News
by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly
Uploaded: Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 1:52 am 13
Time to read: about 6 minutes
Customers eat a meal in Oren’s Hummus’ parklet on University Avenue in Palo Alto on April 30, 2022. Photo by Gennady Sheyner.
Ever since parklets became a fixture of Palo Alto’s dining landscape nearly three years ago, city leaders and customers have credited them for adding much needed vitality to downtown areas and allowing restaurants to stay in business during a brutal economic period.
They have also, however, sparked tensions between neighboring businesses, uncertainty for property owners and confusion among city staff who have been struggling to determine whether they should be subject to building codes and what to do when tenants are tussling over oversized parklet turf. Now that they are no longer a pandemic lifeline but a permanent feature of local commercial districts, Palo Alto is one of many cities across the country struggling to determine what the new normal will look like for years to come.
The City Council took a stride toward figuring that out on Monday, when it backed a host of new rules and standards for parklets in an attempt to transform the haphazard system that exists today with something more stable, permanent and attractive. After a long debate and a sequence of split votes, council members agreed to limit parklets to 350 feet, introduce fees for restaurants renting public space for parklets and clarify that restaurants will not be able to build an enclosed structure that stretches beyond their storefront and into the neighboring area unless they get a letter of consent.
In doing so, however, council members struggled to resolve the competing interests between property owners, restaurants and one another. The biggest split came over maximum parklet size. City staff had initially proposed limiting spots to two parallel parking spaces (or three angled spaces) out of concern that larger structures would come with greater risks and require stricter adherence to building codes. The council ultimately voted 4-3, with Mayor Lydia Kou and council members Greg Tanaka and Vicki Veenker dissenting, to allow restaurants to place tables and chairs in front of neighboring properties provided the restaurant’s enclosed parklet structure does not extend beyond its frontage.
And by a 5-2 vote, with Kou and Tanaka dissenting, council members backed a limit of 350 square feet for parklets. This includes an option for a restaurant in a corner location to build up to two separate structures — one on each side — as long as their total area does not go beyond the 350-square-foot limit.
Help sustain the local news you depend on.
Your contribution matters. Become a member today.
Once adopted, the rules would apply to parklets in downtown and in portions of the California Avenue business district that are not closed off to cars. The city is now moving ahead with a separate effort to create a new vision for car-free California Avenue.
The argument over parklet sizes symbolized the broader debate over whether the city should prioritize vitality or predictability. Council member Pat Burt argued for a more permissive approach that gives restaurants more flexibility, including the ability to extend beyond their own storefronts if they get a neighbor’s consent. Under his proposal, which squeaked through with a bare majority, restaurants would also be able to put up tables and chairs in front of the adjacent business, even without formal consent. The neighboring tenant would, however, have a chance to claim that space within 90 days.
Burt also made the case for keeping the fees for parklets relatively low so as not to deter restaurants from building parklets.
“Vitality breeds vitality in the downtown,” Burt said. “We want to create a virtuous cycle not a downward cycle.”
Some property owners wondered, however, if the latest revision to the parklet program will actually achieve this goal. Even as the city is dealing with parklets, it is eyeing a more ambitious effort to revamp and redesign downtown to make it more akin to popular promenades like State Street in Santa Barbara and Pearl Street in Boulder, Colorado.
Stay informed
Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.
Stay informed
Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.
Critics noted that despite its name, the “permanent parklet program” is not in fact permanent but is an intermediary step between the improvised scene that popped up during the pandemic and the grand vision encompassed in a future plan. Brad Ehikian, partner at Premier Properties, a real estate firm that owns numerous commercial properties downtown, urged council members to focus on the broader effort.
“Don’t get me wrong, I love outdoor seating,” Ehikian said. “I’d like for it to be in plan for the future, but I want this done through a well thought-out design.”
People dine at The Old Pro in Palo Alto on Oct. 2, 2019. Embarcadero Media file photo by Sammy Dallal.
Guillaume Bienaimé, who owns the downtown restaurant Zola and who recently signed a lease to take over the former Old Pro restaurant on Ramona Street, called parklets “imperative for our success,” particularly given the brutal business environment. He objected, however, to the city “moving the goal sticks” and coming up with new rules now, well before the master plan had been put together. He also suggested that the council focus on the broader plan for transforming the downtown area and making it more competitive with Stanford Shopping Center and other Peninsula downtowns with thriving outdoor dining scenes.
