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 cautious of 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 Xu
To: Council, City
Subject: Our concerns about Grade Separation on Charleston/Meadow Date: 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: [email protected]; Council, City
Subject: 2 things
Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 3:26:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of 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:
[email protected]
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 cautious of 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 VENETIA
417 University Ave
419 University Ave
Palo Alto, California 94301
Preserving 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 cautious of 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 cautious of 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 strong opposition to the proposed changes to the Permanent Parklet Program to be discussed in the City Council meeting on Monday, January 13, 2025. The proposed changes give the appearance of undue influence, a lack of transparency, and unfairness.
The Parklet Program was created to fill a need during the pandemic but the public and businesses quickly realized the value of these spaces. Having human connection in a safer environment turned into the desire for more open spaces for the community. There have been numerous studies and surveys completed across the nation 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 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 groups that have access to you in ways the general public and small business owners do not. You are the gatekeepers of 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 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.
We ask you, as the City Council, 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 and to carefully consider the financial impact that comes with the decisions you have the power 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 from another perspective.
It is unfair. Our restaurant, and many others, have been given the impression that 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 many others, 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 of landlords 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 to have 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 changes are 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 object to a parklet encroaching their frontage without validating the impact on their business in any way, shape or form. In our case, we had to rebuild our parklet with a partial roof. The frontage of our neighbor was less than 10 feet of space which they could not use anyway. One business should not be able to arbitrarily decide the impact on another without validating the impact or going through a process. We went through a process to access this space, why did they not have to go through a process to deny our access? Implement a minimum 5-year moratorium on significant changes to current structures that met the requirements of the 2024 Permanent Parklet Program. Requiring structural changes places a huge financial burden on all of us. What is stopping the City from requiring more investment in 2026 that we would need to have in place by November 2025?
Implement a minimum time-frame for notification to any structural changes, or significant changes to the program, in the future. I think 3-years is realistic considering the investment planning for these situations.
As we stand in opposition to changes coming so quickly after meeting the requirements 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 Belardes
Vice President of Operations
Oren's Hummus
Rip, Scoop, Eat!
Palo Alto - Mountain View - Cupertino - San Francisco - Los Gatos C 408.355.5492
E [email protected]
www.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.