"This could involve a nonprofit like the Urban Village Farmers Market Association, which operates regional farmer's markets. Some of its more successful vendors often seek to go beyond tents and establish more fixed operations, the report notes. The city could support these efforts through financial and technical assistance, according to the report."

This is a good idea. Much easier to create booth space for farmers market vendors, compared to building out a restaurant spaces. And there's certainly plenty of demand - witness the Sunday California Ave farmers market.

Where does the city find these consultants who are so intent on decimating -- not revitalizing -- retail? Shameful.

How about doing a NIGHT Farmer's Market to get people downtown like Menlo Park, Los Altos etc. do?

It only took us how many years to institute Third Thursday like other towns have been doing for years if not decades.

Did they also suggest banning downtown company cafeterias since they had/have a lot to do with destroying restaurants' lunch business? Just ask the owners of St Michael's Alley what Palantir did to THEIR business.

What are they doing about the larcenous rents charged to retail/service businesses? Maybe the Chamber of Commerce could comment on that one!

SO glad we're paying 2 consultants to ignore the obvious!

Because chain stores, taller and denser commercial buildings, and urban villages work so spectacularly in San Francisco and San Jose?

Last year, the closure of University Avenue to cars was blamed for the retail slowdown, and we went back to it being a major artery for people traveling between West Palo Alto and 101. Now that that has proven to be false, can we make University Ave a pedestrian haven again?

Well, we all know tourists and shoppers flock to Mendocino, Sausalito and Carmel for their dense skyscrapers, right???

These conclusions remind me of prop 13 and its huge tax giveaway to the "essential" businesses of Xerox, Kodak, HP and Varian. A lot of what they are talking about as solutions are shutting the barn door after the horse has escaped. University Ave should have been reimagined along the lines of Stanford Shopping Center decades ago - closed, beautiful, pedestrian mall. You want shoppers for retail? They should have allowed the city to grow by 30 to 40,000 people - the people who've bought here last ten years, spend a lot of their time elsewhere and there just aren't enough of them.

Also, the article fails to note that although "retail" on Cal Ave is struggling, the restaurants are doing a booming business.

My feeling is allowing chain store in would be a terrible idea.

Who is hiring these bogus consultants?!? The things that need changing are common sense but getting rid of the retail restrictions and letting in chain stores are the worst ideas. They should stop paying bogus consultants and wasting tax dollars when it’s really not that hard to figure out.

Yes, please fill University and Cal. avenue with tall ugly building, block the sunlight, kill the trees and make it cold and ugly. That will drive even more people away and make it easier to drive on the streets.

Or just turn it over to start ups and a few restaurants to feed them and we will never have to go there. The greed of the owners of the downtown buildings, who keep there rents so high that retail stores can't afford to move there, is the biggest problem. They likely love this new report since they have been badgering the city council to let them switch to higher paying office usage. They are the hold outs. They could lower their rents and have the place full of interesting shops in no time but they just want more money.

I hope the city council doesn't give in. But then, they are not known for having much of a back bone.

Fasten your seat belts as this consultant, StreetSense, wants to take away retail and put in medical services on the ground floor in the California Avenue business district. Do we want Laser Away and Botox offices next to restaurants where patients will dart out clutching their red swollen faces while you are dining on the Avenue? As there are plenty of vacant offices these medical services better suited elsewhere.

Who is StreetSense listening to? My sense is there are a some ‘stakeholders’ landlords pressing for retail zoning change and they are speaking through the consultant. Medical services generally attract longer leases and landlords can charge more.

Ellis the Town & Country Village landlord tried to push medical services to the city council and failed. He cried foul. T&C Village is a thriving destination for shopping and dining that residents and folks from out of town seek for its charming ambiance.

Why did many retailers leave California Avenue for Los Altos and Redwood City?
Some of the landlords insist on inflated market rate rents because this IS Palo Alto. Many residents enjoy going to Los Altos because of the ambiance and variety in retail.

Murals are cosmetic. What people want is for the city council to dismiss the folie of medical services and big box stores for our town. Residents want a successful concept as exemplified by Santa Barbara’s State Street.

Residents want the city to focus on parklet design and move forward to create an attractive integrated space.

