News


Palo Alto residents to demand fines for Edgewood Plaza developer

Neighbors plan to speak at City Council meeting on Monday

Fed up with the lack of a grocery store at Palo Alto's Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center (at 2080 Channing Ave.), residents are mobilizing to put pressure on the City Council to fine the developer for not finding an operator to replace Fresh Market, which closed on March 31.

More than 70 residents met on Thursday, Aug. 20, to plan strategies for convincing the council to fine developer, Sand Hill Property Company, for violating the terms of its "planned community" ordinance.

Sand Hill will be out of compliance with the ordinance if it does not have a grocery store within six months, said Jeff Levinsky, one of the residents leading the campaign. He and other organizers encouraged the residents to arrive en masse on Monday to urge the council to take action.

Sand Hill received the planned community zoning change, which allowed it to build housing on the commercial property and renovate the historic Eichler commercial center, in exchange for certain "public benefits," including maintaining a full-service grocery store. Fresh Market, a high-end grocer, opened to much fanfare in June 2013, but the East Coast-based company chose to close all of its California stores in order to concentrate on its expansion in the East and Midwest.

Since then, Sand Hill has said it has contacted numerous grocers but cannot find any takers to assume the Fresh Market lease. But residents aren't buying it.

Sand Hill still gets paid by Fresh Market, which holds a 10-year lease on the building, even if the grocery store is not operational. Levinsky said that John Tze of Sand Hill has indicated the current rent is $1.65 per square foot ($34,000 a month).

Residents say a penalty would perhaps motivate the developer to try harder or reduce the monthly lease payments as an incentive. But the situation could be complicated if Fresh Market chooses to hold the lease and sublet at the current rate or higher, the residents noted. Tze has said Fresh Market is asking $56,000 a month from new tenants, Levinsky said.

Edgewood does not have a specific penalty in its planned community ordinance, but the city could require a $500-a-day payment as a zoning violation, Mayor Karen Holman wrote in a letter to the residents, which Levinsky read at the meeting.

The council could choose to modify the ordinance. College Terrace Centre, a recently approved planned community development at 2180 El Camino Real that has as its public benefit a full-service grocery store, faces a $2,000-a-day penalty if the grocery store is vacant for more than six months every five years, Holman said.

Residents said the city should scale the penalty to the size of the grocery store. To make the penalty comparable to that of College Terrace, the Edgewood fine would be about $5,000 a day, they said.

Addressing a rumor that Sand Hill is considering a Target Express for the grocery-store site, Holman said that any proposal that is not clearly a grocery store would not satisfy the ordinance.

If the city does not lean on the developer, residents have another alternative, Levinsky said. Those who live in the neighboring Eichler housing tract could vote to amend the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which govern what can be done with properties within the tract. The CC&Rs can be amended to put additional conditions on the site.

The commercial sites also get to vote, Levinsky said.

"It may well be the salvation to keeping a grocery store there," Levinsky said.

The City of Palo Alto has a dedicated webpage, www.cityofpaloalto.org/edgewood, where staff will post latest information on the shopping center. The site also has a form for the community to sign up to receive email updates. So far, the city has had about 125 plus sign ups, spokewoman Claudia Keith said.

Comments

25 people like this
Posted by Enough is Enough
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 23, 2015 at 11:31 pm

I commend the neighborhood for having the courage to stand up to Sand Hill Developers. Several years ago, 3 neighbors waged a lawsuit against Sand Hill since their C C & Rs specifically designated that Edgewood Plaza not have residential housing (see previous online articles). Sand Hill's response? Bully the neighborhood by filing a counter suit against those three individual homeowners. To settle the case, less homes were built but those 3 neighbors are now prohibited from speaking out against Sand Hill as part of the settlement. What a racket! Who wants a bully in their neighborhood?


24 people like this
Posted by Long Time Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 24, 2015 at 12:16 am

What a nightmare for everyone!
Residents, Fresh Market, small businesses, and the city.
No one likes blight, or an an empty property for so many years.

The size restriction discourages many grocery stores from taking the risk to open a store at that location.

It is sad to hear that Fresh Market has to pay this much money.
Unbelievable.

But I do believe that the developer contacted Raley's (Nob Hill).
Maybe residents should contact the real estate offices of Raley's themselves to try and convince them it would be profitable to open a store there. I did.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 7:01 am

In the UK, one of the major supermarket chains, Tesco, has opened mini markets, or convenience store markets in residential areas and called them Tesco Express. This chain within a chain has proved itself successful providing dinner selections, breakfast necessities and other grab and go items in the neighborhoods poorly served by existing retail.

