Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-18 Retail Committee Summary MinutesRETAIL COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 8 Regular Meeting December 18, 2024 The Retail Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 9:00 A.M. Present In-Person: Kou (Chair), Burt, Lythcott-Haims Councilmember Lythcott-Haims arrived at 9:03 A.M. Absent: None. Call to Order Chair Kou called the meeting to order. The clerk called roll reporting two present. Public Comments 1. Steven L. supported the Committee’s efforts in filling the vacant spaces Downtown and at University Avenue and discussed his preferences for more restaurants versus stores. Agenda Items 1. Recommendations to Council and Staff Following the Committee’s November Study Session Addressing Retail Vacancies in the University Avenue Downtown, Including: (1) Enhanced Cleanliness Efforts; (2) Revisions to the Parklet Program; and (3) Increasing Temporary Uses Chair Kou Steve Guagliardo, Assistant to the City Manager, provided a slide presentation with feedback from Council and stakeholders from the November study session including enhanced cleanliness efforts, potential revisions to ongoing parklet program and potential opportunities to better facilitate short-term activations. Item 1 Public Comment SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 8 Retail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/18/2024 1. Faith B., Bell’s Bookstore, desired extending the cleanliness into the alleys. She spoke about the lack of parking and was angered about parklets taking up more spaces. 2. Martin B. talked about the benefits of widened sidewalks and advised looking for creative opportunities to develop the edges of the proposed plazas as the plan gets developed. 3. Brad E. did not think it was fair to not allow retailers or property owners to have a say of what goes in front of their buildings and implored the City to revise the parklet ordinance and allow retailers to have the space in front of their stores. 4. Roxy R. talked about parklets driving away retailers. He agreed that landlords should have control in front of their property. 5. Nancy C. expressed the frustration of restaurant owners regarding the back and forth of the parklet rules. She opined they were chasing restaurants out of town and that the public was demanding parklets. 6. Elizabeth W. thought the parklets were unfair. She advised spending money on attracting tenants instead of widening the sidewalks. 7. Whitney D., Five Ten on 510 Waverley, discussed issues with aesthetics with parklets. She supported parklets should not extend beyond the restaurants. Councilmember Burt recalled the need for temporary parking loading zones, the unappreciated history of the Downtown areas and the need to streamline permitting and inspections being discussed but did not see them referenced in this report. He wanted clarification on the parklet distinctions. He thought they needed to distinguish between concern on visibility and reconsider whether umbrellas should be permitted in front of adjacent retailers. He opined they needed a different name for the parklets that did not allow roofs and structures versus those that just allow tables. Holly Boyd, Assistant Director of Public Works, explained a restaurant is able to have a full Parklet platform, railing and roof in front of their frontage of building but is limited to the platform and railing in front of a neighboring business. They were allowed to have umbrellas. Ed Shikada, City Manager, added low-level planters were also allowed. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims worried about the concern retailers had about their frontage being impeded by the extension of someone else’s parklet. She wanted to hear from Director Lait on the changes they had talked about and when they expected the word to spread. She wondered about the differential in the power washing and why they did not extend Cal Ave the same grace being extended to University Avenue. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 8 Retail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/18/2024 Mr. Guagliardo replied it was difficult to know but they needed to make sure that all external facing resources were updated and reflected the new approach they were taking and the new things they were talking about. He remarked that cleanliness was a topic of discussion as they continued to explore what they wanted to do. In the past, there had been one on the spot pressure washing for Cal Ave but thought Councilmember Lythcott-Haims raised an important point about the level of service and consistency across the commercial cores. If they made the decision to expand that service to Cal Ave, there was question of who would pay for it to maintain it on an ongoing basis. City Manager Shikada acknowledged the work was ongoing. The discussion reinforced the importance of the work happening at a staff level. The conversation being held was part of the permitting process. The regulations being discussed were a part of that narrative. The conversation did not preclude the operational work that was ongoing but he wanted to be sure they were cognizant of the fact that those connected. For that reason, they were bringing forward the parklet issue and wanted to ensure they were addressing what was a recurring topic at the study session last month and allow the Council the opportunity to get clarity on the issue that was raised while they proceeded with the other work. He added the discussion of potential enhancements and expansion was a budget discussion they would want to bring back as it was further evaluated. He clarified they would be bringing a study session back to the Council on Cal Ave. Chair Kou disagreed with extending whether there's a roof or not umbrellas into a neighboring property and with regards to parking. She thought they should be open and hear what the business and property owners were experiencing not only in the leasing of the property and what they have to do towards leasing it but also what the retailers and merchants heard from their customers. She did not agree that an SUV in a parking space could be compared to a parklet. She stated they had to look at the entire picture of what would make common sense and what people experience. She thought a parklet system should not be different on a closed or open street. She remarked retailers and merchants should not be scared or stepping on eggshells. They have to make a living and also make sure