SR 06-11-2019 8A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 11, 2019
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Review and update Parklets Pilot Program
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review and discuss the Main Street Parklet Pilot Program, and consider closing
out the City-funded Parklet component;
2. Review and provide direction to staff regarding partial revision and extension of
the Parklet Pilot Program to other locations throughout the city;
3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an extension of the existing
operator agreements with Holy Guacamole, LLC (dba Holy Guacamole) and One
Red, LLC (dba Ashland Hill) until June 30, 2020; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an operator agreement with
Jamesons SM, LLC (dba Jamesons), the new owners of the restaurant formerly
known as Finn MCCool’s, to operate and maintain the parklet located adjacent to
Jamesons until June 30, 2020.
Executive Summary
In late 2015, the City of Santa Monica approved a parklet pilot program along Mai n
Street to assess how street parking spots might be selectively transformed into place-
making amenities. At the request of the Main Street Business Improvement Association
and following action from the City Council, the City designed, funded, and installe d three
parklets in June 2017. Nearly two years later, the pilot is viewed as a successful
demonstration of their potential and serves as a foundation for expanding the use of
parklets in other pedestrian-oriented commercial districts throughout the city using a
modified permitting or licensing approach to be determined. Staff is continuing to gather
information and lessons learned before proposing a permanent program in the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to govern parklets. This report presents several options for the
Council to discuss in consideration of modifying and/or expanding the pilot program.
Renewal or extension of existing operator agreements at Holy Guacamole and Ashland
Hill and a new operator agreement for the location of Jameson’s, the restaurant formerly
2 of 11
known as Finn McCool’s, is recommended to extend current parklet operations to June
30, 2020.
Background
The Parklet Pilot Program implements part of the City of Santa Monica’s overall vision,
as outlined in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) for creating pedestrian
friendly routes and pedestrian amenities. The LUCE reorients the City’s auto -oriented
boulevards into inviting avenues with wider sidewalks, improved transit, distinctive
architecture, landscaping, trees and planted medians, and neighborhood-friendly
services. These changes define an enhanced sense of place that will attract local
residents to shop, work, live and play.
The world’s first formal public parklets were initially conceived and installed in San
Francisco in 2010. Since then, parklets have been introduced in cities across the United
States and internationally, and many communities have begun to establish parklet
programs to encourage more active, pedestrian-oriented public spaces to fill gaps in
park services.
A “Parklet” provides the use of space in the public right-of-way (parking spaces, unused
bus stops, and other types of vehicular and non -vehicular zones) for public uses, such
as seating or outdoor dining. Parklets are intended to be an inviting, people-oriented
space providing functional and aesthetic enhancements to the overall streetscape. In
place of car parking, a platform is built to extend the grade of the sidewalk into the
street. Once the platform is installed, benches, tables, chairs, landscaping, and bi ke
parking can all be placed within the designated space to create a parklet. Parklets are
publicly accessible to everyone and have signage to this effect. In the Main Street pilot,
table service, commercial signage, and smoking are not permitted within the parklets.
In response to a specific request by the Main Street Business Improvement Association,
the City issued a Request for Applications on September 24, 2015 for two or more
operators for two or more Parklets on Main Street between Pico Boulevard an d Marine
Street. On November 24, 2015 (Attachment A), Council selected three businesses on
Main Street to operate parklets as part of a one-year pilot with two additional one-year
3 of 11
renewal options and authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute an
agreement. The three operators selected to participate in the pilot were:
1. 2906 Main Street, sponsored by Holy Guacamole,
2. 2807 Main Street, sponsored by Ashland Hill, and
3. 2702 Main Street, sponsored by Finn McCool’s.
Sponsors of the Main Street parklets agreed to maintain the parklet, keeping it free of
trash and debris. As part of the initial pilot, the City constructed and installed the three
parklets at the City’s expense to gain insights into future design and regulatory
constraints, to maintain control, and to provide a uniform condition from which to
compare installation performance. After construction, the above selected businesses
agreed to operate and maintain the parklets with City staff oversight.
Prior to the installation of the parklets, interdepartmental staff from Planning, Public
Works, Community and Cultural Services, Police and Fire, Risk Management and the
City Attorney’s Office (the “Parklets team”) researched parklet programs throughout the
nation to better understand how other municipalities had designed programs to
accommodate these new right-of-way features. An exhaustive review of best practices,
as well as local design criteria were developed to aid in the siting of the parklets, as well
as the design of the City-sponsored structures. These criteria included safety and
accessibility standards, police and human services considerations, engineering
requirements, and material selection.
Following the establishment of design and safety criteria, the Parklets team drafted
operator agreements for restaurant staff to maintain the parklets, verified insurance
coverage, and met with other City departments’ staff to address safety, cost, and human
4 of 11
service concerns. Additionally, staff commissioned the UCLA Institute of Transportation
Studies to provide an evaluation of Main Street (Attachment B) to determine the extent
to which parklets help the City realize the LUCE goals for pedestrian street activity and
enhancement.
Staff is now recommending that Council consider modifying and/or expanding the pilot
program to include other commercial areas of the City. A recommended modification to
the existing program includes discontinuing direct City funding of parklet construction,
and instead enable future operators to build parklets at their own exp ense using a set of
design standards, design guidelines and operating criteria to be developed at a later
time. Staff is also recommending that the existing operator agreements for Holy
Guacamole and Ashland Hill and a new operator agreement for Jameson’s, the
restaurant location formerly known as Finn McCool’s, are extended to June 30, 2020, to
allow continued operations at the existing locations.
Discussion
Since initiation of the pilot parklet program in 2015, three parklets have been installed
on Main Street. The pilot program has been successful: parklet projects serve as public
amenities that improve the pedestrian environment, animate key streetscapes, and
provided quality, unique public spaces for the community to enjoy. Additionally, people
like them and they have support of the existing operators (Attachments D, E, and F).
5 of 11
Overall, the parklets on Main Street were well received from the Main Street merchants
and the public. The operators maintained the parklets, kept them clean and reported
that they added a significant amenity outside of the business that enhanced the quality
of the pedestrian environment.
Parklet Evaluation
To better understand the tangible beneficial impacts of parklets, the City commissioned
the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies to evaluate the pilot and provide
recommendations for the program’s future. Using a large team of undergraduate and
graduate research assistants, the evaluation team collected a variety of data before and
after parklet installation at the parklet sites and at two blocks on Main Street without
parklets (as a control area for comparison). Below is a summary of the findings from
that analytical exercise:
1. The Main Street pilot parklet program achieved moderate success in creating
active public space.
2. The Main Street pilot parklet program successfully provided a new pedestrian
amenity along Main Street but is not likely a pedestrian destination in -of-itself.
3. While bicycling and walking volumes have increased along Main Street, the
parklets likely did not have a direct influence on this change.
4. The City successfully tested the parklet concept along Main Street with only
minor reported problems.
UCLA’s methodology of evaluating Main Street included stationary activity observations,
intercept surveys along Main Street and in parklets, and bicycle and pedestrian volume
counts. The evaluation demonstrated that success varied widely across the three
parklet sites, with the Holy Guacamole site creating the most active public among the
three. People were frequently present within the parklets. People were observed eating,
drinking, using their phone, or talking to others. While people reported enjoying the
parklets, there may have been too few parklets and data points to conclude a
correlation between parklet installation and the frequency or volume of people visiting
6 of 11
Main Street. The future expansion of the parklet pilot program may provide additional
clarity on this issue.
In addition to UCLA’s program evaluation, staff from a variety of departments wit h
responsibility over the public realm and right-of-way learned a great deal from the pilot
that can inform future installations and operations. Several real -life examples of lessons
learned are described below:
• Projects should remain publicly accessible to encourage true public benefit and
enhancement of the streetscape, and not be tied to any one business or
exclusive use.
• Oversight of the parklets program requires dedicated staff to field questions from
interested parties, coordinate with staff from various departments as issues arise,
manage construction and other field-related activities, and administer contracts,
license agreements and insurance requirements. Should the Council wish to
continue and expand the parklets program, staffing resources would need to be
evaluated and identified from other existing resources.
• Materials should be durable and of high quality to withstand Santa Monica’s
coastal exposure to sun and moisture. The parklet at Ashland Hill has become
sun-faded and weathered due to exposure, and is in need to some maintenance.
7 of 11
• Clear, definitive site location criteria should address safety, drainage, access and
other considerations are evaluated and complied with consistently. For example,
the area around the parklet at Ashland Hill experiences some drainage issues
from nearby businesses that were not identified during the operator selection
process. Staff has had to remedy this condition by replacing the impervious
gutter with porous concrete.
In addition to these practical lessons, staff reported that the parklets did not cause
additional safety, mobility, or risk issues for the City. Incidences of police -related service
calls for vandalism or public space infractions were minimal and not directly attributable
to the parklets themselves. Mobility and Traffic Engineering staff reported no substantial
conflicts with the multi-modal circulation network, and in fact cited several benefits of the
parklets in providing additional perceived space for pedestrian circulat ion, and locations
for shared mobility “drop zones” or bicycle parking. There were few comments regarding
conversion of on-street parking spaces or observed parking occupancy concerns. Going
forward, there could be exploration of varied parklet length, up to three spaces
consistent with San Francisco regulations, depending upon the location characteristics.
Closing Out the City-Sponsored Parklet Pilot
The one-year Main Street pilot program has been extended through renewed operator
agreements until December 31, 2019, which will mark nearly two years of observation
and evaluation. During this time, the parklet operators have demonstrated the ability to
maintain the City-sponsored (designed, constructed, installed) parklets by keeping them
clean and providing furniture for the public daily. Since the parklets were constructed
and are owned by the City, the operators were not allowed to modify or customize the
structures.
Now that the anticipated time horizon for the pilot program draws near, staff
recommends several actions be taken, including:
1. Relinquish the parklets to the existing operators for them to maintain, repair,
enhance or remove (with the City’s prior approval) as needed.
8 of 11
2. Authorize agreements that would allow the existing operators to maintain a
structure in the public right-of-way through June 30, 2020. This would include
indemnification and insurance requirements, as well as maintaining the City’s
right of revocation if a parklet becomes a nuisance to the community, or the
public right-of-way space was needed for planned or unplanned operational
needs.
The Parklets team has consulted with all of the operators to design this approach that
works in the interest of all parties. Communications from the existing operators are
included as Attachment B.