I suspect this type of market is what would flourish here.


12 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of another community
on Aug 24, 2015 at 7:55 am

Good luck in trying to find someone to rent that building at almost $800,000 per year. Small parking lot. Buildings should have been torn down and homes should have been built there.


16 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 24, 2015 at 8:23 am

A Target express would be perfect; and possibly the only ones who can afford the exorbitant rents. Just remember Palo Alto, you're not all that!


18 people like this
Posted by Kerry
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 24, 2015 at 8:50 am

How about Ranch 99?


11 people like this
Posted by pacsailor
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 9:16 am

Palo Alto set a max size of grocery stores to 20,000 sqft, this has discouraged many grocers to open stores in Palo Alto, because the profit margins at grocery stores is very thin and a small store does not generate enough volume to allow for enough margin to operate a store.


27 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 9:20 am

I can't stop chuckling to myself.....I would love to see Sand Hill Properties, God rot them, get fined.

I just hope the City Council fines them enough that it really hurts--like $50 million or more. They need to learn the hard way that they are not above the rules.

If they do not get fined, we will know that someone in the city leadership is in their pocket.


14 people like this
Posted by No Secret
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 9:37 am

@LOL said:

"If they do not get fined, we will know that someone in the city leadership is in their pocket."

Gee, who might be in a developers pocket in our city leadership... Hmm...


1 person likes this
Posted by JA3+
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:25 am

"In the UK, one of the major supermarket chains, Tesco, has opened mini markets, or convenience store markets in residential areas and called them Tesco Express. This chain within a chain has proved itself successful ..."

Perhaps you are kidding? Tesco's been in the news a lot of late in the UK; but, the news is nearly all bad. Here's a 19 August '15 article from Reuters:
Web Link


12 people like this
Posted by six of one
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:44 am

To me this whole issue is that Palo Alto has reaped what they sewed. As another poster pointed out, Palo Alto has limited the size of grocery stores. most chains see this and say "no thanks". And dosen't palo alto believe that chain stores are evil? so why the desire for a chain store there? It should be a mom and pop grocery store.
But maybe I am missing something. The article clearly states that Fresh Market has a 10 year lease. Perhaps Karen Holman and these neighbors should explain how the developer is supposed to lease a store he does not hold the lease to. I am sure in her wisdom she has not considered that reality, in her desire to appease vocal neighbors of the center.
Then Holman states that The council could choose to modify the ordinance, to increase the penalty. Can they really, retroactively?? Has she actually consulted the city attorney to see if all that is legal. Or is she just stating what the neighbors want to hear.
This just demonstrates to me that Holman may be, once again, out of touch, on this issue.
Anyway, Palo alto has no one to blame but themselves for this issu
Also the article states that Edgewood does not have a specific penalty in its planned community ordinance, but the city could require a $500-a-day payment as a zoning violation. Where does Holman come up with that idea?


9 people like this
Posted by moi
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:49 am

Interesting conundrum. Where's the incentive for Sand Hill to hustle?: "Sand Hill still gets paid by Fresh Market, which holds a 10-year lease on the building, even if the grocery store is not operational. Levinsky said that John Tze of Sand Hill has indicated the current rent is $1.65 per square foot ($34,000 a month)."


5 people like this
Posted by moo
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:53 am

How's about a Mega-Fran's Market?


14 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:00 am

I would suggest that every resident within 1 mile who does not shop at any new market that goes in, be fined on a weekly basis (amount to be determined by the new market) for not shopping there.

This will assure the new tenant that there will be enough business to support the risk of starting a new enterprise in an area that typically fails because of all the competition close by.

These people need to get over themselves. They have no right to demand the owners of this property put in a market. No one wants to take up the lease (the owner has contacted many potential market tenants). Maybe the neighbors can form a grocery coop and negotiate a lease, hire people to manage and staff it and fill it with every item they want.

This entitlement mentality is an example of the "I live in Palo Alto, therefore I'm special" crowd. Safeway, Mollie Stones, Grocery Outlet and Trader Joe's are all relatively close by. Do what others do and go patronize them.


