Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14398 City of Palo Alto (ID # 14398) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/9/2022 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Supplemental Report - Parklet Program Title: Review and Provide Feedback on the Proposed Permanent Parklet Standards and Program Policies; and Adopt an Interim Ordinance and Resolution to Continue the Pilot Parklet Program until December 31, 2022 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Supplemental Report - Item 10 MEETING DATE: MAY 9, 2022 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: JONATHAN LAIT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SUBJECT: REVIEW AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSED PERMANENT PARKLET STANDARDS AND PROGRAM POLICIES; AND ADOPT AN INTERIM ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE THE PILOT PARKLET PROGRAM UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2022 This At-Places Memorandum summarizes three events that occurred after publication of the staff report: (1) A focus group meeting with businesses and property owners regarding parklets; (2) an online business survey; and, (3) comments from the Architectural Review Board. This memo provides a summary of additional feedback received after publication of the staff report and prior to the May 9th City Council Meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Focus Group On Wednesday, April 27th, staff met with nine (9) members of the Palo Alto business community to discuss the proposed permanent parklet program standards. The group included restaurant owners and one property owner in the downtown area and one restaurant/business owner from California Avenue. Staff reviewed key areas of change being proposed, including design and operational standards as well as potential program fees. The key topics and corresponding feedback are summarized below: Design Standard Feedback: • Landscaping and Planters. Several individuals voiced concerns with requiring landscaping and/or planters as part of the parklet standards due to required upkeep. While most people voiced an appreciation for plantings and vegetation adding positively to the urban environment, there were concerns that the standard would not necessarily be achieved to the expected aesthetic quality in practice. “Not everyone has a green thumb”, was one remark we got on this topic. One individual also voiced concerns over planters collecting trash and debris, which would likely be addressed through operational standards for cleanliness. • Enclosure and Sidewalls. Several business owners felt that not allowing side walls along the street facing edges of the parklet would be a serious problem with patrons. Several businesses have erected tents, tent-like structures, or three-sided enclosures during the temporary program period and this standard would stray from those existing conditions. The need for side walls as expressed by focus group attendees is motivated by the need for protection from sun, wind, and other elements. As voiced by one business owner, “Not allowing side walls feels like a program killer.” Further information on side walls and safety requirements can be found in the primary staff report. Power Supply Feedback: Several attendees expressed serious concern over the proposed requirement for electric only connections for parklets including lighting and heaters. Most individuals that spoke to this concern felt that businesses that have space to store propane in compliance with fire code should be permitted to do so. The primary reason for the concern over electric connectivity is the potential for electrical system retrofitting if the business is already close to or at the capacity for electrical output for their space. Upgrading electrical service to their business to power heaters and parklet lighting may be cost prohibitive and require too much time. Program Fee & Space Charge Feedback: City of Palo Alto Page 3 Initial feedback from focus group attendees on the topic of a parking space charge was divided. A few individuals felt strongly that there should be no additional space charge in addition to permitting fees as they felt the tax revenues generated by their operations sufficiently compensate the public for the use of the space. However, a few other attendees expressed that the idea that there would be no fee or cost to businesses for utilizing public space for a private business was ‘ridiculous’ and felt that requesting a space charge was reasonable and expected. In addition to focused feedback, there were a few general comments for staff and decisionmakers to consider moving forward in the drafting process. A few attendees mentioned that it would be helpful to have the standards provided through example plans for businesses to utilize for their respective applications. The business owner in the group suggested having design guidelines that were flexible enough for a future tenant to take over the parklet without too much trouble or need for retrofitting. Survey In addition to a focus group, staff sent an online survey out to businesses and property owners to answer specific questions and provide feedback on the parklet program. The following provides a review of the results from 24 total survey responses: Question 1: Do you currently have a parklet? Out of 24 total responses, 16 individuals have a parklet (67%) and 8 do not (33%). Question 2: If you have a parklet, how many parking spaces are being utilized for the parklet? Of the 16 individuals who indicated that they currently have a parklet, 17% are utilizing one (1) space, 44% are utilizing two (2) spaces, 11% are utilizing three (3) spaces, and 28% are utilizing more than three (3) spaces. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Question 3: We are considering an annual charge to compensate for the private use of public space for revenue generating activities. If you had to pay a monthly charge for use of the public right of way, which of the following fee ranges would you be willing to pay to continue to have a parklet (please check all that apply): Question 4: From your perspective, what has been the most successful outcome of having parklets in Palo Alto? A majority of the respondents, 20, indicated a positive outcome from having the parklets including continued business throughout the pandemic, increasing foot traffic and beautifying Palo Alto, and allowing for an opportunity for guests to enjoy the fantastic climate and weather of Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Three respondents were less favorable: two respondents expressed not liking the parklets and one respondent liked the parklets during the height of the pandemic but feel they are no longer necessary. Question 5: What would you change about your parklet? The