News


Andronico's drops plans to move into Palo Alto's Edgewood Plaza

Grocery retailer, developer have different view on why negotiations failed

Plans for A plan for Andronico's Community Markets to open a grocery store at Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center has apparently fizzled, with different takes from property owner Sand Hill Property Company and the would-be grocery tenant on why it did not succeed.

Developer John Tze of Sand Hill told residents in an email Monday night that Andronico's inexplicably pulled out of what both sides believed was a done deal except for the signing. But Andronico's told the Palo Alto Weekly that it was giving up after failing to reach a consensus after months of negotiations among Andronico's, Sand Hill and The Fresh Market, which retains the lease of space from Sand Hill but closed its store last year.

Tze has said his company can't control the negotiations and the sublease terms, and he has had difficulty finding a replacement grocer. In recent months, Tze had been hopeful that The Fresh Market and Andronico's had come to terms. Two weeks ago both companies had agreed on the sublease documents, he said. Both grocers just needed to reaffirm their board approvals and sign the contract, he added.

"I didn't anticipate having to write an email like this since we should have seen 'Coming Soon' signs go up, but only days ago Andronico's emailed all parties saying they decided not to move forward at this time," Tze wrote.

"I immediately called The Fresh Market, who was shocked by the email, too; they weren't aware of any issues and were scheduled for their own board approval in days. So I then asked Andronico's if there's anything we can do to get back on track and their CEO responded, 'Not at this time.' It made no sense," he wrote.

Tze said that he heard informally that "Andronico's may be buying a local grocery chain, which would increase their store count dramatically."

"I only guess that their board at the last minute decided moving forward with Edgewood too would overtax their resources. I'm very sorry we couldn't bring Andronico's, but Sand Hill remains committed and is working hard to find a desirable grocer," Tze said.

But Andronico's statement on the matter seemed to dispute those assertions.

"We've worked with The Fresh Market and the Edgewood Shopping Center for 6-7 months and could not get the three parties in alignment. We love the Palo Alto area and will continue to look for prospects in the south bay," company officials stated in an email.

Tze did not return requests for comment regarding Andronico's statement. But Drewry Sackett, The Fresh Market's public affairs manager, said, "We are disappointed that Andronico's no longer plans to take over the space at Edgewood Plaza. We will continue to work with Sand Hill Property Company to pursue other interests."

The grocery store space, located at 2080 Channing Ave., which has been vacant for more than a year after tenant The Fresh Market closed shop in March 2015, has been a major concern for nearby residents who want a grocery store in the renovated shopping center, as was promised when Sand Hill was granted a "planned-community" (PC) zoning designation.

Sand Hill received the designation, which allowed the developer to build homes along the north edge of the shopping center, in exchange for keeping a grocery store on the site as a "public benefit."

The shopping center, a rare example of a retail development by Joseph Eichler, was finally thriving after years of vacancy and decay. But The Fresh Market, an East Coast high-end grocery chain, shut down the store in Palo Alto after just six months as part of a larger business strategy that resulted in the closure of all of its California stores as the company receded back to is eastern and Midwest base. Fresh Market holds a 10-year lease to the grocery store building and was to sublet to Andronico's.

Residents, who had successfully lobbied the city to fine Sand Hill $1,000 per day for not having an operating grocer, which is a violation of its PC zoning ordinance, again expressed their displeasure with Sand Hill's failure to find a grocer.

"It's been over a year now that we've had no grocery store at Edgewood Plaza, despite the developer being required by law to provide one," residents Carla Carvalho and Jeff Levinsky wrote in an emailed statement. "Sand Hill Properties needs to be open with the community about what terms it is offering grocers, because many fear it's aiming to evade its commitments by claiming no grocer is interested."

City of Palo Alto officials released a statement Wednesday calling the failed negotiations "unfortunate." The City was not involved in the negotiations and does not have access to the specific terms of any agreement, the statement noted.

However, "Sand Hill Property Company continues to be in breach of its agreement with the City to establish and maintain a grocery store at this location," officials said.

Since Sept. 30, the city has assessed Sand Hill $193,250 in penalties and has collected $179,250 for violating the planned-community ordinance. Sand Hill has been responding with timely payments, the city noted.

But officials seem to be eyeing other strategies to get a grocer at Edgewood.

"City staff are exploring options to encourage a resolution to this violation and anticipates making a report to the council within the next several months," officials wrote.

The Fresh Market has also been going through changes. Equity firm Apollo Global Management announced plans on March 14 to buy the specialty grocery chain in an all-cash deal valued at approximately $1.4 billion, according to multiple business media reports.

An investor filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Fresh Market and Apollo on April 11, alleging breach of fiduciary duty because Apollo is to pay $28.50 per share to investors in the buyout, which the lawsuit claims is considerably lower than its share value just prior to the agreement.

Comments

39 people like this
Posted by Hunger Pangs
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2016 at 10:52 am

Hunger Pangs is a registered user.

I had a feeling this was what the hold up was about: it wasn't going to happen

Doesn't Sand Hill Properties know how to take a hint? They are asking far too much money for a rather grungy building in a poor location!


19 people like this
Posted by Hunger Pangs
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2016 at 10:55 am

Hunger Pangs is a registered user.

So this is whatthe hold up was about-- they backed out!

Doesn't Tze and Sand Hill Properties know how to take a hint-- in this case several hints????

They are asking far too much money for a grungy old building in a bad location!


17 people like this
Posted by Shopper
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2016 at 11:10 am



I was sorry tom see Fresh Market leave. It was a fine store with a nice staff.
It's been gone over a year now. Wonder if the site will be empty a year from now. :(


24 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 11:12 am

@Hunger Pangs The rent has nothing to do with Tze or Sand Hill. Fresh Market holds the lease and is still paying for it. The deal is between Fresh Market and Andronicos.

Apparently there was no "abandonment" clause in the lease. As long as Fresh Market continues to pay the rent there is nothing Tze/Sand Hill can do to get another tenant in the building.

