Facing criticism from downtown merchants, Palo Alto is preparing to drop a policy that allows restaurants to extend their dining areas into adjacent properties, even without consent from neighbors.
The change, which the City Council will consider at its Jan. 13 meeting, aims to address arguments from retailers that expanded parklets are threatening their businesses, infringing on their property rights and deterring new businesses from coming downtown. The existing policy, which the council approved in March 2023, only requires neighbors’ permission for enclosed structures but allows restaurants to extend dining tables beyond their frontage. Tables and chairs remain fair game, with or without consent.
That will shift with the new policy, which came in the aftermath of a series of meetings between the council’s Retail Committee and members of the business community that focused on reducing downtown vacancies. During public hearings in November and December, several property owners and developers complained about parklets infringing into their spaces.
Faith Bell, owner of Bell’s Books on Emerson Street, was among them. She criticized the city’s existing practice for allowing one property owner to benefit from a neighbor’s space.
“How would you feel if you go home to your house, found that your neighbor roped off the entire area in front of your house and brought a BBQ, a boombox and picnic tables and said ‘I’m going to be here for a year, I have a right to do this.’ I have a feeling a few of you might be angry,” Bell said at the Dec. 18 public hearing.
The proposed change will be limited to downtown and will not apply to the recently created car-free areas, California Avenue and Ramona Street. Those areas are governed by their own parklet rules.
The council has been debating and revising parklet policies ever since the amenity made its debut in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2022, city leaders recognized the popularity of the downtown’s suddenly thriving outdoor dining scene and gave restaurants wide leeway to expand their parklets. Some area restaurants, including Coupa Café, Rooh and Orren’s Hummus, followed suit by building parklets that extend well beyond their frontage. The following year, the council tightened the rules and began to require consent for covered structures.
But some property owners believe the existing policy remains too lenient toward restaurants. Elizabeth Wong, a Ramona Street property owner, has sharply criticized the Coupa Café parklet that extends into the frontage of her businesses.
“The idea of having a parklet in front of my building without umbrellas and without a roof is still intrusive and violates my rights to that space,” Wong said at the Dec. 20 hearing. “I want to make sure that’s heard loud and clear.
“I know from talking to other property owners that they feel the same way.”
John Shenk, CEO of Thoits Bros., which owns numerous commercial properties downtown, also claimed during a Nov. 20 meeting about retail reforms that the city’s current practice discourages newcomers to downtown Palo Alto.
“I can tell you from retailers, they won’t move in knowing there’s a risk that someone will put something in front,” Shenk said.
The council’s Retail Committee, which consists of Pat Burt, Julie Lythcott-Haims and Lydia Kou, unanimously supported a new policy to require consent from neighbors, whether or not the structure is covered. The full council will consider adopting the committee’s recommendation on Jan. 13.
City staff also support the change. A December report from the office of City Manager Ed Shikada, cited concerns from downtown retailers that the city’s current approach does not do enough to “minimize adverse impacts on retailers.”
“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,” the report stated.
In addition to revising the parklet policy, the council also plans to increase funding in the budget for cleaning efforts both downtown and along California Avenue. It will also consider revising rules for temporary use permits to encourage businesses to fill vacant storefronts on a short-term basis.
I had thought that restaurant owners including cafes would be required to get written permission permitting tables, chairs, umbrellas and parklet structures in front of properties. Apparently I was misinformed. Faith Bell is correct. Why is this being addressed now? The city needed to do right by those who choose not to have their businesses blocked years ago. Yes written permission is a must and needs to be recorded with the city as well.
We’ve spent millions of dollars on several — 6? 7? — retail consultants with little or no local knowledge who’ve pushed silly ideas like sleeping pods that gave us a good if unintended giggle.
I wonder if this new moves invalidates all the money we’ve wasted on them and their “Streetscape” surveys since this has been an issue for several years.
It is about time to address this issue, as a matter of fact the parklets should be eliminated now as the Covid time has lapsed and we need to get back to the norms. We need our parking back and remove these unsightly structures from the our beloved University Ave.
“In addition to revising the parklet policy, the council also plans to increase funding in the budget for cleaning efforts both downtown and along California Avenue. It will also consider revising rules for temporary use permits to encourage businesses to fill vacant storefronts on a short-term basis.”
How special. For how many years have LOCAL taxpayers been demanding street cleaning?? I don’t recall our pricey non-local consultants asking about that in their “Streetscape” surveys that ONLY contained expensive options but here we are spending $43,000,000 on wider sidewalks — as if that would fix do anything but cause major disruptions.
Retail NEEDS lively, visible frontage to be viable. Period. Fix this.
Clean and repair public street, sidewalk and parking spaces. Spruce up the landscaping. Explore less outrageously expensive options to liven up downtown that do not involve the disruption of large-scale digging…again. Most people I talk with like the “personality” of our downtown, though they’d like more retail and they find it very dirty. Clean, repair, paint, spruce it up. Focus on fixing specific areas with clear, DOCUMENTED, not imagined, traffic safety or crowding problems. Regular housekeeping and maintenance isn’t sexy, but it is absolutely necessary. It’s what makes a house a comfortable, safe and welcoming home. Same with streets. The basic design of this area is fine. Staff doesn’t need to do a resume-building redesign. They need to do MAINTENANCE better and minimize disruption to business.
Save expensive, transformative, disruptive changes for parts of town where city has already planned massive, disruptive, transformative high density housing construction, creating urgent need for investment in new transportation infrastructure improvements near term.
Downtown businesses and property owners, could clean up your store fronts and buildings as well. Please stop finger pointing, and work together.
I just want to go on record as agreeing with all the points made by ALB, Online and Marcos.
Is there any rational reason that restaurants have parklets but retails does not?
Isn’t allowing restaurants to occupy the street but not allowing retial to do the same violating a fundamental right of being treated equally under the law? Worse, restaurants are extended privileges that take what few rights that retail has, namely a place for customers to park their car and do some shopping.
How does City Council get away with these fundamental violations.
WE all seem to agree that Consultants are not of any use to us at this time. WE are wasting money. All we want is a standard street with no gimmicks. Who are these consultants? Someone’s relative that needs a job? A son or daughter? A political Wack that needs money? We are going to be watching now – where, why and how budget money is handed out.