News

Edgewood Plaza work to proceed despite violation

City Council to fine developer, allow renovation of rundown commercial center to continue

A long-stalled effort to spruce up Palo Alto's dilapidated Edgewood Plaza shall go on, the City Council decided March 4, despite the developer's illegal demolition of a historical building at the plaza last fall.

The plaza, located in Palo Alto's Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, has been largely deserted for the past seven years, since the Albertsons grocery store closed its doors. It took years for the developer, Sand Hill Property Company, to reach an agreement with neighborhood residents on a plan to renovate the rundown plaza on Channing Avenue. The plan that the city approved last fall allows Sand Hill to build 10 homes at the plaza in addition to a new grocery store.

Sand Hill was also required to rehabilitate two historical buildings, one of which was to be refurbished at its present site while the other would be disassembled, refurbished and reassembled at a different location in the plaza.

That plan, however, fell apart in September when the developer's contractor completely demolished the building that was supposed to be disassembled. The demolition, which was performed without a city permit, threw the project into turmoil and left the council with a quandary: how to penalize the developer without forcing the neighborhood to suffer through years of construction delays.

After much debate, council members agreed on Monday that while the developer should pay for its error, the project should move along for the sake of the community. The council voted 6-3, with Karen Holman, Gail Price and Greg Schmid dissenting, to allow Sand Hill to proceed with the redevelopment.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Councilwoman Liz Kniss said she hopes the developer could soon move forward with the project, noting that the neighborhood has suffered a deficit ever since the Albertsons closed. Residents, she said, have for months been expecting to see a new market at Edgewood Plaza.

"I think it is time something happened there," Kniss said.

Councilman Larry Klein agreed and said it's in the public interest to "get this project done as soon as possible."

"Our citizens who live in that neighborhood are suffering right now," Klein said. "It's not fun to have a big project in your neighborhood."

The proposed development at Edgewood Plaza has been contentious for most of the past decade, with various experts disagreeing on whether the plaza, which was built in the late 1950s, can truly be considered "historical." Ultimately, the city decided that it is because it's a rare example of a Joseph Eichler commercial development. Eichler, a prominent builder who had his office at the site, emphasized open spaces, floor-to-ceiling windows, post-and-beam construction and sliding doors.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

The redeveloper, John Tze of Sand Hill Property Company, apologized to the council for the unauthorized demolition, which he said was performed without his permission, and breaking his promise to the community. The construction company hired to work on the rehabilitation demolished the building on its own initiative after discovering "things that we didn't expect."

The company's historical consultant, J. Gordon Turnbull, also concluded that much of the building was "not repairable, was not in good condition and would need to be replaced with new materials to match the material, configuration, character and finish of the original."

Tze vowed to repair the damage caused by the demolition.

"I broke a trust," Tze said.

After an initial lawsuit years ago from area residents regarding historic preservation, Tze said, "everyone worked with me to build that trust." He said he would like to do "everything I can" to get the project moving along so that the new grocery store, Fresh Market, could move in as soon as possible.

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

"The demolition wasn't authorized by me or by the city but occurred because of the failure of my organization. I'm sorry it happened, and I take full responsibility."

Most council members agreed that, while there should be a penalty, the project shouldn't be held up any longer than necessary. Members asked staff to return at a later date with a proposed fine, an amount that would consider the economic benefits of building the new houses at Edgewood Plaza. In the meantime, Sand Hill will be allowed to proceed with the construction.

Residents had different ideas about how to handle the demolition, with some urging the council to move the project along and others calling for the council to hold the developer accountable for the breach. Area resident Robert Smith fell into the former camp and said he doesn't consider the destroyed building "historical."

"I think it's an example of '50s commercial architecture -- strip malls and so on," Smith said. "It was a failure. It didn't work for the people. It was an economic disaster for the stores here."

Jeff Levinsky, who also lives near Edgewood Plaza, took the opposite stance and asked the council to slow the project down and make sure it's done right. He called the demolition a "breakdown of the PC process in Palo Alto," referring to the controversial "planned community" zoning that allows developers to exceed city regulations in exchange for negotiated "public benefits." In the case of Edgewood Plaza, the main public benefits are a new grocery store and rehabilitation of historical buildings.

"This would be the most egregious example yet for a PC being violated," Levinsky said. "Let's get things going the right way."

By law, the city can issue a fine of about $10,000 for the illegal demolition, though the fine can be raised significantly for a demolition of a historic structure. The council agreed that this penalty falls far short of what the city should ask for. Sand Hill will also be required now to perform a supplemental Environmental Impact Report to account for the changing nature of the project.

