Of note, the Sobrato rep was the person who wanted to preserve existing buildings & “lead with legacy”. The developer provides an overview of their currently entitled project: overall very little housing. The developer reveals that Target is interested in the vacant Fry’s site.

Sobrato now going through a slide deck of small Targets. Rep noted that they initially said “no” to Target but they’ve been persistent. Very curious what “the residents” will think of Target coming in. I’d guess they’d want it, but who knows.

Developer says clearly they are not interested in tearing down Fry’s building for housing at ANY density, but notes that current zoning is a barrier to developing the rest of the site.

Now talking financial feasibility for for-sale/rental housing.

Going through potential typologies. Here is the terrifying mid rise building. Consultant presents this option with some hesitancy, noting that this isn’t the type of building you see in Palo Alto.

Consultant now going through various alternatives, many of which are moot given that only options that retain the Fry’s building are on the table per Sobrato. Only “leading with legacy” seem to be actually possible.

Doria Summa is “shocked” by proposed density and unit count. “This would be the density of Manhattan”. She assumed this plan would have 354 units, as outlined in the General Plan.

Final comments from committee members are overwhelmingly negative on density. Gail Price is a gem. Reminds everyone about the housing crisis and explains that density provides open space and housing.

Final public comments include Karen Holman saying that Target is not neighborhood serving (my prediction that "residents" would like Target was wrong) and neighbors saying they support affordable housing BUT cars, traffic, towers, etc.

Housing workplan was postponed after grade separation discussion ran long. Nbd. What’s a few weeks wait after an entire year of inaction? 🤷‍♀️