
to
run
through
the
financial
side
of
the
equation.
J
K
G
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna,
ask
that
you
know
lately,
given
all
the
construction
prices
and
the
prices
of
materials
just
skyrocketing.
It's
come
down
some,
but
does
that
take
away
the
viability
of
that
project?
And
would
you
say
it's
still
viable
like
right
now,
if
you
submitted
that
you
could
just
move
right
forward
with
it.
K
A
fair
question:
we
actually
are
under
construction
right
now
on
380
units
we're
in
the
process
of
building
those.
We
started
about
two
and
a
half,
maybe
three
months
ago
now,
so
we
are
dealing
with
construction
costs
in
the
current
marketplace,
they've
actually
softened
a
bit
which
is
encouraging
and
depending
upon
where
we
fall
in
the
optimism
spectrum.
K
K
K
You
know
we're
fortunate
in
some
respects
that
we've
owned
this
land
for
a
period
of
time
we're
a
legacy
company,
which
means
that
you
know
we
will
stretch
to
do
the
right
thing
at
the
right
time
and
we
believe
that
residential
in
the
bay
area
will
always
have
work
and,
of
course,
in
this
marketplace,
it's
it's
a
very
desirable
community
to
build
in,
and
we
would
look
to
execute,
there's
nothing
in
our
in
our
modeling.
That
really
holds
us
back.
G
K
Yeah
we
we
know
we
will
have
an
opportunity
to
redeploy
that
site
and
it
is
something
that
we
would
desire
to
do.
We
know
it's
not
at
its
highest
and
best
today,
again
we're
a
legacy
company
and
that
we
build
for
future
generations.
So
it
is
our
desire
to
try
to
put
in
place
the
right
format
on
that
real
estate
for
for
long
term.
That's
that's
kind
of
how
we
approach
all
of
our
properties.
When
we
partner
with
you,
we
partner
for
life
effectively,
we've
been
around
since
1948.
K
F
F
H
Yes,
my
comment
was
you
know
and
by
the
same
token,
to
mr
vieira,
what
we
were
hoping
that,
if
you're
you're
putting
in
place
part
of
what
we
are
envisioned,
a
complete
neighborhood
would
look
like
that's
kind
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
and
I
think
it's
not
it's
not
something.
That
is
that
easy.
I
think
you
have.
You
know
one
one
piece
to
the
puzzle
and
you
know
there
are.
H
Well,
let's
look
at
the
overall
financial
visibility.
Are
we
looking
at
it
right
here
right
now?
You
you
mentioned,
you
were
under
construction
for
I'm
not
sure
where
you're
building
in
the
bay
area
right
at
the
moment,
but
certainly
we
would
like
to
see
you
know
you
know
where
we
know
we're
going
to
have
to
be
flexible
on
on
what
we're,
seeing
from
a
financial
point
of
view
for
that
overall
area.
So
perhaps
we're
asking
more
than
either
you
or
we
can
provide
just
at
this
moment.
But
we
still
feel
like
that.
H
Complete
neighborhood
vision
is
what
we
want
to
achieve
and
want
to
certainly
see
if
you
want
to
be
a
part
of
that.
So
those
those
are
just
my
thoughts
right
now
and-
and
I
think
that
we're
at
such
a
high
level-
it's
it's
not
so
easy
to
say
yeah,
that's
you
know
the
concept
and
the
precise
plans
and
everything
that
we
put
together
before
yeah
that's
and
we're
always
asking
for
what
we
ideally
would
like
to
see
out
there.
H
B
B
B
It
sounds
like
they're
interested
in
doing
something
and
acting
quickly
and
to
me,
if
that's
putting
a
time
limit
with
with
and
actually
getting
you
know,
something
done
quickly
would
would
reinforce.
What
to
me
would
validate
that
interest
and
commitment.
So
if
we
did
something
like
you
know,
recommend
the
council
continue
this
item
for
three
months
to
allow
sci-west
and
staff
to
review
potential
changes
to
the
plan
that
would
address
their
concerns
within
the
overall
framework.
C
B
F
I
think
if
mr
vera
is
still
on
the
line,
if
we're
engaging
him
or
asking
him,
I
think
we
would
need
to
check
regarding
his
interest
in
participating
in
that
and
the
timeline.
That's
the
first
thing.
The
second
thing
is
certainly
that's
a
reasonable
request.
Planning
commission
has
the
latitude
to
request
additional
information
with
the
goal
of
trying
to
reconcile
the
differences
that
we've
been
talking
about
tonight,
so
maybe
I'll
just
pause
and
see.
If
mr
vera
has
a
reaction
to
your
your
comments.
K
Yes,
I
I
would
welcome
the
opportunity
granted.