Price opposed the proposal and urged her colleagues to put the brakes on the housing component of the plaza for the time being. She favored more severe consequences for Sand Hill.

The council's decision means that construction of the Edgewood Plaza grocery store remains on track. Fresh Market, a North Carolina-based chain, plans to open its first West Coast store at Edgewood Plaza in May.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Edgewood Plaza work to proceed despite violation

City Council to fine developer, allow renovation of rundown commercial center to continue

A long-stalled effort to spruce up Palo Alto's dilapidated Edgewood Plaza shall go on, the City Council decided March 4, despite the developer's illegal demolition of a historical building at the plaza last fall.

The plaza, located in Palo Alto's Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, has been largely deserted for the past seven years, since the Albertsons grocery store closed its doors. It took years for the developer, Sand Hill Property Company, to reach an agreement with neighborhood residents on a plan to renovate the rundown plaza on Channing Avenue. The plan that the city approved last fall allows Sand Hill to build 10 homes at the plaza in addition to a new grocery store.

Sand Hill was also required to rehabilitate two historical buildings, one of which was to be refurbished at its present site while the other would be disassembled, refurbished and reassembled at a different location in the plaza.

That plan, however, fell apart in September when the developer's contractor completely demolished the building that was supposed to be disassembled. The demolition, which was performed without a city permit, threw the project into turmoil and left the council with a quandary: how to penalize the developer without forcing the neighborhood to suffer through years of construction delays.

After much debate, council members agreed on Monday that while the developer should pay for its error, the project should move along for the sake of the community. The council voted 6-3, with Karen Holman, Gail Price and Greg Schmid dissenting, to allow Sand Hill to proceed with the redevelopment.

Councilwoman Liz Kniss said she hopes the developer could soon move forward with the project, noting that the neighborhood has suffered a deficit ever since the Albertsons closed. Residents, she said, have for months been expecting to see a new market at Edgewood Plaza.

"I think it is time something happened there," Kniss said.

Councilman Larry Klein agreed and said it's in the public interest to "get this project done as soon as possible."

"Our citizens who live in that neighborhood are suffering right now," Klein said. "It's not fun to have a big project in your neighborhood."

The proposed development at Edgewood Plaza has been contentious for most of the past decade, with various experts disagreeing on whether the plaza, which was built in the late 1950s, can truly be considered "historical." Ultimately, the city decided that it is because it's a rare example of a Joseph Eichler commercial development. Eichler, a prominent builder who had his office at the site, emphasized open spaces, floor-to-ceiling windows, post-and-beam construction and sliding doors.

The redeveloper, John Tze of Sand Hill Property Company, apologized to the council for the unauthorized demolition, which he said was performed without his permission, and breaking his promise to the community. The construction company hired to work on the rehabilitation demolished the building on its own initiative after discovering "things that we didn't expect."

The company's historical consultant, J. Gordon Turnbull, also concluded that much of the building was "not repairable, was not in good condition and would need to be replaced with new materials to match the material, configuration, character and finish of the original."

Tze vowed to repair the damage caused by the demolition.

"I broke a trust," Tze said.

After an initial lawsuit years ago from area residents regarding historic preservation, Tze said, "everyone worked with me to build that trust." He said he would like to do "everything I can" to get the project moving along so that the new grocery store, Fresh Market, could move in as soon as possible.

"The demolition wasn't authorized by me or by the city but occurred because of the failure of my organization. I'm sorry it happened, and I take full responsibility."

Most council members agreed that, while there should be a penalty, the project shouldn't be held up any longer than necessary. Members asked staff to return at a later date with a proposed fine, an amount that would consider the economic benefits of building the new houses at Edgewood Plaza. In the meantime, Sand Hill will be allowed to proceed with the construction.

Residents had different ideas about how to handle the demolition, with some urging the council to move the project along and others calling for the council to hold the developer accountable for the breach. Area resident Robert Smith fell into the former camp and said he doesn't consider the destroyed building "historical."

"I think it's an example of '50s commercial architecture -- strip malls and so on," Smith said. "It was a failure. It didn't work for the people. It was an economic disaster for the stores here."

Jeff Levinsky, who also lives near Edgewood Plaza, took the opposite stance and asked the council to slow the project down and make sure it's done right. He called the demolition a "breakdown of the PC process in Palo Alto," referring to the controversial "planned community" zoning that allows developers to exceed city regulations in exchange for negotiated "public benefits." In the case of Edgewood Plaza, the main public benefits are a new grocery store and rehabilitation of historical buildings.