Potential to Expand Pilot Parklet Program
The success of the Main Street pilot has attracted a variety of interested parties from
around the city, who have expressed a desire to add parklets to other commercial
districts as a way to enliven the pedestrian realm.
• Main Street: the Main Street Business Improvement Association is requesting
additional parklets on Main Street. Additionally, individual restaurant owners and
an architect have requested parklets on Main Street.
• Downtown: Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. and individual coff ee shops in
Downtown have inquired about installing parklets. DTSM has collaborated with
City staff to explore the potential for “pop-up parklets,” but longer-lasting
installations are preferred.
• Montana Avenue: the Montana Avenue Merchants Association and individual
businesses have inquired about installing parklets.
In addition to the request for more parklets, other comments have suggested that a
modified parklet program could allow for the continued City-funding of parklet
construction, as well as additional features such as private dining (exclusive use for
adjacent restaurant patrons), alcohol consumption, Wi-Fi, and charger ports.
9 of 11
To understand how other cities navigate these issues and others – such as loss of
meter revenue – the Parklets team researched the operational and regulatory approach
of nearly a dozen parklet programs in California. Generally, the research concluded the
following:
1. Designed for Public Use: nearly all parklets are open to the public and used as
an extension of the municipality’s open space network. Long Beach was one
example of where parklets had been privatized for exclusive use by restaurant
patrons.
2. Built by Operator: funding for the design, construction and installation of the
parklet is typically provided by the private operating partner. One local exception
is in West Hollywood, where that city provided three $25,000 grants as part of an
RFP to stimulate parklet creation.
3. Alcohol Not Allowed: because the vast majority of parklets function as ancillary
public space, alcohol is not allowed. However, in the example of Long Beach
where parklets are privatized for restaurant use, both table service and alcohol
consumption are permitted.
Given the success of parklets on Main Street and the desire for additional parklets in the
City, staff recommends that the Council discuss options for expanding the pilot to other
areas of the City for additional observation prior to creating a permanent program.
Considerations for Future Pilot Program
The initial Main Street Parklet Pilot was conceived of and directed by Planning staff in
coordination with an interdepartmental team from Public Works, Community and
Cultural Services, Police and Fire, Risk Management and the City Attorney’s Office.
Because of the unique nature of the pilot with the City funding the design, construction
and installation of the structures, no permits for use of the public right -of-way were
utilized and no official design standards or guidelines for parklet construction were
established. Similarly, because the City requested applications from interested
candidates and the City selected the locations for testing, no formal application or
10 of 11
permitting process, or locational site criteria were established. Further, no lead agency
was identified to oversee future parklet programs in the City of Santa Monica.
If Council wishes to expand the parklet program to serve other commercial districts
within the city, the following policy options would need to be considered:
1. Scalability: The City could consider the maximum number of parklets per block,
or per commercial district where appropriate traffic speeds, commercial activity
and private interest allow. Staff recommends a limited expansion of the pilot
program to active commercial areas of the City.
2. Resources: implementing a parklet program, even a temporary pilot, requires
dedicated staff resources. In most examples studied throughout California, cities
maintain a core team of interdepartmental staff that handle applications, design
review, permit processing and monitoring.
3. Oversight: Importantly, a lead agency with technical and project management
resources would need to be assigned to oversee this activity in the public right -
of-way. Many peer cities assign lead agency status to City Planning or Public
Works.
4. Timeframe to Expand the Program: an appropriate amount of time would be
needed for staff to create design standards and guidelines, as well as improved
site criteria so that private interests can finance and build their own parklets in
areas of the city where they will be successful and contribute to a high-quality
pedestrian environment. Staff estimates that approximately 6 months would be
needed to establish draft materials.
Next Steps
As the observation period on the Main Street pilot comes to a close, staff recommends
relinquishing maintenance and operation of the Main Street parklets to the current
operators with terms and conditions, and expanding the program to other popular
commercial districts in the city. If Council supports these recommendations, staff
11 of 11
requests Council direction on considerations for the expanded program, as described in
the previous section.
Financial Impact
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
Parklet Pilot on Main Street. However, an expanded pilot could result in the need for
additional staff time and the potential loss of revenue from existing parking meters , both
of which would require an evaluation.
Prepared By: Russell Bunim, Associate Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. UCLA Santa Monica Parklet Evaluation Final Report
B. November 24, 2015 City Council Hearing
C. Main Street BIA Parklet Letter
D. Finn McCools Operator Parklet Letter
E. Ashland Hill Operator Parklet Letter
F. PowerPoint Presentation
MAIN STREET PARKLET
PILOT PROGRAM
EVALUATION
City of Santa Monica
Spring 2019
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was commission by the City of
Santa Monica and is produced in the interest of
information exchange. The contents of the report
reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and accuracy of the data presented
therein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the City of Santa Monica.
This report does not constitute an endorsement by
the City of Santa Monica of any product or policy
described therein.
The authors would like to thank the entire team of
UCLA Luskin School and Lewis Center for Regional
Policy Studies student data collectors for their
tireless efforts to count, survey, and collect data
integral to this report.
ABOUT THE UCLA LEWIS CENTER
FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES
The UCLA Ralph & Goldy Lewis Center for
Regional Policy Studies advances research
on how people live, move, and work in the
Los Angeles region, with a focus on policies
and interventions that provide paths out of
poverty. Since 1989, Lewis Center scholars
and staff have produced high-quality
research on transportation access, housing
affordability, labor, and the changing nature
of the Los Angeles region.
Learn more at www.lewis.ucla.edu
REPORT AUTHORS
Madeline Brozen, UCLA Lewis Center
Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, UCLA Lewis
Center and Department of Urban Planning
Rayne Laborde, UCLA Departments of
Urban Planning and Architecture
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary...............................................................2
Introduction...........................................................................6
Surrounding Context............................................................8
Parklet Site Design................................................................10
Data Collection Methods......................................................12
Findings And Results.............................................................15
Conclusions And Recommendations....................................22
APPENDIX A: Survey Instruments.........................................27
APPENDIX B: Detailed Survey Responses............................30
APPENDIX C: Detailed Count Volumes................................35
2 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
In late 2015, the City of Santa Monica approved
a parklet pilot program along Main Street at the
request of the Main Street Business Improvement
Association. By June 2017, three parklets were
installed along Main Street.
To evaluate this pilot program, the City
commissioned this pilot program evaluation to
undestand the pilot performance and provide
recommendations for the program’s future.
The goal of this evaluation report is to determine
whether parklets, a relatively new streetscape
improvement type, is an idea that works along
Santa Monica’s Main Street corridor.
The pilot parklet program goals included:
• Create active public space and aethetic
streetscape
• Provide more pedestrian amenities and
pedestrian-friendly routes
• Encourage more walking and cycling
• Test the concept of parklets along Main Street
and determine whether a parklet program is
appropriate for Main Street
Using a large team of undergraduate and graduate
research assistants, we collected a variety of data
before and after parklet installation at the parklet
sites and at two blocks on Main Street without
parklets. We included the non-parklet blocks onto
see if any observed changes may be related to
trends other than the introduction of the parklets,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 3
PROGRAM GOAL DATA COLLECTION ELEMENT PURPOSE
Create active public space
and aesthetic streetscape
Count number of people in the
parklets
Determine level of parklet
use
Observe activities in the parklet
and on the corridor
Understand how the street is
currently used and evaluate
changes from parklets
Provide more pedestrian
amenities and pedestrian
friendly routes
Survey people in parklets and
along street
Understand if parklets are a
pedestrian amenity and see if
parklets change perceptions
of the street.
Encourage more walking and
cycling
Conduct bicycle and pedestrian
counts along corridor
Analyze differences in
walking and cycling volumes
Test the concept of parklets
and determine whether
a parklet program is
appropriate
Combine original data
collection methods and collect
secondary data from the Santa
Monica Police Department
Identify whether nuisance or
other unwanted behaviors
occur in the parklets and
understand parklet user’s
feelings of safety
Table 1: Program goals and data collection approaches
4 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
1. The pilot program successfully created active
public space, with varied results between
the three sites
The Holy Guacamole site achieved success in
creating active public space while the Ashland
Hill and Finn McCool’s sites struggled. Average
hourly occupancy was 11.5 people/hour at Holy
Guacamole, 4 people/hour at Finn McCool’s and
1.15 people/hour at Ashland Hill.
As a comparison, in a City of Seattle parklet
evaluation, average occupancy was 6 people/
hour, ranging from 2-16 people/hr and in the City
of Los Angeles, the average occupancy was 8-11
people/hour.
People do visit the parklet sites fairly frequently -
coming by at least weekly if not more often. People
found it very easy to talk to others in the parklet.
We found the most common observed activities
included eating, drinking, using their phone, or
talking to others. Overall, behaviors at the parklets
are similar to uses at other small public spaces.
2. The Main Street pilot parklet program
successfully provided a new pedestrian
amenity along Main Street but is not likely a
pedestrian destination in-of-itself.
Parklets can effectively reduce some sidewalk
crowding & create a seating opportunity, an
important function on Main Street where narrow
sidewalks can make people feel in-the-way.
Even with the low occupancies at the Ashland Hill
and Finn McCool’s sites, all three parklet blocks
saw an increase in the proportion of people sitting
post-parklet installation. This is in contrast with the
control blocks where we observed an increase in
standing, post-parklet installation. The parklet and
non-parklet blocks both saw an overall increase in
visitors post-parklet installation.
We did not find an increase in the frequency
of visits for people along Main Street after
parklet instillation. Forty-three percent of survey
respondents on Main Street did not know what a
parklet was even after they were installed nearby.
These findings lead us to conclude that the Main
Street parklets are a pedestrian amenity, but likely
not a primary pedestrian destination.
The Main Street parklet pilot program was successful overall,
but success varied widely across parklet sites.
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 5
In conclusion, the Main Street pilot parklet program
was a success but also demonstrated that each
parklet site can take on its own characteristics.
The Holy Guacamole parklet is a thriving site while
the Finn McCool’s and Ashland Hill parklets are
not used as frequently. As the Main Street parklet
pilot program achieved most of its desired goals,
we, therefore, recommend expanding this to a
permanent parklet program along Main Street.
The following report expands on these findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
3. While bicycling and walking volumes
increased along Main Street, the parklets
likely did not have a direct influence on this
change.