Fresh Market can keep the building empty for as long as their lease and they are willing to pay. Tze/Sand Hill can't break the lease. Doesn't matter if the building is empty. Doesn't matter what the city says. Doesn't matter what the neighbors want.

I'm guessing that the lease is for a relatively long time. Could be 10, 20 or 30 years with defined extensions.

/marc


5 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2016 at 11:50 am

@ Marc....thank you. Perhaps all the Tze/Sand Hill bashers will take note.


26 people like this
Posted by Increase penalty
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:27 pm

The penalty needs to be increased from $1000 per day which is really nothing to at least 3x that.


15 people like this
Posted by Chef Now's?
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:31 pm

And what in the world is happening with Chef's Cho's space at Edgewood? John Tze are you reading this? - how about an update on that. Why is that still taking so long to get in there? Its been a couple years since the center was completed I think and they have been fitting it out for what seems like pretty much forever.


10 people like this
Posted by Read the story
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:33 pm

Increase penalty. Perhaps you should read the story or Marc's comments to understand the situation before you bash sand hill. It is obvious that the residents quoted in the story have no idea either.


24 people like this
Posted by Safeway Alternative
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:40 pm

@Marc tells us some important facts, along the lines of what I was thinking actually...

In other words, even with the $1k fines the developer is paying, they are still milking rent that is still being collected from Fresh Market. The property owner pays little to none in maintenance fees and still makes money for an empty building... Problem!


13 people like this
Posted by Be Positive
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:42 pm

Be Positive is a registered user.

While we're on the topic of Edgewood Plaza - any one know why half/most of the condos next door are empty yet not for sale?


11 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:52 pm

@Increase penalty Why do you want to increase the penalty when there is nothing they can do about it?

The lease is a valuable asset during Fresh Market's restructuring. No one is going to give it up or give it away.

It doesn't matter what they city wants. It doesn't matter what the PC agreement said. It doesn't matter what they neighbors want.

Penalizing Tse/Sand Hill serves no purpose.

/marc


24 people like this
Posted by Assumable
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2016 at 1:18 pm

Assumable is a registered user.

Many leases are Assumable these days, like second mortgages used to be.

Why can't another grocery store just assume The previous lease, still extant, between Fresh Market and whomever?

Or are the lease payments just too high????


19 people like this
Posted by neighborA
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:10 pm

Wow. Sand hill seems to be the big winner here, collecting rent on an empty property and built condos for more profit.


13 people like this
Posted by Lynne
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:16 pm

So after reading these comments, it simply looks like we (this neighborhood) is screwed. And, yes, there is something very odd about the supposed Chinese restaurant. I think it is a front for something else. All great mysteries.


7 people like this
Posted by Nayeli P.
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:28 pm

Nayeli P. is a registered user.

I suspect that it will be converted to office space and a startup would move in.

You know what would be great? If the city opened its own startup office space -- and allowed registered startups to share/operate out of it (complete with a mailing address).


26 people like this
Posted by Fishy
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm

Empty store, unfinished Chinese restaurant, ghost town condos with few if any people living in it. How about some investigative reporting by the weekly to figure out what's going on here


23 people like this
Posted by Fishy, Indeed
a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:43 pm

Until 2013 there was a small Chi see restaurant in Cupertino that appeared u finished, had only two tables and a cash register.
it had been in this co diction since 2008.

Turned out, many of the local people in the vicinity found it suspicious, because there would be lights on inside at 11:30 pm, and an Asian man could occasionally be seen sitting at one of the tables. Odd, because the restaurant was never open for
lunch or dinner.

I heard from a friend who lives in the area that it was all a facade for laundering money, and that the sheriff's office had arrested the "owner" in 2013!

Kinda sounds like what is going on at Edgewood, which is to say something illegal, or in the outer margins of legality.


6 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:46 pm

@Assumable Assuming a lease "assumes" that the party leasing the property wants someone else to assume the lease.

The specific issue here is that Fresh Market DOESN"T want to terminate their lease and they don't want to sub-lease.

There is nothing Sand Hill can do to terminate the lease as long as Fresh Market keeps paying rent.

A third party (the city) can't force a lease to be terminated.

The only strange thing here is that there was no "abandonment" clause in the lease. All of leases I've ever signed for office space in Palo Alto has specific clauses that said if I abandoned/vacated the space, even if I continued to pay rent the lease was terminated. The landlord made sure that there were no ghost occupants in the building.

/marc


10 people like this
Posted by Fishy
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2016 at 2:54 pm

Marc,

why doesn't Fresh Market want to sublease? why pay rent for something you don't use?


18 people like this
Posted by Fishy Indeed
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:07 pm

Fishy Indeed is a registered user.


Since Fresh Market isn't doing well in some areas of the country, shouldn't they be cutting costs?

Also, is it true, as previously published, that Sand Hill Properties is owned by a large conglomerate in another country?

That may be a clue in the mystery


13 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:19 pm

@Fishy I have no special knowledge about Edgewood. But I am guessing that they have a long term lease with very favorable rent. Since they are in the process of financial restructuring/selling off, the lease is a valuable asset.

For most retail businesses, the property is their major asset. You don't give away assets. You hold onto them and either the buyer (another grocery store) will move in, or they will sub-lease it to the highest bidder.

From Fresh Market's point of view, they don't care if they building sits empty for a couple of years, if they can get a higher sale price for the entire chain. They don't care about the penalty Sand Hill has to pay.

I'll say it again since people don't seem to get it. The city can't force Sand Hill to terminate the lease. The city/Sand Hill can't force Fresh Market to terminate the lease or sub-lease it to another store. As long as Fresh Market continues to pay their rent, the building will be empty.

In the case of Andronico's it appears they got cold feet at the last minute. As one of the papers said, it could be that they are in the process of buying another chain/some stores and Edgewood would interfere with that.