"This would be the most egregious example yet for a PC being violated," Levinsky said. "Let's get things going the right way."

By law, the city can issue a fine of about $10,000 for the illegal demolition, though the fine can be raised significantly for a demolition of a historic structure. The council agreed that this penalty falls far short of what the city should ask for. Sand Hill will also be required now to perform a supplemental Environmental Impact Report to account for the changing nature of the project.

Price opposed the proposal and urged her colleagues to put the brakes on the housing component of the plaza for the time being. She favored more severe consequences for Sand Hill.

The council's decision means that construction of the Edgewood Plaza grocery store remains on track. Fresh Market, a North Carolina-based chain, plans to open its first West Coast store at Edgewood Plaza in May.

Comments

jake
Community Center
on Mar 5, 2013 at 8:44 am
jake, Community Center
on Mar 5, 2013 at 8:44 am

99% of the residents are looking forward for a new mall/store in the area. The rest is a history!


Not an issue
Community Center
on Mar 5, 2013 at 8:54 am
Not an issue, Community Center
on Mar 5, 2013 at 8:54 am

And just out of curiosity, what were holman, price and schmid's plan? Stop the redevelopment? Discuss it for another year? Really the developer did us a favor getting rid of the eyesore.
Holman should recused herself anyway-- she was behind the infamous" everything in palo alto is historic" land grab attempt a dozen years ago. She is in way over head in the council.
Time to move on and finish this project


Developer is Brilliant
Ventura
on Mar 5, 2013 at 11:19 am
Developer is Brilliant, Ventura
on Mar 5, 2013 at 11:19 am

Personally, I think the developer knew exactly what he was doing, and he's brilliant. Remove an eyesore without permission, get a slap on the wrist, and FOR THE GREATER GOOD, build a better, more beautiful plaza because the eyesore is gone.


anonymous
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 5, 2013 at 11:52 am
anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 5, 2013 at 11:52 am

I watched the Council discussion "live" on tv last night.
I think, on balance, that it is correct for the developer to be able to move ahead. That said, they are considering financial and other penalties to the developer. A mistake was made but it should be kept in context of the overall project and incredible need to remake that center.
It is an eyesore at a major entrance to the City of PA.It is disruptive to the neighborhood for WAY too long a period.
Overall, I am stunned and shaking my head at the length of time the City has and is putting this developer through for this minor project on a small plot of land.
At the same time it IS important to those of us in the neighborhood to get something operational and decent and new there. It's WAY overdue. I object to punitive delays at this point. Overview is a good thing but micro-managing is crazy even with the "error" or "violation" that occurred.
The Eichler historic angle was minor in my view at this center, in this case (as someone who previously has owned multiple Eichlers and likes the style). The center was an eyesore previously and I couldn't see the particular value of that building.


Sheri
Midtown
on Mar 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Sheri, Midtown
on Mar 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm

"I think it is time something happened there," Kniss said.

This is how Alma Plaza became what it is now.


45 Year Resident
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm
45 Year Resident, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm

Newcomers don't realize that this used to be a vibrant little shopping area, with a good market, a hardware store, shoe store, restaurant, and other amenities. It was well kept up and attractive, unique, in fact. The fact that we're eager to have a market and a rejuvenated shopping area shouldn't mean that there's no penalty for breaking an agreement worked out with such difficulty and effort by both sides.

It's good that the project will continue on schedule, and also good that the Council hasn't ignored the violation the way some short-shighted people evidently would like it to.


lazlo
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 5, 2013 at 6:59 pm
lazlo, Old Palo Alto
on Mar 5, 2013 at 6:59 pm

Once again greed trumps history in Palo Alto. With 53% of Palo Alto residents registered as renters (2010 Gov't Census) it's no wonder those posting will favor anything that meets their current needs as they will have moved on long before this project is completed and will no doubt spread their precious wisdom boldly in the next community they decide to shelter in. Councilmembers such as Klein and Kniss will proudly congratulate themselves for assuring the developers that history has no place in Palo Alto. Perhaps local print media might want to investigate whether certain councilmembers gave the developer authorization without penalty to demolish the historic portion of this project, but, it is doubtful the media is willing to diminish their valuable cozy relationship with city council. What a pity.


Kate
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 5, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Kate, Old Palo Alto
on Mar 5, 2013 at 7:13 pm

Most Palo Altans are unaware that the majority of its residents are renters. Renters don't care about the city, long term. Now Palo Alto is beginning to have a majority of its homeowners, non US citizens.


