Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2412-3936CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Monday, January 13, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM     Agenda Item     7.Retail Committee Recommendation to: (1) Revise the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Appropriation at Mid-Year to Enhance Cleanliness Efforts in Both Downtowns; (2) Revise the Ongoing Parklet Regulations to Require Consent to Expand Beyond Own Frontage; and (3) Refer Staff to Follow-up on Revising the Temporary Use Zoning Rules and Exploring Improvements to Downtown Infrastructure and Experience Public Comment City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: January 13, 2025 Report #:2412-3936 TITLE Retail Committee Recommendation to: (1) Revise the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Appropriation at Mid-Year to Enhance Cleanliness Efforts in Both Downtowns; (2) Revise the Ongoing Parklet Regulations to Require Consent to Expand Beyond Own Frontage; and (3) Refer Staff to Follow- up on Revising the Temporary Use Zoning Rules and Exploring Improvements to Downtown Infrastructure and Experience RECOMMENDATION The Ad Hoc Retail Committee recommends that the City Council confirm direction to staff to: 1. Revise the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Appropriation at Mid-Year to enhance cleanliness efforts in both downtown areas, as outlined in attachment A included with this report 2. Revise the ongoing parklet program so that parklets’ extensions into adjacent frontages may only occur with the consent of the adjacent property owner 3. Refer staff follow-up on the below items recommended by the Retail Committee: a. Developing a revision to the temporary use permit rules b. Exploring a plan for improvements to downtown infrastructure and experience BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS During the December 18 Ad Hoc Retail Committee meeting1, the committee reviewed the recommendation presented by staff following the November Study Session on addressing retail vacancies in the University Avenue Downtown. The recommendation following the study session included efforts to enhance cleanliness in the downtowns, potential revisions to the 1 December 18 Retail Committee Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=15632 ongoing parklet program, and potential opportunities to better facilitate temporary uses. Following the discussion, the committee unanimously approved the following motion2: 1. Recommend that Council revise the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Appropriation 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 The full video3 of the committee confirmation is available on the Retail Committee website4. The memorandum includes the Retail Committee Staff Report to provide additional context. The proposed recommendations are intended to support efforts to address retail vacancies. If approved, staff will implement the recommendations of this report through a variety of channels. The recommendation related to enhancing cleanliness will be addressed as part of the Mid-Year budget review. Staff will incorporate specified revisions to the ongoing parklet program at the administrative level. Staff will incorporate discussion of following-up on temporary use permit revisions and exploring a plan for improving downtown infrastructure and experience as part of the 2025 City Council priority-setting discussion. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Recommendation #1 relates to the City’s Mid-Year Budget review, which will be considered by the City Council in February. Staff would implement this direction by incorporating it into the staff recommendation to be considered by the City Council at that time. Funding for subsequent years is subject to City Council approval through the annual budget process. 2 Retail Committee Action Minutes: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=15633&compileOutputType =1 3 December 18 Retail Committee Meeting Full Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyaPcr1bem4&t=2s 4 Retail Committee Website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Council- Committees/Retail-Committee STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Stakeholder engagement has been a key element of the Retail Committee. The City has actively involved, and continues to involve, retailers, restaurant owners, real estate brokers, and residents, many of whom have participated in public comment and panel discussions. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The recommendation does not qualify as a project under CEQA. