Town Square

Post a New Topic

Edgewood Plaza builder loses $94,200, wins green light

Original post made on Oct 8, 2013

After inadvertently destroying a physically decrepit but symbolically precious piece of Palo Alto history, the developer behind Edgewood Plaza will have to pay a fine of $94,200, the City Council ruled Monday night.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, October 8, 2013, 12:47 AM

Comments (20)

Posted by resident
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 8, 2013 at 8:26 am

The fact that the City is imposing a fine is sufficient response
to what happened here as a deterrent to it happening again. However, the amount of the fine imposed here is far too high based on the facts, and the outcome for the project is the same or better than what would have occurred. What the Council should be far more concerned about is why there was no sign/design control over the renovation of the gas station earlier this year at this location. This actually has an impact on the project and says a lot more about Palo Alto to everybody who drives down Embarcadero each day than the amount of the fine leveled against Sand Hill.

Posted by Cassie
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 8, 2013 at 9:00 am

Out with the old in with the new!

Posted by Kate
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 8, 2013 at 9:46 am

One thing that is badly needed is a stop sign at the entrance FROM the parking lot TO St. Francis Drive. I almost got killed by a driver barreling out of the parking lot, making a left turn onto St. Francis, and speeding toward Embarcadero. This ivery dangerous situation should be remedied asap. And yes, the Shell Station is an eyesore. Just detracts from the shopping center.

Posted by 35 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 8, 2013 at 10:18 am

It was a run down, cinder block box for God's sake. Who cares?

Posted by 35 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 8, 2013 at 10:19 am

Forgot one thing....another money grab by the city.

Posted by A neighbor
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Oct 8, 2013 at 11:33 am

Reducing by two the number of homes the developer is allowed to build on the site would have sent a meaningful message to deter other developers from acting illegally and later accepting trivial symbolic consequences.

Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 8, 2013 at 11:50 am

It would be nice if they could bring back EDGEWOOD EATS! I really miss it -- and I felt that it did more for the fraternal nature of the city than any pile of bricks.

Posted by Erik
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:23 pm

What was behind this was the "planned community" again. Looks like this PC thing is spinning out of control and make me feel disgusted. Do we, residents, still have any control over it at all? Or do we just count on the city council that doesn't seem to be dependable.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:34 pm

Does anyone get the feeling that the City are really more interested in the money they garner from this fine and how to spend it more than the fact that we now have got rid of blight. Remember, blight was the hot topic just a week ago. Perhaps they want more blight so that they can get some more fines to spend!!!!

Posted by Reimburse the dude
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:36 pm

That developer should be rewarded, if not reimbursed, for ridding of us of a crumbling, delapidated, derelict eyesore. Eichler buildings were meant to be TEMPORARY ( according to an elderly friend who used to work for Joe Eichler ), never intended to last long enough to become historic buildings! That's why they were built on the cheap, why they have a single-wall construction, and why they are made of toxic materials. Also why they burn to the ground in the blink of an eye ( never inhale the smoke).

Posted by Boyd
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Oct 8, 2013 at 12:51 pm

Everybody came out ahead on this one.

Posted by Not an issue
a resident of Community Center
on Oct 8, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Bravo to the developer for ridding us of this eyesore. The keywords here " physically decrepit". If this was such an Important structure why was it nt taken care of? Where was Karen Holman, who in her usual out of touch wants a larger fine, while this structure that she was waxing about at the meeting was falling into a state of disrepair?
Good bye and goof riddance to this piece of junk.
And mark Berma needs to get a grip-- he won't deal with real issues facing the city but is ready to levy a $2 million dollar fine?
What a council!!!!!

Posted by What a bunch of
a resident of Green Acres
on Oct 9, 2013 at 12:59 am

I'm sure they will happily use the fine money to try to force the huge vioation of residential zoning down the throats of the Maybell neighbors.