“My interest in Old Pro stemmed from the desire to honor the history of the city and create a space that would bring energy to a city that is at risk of decline,” Bienaimé said. “I would hope it would be a shared vision for the council — being presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create something truly special.”
Roxy Rapp, who owns the Old Pro building as well as other Ramona Street properties, similarly urged council members to go bigger. He complained about the rugged nature of existing parklets and advocated for a more comprehensive plan.
Most Viewed Stories
■ Police seek suspect after woman was sexually assaulted at Cal. Ave. pedestrian underpass
■ Menlo Park resident’s COVID-19 artwork now on display at the NIH museum
■ Once polarizing, bathrooms to become fixtures in Palo Alto parks
■ Man arrested for alleged sexual assault in California Avenue tunnel
■ Cyclist, 37, dies after collision with car on Cañada Road near Filoli estate
Most Viewed Stories
■ Police seek suspect after woman was sexually assaulted at Cal. Ave. pedestrian underpass
■ Menlo Park resident’s COVID-19 artwork now on display at the NIH museum
“I’d love to see us spend the right money and make that street beautiful and show off the buildings,” Rapp said of Ramona. “Right now, it’s not doing it. We’re destroying it and actually I think it’s probably against the law what we’re doing there right now.”
Council member Greg Tanaka proved sympathetic and said it would make far more sense to focus on the permanent plan. By moving ahead with the new program, the council will be “leaving a lot of people in limbo.”
“It’s been two years since the pandemic but our downtown is really haphazard,” Tanaka said. “It doesn’t look the way we think Palo Alto should look like.”
The council broadly agreed, however, that the new parklet rules can’t wait. The master plan, according to staff, won’t be completed for five to seven years. Council member Ed Lauing argued that that’s too long a time to wait for improving the existing parklet system.
“I’m doubting that would get much support because of the issues of safety in the temporary parklets, the interests of other people wanting to do new parklets and the importance of visuals on the current set of parklets because they were put up pretty quickly under temporary regulations and some of them don’t look too good,” Lauing said.
‘Vitality breeds vitality in the downtown. We want to create a virtuous cycle not a downward cycle.’
But while council members generally agreed that something should be done, they squabbled over details such as parklet sizes. Veenker supported limiting parklets to the length of the proprietor’s storefront as the best way to limit conflicts between neighbors. Otherwise, any arrangement between neighbors can be subject to complications, such as when a restaurant invests thousands of dollars for a parklet with a neighbor’s consent and then loses that consent when a new tenant moves in. Veenker also noted that most other jurisdictions limit the size of the parklets in their downtown areas so that they won’t extend past the neighboring building.
“We’re increasing and decreasing the value of certain spaces and doing it in a way that doesn’t strike me as fair,” Veenker said.
Other areas proved less contentious. The council generally agreed to encourage electric heating over propane and voted 6-1, with Kou dissenting, to direct staff to develop standards that would incentivize such a switch. Restaurants relying on propane would be allowed to keep doing so provided they receive a hazardous materials permit.
By the same vote, the council directed staff to develop a license fee structure in the “low” end of the proposed spectrum, with each space renting for about 70% of the city’s typical commercial rate. While the exact rates have yet to be developed, initial figures from the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate that the rates will fall in the $6,800 to $7,600 range, depending on the location. Concurrently, the council agreed not to charge a cleaning fee, a feature that was introduced in a prior staff proposal but ultimately withdrawn.
Some council members took issue with the objections coming from the property owners. Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims said she was concerned about a group of landlords “getting to dictate what we do on our public sidewalks.” She was more sympathetic toward restaurant owners and said she supports allowing them to stretch out their outdoor spaces into spaces that neighbors aren’t using.
“If they don’t need it for their business, I like the idea of being able to expand an adjacent business that is a restaurant or similar type of provider into that space,” Lythcott-Haims said.
Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?
Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.
Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.
by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly
Uploaded: Tue, Mar 28, 2023, 1:52 am
Ever since parklets became a fixture of Palo Alto’s dining landscape nearly three years ago, city leaders and customers have credited them for adding much needed vitality to downtown areas and allowing restaurants to stay in business during a brutal economic period.