The public is not going to know all the details. Don't get upset. Don't rant and rave. Just accept it.

If you want to blame someone, blame the City. If you strike a deal with someone you need to be very, very specific about the deal and think about all the things that can go wrong. And make sure the agreement covers everything.

Compare it to San Mateo and the issue with the ice skating rink. Their city turned down the approval to tear down the rink. So the current owner will just keep the rink closed. I'm going to guess that that meets all legal requirements. That in the original agreement that was nothing that specifically said the rink had to be open.

/marc


15 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:35 pm

From what I understand, $1000 per day is the maximum fine that the city can levy against the developer. For a company like Sand Hill, that is pocket change.

Sand Hill is busy trying to destroy Cupertino right now. It's better for them to just pay the fine and concentrate all their resources on lying to, and misleading, Cupertino residents.

I have never seen a more corrupt and unethical developer than Sand Hill.


16 people like this
Posted by Mike
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:41 pm

Mike, there is an abandonment clause in the lease. For whatever reason, Sand Hill does not want to exercise it.

What I was told by someone on the inside is that Sand Hill would prefer to keep the store empty, collect rent, and pay the fines over risking another store coming in and then leaving again AND they are using the failure of being able to get a store in there as propaganda to fight demands by other cities for "community benefits."

If you look at the ethics of Sand Hill, you should but NOTHING beneath them. And you have Peter Pau running around telling people that they can trust him because he's a Christian!


14 people like this
Posted by Unhappy people
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 19, 2016 at 3:49 pm

A lot f misplaced bitterness about this towards the developer. You should blame for the neighbors-- first it took years to get this project off the ground. Obstruction by the people controlling the cc&r. Then a refusal to have real grocery store- when will Palo Alto realize that people want a full service, large store and not more small, dingy midtown safe ways. Then the usual complaints about traffic. Now people are complaining about the condos sitting empty- that means less traffic. And finally people do not grasp the facts about the lease fresh market holds. But this is all typical Palo Alto stuff.


17 people like this
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 4:26 pm

Marie is a registered user.

I think that Sand Hill and Fresh Market think it is to their advantage for to leave the building empty in order to pressure the city to allow them to lease it for offices and make much more money. If there is an abandonment clause, and the developer is not exercising it, I see no other explanation. I do not believe Sand Hill has no influence in this case. By any chance Marc, do you work for Sand Hill?

Alma Plaza was an eyesore for years until the developer got a city council that would agree to an very profitable but ultimately troublesome development. The only good thing is that it spurred council watchdogs to threaten an initiative to forbid future narrow streets, which finally got the city council to require wider streets. Among other things, the narrow streets restrict larger fire trucks and garbage trucks making them more difficult to service and to protect. And has anyone ever been able to use the "community room" available to the public?

I hope the city will learn from this experience and come up with more well defined public benefits that can be enforced. The only ones that come to mind is public parking that has no expiration. Public benefits that expire in 30 years in exchange for a permanent benefit to the developer is ridiculous.


1 person likes this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 4:36 pm

@Marie I do not work for Sand Hill.

/marc


27 people like this
Posted by Increase penalty
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 4:51 pm

Marc - people believe you work for Sand Hill Properties (the developer) simply because you are most ardent defender of them. No surprise there.

The penalty should be increased because the developer has not lived up to their end of the bargain with Palo Alto. That is, they specifically agreed to provide the community with a grocery store. That was the explicit quid pro quo: re-zoning in exchange for a grocery store. Has that happened? No!

Is there anything they can do? Yes! They can simply exercise their abandonment clause to the previous grocer, and re-lease the space to a new grocer. Let's not over-think this. Simple answers.


14 people like this
Posted by Lynne
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 5:34 pm

One way or the other the City of Palo Alto has failed miserably on this project. As a long time resident, I hold them ultimately responsible. I've never walked in a protest, but this is one I would love to raise a hue and cry.


8 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 5:59 pm

I'm not defending Sand Hill. What I am doing is pointing out the realities of life.

I don't know that anyone other then Fresh Market and Sand Hill would ever see the contract so I can't say if there is an abandonment clause and don't know how anyone could say there is/is not. Does anyone believe that it has been made public? Do they have a copy? Not hearsay but actually seen it? Even if there is, you cannot force Sand Hill to exercise it.

If the agreement between the City and Sand Hill has a penalty cap of $1000, then you can not change it now.
That is the binding agreement, trying to change it would go directly to court and the City would lose.

People have to stop whining and expecting that laws, rules, contracts, etc can be broken just because they don't like the results. How would you like your bank to call you up and say that they don't like the mortgage contract you signed 20 years ago and they are changing the terms?

If you really want to make a change, then change the city council, change the city management. Hold the people that negotiated the agreement responsible. Fire them without any retirement benefits.

/marc


6 people like this
Posted by Can't increase fines
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2016 at 7:17 pm

Please do your research...there is absolutely no way the fines can be increased a penny above where they are now. There is a page on the Palo Alto government website dedicated specifically to this issue, and some of you obviously haven't read what it says. Here it is: Web Link

Among other things, the page discusses the maximum permissible fines for violation of town zoning ordinances, which is $1,000/day. At the end of September 2015, Palo Alto issued a fine of $500. The next day, they issued a $750 fine, and the day after that a $1,000 fine. It's been $1,000/day ever since. The fine cannot be raised a penny above that value, because that's what the law says (and if you're wondering about JJ&F Market, go read the link).

Sand Hill has every incentive to get a grocery store in there as fast as possible. There's the obvious financial piece -- losing $1,000 a day isn't exactly helping their bottom line -- but they know that news like this makes them look bad, and besides, not having a grocery store hurts traffic in the shopping center. I personally don't go to Edgewood much anymore, and I know I'm not alone. This hurts the other stores, which might go out of business, and then stop paying rent to Sand Hill. Things will be much better for them when there's a grocery store in that plaza.

