Those who destroy history are bound to restore it.
So decreed the Palo Alto City Council on Monday night as it voted to use a penalty from an illegal demolition at Edgewood Plaza to fund a future restoration of a historical building.
By a 7-1 vote, with Karen Holman recusing herself because of prior connection with the Palo Alto History Museum and Pat Burt dissenting, the council voted to use the $94,200 fee from the developer Sand Hill Property Company to finance a restoration project, which could include repainting the historic downtown transit station; replacing the bricks at the Lucie Stern Community Center; supporting the remodeling of the Roth Building or rehabilitating the downtown post office, should the city succeed in its bid to purchase the site from the U.S. Postal Service.
The council agreed to impose the $94,200 penalty last month to punish the company for its demolition of an Joseph Eichler-style commercial building at Edgewood Plaza, a recently approved "planned community" project that includes a grocery store (now occupied by Fresh Market), two commercial buildings that were constructed in the 1950s and 10 homes. The developer was charged with rehabilitating one commercial building at its current site and reconstructing the other one on a different site, using the same materials. Instead, Sand Hill's contractor illegally demolished the building in September 2012, effectively destroying one of few examples of an Eichler's commercial building.
During subsequent hearings, the council and the city's planning boards downplayed the impact of the demolition, noting that the destroyed building was badly damaged and that Sand Hill will build a new structure that will very much resemble the one built by Eichler. They also agreed, however, that Sand Hill must pay a penalty for violating the terms of its "planned community" agreement, which exchanges zoning concessions for negotiated "public benefits," which in this case included historical preservation. Last month, the council set the penalty at $94,200, about 10 percent of the construction cost.
This week, they considered how to spend the money. One option was using it to design a new sidewalk on West Bayshore Avenue, stretching from Channing Avenue plaza to the San Francisquito Creek on the East Palo Alto border. The project has an estimated price tag of $473,000 and the money would have been used for design work.
Councilman Pat Burt favored this option, arguing that the penalty funds should be spent on a project near the impacted site. Others argued that while the project is laudable, it should be pursued through the city's regular capital-improvement process. Councilman Larry Klein argued that there hasn't been enough outreach done (the city's survey brought back only six responses and there were only two public speakers for this item at Monday's hearing).
"Clearly, we do not have the attention of the neighborhood and I think we need to do a lot more work before we start spending money on it," Klein said.
He joined the council majority in supporting historical restoration as the best use for the funds. Councilman Greg Schmid suggested this approach, calling historical restoration of a project "as close to the site as possible, makes a lot of sense." Councilwoman Liz Kniss concurred.
"This isn't a great deal of money. This isn't even $100,000. But given that it's a mitigation for historic demolition, it should be given for historic restoration," Kniss said.
Comments
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 19, 2013 at 11:16 am
on Nov 19, 2013 at 11:16 am
This is beyond ridiculous. Finally the shopping center is looking very nice and does not make the neighborhood cringe. If the City Council would just get out of the way, things would be even a lot better and completed much sooner. Surely it has other things to do besides getting involved in a "civic game of trivial pursuit'!! This city council is off-the-planet! and like sandpaper in the shoe.
Palo Verde
on Nov 19, 2013 at 11:30 am
on Nov 19, 2013 at 11:30 am
Bricks at Lucie Stern? If the penalty is for destroying a piece of Eichler history, how about keeping restoration close to the project in terms of restoring or preserving something from the mid-century modern time period? We are losing these extremely livable houses to deterioration AND to bulldozers and nothing modern is going in their place. Take a drive along Ross Road and see the stucco and tile roof monstrosities crammed onto their lots.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 19, 2013 at 11:38 am
on Nov 19, 2013 at 11:38 am
How about a fine for destroying all the wonderful old houses to build huge modern monstrosities? Take a drive down Lowell, Tennyson, Seale, Cowper etc. if you're stuck for examples.
And feel free to join our Name Game where we name these ugly buildings: Containership Modern, Stables of Versailles, Casa Magnificaca....
Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 19, 2013 at 11:56 am
on Nov 19, 2013 at 11:56 am
"How about a fine for destroying all the wonderful old houses to build huge modern monstrosities? Take a drive down Lowell, Tennyson, Seale, Cowper etc. if you're stuck for examples.""
Silly--do people have the right to do with their property as they wish--including building a new, modern home? Or do you decide what people can do with their homes? What you call a "huge modern monstrosity" is the home of their dreams for the owner. But that does not matter--it is all about you and what you desire.