It
is
a
fairly
short
time
frame,
but
I
would
certainly
welcome
the
opportunity
to
to
engage
and
hopefully
sort
through
what
what
we
think
will
be
kind
of
the
bottom
line,
so
to
speak
on
on
how
to
financially
construct
something
that
makes
sense
for
not
just
us,
quite
frankly,
there's
going
to
be
others
as
well,
but
certainly
we
would
be
more
than
interested
in
sitting
down.
J
May
I
ask
a
follow-up
joe
branson
to
mr
vr,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understood.
One
of
the
things
you
said
earlier
is
that
office
is
what
makes
this
pencil
and
for
to
unlock
the
gateway
site.
So
the
proposal
that
you
were
originally
discussing
the
concept
was
a
hundred
percent
residential.
Is
that
right.
K
J
I
I
guess
I
just
wonder
to
what
extent
is
it
the
city's
responsibility
to
make
sure
a
plan
is
economically
feasible
for
a
developer
right?
It
seems
like
yes,
google
has
these
other
land
holdings,
but
I
mean
we
can
encourage
conversations.
But
at
some
point
I
I
don't
think
that's
the
role
of
the
city
to
to
make
sure
that
it's
economically
viable
for
a
developer.
We
should
build.
We
should
plan
for
what
we
want.
It's
a
long
time
horizon,
and
this
is
an
area
we've
identified
for
high
intensity
growth.
K
Yeah,
I
I
I
appreciate
that
perspective,
but
I
do
think
it's
incumbent
on
those
that
pass
edicts
that
they,
they
make
sense,
they're
able
to
be
executed,
and
you
know
a
plan
is
just
pictures
and
I
think
it
sets
unreasonable
expectations
in
the
community
that
something
someday
will
happen
there.
If
you
know
going
into
this
process
that
the
economic
model
doesn't
work,
I
I
really
struggle
to
understand
why
what
what
is
gained
by
passing
the
plan?
All
you've
done,
then,
is
is
further.
Kick
the
can
down
the
road
of
infeasibility.
K
We've
had
the
discussion
at
the
time
that
the
office
was
reallocated,
that
by
doing
so,
you
removed
one
of
the
impetus
for
bringing
parties
to
the
table
to
structure
a
fee
arrangement
with
the
city
that
makes
economic
sense
and
subsidizes
those
components
of
a
community
or
a
precise
plan
area
that
can't
economically
be
justified
on
their
own,
but
you
know
be
that
as
it
may,
the
action
was
taken
that
ship
has
sailed.
It's
done
now,
you're
faced
with
another
decision,
and
this
decision
only
further
exacerbates
that
problem
of
infeasibility
in
in
an
area.
K
If
you
really
want
to
execute
on
a
plan,
you
have
to
consider,
how
do
you
get
all
of
the
parties
to
the
table
and
make
a
fair
allocation
of
existing
impacts
and
how
to
mitigate
those
existing
impacts
and
future
impacts
based
upon
the
most
beneficial
form
of
real
estate?
That's
going
to
be
created
north
bay
shore
is
is
a
is,
is
a
is
a
is
a
vibrant
part
of
the
of
the
market
in
the
bay
area.
K
You
need
to
be
cognizant
of
what
you
do
next
to
keep
it
viable
and
then
to
also
extract
out
what
you
can
to
offset
what
isn't
already
working
and
so
residential
incorporation
in
this
area.
Absolutely
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
I
think
the
concept
of
creating
a
master
plan
at
some
point
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
It
just
has
to
be
a
viable
master
plan
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
have
confidence
that
the
parties
can
execute
under
aspirational
is
good,
but
realistic
is
better.
G
Yes,
sorry,
you
know,
I
I
think
I
I've
raised
my
hand
after
mr
vieira
had
spoken
the
very
first
time
and
what
you
had
said
had
actually
given
me
more
hope
that
this
was
going
to
be
doable.
You
said
you
were
a
legacy
company
and
you
had
construction
projects
all
around
town.
Despite
covid,
you
were
still
in
construction
and
were
able
to
handle
that
fluctuation
in
the
the
rise
in
costs.
I
know
some
things
like
framing
and
wood
just
shot
up
like
three
times
the
amount.
G
So
I
know
that
was
a
lot
to
weather
and-
and
I
appreciate
that
you
are
looking
for
the
long
term
of
the
community,
for
your
business
and
for
the
city,
so
that
gave
me
more
hope
that
you
would
be
able
to
come
to
the
table
with
the
concept
and
work
with
the
city
to
move
forward.
I
was
just
thinking
that
we
all
agree
on
the
vision
and
the
concepts,
and
I
totally
hear
what
you're
saying
that
without
having
it
built,
it's
just
a
pretty
picture
and
no
one
wants.
G
You
know
this
booklet
sitting
around
for
for
50
years
and
having
north
asia.
Look
the
same
as
it
does
now:
google
is
willing
to
move
forward
granted.