If you're like Marie (a poster above who is among those who clearly haven't done their research), you might hold the fairly ridiculous assumption that Sand Hill, which doesn't even control Fresh Market's leasing agreements with Andronico's, is trying to keep the grocery store empty so it can negotiate with the city and force the city into letting it use the grocery store space for offices. Sorry to let you know that to do so would violate legally-enforceable restrictive covenants with the 100 property owners with homes surrounding Edgewood Plaza, not to mention that such an idea would be a complete non-starter at City Hall given neighborhood opposition.

I'm all for a grocery store at Edgewood, and I fully believe that Sand Hill's in it for the money, but please -- do your research, and recognize their financial interest in getting a grocery store to Edgewood ASAP.


Like this comment
Posted by Gus L.
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 7:26 pm

Why not put a Fry's supermarket there?
Seriously, they know how to run a store..

Web Link

Fry's Signature[edit]
Fry's Signature is marketed as a high-end, neighborhood tailored grocery store. There is one location on 20427 North Hayden Road, Scottsdale, AZ.[9] Another Fry's Signature store is located at 10450 N. 90th Street, Scottsdale, AZ [10] There is also a Fry's Signature store at the cross streets of Cave Creek Rd and Carefree Hwy in Cave Creek, AZ.[11] In addition, there is a Fry's Signature Marketplace at the intersection of Shea Blvd and Tatum Blvd.[12]

Fry's Mercado[edit]
Fry's Mercado is geared towards Arizona's Hispanic market. It is located at 43rd Avenue and McDowell. There is a check cashing store, an Aqua bar, a Cocina, a fuel station among other attractions at the location. Several other stores are subletted in the Fry's Mercado (including an electronics store, a women's clothing store, and a barber shop).[13]

Fry's Electronics[edit]
Main article: Fry's Electronics
Fry's Electronics was founded by the heirs of Charles Fry after Fry's Food & Drug Stores was sold. Despite having similar logos and a shared family heritage, there is no affiliation between Fry's Electronics and Fry's Food and Drug. There is also no connection to Frye Electronics of Tigard, Oregon.


16 people like this
Posted by Strange Marc
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2016 at 7:27 pm

Marc,

You seem to be repeating, but contradicting yourself. In first comment you said:
"Apparently there was no "abandonment" clause in the lease."
Following comment you said: "The only strange thing here is that there was no "abandonment" clause in the lease."
The you follow up with a comment: "I don't know that anyone other then Fresh Market and Sand Hill would ever see the contract so I can't say if there is an abandonment clause and don't know how anyone could say there is/is not. "

Can you explain and gain back your losing credibility?
A still better thing you should do is to offer our community a solution, rather than telling them to stop complaining, and requesting them to fire/change the city council/management (which by the way is NOT a solution to this specific problem)


12 people like this
Posted by Fishy
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2016 at 8:04 pm

Part of the blame goes to city regulations. Not allowing big grocery stores to be built in Palo Alto makes these location unprofitable. Wonder why no one wants to least this property and pay top dollar. Because the store is too small for a low margin business. Why is it too small,because the city prohibited building a larger one. Ever wonder why our Midtown Safeway is so small????


3 people like this
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 9:11 pm

The problem is that this place is new, and it's broken.

The residents, apparently from what was stated above
have no even begun to live there - so there cars, parking
traffic is not even a factor at this point, and very few of
the stores are even open, and still traffic and maneuvering
around the parking lot is kind of hard.

It's not terrible now, but it got pretty bad when Fresh Market
was there and what are they thinking if there is a market and
a Chinese restaurant as well.

Guess we will just have to see, but I just do not see who keep
creating these developments that fail, and why?

If it is more attached to the City we need to know what or who
keeping doing this and fix it or get rid of them. If it is the
developer, they we need to ban then from doing work or
bidding with the City because of incompetence.

Why can't we get a clearer answer as to why this happened
from either Andronico's, Fresh Market, the City or the Developer?
Someone needs to exert some power and force to get some
competent things done in this city.

Things were nice for a short time while we had a nice new
supermarket in this area of town ... why does everything seem
to go bad. It's been decades and this question has not been
answered, and certainly the problem has not been solved,
after two major attempts, Alma Plaza and Edgewood Plaza.

Can someone post the email Sand Hill send to "residents"?


3 people like this
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 19, 2016 at 9:15 pm

Fishy ... I don't know that it is the size so much as the
logistics, like parking. Fresh Market was plenty big, they
just has a lot of useless stuff that no one bought.

Fresh Market "said" they were profitable, but that doesn't
mean they were profitably enough for their target numbers
or could count on that continuing.

Fresh Market opened really well, but their quality declined
after a while, service not so good, particularly produce. I
had to really be careful of what I bought there, but it was
not terrible, just something to watch out for.

I thought Andronico's would have been a good fit. Too bad.


3 people like this
Posted by Local
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 19, 2016 at 9:16 pm

Dear "Fishy",

It was not the city that did not want a bigger grocery store at Midtown. It was the area locals and neighbors who did not want a big one.
Safeway wanted a cost-productive establishment and a good one. But the neighbors wanted the smaller version. They got it. "Local oldster"


28 people like this
Posted by City can raise fines
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 19, 2016 at 9:21 pm

The city can definitely raise the fines on Sand Hill. The city adjusts fines for violations every year. And the Council can adjust a particular fine at other times too. They're the ones who created all the fines in the first place, so of course they can raise them.

The fines are not in the agreement with the developer and the developer has no control over the fines. The City Council (and indirectly the voters) set the fines.