9 people like this
Posted by enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02 am

Please NO Ranch 99. I went into the Mountain View store yesterday and it was really bad. It smelled bad, it was dark, dingy and just not a pleasant place to be!!!! I walked to the back of the store, the smell got worse, and I turned around and walked out. After the beautiful store that was Fresh Market, which had something for everybody, something like that would be a tremendous let down.


13 people like this
Posted by enough!
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:06 am

I think The Fresh Market should be sued for bugging out early. Contrary to what some believe, that market was actually making a good profit for an 18 month old supermarket. The pull out was an ego move by a new CEO who replaced the guy who expanded that company into California. I am not the only person who was quite upset when they left. It was a bit expensive, but it had great butcher and deli departments.


4 people like this
Posted by Richard Carpenter
a resident of another community
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:11 am

My folks bought a home on Edgewood Drive back in 1959 when I was 12 years old. Cost of the home was about
$19,000. I just finished up my 6th grade at Mayfield Elementary and was going in to the 7th grade at Jordan Junior
High School. When we moved in, there was a lot of construction going on at Edgewood Plaza. I saw the big
refridgeration units and assumed it was a skating rink. Wishful thinking of a 12 year old. We came to learn that
Lucky's was building a grocery store there to serve the community. It was convenient and most of the residents were grateful. There was a Pharmacy, Dry Cleaners and some other small stores. Most of our shopping was at Midtown on Middlefield road. The monthly rent seems quite high so I think the owners have a responsibility to have some kind of incentive for a Grocery Store to move in. I'm sure the storewas profitable since there wasn't much competition close by. The reasons for Fresh Market closing, easn't because of lack of profitability, but consolidating to meet the need of the East Coast and South markets. I hope a Grocery Store goes in because the people of the Edgewood Drive community really need one. My parents have passed on so we no longer live there. My mother sold the house right after that God Awful multi story appartment/Condo complex went in along the creekside.
Good luck to the people in the Edgewood Drive neighborhood.

Rick Carpenter


29 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:12 am

"They have no right to demand the owners of this property put in a market."

Au contraire, they have every right. Edgewood Plaza is a Planned Community development. The grocery store is a condition for granting its developer extraordinary and financially valuable building concessions. The developer signed a binding agreement with his eyes wide open. He has a legal contract to host a grocery.

Or do you not believe in the integrity of contracts?


13 people like this
Posted by Corruption at City Hall
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:19 am

The city staff was outsmarted by a shrewd developer, once again. And the losers are the residents of Palo Alto. Time to fire the incompetent Planning Director Gittleman and City Manager Keene. [Portion removed.]


6 people like this
Posted by six of one
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:35 am

"Or do you not believe in the integrity of contracts?"
What about the contract that Fresh Market has with the developer to lease the site for 10 years. Should the developer not honor the contract to appease some local residents?

BTW I agree with enough and 38 year resident's comments above


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


6 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:46 am

Slow Down is a registered user.

@six of one and @enough - Fresh Market is honoring their lease, and paying their rent. What are you going to sue them for?

However, this piece of info won't make you happier. According to an email from the developer, shared with the neighborhood email list, Fresh Market has a broker trying to find a new lessee. They are asking $2.75, substantially more that the $1.65 they are paying.

Quote from email, "Fresh Market is paying $1.65 per sq. ft. per month, quite a reasonable rate for a grocer and far less than our other tenants. I learned yesterday from their broker that FM is asking $2.75 or 67% more than they're paying (and no, this doesn't make them evil)."

That is not the way to lure a grocer into a marginal location...


10 people like this
Posted by New leaf please
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:48 am

I'm visualizing new leaf :-) a wonderful health food store that I think would thrive in Palo Alto like it does in Santa Cruz........


8 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 12:29 pm

I second that idea---I love New Leaf, and go to the Half Moon Bay store monthly.

It would a wonderful alternative to Whole Paycheck.


10 people like this
Posted by Chris
a resident of University South
on Aug 24, 2015 at 12:30 pm

Fresh and Easy in the U.S. went bankrupt several years ago. Ron Burkle owns the remaining stores.

A Target would sell food and a lot of other things. I'm not sure why people would complain about it. It would be very convenient for Palo Alto residents. How much food does it need to sell to qualify?

I don't think the location works for 99 Ranch, but if the business is successful, why is there a concern about the smell?
The comment is on the verge of racist - can we please leave race out of this discussion?


5 people like this
Posted by Chris
a resident of University South
on Aug 24, 2015 at 12:34 pm

If Fresh Market holds a current lease, does Palo Alto have an issue with Sand Hill or Fresh Market?