You
had
stated
that
they
had
some
more
flexibility
than
perhaps
you
guys
do.
I
right
now
at
this
moment
I'm
trying
to
weigh
it's
kind
of
like
I
have
this
analogy
in
my
head.
It's
like
when
you're
trying
to
find
a
like
a
marriage
partner
that
there's
no
perfect
fit.
Some
things
are
just
not
going
to
work.
G
It's
just
a
matter
of
choosing
the
things
that
you
can
live
with.
So
the
vision
we're
all
we're
all
agreed
that
it's
a
great
vision.
There
might
have
to
be
some
compromises
here
and
there,
but
the
compromises
can't
be
made
where
then
we
lose
the
vision,
and
we
have
you
know
just
more
of
the
same.
What
we're
aiming
for
is
something
greater
than
what
we
have,
and
so
I
think,
if
we
can
come
to
the
table,
everyone
comes
to
the
table
willing
to
give
which
it
sounds
like
your
company
is
willing
to
to
give.
G
G
G
G
Maybe
once
you
have
a
concept
and
put
forward
to
the
staff
that
process
can
begin
so
as
far
as
tonight,
I
just
want
to
be
a
little
bit
more
clear
in
the
separation
of
the
vision
from
the
process
moving
forward.
I
guess
that's
where
I'm
confused.
Honestly,
if
more
economic
information
came
to
me
even
in
three
months,
I
do
not
know
that
I
could
make
a
decision
based
on
more
economic
decisions,
because
I
still
do
not
have
enough
knowledge
of
the
balance
of
those
things.
G
B
B
The
250
000
of
office
space-
that's
still
floating
around,
but
that's
sounds
like
that's
a
decision
that
council
already
made
in
a
direction
to
make
it
float.
So
I'm
I
I
guess
I
you
know,
I'm
I'm
forced
to
make
a
decision
on
the
two
recommendations.
I
would
probably
vote
to
not
move
ahead,
but
at
the
same
time
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
good
things
in
the
plan.
What
martin
and
team
have
done,
and
so
I'm
I'm
more
inclined
along
the
direction
of
you
know.
B
I'd
like
to
see
it
move
ahead,
just
like
commissioner
hamlier
get
something
locked
down,
so
I'm
I'm
inclined
towards
the
some
kind
of
continuance
and
if
and
if
cyrus
doesn't
come
back
with
something
within
a
certain
amount
of
time,
they
essentially
they've
had
their
chance
to
talk
and
in
their
sol.
If
they
don't
so
sandy,
you
had
your
hand
up
next,
I'm
sorry.
L
G
L
I
think
a
continuance
would
be,
in
my
opinion,
a
sort
of
a
gesture
of
openness.
It
communicates
to
the
land
holder
to
the
spirit
and
his
client
that
we
very
much
want
to
hear
what
they
have
to
say
and
we
want
the
details
and
we
want
those
details
to
go
to
to
staff
here.
So
staff
can
help
us
understand
kind
of
a
a
deeper
better.
You
know
4k
version
of
kind
of
what
the
financial
analysis
is,
and
maybe
some
staff
come
back
and
tell
us
hey
here's
a
few
things
that
you
could
tweak.
J
I
really
appreciate
the
conversation.
I
think
that
what
I'm
hearing
from
colleagues
is
that
we
want
to
better
understand
where
west
is
coming
from,
and
I
I
think
a
part
of
the
staff
report
that
was
very
telling
to
me
is
what
was
written
on
page
seven
that
says
master
plans
are
not
common
regulatory
tools
used
within
the
city,
as
development
permits
are
typically
submitted
and
based
on
development
regulations
within
a
zoning
or
a
precise
plan
designation.
J
This
commission
has
spent
so
much
time.
Staff
has
spent
so
much
time
really
thinking
about
what
we
want
north
facial
to
be,
and
I
don't
if
the
majority
wants
to
do
a
continuation
and
give
some
kind
of
time
bound
conversation.
That's
fine,
but
I
think
we
know
what
we
want
right,
and
so
we
want.
We
want
development
to
move
forward,
and
I
just
don't
know
that
it's
the
city's
role
to
be
able
to
say
this
is
going
to
pencil
out
or
not.
J
If
we
want
to
look
at
the
economic
analysis
and
understand
what
are
the
assumptions
that
are
made
and
and
have
that
in
added
context
as
information-
that's
that's
reasonable,
but
a
master
plan
isn't
in
my
in
my
experience
it
doesn't
seem
like
that's
the
tool
to
bring
psy
west
to
the
table,
to
really
understand
what
they
want.
If
they,
if
they
have
a
proposal
and
a
plan,
they
should
put
it
out
there
and
do
it
formally
so
that
we
can
understand
what
their
analysis
says.
Here's
what
works
for
our
company,
just
my
two
cents.