Online Name is correct why did it take the city so LONG to offer the music nights on California Avenue? Redwood City has had fantastic music in front of the courthouse for years. Los Altos has also had music for eons and Palo Alto modeled the California Avenue Thursday night music offerings on that of Los Altos.

The city needs to look at State Street in Santa Barbara which models a collaborative effort with restaurants and businesses.

It is long beyond time to allow large full service supermarkets. Nearly everyone I know does most of their grocery and similar at large out of town Safeways built on the edge of Palo Alto in Mountain View and Menlo Park.

In store bakery, coffee shop, somewhere to eat a sandwich and other services too, please.

I think it's best to not have any chain stores on University and California Avenues. Family owned businesses do better in attracting local community shoppers and daytime shoppers from other towns. Ideally, many commercial property landlords are able to offer their rental properties at rates that can attract a nice mixture of family owned small/moderate size retail stores and eateries. Displaying more colorful & interesting public artwork from local artists (modern sculptures, stone fountains, flowering plants) along University & California Avenues will make the streets more unique & inviting for shoppers to spend time there to shop and to attract merchants to set up their businesses along those streets.

The art work and murals are only good if you get people downtown to see them. That means something unique that they can't find by driving another 3 miles like Safeway.

How long have people been asking for a bug Asian market? A loooooobg tune,

Have the 1 consulting firms bothered to follow the news in the SF Chron and the SJ Merc about all of the ethnic market destinations that are opening like Eatally? The Los Altos food mart funded by Google money?? Where are OUR zillionaires? Where's our Chamber of "Commerce" or do they just worry real estate here??

(As I typed this it felt like Groundhog Day for all the years I've been droning on about First Friday, the RWC Court House concerts; night markets ab=d street music. To see Palo Alto's lack of imagination just compare the 4th of July activites for PA and all the surrounding towns. The difference seems to be that the other cities serve their residents, not the landlords and not the developers. )

I'd really like to know A) who hired these consultants and B) how much WE the taxpayers are paying them when we're "too broke" to provide updated and ACCURATE police reports!

Look no further than downtown Los Altos for a local vibrant retail district to give the lie that Palo Alto retail could only succeed if commercial property owners were allowed to replace traditional retail stores with an ever growing list of more profitable so-called “retail-like but not retail” businesses.

Over the years successive Palo Alto council members, city managers and their staff, and a succession of erstwhile retail consultants, have been persuaded by owners of retail zoned properties to allow them to replace traditional retail with an ever expanding list of more lucrative businesses. Which, of course, gradually drives up all the rents. The impact has been, predictably, to gradually erode the viability of remaining retail who cannot afford the higher rents. A double whammy and downward spiral as a successful shopping district requires a critical mass of adjacent and contiguous shops and regularly needed resident services to attract shoppers.

Meanwhile, so far at least, Los Altos has managed to serve their residents by not only continuing to support and preserve their retail zoned downtown streets, but also manage their downtown to have an to attractive mix of useful and attractive resident serving shops, services, cafes and restaurants that compliment each other. What a contrast with the way Palo Alto has managed what used to be our own thriving resident serving retail districts.

South Palo Alto has lost one of its vibrant retail areas. The fire at AJs has destroyed what was a tranquil local community destination to get coffee, to eat, to do cleaning and to buy wine and beer, while at the same time relax outside in the shade reading, working, or catching up with a friend. What a loss and there is no replacement within walking distance. Charleston Center and Midtown do not have the ambience.

Getting local vibrant retail areas with emphasis on community and socialization in the neighborhoods so that neighbors can walk and feel part of the community is a good aim.

"Over the years successive Palo Alto council members, city managers and their staff, and a succession of erstwhile retail consultants, have been persuaded by owners of retail zoned properties to allow them to replace traditional retail with an ever expanding list of more lucrative businesses.."

@mjh reminds me of the stellar cast of characters that also brought us "fake retail" back in 2015 where they allowed non-retail businesses like Institute For The Future to call themselves retailers if they pretended to sell something, even though they had nothing to sell.