majority of responses (10) indicated that they would make minor changes with the implementation of a permanent program such as investing in a roof structure, improving heating, adding signage, adding more seating, or upgrading materials and installing better plants. The remaining responses were split between individuals expressing they like there parklet as is and two individuals who expressed the desire to have all parklets removed. Question 6: Do you have any other general or specific feedback for the permanent parklet program? We received a wide range of feedback from respondents. Feedback received is summarized below in key categories: • Guidelines: o Keep guidelines streamlined and not cumbersome o Ask for clear standards including neutral colors, quality design materials. o Propane heaters should be allowed as well as electric heaters o Provide Pre-approved parklet plans to streamline process for businesses o Parklets should have a uniform look and aesthetic o Wind, sun, and rain protection is imperative • Fees: o If fees need to be imposed, keep them low o Parklets should be free • Operations: o Keep parklets, clean, safe, and convenient for the community o More maintenance and cleaning of areas around parklet o Look at program management and the effect on different areas of the city (i.e. how many parklets per block) • Miscellaneous: o End the parklet program o Reopen Ramona o Drive lanes should be minimized and parklets expanded. City of Palo Alto Page 6 o No permanent parklets As indicated by the variety of comments, business owners should and will continue to be engaged during the update process to capture valuable feedback. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Feedback The ARB had a robust discussion of the proposed standards on May 5, 2022. The motion, supported unanimously, was to forward their feedback (described below) to the City Council for its consideration and request the City Council extend the temporary program to allow more time for an ARB subcommittee to discuss and deliberate on the standards. The ARB took a series of informal “straw polls” to gauge members opinions on aspects of the standards. These straw polls are summarized below. Minutes from this meeting are not yet available. 1. Color – 4 of 5 members support removing from the standards references to limiting colors and requiring neutral and/or earth tones. Most members felt the limitation on color as proposed was overly restrictive. One member, however, did prefer to have flexibility for color of non-fixed items (furnishings, chairs, pillows, etc.) while limiting color for fixed elements (platform, enclosure, etc). 2. Lights – 5 of 5 members supported no restriction on ambient lighting, except prohibiting flood lighting or other such harsh lighting. The ARB wanted to allow for creative and attractive lighting with fewer limitations. Staff can research how best to phrase this minimizing any lighting that might be detrimental to motorists. Initially staff do have concerns around how omnidirectional lighting may impact motorists. 3. 4’ Setbacks (at the ends of parklets) Wheel Stops, Delineators – ARB members recognized the importance of providing these safety features, yet also wanted to study more aesthetically please alternatives to meet the intent of these devices. This includes exploring the option for bike parking in the 4’ setback or other safety devices. 4. 36” Height of Enclosure and Periodic Barrier (+/- a few inches) - The ARB noted that seeing into and out of the parklet is key to their success for patrons as well as for pedestrians, motorists, and others. They felt the height of the enclosure should be a maximum of 36” (as opposed to the proposed 42”), with some allowance for additional height to allow flexibility. They did not want the enclosure and/or periodic barrier to be 42” tall. The height of 36” is common in other jurisdictions. City of Palo Alto Page 7 5. Side Covering/Sidewalls – The ARB acknowledged this topic is critical. Providing some protection from wind and other elements is important for parklets. ARB members generally supported some type of sidewall/covering. The ARB wanted more time to discuss appropriate materials for sidewalls that are good quality and maintain transparency. 3 of 5 members did not support opaque sidewalls or coverings. Yet the members agreed they need more time to discuss appropriate materials and other characteristics of sidewalls and coverings. 6. Quality of Materials – All members supported prohibiting the use of vinyl, soft plastics, or tarps for parklet coverings or as any part of the enclosure. 7. Fabric Roofs – ARB members supported allowing fabric roofs or coverings over parklets. In such cases, ARB agreed heaters would not be allowed under fabric roofs. If Council concurs, staff recommend requiring flame retardant and resistant materials to limit danger of ignition. Even if heaters are prohibited, parklet permit holders may violate the standards and place portable heaters under fabric coverings. 8. Aluminum – All ARB members supported allowing the use of aluminum. They noted this material can be attractive, durable, and low cost. 9. Heaters – ARB members acknowledged allowing heaters is critical to the program. They were not decided on whether all electric should be required, or if propane heaters are also permissible. They wanted more time for a subcommittee to discuss this. One general idea, that received some verbal support, was to allow propane heaters in accordance with any applicable rules and codes. Where a code could not be met, the propane heater would not be allowed. 10. Not Require Design Professional – The supported rephrasing the standards regarding wind load with requiring compliance with the applicable code for wind load and verifying that, but not specifically requiring an engineer or other specific design professional to do so. The ARB pointed out that prefabricated structures may already meet the standards and not require a design professional to verify compliance. Staff remain concerned about ensuring that the parklets are sturdy and will not pose a threat to patrons, motorist, or others. Vegetation – ARB members spoke in support of requiring vegetation as part of the parklets, as proposed. This topic was not included in a straw poll, either because there were a number of topics and the ARB needed to get on to other items, or because the ARB members generally spoke in favor of the current standard. In contrast, the items included in the straw poll differed City of Palo Alto Page 8 from the proposed standards. If the Council does extend the temporary program, this can be further explored. Finally, the ARB members touched on other topics as well, and likely more discussion will develop if a subcommittee is created to work with staff on the standards.