They have also, however, sparked tensions between neighboring businesses, uncertainty for property owners and confusion among city staff who have been struggling to determine whether they should be subject to building codes and what to do when tenants are tussling over oversized parklet turf. Now that they are no longer a pandemic lifeline but a permanent feature of local commercial districts, Palo Alto is one of many cities across the country struggling to determine what the new normal will look like for years to come.
The City Council took a stride toward figuring that out on Monday, when it backed a host of new rules and standards for parklets in an attempt to transform the haphazard system that exists today with something more stable, permanent and attractive. After a long debate and a sequence of split votes, council members agreed to limit parklets to 350 feet, introduce fees for restaurants renting public space for parklets and clarify that restaurants will not be able to build an enclosed structure that stretches beyond their storefront and into the neighboring area unless they get a letter of consent.
In doing so, however, council members struggled to resolve the competing interests between property owners, restaurants and one another. The biggest split came over maximum parklet size. City staff had initially proposed limiting spots to two parallel parking spaces (or three angled spaces) out of concern that larger structures would come with greater risks and require stricter adherence to building codes. The council ultimately voted 4-3, with Mayor Lydia Kou and council members Greg Tanaka and Vicki Veenker dissenting, to allow restaurants to place tables and chairs in front of neighboring properties provided the restaurant’s enclosed parklet structure does not extend beyond its frontage.
And by a 5-2 vote, with Kou and Tanaka dissenting, council members backed a limit of 350 square feet for parklets. This includes an option for a restaurant in a corner location to build up to two separate structures — one on each side — as long as their total area does not go beyond the 350-square-foot limit.
Once adopted, the rules would apply to parklets in downtown and in portions of the California Avenue business district that are not closed off to cars. The city is now moving ahead with a separate effort to create a new vision for car-free California Avenue.
The argument over parklet sizes symbolized the broader debate over whether the city should prioritize vitality or predictability. Council member Pat Burt argued for a more permissive approach that gives restaurants more flexibility, including the ability to extend beyond their own storefronts if they get a neighbor’s consent. Under his proposal, which squeaked through with a bare majority, restaurants would also be able to put up tables and chairs in front of the adjacent business, even without formal consent. The neighboring tenant would, however, have a chance to claim that space within 90 days.
Burt also made the case for keeping the fees for parklets relatively low so as not to deter restaurants from building parklets.
“Vitality breeds vitality in the downtown,” Burt said. “We want to create a virtuous cycle not a downward cycle.”
Some property owners wondered, however, if the latest revision to the parklet program will actually achieve this goal. Even as the city is dealing with parklets, it is eyeing a more ambitious effort to revamp and redesign downtown to make it more akin to popular promenades like State Street in Santa Barbara and Pearl Street in Boulder, Colorado.
Critics noted that despite its name, the “permanent parklet program” is not in fact permanent but is an intermediary step between the improvised scene that popped up during the pandemic and the grand vision encompassed in a future plan. Brad Ehikian, partner at Premier Properties, a real estate firm that owns numerous commercial properties downtown, urged council members to focus on the broader effort.
“Don’t get me wrong, I love outdoor seating,” Ehikian said. “I’d like for it to be in plan for the future, but I want this done through a well thought-out design.”
Guillaume Bienaimé, who owns the downtown restaurant Zola and who recently signed a lease to take over the former Old Pro restaurant on Ramona Street, called parklets “imperative for our success,” particularly given the brutal business environment. He objected, however, to the city “moving the goal sticks” and coming up with new rules now, well before the master plan had been put together. He also suggested that the council focus on the broader plan for transforming the downtown area and making it more competitive with Stanford Shopping Center and other Peninsula downtowns with thriving outdoor dining scenes.
“My interest in Old Pro stemmed from the desire to honor the history of the city and create a space that would bring energy to a city that is at risk of decline,” Bienaimé said. “I would hope it would be a shared vision for the council — being presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create something truly special.”
Roxy Rapp, who owns the Old Pro building as well as other Ramona Street properties, similarly urged council members to go bigger. He complained about the rugged nature of existing parklets and advocated for a more comprehensive plan.
“I’d love to see us spend the right money and make that street beautiful and show off the buildings,” Rapp said of Ramona. “Right now, it’s not doing it. We’re destroying it and actually I think it’s probably against the law what we’re doing there right now.”