Editorial: Adopt expanded retail protections
Urgency ordinance will prevent conversions of ground-floor retail

Uploaded: Fri, May 8, 2015, 7:38 am
Web Link

"Ambiguous retail definitions and staff interpretations of current restrictions have contributed to the problem, as certain prime ground-floor locations — such as the space occupied at Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street by Institute for the Future — have been converted to what is being called "fake retail," uses that may involve some public activity but that don't contribute to a retail shopping environment."

I used to joke about going into the Institute For The Future and ordering a pound of multi-client studies and 5 of their latest PowerPointa.

Read the 2915 editorial and marvel at how our "leaders" and their consultants have worked tirelessly to make our downtowns safe for offices, commuters and "fake retail" while destroying resident-serving retailers and services by denying their employees parking permits, targetting their cars etc.

Maybe our "leaders" could talk to the merchants like Mayor Kou and I did the last time they tried to destroy T&C retails. Just a revolutionary 9thought.

It is not unusual to hear Shikada tell CC that Staff has too much to do, that CC needs to prioritize its demands on Staff, that focusing on one issue negatively impacts time available for other issues, etc. So why not take advantage of an obvious, available, free, no-consultants-needed resource and COPY what successful cities are doing?

"So why not take advantage of an obvious, available, free, no-consultants-needed resource and COPY what successful cities are doing?"

@Annette, thank you, I've been asking that for years and wondering if staff and their gravy train of consultants are aware of what's going on in nearby towns and if they ever take field trips to see what's happening 10 miles away.

The Junior Museum & Zoo is one blatant and costly example of depriving local residents of a much-loved institution to turn it into a regional tourist attraction. D

And then I realized we don't use local consultants with LOCAL knowledge, that staff doesn't talk to local businesses here and that staff wastes their time and our money on poorly defined or UNdefined projects,

Who can forget that they never bothered to define "medical/retail" when Allison Cormack kept pushing the landlord's desire to convert Town & Country t "medical retail" just before the lockdown ended! Yet here we are again with this "medical/retail" Groundhog Day push.

It would be special if staff, City Council, consultants etc stopped serving the landlords and started serving us.

Yes!! Why wouldn’t we want more retail in Palo Alto??? More retail = more revenue = lower taxes. It’s pretty simple. But we have to be business friendly so they actually come. This conversation is a great start!

The street closure on California Ave ranks up there with terrible decisions made by the city. The street looks terrible and is dirty. The city council does nothing but hires consultants because apparently they are unable to make any decisions(well smart ones anyway). Re open California Ave is the way to go. Keep messing around and there won't be any retail left on California Ave

Retail in PA has run out of geographic spaces where retail makes sense. Now that ECR is a planned commmunity of people without retail nearby, maybe the City woke up and realized they should have been putting retail AROUND the area, like a wheel. The residence areas could have been like spokes. But now, it's too late to undo the damage. And now they want to bulldoze the McD's in favor of -- yep -- unformed plans of building housing where the retail should be.

Bystander, it has been 16 days since I last read you cry about the absence of a good cup of coffee next to a dry cleaner. That's a pretty good run :) The owners of the property are probably still sorting out insurance claims. And the BP's don't exactly fly off the shelf in City Hall in record time. The owners can't even begin to think about building until they find out if they can borrow enough (at 2023 astonishing loan rates) to re-build.

With rampant crime happening along that section of Middlefield (acts of indecency, robbery, muggings) I wouldn't sit for too long there without paying attention to your car alarm and keeping one eye open to make sure your Rolex doesn't fall off your wrist.

But as I've said before and I'll say it again, the number 1 reason why we can't have nice things is the snail's pace of the city. They will have to conduct at least 5 paid surveys to find out if their most recent attempts to slow down progress are in alignment with State compliance. It will be years before anything is built at that charred fenced off fire site. We can't even afford to surround it with plywood to remove that "Detroit Feel" one gets when driving past.