the people working for them are taken care of. They should have reliable understanding of what their business, income and revenue is going to be and there should not be changes for them. She mentioned that the City owned the streets so should have some say so on parklets and parking. She talked about a loss of business due to lack of parking. She talked about the higher rents in Palo Alto compared to Burlingame, Town and Country and Stanford Mall. She thought business and property owners should participate in cleanliness and décor. She suggested the Chamber looking at marketing trends. She did not think 45 days was enough for popup use and they should consider going to 90 days. She also did not think a popup should have to have a bunch of tenant improvements unless it transitions to longer-term use. She opined they should go back to requiring a tenant letter from a property owner when a parklet went up. She wanted to know if the permitting, especially fire, could be expedited a little more. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Building Services, answered they had a variety of target review times ranging from a couple of days to six weeks for some larger commercial buildings. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 8 Retail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/18/2024 It depended on available staff resources and their workload. There was a reliance on contractors to shore up the fire program due to vacancies. The intent was to be quick for a popup store, ideally an instant online permit but it would depend on the parameters Council wanted to set forth. Councilmember Burt asked for clarification on the intent of the temporary use permit process. Director Lait replied the intent was to have something focused on addressing other needs. He stated there was a progression of increasing interest and other departments that get involved in wanting to know what is going on in the space, including county health as food gets introduced. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims commented she would defer to brokers and retailers on the duration. She was thinking possibly six months to a year. She wondered who was best equipped to facilitate the right popups and startups getting into the right vacancies. She queried how an individual with an idea for a pop-up or a startup could access the property owners. City Manager Shikada indicated the property owner’s role to conclude what would fit within their shell. If they wanted to turn it into a program, they would need to develop the appropriate marketing and matchmaking. He said they heard a variety of different concepts at the study session from the owners' and brokers' perspective and ability to bring forward uses that would activate spaces in ways that could create that level of activity that the City has expressed an interest in, but not necessarily at a program level. Councilmember Burt described popups as either seasonal or businesses who want to give it a try on a small scale. He thought they might want to build in a concept for extension applications for the latter circumstance. He thought they should recognize the different avenues for popups to go to. Mr. Guagliardo mentioned the seasonal popups were well suited to the TUP process they had in place so they needed to focus on developing the second tier. Chair Kou thought the streamlining permitting process for the seasonal things still needed to be reviewed if staff could consider that and come back to Retail or Council at the next meeting to figure out how to have more instantaneous permitting or shorter time frames. She thought the tenant needed to know what the actual uses were and if they wanted to stay longer afterward they might have to move to another spot that allows that use. Councilmember Burt wanted to consider that 45 days was not long enough for the seasonal popups. Director Lait explained the reason they had the TUP or a popup store was also allowing land uses in zones that may not necessarily allow for those types of activities to take place on a temporary basis thus the short duration or for a use that would require some kind of upgrades to the building because of an intensification of use. There would need to be a policy decision at SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 8 Retail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/18/2024 which point they need to adhere to the state building codes in terms of making sure that the building would meet the intent of the occupancy. They could consider extensions but it may require some upgrades to the building if it goes too much further down the road. Creating instant permits or a streamlined process would require some changes to the infrastructure. Mr. Guagliardo clarified there were holiday-specific things being used and actively engaged with. Any process improvements made on a separate one would be applied to that, as well. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims advised the article in Palo Alto Weekly needed to articulate where a potential pop-up startup operator would go to take the first step. She suggested looking into a customer service level similar to San Jose. Councilmember Burt agreed with looking at how other cities addressed it. Mr. Guagliardo replied one of the objectives within the economic development and transition priority this year was for staff to be exploring what other cities have been doing in this space. Conversations had been held with a representative from San Francisco's Vacant to Vibrant program, San Jose's Made program and the moment pop-ups they do as well as Santa Cruz and their Pops! program. He advised he would be chairing the Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance next year under the auspices of Joint Venture Silicon Valley where they share best practices. Public Comment 1. Herb B. stated he had submitted a letter for the third time this year about cleanliness and that the municipal code for decades had required the property owner or occupant to be responsible for cleaning the sidewalk and not sweeping any debris into the street. He suggested property owners could pay to have this done if they did not want to do it. He thought perhaps someone on the Board of Directors was entitled to extend the parklets. He recalled the municipal zoning code indicated temporary uses were for a consecutive period of no more than 45 days, once in a 12-month period in the past. 2. Roxy R. talked about a national firm coming in called Solid Core that did a lot of TI work so could not be a popup. He thought popups were passe and it would be best to get three or four commercial real estate brokers and see what the demand was. 3. Faith B. wanted people to think about how parklets were giving over the rights to what benefits the businesses. 