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Retail Committee Staff Report #2411-3839 APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager Retail Committee Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: City Manager Meeting Date: December 18, 2024 Report #:2411-3839 TITLE 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 RECOMMENDATION Based on feedback from the Council and stakeholders during the November Study Session, staff recommends the Ad Hoc Retail Committee provide feedback on: a) efforts to enhance cleanliness in the downtowns b) potential revisions to the ongoing parklet program c) potential opportunities to better facilitate temporary uses BACKGROUND The Ad Hoc Retail Committee has met regularly since its creation in December 2023. It became a Brown-Act body in March 2024 and has met monthly, with the exception of June and July. Discussions about retail vacancies have arisen in multiple Committee meetings, and staff identified a focused study session on this topic could help advance any recommendations from the Committee to the full Council. During the October Ad Hoc Retail Committee meeting, the committee and staff discussed how to facilitate a study session in November to address retail vacancies in the University Avenue downtown. The discussion included potential areas for consideration, such as the entitlement (planning) and development process, uncertainty around plans and parking, trends in brick-and- mortar retail, a potential vacancy tax, interim activation of vacant storefronts, and the business improvement district. Potential structures, formats, and participant outreach for the study session were also discussed. After receiving direction at the October meeting, staff convened a study session to address retail vacancies along University Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto on November 20, 2024. This session focused on the City’s permitting process, the retail landscape, opportunities for greater partnership with the private sector, and the activation of vacant storefronts. During the November Study Session, the Ad Hoc Retail Committee held a panel discussion with stakeholders to address retail vacancies along University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto. The panel was facilitated by Aaron Aknin from the Good City Company and included: •Brad Ehikian, Partner at Premier Properties; •Matt Sweeney, Executive Director at The Econic Company; •Steve Levy, Palo Alto resident and Director & Senior Economist for Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy; •John Shenk, with Thoits Bros., Inc.; •Charlie Weidanz, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce; and •Faith Bell, owner of Bell's Books. There was also robust public engagement featuring perspectives from additional stakeholders, including Elizabeth Wong, Roxy Rapp, Georgie Gleim, and Whitney Denson. This report follows up on three key areas that emerged as particularly significant during the study session: enhanced cleanliness efforts, revisions to the parklet program, and the expansion of temporary uses. ANALYSIS This section provides context for the discussion about enhanced cleanliness efforts, potential revisions to the ongoing parklet program, and potential opportunities to better facilitate temporary uses. Enhanced Cleanliness Efforts Enhanced cleanliness efforts for the University Avenue commercial core emerged as an important need in early 2024. Public Works began initial efforts to provide a greater level of service in March 2024 and has since scaled efforts. Unfortunately, both the mechanism for much of this enhanced cleaning (overtime of existing staff) and the funding source are not resourced for long-term continuity. The following information provides an update on the base level of services previously provided by Public Works, including costs, services, and delivery (in- house or contractual) as well as the enhanced services that Public Works has provided since March 2024. Whether and how to continue the enhanced cleaning efforts will need to be discussed as part of the FY 2026 Operating Budget development, if not sooner. Base Service Levels and Costs: Cleaning activities and costs for the University Ave and California Ave downtowns are part of the City’s operating budget. Public Works manages the cleaning activities, which includes services delivered both through in-house staff and contracted vendors. Cleaning services performed include: street sweeping, pressure washing, litter removal, emptying of garbage containers, cleaning garbage can surfaces, lids, and liners, surface cleaning of news racks and furniture, biohazard debris clean-up, and graffiti, poster, and sticker removal. The total amount spent on cleaning services at the base level is approximately $94,000 per month: $56,000 for contractors and $38,000 for in-house staff. This is broken down by service and delivery below: •$30,000 is the monthly cost for contracted street sweeping, which takes place three times a week in the University Avenue and California Avenue downtowns1 and once per week in garages. $17,000 is the monthly cost for the 80 in-house staff hours per week sweeping in parking lots not covered by contracts and manual blowing to supplement the contracted sweeping. •$11,000 is the cost per month for pressure washing, which takes place monthly on University Avenue and monthly for part of the year (May through October) on California Avenue There is no in-house support for pressure washing •$15,000 per month is the cost for surface cleaning and litter removal through the Downtown Streets Team, which includes 104 hours of labor week on these cleaning activities There is an additional $17,000 per month spent on in-house staff for these activities. There is an additional 20 hours of