Council member Greg Tanaka proved sympathetic and said it would make far more sense to focus on the permanent plan. By moving ahead with the new program, the council will be “leaving a lot of people in limbo.”
“It’s been two years since the pandemic but our downtown is really haphazard,” Tanaka said. “It doesn’t look the way we think Palo Alto should look like.”
The council broadly agreed, however, that the new parklet rules can’t wait. The master plan, according to staff, won’t be completed for five to seven years. Council member Ed Lauing argued that that’s too long a time to wait for improving the existing parklet system.
“I’m doubting that would get much support because of the issues of safety in the temporary parklets, the interests of other people wanting to do new parklets and the importance of visuals on the current set of parklets because they were put up pretty quickly under temporary regulations and some of them don’t look too good,” Lauing said.
But while council members generally agreed that something should be done, they squabbled over details such as parklet sizes. Veenker supported limiting parklets to the length of the proprietor’s storefront as the best way to limit conflicts between neighbors. Otherwise, any arrangement between neighbors can be subject to complications, such as when a restaurant invests thousands of dollars for a parklet with a neighbor’s consent and then loses that consent when a new tenant moves in. Veenker also noted that most other jurisdictions limit the size of the parklets in their downtown areas so that they won’t extend past the neighboring building.
“We’re increasing and decreasing the value of certain spaces and doing it in a way that doesn’t strike me as fair,” Veenker said.
Other areas proved less contentious. The council generally agreed to encourage electric heating over propane and voted 6-1, with Kou dissenting, to direct staff to develop standards that would incentivize such a switch. Restaurants relying on propane would be allowed to keep doing so provided they receive a hazardous materials permit.
By the same vote, the council directed staff to develop a license fee structure in the “low” end of the proposed spectrum, with each space renting for about 70% of the city’s typical commercial rate. While the exact rates have yet to be developed, initial figures from the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate that the rates will fall in the $6,800 to $7,600 range, depending on the location. Concurrently, the council agreed not to charge a cleaning fee, a feature that was introduced in a prior staff proposal but ultimately withdrawn.
Some council members took issue with the objections coming from the property owners. Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims said she was concerned about a group of landlords “getting to dictate what we do on our public sidewalks.” She was more sympathetic toward restaurant owners and said she supports allowing them to stretch out their outdoor spaces into spaces that neighbors aren’t using.
“If they don’t need it for their business, I like the idea of being able to expand an adjacent business that is a restaurant or similar type of provider into that space,” Lythcott-Haims said.
Ever since parklets became a fixture of Palo Alto’s dining landscape nearly three years ago, city leaders and customers have credited them for adding much needed vitality to downtown areas and allowing restaurants to stay in business during a brutal economic period.
They have also, however, sparked tensions between neighboring businesses, uncertainty for property owners and confusion among city staff who have been struggling to determine whether they should be subject to building codes and what to do when tenants are tussling over oversized parklet turf. Now that they are no longer a pandemic lifeline but a permanent feature of local commercial districts, Palo Alto is one of many cities across the country struggling to determine what the new normal will look like for years to come.
The City Council took a stride toward figuring that out on Monday, when it backed a host of new rules and standards for parklets in an attempt to transform the haphazard system that exists today with something more stable, permanent and attractive. After a long debate and a sequence of split votes, council members agreed to limit parklets to 350 feet, introduce fees for restaurants renting public space for parklets and clarify that restaurants will not be able to build an enclosed structure that stretches beyond their storefront and into the neighboring area unless they get a letter of consent.
In doing so, however, council members struggled to resolve the competing interests between property owners, restaurants and one another. The biggest split came over maximum parklet size. City staff had initially proposed limiting spots to two parallel parking spaces (or three angled spaces) out of concern that larger structures would come with greater risks and require stricter adherence to building codes. The council ultimately voted 4-3, with Mayor Lydia Kou and council members Greg Tanaka and Vicki Veenker dissenting, to allow restaurants to place tables and chairs in front of neighboring properties provided the restaurant’s enclosed parklet structure does not extend beyond its frontage.
And by a 5-2 vote, with Kou and Tanaka dissenting, council members backed a limit of 350 square feet for parklets. This includes an option for a restaurant in a corner location to build up to two separate structures — one on each side — as long as their total area does not go beyond the 350-square-foot limit.
