|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Palo Alto’s bold experiment with car-free downtown promenades will start to wind down next month, after the City Council unanimously agreed late Monday to reopen University Avenue to vehicle traffic on Oct. 15.
But in a nod to the continuing popularity of outdoor dining, the lingering nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and strong advocacy from local diners and restaurateurs, council members also agreed to keep cars away from California Avenue at least until June. They also indicated that they would like to retain the car-free alignment on a vibrant block of Ramona Street, between Hamilton and University avenues, for the foreseeable future and that they would like to see parklets remain as a permanent fixture of the city’s streetscape.
In a series of decisions that reflected the complex and divisive nature of the debate, council members struggled to reconcile the competing interests of downtown’s restaurant owners, many of whom have benefited from University Avenue’s closure to traffic, and retailers, some of whom have blamed the new street alignment for exacerbating their business woes. Prominent downtown landowners, including Thoits Bros. and John McNellis, both lobbied for reopening University to cars as soon as possible, with McNellis arguing in a letter that failing to do so will “doom” many nonfood retailers.
He and others pointed to recent reports showing sharp declines in sales tax receipts from commercial areas around the city, with the pain particularly pronounced in the downtown area. University Avenue has seen its tax receipts drop by 32.2% between 2019 and 2020, according to staff, and by another 1.5% between 2020 and 2021. Cherry LeBrun, owner of De Novo Fine Contemporary Jewelry on Ramona Street, suggested that reopening the downtown streets on Oct. 1, as the city had previously planned, is necessary to protect retailers who haven’t seen any benefits from the outdoor dining scene.
“Retail businesses are a vital part of the economy and add to the vibrancy of our town and provide a livelihood for many Palo Alto citizens,” LeBrun wrote.
Restaurant owners within the closed-off areas, meanwhile, raved about the new alignment and encouraged the council to retain it. Nancy Coupal, owner of two Coupa Café locations in downtown Palo Alto, recently helped form a coalition of downtown businesses that support retaining and further enhancing the car-free alignment. The group includes downtown establishments The Old Pro, Oren’s Hummus, Rooh and Café Venetia, among others, Coupal told this news organization in an interview.
“We’d like to see Palo Alto go into a direction that’s more environmentally conscious — to have a bike lane down the middle, leave restaurants on street, invite retailers to showcase their product on sidewalks and streets and create a new environment — a little more European, more human-oriented,” Coupal said in an interview.
But council members made clear that they do not support any major extensions to University’s car-free status, which was introduced in early July 2020 as an emergency measure and which has been extended several times since then. While they supported moving ahead with a multiyear design process for University, they balked at keeping the avenue car-free in the long-term, notwithstanding requests from hundreds of residents.
The council’s unanimous vote to reopen University Avenue to traffic belied the division between members over the topic. Mayor Tom DuBois and council member Lydia Kou both supported reopening downtown streets to cars as soon as possible. Doing otherwise, they both suggested, would harm downtown retailers during the most important shopping period of the year.
“I think we should let our retailers have a good holiday season and be ready like on Oct. 1,” DuBois said.
Others, including council members Alison Cormack and Greer Stone favored keeping University closed at least until early or mid-November. Both had been vocal supporters of the car-free alignment, though Stone also suggested that it’s important for the city to set a reopening date.
He proposed Nov. 8 as a compromise that will give restaurants more time to take advantage of warm weather, while giving the city more time to “ride out this delta wave.”
“But it also gives retailers a clear end date,” Stone said.
In compromising on the Oct. 15 reopening date, council members acknowledged that a more long-lasting extension would require traffic studies and environmental analyses — work that will be included in the broader planning effort for University Avenue. They felt far more comfortable in retaining the car-free alignment on California Avenue, which is dominated by restaurants and which — in contrast to University — does not serve as a thoroughfare for commuters trying to get across town.
Similarly, the proposal to keep Ramona Street closed to cars proved to be a relatively easy sell. Cormack, Filseth and Stone pointed to the vibrant dining scene on the block, which includes Osteria Toscana, The Old Pro and Nola. Cormack suggested Ramona is a “natural fit” for a car-free dining environment.
“Based on the density and the way that whole street is set up, I think we should seriously consider making the closure of Ramona permanent,” Cormack said.