Hefty fines are a time-honored way to get businesses to do the right thing when they won't on their own. It doesn't matter if the lease has an assumption clause or not. Sand Hill can negotiate to buy back the lease at any time, and it's doubtful that the Fresh Market is interested in keeping the lease anyway, since it costs them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in rent, taxes, insurance, and maintenance. If this lease is similar to the one at College Terrace Centre, then the tenant is on the hook for any penalties caused by its actions. In other words, Sand Hill could likely compel the Fresh Market to pay the current $365,000 a year penalty. That would be one more reason for the Fresh Market to be happy to have Andronico's take over. And raising the fines would make them even happier o do so.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 19, 2016 at 9:21 pm

Fresh & Easy site in Mountsin View is still empty also. I suspect that most market operators are interested in much bigger sites. There is also a lot of politicking going on. The residents and other tenants will suffer but no council or developer really cares.


6 people like this
Posted by LelandManorMom
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 19, 2016 at 10:23 pm

With no end in sight to this stalemate, is there a way to get a grocery truck in 7-10 am and 4-7 pm? It looks like grocery trucks have made inroads in low income or other hard to serve areas. Maybe this is an opportunity for someone in the bay area to provide the basics to our local area. See Web Link. If Amazon really is exploring grocery pick up sites, that's an option too. Web Link.


5 people like this
Posted by LelandManorMom
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 19, 2016 at 10:24 pm

With no end in sight to this stalemate, is there a way to get a grocery truck in 7-10 am and 4-7 pm? It looks like grocery trucks have made inroads in low income or other hard to serve areas. Maybe this is an opportunity for someone in the bay area to provide the basics to our local area. See Web Link. If Amazon really is exploring grocery pick up sites, that's an option too. Web Link.


1 person likes this
Posted by SEA_SEELAM REDDY
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2016 at 5:31 am

SEA_SEELAM REDDY is a registered user.

How about inviting other thriving stores in grocery business

Bristol Farms
Dean and Deluca

Respectfully


3 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2016 at 7:18 am

@Strange Marc

I started by saying ""Apparently there was no "abandonment" clause in the lease." I made that assumption in that if there was an abandonment clause that Sand Hill would have already exercised it and gotten another grocer.
And I later said that I thought it was strange that there wasn't an abandonment clause in the contract.

Then someone stated that the contract DID contain an abandonment clause. And I responded that I didn't think the contract is public. Does anyone really have a copy? Not hearsay but actually seen it.

So unless someone has actually seen a copy of the contract and it does contain language that lets Sand Hill terminate the existing lease then raising the fine doesn't do any good.

You can fine Sand Hill all the money in the world but if they are legally bound to a contact that they cannot terminate then there is nothing gained by punishing Sand Hill.

Unless that are terms in the contract, Sand Hill cannot terminate it and you can't force Fresh Market to sub-lease.

/marc


11 people like this
Posted by Increase penalty
a resident of Community Center
on Apr 20, 2016 at 7:51 am

Marc - 95% of all contracts of this type has abandonment clauses. Therefore it is reasonable to assume this one has one as well, unless you have knowledge otherwise (which you admit you don't).

Therefore it is reasonable to believe the right thing for Sand Hill Properties to do is to exercise that clause and live up to that part of their agreement with the City of Palo Alto.

If they are unwilling, then raise fines immediately! $1000 per day is really nothing to a big developer if you think about it. Especially when they are already collecting lease money from Fresh Choice.


3 people like this
Posted by Reader
a resident of another community
on Apr 20, 2016 at 9:33 am

Increasing the $1000/day penalty may discourage other grocers from considering locating to Palo Alto.

Just something to consider...


12 people like this
Posted by Increase penalty
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 20, 2016 at 9:45 am

To 'reader' immediately above -

We're not talking increasing the penalty to grocers, but rather the Developer for not being more proactive in finding a grocer, as per their quid-pro-quo agreement with the City of Palo Alto for zoning changes.

What can Sand Hill Properties do? They can exercise the abandonment clause in their contract with the previous grocer and find another grocer unencumbered.

Until then, the fines should be increased dramatically. $1000 per day is a drop in the bucket to a big developer.


3 people like this
Posted by Ignore reality
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 20, 2016 at 11:16 am

Plane speaker maybe you cannot have a clearer answer because it is none of your business. It is up to the two entities to decide what to release to the public

Increase penalties- the city cannot arbitrarily increase the penalty. Do you know for a fact ( nit 95% of leases have one) that they're is an abandonment clause? What happens if fresh market sues? That may tie up the location in litigation for years.

And what happens if a new undersized, over priced market opens and then has to close die to lack of business? Should sand hill force people to shop there? I think we will need a " minimum spending" clause. Neighbors will have to spend a certain amount each week att the new store


20 people like this
Posted by Scared Away
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 20, 2016 at 11:16 am

What about these self-styled "community activists" who called Andronico's CFO directly and like to show up at City Hall to demand fines for every perceived slight? Even if we get a grocery store in Edgewood they have written on local mailing lists that they plan to protest if their favorite brands of pickles aren't stocked. Could that be part of the reason that Andronico's decided to pass? I wonder...


4 people like this
Posted by Poor Sand Hill Properties
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 20, 2016 at 11:31 am

I don't think SHP has time to worry about our grocery store. They have the following projects currently in Palo Alto (maybe more).

Web Link 1050 Page Mill Road

3300 El Camino Real

3251 Hanover Street

3175 Hanover Street

Edgewood Plaza

2600 El Camino
Submitted: 6/29/2015 File# 15PLN-00275
Request by SHPDM, LLC c/o Allison Koo on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Stanford University for Preliminary Architectural Review for demolition of the existing six-story building and construction of a 62,616 sf four-story office building in the CS zoning district Web Link

AND
SHP recently hired our former (infamous) Deputy City Manager Steve Emslie to manage their purchase of Woodland Park Apartments in Menlo Park:
Web Link




4 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2016 at 11:38 am

@Ignore reality Re: "...Should sand hill force people to shop there..."

Here an idea. Many country clubs have monthly dues/minimums that members have to spend at the club. It is either use it or loose it. You either spend $1000 per month at the club or pay a dues of $1000 per month.