We found slight increases in both walking and
cycling volumes between 2016 and 2017, with
approximately 15% more people cycling on the
parklet blocks and a 13% increase on the control
block. Similarly, we observed a 6-7% increase in
pedestrians along the parklet block and a 5%
increase on the control block.
They surveys found only a modest change in
how people arrived to Main Street pre- and post-
parklet installation. The proportion of people
walking and cycling increased slightly between
2016 and 2017, similar to the modest increases
we observed in our counts.
Parklet survey respondents did not arrive to the
parklet by walking or cycling any more often than
street survey respondents. In fact, people who
completed the parklet survey arrived by car more
often than those who completed the street survey
(42% arrive by car in the parklets and 35% in the
street survey). While walking and cycling volumes
have increased on Main Street post-parklet
installation, this increase is not likely attributable
to the parklets.
4. The City successfully tested the parklet
concept along Main Street with little to no
reported problems.
We recorded any nuisance behaviors, received
data and crime reports on “calls for service” data
from the Santa Monica Police Department We
bserved very few instances of nuisance behavior
in the parklets (smoking, lying for long periods
of time, panhandling, etc.) The Santa Monica
Police Department records included eight calls
for service to the parklets but none of these calls
resulted in police action. Most commonly, the
issue was resolved before the police arrived.
6 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Monica joined a growing
class of cities across the United States and
abroad after installing parklets in 2017.
Parklets are places where small urban places,
typically on-street parking spots, are transformed
into public spaces for people for people. By
converting excess roadway space for cars, parklets
increase the amount of open space. Parklets are an
opportunity to create public space at a significantly
lower cost than parks. Further, these projects are
an opportunity for community groups, business
owners, and residents to be directly involved in
enhancing their streetscape.
In response to a request from the Main Street
Business Improvement Association, the City chose
to pilot three parklet sites:
• Finn McCool’s – 2702 Main Street
• Ashland Hill – 2807 Main Street
• Holy Guacamole – 2906 Main Street
The City designed, funded, and installed parklets in
these locations and committed to evaluating their
use for at least one year. Paying for pilot parklet
construction makes Santa Monica distinct among
other peer cities. Parklet hosts and businesses in
other cities paid for the parklet construction in all
other cases, even during the pilot phase. In the
Main Street pilot program, operators participated
in the design phase but were only responsible
for enhancing the space with movable furniture,
placing/removing the furniture, basic maintenance
and insurance.
The Main Street pilot parklet program is tied to
other citywide plans and vision as expressed in the
the Land Use and Circulation Elements. Parklets
are included as a part of the overall vision for
creating pedestrian spaces and amenities and
for defining a new sense of place for locals and
visitors alike.
This purpose of this report is to understand how
the city may benefit from parklet investments.
going fowrard. As outlined on the following page,
we translated the program goals to research
questions and then matched them to different
data collection methods.
We collected a wide variety of data in order to
create a relatively complete picture of activity
along Main Street and at the parklet locations. This
report is organized as follows. We first describe the
environmental context and character along Main
Street, along with the parklet designs themeslves
at each site.
In the study approach and methodology section,
we detail the different methods and explain why
and how we selected particular approaches at
different locations around the study areas.
The findings section begins with comparing
parklet performance in Santa Monica with other
peer cities. The results of the surveys, counts,
and observations, secondary data from the police
department, and the business improvement
association are combined into a series of findings.
These findings are then translated into a set of
recommendations for the pilot sites and the parklet
program, along with a set of proposed criteria
the City could use to select sites to increase the
likelihood of parklet success at each site. Overall,
we find Main Street to be a promising location for
future parklets and find the city can learn a great
deal, overall, from this evaluation effort.
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 7
PROGRAM GOAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION
APPROACH
Create active public space and
an aesthetic streetscape.
How many people are using the
parklets and who are they?
Are the parklet visitors and uses
different at each site? In what
ways?
• Record parklet occupancy
rates
• Conduct parklet intercept
survey
• Observe behaviors through
activity mapping
Provide more pedestrian
amenities and pedestrian
friendly routes
What effect do the parklets
have on people’s perceptions of
the street?
Do the parklets change street
perceptions after installation?
• Conduct street intercept
surveys before and after
installation
Encourage more walking and
cycling
Does parklet installation
influence the volumes of
people walking or cycling along
the street?
• Conduct bicycle and
pedestrian counts
Test the concept of parklets
and determine whether a
parklet program is appropriate
Are parklets appropriate for
permanent installation on
Main?
How can future parklets be
improved based on evaluation
findings?
• Combination of findings
from counts, activity
mapping, parklet counts,
and intercept surveys
Table 2: Program goals and research methods
8 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
Santa Monica’s Main Street is a low-rise retail
corridor bordered by residential zones on all
sides. Located two blocks from the beach,
Main Street boasts a variety of small/independent
businesses and a mix of neighborhood and
regional-serving uses. In many ways, Main Street
acts like any small-town main street with popular
neighborhood-serving destinations.
The street today retains much of its historic
architecture from the development in the early
20th century. The parklet pilot sites are in the heart
of Main Street’s most historic area, a commercial
core first developed in 1902 that stretches from
Hill Street to Pier Avenue. By the 1950s, Main
Street had densified to become a “primary
commercial artery.” Today, Main Street is home to
many of Santa Monica’s annual events, including
the Summer Solstice music festival and the Fourth
of July parade.
In addition to observing activities at the parklets,
we also observed the blocks where the parklets
are located and two non-parklet blocks for a
control and context setting. This five block area is
considered the study area and described on the
following page.
Main Street’s frontage includes five primary
business/activity types:
1. Retail Establishments: clothing boutiques,
jewelry and accessories, bikes and exercise
equipment, and paper goods and other small
gifts
2. Service-oriented: Repair shops, laundromats,
consulting and real estate offices, spas, salons,
and yoga studios
3. Food Service: Restaurants, cafes, ice cream
shops, and bakeries
4. Surface Parking Lots
5. Vacant Buildings
Like other retail corridors in Santa Monica and the
region at large, establishments along Main Street
are subject to pressure from increasing costs of
doing business and changes in consumer behavior.
These broad economic impacts likely contributed
to increases in the vacancy rate between the 2016
and 2017 data collection periods. We used data
from Google Streetview from January 2017 and
December 2017 to inventory storefront occupancy
and type, supplementing with information from
Zillow, Yelp and local news sources when the
occupancy was unclear. Empty storefronts along
the five block corridor increased from 3% of
storefronts to 12% in this 12 month period.
Figure 1: Main Street tenant types pre- and post-installation
SURROUNDING CONTEXT
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 9
Block 1: Holy Guacamole Parklet Block
The short block from Ashland Avenue to Kinney
Street hosts retail along its west side, with two
food service storefronts - Groundworks Coffee
and Holy Guacamole - anchoring the Holy
Guacamole parklet. A toy store is located south
of Groundworks Coffee. Properties on this block
face are fairly narrow, with five storefronts in a
100-ft. section. The parklet stretches across both
Groundwork and Holy Guacamole with the toy
store and bike shop close by on either side.
On the east side, a row of restaurant/bars are
mostly active during evening hours. The Coffee
Bean anchors the block’s northeast corner, with
an outdoor seating area frequently full of patrons
drinking coffee and socializing.
Block 2: Finn McCool’s and Ashland Hill Parklets
Block
The block containing the Finn McCool’s and
Ashland Hill parklets stretches from Hill Street to
Ashland Street. The east side is comprised of retail
uses, including boutique stores and galleries; with
restaurants and service uses, including salons,
spas and a fitness center. Large surface parking
lots interrupts the street frontage in two places.
Ashland Hill parklet is adjacent to one of the two
surface parking lots.
The west side is dominated by restaurants and
clothing stores. The Finn McCool’s parklet is set
back from the corner and mostly in front of a
clothing store adjacent to Finn McCool’s. During
both the pre- and post-installation periods,
approximately 15% of the storefronts were vacant
on this block.
Block 3: Context Block
The Ocean Park Boulevard - Hill Street block
is conventional along its east side with some
small storefronts. The Victorian, an event space/
restaurant/bar which hosts the Sunday Farmers
Market and Food Truck events, dominates the
west side of the block.
Because activity on this block is not entirely
representative of the parklet blocks, we only
observed Block 3 as a control block in Saturday
bicycle and pedestrian counts.
Block 4: Control Block
The Hollister Avenue - Ocean Park Boulevard
control block is highly resident-serving. On the
east side, retail for clothing, bikes, ice cream, and
juice bars mixes with service-oriented uses: spas,
salons, dentist office and a public library. The
block is anchored by the Edgemar Lofts shopping
center, which contains restaurants, shops, and a
large public plaza located off the sidewalk.
The west side consists of a car wash, liquor store,
and several restaurants with scattered boutique
stores. Storefronts along this block are almost all
in operation, and a mid-block crosswalk enhances
pedestrian connectivity.
Figure 2: Study area overview
10 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
The Main Street parklet pilot program
is unique in that the City incurred the
parklet design and construction cost. The
parklet operators participated in the design of
a wooden “shell,” buffered by large planters,
located behind the parklet with two bicycle
racks located in from of each site.
These wooden parklet shells have short walls
topped by box planters along three sides. All
three parklet operators found that landscape
treatment of the box planters required a
learning curve: landscape elements at the
sunny Finn McCool’s and Ashland Hill parklets
have both been replaced and refreshed since
the initial planting; however, plants at all three
parklets are now thriving. The street-facing
panels include diagonal slats breaking from
the solid wood. These aesthetic breaks allow
people to feel enclosed in the space while also
allowing some visual permeability for public
safety reasons.
Parklets at Holy Guacamole and Finn McCool’s
include permanent, built-in benches in a
sidewalk-adjacent structure which allows parklet
visitors to sit or stand while eating, working, or
socializing. The “stand up bar” at the perimeter
between the parklet and sidewalk provides a
place for people to stand, either in the parklet
or on the sidewalk, and have a place to lean,
eat, or rest. The associated business furnishes
each shell during their operating hours.
The Finn McCool’s parklet is set back 60 feet
from the intersection for safety reasons. The
parklet is actually offset from Finn McCool’s and
rather is located directly in front of the adjacent
Paloria Building (2708 Main Street). Finn
McCool’s furnishes their site with tables, chairs,
umbrellas, a heater, and bar stools during their
hours of operation.