4. Elizabeth W. remarked that the idea of having a parklet in front of her building was intrusive and violated her rights to that space whether or not it had a roof and umbrella. She did not think it was constitutional for the City to have absolute power over these spaces just because they own the street. She wanted to clarify that Burlingame's rent was higher than downtown Palo Alto. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 8 Retail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/18/2024 Councilmember Burt asked for clarification about what would be allowed with auto showrooms downtown. He talked about the Development Center evaluating cultural approaches of permitting and inspection streamlining. He talked about the parklet proliferation issue. He supported looking at how they limit the amount of parklets on a street that would be beyond in front of a restaurant and thought it should be fairly limited. He noted it did not apply to closed streets. He recalled a rule stating if someone has a parklet in front of a neighbor that would have a restaurant, that restaurant would then be able to essentially trump the use of that space in front. He add ADA access should be added to temporary parking in the motion. Mr. Guagliardo explained the showroom would not be a dealership and would not include onsite storage of vehicles. There would be no ability to test drive a vehicle from it. It would only allow viewing the vehicles. He remarked if a parklet extended beyond the frontage of a restaurant then a restaurant were to come in, they would be able to say they want to claim that space for the term of the renewal. He stated permits were issued on a yearly basis. He gave the example of if restaurant A extended beyond their frontage in front of restaurant B, restaurant B comes in and wants to have the parklet here instead, restaurant A has allowed their parklet for the duration of their permit but at the conclusion of that permit they would need to scale back to their frontage. It would be the same for a retailer. Slightly different guidelines existed for car- free streets and they were working on developing longer-term guidelines for those spaces. Chair Kou thought they needed to continue working on who a potential tenant could go to for information. She felt there needed to be enforcement and penalties for double parking. She suggested having police walking in uniform along University and some of the core areas to enforce traffic laws. She thought short-term activities needed to come to Council or the Retail Committee in the near future about the duration, fee level, safety code signs and aesthetics and it needed to develop longer than 45 days. She wanted better definition in terms of what is an animal shelter or a pet shop and opportunities for that in Downtown, Cal Ave or Midtown. She wanted to ensure there was a balance of terms on what kind of uses there were. Councilmember Burt wanted clarification about cleaning services and the costs associated with them and what geographic area was covered by the $30,000. He thought an effort at stronger communication was needed on the responsibility of sidewalk cleaning in front of an establishment. He wanted to explore placing some limit on the number of parklets on a street that go beyond the front of a restaurant and looking at restricting tents and the adjacent untented, no roof to one parking space in front of a neighbor as opposed to something more than that. Steve Guagliardo answered the $30,000 covered the commercial core for University Ave, California Avenue and garages. They expected this to be a topic of conversation as they continue in 2025 through the budget development process as they talk about service delivery levels and funding mechanisms. The enhanced service level only applying to University Ave was only for the additional pressure washing. The other components of the additional services provided also included Cal Ave. They were cleaning the trash cans and news racks more frequently. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 8 Retail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/18/2024 MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Burt, to recommend the City Council 1. Recommend that Council revise the fiscal year 2025 budget at mid-year to enhance cleanliness efforts in both downtowns as described in the staff report. 2. Recommend that Council revise the ongoing parklet policy so that parklets extension into adjacent frontages may only occur with adjacent property owner’s consent. 3. Recommend that Staff develop a revision to the temporary use permit rules designed to incentivize short term activation, taking into account fees, duration, code compliance, signs, aesthetics, as well as a plan for who will be the point of contact for business operators and Real Estate brokers seeking to fill such vacant storefronts. 4. Request staff to explore a plan for: a. promotion of the character of downtown. b. temporary parking needs and locations. c. other medium-term physical improvements. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Steve Guagliardo thought this was an important mechanism to have a forum for engagement with the private sector stakeholders going forward. They would continue these discussions as they discuss Council priorities for 2025 and what those objectives and additional work plans look like. Chair Kou requested they bring back Cal Ave study session as soon as possible and include Midtown sometime down the line. Councilmember Burt inquired what would be coming back to this Committee versus what might go to Council for the action. City Manager Shikada indicated they would follow the Council leads as they got organized after the first of the year but may be queued up to be able to bring it to the full Council either late January or first of February. Councilmember Lythcott Haims thanked Chair Kou for her leadership of this committee and her eight years of service as a council member, vice mayor and mayor. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 8 Retail Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/18/2024 Future Meetings and Agendas Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 A.M.