How could restaurant owners be so foolish? Spending g $150,000 for tenant improvements to a public parking space? They could buy a parking space for that much! Foolish decisions should not be rewarded. The street is owned by the public. Not some restaurant.

The thing I want to know is how many collisions there have been between servers carrying hot food or trays of beverages and pedestrians? I have witnessed a few near misses myself but adding strollers and small children to the mix it must be very hazardous to carry food across a sidewalk.

Are the restaurant owners still not paying for the additional space? If they are not, it is understandable that they do not want to give up the freebie that generates revenue.

I love the outdoor dining opportunities in downtown Palo Alto! In a morass of banks and rug shops, the restaurants with parklets make the downtown feel more like a European city, with relaxed, happy diners in the good weather. Keep them! Keep the restaurants and forget the "parking" needs; we have plenty of parking downtown.

What do you know, Californians like to eat outside. We have the best weather on the planet and for some reason our downtowns were not built with space for outdoor dining. We can fix that. We’ve traveled to other countries where alfresco dining is part of the culture. I’m so pleased that California Avenue is being redesigned with this in mind. University should definitely have this as well.

I hate the parklets & won't patronize restaurants which have them. 1) They selfishly usurp public property for their own profit;
2) They restrict parking & impede access to retailers who also deserve support & were negatively affected by the pandemic;
3) They create cross-traffic on sidewalks, creating hazards for pedestrians, especially those with small children or strollers and the elderly who aren't able to dodge servers & bussers as easily;
4) The propane heaters are hazardous to passersby & highly un-ecological.
No more parklets. The pandemic is over & freebies to restaurants should be too. They can go back to their previous boundaries & be successful or not, depending on the quality of the food & the business plans.

Some restaurants have developed a huge sense of entitlement, based on the city's generous support during COVID. Now they think they own the streets and don't care how disruptive their parklets are for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers.

Spending $40M to make University Ave. "more competitive with shopping destinations like Stanford Shopping Center, Santana Row in San Jose and the Town & Country Village" is a fool's errand. The city's "main street" can never compete with those places, no matter how wide the sidewalks.

Palo Alto spent millions on California Ave. in 2015 with the slogan “California Avenue: Making a new downtown.”
Four lanes were reduced to two. Healthy trees were cut down. Embedded glass in the sidewalks turned out to be a big mistake. Now we've got a permanently closed street, to the detriment of many businesses, and the city will spend even more money to try to beautify it.

Consultants love to pull out their boilerplate plans to convince city governments they can become the next Rodeo Drive. Months -- perhaps years -- of arguments will ensue and no one will be happy with the result.

Some basic facts from the article, sales tax data and my observations walking Univ Ave 2 or 3 times a day.

1) It was not just the restaurants but council also voiced support for the parklets.
2) Dining/cafes/bars account for the majority of DTN sales tax revenue
3) Council just confirmed parklets, set rules and required payment from parklet owners
4) The food and drink establishments bring people DTN and from my observation are busy and customers can get there whether by walking, biking or driving. With WFH there is plenty of parking and if we need more build another garage.
5) Council is getting close to the real question, which is what will make DTN an exciting place to go. While I wish all retailers success, I doubt what DTN or Univ Ave needs to be exciting is more store retail. How about more services and fun activities.

University Ave isn’t broken so I don’t understand why all this money to fix it. Spend
It on Cal Ave instead it needs more help.

When is this city going to stop listening to consultants, often those with no local knowledge?

How can they pretend to care about shopping districts and the merchants and the restaurants when they so cavalierly destroy them after making them spend lots of good money on parklets?

How can they be SO out of it that they think parallel parking will speed up traffic when in fact the cars will back up behind those trying to park?

And as for Mr. Levy's claim that most people won't use cars to get downtown, how sad he doesn't dine with friends from out of town for whom it would be ludicrous for them to think of biking,

Also wondering how the lack of car traffic fits in with Pat Burt's support for Palo Alto becoming a "tourist" destination -- an idea that failed miserably ten years ago when they finally shut down the PA tourist office, quit the regional hotel groups etc. Does he / they expect tourists to take pogo sticks to get here and to get around.