I would like to see this issue handled as a win-win situation. I don't like the tendency of Palo Alto residents to go for fines and lawsuits without making a good faith effort to resolve the situation first. Lawyers must love Palo Alto residents.


Like this comment
Posted by Investigation
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 24, 2015 at 12:35 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


4 people like this
Posted by Joseph E. Davis
a resident of Woodside
on Aug 24, 2015 at 12:52 pm

I agree with the suggestions that Palo Alto residents who do not shop at the new market be fined. That will effectively demonstrate the commitment of the town council to local business.

It would further the climate goals of the town council if residents who drive to the market are fined as well. In fact, perhaps it should be made mandatory to both shop at the new market and take public transport to it.

Palo Altans of all neighborhoods will then discover a new sense of community camaraderie.


Like this comment
Posted by Fresh&easy
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 24, 2015 at 1:07 pm

Having a Fresh & Easy in that spot would be terrific. I have a few friends living in Sunnyvale and they say it's a lot more convenient than making the trip to Safeway - AND it's open 24 hours. Given the size of the space, Fresh & Easy would be a wonderful addition to Palo Alto.


Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Mountain View
on Aug 24, 2015 at 1:10 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

It would probably spoil the Palo Alto image. Dollar Tree would work in that location spot. They have expanded in to food along with the regular items sold at their locations. They ever sell frozen and refrigerated food too.


Like this comment
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 24, 2015 at 1:58 pm

Joining the chorus of disappointed nearby neighbors, I think there is a dilemma but it should be resolved on the side of common sense.
So the developer had a deal requiring him to have a grocery there, he did so temporarily, now HE still gets money from an existing lease although the store is unoccupied, though not through a lack of business success at this location....OK, why not "split the difference"in some fashion. Why not modify the PC deal/terms so to make SOMETHING agreeable happen at that location? It is AWFUL to have an empty store. I oppose a low-grade discount tenant or marginal business like nail salon, 24-hour gym. How about coming to an agreement with the developer, requiring the developer to accept some sort of mid-way lease or terms or tenant that is slightly different but not a downgrade. The developer has made a handsome profit through the sale of the homes there, very quickly, too. WE Palo Alto nearby residents are the ones who are suffering. The developer is now out of compliance though cashing in, surely there is something we Palo Alto taxpayers and residents can do about this! City Hall -- this should be high on your agenda NOW. No more waiting around for years with a derelict, empty commercial space!


3 people like this
Posted by 57 year resident
a resident of University South
on Aug 24, 2015 at 2:01 pm

I grew up in south Palo Alto and the Lucky's at this location was where we bought all of groceries. It is an important location for residents who live too far to walk or bike to other stores. That aside, the developer also flouted his agreement with the city and "accidentally " tore down the historic Eichler offices there.
New Leaf would be great, or a Pacific Northwest chain, New Seasons, is like Whole Foods but less commercial-feeling.
I think Fresh Market should be sued for making the store so much harder to lease by charging so much more than they are paying.


13 people like this
Posted by Larry Kavinoky
a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 24, 2015 at 2:07 pm

If a condition of the PC zoning was to have a grocery store then the developer should be required to adjust the rents so that a grocery store may survive. It should not be a question of "if a grocery store can afford the rent". The developer must sell to a buyer who will keep a grocery store open. Let the developer lose his shirt if he is unwilling or unable to comply with zoning requirements. What is wrong with our City Council that writes these contracts that hurt the citizens who voted them in?


Like this comment
Posted by Scholar
a resident of Menlo Park
on Aug 24, 2015 at 2:28 pm

LOL -- best comment (5 hrs ago)


2 people like this
Posted by palo alto resident
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 24, 2015 at 2:37 pm

The developer leased the site to a grocery store and continues to receive rent from them. It is now up to Fresh Market to fill the space, but they want to make money on their lease. Its already a small location to operate without much margin, the higher sublease cost will make it even harder!


2 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 24, 2015 at 2:49 pm

"If a condition of the PC zoning was to have a grocery store then the developer should be required to adjust the rents so that a grocery store may survive."

The developer is only required to provide a store. The business details are his own business.

The government does not need to micromanage everything?