Once adopted, the rules would apply to parklets in downtown and in portions of the California Avenue business district that are not closed off to cars. The city is now moving ahead with a separate effort to create a new vision for car-free California Avenue.
The argument over parklet sizes symbolized the broader debate over whether the city should prioritize vitality or predictability. Council member Pat Burt argued for a more permissive approach that gives restaurants more flexibility, including the ability to extend beyond their own storefronts if they get a neighbor’s consent. Under his proposal, which squeaked through with a bare majority, restaurants would also be able to put up tables and chairs in front of the adjacent business, even without formal consent. The neighboring tenant would, however, have a chance to claim that space within 90 days.
Burt also made the case for keeping the fees for parklets relatively low so as not to deter restaurants from building parklets.
“Vitality breeds vitality in the downtown,” Burt said. “We want to create a virtuous cycle not a downward cycle.”
Some property owners wondered, however, if the latest revision to the parklet program will actually achieve this goal. Even as the city is dealing with parklets, it is eyeing a more ambitious effort to revamp and redesign downtown to make it more akin to popular promenades like State Street in Santa Barbara and Pearl Street in Boulder, Colorado.
Critics noted that despite its name, the “permanent parklet program” is not in fact permanent but is an intermediary step between the improvised scene that popped up during the pandemic and the grand vision encompassed in a future plan. Brad Ehikian, partner at Premier Properties, a real estate firm that owns numerous commercial properties downtown, urged council members to focus on the broader effort.
“Don’t get me wrong, I love outdoor seating,” Ehikian said. “I’d like for it to be in plan for the future, but I want this done through a well thought-out design.”
Guillaume Bienaimé, who owns the downtown restaurant Zola and who recently signed a lease to take over the former Old Pro restaurant on Ramona Street, called parklets “imperative for our success,” particularly given the brutal business environment. He objected, however, to the city “moving the goal sticks” and coming up with new rules now, well before the master plan had been put together. He also suggested that the council focus on the broader plan for transforming the downtown area and making it more competitive with Stanford Shopping Center and other Peninsula downtowns with thriving outdoor dining scenes.
“My interest in Old Pro stemmed from the desire to honor the history of the city and create a space that would bring energy to a city that is at risk of decline,” Bienaimé said. “I would hope it would be a shared vision for the council — being presented with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create something truly special.”
Roxy Rapp, who owns the Old Pro building as well as other Ramona Street properties, similarly urged council members to go bigger. He complained about the rugged nature of existing parklets and advocated for a more comprehensive plan.
“I’d love to see us spend the right money and make that street beautiful and show off the buildings,” Rapp said of Ramona. “Right now, it’s not doing it. We’re destroying it and actually I think it’s probably against the law what we’re doing there right now.”
Council member Greg Tanaka proved sympathetic and said it would make far more sense to focus on the permanent plan. By moving ahead with the new program, the council will be “leaving a lot of people in limbo.”
“It’s been two years since the pandemic but our downtown is really haphazard,” Tanaka said. “It doesn’t look the way we think Palo Alto should look like.”
The council broadly agreed, however, that the new parklet rules can’t wait. The master plan, according to staff, won’t be completed for five to seven years. Council member Ed Lauing argued that that’s too long a time to wait for improving the existing parklet system.
“I’m doubting that would get much support because of the issues of safety in the temporary parklets, the interests of other people wanting to do new parklets and the importance of visuals on the current set of parklets because they were put up pretty quickly under temporary regulations and some of them don’t look too good,” Lauing said.
But while council members generally agreed that something should be done, they squabbled over details such as parklet sizes. Veenker supported limiting parklets to the length of the proprietor’s storefront as the best way to limit conflicts between neighbors. Otherwise, any arrangement between neighbors can be subject to complications, such as when a restaurant invests thousands of dollars for a parklet with a neighbor’s consent and then loses that consent when a new tenant moves in. Veenker also noted that most other jurisdictions limit the size of the parklets in their downtown areas so that they won’t extend past the neighboring building.
“We’re increasing and decreasing the value of certain spaces and doing it in a way that doesn’t strike me as fair,” Veenker said.