So to all the residents of Palo Alto demanding a grocer at Edgewood Plaza, you need to collect binding signatures from enough residents that commit to spend at least $500 dollars a month at whatever grocer opens. Binding contracts on all the signer, no excuses. And ask grocers what the total monthly minimum would be, $100K, $250K, $500K?

Then you can present any number of grocers with a minimum guaranteed monthly revenue.

/marc


7 people like this
Posted by Local mom
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Apr 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm

I am at Edgewood three times a week to use Orange Theory andcthe parking lot is always full/nearly full --can't imagine where crowds would park for a grocery store as well . I told my husband this morning they should forget about the grocer and put any popular Family friendly restaurant there--push the front wall of the grocery store back, set up a lot of outdoor seating--it would be great!

As a longtime resident of Palo Alto I have got to used expecting nothing from the city --reference the libraries which took what 20 years to happen? Fiber to the home? Another 20 years ? Other cities of similar stature seem to be able to get things done.... It's just so sad to have this space empty .

And the reason why Andronico's backed out is they probably realized that they couldn't make it there either --the space is too small for any type of regular grocer except maybe a Trader Joe's ... So I think we do have to think differently .


5 people like this
Posted by Reader
a resident of another community
on Apr 20, 2016 at 3:02 pm

@Increase Penalty:

The developers will pass along some of the costs of the increased penalty to their tenants. That will make other business owners wary.


4 people like this
Posted by ChrisC
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 20, 2016 at 4:27 pm

I was thrilled to hear Andronico's was going into Edgewood, however, I think they were wise to pull out of the deal. Speaking as somebody who mourned the loss of JJ&F, neighborhoods can say they want a local market, but they really mean they want a convenience store to buy a few things as needed, then they are off to Costco and Safeway. Posters who said they need a large, cheaper store there are correct, IMO. I stop at Edgewood often for the House of Bagels and Starbucks, and there really is not parking for a busy grocery store. It seems that a lot of people use it as a Park and Carpool spot, with such close access to 101. As for the person who suggested that Weekly do some investigative journalism, I've too made that plea and "it ain't gonna happen."


8 people like this
Posted by not first rodeo with SHP
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 20, 2016 at 4:28 pm

Laws can be changed. The City Council had the opportunity to change the law and raise penalties with the Omnibus act last Fall, but declined to do so.

Saying $1000/day is the maximum fine is only kind of true.


6 people like this
Posted by Merry
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Apr 20, 2016 at 4:39 pm

Let it go. No grocery is coming.
There is a housing shortage. Build some.


23 people like this
Posted by Ahem
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 20, 2016 at 5:20 pm

Watching a big developer present a project to the City Council is like watching a scene from The Music Man. Well dressed city slickers bedazzle small town hicks (and a few ringers) with a song and dance routine of promises, they do not intend to honor. That said... in any good con, the mark has to want to believe the lie.


3 people like this
Posted by SteveU
a resident of Barron Park
on Apr 20, 2016 at 6:11 pm

SteveU is a registered user.

Without an abandonment clause, SHP really can't force the lease holder into anything. The Rent is being paid. It make no sese to Fine SHP if they are not blocking a sub-lease (or lease exit).

While SHP has no $$ problems because they are collecting rent, they have the (Mall) stigma of an empty store. Malls hate empties.


Like this comment
Posted by AlexDeLarge
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2016 at 9:06 pm


@Ahem

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!


5 people like this
Posted by prello
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 21, 2016 at 8:10 am

Forget the supermarket. Reopen Ming's restaurant in that space.


6 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 21, 2016 at 12:43 pm

I am outraged.
We neighbors have been deceived, and I am outraged. A grocery store was part of the deal.
I would strongly support a major financial penalty on the developer and urge the City to enact whatever can be done to do this. Another point would be for the City to LEARN from these episodes and be skeptical of permitting special arrangements with these known developers.

BTW - on subject of the "busy" parking lot "already" as someone posted -- in fact, TFM was there before, and there was enough parking. It appears now that someone (commuters? Office workers in that tiny office along St. Francis side of the complex? are now taking up a whole lotta parking spots.)

BTW - on subject of the fancy high density homes as someone else posted -- I don't know the occupancy but someone posted they think they are mostly empty. However, we do now that sales of most of all were reported fairly promptly in the local press. So: either overseas investors bought them, who choose not to occupy OR there are flippers waiting to flip at a profit.
I do believe one home came on the market a second time, either the sale fell through late/after being reported as sold OR it is an attempt to flip Or it has been flipped. I didn't track extremely closely, but this is my impression. Either way, the BUILDER/DEVELOPER got his $$$$.


12 people like this
Posted by Stephanie
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:02 pm

Why couldn't Sand Hill offer to reduce the rent to Fresh Market as part of a deal where Fresh Market then subleases at the lower rate? A grocer will agree to take that spot if the rent is low enough, and I would imagine that Fresh Market would be happier to stop paying money every month for an empty space.

Landlords and tenants can renegotiate leases if both agree. The daily fine isn't high enough apparently to incentivize Sand Hill to lower the rent it collects so that Fresh Market can find another tenant with a lower rent.

Has Sand Hill offered to let Fresh Market out of the lease and look for a new tenant itself?

Actions speak louder than words, and I haven't seen any action showing that Sand Hill is sincere in its stated desire to find a new grocer.


2 people like this
Posted by AlexDeLarge
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:24 pm

@anonymous

I believe one of our local friendly tech giants purchased those homes with the intent
of using them for corporate housing. That is the rumor I heard, of course this is rumor.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2016 at 1:28 pm

I would so love to have a large, full service grocery store there. Anything else wouldn't draw me. I suspect most of the other businesses would like to have a large anchor market too.

As for the locals who are in walking distance, they are suffering once again, but I have to ask them if they are really surprised that nobody wants to run such a small market instead of a larger one in line with their business model.