3 people like this
Posted by Agenda
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 3:20 pm

I am confused. The developer has 6 months to find a replacement. The 6 months are not up until the end of September. So why are we talking about punitive measures now? Why are certain neighbors clamor ing for fines and punishment, when the agreed upon time has not yet lapsed. Why is our mayor issuing statements that the city can levy fines and change existent regulations? Is she not aware of the timeline or,is she playing politics.
Also, the lease is held by fresh market. Can the developer lease the building to someone else?
Finally, let's not forget the lesson of mikis-- the store opened, the public stayed away and the store closed. Are the neighbors t,hat are clamor ing for a grocery store also guaranteeing that a large percentage of the residents of the area will shop at this new store, therefore keeping it viable.
What if a new store opens and does not get support from area residents? Will the developer have to find another store to,take its place. Putting the entire onus on the developer is not fair.


3 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 24, 2015 at 4:07 pm

I have no idea if Sand Hill has discussed this idea with Fresh Market...

If the above statements are true, FM is obligated to a 10-year lease. I would hazard to guess that they in lieu of lease getting canceled outright, they would be happy to significantly reduce their payments by supplementing the full rent costs of the next grocer.

Just an idea...


5 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2015 at 4:58 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@Crescent Park Dad - Not so sure about that. If Fresh Market gets someone in at $2.75, they can profit $3-4 million on the lease. Fresh Market believes they got a below market value lease from Sand Hill, that's why their broker is asking for a 67% premium on the sublet.

A 10 year below market lease is an asset. If they can subnet at a profit, it is worth it for them to sit on the empty space for couples years waiting for someone willing to rent, and for neighborhood opposition to soften.

@Agenda - Why not deal with the problem openly now, and hopefully never get to punitive measures?


3 people like this
Posted by Agenda
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 5:31 pm

Slow down-- agree about dealing with the matter openly now. But why are we hearing that some neighbors are pushing for punitive measures? And the mayor, who should be providing leadership, is talking about fines and cnanging rules. Political maneuver or does she not understand what is going on.
A couple of other issues-- maybe the city attorney should look into what actions are available to the developer given that he does not own the lease on the building.
Also if we are going to have an open discussion, we should discuss how much support the new market can expect from the neighbors in the area. I would have thought we would have learned something from the miki debacle.


5 people like this
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2015 at 5:52 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@Agenda - it might be helpful to establish now what the punitive measures will be, and that they will really happen in order to nudge the process along. The reason Sand Hill gave the good deal to Fresh Market on the lease was so they could start selling the houses. Now there is no incentive to do anything, so looming fines might spur action.


2 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2015 at 8:14 pm

This doesn't seem hard. Who has a responsibility for a grocery? Sand Hill or the tenant? If it's the tenant, then it's up to them to reduce the rent until they find someone to sublease. If it's Sand Hill and they didn't write the responsibility to OPERATE a grocery into their lease, then Sand Hill just needs to subsidize the rent of whatever operating grocery subtenant comes along. It would be funny if Sand Hill has a responsibility for an operating grocery and Fresh Market has no responsibility to operate a market and Fresh Market has the right to charge whatever rent they want for the remainder of their lease term. If that's true it's just more evidence that Sand Hill is not competent.


3 people like this
Posted by No Wool here
a resident of Professorville
on Aug 25, 2015 at 12:43 am

Anyone claiming that this problem isn't the developer's because Fresh Market has a 10 year lease is missing the point. The developer can, and should have put terms in the lease ensuring that a grocery tenant occupied the spot.

Let me be clear about this: The landlord had the ability to ensure that a grocer was occupying the spot when creating the lease. Saying oh well, no longer their problem absolves them of their responsibility when they had every power of ensuring it.

If I sublet my property, the bank (like the city) shouldn't care about the tenant<->landlord contract. It doesn't matter to the landlord<->bank (or city) contract.

So, yes, the developer should be fined such that the CC&R is treated seriously. Didn't set it up right? Too bad.


4 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 25, 2015 at 3:33 am

Why would SHPC ever rent it out ... currently they have no repairs,
no complaints, no problems, no wear and and tear ... what a
nightmare?

CPD's idea is good, but how to do you find another grocery chain
and then work a deal ... it would be nice.

There has to be a limit to this, I am all for capitalism, but in the
end the reason it exists is to do thing for people and serve
human needs.

Get a market in there, and if there is a way to push penalties,
push them to the max as soon as possible, as SHPC is pushing
its lazy selfish do-nothing and collect rent to the max on the
backs of something that is not profitable that does not help
the economy. This is a kind of voodoo economics.