Other areas proved less contentious. The council generally agreed to encourage electric heating over propane and voted 6-1, with Kou dissenting, to direct staff to develop standards that would incentivize such a switch. Restaurants relying on propane would be allowed to keep doing so provided they receive a hazardous materials permit.
By the same vote, the council directed staff to develop a license fee structure in the “low” end of the proposed spectrum, with each space renting for about 70% of the city’s typical commercial rate. While the exact rates have yet to be developed, initial figures from the Department of Planning and Development Services indicate that the rates will fall in the $6,800 to $7,600 range, depending on the location. Concurrently, the council agreed not to charge a cleaning fee, a feature that was introduced in a prior staff proposal but ultimately withdrawn.
Some council members took issue with the objections coming from the property owners. Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims said she was concerned about a group of landlords “getting to dictate what we do on our public sidewalks.” She was more sympathetic toward restaurant owners and said she supports allowing them to stretch out their outdoor spaces into spaces that neighbors aren’t using.
“If they don’t need it for their business, I like the idea of being able to expand an adjacent business that is a restaurant or similar type of provider into that space,” Lythcott-Haims said.
Interesting that the city cancelled a meeting with business owners about the parker program last week. They then got ahead and make decisions without any input from the business owners. Super shady dealings, the council should be embarrassed doing this. This is not ok
I don’t know why the city attorney hasn’t shut this “temporary” program down a year ago. it’s public space. it violates ADA and Unruh laws. The layout and barricades make it impossible for disabled people to freely enjoy what able bodied can. Setting up a private club called “we do not cater to crippled people” on a public thoroughfare that was paid for by the public is the very essence of discrimination. Might as well hang out a shingle that says ‘no POC allowed’ too. If you’re gonna go, go all the way. And if you’re gonna do it, don’t try hiding behind the ‘but we have parking garages’ excuse… When you establish separate criteria so only special people can enjoy their public streets, that’s discrimination.
@MyFeelz
It is not necessary to shut down a good program that benefits the majority of its citizenry. It needs to be tweeked for ADA purposes for sure. Don’t throw out the baby out with the bathwater!
Thank you Pat Burt
Tweaking ada laws to fit circumstances that deliberately exclude protected classes of people is illegal. Full stop.
Suppose it was your paraplegic son who is being excluded?
I am not suggesting you have a paraplegic son, just trying to make this scenario as transparent as possible. Disabled Americans have been systematically excluded as a rule and not the exception from participating in things they paid for. Like the city streets. To have to pay for the streets with their taxes only to be kept behind the barricades is BLATANT discrimination.
Majority does NOT rule in ADA complaints. ADA guarantees EVERYONE the right to enjoy what they paid for.
I guess I will have to sue the civic leaders as co-conspirators in a discrimination lawsuit. We will see if majority rules.
(Here’s a clue — it doesn’t)
Our Council is embarrassing. Pat Burt’s chokehold on this City has gone on way too long. This Council follows him like sheep to slaughter – just that it is our very downtown that it dying. He told the New York Times during is prior term as Mayor that he wanted to outlaw tech businesses from the downtown – when every other community would have begged to have our dynamic business engines supporting their retail and hotels. Pat hates businesses…period. Downtown is now sadly drowning.
Pat and the Council members that follow him think they are above the law and treat the professional staff with disdain. During this very hearing our professional staff did a great job explaining the risks of Pat choosing which laws and codes to enforce or not. He got mad at them and belittled them. Why this Council thinks it has the acumen and wisdom to overrule the State Building Codes, ADA laws, etc is beyond comprehension.
City should simply do away with Pat’s shanty town and do what a few Council members have asked for…expedited plans for a professional comprehensive set of improvements to the downtown that will first and foremost support business (yes they need to be leading this effort) and because it does it will result in a vibrancy (with outdoor dining as that is want the food retailers desire) beneficial to all residents and visitors.
Council meetings running into the late night with Pat crafting policy off the top of his head has to stop. Pat deciding that he alone should decide what barriers will make outdoor dining spaces safe from vehicles is scary. Pat deciding that Palo Alto’s restaurants no longer need to adhere to State guidelines regarding bathroom capacity for its customers is ridiculous. This list goes on.
Professional Staff has to be empowered and respected.
Items like this, that are technical and legal in nature, should be voted on and not thrown out at the start of council discussion every time. No wonder nothing ever gets done in Palo Alto.