In another sign that Palo Alto’s new outdoor scene will likely outlast the pandemic, the council agreed to extend and make permanent the city’s nascent parklet program, which emerged in the early days of the pandemic. This will entail coming up with new design guidelines for parklets and considering whether to charge restaurants for using the public space. While the city moves ahead with that process, existing rules allowing for establishments of the outdoor dining areas will remain in place.
The council reached its decision to keep California Avenue car-free for the foreseeable future without much debate. After spending most of its meeting discussing downtown options, the council quickly agreed just past midnight on Tuesday to extend the closure of California Avenue to cars until at least June.
Council members also directed staff by a 5-2 vote, with Filseth and Kou dissenting, to return to the council at a later date for a discussion about a permanent street closure on California Avenue. Filseth, who opposed keeping cars away from University and California Avenue on a permanent basis, nevertheless acknowledged that the street dining scene that emerged in spring 2020 will not fade away any time soon.
“I think it’s clear that outdoor dining is probably here to stay,” Filseth said. “There’s a lot of people who really like it.”
Good decision on University Ave! Here is a proposal, for Ramona Street:
1. Seating space for a restaurant, does NOT need to be on the “physical street address”, of the serving restaurant.
2. The outdoor menu, may only include 2 – 3 daily entrees.
3. Restaurant “serving area”, may vary from time to time.
With this new flexibility, the City could: a) block off all of Ramona St from University Ave to Hamilton Ave, and b) lease out roped off 15′ x 20′ sections to any local restaurant. This would: c) open the spaces to any restaurant in town, d) create a very festive and concentrated dining space, and e) open up University Ave to free flow traffic. Food for each restaurant, is brought in, and kept warm/cold as required.
To be fair, I experienced this concept in Rome, and it was very successful. The same, could apply to California Ave.
Please give it some thought.
Thank you,
Martin
I would hazard a guess that people will go to Castro Street and other areas instead so they can eat outside – at least until or unless it rains.
The argument that these businesses would be doing fine if only University reopened is somewhat dubious. We should check back with these retailers and see if re-opening University causes their businesses to recover. If not, can we shut it down again?
The retailers are blaming their drop-off in business on the street closure when they really ought to be blaming the pandemic itself. If anything, the vibrant dining scene created more opportunities for potential customers by increasing foot traffic and window shopping.
Why anyone would need or want to drive down University Ave is beyond me.
No debate on Cal Ave. if you are not downtown or North Palo Alto, you are an afterthought.
I thought we cared about local-serving businesses? As a neighbor, I will sorely miss having Mollie Stone’s if it cannot stay in business due to the street closure. Ironic that The surrounding neighborhood will become a ‘food desert’ in the midst of so many restaurants feeding primarily commuters who drive their cars, often from outside Palo Alto, to enjoy a car-free dining experience. No more full- service grocery, no more friendly neighborhood service. Now we will have to get in our cars and drive to Menlo Park or Piazza’s.
If the surrounding communities are faring much better than Palo Alto, then why are we doubling down on the current strategy not followed by others?
Retail is dead on Cal Ave only because it is being killed. Many o f the restaurants on Cal Ave aren’t even open for lunch when the retailers would like to have some foot traffic. The City has provided no support for non-restaurants even as it has poured in who knows how much money to help restaurants. The street is dead most times of the day – not very inviting. At night when people come for dining and create some traffic, the retailers are closed. Retail could be fine – just look at Menlo Park and Los Altos.
A food court could be created, and the street would be a lot more attractive, with parklets and some signs of life during the day.
The City has set deadline after deadline for opening, and time after time caved.
Ridiculous!!!!
How is it fair to restaurants on University Ave that you open up the street here, but keep Cal Ave and Ramona closed?
I think there are more businesses on Cal Ave than University
Sad for our restaurants and community. I agree diners will go elsewhere as we’re not comfortable dining inside.
@CC, University Ave is one of PA’s THREE direct access points to 101. That might be why.
As for Cal Ave retail, PA put at least one nail in its coffin during the ridiculously long delays during Jaime Rodriquez’s “repaving beautification” project for the sidewalks there.