So pathetic they expect our world to shrink to what's bikable (5 miles?) while destroying local merchants on El Camino, University and Cal Ave. And please try to be logical and stop telling us to take the train when they're replacing public transit parking lots with housing.

The city council has another consultant - consulting firm CSW. I question how many the council uses and at what cost?

As for University Ave, I believe it proper to improve the customer setting as many businesses have gone down the past several years. Except for the rug stores, they seem to be reappear.

Study the past ten years of business metrics for the street - number of customers each year, how the rents have changed, how the stores and restaurants have done financially. Then compare this to the pandemic years when the outdoor facilities were built and the last two years. How has the outdoor seating improved or impacted the University Ave businesses and restaurants? This is not rocket science.

University Avenue is not the Stanford Mall or Town & Country Village. Keep the parklets as they are necessary for
outdoor dining. Covid never went away. The latest Covid virus features more spikes than before making it hard to evade. Yes the city needs to work out and charge equitable fees based on the square footage restaurants use in the public space.

I've lived in this area for over 68 years. I've worked, Studied, and played in every city, including, Palo Alto. I've seen so much and maybe too much. I am not sure. But what I am sure of is this. People who haven't resided in the Area, don't know the History. They are willing to go and just wreck History, and traditions as though former lives were not worth a bag of nickels.
They come in, move in, and begin inflicting their wants needs, and desires. Base mainly on Profits. If their profits include fun for me. I am all for it. I once worked at a Real Estate Office on California Avenue. It was a desert. Nice enough, but lacked finesse. Some restaurants on California Ave. have entertainment at night, that I've visited.
No one has mentioned Middlefield Rd and those Shops.
That Safeway needs a Facelift. I love the parking at the small centers. What about the Man who had low rent and is being forced out by The Landlord, after he put in over $80,000? There should be an Ordinance that states that if a Tenant puts that much money into a Landlord's building they become partners.
If the building is SOLD, the Tenant gets a percentage.

I am all for just about anything that will bring Entertainment Fun. I look around and see all the enjoyable places I once partook of as a child are just yanked away. My thoughts are Gentrification happens everywhere.
Stanford Shopping ctr. is moving and shaking. I think maybe people associated with the Center are against the University improvement. As they were with East Palo Alto wanting to take the entire Westside and turn that area into a profitable center. Palo Alto fought it tooth and nail.

Folks, there's enough for everyone. I believe in diversity and variety. Each location can have its character. Let the people decide which is Better for them and their enjoyment.
If you take out my Mini Golf course, replace it with "like in kind". Thank You for the Dog parks.

An example of a very successful and popular parklet is Venetia's. The owners have worked for several years to make it welcoming and attractive with plants, umbrellas, lights and seasonal decorations. When we go there, we hear languages from many different countries. The food, wine and coffee/chocolate drinks are good. A breath of Italy unlike any other place in PA.
It is a true asset to University Ave. I would hate to have it removed. It is one of the reasons we patrionize restaurants and stores on University Ave.

I agree with History Buff.
Let’s look at those very good points and proceed carefully.

I applaud the idea of removing all of the parklets everywhere in Palo Alto. Please replace outdoor dinning with lovely outdoor settings. Dinning outside, yes! Ugly parklets, no!

If Palo Alto is going go do parklets, there need to be some standards:

1) Sidewalks should be passable.
2) The owners should be responsible for cleaning around the parklets, not just using leaf blower to blow debris from their space down the street as is common today.
3) There should be some standards for how parklets are constructed and what they look like, as they are in public space.
4) If parklets need to be heated, they should be heated by electric heaters, not the methane spewing heaters that make a mockery of Palo Alto's commitment to addressing climate change. that restaurants are using today. (Commenters say Palo Altans love eating alfresco, but apparently only if the great outdoors is heated for them?)
5) Restaurants with parklets should pay for the full cost of city services to maintain outdoor dining on public property at a minimum.

@M
Earlier this year, the city already adopted permanent parklet standards close to what you asked for; Web Link
I think the city set an implementation date sometime next year to allow the restaurants to get them designed and built.