in-house staff time per week spent on graffiti, poster, flyer and sticker removal at a cost of approximately $4,000 a month. Enhanced Service Levels and Marginal Costs: Public Works has been able to leverage overtime and reassign staff to enhance services and accomplish a greater level of downtown cleanliness since March 2024. These enhanced service levels include additional litter removal, surface cleanings, and additional manual leaf-blowing. The City has also worked with its pressure washing contractor to add an additional cleaning per month, doubling the cleanings per month from one to two. The total amount spent on these is 1 The Car-Free portion of California Avenue is swept once a week; the rest of the California Avenue commercial core is swept three times a week. an additional $28,500 per month broken down by service and task, the majority of which is overtime labor hours of in-house staff. •$25,000 in marginal costs for in-house staff to provide enhanced litter removal and surface cleaning of trash cans, news racks, furniture, and biohazard debris clean-up •$1,000 in marginal costs for in-house staff for additional blowing •$2,500 in marginal costs for the contractor to provide an additional pressure washing of University Avenue Staff is closely monitoring the funding and sustainability of these efforts and may bring forth recommended budget adjustments for FY 2025 if appropriate and needed. Ongoing conversations with downtown stakeholders about their desire to maintain enhanced cleaning services will inform potential options and the policy discussion to follow about what levels of service the City can provide at what cost. Potential Revisions to Ongoing Parklet Program Balancing the competing interests of restaurants and retailers as part of the ongoing parklet program was a recurring topic at the November study session. The Ad Hoc Retail Committee heard from brokers, property owners, and retailers on the importance of ‘certainty’ when it comes to the frontage of their properties and stores. In previous parklet discussions, restauranteurs have described how parklets have been an effective means of attracting and retaining customers. As part of the ongoing parklet program2, parklets are allowed to extend beyond their store’s frontage without a letter of consent from the neighboring store so long as they do not have a roof. Constructing a roofed parklet beyond a stores’ frontage requires a letter of consent from the neighboring business. This represented an approach that attempted to minimize visibility impacts on neighboring retailers. At the November study session, stakeholders and partners from the private sector voiced their perspective that this approach did not do enough to minimize adverse impacts on retailers. Retail stakeholders said they were concerned about the visibility impacts of parklets extending into their frontage, regardless of whether there was a roof or not. Brokers and property owners cited the prospective uncertainty about a parklet, even unroofed, extending into a frontage as a barrier for siting tenants in vacant storefronts. They noted that ‘visibility’ and certainty of that visibility is a key issue for many prospective tenants that they talk to. Retail vibrancy in the City’s commercial cores is an important part of the City’s economic development strategy and of the City Council’s priority of Economic Development and 2 Ongoing Parklet Program: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering- Services/Ongoing-Parklet-Program Transition. In response to the issues raised by retailers and other stakeholders during the November Study session, staff proposes revising the ongoing parklet program to better balance the competing needs of restaurants and retailers. Revising what space parklets can use is a policy decision last decided by Council, and staff seeks feedback from the Retail Committee on the potential for revision. If revisions are pursued, certain key dimensions of the future policy discussion could include: •Should parklet extension in front of adjacent frontages be more limited, such only with adjacent owners’ consent? •If so, should existing parklets be allowed to remain until permit renewal, or other date? •How should this affect the development of outdoor dining guidelines for the car-free street portions of Ramona Street and Cal. Ave? Potential Opportunities to Better Facilitate Short-Term Activations Encouraging short-term activations of vacant tenant spaces or opportunities for startup companies to engage patrons to demonstrate or receive feedback on a product or service was another topic that emerged at the November study session. Currently, the City has limited regulatory tools available currently to facilitate such activations. A Temporary Use Permit (TUP), can typically be issued for certain uses or activities, but the duration is limited to 45 days. Processing these applications also takes two or more weeks depending on what is proposed and costs about $1,800 to process. These constraints preclude this process from being the most effective means to advance a pop-up store or similar temporary startup space, but it is a mechanism that is currently available. Establishing regulations that