Great news on Cal Ave. Would have been better if it were permanent. But the retailers on University Ave are going to be surprised when the business doesn’t come back with the cars . . .
However, overall it’s very sad that Palo Alto is so timid. The usual characters noisily support the status quo, and can barely imagine a world without driving everywhere all the time for everything. We live in a place that’s flat, it hardly rains and everyone says they believe in climate change. If people here won’t build even one car-free space what hope is there anywhere else? Very disheartening but I will take Cal Ave as one small victory for progress.
Tell me: what is it about Palo Alto that attracts retailers (other than a behemoth like Apple)? I am pretty sure the answer will not include “reasonable rent” and “available parking”. I think CC struck a reasonable compromise but I’m not sure I’d feel the same if I was a business owner on Ramona. Then it might feel more like a taking.
Yesterday I had to go to the Amazon Hub in Milpitas. That was an eye-opener that motivates me to avoid using Amazon. Blocks and blocks of warehouses with little landscaping, no charm, not many people visible. Maybe the “Amazonians” (that, per a sign I saw) are all inside those windowless buildings). Creepy. I don’t want to contribute to that.
Losing small retail is not in our best interests. We will have to drive further for services and we will lose a part of our community that adds warmth and charm and connection. It is, after all, good to have places to meander to after a meal. After what I saw yesterday, I think we need to be careful about not taking steps that reduce this community.
One thing that has been minimized because of the restaurant/retail squabble is that the streets have effectively become urban parks loved by residents. We love them because there are few car-free safe spaces, which are especially valuable for families with small children. It’s a failure of the imagination that we can’t imagine a California Avenue with people living nearby in homes which replace the excessive parking. We need denser housing and apartments above shops on the street itself. If the people who came to the street already lived there, they don’t need to drive. Plus retail would naturally come back to serve the locals. This new retail could have way more value than the current niche overpriced retailers currently on Cal Ave.
The way folks talk about these places as ”destinations” or focus on sales tax ignores the fact that they are neighborhoods first. We live here and want them to be complete places before others extract value from them.
Yes!
Great to hear University Avenue will reopen to cars. This will make it much easier to get to places there instead of a struggle. Downtown was dirty and unwelcoming yesterday. Annoying circling and manueber To find parking, then hike to my destination.
Btw, you can dine easily in cities or towns like Los Altos outdoors – no streets shut, safe and thriving. Tables are not in the streets.
I wonder if the City giving so many empty retail spaces over to tech companies contributed to this. Those workers aren’t here and shopping/eating anymore. I see more of my community out on the sidewalks/streets than before. We are still shopping and eating, but those workers are gone. I miss all the small retailers that have been driven out by the higher rents. Open it up to traffic and it will be a lot less appealing to those of us still here.
For University: Why doesn’t the city collect some more actual data on the subject, instead of listening to the business owners? Sample patrons in the stores, sample patrons at the mall, do some FB ads.
I understand some business owners feel the closures negatively affected their business, but in a pandemic year, there’s a lot of mixed data. If downtown had pretty similar sales tax receipts declines vs. Midtown, that would contraindicate the street closures as a causal explanation vs. say, retail mix effects.
Meanwhile, many other positive benefits of pedestrianization are not measured: road safety, for example. Meanwhile, I walk into a furniture store on University to try to buy a coffee table, and the next ship date is February 2022 due to cargo shortages. Nothing to do with parking!
We don’t have a lot of hard data, but there is some in the Staff Report ( https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/september/20210913/20210913pccsm-amended-linked-final-council-qa.pdf )
The financials are summarized on pages 204 and 205. Very roughly… Over the past year: Both restaurant and retail outside the closures improved more than those inside, with the exception of Cal Ave restaurants. Over the past two years: Restaurants in the closed areas have suffered less than those outside. Retail suffered more. For retailers, being inside the closures has been worse than being outside them.
Pat Burt summed this up pretty well. If we keep University closed for the rest of the year, the result is likely to be a food court with boarded-up storefronts. Not exactly an attractive outcome.
The Council struck a compromise. Parklets stay, and maybe get expanded, perhaps with modifications to give retailers more visibility. Traffic flows again. I think this is probably the right choice for University, though it’s far from a no-brainer.