I moved to downtown Palo Alto as a student in 1963, living at the corner of Forest & Bryant long before the old Queen Anne Victorian 1896 former frat house was torn down for condos.
I've seen it all. Remember Liddicoats, Nivens, Swensons, the Varsity, Downtown Palo Alto isn't Paris or configured as Italian piazzas. It should be a vibrant "Main Street," with a mixture of offices, services, banks, retail stores large & small, and cafes. University Ave is the direct route from the Dumbarton Bridge to Stanford, through EPA, past Middlefield Rd, to CalTrain, and El Camino. Like it or not, it's a necessary thouroughfare which should not be obstructed with parklets. Turning it over to restaurants whose proprietors enlarge their spaces, disrupting auto, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic is wrong. Take away parklets & put in bike lanes.
Btw, Parisian cafes have sidewalk seating where the chairs are side-by-side, back up to the exteriors of the buildings, and are separated by very small tables intended use by 1 or 2 people. They nearly always face the street. leaving the sidewalks clear. Larger groups eat inside at 4 top or 6 top tables.
If PA wants to sacrifice the function of a small but vital traffic artery, maybe it should hire a modern Haussmann to blow up buildings & create bigger roads wide enough for public squares with places for al fresco dining.

My wife and I use the parklets often even in winter and enjoy them a lot.

This week I will have at least three business meetings in the parklets.

In addition the city as stated above laid out standards for the parklets including owner payments, these should be enforced next year.

Moreover, the Univ Ave removal of parklets would still leave them legal on Ramona and Cal Ave and I fail to see how this would be fair or consistent for the Univ Ave restaurants and cafes.

If building the parking garage at Hamilton and Waverley could be part of a solution allowing Univ Ave parklets and street redesign, I would suppor that particularly if some space could be reserved for DTN low-wage workers and/or if it could be combined with housing.

So Stephen Levy - you are negotiating now an outcome? The taxpayers and business owners want the city to "function" in it's job to coordinate the "business of business" for this city and not let every activist group run in the door and direct traffic on the street. That includes the bike coalition which would paint the street green and reduce parking on the street. And the focus on the parking garage is a "tell" of further interference in the city functions.
Here is a better idea - fill those empty buildings with interesting commercial businesses and the garages will fill up with CARS. And the people in the CARS will go out to eat, drink, and enjoy themselves. And the city will make MONEY in the process. Their JOB.

Good that the City Cpuncil sent Mr. Shikada and the Pleasanton-based consultant back to the drawing board to come up with a less costly plan the $40,000,000 proposed and more respectful of the University Avenue businesses.

Thank you, Mayor Kou and council members Lauing, Burt and Stone for recognizing that economic vitality and cost-effectiveness matter much more than rushing to "transform" downtown, esp. given the city's pathetic track record.

@M - great suggestions! The City should also consult with Vector Control. Those black rodent traps don't do much for the appetite!

I support the parklets and would like them to get bigger! Once again I'll suggest that University Ave should be closed to car traffic between High and Waverly. Make Hamilton and Lytton one way in opposite directions. I know that some merchants believe that their customers can drive to their stores and park, but that hasn't been the reality for a long time. Parking happens in parking garages. Get out of your car and walk and see what else the area has to offer!

The problem with overuse of consultants is that staff doesn't deeply study anything any more. Over time, THEIR local knowledge diminishes (or never is developed because they don't get out into the community enough--especially the parts of the city that are not close to City Hall.

"...consultants lack the knowledge and expertise that organizations turn to them for. Instead, ...consultants often merely create an "impression of value" that is strong enough to secure fat contracts, but, in the end, their work doesn't amount to much more than that." If city staff also doesn't have local knowledge, how can they evaluate the quality of consultants' work?

"...consultants lack the knowledge and expertise that organizations turn to them for. Instead, ...consultants often merely create an "impression of value" that is strong enough to secure fat contracts, but, in the end, their work doesn't amount to much more than that." If city staff also doesn't have local knowledge, how can they evaluate the quality of consultants' work?"

A) By how much it enhances their resume, B) by how much the rates let them expand their department and purview, C) by who well it positions them for their next career opportunity.

(For C, the example of a recent department head joining Google's Transportation and Real Estate departments comes to mind.)