Can the city get Michael Frank and all other residents that live within a 1 mile radius to commit to doing ALL of their food shopping at whatever market opens at this site?

It is easy to say "...not having a market deprives the area of a valued amenity..." and what they mean is that only on Sunday night when they need a quart of milk do they want a local market but otherwise they do all their shopping elsewhere.

Stop comparing a new market with JJ&F, it is not 1980. Shopping habits have changed.

/marc

What could go wrong- an undersized, understocked, overpriced market that CT residents don’t shop at.

The developer clearly set Khoury's Market up to fail. There was never permanent signage on Khoury's (in contrast to the bank and music school), whose exterior was covered by perpetual construction. I've heard the developer's objective was to get around the requirement for a grocery store (claiming it's not viable at that location) and instead rent the space to a far more lucrative tech office. I sincerely hope that this time the city will be able to collect the much deserved daily penalty.

I agree with Marc's comments.

A food market will never be successful in that development. The design was contrived to accommodate a market, theoretically, but in practice will never work. Imagine parking in a garage, elevating to a grocery cart, shopping, then reversing the process out, negotiating ramps, etc. No surface parking= no customers. JJF is a few blocks away, not a big deal, with parking on the surface like other successful markets.

Fine the owner as provided in agreements, thats fair, but a market will never make it.

A deal was struck years ago. I happen to think it would have been better to not grant the requested PC, but the developer was slick and CC granted his request with a required public benefit that has proven, predictably enough, challenging. But it is what it is and it is important that the City not fold and forgive the required public benefit. That is an important principle. Oberman is raking in rents from a far oversized development so my guess is that he's fine. As for the three grocers, their families, and all the employees who have been raked since the inception of this development, one can only hope they all recover from their losses.

The owner can try an option that might have a better chance of success and lift the burden of future fines--a grocery store tailored to meet College Terrace residents' needs while satisfying the desire of Palo Altans to buy Asian specialties locally. Could it be any riskier than trying again to bring back a replica of JJ&F?

Annette immediately above is correct. A deal is a deal. The City reluctantly agreed to bust open the zoning restriction for that part of Palo Alto, and only did so because the owner agreed to restrictive convenants in exchange. Namely, providing the public benefit of a grocery store.

The City should NOT let the new owner renege now.

Kudos to the Palo Alto City Council for taking a firm stand.

Posted by Marc, a resident of Midtown

>> Can the city get Michael Frank and all other residents that live within a 1 mile radius to commit to doing ALL of their food shopping at whatever market opens at this site?

It doesn't matter. A deal is a deal, even if the owner has to pay someone to keep a store open there.

This is a lesson for the future: no more upzoning, no more "benefit" deals, no more planned communities with office space, nothing. Palo Alto does not need any more office space, period.

In the meantime, fine the owner until a new store is established, even if it has negative rent.

The landlord did not return calls to the Khourys. He has continued to shield the market with shrouding and netting and never provided signage. The infrastructure was never sound with pipes breaking in the grocery store and in the bank. The elevator was broken down. Why wouldn't a landlord support his tenant? Certainly it is reasonable to work with one's tenant to foster success yet he did the opposite perhaps by design. In my opinion Oberman's performance in front of the council was weak and he appeared to speak off the cuff. Was it vanity that drove him to just show up? I question his assertion that the Khourys had stopped paying rent after the first month. He has an obligation to abide by the covenant and stop playing the city and the community. What this landlord does not realize, in my opinion, is that he has tarnished his brand by being litigious and not respecting the tenant, city and community.

When the owner agreed to provide the public benefit in return for relaxed zoning, he was agreeing to maintain the public benefit regardless of its profitability. The owner agreed to provide a grocery store. Period. Even if the store requires substantial subsidies from the owner.

It seems the owner was making a half-hearted effort to provide a grocery store, perhaps with the hope that he would be permitted to convert an unsuccessful grocery store into profitable offices. The City cannot let him play that game. The owner is a businessman and should know that a contract is a contract.

Marc has it absolutely right. Jerry has it wrong. An Asian market will also fail. The footprint of the store is too small to be successful no matter what is stocked on the shelves.

The Daily Post reports today that the Khoury's were one year behind in their rent. The market failed because not enough people shopped there to sustain it, not because it was covered with netting for a few months.

[Post removed.]

Maybe the distressed neighbors should form a co-op and run a grocery store.

[Post removed.]

Final comment....if anyone should be held accountable, it's the city, for allowing this to happen in the first place.

Michael Frank...good for you for supporting local retail and grocery shops, getting to know your neighbors and establishing community and relationships.

Let this be a lesson to the city. STOP granting these public benefit walk arounds of existing zoning.

Posted by What Will They Do Next, a resident of Old Palo Alto

>> Final comment....if anyone should be held accountable, it's the city, for allowing this to happen in the first place.

You have a very, very, very bizarre concept of "accountability".

Picture a cartoon of a courtroom. The accused's lawyer stands and points to a policeman. "You allowed this to happen!"

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

@ anon.... you have a bizarre concept of how things work in city government.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]