Presumably all these issues will be revisited during the redesign project which is already out for proposals.
Speaking of traffic, I rolled my eyes when Alison Cormack clearly didn’t have a clue about it. See page 202 for some data (Staff has updated this for Council several times over the past year). Anyway, Lytton is carrying more traffic than it did pre-pandemic, and so are the cross-streets. Total traffic is still below pre-pandemic levels, so we don’t have a spillover problem yet, but rerouting into the neighborhoods seems to be happening. When Stanford is back in full operation I bet University will see a big increase, though not back to its pre-pandemic level of 12000 cars/day for a while.
I’m sympathetic to restaurants who want the benefit of free outdoor space for the business at taxpayer expense, but uh, well, it’s not fair to others, including retail and office who don’t benefit from putting their desks or tables on the street.
Another factor that often gets lost in these discussions is the difficulties for the elderly and disabled to access locations that are blocked to vehicles, not to mention the potential for emergency vehicles needing to access the street.
Streets are for cars.
Now, if restaurants want more outdoor space, they have 3 options:
1. Use sidewalks (and pay taxpayers for the use, maintenance and liability of those sidewalks).
2. Redesign their existing footprint to have less indoor and more outdoor (which of course they would never do).
3. Build multi-levels…create more upper rooftop space with outdoor seating (don’t forget to include a way for disabled to access). The problem with this solution is Palo Alto’s allergy to heights, even if it’s 2 stories.
In lieu of these solutions, let streets be used for cars, sidewalks for pedestrians and indoor spaces for whatever the business wants to use it for (restaurant, office, retail).
PS – I find it hysterical Coupa Cafe owner claims we should have a bike lane in the middle of the street because it’s good for the environment. LOL.
I already said I think people will go to Castro Street where they can eat outside.
The truth is that the number of restaurants in Palo Alto is basically due to the visitors and office workers that come into town on a daily basis. They do lunch, they do happy hour after their meetings and often stay for dinner. They may not do weekends, but until the workers return Palo Alto residents are not going to be keeping the restaurants in business. The same can be said for retail, from running to the drugstore for a few things at lunchtime to taking a walk and buying some impulse item, the office workers probably kept retail going also. I suspect most of us use a drugstore close to home (or where we work) rather than drive downtown for our needs.
Lunchtime is not likely to keep restaurants going without office workers. For those of us working at home, the refrigerator is our likely lunchtime spot.
As for those of us who want to dine outside due to Covid concerns, we will likely drive to whichever area has outside dining. Even when the weather cools, we will still put on a sweater and down jacket, to sit outside beside a gas heater.
For those who may drive to park outside retail in University Avenue, more will drive to Castro Street for dinner and possibly impulse buy in their retail.
Palo Alto restaurants know this. City Council probably do not.
I live for the day that PA city counsel makes one good decision. So far, no luck.
To Andy, Correction: Streets are for Transportation. That is, walking, bicycling, driving, riding transit, parking vehicles (including bicycles). Many people cannot or don’t want to drive a car. Public streets are for everyone.
To Carol Scott, When I drive to Molly Stone’s, I usually take Cambridge because the lion’s share of their auto parking is on that side of the store. I don’t think the closure of Cal Ave is their problem, though they could use their flyers and advertising to let people know that their parking lots are on Cambridge. I think the Covid-related reduction in people using the train who used to shop there before and after work may be hurting their business. When I bike there, I ride down Park Boulevard. Easy peasy.
Riley2:
Why anyone would need or want to drive down University Ave is beyond me.
Well to get to and from 101, to get to and from Stanford University, to get to and from Stanford Hospital.
Does the Palo Alto City Council expect that the Pandemic will be contained enough that it will be safe to eat inside a month from now? If so, please share this information with all of us.
I think this move to close down the outside eating is premature.
The decision is a very sad one indeed. The way the arguments are laid out makes it look as if retailers and restaurants are the residents of Palo Alto, and not the residents themselves. Yes, they pay taxes, and so do we.
By the way, we also VOTE!
The word “community” has been spoken very few times during the last council meeting. This tells me all I need to know. The opinion of the community has been largely ignored so far by those we have chosen to run the city!