5 people like this
Posted by Robert Smith
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 22, 2016 at 1:21 pm

The PC ordinance is the underlying cause of this, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

1. The developer, dazzled by the prospect of overriding zoning and being able to make a bundle, made a promise that didn't make a lot of sense: a neighborhood grocery store built to the specifications of the neighbors. Two groceries had already failed in the location, and it was not clear that just rebuilding the center would address underlying issues of what customers want.

2. The neighbors didn't think about what would actually be used. Too many of them asked for a grocery because they wanted one there at that location, not because they had a serious intent of shopping at the grocery to any extent. [I shopped there a lot and it was not well patronized IMHO.]

3. The city deserves the most blame. The city does not think carefully about whether the projects are economically viable. They also do a poor job of enforcement of existing PC's and just don't have the tools to make things happen. But, the underlying issue is whether or not a given project makes sense. Using a PC to provide a business seems especially questionable: if the business were viable, someone would already be doing it. Palo Alto now has three PC's tent-polled on a grocery store, and all three have had problems. We haven't seen what will happen with the College Terrace JJ&F-replacement yet, what will come of that?


9 people like this
Posted by Poor Sand Hill Properties
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 24, 2016 at 5:12 pm

No question that something is very fishy,
Empty supermarket, unfinished Chinese restaurant,
ghost town condos with few if any people living in it.
Add:
demolished a historic building when the contract said not to
strange parking lot (there is a moat you cant cross in the middle)

But Sand Hill is working on BIG projects at
1050 Page Mill Road
3300 El Camino Real
3251 Hanover Street
3175 Hanover Street
2600 El Camino
Some (all?)are with Stanford. Will the city approve these, given the history of this developer? It will be interesting to see who on the staff advocates for SandHill. Desperately need an investigation, maybe another Grand Jury. This sure smells bad bigtime.


10 people like this
Posted by Hermann
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 28, 2016 at 3:10 pm

Let me just go back to basics regarding the vacant supermarket on the
Edgewood Plaza.
There is only a single reason, why it is vacant for such a long time:
the price for the lease is too high. Obviously!
Anybody who ever rented or leased out real estate knows: when you ask
for too much rent, you keep sitting on it. You have to lower and lower the
rent again, until you find a tenant ready, willing and able to take it off
your hands.
Its like a law of nature: you can rent anything for the right price – if you
don't find the right price, you have a vacancy, period.
It seems like the developer for Edgewood Place is too greedy, ignorant or
plays a game that we do not know about.
All we know as a fact is that we do not have a supermarket.

The developer has The Fresh Market on the hook with this lease.
It looks like TFM is forced to pay for a space it does not use. In addition,
the clever attorneys of the developer probably had the foresight to force
the Fresh Market to pay for any additional penalties that have to be paid
to the City of Palo Alto et al, should they vacate before the end of the lease
term. That's what a good Real Estate Attorney does, to protect his developer.
They know this from experience.
In this situation, the developer collects the rent and has no reason or
incentive to lower the rent. Month after month, year after year. Wonderful.

Any lease can be renegotiated if both parties agree to it.
If the developer seriously wanted to find a grocer for that space – at a rent
low enough for what that space is worth, he could release The Fresh Market
from their lease obligation tomorrow and TFM would jump at the prospect
to stop paying lease money plus additional penalties for an empty store in
California. Of course.

As far as I can remember, when The Fresh Market closed, not all of the
Spec Houses facing Channing had been sold. Did the City of Palo Alto
instantly put a stop to any further sales at that time?
Wasn't the agreement that we get a supermarket in exchange for allowing
those Spec Houses? What happened?

Now we do really find out how good our Attorneys are at Palo Alto
City Hall.

We are being told about alleged negotiations between the Developer and
the Grocers.
We have no idea what is truth and fiction. As a matter of fact, we don't
care. The only thing we care about, after all those years of waiting, is
to get a supermarket.
And as I wrote above: we know as a fact, that we do not have a
supermarket.

If the situation remains unchanged as it is right now, in case The Fresh
Market did sign a ten year lease, as I read in the papers, then we have
to wait another 8 years or so to get a Supermarket to The Edgewood
Plaza. This is really hard to believe.

Let the City Attorneys end the misery – only they can do it.
It's their job after all.


10 people like this
Posted by Plane Speaker
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 28, 2016 at 4:47 pm

Hermann,
It just seems like the only think the City can do in this circumstance is to
up the penalties as high as they can ... and they should have done it ASAP.
It just proves that our City bends over backwards to cater and kow-tow to
developers, when it ought to be the reverse in this market and environment.

Our City is incompetent and looking after the interests of residents, but it
does fine in kneeling and scraping to developers. We have so much demand
for good development I don't see why we cannot find some companies with
better reputations or who even some competition.

Or perhaps it is just the City's attorneys do not know what to do not to be
taken advantage of in these negotations and continually are on the wrong
end of bad faith negotiations.

Maybe someone should suggest a plebiscite for residents as a vote of
confidence in any developer that does work in Palo Alto as to whether the
City finds them adequate and whether we want to continue to business
with them or to take them off the vendor list. It seems like it would be us,
or rather the City who has the power, so why doesn't it work out that way?
When things go opposite to what the market would indicate if often indicates
some kind of under the table or corrupt dealings.


11 people like this
Posted by Online Name
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 28, 2016 at 6:55 pm

It was reported elsewhere today that the city will write a report in a few months.

I totally agree that the fines should have been raised ASAP and they should be raised every month or so. Also, the city should bar the developer from getting any approvals for other projects until we get a supermarket.


5 people like this
Posted by Chuckle
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 28, 2016 at 7:31 pm

The same thing happened when John Arrillaga bought the ten-year lease on the Stanford Equestrian Center, then privatized it:

Board had been around $600/month. There were 100 boarders... Arrillaga wanted to reduce that number to 75.

He did some improvements, but got rid of outdoor paddocks and removed a couple of arenas. The big improvement was putting in a lot of palm trees no on wanted.

He raised board to $1350/ month, and 50 boarders moved out, followed by 25 more a few months later after they found there was a huge increase in the number of rules.