@Carla is correct. Modifications to allow ADA access should not require the closure of the Parklets, just some acceptable timeframe for the remediation.
I appreciate that the Council pushed staff to have a stronger approach toward reinvigorating our downtowns in changing times. It’s important that the Council provides the leadership and critical thinking that residents expect from them rather than rubber stamping staff proposals as was too much the case in recent years.
In contrast to so called “Palo Alto Supporter” above, Burt’s ability to push back on staff when needed has been critical to better budgeting and restoring city services that were slashed by staff at the start of the pandemic. He and his colleagues want well-designed parklets that contribute to downtown vitality.
I also recall his positions on tech and our downtown in 2016. First, his career as a tech CEO and entrepreneur enables him to not be snowballed by the self-interests of landlords and big tech. In 2016, he raised concerns about a few big tech companies like Palantir taking over too much of the downtown while driving out business support services and small tech companies, even though our zoning did not allow big tech there. The then CEO of the Chamber of Commerce began a misinformation campaign about his position. See Web Link
I appreciate that the Council pushed staff to have a stronger approach toward reinvigorating our downtowns in changing times. It’s important that the Council provides the leadership and critical thinking that residents expect from them rather than rubber stamping staff proposals as was too much the case in recent years.
In contrast to so called “Palo Alto Supporter” above, Burt’s ability to push back on staff when needed has been critical to better budgeting and restoring city services that were slashed by staff at the start of the pandemic. He and his colleagues want well-designed parklets that contribute to downtown vitality.
I also recall his positions on tech and our downtown in 2016. First, his career as a tech CEO and entrepreneur enables him to not be snowballed by the self-interests of landlords and big tech. In 2016, he raised concerns about a few big tech companies like Palantir taking over too much of the downtown while driving out business support services and small tech companies, even though our zoning did not allow big tech there. The then CEO of the Chamber of Commerce began a misinformation campaign about his position. See Web Link
To all those who are ignorant of ADA laws and “modifications”, the only modifications allowed are those that allow MORE access to disabled people. I would put the link here but you all can look up the federal ada parking rules for yourselves , youre all grownups. There are supposed to be “x” number of disabled parking per “x” number of total parking spaces. Each space needs to have a definable blue hatched area for accessible vehicles so that occupants can safely emerge without getting hit in the face with a serving dish. When you take away ALL of the parking you ILLEGALLY BAR DISABLED PEOPLE from access. No “tweeking” involved. Follow ADA rules, or pay the price. you cant modify streets that have already been built with public funds. The ignorance of ADA laws smacks of pure PRIVILEGE, and ENTITLEMENT, and frankly, supidity. There are drive-by ADA lawsuit mongrels and they smell fresh meat on Cal Ave. Steak tartare and cash.
I think the tweaking was to do with the facilities themselves to come to ADA standards, not tweaking of the laws. Some people seem to deliberately misread or just want to be confused. I know there are times I have to reread a sentence a couple of times to make sure I was understanding it correctly, and often I misunderstood. Sometimes clarity of language on informal comments can be misconstrued much too easily.
Bystander, I wasnt misconstruing or misunderstanding. I was trying to point out that majority does NOT apply to ADA laws, and the only tweaking allowed in this instance is to restore the parking that existed that the taxpayers paid for. Rich residents and civic leaders dont get to tweak or trick or even twerk in any way change the laws to suit their profits, which is what EVERYONE who continues to bar access to disabled people on Cal Ave intends to do. The proof? Barricades on Cal Ave, a public road, preventing DISABLED PEOPLE from enjoying the road they paid for.
Better solve would be to close University to cars completely for the entire downtown span. The roads belong to people not cars. #waroncars
Don’t miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.
Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don’t be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.
See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.
Home
News
TownSquare
Blogs
A&E
Community Calendar
Sports
Home & Real Estate
Visitor Info
Send News Tips
Become a Member
Print Edition/Archives
Express / Weekend Express
Promotions
Special Pubs
Obituaries
Circulation & Delivery
About Us
Contact Us
Advertising Info
Place a Legal Notice
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Mountain View Voice
The Almanac
TheSixFifty.com
Redwood City Pulse
© 2023 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.
Embarcadero Media
PR MediaRelease
Spotlight
Mobile site
© 2023 Palo Alto Online. All rights reserved.