B
M
Thank
you
before
I
talk
about
some
of
the
options
and
clarify
what
you
mean
by
continuance.
I
just
wanted
to
you
know
kind
of
emphasize
something
that
was
in
the
staff
report
and
and
mr
alkier
had
mentioned
as
well,
that
you
know
there
was
a
lengthy
process
that
the
city
undertook
to
try
to
mediate
with
cy
west
and
google
to
come
up
with
a
joint
master
plan,
and
it
was
after
that
lengthy
process
that
the
council
just
decided.
M
The
city
should
initiate
the
gateway
master
plan
process
itself,
so
this
has
been
many
years
in
the
making.
First
of
all,
so
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
what
we're
talking
about.
With
respect
to
a
continuance,
I
mean
there's
an
option
to,
as
commissioner,
hey
meyer
was
saying,
to
seek
additional
information
and
seek
and
have
a
short
continuance,
so
that
staff
can
bring
back
that
information
that
the
commission
thinks
would
be
useful
to
make
a
recommendation
on
the
plan.
Another
one.
Another
option
would
be.
M
M
Another
recommendation
could
be
you
know,
to
adopt
the
plan
subject
to
the
council,
receiving
some
additional
information
and
being
more
satisfied
with
respect
to
the
financial
feasibility,
and
the
council
may
have
you
know
a
different
opinion
about
what
information
they
ultimately
need.
But
there
are
a
number
of
different
approaches
and
I'm
interested
in
if
mr
alcar
has
anything
to
say
about
which
options
might
be
more
helpful.
F
May
a
chair,
thank
you,
miss
lee.
I
think
that
was
very
helpful
to
outline
those
three
options
and-
and
I
think
certainly
the
the
last
two
you
mentioned-
recommending
adoption
but
subject
to
perhaps
more
financial
information
from
both
the
city,
side
and
sai
west.
One
thing
for
the
commission
to
think
about
a
positive
of
that
approach
is
that
you
can
decide
tonight
if
the
bones
so
to
speak.
F
If
the
policy,
if
the
the
plan
itself
meets
your
vision
as
a
community
member,
then
as
ms
lee
said,
you
could
go
ahead
and
recommend
adoption
with
some
provisions
subject
to
additional
information
that
we
could
then
present
to
council.
So
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
that
if
the
commission
felt
strongly
that
they
liked
the
plan
they
liked
the
policies
they
liked,
the
flexibility
whatever
it
is
about
the
plan
that
you
like,
but
you
wanted
to
condition
some
additional
information.
That's
certainly
an
option.
H
And
I
I
would
be
in
favor
of
just
getting
some
additional
information
from
staff
based
on
you
know
further
further,
you
know
input
from
from
psi
west.
I
think
that
that
would
give
us
a
little
more
information
if
they
came
here
with,
as
commissioner
yen
said,
if
they
came
with
the
feasibility,
if
it
means
that
we
have
to
as
a
city
change
our
financial
structure
in
order
to
support
a
developer
to
do
his
development,
you
know,
that's
that's.
H
You
know
a
whole
a
whole
other
question
that
is
not
really
visible
to
us,
but
certainly
a
possibility
that
there
might
have
to
be
changes
there.
So
I
think
that
is
for
staff
and
for
psywest
to
determine-
and
I
would
like
some
additional
information
through
staff,
because
I
think
we
count
on
their
expertise
to
really
kind
of
interpret
that
into
understand
the
consequences
of
those
particular
decisions,
but
in
general
I
think
that
the
plan
we've
come
up
with
is
something
that
we
re,
that
we
do
see
taking
place
out
in
north
bay
shore.
H
H
B
I
think
ms
lee
kind
of
presented
for
option
one
was
essentially
we
wait
for
that
information
before
we
make
recommendation,
while
the
second
and
third
options
were
that
we
vote
on
essentially
vote
on
approval
with
additional
information
after
the
after
the
approval.
Are
you
advocating
the
first
or
one
of
the
letter?
Two.
B
B
B
G
M
If
council
develops
some
additional
information,
you
know
and
satisfies
themselves
so
they're
very
they're
similar,
but
it
was
whether
or
not
you
staff
is
going
to
do
the
work
before
it
gets
to
council-
or
you
know,
council
direct
staff
to
provide
some
other
information
prior
to
adoption.
But
you
would
if,
if
those
financial,
feasibility
or
other
criteria
are
satisfied,
then
the
council
adopt
the
plan.
B
What
can
I
try
to
prepare
for?
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
option
one.
Is
we
wait
until
we
get
the
financial
viability
and
then
we
decide
option
two?
Is
we
say
we
like
the
idea,
but
it
doesn't
get
presented
into
council
until
staff
can
include
financial
information
and
then
option
three
is.