Figure 6: Finn McCool’s parklet
PARKLET SITE DESIGN
Figure 3: Shell design from parklet construction documents
Figure 4: Ashland Hill parklet viewed from across Main Street
Figure 5: Stand up bar viewed from the sidewalk
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 11
Located on the opposite side of Main Street
from Finn McCool’s, the Ashland Hill parklet is
in front of the restaurant. Flanked by curb cuts
on either side, the site has a limited amount
of shade and a smaller number of nearby
businesses, compared to the other sites. Due
to this sun exposure, parklet shell required
additional wood treatment. During their hours
of operation, Ashland Hill furnishes their parklet
with square café tables, chairs, umbrellas, and
patio heaters. At times, the heaters and sidewalk
sandwich boards block some of the clearance
zones to enter the parklet.
Located on the short block between Ashland
and Kinney, the Holy Guacamole Parklet is in
front of the Holy Guacamole restaurant and
Groundworks coffee. Shaded by two large ficus
trees on either side, Holy Guacamole furnishes
the site with colorful chairs, stools and benches
during their hours of operation.
Figure 7: Ashland Hill parklet
Figure 8: Holy Guacamole parklet
Figure 9: Parklet operator hours of operation
12 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
PROGRAM GOAL DATA COLLECTION
APPROACH TASK PURPOSE
Create active public space and
aesthetic streetscape
Count number of people in the
parklets Determine level of parklet use
Observe activities in the parklet
and on the corridor
Understand how the street is
currently used and evaluate
changes from parklets
Provide more pedestrian
amenities and pedestrian
friendly routes
Survey people in parklets and
along street
Understand if parklets are a
pedestrian amenity and see if
parklets change perceptions of
the street.
Encourage more walking and
cycling
Conduct bicycle and pedestrian
counts along corridor
Analyze differences in walking
and cycling volumes
Test the concept of parklets and
determine whether a parklet
program is appropriate
Combine original data collection
methods and collect secondary
data (SMPD)
Identify whether nuisance or
other unwanted behaviors occur
in the parklets and understand
parklet user’s feelings of safety
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The varying dynamics at the parklets dictated
using a variety of different data collection
methods As presented in the table below,
three data collection methods inform this study:
1. Stationary activity observations, including
occupancy counts at the parklets
2. Intercept surveys; collected both along Main
Street and in the parklet sites.
3. Bicycle and pedestrian volume counts
UCLA student research assistants collected
these data using tools pilot tested and refined in
conjunction with the City of Santa Monica Planning
Department. Most data were collected pre- and
post-parklet installation on both weekdays and
weekends.
For obvious reasons, parklet surveys were only
collected after installation. While survey conductors
were positioned nearby all three parklets, they
encountered so few people at the Finn McCool’s
and Ashland Hill sites that they could not get many
(or any) parklet survey responses in their two-hour
shift. Therefore, the vast majority of all parklet
survey responses are from the Holy Guacamole
location, a telling limitation of this performance
evaluation.
Table 4: Research approaches
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 13
Stationary Activity Observations
To paint a picture of which actions take place within
the study area, we recorded people’s stationary
activities both their posture (standing, or sitting)
and their activity (eating, drinking, using a cell
phone, etc.) over two hour periods. Data collectors
noted the relative location and time, type of
behaviors, and basic observable demographics
From these observations, we derived the parklet
occupancy counts and gender split.
Both pre- and post-installation weekday mapping
took place on a Tuesday and Thursday, with
morning, afternoon, and evening shifts. Weekend
mapping observations happened on a Saturday
morning and evening.
Intercept Surveys
We surveyed people both on Main Street pre- and
post-installation and in the parklets post-installation.
Street surveys gathered information about use of
Main Street, perceptions of safety, time spent on
Main Street, general opinions , and demographic
characteristics through a series of closed- and
open-ended questions. We collected 268 surveys
pre-installation and 230 surveys post-installation.
The parklet surveys provided direct feedback
from people visting. Survey questions included
information about parklet use, visiting frequency,
and other perceptions.
We collected a total of 63 parklet surveys
overwhelmingly (79%) from the Holy Guacamole
parklet because the Finn McCool’s and Ashland
Hill sites were often vacant. We shifted the survey
collection times post-installation in an attempt to
better align with business operating hours, but the
low occupancy at these sites resulted in very few
people to approach. All survey instruments are
found in Appendix A.
Figure 10: Activity observation collection periods
Figure 12: Survey Collection Distribution
Figure 11: Survey Collection Times
14 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts
Becaise encouraging more biking and walking was
a key program goal, we counted the number of
people walking and cycling at points along the
study corridor in 15-minute intervals during peak
2-hour periods. The purpose of these counts was
to understand whether or not the parklets had an
effect on the people walking and cycling in the
study area.
In each count, data collectors established a
screenline and then counted all pedestrians and
cyclists who crossed this imaginary line. Weekday
counts occurred on a Wednesday and Thursday
pre-installation and Tuesday and Thursday
post-installation because of student availability.
Being that traffic counts are similar on Tuesdays,
Wednesdays, and Thursdays this difference should
not have any effect on the resulting data. Weekend
counts for both periods took place on a Saturday.
Figure 13: Bicycle and pedestrian count times
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 15
FINDINGS & RESULTS
Santa Monica is among the minority of cities with a
formal evaluation of the parklet efforts. This means
there are a limited opportunities to understand
how the Main Street parklet performance
compares. The small, but growing, number of
parklet evaluation reports provide examples from
four other places: New York City, Downtown Los
Angeles, Philadelphia, and Seattle.
With the exception of the Downtown Los Angeles
study, the data collection methods and approaches
differ between these other places provide a limited
set of comparable metrics to the Santa Monica
experience. For this reason, we only compared
the parklet occupancy rates between the Santa
Monica and other juridictions.
By this comparison, we conclude that the Holy
Guacamole site is extremely well-performing,
seeing about 12 people/hr. This occupancy rate
is nearly at the same occupancy only seen in
commercial areas in New York City.
On the other hand, this comparison demonstrates
the below-average occupancy patterns at the
other two sites. Finn McCool’s is slightly below
average occupancy at 4 people/hr, and Ashland
Hill is infrequently visted at 1.15 persons/hr.
OCCUPANCY RATES
Santa
Monica
Main Street
Holy Guacamole: 12 ppl/hr
Finn McCool’s: 4 ppl/hr
Ashland Hill: 1.2 ppl/hr
New York
City
4 ppl/hour at more
residential locations
15 ppl/hour in more
commercial areas.
Downtown
Los Angeles 8-11 ppl/hour on average
Philadelphia Well-performing parklets
averaged 5 ppl/hour
Underutilized parklets saw
1.5 or fewer ppl/hour on
average.
Seattle 6 ppl/hour on average with
a range of 2-16 ppl/hour.
Benchmarking Performance Among Peer Cities
16 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
• The parklets created an active space at Holy
Guacamole, a sometimes active space at Finn
McCool’s, and an inactive public space at
Ashland Hill.
• Parklets increased the proportion of people
sitting in the study area, even at less well-used
parklet sites.
• People in the parklets are eating, drinking,
socializing, and using their phones,
demonstrating that this public space functions
like a park or other well-designed public
spaces with little to no nuisance behavior or
police activity occurring.
• The parklets did not increase bicycling or
walking in the corridor.
• Parklets are well-liked, well-maintained, and
people feel safe and comfortable.
• A variety of people visit the parklets.
• The majority of people in the parklets purchase
something from an adjacent business.
The following pages outline these findings in
detail.
Findings
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 17
The parklets created an active space at Holy
Guacamole, a sometimes active space at Finn
McCool’s, and an inactive public space at
Ashland Hill.
Our parklet occupancy counts showed that by far,
the Holy Guacamole parklet is substantially more
occupied than the other two locations This site
averaged 12 people per hour, with the highest use
on weekend mornings. Conversely, hardly anyone
was observed using the Ashland Hill parklet, with
an average hourly occupancy of 1.15 persons/hr.
Finn McCool’s saw an hourly average of 4 people/
hr. This average is skewed by the high occupancy
during Saturday night on our data collection
period when a large event entered Finn McCool’s.
Figure 14 (above): Parklet occupancy rates
0
10
20
30
40
50
Tuesday
AM
Tuesday
Noon
Tuesday
PM
Thursday
AM
Thursday
Noon
Thursday
PM
Saturday
AM
Saturday
PM
Holy Guacamole Ashland Hill Finn McCool's
18 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
Figure 15: Postures in parklet sites
Parklets increased the proportion of people
sitting in the study area, even at less well-used
parklet sites.
Not surprisingly, parklet areas saw increases in
the proportion of people sitting after parklet
installation. Pre-parklet installation, we found
more people seated near the Holy Guacamole site
as compared to the other places mostly due to the
small table located at Groundworks. Ashland Hill
and Finn McCool’s had no formal seating available
before the parklet installation, although people
sat informally on top of the low-wall bordering the
parking lot by Ashland Hill.
Even given the existing seats near Holy
Guacamole, this site saw the most substantial
and dramatic change in the proportion of people
sitting. After parklet installation, people sitting at
Holy Guacamole outnumbered people standing.
The control blocks saw higher proportions of
people standing after the parklet installation and
little difference overall from the amount of people
sitting pre-parklet installation.
99%89%95%89%74%
34%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
P
r
e
-
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
s
t
-
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
-
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
s
t
-
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
-
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
s
t
-
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Finn McCool's Ashland Hill Holy Guacamole
Standing Sitting
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 19
People in the parklets are eating, drinking,
socializing, and using their phones,
demonstrating that this public space functions
like a park or other well-designed public spaces
with little to no nuisance behavior or police
activity occurring.
Eating/drinking, spending time on the phone, and
socializing were the most commonly observed
parklet activities. We observed three instances
of panhandling and zero instances of sleeping in
the parklets. Smoking, which is not allowed in the
parklets, was observed on rare occasion.
The Santa Monica Police Department had a total
of eight calls for service to the parklets but noted
that none of these calls resulted in any police
action. Most commonly, by the time the police
arrived the issue was resolved.
ACTIVITY HOLY
GUAC.
FINN
MCCOOL’S
ASHLAND
HILL
Eating or
drinking
98 10 5
On the phone 53 11 2
Socializing 22 9
Waiting (Lyft/
Uber, table,
otherwise)
2 1 3
Reading 1
Working
(Writing or on
the computer)
4
Smoking 2 1
Caregiving
(tending to a
small child)
1 1
Table 5: Parklet activities
20 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
The parklets did not increase bicycling or
walking in the corridor.