I just received a notice that Footwear is closing its store on University Avenue because rents are too high. If University area and adjacent side streets and California Avenue are to be vibrant, inviting places, restaurants and interesting retail are necessary. If I want a chain I'll go to a mall or online. The key issue is an economic one. Landlords want more rent either from greed or to cover their expenses of upkeek and loans on what was expensive property whereas non-retail business seem to be willing to pay higher rents. So with this economic force as primary, either more and more storefronts will become empty and owning a building might, at some point, become unprofitable, or the city subsidizes rents (not a realistic or even desirable option). As buildings become less occupied less revenue to the owner will be forthcoming and the value of a building will fall (this might be sped up if the return to office occupancy remains sluggish). Then buildings change hands for less (probably incurring a loss for present owners) resulting in lower carrying costs and thus less pressure on rents. Of course this takes time and in the meantime results in an increasing number of empty store fronts. Two things need to happen: the cost of running a retail business has to decrease (i.e. less rent required) and increased patronage has to become available. Frankly I don't know how to make this happen but just hoping for more retail in the absence some major economic stresses on landlords seems naive. I am no economist, so maybe I'm wrong, but if I am wrong maybe someone could set me straight.

Richard, can I ask, where are the shoes made that you buy at Footwear? It's on a tag on the inside of the tongue.

Interesting.

There's a Footwear Etc. on Main St in Los Altos and I think there are others in the area. The Los Altos retail scene continues to be lively; I know because I was there for lunch today with a friend.

Re PA retail, a friend and I were discussing where Jarbo (women's clothes) moved to in Town & Country so I looked on the Jarbo website Web Link and found this message:

PALO ALTO

Our Palo Alto location has closed while we look for a new home in the area. We love our community in Northern California and will see you soon!

We would love to talk to you! Call us at 1.877.457.2464 or email us at info@jarbocollection.com

Maybe our retail consultants can find our WHY they left aand possibly help them stay in PA since T&C's landlord Ellis is constantly churning retailers, evicting local eye doctors while claiming to want "medical/retail" and destroying multi-generational family businesses like The Village Cheese House and the Prestige boutique. Extra credit for asking the city why their appeals fell on deaf ears.

The owners of Palo Alto retail properties have a long history of setting their rents above what is viable for retail and then when they can’t find retail lessees who can afford the rent gang up with the chamber of commerce and their favorite council members to persuade council to broaden the categories of more profitable businesses that can replace traditional retail. This has occurred at regular intervals and the list of so-called “retail-like” businesses that can replace traditional retail has over the years got longer and longer. Even though these properties are zoned for retail the impact has predictably been that retail is, for all intents and purposes, being steadily pushed out of Palo Alto. The push to replace retail with more profitable medical is just the latest attempt to erode the viability of what little is left of Palo Alto retail.

I also rec'd the notice about Footwear and thought it notable that the store specified why they closed. The City should sit down with that landlord and get details on what the rent hike was so that they have that "last straw" data point. And the City needs to start connecting the dots between loss of retail and its sustainability goals. Every shuttered retail operation results in more driving, either by residents going elsewhere (like Los Altos) or Amazon, FedEx, and UPS coming here.

There's also a HUGE disconnect between the justifications for densification and reduced parking when the two major points of validation: close to transportation and close to retail DO NOT EXIST!

MyFeelz makes some excellent points about building retail AROUND the housing and the snail's pace of the City. The Planning Dept's approach is obstructionist. They may be capable but they need to find a much more effective way to deliver the service they provide. Want solar? Better be very patient. Want to do a TI project? Better plan on adding MONTHS to the process. The delays are costly - but not to them. The status quo is unacceptable, but that's been true for a long time. This leads to the conclusion that CM Shikada either doesn't care or is incapable of instituting the changes that are badly needed. And since the problems are not new, it is likely the previous two CMs, Benest and Keene, also didn't prioritize instituting needed change in that department - or didn't much care.

I think it would be interesting to know how many of the senior staff live in PA and live with the impact of their approach to planning, retail, housing, utility transfers, taxes, traffic calming, and parking. And how many work a full day 5 days a week and work here, where they are needed, not from home where they are unavailable - especially if home is out of state. Something is very off, particularly in Planning, and I'm guessing an honest audit would reveal that WFH is a contributing factor.