It
goes
to
counsel
and
we
recommend
that
they
ask
for
additional
information
if
they
feel
they
need.
It
is
that
the
difference.
M
You
know
on
the
plan
and
you
may
want
additional
information
provided
to
counsel
or
that
staff
have
a
further
discussion
with
sai
west
before
they
go
to
council,
and
so
the
council
will
have
additional
information
to
make
a
decision.
So
if,
if
the
commission
has
some
concerns
that
they
would
would
like
to
have
had
addressed,
but
the
commission
is
still
comfortable
making
a
recommendation
for
adoption,
then
you
should.
Then
you
can
recommend
a
council
to
take
those
steps,
adopt
it,
but
ask
staff
to
provide
counsel
with
that
information.
M
H
I
I
would
like
to
make
the
recommendation
that
we,
like
the
we
approve.
We
approve
the
plan
and
would
like
to
send
it
to
council
with
the
additional
information
from
psywest
I'm.
I
don't
necessarily
feel
like
if
I
get
information
back
from
cy
west,
that
I
would
be
in
a
position
to
give
further
recommendations
to
the
council.
So
I
I
don't
want
to
kick
the
can
down
the
road,
but
I
do
think
they
need
the
additional
information
that
cy
west
is
willing
to
provide.
G
B
I
guess
I
was,
I
came
away
kind
of
feeling,
like
mr
vera
felt
he
was
pretty
specific,
but
mr
alcare
didn't
feel
that
they
were
that
that
they,
it
sounded
like
it
was
still
fairly
vague
and
they
wasn't
it
wasn't
well
formed
to
be
able
to
address.
Is
that
correct
right,
sound
like
it?
Wasn't
it
wasn't?
Well,
you
felt
didn't
feel
it
was
fairly.
It
was
relatively
complete.
Is
that
correct.
F
Oh
well,
I
mean
what
what
side
west
had
proposed
was
was
wasn't
something
they
formally
submitted.
It
was
just
as
described
by
mr
vieira,
but
I
would
add,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
what
he
described
is
within
the
bookends.
If
you
will
of
what
the
plan
allows.
So
in
that
regard,
it
would
be
one
could
consider
it
to
be
consistent
with
the
plan,
as
as
he
noted.
F
Well,
I
mean
you
know
it
it.
The
financials
is
a
tough
one
again.
The
bo
the
office
far
is
a
valuable
piece
of
this
and,
as
was
mentioned
several
times,
the
250
000
square
feet
of
office
remains
unallocated,
and
perhaps,
if
that
was
allocated
some
or
all
of
it
to
say
west,
perhaps
that
would
change
the
money
equation.
F
As
you
note,
ms
caprilis,
but
I
just
want
to
note
that
the
plan
itself
before
you
tonight
does
just
set
out
that
office
uses
are
allowed
up
to
250
000
square
feet
and
that's
all
the
the
plan
is
trying
to
do
at
this
point
is
trying
to
set
forth
that
vision.
The
policies,
the
street
network,
the
bike,
the
the
pad
improvements,
all
those
things
and
and
the
the
financial
piece,
namely
the
the
bonus
fdr,
is
something
that
will
be
decided
later.
So
the
bottom
line.
J
So
I
appreciated
sandy's
suggestion
for
for
option
two
of
liking
the
concept
and
that
it
meets
my
vision
for
what
we
had
described
in
north
ashore
at
the
gateway
as
vibrant,
mixed
use,
high
intensity
connected,
and
I
think
I'm
I'm
feeling
less
comfortable
with
the
the
second
clause
of
asking
for
more
information
to
come
from
southwest.
I
would
really
like
to
see
that
come
from
the
consultant
and
to
have
the
whatever
analysis
was
presented
to
staff
really
clearly
spelled
out
for
council
to
say
here
are
the
different
scenarios.
J
I
am
comfortable
with
the
fact
that
the
city
led
master
plan
allows
ios
to
come
forward
with
a
plan,
a
proposal
at
any
time
they
wish
with
what
they
have
done,
their
own
internal
analysis
to
say,
here's
what
pencil's
out.
So
the
suggestions,
I've
heard
so
far
have
really
been
putting
the
onus
on
and
having
more
information
from
cy
west,
and
I
think
I'd
like
to
shift
that
to
have
it
come
from
the
mountains.
B
B
H
I
think
that's,
I
think,
that's
perfectly
fine.
I
I
just
feel
like
there's,
there's
a
lot
of
confusion
about
the
information
in
general
from
everybody,
so
I
I
kind
of
think
that
commissioner,
hey
meyer
is
is
right
in
saying
that
you
know,
we
need
to
leave
it
to
the
the
experts
that
are
doing
the
detailed
work
here
to
to
come
up
with
the
information
that
is
needed
for
for
the
council,
because
I
in
general,
I
think
the
concept
and
the
vision
and
the
precise
plans
having
been
through
all
of
those
together.