Thank goodness that someone had the good sense to put in
a clause about a market ... because most decisions in palo alto
seem to work against the public interest not for it.

I want a market back in there ASAP.


7 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 25, 2015 at 9:59 am

Chris may be right on the borderline racist comments from "enough" on the smell of a 99 Ranch Market. I shop the Grant Road and Homestead stores regularly. Of course they smell differently from a Safeway or any non-ethnic grocery store. The reason is the large fresh seafood component at the back of the market that has very fresh fish openly displayed as well as some of the dry preserved goods that have a unique herbal smell to them, none of which is offensive to 99% of the people that shop there. The markets are as clean as most and are well lit. There is a wide variety of freshly made baked goods and takeout, including roast duck, chicken, whole pig and an assortment of dinner item takeout very reasonably priced. I guess you need to appreciate chinese food for the takeout items. Maybe "enough" isn't a fan.


13 people like this
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 25, 2015 at 10:07 am

There was nothing racist about the Ranch99 observation. Give me a break.


1 person likes this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Aug 25, 2015 at 10:10 am

A resident of Cupertino who saw this article had the following to say about Sandhill and requirements for a huge project in Cupertino that did not end up being as originally promised!


"Sand Hill built Main Street in Cupertino. In order to get 15 feet extra height (increased from 45 feet to 60 feet), they are supposed to provide ground floor retail.
Now that the building is rented to Apple. They closed up the retail so it is accessible to Apple employees only.

And other ground floor retail in another project are badly designed so that it doesn't attract retail shops. The shops are too small with little parking.
Now they are talking about turning them into office."


2 people like this
Posted by six of one
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 25, 2015 at 10:38 am

The above statement from a Cupertino resident is not factual.

Main Street in Cupertimo is still under construction. Apple has leased two of the office buildings

Web Link
Web Link

I believe so far only one restaurant has signed on (Lazy Dog Bar and Grill).
So since the project is not complete and the retail space has not been rented out yet, it is hard to believed that is has been "Closed off for apple employees only".

"And other ground floor retail in another project are badly designed so that it doesn't attract retail shops. The shops are too small with little parking."
Which project is this?


8 people like this
Posted by Richard Carpenter
a resident of another community
on Aug 25, 2015 at 11:07 am

You know, Palo Alto is a cool community, a University Community, one of the finest communities in all of the USA.
My wife of 45 years lived on Fulton (Christmas Tree Lane) Like I said previously, I lived on Edgewood Drive from 1959 through 1968 the year I got married. My parents lived there until 2005, almost 45 years. Having a local grocery store meant a lot to us and even the folks in East Paly.
When I see people writing about suing, racism, it's the developers responsibility, it's the renters responsibility, etc.,
etc., it's just amazing how people deviate from the main problem and glomp on to something that's acusatory.It's just like the old adage says, when you point one accusatory finger, three are pointing back at you. I think if we all take a deep breath and a step back, coming to an equitable solution for all is where we want to be.

Respectfully Yours


Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 25, 2015 at 1:18 pm

Yes indeed!! THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE PARKING The lack of it is the fault of this know-it-all city government which demanded 'more housing" which the neighborhood didn't need. The previous grocery stores at least had ample parking and entrance from Channing. There ought to be an ordinance that City Hall keep its hands off development. It makes a total mess of things. Parking now at EWP is almost auto side-door to side-door facing Embarcadero and difficult to park, and entering the parking lot is a nightmare. I'll even drive to a Starbucks at Midtown and my old favorite cleaners rather than risk a fender bender at EWP. Also the Starbucks at EWP has few individual tables inside, lacks the opportunity for camaraderie, and is IMHO, very 'cold'. I wad told it was designated as a study-type place. Won't go there. Got reprimanded by a man 'studying" because my granddaughter was chatty.


Like this comment
Posted by Richard Carpenter
a resident of another community
on Aug 26, 2015 at 12:23 am

I guess 38 year old resident wants to turn this post in to a coming up with ideas and solutions in putting a grocery
store in to Edgewood Plaza, to a calling Chris out as a borderline racist. I don't think this serves any purpose. Ok
the 99 Ranch Market smells a little different than other store, so??????? Because a store smells a little different doesn't
make it a bad thing. Have you ever driven down to the Garlic festival. Ichamomma!
Ok back to the problem at hand.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 4,091 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,404 views

Can we ever improve our schools?
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 1,076 views