We found moderate increases in both cycling
and walking volumes after parklet installation.
The change year-to-year varies greatly between
locations and time of day. Detailed count
information is provided in Appendix B.Both cycling
and pedestrian volume increases occurred across
the whole study area, demonstrating this finding
is likely not related to the parklets themselves but
larger overall shifts in transportation and land use.
For context, this section of Main Street sees
some of the highest bicycle volumes in the city,
according to the 2013 city-wide counting efforts.
While pedestrian volumes are moderate relative
to the City as a whole, there are typically people
walking along Main Street, even with many narrow
sidewalks.
While the parklets are a pedestrian and cycling
amenity, they do not appear to be a destination
that brings more people Main Street. From the
survey data, we saw no change in how people ot
to Main Street before and after parklet installation.
These survey results help to underscore the finding
from the bicycle and pedestrian counts that the
parklets themselves did not directly change
walking or cycling volumes.
STREET
SURVEY 2016
STREET
SURVEY 2017
PARKLET
SURVEY 2017
Walking 43%46%40%
Car 40%35%42%
Bicycle 8%12%9%
Bus 6%1%3%
TNC (Lyft/Uber)3%6%5%
Skateboard 1%0%2%
BICYCLE VOLUME
CHANGE
PEDESTRIAN
VOLUME
CHANGE
Holy Guacamole parklet +14%+7%
Between Finn McCool’s and Ashland Hill parklets +15.5%+6%
Context block (The Victorian)0%+5%
Control Block +13%+4%
Table 6 (top): Bicycle and pedestrian volume changes
Table 7 (bottom) Survey mode of arrival
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 21
Figure 16: Favorite parklet feature wordcloud
Parklets are well-liked, well-maintained, and
people feel safe and comfortable there.
Drawing from both the street survey and the
parklet survey, we found a number of positive
aspects that people liked. We found that not only
is the Holy Guacamole parklet well-used, it is also
well-frequented. Three-quarters of the parklet
survey respondents had visited the parklets
before the survey day, and the vast majority (80%)
of respondents visit the parklets weekly or more
frequently. People enjoy the space, the majority of
respondents would not change anything about the
sites (with the caveat these surveys were mostly
from Holy Guacamole). 9 out of 10 respondents
would like to see more parklets in Santa Monica.
Detailed survey results from both the street and
parklet surveys are found in Appendix C.
When asked their favorite feature, people most
commonly liked, simply, the additional outdoor
space and seating. The word cloud below
summarizes the “favorite features” with the size of
the words representing the frequency of response.
Approximately four times more people had sat in a
parklet post-installation; and the percent of people
who had no idea what a parklet was decreased
from 64% pre-installation to 43% post-installation.
We suspect some people may have known what a
parklet is if described, but they may not know the
term “parklet.”
Even with the limited knowledge of parklets, street
survey respondents showed strong enthusiasm for
the concept. Before installation, 81% of people
said they would like to see parklets on Main Street.
After installation, the vast majority of people (92%)
who knew what parklets are said they like the Main
Street parklets.
However popular, we do not believe the parklets
are the primary reason people are visiting Main
Street. From the street surveys, we saw that
people came to Main Street to eat or drink or
because they live nearby. There was no change
in the reasons people visited Main Street after
parklet installation. Further, knowledge of parklets
did not change much even after the parklets were
installed. Pre-installation, 30% of respondents
knew what a parklet was, and only 35% of people
knew what one was post-installation.
22 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
Figure 19: Safety perceptions
25%24%
17%
38%38%
38%
23%24%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Main Street 2016 Main Street 2017 In parklets
1 (Very unclean)2 3 4 5 (Very clean)
10%
41%
3%
29%
32%
22%
55%
19%
70%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Main Street 2016 Main Street 2017 In parklets
1 (Very unsafe)2 3 4 5 (Very safe)
Figure 20: Cleanliness perceptions
25%24%
17%
38%38%
38%
23%24%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Main Street 2016 Main Street 2017 In parklets
1 (Very unclean)2 3 4 5 (Very clean)
10%
41%
3%
29%
32%
22%
55%
19%
70%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Main Street 2016 Main Street 2017 In parklets
1 (Very unsafe)2 3 4 5 (Very safe)
Figure 17: Ease of socializing on Main Street
10%
23%20%23%24%
10%
21%
25%24%21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 (very uneasy)2 3 4 5 (Very easy)
Pre-installation Post-Installation
Figure 18: Ease of socializing in the parklets
0%2%
25%20%
53%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1
(Very uneasy)
2 3 4 5
(Very easy)
Perceptions of cleanliness, safety,
and ease of socialization
The street and parklet surveys asked a variety
of questions about how people perceived Main
Street. While the parklets added new public space,
we saw little change in the ease of finding a place
to socialize or talk with others based on the street
survey results.
The parklet survey included a similar but slightly
different question: “How easy it is to talk to others
in the parklet?” In that case, 52% of people in the
parklets said it was “very easy” to talk to others
there.
People found Main Street to be clean, in both the
pre- and post-installation survey years. People in
the parklets perceived these sites to be cleaner
than Main Street overall.
While the overall feelings of safety on Main
Street decreased between 2016 and 2017, we
overwhelmingly found that people felt safer in the
parklets than on our study area portion of Main
Street. Since people feel very safe in the parklets,
we do not believe that the parklets are what
contributed to the decreased feelings of safety
along Main Street.
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 23
AGE
RANGE
PARKLET
SURVEY
2017
STREET
SURVEY
2017
CITY
WIDE
18-38 41%46%30%
35-49 43%27%29%
50-65 14.5%18%24%
65+1.5%9%18%
RACE /
ETHNICITY
PARKLET
SURVEY
2017
STREET
SURVEY
2017
CITY
WIDE
White 72%70%65.4%
Hispanic/
Latino 17.5%12%16.1%
Asian 0%5%10%
Black 3.5%3%4.1%
Other
(Middle
Eastern
& Pacific
Islander)
5.25%2%--
Two or
more races 1.75%--
Table 8: Parklet survey demographics
A variety of people visit the parklets
Parklet demographics are important to track
because parklets are intended to be used by
everyone. We combined the findings from our
activity observations and demographics rom
parklet survey respondents to get a picture of
who’s using the parklet.
Women and men used the parklets in fairly
even proportions. We observed 47% women
in the parklets and 41% female parklet survey
respondents. The majority of people in the
parklets are from Santa Monica (45%) or the
adjacent neighborhoods (12% in Venice and 7%
in Marina Del Ray).
People in the parklets appear to be slightly
younger than people on Main Street, and people
on Main Street and those in the parklets are
younger, on average, than Santa Monica as a whole
(comparing data from the American Community
Survey). Overall, the parklets appear to be serving
a fairly similar population as the people on Main
Street and who live in the area.
The majority of people in the parklets purchase
something from an adjacent business
We found that the overwhelming majority of
parklet visitors made a purchase at a nearby
business. Parklet visitors were also more likely
to make a purchase compared to people in the
street survey.
In 2017, 94% of parklet visitors reported making
a purchase, whereas 57% of Main Street visitors
made a purchase. The overwhelming connection
between parklet use and consumer behavior may
indicate that people are unsure whether they can
visit the parklets without purchasing something.
24 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The Santa Monica Main Street parklet pilot
program introduced new public space
for people where they socialized, ate,
drank, rested, and enjoyed their neighborhood
commercial corridor. Expanding this program to
a permanent part of the Main Street can continue
to spread these benefits to more places and more
people.
Recommendations for the
current pilot sites
While the program was successful overall, each
parklet site had distinctly different performance.
While the Holy Guacamole site is successfully
achieving nearly all the goals, the other two
sites are underutilized. Given our observations
and analysis, we recommend the City, in close
coordination with parklet operators, take the
following two actions with these existing sites.
Redesign the furniture at Finn McCool’s
The Finn McCool’s site features very little movable
furniture, and the seating is not available for many
hours of the week. The tables take up the majority
of the space and cannot be moved to fit visitor’s
needs. In contrast, Holy Guacamole has no
“tables” per se. Rather, visitors use the benches,
stools, or ledges as tables and can move the chairs
around to suit their group size and dynamic. The
parklet may be more successful if the seating is
more flexible and more obviously public. Finding
n additional partner who can place the furniture
out earlier in the day could also benefit this site.
Remove and relocate the Ashland Hill parklet
and use the space for other streetscape
improvements
The Ashland Hill parklet is not successful and it
does not appear much could be done to increase
the likelihood of success in its current location.
High-levels of sun exposure can make for an
unpleasant environment. While the operator
does place at least one umbrella, it only covers a
small portion of the site. Further, the low number
of proximate businesses likely contribute to the
low occupancy rate. We find these barriers to be
hard to overcome at this particular location. We
recommend the city consider relocating the parklet
shell to another location and consider this location
for other pedestrian and bicycle amenities such
as a bike corral or an area to park scooters and
dockless bicycles.
Figure 21: Typical occupancy at Ashland Hill parklet
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 25
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for a
Main Street parklet program
If the City elects to expand this into a permanent
program, two lessons learned from this pilot and
evaluation, and other cities experience that can
make a permanent program even more successful
than this pilot.
1. Set program goals commensurate with what
parklets can achieve
Based on our analysis, there are a number of goals
that a parklet program could achieve.
These include:
• Creating an active, ascetically pleasing,
public space
• Providing safe, comfortable, and useful
public spaces within the right-of-way
• Supplying new spaces for community
interaction
• Allowing local businesses to actively
participate in streetscape improvements
Overall, the City should seek to help create active
parklets where occupancy is at least 5 people/
hour on average. We also recommend that future
parklets be constructed at the cost to the operator
as this will likely deter parklets from being placed
in low-utilization locations. This is commonplace
for parklet programs in the United States.
We recommend the city remove increasing
bicycling and walking volumes as a parklet
program goal. Even the incredibly successful
Holy Guacamole site failed to reach this goal,
a common occurrence also in other successful
programs in peer cities. More direct transportation
investments like increasing the on-street bicycle
network or density increases are likely a better way
to achieve this goal.