H
I
think
that's
what
we
want
to
see
out
there
and
that's
that's.
We
we're
just
looking
for
a
way
to
move,
move
it
forward
and
because
the
city
has
been
asked
to
do
it.
I
think
that
we're
in
a
position
to
say
that's
what
we
want
to
see
out
there
and
we're
open
to
what
you
would
like
to
do.
What
you're
part
of
that
is,
and
let's
have
a
discussion.
B
L
L
Yes,
I
think
you
know-
I
agree
with
commissioner
haymar
exactly
that
I
I
would
prefer
to
see
whatever
new
information
that
comes
be
sort
of
processed
and
vice
and
put
out
put
in
front
of
the
council
by
staff.
I
think
that
that's
a
really
good
point.
You
know
we
haven't.
I
haven't
got
much
chance
to
talk
about
this,
but
I
actually
love
the
vision
of
what
we
got.
I
just
I
really
want
to
see
it
happen.
L
M
Okay,
yes-
and
I
would
point
out
that
there
are
several
items
on
the
agenda
for
this
item,
so
the
commission
will
take
each
item
separately.
I
believe
we'll
vote
separately
on
each
of
them,
and
so
this
this
whole
discussion
pertains
to
recommendation
number
four
as
part
of
item
5.1
with
respect
to
the
gateway
master
plan.
So
the
commission
does
need
to
also
vote
on
the
general
plan
amendment
and
the
north
bayshore
plan,
precise
plan
amendments,
but
so,
but
for
recommendation
number
four
it.
M
G
Sorry,
all
right,
I
was
just
going
to
say.
Yes,
I
actually
like
very
much
what
commissioner
haymard
said,
which
is
she
reminded
us
that
the
consultant
had
already
done
the
work
and
really
what
we're
not
seeing.
It
are
the
details.
So
if
the
details
could
be
presented
to
the
council,
that
would
be
great
and
I
would
just
recommend
them
to
cy
west
that
they
get
their
proposal
in.
J
I'm
I
would
be,
I
would
be
happy
to
do
that
and
here's
what
I
jotted
down
and
before
going
down
that
path.
I
have
for
recommendations
for
on
item
5.1,
not
emotion,
just
clarifying
language,
adopt
a
resolution
to
recommend
this
to
the
city
council,
with
the
provision
of
additional
financial
feasibility
announcement.
Analysis
be
provided
to
council
for
consideration.
Is
that
right.
B
J
J
Sorry,
I
recommend
adopting
a
resolution
at
the
city
council
of
the
city
of
mountain
view
to
amend
the
p939
north
bay
shore.
Precise
plans
include
the
parcel
at
1555
plymouth
street
within
the
north
bay
shore,
precise
plan
gateway,
character
area,
revised
the
bonus,
far
guidelines
and
your
plan
provisions
and
make
minor
text
and
graphic
updates
included,
as
exhibit
three
to
the
epc
staff
report
and
finally
make
a
recommendation
that
the
city
get
back
to
my
language.
J
M
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
just
clarify,
because
I
think
we
all
understand
your
meeting,
commissioner,
hey
meyer,
but
the
re.
The
recommendation
is
for
the
city
council
to
be
provided
at
the
details:
financial
feasibility,
analysis
from
the
city's
consultant
and
and
that
the
city
council
adopt
a
resolution
adopting
the
north
bay
shore
gateway
master
plan.
B
H
B
B
All
right
with
that,
we
will
close
section
5
public
hearing
and
move
on
to
new
business
in
section
6..
This
is
the
environmental
planning
commission
work
plan
fiscal
year,
2021-22
and
22-23.
Mr
anderson,
can
you
use
it?
Do
you
have
a
way
of
letting
vice
chair
low
that
we
are
moving
into
the
next
item
if
she's
still
able
to
rejoin
us.
A
A
B
A
Yes,
thank
you.
I'm
just
gonna
present
the
work
plan
and
I
don't
have
a
powerpoint
or
anything,
but
I'm
happy
to
bring
it
up
on
the
screen.
If
there
are
any
questions
that
we
can
reference,
so
staff
prepared
this
work
plan
that
was
attached
to
the
agenda
for
the
epc.
This
was
items
taken
from
the
council
strategic
roadmap,
which
was
adopted
back
in
june,
plus
additional
council
direction
that
had
been
provided
over
the
last
year
or
so
and
other
statutory
epc
responsibilities.
A
These
work
plans
are
generally
adopted
annually,
but
in
the
interest
of
transparency
we
are
providing
additional
2022
to
2023
action
items.
I
will
say
that
it
is
a
living
document
subject
to
changing
schedules
and
council
input,
so
you
may
want.
You
may
find
that
you
know
what
comes
back
to
the
epc
in
2022
may.