Getting back the retail businesses as we knew them in the 60's, 70's, and into the 80's, is impossible. Back then the University Avenue and California Avenue business/shopping districts were humming along, thriving, and providing profitable incomes to small business owners and mom and pop retail stores. That's where we shopped for clothes, furniture, appliances, lumber, pets, books, in addition to having a few restaurants, theaters, grocery stores, gas stations, pharmacies, bakeries, barbershops, five and dimes, a shoe repair store, and a few specialty stores, including Pacific Scientific. Take a walk on California Avenue from El Camino to the train station and you'll see what has replaced those businesses and stores.

Then came the big shopping centers and covered malls with core/anchor department stores and shops that had everything you wanted or needed that you used to buy in your local shopping districts, and if you had the time you could catch an afternoon matinee movie before you went home. That was followed by the emergence of big box stores, large multi-theater complexes, and finally, online shopping, the death knell for most of those stores. Chain stores and box stores had a big advantage because of economies of scale when it came to buying their goods at a low/discounted negotiated price directly from the manufacturers or wholesale suppliers. CC's twiddling and fiddling with formerly approved ordinances and regulations won't make any difference in the long run and we'll just have to accept the words of Bob Dylan. Indeed, "The Times They Are Achangin".

Thanks for reminding us about Pacific Scientific - what a fun eclectic mix of amazing items for my childhood imagination!

And yet Los Altos still has a thriving shopping district.

We need sustainable, comprehensive planning that conveniently integrates alternative transportation and connects homes and businesses to useful retail, community services, parks, etc. Skilled planners do this. Those amenities should be extended generously to parts of south Palo Alto where the city is approving thousands of units of new high density housing. The long term, Prop 13 protected owners of these retail properties think they are being clever by starving small retail. They have been gradually strangling the the goose that lays golden eggs, introducing big box retail and big botox and plastic surgery businesses for short term profits. The effect will be to strip local interest from the area. Think about the most soul-sucking parts of Los Angeles. Big box will leave and we will be left with a sterile downtown environment that is inviting to no one. Again, YAWN. They are their own worst enemies. Sadly, they are harming our community in the process. Balance is needed. We accomplish that through zoning.

Speaking for Midtown.
Since it is only 1% of the retail, it got about that much attention from consultants. Removing the GFR overlay would decimate the retail that we have now. (I hope that they read the comp plan definition of neighborhood centers)
Please note that most of the examples the consultants chose (from a template?) are from cities not like Palo Alto, NYC, San Diego, Philadelphia, Oakland, Dallas, San Luis Obispo.
What they didn't stress as the BIGGST problem are the unrealistic rents demanded by property owners. The second biggest problem is the excruciating process with permits and inspections to get a business started, The city needs to spend more money on this important neighborhood area, but I fear that Midtown will only get 1% of the solution..

Rent is the issue, plain and simple (no outside expensive consultants needed). Chain stores that can pay more will just force the remaining local retailers out.

Enlarging buildings seems like a crazy idea -- you can't fill the existing spaces so you are going to go bigger??? So we can be like SF?

Who are these consultants?

From the "report": "... relax its ban on chain stores, allow taller and denser commercial buildings and create an "incubation" program that allows enterprising vendors to occupy vacant shops on a short-term basis..." is a definition of planning urban blight. The city council is right to reject this dollar thinking and also stop allowing street-level, non-retail business storefronts on University or California Avenues. Palo Alto still has some charm, preserved by preventing developers to pursue purely monetary gains from excessive chain stores like Wal-Mart, or keeping ugly hi-rise buildings filled with pop-up enterprise.

A question for Online Name. Can you elaborate on your comment copied below?

"Read the 2915 editorial and marvel at how our "leaders" and their consultants have worked tirelessly to make our downtowns safe for offices, commuters and "fake retail" while destroying resident-serving retailers and services by denying their employees parking permits, targetting their cars etc."

I dont understand the 2915 Editorial and parking implications. Thanks Neilson Buchanan 650 329-0484

I hope everyone who posted will send a letter to council or speak to the points you raised.
Unless you do, some of the inappropriate recommendations <boiler plate from other cities> will be adopted.

I can understand why many longtime Palo Alto residents would like to preserve the city's small town atmosphere but times have changed along with the demographics.

One chain store that would be welcomed in Palo Alto is 99 Ranch as their closest grocery stores are situated in Mountain View and Cupertino.