Posted by Not Buying It
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 9, 2013 at 8:17 am

Anyone involved in the project, even the guy on the bulldozer, would know what the project entailed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to imagine that the entire crew out there that day would not have known that the buildings weren't set for demolition. The developer purposely tore that building down with minimal repercussions: a tiny fine and the lucrative contract to build a new building where the old one was.

Posted by Totally corrupt
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 9, 2013 at 9:35 am

The Council says that this $94k fine will "send a message" to future developers.... yeah, the message is if you illegally tear down a historical building in the city of Palo Alto you'll face a tiny fine and then be rewarded by getting the contract to build a brand new building in it's place. So sick of this same old story being played out time and time again.

Posted by oh well
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 9, 2013 at 2:49 pm

Guess it doesn't matter that the city hired an outside "historical consultant" who neither lives in Palo Alto and who has no credentials to support their claim as a "historical consultant". This supposed "historic consultant" was on site during the demolition process and failed to notify the contractor and/or those working for Sand Hill Property Company that demolition of this historic building was not approved. Seems the outside consultant forgot which party they were representing and favored Sand Hill Property Company's influence. What a pity! The sad part is that the Chief Building Official and the Planning Director failed to place a stop work order on the site until they were told to do so by the city attorney. Guess this speaks volumes about the incompetency in these two city departments.

Posted by historymatters
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 9, 2013 at 5:27 pm

There is no doubt that Edgewood was in disrepair and an eyesore, however, it was Joseph Eichler's only commercial project ever. He is a significant and important historical figure to the bay area (and California) and because of this, this whole debacle deserved much more attention than it got. Shame on Palo Alto for letting this and other buildings (Juana Briones house for one, as well as Birge Clark homes, Eichler homes and simply other architecturally interesting homes like the one razed on Waverley and Santa Rita recently) get demolished at all. This town is well on it's way to looking like a new track home suburb with its bloated, ugly stucco and red tile roof mcmansions popping up. Yuck. And I don't think for ONE MINUTE that Sand Hill Properties didn't plan it this way all along. $94,200 is nothing to them.

Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Oct 9, 2013 at 7:46 pm

Eichler had no direct involvement on this project, his partner did. Strike one on "only commercial building that Eichler built."

Beyond the dereliction of the buildings, they were not earthquake safe, did not have modern electrical (and safe) infrastructure, instant fire traps given the building materials, no energy saving features, etc. The buildings were not fit for habitation nor for modern shopping/grocery store applications. Strike two.

The demolished building in question was going to be moved and then made over. Apparently there were many renovations and repairs made previously, leaving very little that was original (and salvageable). Given the plans, you would have no idea or visibility to any of the remaining/stable materials (e.g., framing 2x4s). The reality is that the new building will have the same footprint, will look better than one will know the difference. Strike 3.

Move on and be thankful that this project is finally on its way towards the finish line.

Posted by PaloAltan
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 9, 2013 at 9:03 pm

The city took all the money from fining school, developer.. and the residents get the tax initiative. Don't let that one slip under the election in Nov my friend!

Posted by SteveU
a resident of Barron Park
on Oct 10, 2013 at 7:23 am

SteveU is a registered user.

You know, there may be a reason this was the only 'Eichler Commercial' venture: They realized it was a mistake.

The developer probably could have avoided the fine by building a few Senior Housing Units .

PC Zoning must go. It is just askin to be abused.

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


Post a comment

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

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Analysis/paralysis: The infamous ‘Palo Alto Process’ must go
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 2,393 views

Common Ground
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 1,991 views

The Time and Cost Savings of Avoiding a Long Commute
By Steve Levy | 6 comments | 1,720 views

Planting a Fall Garden?
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,194 views


Sign-up now for 5K Run/Walk, 10k Run, Half Marathon

The 39th annual Moonlight Run and Walk is Friday evening, September 29. Join us under the light of the full Harvest Moon on a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon. Complete your race in person or virtually. Proceeds from the race go to the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund, benefiting local nonprofits that serve families and children in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.