Have
some
modifications-
or
you
know
updated
schedules,
and
things
like
that,
so
we
will
be
bringing
these
projects
forward
to
the
epc
as
staff.
J
No,
I
I
just
wanted
to
commence
after
putting
this
together.
I
know
how
much
is
on
your
plate
and
I'm
really
excited
about
the
work
ahead.
Thank
you
for
for
all
of
the
great
work
to
keep
this
moving.
It's
it's
noted
every
day.
Every
time
we
get
together,
it's
amazing
how
many
things
you're
juggling.
C
C
A
Sure,
and
and
as
I
said
before,
this
is
a
living
document
and
we
may
find,
as
we
you
know,
work
with
other
departments
on
their
tasks
and
responsibilities
that
they
may
want
epc
input
on
some
project
that
they're
working
on.
So
if
that
happens,
that
we
will
schedule
it
and
forward
it
up
to
the
epc,
but
these
are
the
ones
that
have
very
clear
connections
to
the
epc's
purview.
You
know
zoning
and
general
plan
and
planning
generally.
B
Thanks,
I
said
the
timeline
for
the
r3
zoning
is
longer
than
I
guess
it
was
kind
of
earlier
articulated,
but
the
I
kind
of
I
was
expecting
that
to
some
extent,
but
it
was
kind
of
geared
around
the
what's
listed
as
item
number
10.
on
the
no
net
loss,
which
is
kind
of
as
a
listed
as
a
tbd
is
that
am
I
incorrect
in
that?
I,
I
guess
my
impression
from
the
council
was
that
there
was
a
concern
that
the
that
the
no
not
loss
discretion
needed
to
occur.
B
A
Yeah,
so
we're
actually
doing
all
that
concurrently,
you
know
I
was
going
to
make
this
announcement
during
announcements,
but
I
can
talk
about
it
a
little
bit
now
over
the
next
few
months.
We're
going
to
be
doing
a
broad,
coordinated
outreach
effort
with
both
displacement
response,
r3
and
the
housing
element,
and
so
those
are
happening
fairly
concurrently
so
that
they
can
inform
one
another.
A
B
A
B
That's
great,
I
actually.
I
applaud
that.
I
would
ask
that
you,
the
staff
share
with
the
commission
when
those
outreach
things
are
going
to
occur,
so
they
can.
You
know,
listen,
listen
in
and
kind
of
hear
the
input
it's
it's
always.
I
personally
find
it
viable
to
hear
what
the
community
is
saying
firsthand
rather
than
in
a
summary
report
from
staff
later
they're,
both
valuable
but
bring
them
hearing
the
actual
feedback.
Is
I
find
very
valuable.
B
B
A
B
I
I
So
I
leave
it
to
you
and
staff
to
determine
the
supplies
at
this
point,
but
it's
just.
We
would
like
to
see
more
exposure
of
some
of
these
projects,
even
if
they
meet
the
zoning
requirements
by
epc
and
again,
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
that
limitation,
that
if
something
passes
the
zoning
regulations
that
you
don't,
it
doesn't
come
to
you,
but
it'd
be
great.
If
you
had
more
flexibility
than
that,
thank
you.
B
A
A
Gotcha
thanks
for
clarifying
sorry,
I
wasn't
sure
if
there
was
some
overlap
there,
but
yeah.
It
certainly
comes
up
with
new
precise
plans,
and
you
know
we
we
don't
currently
have
on
the
work
plan,
a
kind
of
a
comprehensive
zoning
update,
which
we
would
kind
of
integrate,
updates
those
kinds
of
procedures
for.
But
if
that's
something
that
the
epc
you
know
wants
to
recommend
as
forward
as
something
else
for
for
council
to
look
at
as
staff
may
have
time
to
address,
we
can
forward
that
comment
as
well.
B
Just
take
it
maybe
just
a
comment:
it
was
my
understanding
I
mean
if-
and
this
is
get
this
from
some
from
the
commissioners
academy-
not
every
jurisdiction
today
has
the
zoning
administrator
process.
Mountain
view
is,
was
one
of
the
early
adopters
to
that,
and
so
in
some
jurisdictions
that
meeting
with
the
va?
Doesn't
it
doesn't
exist
at
all,
and
so
everything
that
would
go
to
the
va
would
come
to
the
planning
commission.
B
C
B
C
F
Yes,
that
is
correct,
but
also,
more
importantly,
it
was
done
so
that
the
planning
commission
could
have
more
time
and
attention
to
spend
on
long-term
planning.
So
it
was.
It
was
really
a
two-fold
rationale,
because
the
commission's
time
time
at
that
time
was
being
caught
up
in
variances
and
you
know,
exceptions
and
all
these
development
related
processes,
and
there
wasn't
enough
time
spent
on
long-range
planning.