better facilitate short-term activation requires consideration of several components including: Duration: Defining a maximum time period and potential allowances for extension is an important part of any program to encourage temporary uses that don’t otherwise comply with existing zoning requirements. Application Requirements and Fee Level: This needs to scale with the extent of the activation and the need for tenant improvements, while balancing the desire for applicants to move quickly with low fees. Building and Safety Codes: The state building code does not distinguish between temporary and long-term uses or occupancies. Pop-ups must adhere to building codes, including fire safety, occupancy limits, plumbing and emergency exit requirements. Electrical work or other trade work, even temporary installations, require a permit. The change in occupancy from how the tenant space was designed to how it is intended to be used on a temporary basis will influence the permitting requirements, application processing time and costs, which all escalate based on complexity. Establishing temporary food uses raises other regulatory requirements from the County Health Department. Signs and Aesthetics: Through a TUP application, a temporary sign can be placed on a site, however, for longer duration uses, changes to the City’s local regulations would be required. Signage and other aesthetic considerations, such as product placement in the public right-of-way are key considerations to draw attention to a temporary use. Evaluating how these requirements apply, or differ, from those for long-term uses requires careful consideration to avoid adverse impacts on the commercial environment. Implementing a pop-up / startup program will require some time but could be initiated more quickly through a pilot program. This would require an interim ordinance and policy direction on some of the issues above. During this time, staff can continue to evaluate implications related to the building code and other technical requirements. The intent would be to create a program that facilitated the ease and transition of temporary uses in vacant storefronts and at a low cost. This effort is not currently programed into the Planning and Development Services department workplan and if directed by Council, will require reprioritization of other policy work when discussed early next year as part of the Council annual prioritization process. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The discussion of the items in this report does not require additional funding. Any additional costs arising from feedback and discussion with the Retail Committee will be further refined and brought forward for consideration by the City Council, either as discrete items or as part of the development of the FY 2026 Operating Budget. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Staff conducted outreach to business in the downtown commercial core along with specific outreach to parklet operators and outreach to retailers and participants in the November Study Session panel. This Retail Committee meeting was also promoted through the City’s monthly ‘Business Connect’ newsletter. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The discussion does not qualify as a project under CEQA. ATTACHMENTS None. APPROVED BY: Ed Shikada, City Manager From:Michael Garcia To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Parklets Regulations Date:Thursday, January 9, 2025 3:07:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, I write you today to show support to Restaurants in our downtown community regarding parklet regulations. I believe we should keep in place the current regulations that were set forth in 2024. I don’t believe building owners/property managers should have any say over parklet regulations. I think that should be between business owners and the City, not building owners. I agree with the regulations that are currently set forth and hope that any new proposed regulations DO NOT affect current parklets, that have spent lots of money conforming to the 2024 rules. I fear that pressure from Landlords will influence Council the way they attempt to influence their tenants. I am remaining confident that the City Council will keep the course, and let businesses run themselves and way they see fit to better their individual needs. I realize this doesn’t really affect us on Ramona Street, but we have restaurant friends that have already spent dozens of thousands of dollars complying …and don’t want to go through that expense again. Thank You, Michael Garcia Owner The Wine Room 520 Ramona St. Palo Alto From:Linda XuTo:Council, CitySubject:Our concerns about Grade Separation on Charleston/MeadowDate:Thursday, January 9, 2025 2:39:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear the City Council members: Thank you for your update letter regarding Grade Separation on Charleston/Meadow.We urge that the council not move forward with the Underpass option because it requires acquiring family houses fully or partially. We are the owners of one of these homes, and it will greatly impact us. We are first generation immigrants and have worked very hard to live in Palo Alto for over 29 years and in