BobDole
Midtown
on Mar 5, 2013 at 7:57 pm
BobDole, Midtown
on Mar 5, 2013 at 7:57 pm

Shame on you Kate for your comment


jake
Community Center
on Mar 5, 2013 at 8:46 pm
jake, Community Center
on Mar 5, 2013 at 8:46 pm

"Renters don't care about the city, long term."
You forget the city relies on the support of the renters to pass these measures/bonds in the past and possibly more in the future. The correct statement is "Renters don't care about the home owners"

"Now Palo Alto is beginning to have a majority of its homeowners, non US citizens."
If you think the majority of the renters in PA are US citizens, you're probably very wrong. Majority of them don't live in a house like you do,
Katie!


Build a bigger park
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 5, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Build a bigger park, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 5, 2013 at 9:26 pm

To the people who are looking forward to a beautiful shopping center, I wonder how you know it will be a beautiful. Are most of the the houses being built around town beautiful? or the stores? Nope.
A tiny park has been designed. New Councilman Berman picked up on a neighbor's suggestion to enlarge the park by postponing the construction of 2 specific houses since the developer is postponing construction of 4 houses). Enlarging the park would be an appropriate public benefit which he owes, a real benefit, not just a token.


Crescent Park Dad
Crescent Park
on Mar 5, 2013 at 10:26 pm
Crescent Park Dad, Crescent Park
on Mar 5, 2013 at 10:26 pm

If you make him redesign the project (i.e., enlarge the park), then you end up delaying the project. Would it be fair to say that you're against any housing on the site?

The city approved the plan, you can't move the goalposts in the middle of the game. He committed a foul, so fine him as per city rules. You can't go around and make up new ways to penalize someone after the fact.


Not an issue
Community Center
on Mar 5, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Not an issue, Community Center
on Mar 5, 2013 at 11:38 pm

Kate-- how is your ankylosimg spondylitis ? What do the CEOs of major corporations that you Met in Europe say?


Build a bigger park
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:00 am
Build a bigger park, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:00 am

Crescent Park Dad, its a pity you didn't listen to the developer at the city council. HE SAID he was only going to build 6 of the 10 houses. The suggestion was that the land on two of those not built become part of the park.
How long would it take for computer-aided designers to enlarge a park? an hour? This is an easy fix and would be a real benefit for us.
Who is moving the goalposts? John Tze said he took responsibility for the demolition -whatever that means. He's so sad he broke the law.
The city council gave him permission to go ahead anyway, and the punishment for breaking the law will be a fine, sometime in the future. No wonder Jim Baer and others do whatever they want. They know no one will stop them, certainly not Larry Klein or Greg Scharff or Nancy Shepherd.
The grocery market construction is to continue uninterrupted.


palo alto parent
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:05 am
palo alto parent, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 6, 2013 at 11:05 am

I'm glad this project is continuing and I wish the building had been knocked down years ago. It would have eliminated having an embarrassing eyesore at one of the main entrances to Palo Alto for what, 8-10 years? We could have had a wonderful, community shopping center all this time.


Matt M
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 13, 2013 at 11:36 am
Matt M, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 13, 2013 at 11:36 am

It is unbelievable that people consider Edge-wood Plaza a historical landmark at this point. Downtown Palo Alto wouldn't exist if we were opposed to redeveloping out-dated buildings. This was never a beautiful project, it was just another 1950's commercial style development. Yes it has been around for a long period of time, but this new project is designed in the same tradition to keep that feel without making that entire city block look like an uninhabitable crack den.


Mike
Downtown North
on Mar 13, 2013 at 11:37 am
Mike, Downtown North
on Mar 13, 2013 at 11:37 am

I am a Palo Alto homeowner living within .5 miles of the project and believe that the city council members opposed to allowing the project to proceed should be ashamed. Every local resident I spoke to surrounding the project was in favor of proceeding and were thrilled when the news broke of the redevelopment. I am glad they get to proceed and quite frankly believe that they did us a favor by tearing down a horrible eyesore.


OhlonePar
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 13, 2013 at 2:40 pm
OhlonePar, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 13, 2013 at 2:40 pm

Plenty of PA renters have lived here for years--and, yes, plenty of them are Americans. It's extremely expensive to buy here in case you haven't noticed.

But, anyway, developer should be fined and the construction should continue because otherwise we have a large construction site just sitting there that does no one any good. Certainly, it doesn't do me any good as a local home owner. Having a place to shop and get coffee in walking distance will help, however.

And the old center may have been built by Eichler, but his strength as a developer wasn't in shopping centers.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.