The
other
thing
is
that
the
the
city's
process
was
changed.
C
If
I
may
follow
up
a
little
bit,
given
that
you
know,
sometimes
projects
are
really
large
scales
now,
which
may
or
may
not
be
the
case
when
this
policy
was
put
in
place.
I
wonder
if
that
might
you
know
I
know,
there's
a
balance.
You
know
we.
We
need
the
process
to
be
streamlined
and
have
a
efficient
way
of
approving
applications.
I
B
G
No,
no
announcement.
Sorry,
I
was
just
I
don't
mean
to
drive
the
evening
out
a
bit.
I
was
just
maybe
one
of
these
days.
I
could
just
talk
to
someone
to
staff,
maybe
eric
and
just
I
was
curious.
What
the
community
outreach
process
was.
I
hear
so
often
from
the
community,
just
as
mr
england
had
said
that
they
feel
like
they're
not
being
included,
and
I
know
that
staff
tries
really
hard.
They
send
out
the
mailers
and
you
can't,
like
you,
know,
dance
in
front
of
every
individual
and
tell
them
something's
coming.
G
H
Oh,
along
those
same
lines,
just
a
suggestion,
you
know
we
have
periodically.
We
have
the
neighborhood
meetings
that
people
go
in
front
of
a
group
in
the
neighborhood
and
if
there
are
big
projects
that
are
really
within
the
vicinity
of
those
neighborhoods,
that
might
be
an
opportunity
to
just
bring
up
those
particular
projects
just
to
make
people
aware
of
what's
going
on.
I'm
not
necessarily
you
know
it
may
not
be
through
the
epc,
but
I'm
thinking
that
you
know
just
as
a
matter
of
information
out
to
the
neighborhood.
B
Along
those
lines
eric,
I
don't
know
if
council
is
getting
getting
started
to
think
about
actually
doing
face-to-face
neighborhood
meetings,
but
knowing
when
those
are
in
advance,
so
that
if
we
wanted
to
attend-
and
I
hear
that
feedback-
I
know
as
a
member
of
the
community
when
members
of
the
different
commissions
were
there
and
questions
that
came
up
and
they
could
answer
answer
questions.
I
thought
that
was
good
stuff,
and
so
I
think
some
of
us
would
be
open
to
participating
in
those
as
well.
C
Thank
you.
I
think
those
are
great
ideas
and
also
neighborhood
association.
Newsletters
may
be
a
good
vehicle
to
get
the
information
out.
You
know
certain
projects
may
impact
a
certain
neighborhood
more
make
sure
those
neighborhood
leaders
are
well
aware
of
the
different
meeting
timelines
and
whatnot.
B
A
A
J
J
E
A
Sure
yeah,
I
did
have
a
couple
of
other
announcements.
First
off
reminder
of
the
celebration
of
service
on
september
27th,
so
celebrating
the
all
the
epcs
and
other
advisory
bodies.
Great
work
I
did
want
to
talk
specifically
about
the
housing
element-
outreach
that's
starting
very
soon.
There
are
actually
going
to
be
some
pop-up
outreach
events
at
the
farmers
market
starting
tomorrow
evening
and
those
are
going
to
be.
I
think,
every
couple
of
weeks
we're
going
to
have
a
few
of
those.
A
We
are
going
to
continue
zoom
meetings
through
at
least
the
end
of
september,
and
the
city
is
exploring
a
hybrid
zoom
and
in-person
model
for
meetings.
We
don't
know
at
this
point
whether
we
can
go
back
to
in-person
meetings
in
october,
but
certainly
you
know
you
can
count
on
being
on
zoom,
at
least
through
the
end
of
september,
and
then
for
the
september
1st
meeting.
We
do
have
an
item.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
fairly
quick
meeting.
A
H
So
it's
it
was
very
educational
and
you
know
I
appreciated
the
opportunity
and
I
think,
there's
you
know
a
lot
of
good
things
to
come
and
it
was
great
to
great
to
see
these
prefab
houses
and
that
they
are
taking
care
of
the
homeless
community
as
well
as
providing
them
shelter
and
then
providing
them.
You
know
job
opportunities
in
the
future,
so
it
was
a
really
exciting
experience
and
thanks.
Commissioner,
hey
meyer
for
that
and
the
project
is
called.
We
hope
if
you
want
to
look
online
and
see
what
they
do.
B
Okay,
in
my
last
one
minor
request
is
I'm
not
I
don't
use
zoom
very
often,
but
the
commissioner
yan
and
mr
anderson,
I
think
sandy
was
using
it.
I
want
to
know
how
you
do
this
background.
Blur
feature
really
cool,
okay,
because
I
would
use
that
all
the
time,
and
so
maybe
we
could,
if
you've
got
a
link.
You
could
point
me
to
and
how
to
how
to
do
that.
That
would
be
great.