this house for over 21 years. This house is full of our family memories. My husband and I came to the U.S. in 1990’s to create a better future for our daughters. We have worked very hard so that we could live in Palo Alto and our children could get an education through the Palo Alto Unified School District. Now, both my husband (currently is 67 years old) and I (currently 61 years old) have retired. If the city acquires our house, as a retired senior couple, we don't have the savings to buy a comparable house in Palo Alto. We also can't get a loan for a new house or pay the higher property tax which means that we will most likely be displaced from Palo Alto. While it's easy to assume every family in Palo Alto can financially handle this burden, this is not the case and it will be devastating for us. Because of the uncertainty of the option for the Grade Separation project, we and all the involved families are living with anxiety. We really hope the city considers the above and move forward with the Hybrid option instead of the Underpass alternative. Thank you. Sincerely, Linda and Eric From:Nancy Coupal To:mike@thepawineroom.com; Council, City Subject:2 things Date:Wednesday, January 8, 2025 3:26:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Mike, 1) Please reserve a spot on your calendar January 30th at 2:00pm to meet with the Chamber of Commerce rep Charlie Weidanz to discuss the Art Festival and see if Ramona St is included this year.We will meet at Coupa next to you. 2) Here is the wording that I sent to the Economic Development representative for Palo Alto regarding Parklets extending into the neighboring frontage on the street: Thank you for your email. As you state below, the new proposal for redoing the parklet regulations does not apply to closed streets. However, any Building owner approval of encroaching on City owned property is a bad precedent for our City. That said, one of the most concerning aspects is that the very few Building owners in our City have a desire to keep Palo Alto in the past and not move towards a more Community oriented approach for our uses. Too many shady ways of dealing with Tenants occur and I think it is impossible to go along with any regulations that would encourage this manipulation of business interests. I am hoping that any changes DO NOT affect current parklets and that the City will Grandfather in any existing parklets as exempt from new regulations. Regarding Ramona St., the same 2 landlords that dominated the last Retail meeting are precisely the ones who want to keep our town in the past and only think of their own selfish reasons for not wanting change. Intimidating Tenants to not speak their truth is not acceptable and the City should not be partisan to this type of comportment. If you are truly concerned about Economic Development for Palo Alto, I sincerely hope that you will stand up for what is right. This was a response to his summary of the last Retail meeting which was disastrous for restaurants. Anyway, if you would like to write a letter to City Council by the end of this week to help all of us maintain freedom from the wants of Building owners, please email it to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org For background, the idea of No consent required as long as you do not have a roof on your parklet was passed over a year ago. New parklet requirements were also passed in 2024 and everyone had to comply before October 1st. Now because of the few landlords, they are bringing this back to the City Council on Monday for modification unless there is enough opposition for Council to reject the idea. If you have any questions, let me know. I appreciate your solidarity and let's get together as a group soon. Best, Nancy From:Cafe Venetia To:Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith;Veenker, Vicki Subject:Opposition to Proposed Changes to Permanent Parklet Program Date:Friday, January 10, 2025 1:56:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Ed Lauing and honorable City Council, As longtime business owners and active members of this community, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed changes to the Permanent Parklet Program to be discussed in the City Council meeting on Monday, January 13, 2025. There are several points which we urge you to consider from the perspective of both business owners as well as the entire community who currently benefit from the existing parklets: 1. The public demands more public spaces. The one positive outcome from the pandemic is that we realized how important human connections are, and as a consequence public spaces. This could take the form of cafes, restaurants, parks, piazzas, or parklets. The public demanded more public spaces in the outdoors, and it was not just because of the virus. It was because communal spaces make one feel more connected to others, and thus happier. And it was not just during the pandemic; they wanted it in the short- and long-term. This single desire was well-documented in the many surveys, letters to City Council, and petitions that were conducted during the pandemic. None have been conducted since, but it should be brought up for public discussion again to show that the needs/desires of the public have not changed. 