2. Create strong site selection criteria
While there is no exact formula for parklet
success, we believe that a variety of conditions
contribute to the ultimate success of any particular
parklet. While no other city has included business
proximity or type in their parklet selection
criteria, we believe this was a major contributor
to the success of the Holy Guacamole site. Both
Holy Guacamole and Groundworks coffee are
take-out oriented businesses within 30 ft. of the
parklet. Therefore, we encourage Santa Monica to
consider parklets to be located with at least two,
if not more, businesses within 30 feet of the site.
This will likely help the parklet belong to more than
one business, possibly attracting more visitors.
The table on the following page outlines potential
criteria for selecting future parklet locations.
26 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
CRITERIA DESCRIPTION MOTIVATIONS
Business proximity and
type
At least 2 businesses within 30
ft of the parklet, with take-out
businesses preferred.
Holy Guacamole and
Groundworks’ close proximity
and take-out nature help bring
a lot of visitors who may sit at
the parklet.
Bike lane adjacency Parklets with bike lanes have a
buffer from car travel.
Main Street is a good
candidate, other cities give
bonus points to parklets
adjacent to bike lanes.
Number of travel lanes Streets with fewer travel lanes
are preferred.
Main Street fits this criteria and
other cities usually limit parklets
to smaller streets.
Hours of business
operation
Morning hours are preferred to
evening hours, and the more
open hours the better.
People are more likely to visit
the parklets in the morning
or lunchtime and having
businesses open at these times
contributes to higher parklet
occupancy rates.
Public seating design Movable furniture should look
less like café seating and have
more seating than tables.
Seating design at the Holy
Guacamole site appears to
contribute to its success.
Other cities include this criteria
as a part of their parklet
applications.
Shade Located under trees or on a
more shady side of the street.
Sun exposure at Ashland Hill
likely hurts occupancy, and
limited exposure to the sun is
better for public health.
Table 9: Potential Site Criteria
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 27
28 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
SOURCES
City of Santa Monica (2010) “2010 Land Use
and Circulation Element.” City of Santa Monica,
California.
https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/
Plans/2010-Land-Use-and-Circulation-Element/
City of Seattle (2016) “Parklet and Streatery
Program: Goals and Successes” Seattle, WA.
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/
Departments/SDOT/PublicSpaceManagement/
ParkletAndStreateryProgram.pdf
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Brozen, M., Abad Ocubillo
R., and Ocubillo, K. (2013) “Reclaiming the
Right-of-Way Evaluation Report: An Assessment
of the Spring Street Parklets.” Los Angeles, CA.
https://www.its.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/
sites/6/2014/06/parkletassessment.pdf
New York City Department of Transportation
(2011) “2011 Pilot Program Evaluation Report.”
New York, NY.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/
curbside-seating_pilot-evaluation.pdf
Panganiban, J. and Abad Ocubillo, R. (2014)
“Citywide Assessment of Parklets and Plazas.” San
Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco,
CA.
http://pavementtoparks.org/wp-content/
uploads//2015/10/Citywide_Assessment_Report_
Panganiban_Abad_2014.09.pdf
PCR Services Corporation (2011) “2701-05 Main
Street Santa Monica, California: City Landmark
Assessment and Evaluation Report.” Santa
Monica, CA.
https://www.smgov.net/departments/
PCD/agendas/Landmarks-
Commission/2011/20111212/Final%202701-
05%20Main%20Street%20landmark%2012%20
7%2011.pdf
University City District (2015) “The Case for
Parklets: Measuring the Impact on Sidewalk Vitality
and Neighborhood Businesses.” Philadelphia, PA.
https://issuu.com/universitycity/docs/the_case_
for_parklets_2015?e=4547788/11667837
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 29
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
12. What is your perspection of the amount of people
on the sidwalk?
1 2 3 4 5
Too Few Too Many
13. What is your perception of the amount of car
traffic?
1 2 3 4 5
Too Few Too Many
14. How safe do you feel on Main Street?
1 2 3 4 5
Very unsafe Very safe
15. How clean do you feel Main Street is?
1 2 3 4 5
Very Unclean Very Clean
16. How easy is it to find a place to socialize or talk
with others on Main Street, not including stores
and restaurants?
1 2 3 4 5
Very Uneasy Very Easy
1. Which of the following best describes you?
(Select only one)
☐ Neighborhood Resident
☐ Los Angeles Resident
☐ Santa Monica Resident
☐ Tourist
☐ Other:___________________________________
2. What brings you to Main Street?
(check all that apply)
☐ I live nearby ☐ I work nearby
☐ Shopping ☐ Exercise
☐ To eat/drink ☐ Entertainment/Socializing
☐ Passing through to somewhere else
☐ Other:___________________________________
3. How often do you visit this portion of Main Street?
☐ Daily
☐ A few times a week
☐ A few times a month
☐ Rarely (once every few months)
☐ Almost never
4. How often do you encounter people you know on Main
Street?
☐ Daily
☐ A few times a week
☐ A few times a month
☐ Rarely (once every few months)
☐ Almost never
5. How did you arrive on Main Street today?
☐ Drove a car ☐ Bus
☐ Taxi/Lyft/Uber ☐ Breeze bike ☐ By foot
☐ Scooter/motorcycle ☐ My bike
☐ Other:___________________________________
6. How long did it take you to get here?
☐ Less than 5 minutes ☐ 5-15 minutes
☐ 16-30 minutes ☐ More than 30 minutes
7. How much time do you typically spend here when you
visit this street segment?
☐ Less than 10 minutes ☐ 10-30 minutes
☐ 31 minutes - 1 hour ☐ More than 1 hour
8. Do you usually visit with:
☐ Myself ☐ With my family/
☐ With friends/co-workers children
☐ With parents/other older adults
☐ Other:_________________________________
9. Do you typically purchase anything while visiting?
☐ Yes ☐ Sometimes ☐ No
Santa Monica Parklet Street Survey - 2016
Researchers at the UCLA School of Public Affairs are working with the City of Santa Monica to gather information. Participation is voluntary
and should take less than 5 minutes. You must be at least 18 years of age to take this survey. You may skip any questions you do not wish
to answer, and you may end the survey at any time. All responses will remain anonymous. If you have questions about the survey, please
contact Madeline Bronzen (Project Manager, UCLA) at (424) 255-8737.
10. Do you know what a parklet is?
☐ Yes ☐ Yes, and I’ve sat in one ☐ No
11. Would you like to see a parklet on main street?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If “No,” why not?
17. What is your age?
☐ 18-35 ☐ 35-49 ☐ 50-65 ☐ 65+
18. What best describes you?
☐ Female ☐ Male ☐ Transgender
☐ Other:__________________________
19. How would you describe your ethnicity/race?
(check all that apply)
☐ Hispanic/Latino ☐ Black
☐ White ☐ Asian
☐ Native Hawaiian
☐ Other: __________________________
20. What is your home’s zip code?__________
30 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
12. What is your perspection of the amount of people
on the sidwalk?
1 2 3 4 5
Too Few Too Many
13. What is your perception of the amount of car
traffic?
1 2 3 4 5
Too Few Too Many
14. How safe do you feel on Main Street?
1 2 3 4 5
Very unsafe Very safe
15. How clean do you feel Main Street is?
1 2 3 4 5
Very Unclean Very Clean
16. How easy is it to find a place to socialize or talk
with others on Main Street, not including stores
and restaurants?
1 2 3 4 5
Very Uneasy Very Easy
1. Which of the following best describes you?
(Select only one)
☐ Neighborhood Resident
☐ Los Angeles Resident
☐ Santa Monica Resident
☐ Tourist
☐ Other:___________________________________
2. What brings you to Main Street?
(check all that apply)
☐ I live nearby ☐ I work nearby
☐ Shopping ☐ Exercise
☐ To eat/drink ☐ Entertainment/Socializing
☐ Passing through to somewhere else
☐ Other:___________________________________
3. How often do you visit this portion of Main Street?
☐ Daily
☐ A few times a week
☐ A few times a month
☐ Rarely (once every few months)
☐ Almost never
4. How often do you encounter people you know on Main
Street?
☐ Daily
☐ A few times a week
☐ A few times a month
☐ Rarely (once every few months)
☐ Almost never
5. How did you arrive on Main Street today?
☐ Drove a car ☐ Bus
☐ Taxi/Lyft/Uber ☐ Breeze bike ☐ By foot
☐ Scooter/motorcycle ☐ My bike
☐ Other:___________________________________
6. How long did it take you to get here?
☐ Less than 5 minutes ☐ 5-15 minutes
☐ 16-30 minutes ☐ More than 30 minutes
7. How much time do you typically spend here when you
visit this street segment?
☐ Less than 10 minutes ☐ 10-30 minutes
☐ 31 minutes - 1 hour ☐ More than 1 hour
8. Do you usually visit with:
☐ Myself ☐ With my family/
☐ With friends/co-workers children
☐ With parents/other older adults
☐ Other:_________________________________
9. Do you typically purchase anything while visiting?
☐ Yes ☐ Sometimes ☐ No
Santa Monica Parklet Street Survey - 2017
Researchers at the UCLA School of Public Affairs are working with the City of Santa Monica to gather information. Participation is voluntary
and should take less than 5 minutes. You must be at least 18 years of age to take this survey. You may skip any questions you do not wish
to answer, and you may end the survey at any time. All responses will remain anonymous. If you have questions about the survey, please
contact Madeline Bronzen (Project Manager, UCLA) at (424) 255-8737.
10. Do you know what a parklet is?
☐ Yes ☐ Yes, and I’ve sat in one ☐ No
11. Do you like the parklets on Main Street?
☐ Yes ☐ No
If “No,” why not?
17. What is your age?
☐ 18-35 ☐ 35-49 ☐ 50-65 ☐ 65+
18. What best describes you?
☐ Female ☐ Male ☐ Transgender
☐ Other:__________________________
19. How would you describe your ethnicity/race?
(check all that apply)
☐ Hispanic/Latino ☐ Black
☐ White ☐ Asian
☐ Native Hawaiian
☐ Other: __________________________
20. What is your home’s zip code?__________
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 31
Santa Monica Parklet Survey 2017
Parklet location (please circle):
HOLY GUACAMOLE ASHLAND HILL FINN MCCOOL’S
1. What brings you to the parklet?
2. How did you get to the parklet today?
3. How long did it take for you to
get to the parklet?
4. Have you been to the main street
parklets before today?