Almost no one could pay the board, and Artillaga kicked out all people who did not work at, attend, or graduate from Stanford. He had an empty barn until he lowered the board to $1200 and gave s student rate of$600.

After a few years he had no more than 25 boarders, even after board cuts. Ten years later, Artillaga has fewer than 40, and a very high turnover rate-- after he started increasing board slowly up to $1650!


5 people like this
Posted by Curious
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2016 at 12:22 pm

Is there any way the city can force out the terms of the contract between the developer and Fresh Market? For example, could there be a lawsuit for fraud so that the contract is disclosed under discovery? I would be shocked if there is no take back clause if the location isn't used as a grocery.


3 people like this
Posted by Palo Alto is special
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2016 at 12:52 pm

Curious-- you are actually suggesting that the city try to forcefully break a legal contract between the developer and fresh market ? Why do some people think that Palo Alto is so special that could ntracts and agreements do not apply to them.
And for those of you complaining now, remember that developer was in talks with androids. A contract was almost reached. The developer could not in good faith also negotiate with another grocer. Since the contract collapsed, the developer must look for another tenant. And remember the FM holds the lease.
Of corse, when a new grocer opens the question is will people shop there?


5 people like this
Posted by Me
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 29, 2016 at 2:16 pm

Robert Smith nailed it: "The PC ordinance is the underlying cause of this, but there is plenty of blame to go around."

This sort of top-down + neighborhood consensus + historical landmark planning is bollocks. And to hear the bellyaching on the lease is "too high" for the space is down-right hilarious. Bottom line is that the retail grocery business has changed over the last 10-20 years, which is completely lost on the folks insisting that there be a grocery store at Edgewood. And with delivery services like Amazon Fresh and Google Express, it's ready to change even more.

(maybe that ossifying of the neighborhood with people dreaming of 1984 Palo Alto isn't such a good thing after all?)

Very few medium-sized grocery store footprints work these days. The entire concept of the market and its supply chain has to be built around it to be successful long-term.

You can build it, but will them come? It's a bad business strategy. And what seems to be lost here is that just because some neighbors seem to like the idea, a grocery store has to make sense for the whole region, not just wishful thinking by some long-time residents.

Maybe this whole space should have just been turned into an Eichler museum. Apparently that's all the neighbors really wanted.

But really, given where it is, the whole thing should have just been turned into residential condos. It's a residential area.


2 people like this
Posted by Large grocery store
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2016 at 2:59 pm

Well stated, me. Remember mikis at alma plaza. Everyone was buzzing about that place and then no one shopped their, so it closed up shop. People here think we are living in a time capsule-- everyone shopped at jj&f and we had to make sure there was no competition.


2 people like this
Posted by Question ?
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 30, 2016 at 2:35 am

Were Mikis and Fresh Market built by the same developer ?


1 person likes this
Posted by QUESTION AGAIN
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 1, 2016 at 3:51 pm

Does anyone know if Mikis and Fresh Market built by the same developer ?


2 people like this
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
on May 1, 2016 at 5:45 pm

Marie is a registered user.

Please note that Grocery Outlet seems to be doing just fine at Alma Plaza despite the limited space. And per information in Palo Alto Online, Fresh Market was profitable. They closed all their operations in the west because overall they were not profitable.

IMHO, If there is no replacement grocery, it is because the rent is too high or possibly there is not enough parking. That could be fixed by not allowing all day parking there, eliminating those using it as a free all day parking lot.If SH wanted a grocery store, there would be one. It is naive to think otherwise. Again, IMHO what they want is more profit than a grocery store will bring. They have no concern to the tune of $1K a day,or that they are not following their agreement with PA or its neighbors.

Sand Hill clearly has a plan and an agenda. We just don't know what it is. Bringing in a new grocery store is not what they want or it would have happened. So whether they want to use it as office space or as a restaurant or retrofitted into housing, is something we do not know. What we know is that there is clearly something they want besides a grocery store and they are willing to pay $1k a day indefinitely until they get it. Any agreement can be renegotiated which is what they are counting on.

It worked for Alma Plaza owners to leave the spot empty for 10 years until they got what they wanted. which will be a problem for PA forever (narrow streets, causing problems for emergency vehicles and garbage trucks - which charge the city more for developments with narrow streets). They were zoned for a 30,000 sq. ft. grocery store on that site but wanted something more profitable. I am certain that once Lucky's left the Mountain View center, they would have been willing to negotiate away the deed restriction that prevented the maximum size grocery store on the site. It was not the neighbors.

Our only hope is to vote in more city council members like Dubois who looks out for residents first, workers second and developers last.


2 people like this
Posted by Which tommy?
a resident of Community Center
on May 1, 2016 at 5:58 pm

"
Our only hope is to vote in more city council members like Dubois who looks out for residents first, workers second and developers last."

Is that the Dubois who was against the signage at grocery outlet and tried to scare people with bogus claims that these kind of signs would proliferate all through the city?


3 people like this
Posted by Marc
a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2016 at 7:28 am

@Marie "...It was not the neighbors..." I'm sorry but it really was the neighbors.

Since the early 90's every time Lucky's tried to do anything with the store it was the neighbors complaining. Too much noise, too much traffic, open too many hours, too many customers. The neighbors had this fantasy that there should be a store open only for their personal connivence. They didn't want customers driving to the store. They didn't want to hear trucks making deliveries. They didn't want lights on at night.

And the neighbors forced the fantasy to the point that the developer gave up on keeping it commercial and turned it into housing, since it was already zoned for it.

This is the same thing that happened to Hyatt Rickey's. They kept wanting to make improvements. The neighbors kept complaining and blocking it so the developer turned it into homes.

/marc


1 person likes this
Posted by Fact or Fiction
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 2, 2016 at 7:49 am

[Post removed.]


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

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 3,484 views

Trials of My Grandmother
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 1,455 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,216 views

Can we ever improve our schools?
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 685 views