2. It reeks of undue influence. In lieu of a referendum by the public, you, as the City Council, are the gatekeepers to what happens in our public spaces, including our parking spaces. You must decide if the benefits of our public spaces are for the public, or for the handful of 'squeaky wheel' landlords that hijack the airspace in all meetings with the City that deal with the parklet program. Let us be clear, they have been complaining against the parklets downtown from the onstart of the program because the parklets don't align with their personal self-interests. This is their way of slowly chipping away at the parklet program (and closed streets program) to eventually eradicate it. You, as the City Council, need to see it for what it is and remember the reason you are serving the public. You should be making it easier to convert public spaces for public use, instead of making it more difficult. 3. It is unfair. This move would be very unfair to restaurants who have fully relied on the notion that the Permanent Parklet Program would in fact have some permanence. Many of us have spent significant time, money, and energy architecting and re-building the parklets; parts of which now might be at risk of removal. Why?? To make the handful of landlords a bit happier? This happiness shall last a very short time. So, here you are again trying to balance the needs of the public with those of a handful of landowners. Here you are again, needing to remember the benefits the public spaces proffer our community. Please vote against this change to the Permanent Parklet Program that would give a right to a landlord to dictate how a public space is used. Sincerely, Claudia/Cafe Venetia -- CAFE VENETIA417 University Ave419 University AvePalo Alto, California 94301Preserving tradition…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keU1b3HJk3E From:Anu Bhambri To:Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith;Veenker, Vicki Subject:Opposition to Proposed Changes to Permanent Parklet Program Date:Saturday, January 11, 2025 11:26:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Ed Lauing and honorable City Council, As longtime business owners and active members of this community, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed changes to the Permanent Parklet Program to be discussed in the City Council meeting on Monday, January 13, 2025. There are several points which we urge you to consider from the perspective of both business owners as well as the entire community who currently benefit from the existing parklets: 1. The public demands more public spaces. The one positive outcome from the pandemic is that we realized how important human connections are, and as a consequence public spaces. This could take the form of cafes, restaurants, parks,or parklets.The public demanded more public spaces in the outdoors, and it was not just because of the virus. It was because communal spaces make one feel more connected to others, and thus happier. And it was not just during the pandemic; they wanted it in the short- and long-term. This single desire was well-documented in the many surveys letters to City Council, and petitions that were conducted during the pandemic. None have been conducted since, but it should be brought up for public discussion again to show that the needs/desires of the public have not changed. 2. It reeks of undue influence. In lieu of a referendum by the public, you, as the City Council, are the gatekeepers to what happens in our public spaces, including our parking spaces. You must decide if the benefits of our public spaces are for the public, or for the handful of 'squeaky wheel' landlords that hijack the airspace in all meetings with the City that deal with the parklet program. Let us be clear, they have been complaining against the parklets downtown from the onstart of the program because the parklets don't align with their personal self-interests. This is their way of slowly chipping away at the parklet program (and closed streets program) to eventually eradicate it. You, as the City Council, need to see it for what it is and remember the reason you are serving the public. You should be making it easier to convert public spaces for public use, instead of making it more difficult 3. It is unfair. This move would be very unfair to restaurants who have fully relied on the notion that the Permanent Parklet Program would in fact have some permanence. Many of us have spent significant time, money, and energy architecting and re-building the parklets; parts of which now might be at risk of removal. Why?? To make the handful of landlords a bit happier? This happiness shall last a very short time. 4. Vacancies-restaurants are the lifeline for the City of Palo Alto and there is absolutely NO truth to the assertion that Parklets harm Retail. Vacancies are not the results of parklets in the downtown area, but rather the Landlords who charge high rents and use vacancies as tax write-offs. So, here you are again trying to balance the needs of the public with those of a handful of landowners. Here you are again, needing to remember the benefits the public spaces proffer our community. Please vote