If yes, how often do you come?
5. Did you purchase something from a
nearby business today?
6. What’s your favorite feature in the parklets?
8 How clean do you think the parklets are?
9. How easy is it to talk to others in the parklet?
11. Would you like to see more parklets in Santa Monica?
12. What is your age?
☐ 18-35 ☐ 35-49 ☐ 50-65 ☐ 65+
☐ I live nearby
☐ Passing through to somewhere else
☐ Shopping
☐ To eat/drink
☐ I work nearby
☐ Entertainment/socializing
☐ Drove a car
☐ Bus
☐ My bike
☐ By foot
☐ Breeze bike
☐ Taxi/Lyft/Uber
☐ Scooter/motorcyle
☐ Other
☐ Less than 5 minutes
☐ 5 - 15 minutes
☐ 16 - 30 minutes
☐ More than 30 minutes
☐ Yes ☐ No
☐ Yes ☐ No
7. How safe do you feel in the parklets?
1 2 3 4 5
Very unsafe Very safe
1 2 3 4 5
Very unclean Very clean
1 2 3 4 5
Very difficult Very easy
10. Is there anything you would change about the parklet?
13. What best describes you?
☐ Female ☐ Male ☐ Transgender ☐ Other:_______________
14. How would you describe your ethnicity or race?
(check all that apply)
☐ Hispanic/Latino
☐ White
☐ Black
☐ Asian
☐ Native/Hawaiian
☐ Other: _________________
15. What is your home’s zip code?
If yes, where?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Thank you for completing our survey.
Researchers at the UCLA School of Public Affairs
are working with the City of Santa Monica to gather
information. Participation is voluntary and should
take less than 5 minutes. You must be at least
18 years of age to take this survey. You may skip
any questions you do not wish to answer, and you
may end the survey at any time. All responses will
remain anonymous. If you have questions about the
survey, please contact Madeline Bronzen (Project
Manager, UCLA) at (424) 255-8737.
32 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
APPENDIX B: DETAILED SURVEY RESPONSES
Reason for Visiting
Main Street
Pre-Installation Post-Installation
To eat/drink 89 27%80 22%
I live nearby 77 22%84 24%
I work nearby 46 12%51 14%
Entertainment/Socializing 32 10%31 9%
Shopping 32 9%37 10%
Exercise 27 8%33 9%
Pass through 10 3%28 8%
Errand 9 3%7 2%
Other 7 2%6 2%
Beach 5 2%0 0
334 357 100%
How often do you visit this portion of main
street?
Pre-Installation Post-Installation
Daily 112 41%73 32%
A few times a week 61 23%66 29%
A few times a month 37 14%43 19%
Rarely 35 13%24 10%
Almost never 22 8%24 10%
267 100%230 100%
How often do you encounter people you
know on Main Street?
Pre-Installation Post-Installation
Daily 72 26%53 23%
A few times a week 53 20%37 16%
A few times a month 40 15%33 14%
Rarely 45 18%55 24%
Almost never 58 21%50 22%
268 100%228 100%
Who do you usually come with?Pre-Installation Post-Installation
Myself 101 39%88 39%
Myself and others 23 8%21 9%
With Others 63 25%66 29%
With others, including my family/children 16 6%8 4%
With my family /children 46 17%35 16%
Others including older adults 13 4%6 3%
262 100%224 100%
Street Surveys
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 33
APPENDIX B: DETAILED SURVEY RESPONSES How did you arrive here today? Pre-Installation Post-Installation
Foot 115 43%103 46%
Car 111 40%79 35%
Bike 20 8%27 12%
Bus 15 6%2 1%
TNC 9 3%14 6%
Skateboard 2 1%1 0%
Do you typically purchase anything while
visiting?
Pre-Installation Post-Installation
Yes 163 61%127 57%
Sometimes 66 26%70 31%
No 32 13%27 12%
261 100%224 100%
Do you know what a parklet is?Pre-Installation Post-Installation
Yes 83 30%79 35%
Yes and I've sat in one before 17 6%51 22%
No 168 64%98 43%
268 228
Do you like the parklets on Main Street?Post-installation
Yes 160 89%
No 20 11%
180
Reasons why people do not like the parklets on Main Street:
• Aesthetics (4)
• Not clearly public (2)
• Opportunity cost (10
• Parking loss (4)
• Traffic increase (10
• Homelessness (1)
34 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
What is your perception of the number of
people on the sidewalk?
Pre-Installation Post-Installation
1 (too few)17 7%18 8%
2 33 13%43 19%
3 171 64%137 61%
4 35 13%20 9%
5 (Too many)11 4%8 4%
267 100%226 100%
What is your perception of the amount of car
traffic on the street?
Pre-Installation Post-Installation
1 (too little)2 0%1 0%
2 15 5%17 8%
3 100 38%92 41%
4 82 30%73 32%
5 (Too much)68 26%43 19%
267 100%226 100%
How safe do you feel on Main Street?Pre-Installation Post-Installation
1 (very unsafe)10 4%1 0%
2 6 2%17 8%
3 27 10%92 41%
4 80 29%73 32%
5 (Very safe)144 55%43 19%
267 100%226 100%
How clean do you feel Main Street is?Pre-Installation Post-Installation
1 (very unclean)8 3%14 6%
2 28 10%19 8%
3 66 25%54 24%
4 105 38%87 38%
5 (Very clean)60 23%54 24%
267 100%228 100%
How easy is it to find a place to socialize or
talk with others on Main Street, not including
stores and restaurants?
Pre-Installation Post-Installation
1 (very uneasy)26 10%21 10%
2 59 23%46 21%
3 53 20%56 25%
4 59 23%52 24%
5 (Very easy)66 24%46 21%
267 100%228 100%
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 35
APPENDIX B: DETAILED SURVEY RESPONSES
Reason for Visiting
Main Street
I live nearby 31 37%
To eat/drink 31 37%
Passing through to somewhere else 9 11%
I work nearby 7 8%
Shopping 2 2%
Entertainment/Socializing 3 4%
83 100%
Have you been to the parklets before today?
Daily 112 41%
A few times a week 61 23%
A few times a month 37 14%
Rarely 35 13%
Almost never 22 8%
267 100%
How often do you come to the parklets?
Daily 9 23%
A few times a week 11 28%
Weekly 12 30%
Monthly 8 20%
40 100%
How did you get here today?
Foot 26 40%
Car 27 42%
Bike 6 9%
Bus 2 3%
TNC 3 5%
Skateboard 1 2%
65 100%
Did you purchase anything from the adjacent businesses today?
Yes 59 92%
No 5 8%
64 100%
Would you like to see more parklets in Santa Monica?
Yes 60 89%
No 3 11%
63 100%
Parklet Surveys
36 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
How safe do you feel in the parklet?
1 (Very unsafe)2 3%
2 1 2%
3 2 3%
4 14 22%
5 (Very safe)45 70%
64 100%
How clean do you feel the parklet is?
1 (very unclean)0 0%
2 1 2%
3 11 17%
4 24 38%
5 (Very clean)28 44%
64 100%
How easy is it to talk to others in the parklet?
1 (very uneasy)0 0%
2 1 2%
3 16 25%
4 13 20%
5 (Very easy)34 53%
64 100%
Is there anything you would change about the parklet?
Half of people surveyed said they would change nothing about the parklets.
Suggestions for changes included:
• More parklet sites (4)
• More traffic protection (3)
• Better/more comfortable seating (3)
• Larger site (2)
• More plants (2)
• More seating (2)
• Outlets/solar charging (2)
• Add “bus your dishes” sign (1)
• Add umbrellas (1)
• Allow smoking (1)
• Chess boards/social interaction encouragement (1)
• Consistent seating (1)
• Dog amenities (1)
• More color (1)
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 37
APPENDIX C: DETAILED COUNT VOLUMES
Location #1 Near Holy Guacamole Parklet 2016 2017 Percent Change
Northbound
Weekday morning 90.5 149 65%
Weekday evening 112 89.5 -20%
Weekend 103 139 35%
Northbound average change +27%
Soutbound
Weekday morning 72.5 65.5 -10%
Weekday evening 94 112.5 20%
Weekend 126 120 -5%
Southbound average change +2%
Location total average change +14%
Location #2 Btwn. Finn’s and Ashland Hill 2016 2017 Percent Change
Northbound
Weekday morning 131 167 27%
Weekday evening 86.5 95 10%
Weekend 131 142 8%
Northbound average change +27%
Southbound
Weekday morning 72.5 65.5 -10%
Weekday evening 94 112.5 20%
Weekend 126 120 -5%
Southbound average change +2%
Location total average change +14%
Location #3 Context block 2016 2017 Percent Change
Northbound weekend 163 146 -10%
Southbound weekend 107 118 10%
Location average change 0%
Location #4 Control block 2016 2017 Percent Change
Northbound
Weekday morning 135.5 159 17%
Weekday evening 83.5 77 -8%
Northbound average change +5%
Southbound
Weekday morning
Weekday evening
Southbound average change +21%
Location average change +13%
Bicycle Counts
38 MAIN STREET PARKLET PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
APPENDIX C: DETAILED COUNT VOLUMES
Location #1 Near Holy Guacamole Parklet 2016 2017 Percent Change
East sidewalk
Weekday morning 151 201.5 33%
Weekday evening 390 370.5 -5%
Weekend 503 574 14%
East sidewalk average change +14%
West sidewalk (parklet side)
Weekday morning 155.5 176.5 14%
Weekday evening 445 351 -21%
Weekend 502 529 5%
West sidewalk average change -12%
Location total average change +7%
Location #2 Btwn. Finn’s and Ashland Hill 2016 2017 Percent Change
East sidewalk (Ashland Hill side)
Weekday morning 110 135.5 23%
Weekday evening 277.5 235.5 -15%
Weekend 483 464 -4%
East sidewalk average change +1%
West sidewalk (Finn McCool’s side)
Weekday morning 105 164.5 57%
Weekday evening 313.5 255.5 -19%
Weekend 540 491 -9%
West sidewalk average change +10%
Location total average change +6%
Location #3 Context block 2016 2017 Percent Change
East sidewalk weekend 418 412 -1%
West sidewalk weekend 299 336 12%
Location average change 5%
Location #4 Control block 2016 2017 Percent Change
East sidewalk
Weekday morning 139 93 -33%
Weekday evening 284.5 298 5%
East sidewalk average change -14%
West sidewalk
Weekday morning 153 211 38%
Weekday evening 300 317 6%
West sidewalk average change +22%
Location average change +4%
Pedestrian Counts
UCLA LEWIS CENTER FOR REGIONAL POLICY STUDIES 39
Attachment A
November 24, 2015 Council Meeting
http://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1048&MediaPosi
tion=&ID=1502&CssClass=
April 23rd, 2019
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
I write you as the Executive Director of the Main Street Business Improvement Association, a position
I’ve held since September of 2017. Prior to that I was a board member for five years. In addition, I
operated two businesses on Main Street from 2013-2019, one of which was a parklet sponsor.