"And feel free to join our Name Game where we name these ugly buildings: Containership Modern, Stables of Versailles, Casa Magnificaca...."
Very intelligent. I assume you are talking about all the Eichlers in town and all the abominations that line the streets of Professorville and Old Palo Alto.
People like silly think that the homes in Palo Alto are something special--in fact most of the old ones are hideous, disgusting, revolting, vomit-inducing buildings that would be best be scraped and replaced
Old Palo Alto
on Nov 19, 2013 at 12:34 pm
on Nov 19, 2013 at 12:34 pm
"Who is" wonders:
do people have the right to do with their property as they wish-
Of course they do!
And the rest of us have the right to express an opinion about their overblown poor taste.
Yes, Containership Modern, Stables of Versailles, Casa Magnificaca and add McMansion.
College Terrace
on Nov 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm
on Nov 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm
""Who is" wonders:
do people have the right to do with their property as they wish-
Of course they do!"
Not according to silly-- he/she wants to fine them!!!!!
I thought palo Altoans discouraged name calling-- not civil they say. But denigrating people's homes is okay?
Palo Verde
on Nov 19, 2013 at 2:10 pm
on Nov 19, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Back to my point which was meant to suggest keeping with the historical style that is being mitigated in this case. The quote from Liz Kniss says as much:
"...But given that it's a mitigation for historic demolition, it should be given for historic restoration," Kniss said
I didn't see that reflected in the suggested restorations.
another community
on Nov 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm
on Nov 19, 2013 at 4:57 pm
If you build 100 ready made homes in the style Containership Modern, Stables of Versailles, Casa Magnificaca and add McMansion. You would have buyers flocking, instead of you want in Palo Alto and own one of the above. Remodel city is the rule of the day, little outdated tract homes that were built when people owned less.
Watching any home improvement or real estate show on HGTV, you will know what I am talking about.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 20, 2013 at 11:44 am
on Nov 20, 2013 at 11:44 am
I never suggested fining anyone and reserve the right to my opinion.
I own a Birge Clark and if you think that's vomit-inducing, have I got some sparkly cottage cheese ceilings and fake balconies for you. I still giggle at the new 2-story house on a 1/4 acre lot with an entire stairway wall with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the neighbors' rooftops. Better get dressed before you go downstairs to get your coffee or walk down the hall or give your neighbors a thrill.
It might have been great in the woods somewhere but not on our dense little lots. Even the realtor laughed at it!
You may recall our discussion about the influx of Asian buyers who only want "the newer and bigger the better." Well, big isn't always better no matter what HGTV or your realtor says,
Adobe-Meadow
on Nov 20, 2013 at 12:26 pm
on Nov 20, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Silly says:
"I never suggested fining anyone and reserve the right to my opinion. "
Silly previously said:
""How about a fine for destroying all the wonderful old houses to build huge modern monstrosities? "
So who were you wanting to fine, Silly??
"I own a Birge Clark and if you think that's vomit-inducing"
I do and reserve the right to my opinion.
"I still giggle at the new 2-story house on a 1/4 acre lot with an entire stairway wall with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the neighbors' rooftops."
You must be easily amused. Of course that is the house that the owner wanted--too bad you could not have final say.
"Even the realtor laughed at it!"
Which realtor? Please provide a name.
"You may recall our discussion about the influx of Asian buyers who only want "the newer and bigger the better.""
All the asians do? Only Asians? Please provide some evidence for that claim
Do you and your fellow lovers of vomit-inducing that passes for architecture in Palo Alto sit around playing you rname game?
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 20, 2013 at 12:58 pm
on Nov 20, 2013 at 12:58 pm
I guess I did say "how about fining" but I was being sarcastic.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm
on Nov 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm
The house with the 2-story window wall is on either Seale or Tennyson a block or 2 closer to Alma than Middlefield on the north side of the street.
Don't remember the realtors' name and I forget whether it was the same realtor who handled the McDonald's Golden Arches stucco house where they finally got the spec developer to take down the huge arches in the front yard when it failed to sell in an otherwise hot market. The floor-to-ceiling windows in the teeny tiny "bedrooms" facing the street was a real nice touch on that one,
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Nov 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm
on Nov 20, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Do we sit around playing the Name Game? Nope, but when we drive around or check out open houses, sometimes the temptation is irresistible.
That's not to say there isn't SOME nice new construction.