against this change to the Permanent Parklet Program that would give a right to a landlord to dictate how a public space is used. Thank you, Anu Bhambri ROOH From:Marcus Belardes To:Lauing, Ed; Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Lu, George; Reckdahl, Keith;Veenker, Vicki Cc:Mistie Boulton Subject:Opposition to Proposed Changes to Permanent Parklet Program Date:Sunday, January 12, 2025 9:05:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Ed Lauing and Honorable City Council, I am the Vice President of Operations for Oren's Hummus and am sharing our strongopposition to the proposed changes to the Permanent Parklet Program to be discussed in the City Council meeting on Monday, January 13, 2025. The proposedchanges give the appearance of undue influence, a lack of transparency, andunfairness. The Parklet Program was created to fill a need during the pandemic but the publicand businesses quickly realized the value of these spaces. Having human connectionin a safer environment turned into the desire for more open spaces for thecommunity. There have been numerous studies and surveys completed across thenation showing the demand for these spaces are now permanent. In lieu of a referendum by the public, you, as the City Council, are the gatekeepers to whathappens in our public spaces, including our parking spaces. You must decide if the benefits ofour public spaces are for the public, or for the handful of groups that have access to you in ways the general public and small business owners do not. You are the gatekeepersof transparency and fairness and hold the keys to giving access to all stakeholders. It would be Let us be clear, they have been complaining against the parklets downtown fromthe onstart of the program because the parklets don't align with their personal self-interests.This is their way of slowly chipping away at the parklet program (and closed streets program)to eventually eradicate it. We ask you, as the City Council, to see it for what it is and remember the reason you areserving the public. You should be making it easier to convert public spaces for public use andto carefully consider the financial impact that comes with the decisions you have thepower to make. There are several points shared by many business owners and operators, as well as community members, which we urge you to consider and look at fromanother perspective. It is unfair. Our restaurant, and many others, have been given the impressionthat the program and the most recent update to it, would not be changed less than three two months after the deadline of the update. We, and manyothers, have spent significant time, money, and energy architecting and re-building the parklets; parts of which now might be at risk of removal. To make a small group oflandlords and business owners a bit happier. We strongly believe this will only temporarily satiate their desires. The proposed changes have not taken into account the wants, desires, and needs of other businesses and community members who also have a right tohave a voice in the process. The proposed changes come with a negative financial impact on businesses,many of whom are facing extreme post-pandemic challenges with inflation and ongoing labor pressure with yearly minimum-wage increases. These changesare not free to us. To be clear, Oren's Hummus stands in strong opposition to these proposed changes. We also urge the following: Conduct a public study to determine what the community as a whole wants.This study should include all stakeholders. Implement an appeal process to the program. Currently, a business can objectto a parklet encroaching their frontage without validating the impact ontheir business in any way, shape or form. In our case, we had to rebuild ourparklet with a partial roof. The frontage of our neighbor was less than 10 feet ofspace which they could not use anyway. One business should not be able toarbitrarily decide the impact on another without validating the impact or goingthrough a process. We went through a process to access this space, why didthey not have to go through a process to deny our access? Implement a minimum 5-year moratorium on significant changes to current structuresthat met the requirements of the 2024 Permanent Parklet Program. Requiringstructural changes places a huge financial burden on all of us. What is stopping the Cityfrom requiring more investment in 2026 that we would need to have in place byNovember 2025? Implement a minimum time-frame for notification to any structural changes, orsignificant changes to the program, in the future. I think 3-years is realisticconsidering the investment planning for these situations. As we stand in opposition to changes coming so quickly after meeting therequirements of the last update to the program, we strongly urge you to vote against any change to the Permanent Parklet Program at this time. Sincerely,Marcus BelardesVice President of OperationsOren's Hummus Rip, Scoop, Eat! Palo Alto - Mountain View - Cupertino - San Francisco - Los GatosC 408.355.5492E marcus@orenshummus.comwww.orenshummus.com Note: I am sending this email now because it suits me, please know that I don't expect you to read or respond outside of your normal hours.