A lot has changed on Main Street in the last few years. Some things for better, others worse. One of
the most positive things we’ve had the pleasure of working with the City on in addition to The Summer
Soulstice, is the Parklet pilot program. We have always appreciated the willingness of City staff and
council to work with us on improving Main Street, and also for considering initiatives and changes that
will benefit the City at large.
Everyone loves the Parklets, businesses and residents alike. In fact, we wish there were more of
them. I am regularly contacted by businesses wanting to find out how they can get a Parklet in front of
their business. In our outreach to the Ocean Park Association, they receive high marks across the
board.
Now that the pilot program is coming to an end however, the next phase we are eager to get started
on is integrating more parklets into the broader fabric of Main Street. We would like to see around
three Parklets per block from Pico all the way to the border of Venice. We are confident that suitable
spaces could be found on the East and West sides of Main Street for every block and we know this
could be a transformative feature for the block if done correctly.
If future Parklets will not be paid for by The City however, finding businesses to foot the large bill to
build these structures in a safe and lasting fashion won’t be easy unless there is a direct financial
benefit to them. As such, I believe that sponsoring restaurants (including those that participated in the
pilot program in good faith) should have the right to serve customers within the Parklets. However,
the Parklets themselves should probably also maintain their ‘public space’ status, similar to the
sidewalks.
This is an important middle ground because it would mean that businesses would not have the right
to prevent or dissuade the public from enjoying the Parklet spaces, but it would give the sponsoring
business the right to serve customers in them, making the upfront cost more palatable while providing
an important community benefit. There are ways to do this that would satisfy all parties of course.
I believe that this would be the key component of a successful future Parklet program because it
would incentivize private businesses to front the enormous cost to build them as well as to incentivize
their maintenance, customization, and upkeep, which really benefits the community more than it
directly benefits the business.
Since Main Street sidewalks are generally not wide enough for sidewalk dining, I believe that opening
the program to sponsor restaurants with full-service dining is a great way to bring more life to the
street. It’s also an easy and clever way to potentially help solve two of the most challenging issues
facing all commercial districts today: Restaurant Vacancies & Retail Decline.
The addition of a substantial amount of al fresco dining on Main Street would be a game changer and
would help our smaller independent restaurants remain competitive in this changing landscape of
rising costs, reduced off-peak foot traffic, etc. by giving the public more incentive to dine here
regularly.
Adding more parklets will also improve the neighborhood for our residents in many other ways
beyond food and beverage offerings of course. It will naturally increase walking traffic, encourage
more shopping, repeat business, tourism, and provide a nice place to sit and relax where currently
there is none. Since most public lots are rarely full these days, I don’t think the trivial loss of street
parking spaces would override the enormous benefit additional Parklets would provide.
If, on the other hand, existing and future Parklets were to remain solely public spaces as they are
now, then we hope the City could potentially find a way to justify the expense of additional Parklet
construction as part of a broader infrastructure initiative for Main Street in order to accelerate some
needed economic development. That said, I strongly believe collaborating with the private sector and
incentivizing private investment into the Parklets offers the best chance for this program to flourish
into the community asset we all know it has the potential to be.
As always, thank you very much for your time and consideration. We would love the opportunity to
collaborate with City staff more on the future of this promising program.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Hunter G. Hall
Executive Director
Main Street Business Improvement Association
314.323.4663
hunter@mainstreetsm.com
P.O. Box 5260
Santa Monica, CA 90409
April 2019 Santa Monica City Councilmembers, On behalf of Sunset Restaurant Management Group and Finn McCool’s Irish Pub, I would like to offer my full support in favor of the parklet program. Note that our company was awarded a grant for the West Hollywood parklet program this year. In addition, we proudly inherited guardianship of the parklet located in front of our newly purchased Finn McCool’s on Main St. Having had personal and professional experience with parklets, I can attest to the benefits and added value they bring to any community. We have an in depth understanding of the concept of a parklet and the opportunities it presents to the neighborhood. Parklets enrich our communities by encouraging foot traffic and drawing positive attention to the area, while also providing a public place for visitors, locals, and passersby to enjoy. Additionally, they aid in our efforts to foster a clean, safe, manicured, and social environment, while also maintaining its liveliness. We believe that parklets are exemplary vehicles for achieving these goals. All in all, I encourage everyone to share my view of parklets as positive and worthwhile additions to any neighborhood. Thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Michael Bezerra & the Finn McCool’s Team
•
May 9, 2019
Dear Santa Monica City Councilmembers,
I am writing to you as a business owner of Ashland Hill on Main Street. We have been
operating our restaurant since 2014. We were honored to be a part of the Santa Monica
Parklet Pilot program.
We have had a wonderful experience during the pilot program and we hope to continue to
operate a parklet after the pilot program is complete.
I think the addition of a few more parklets on Main Street would only further the guest
experience for Santa Monica and Main Street pedestrians. I think it would encourage
people to stay on Main Street longer and have a better overall experience.
I also want to note that the members of the City of Santa Monica have been great to work
with during this pilot program and we appreciate their partnership!! We look forward to
the opportunity to continue our parklet program and hope for more parklets on Main
Street!
-Luke Tabit
Ashland Hill
luke@onthevergehospitality.com
Main Street Pa rklets Pilot Program
Program Review & Fu ture of Pa rklets City Council
June 11, 2019
1.Review/discuss the Main Street Pa rklet Pilot Program, and
consider closing out the City-funded Pa rklet component
•Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an
extension of the existing operator agreements (Holy
Guacamole and Ashland Hill)
•Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an
operator agreement with the new owners of Finn McCool’s
(now called “Jameson's”)
2.Review and provide direction to staff regarding partial revision
and extension of the Pa rklet Pilot Program to other locations
throughout the City.
Purpose of Tonight's Meeting
Insert Map Here
Background on Main Street Pilot Program
Future of
Parklets
Tonight
Evaluation Period
Holy Guacamole Pa rklet –2906 Main Street
Finn McCool’s Pa rklet –2702 Main Street
Ashland Hill Pa rklet –2807 Main Street
Did People Like the Pa rklets?
PA RKLET EVALUATION
•Goal: Measure if Pilot
was successful or not
•People’s reactions
•Data on utilization
•Recommendations
SEVERAL TOOLS USED
•Intercept Surveys
•Stationary Activity
Observations
•Bike and Ped counts
•We ekday and Weekend
collection periods
Did People Like the Pa rklets?
INTERCEPT SURVEY RESULTS
•We ll-liked
•We ll-maintained
•People feel safer in
Pa rklets than on sidewalk
•Easy to talk to others
•People come back
•People want more
•Appeal to both men and
women, but more to
younger people
How Did the Pa rklets Pe rform?
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
•Have the ability to create
active public space
•Holy Guacamole most
active, Ashland Hill least
active
•Attracts more people to sit
and hang out on Main St.
•People can engage in many
activities -(eat/drink/socialize)
•No incidences requiring
Po lice or Medical
•No homeless issues
•Did not increase walking or
biking
How Did the Pa rklets Pe rform?
RECOMMENDAT IONS
•Create strong site selection
criteria
•Locate next to multiple
businesses
•Allow operators to build
and maintain their own
parklets
•Use moveable furniture
•In sunny locations,
incorporate shade
What We Learned from the 2 Year Pilot –Practical Issues
Drainage Landscape Maintenance Furniture
Public Use Design and Safety Unexpected Bonuses
Where Do We Go From Here? Some Options…
1.Close out City funding of
Pa rklets and Maintain
Existing Pa rklets on Main
Street
•Relinquish Existing
Pa rklets to Existing
Operators
•Authorize New
Agreements
2.Consider Expansion to
Other Parts of the City
Requests From:
•Montana Avenue
•Downtown
•Main Street
Where Do We Go From Here? Some Options…
1.Criteria/Design Program
•Site location criteria
•Design of Pa rklets –kit of parts
2.Permitting Mechanism
•Encroachment permit?
•Something else?
3.Program Oversight
•Identify lead agency
•Supporting departments
4.Staff Resources
•Review and approval
•Customer service
•Monitoring
What Would it Take to Expand the Program?
Consider closing out City-funded Pa rklet component
•Relinquish existing parklets to existing operators
•Authorize City Manager to negotiate and exe cute
an extension of operator agreements with Holy
Guacamole, Finn McCool’s (now “Jameson’s”),
and Ashland Hill
Staff Recommendation
1
Staff Recommendation
2 Direct Staff to evaluate the revision and extension of
the Pa rklet Pilot Program to other locations
throughout the City.
•Site criteria/Design Program
•Pe rmitting Mechanism
•Program Oversight
•Eva luation of required staff resources
Thank You
Russell Bunim, AICP
Associate Planner
City Council
Pa rklets Pilot Program Update
June 11, 2019
City of Los Angeles San Francisco
Seattle We st Hollywood
Ty pical Pa rklet Program Staffing Arrangement
Safety Basics
•Speed limit: maximum 30 mph
•No closer than 60 feet from an
intersection
•Wheel stops on both sides of
the parklet
•Barrier in front of parklet
•Provide lighting, if intended for
night use
Accessibility
•ADA compliance (5’
turnaround)
•Maintain grade with sidewalk
•No gap between curb and
parklet
Engineering
•Occupy no more than 2 parking spaces
•Provide access for underneath for
cleaning
•Not exceed 2% grade on the cross slope
•Ve rify water drainage
•Must be easily assembled and
disassembled
•Consider street crown height
•Materials that are easy to maintain
(remove graffiti)
•Landscaping design.
Materials
•Solid surface materials (no concrete
floors)
•No loose particles such as sand or loose
stone
Pa rklet Design Criteria
REFERENCE:
Agreement No. 10858 - 10860
(CCS)