Several city surveys and the petition on change.org, like this one https://www.change.org/p/palo-alto-residents-and-business-owners-now-is-the-time-help-cal-and-university-avenue-businesses-get-back-on-their-feet, have clearly shown that the community wants the streets to be open to pedestrians, and not just because of the pandemic, but because we want a safer, family-caring, environmentally-friendly and tourist-welcoming city.
Reopening the streets for cars will not save the retail because the latter has not opted to reinvent itself, the way, Apple, for example, has done with their stores in the second decade of 2000s.
I truly believe the way forward is to close off University Ave to cars, diversify the pool of businesses along the streets and then help those less innovative enterprises to adopt to the new environment so that they can thrive as they did before.
Not to look backward, but move forward with times!
Apologies, here is the correct link to the petition on change.org.
https://www.change.org/p/palo-alto-residents-and-business-owners-now-is-the-time-help-cal-and-university-avenue-businesses-get-back-on-their-feet
I could not edit the previous comment because of the Palo Alto Online’s time editing restrictions.
Apologies!
I agree with PA Well Wisher’s summary.
The wheel is being reinvented as we speak. Retail has changed dramatically and I doubt if it will return the way it was prepandemic. It was changing and the pandemic made the change happen more quickly. Those who rarely visit retail are even less likely to come back since they are used to the convenience. Whether they can park outside is not likely to make any difference as to whether someone who used to visit retail on University Avenue is going to return.
However, the restaurants are different. Many people are still not comfortable with dining inside. Those diners will go where they can dine outside. If they can’t dine on University Avenue outside, then there are plenty of other areas where they will be welcomed with open arms.
It is time to rethink. On the one hand the CC wants everyone to walk or bike everywhere. On the other hand they want to enable traffic to drive University. Somehow these two things look hypocritical.
And lastly, the CC are paid for by us the residents and taxpayers. What we want has to be taken into account. We are the ones who will be voting for them or not, and not the business owners unless they also reside in Palo Alto. Ignoring the residents, or the community for want of another word, is not going to bide well for them.
I’d be careful about boiling the argument down to “brick-and-mortar retail is obsolete, so we might as well let retail on University die”.
What little hard information we have suggests (1) retail is doing better outside the closed areas than inside them, and (2) retail is doing better in other areas and other cities than it is on University. Something more than retail obsolescence is going on.
It might be that University is different because it hasn’t really served residents for years; it serves the daytime worker population instead. A lot of people are saying that work-from-home is here to stay, but I have my doubts. The people with real money on the line, tech companies and finance companies and developers, are building offices like crazy. Apparently they believe work-from-home is temporary and/or small, or that there’s going to be so much growth that it won’t matter, offices will still be full. Either way, we’ll have lots of downtown workers again.
And don’t forget that those 12000 cars/day on University have to go somewhere. We can’t just close University and pretend they don’t exist. If you want to make a permanent closure, you have to do the hard work of figuring out how to solve the transportation problems that will cause.
Restaurants are enthusiastic about outdoor space in part because it’s free. When, not if, the City starts requiring a fee for the private use of public property, their opinions might change.
Other writers are exactly correct. I looked for a place serving lunch outside with a friend this coming Monday and all the Calif Ave. places are closed. We will be dining in Mountain View instead. And believe me, I looked! Evening parklette dinner is starting to get chilly …
And yes, I doubt University closure is the reason for poor business. Look at Amazon and look no further! I avoid University like the plague anytime I do drive downtown, even if it is opened (Hamilton or Lytton and park in the back lots or garages)!
I’ve stopped going to University Ave as well as California Ave due to the traffic nightmare with the street closures.
Pat Markevitch, I do not particularly want to drive down University Avenue (though sometimes I need to) but I want all the traffic that used to be in UV
to back there so that those of us who have lived nearby do not have to cope with the excessive traffic diverted because of the closure.
Also, sometimes I cannot walk in the sidewalk because restaurant patrons crowd the sidewalk thinking perhaps that is a part of the restaurant or just being inconsiderate. For those of us who are handicapped going in and out of the sidewalk to avoid the parklets is a real problem.Before the pandemic several restaurants had open or sidewalk “esplanades” and I don’t see why tat cannot continue.
Open Uv at least one lane….