In March, Mayor London Breed introduced legislation to make permanent the Shared Spaces program, which has allowed businesses to operate on the sidewalk or in parklets during the pandemic. Since then, city legislators have been hammering out details over the course of 11 public hearings and in negotiations with community stakeholders and the mayor’s office. One main point of contention remains: public access.
UPDATE: The Board of Supervisors made the Shared Spaces program permanent by unanimous vote on Tuesday, July 13. The approved legislation does not require that businesses leave their parklets open and accessible to the public between midnight and 7 am. However, progressive supervisors made clear that this program will evolve.
In theory, public access is an important civic virtue, but leads to some real-world questions: Should the parklets be accessible beyond a store or restaurant’s business hours? Who shall be responsible for dealing with garbage and other refuse in them? And what exactly would public seating look like anyway?
The most recent debate came at a June 7 meeting of the board’s Land Use and Transportation committee, where Sup. Aaron Peskin put forth an amendment to expand public access.
Peskin, of District 3, and Sup. Dean Preston have raised concerns about the potential privatization of public space. Peskin is seeking “a more robust public seating requirement, available at all hours when the space is not occupied for commercial use” — including “at least one public bench for every 15 linear feet of curbside shared space.”
This contrasts with the original legislation, which states that commercial parklets must provide public seating during business hours, and that business owners could lock their parklets up at night.
Preston joined Peskin, who was not available to comment by press time on Tuesday, to pass the access amendment last month, with District 7 Sup. Myrna Melgar opposed. The same committee is slated to discuss the issue again on July 12.
Melgar, who chairs the Land Use and Transportation committee, plans to consider a motion to move the Shared Spaces ordinance to the full Board of Supervisors, according to a committee staffer. The board could hear the ordinance as soon as July 13.
Parklet precedent
The Shared Spaces program has been widely praised as a savior of struggling businesses and a boon to the local economy. But business owners are still operating under mountains of debt, and some may abandon their parklets if they cost more money and effort than they’re worth, now that indoor dining is restored.
Laurie Thomas, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, said that street parking spaces have always been available for non-public uses — to construction teams, for example — and called the fuss over parklets as so-called private space “hypocritical.”
“I don’t understand why this is such a contentious issue when that’s been allowed forever in this city,” she added. “We could point to cases where those parking spaces were blocked for private contractor use for months on end.”
Thomas also noted that businesses can pay for white zones along their curbs that limit public access too. (Unlike parklets, white zones do not convert car space into usable people space.) Shared spaces also disincentivize driving — a feat that supports the city’s Vision Zero goals. What’s more, when drivers park cars overnight on city streets, they’re blocking public access to those spots.
But maybe this is too much nuance. “This is all public property to truly be shared,” Peskin declared regarding his amendment that businesses keep their parklets accessible after hours. (If we hear from the supervisor, we’ll update the post.)
In a May meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee, Preston of District 5 said he supported the Shared Spaces program, but suggested that “the longer-term plan be a return to spaces that can be fully accessed by the public.”
The idea of creating public space explicitly for recreation rather than private use — space that many people can enjoy without spending money — is a popular one in San Francisco and beyond. Indeed, the Slow Streets program, another pandemic emergency measure that may become permanent, has done just that by turning streets across the city into boulevards for cyclists, roller bladers, skateboarders, and pedestrians. The problem with applying that goal to Shared Spaces, according to small business owners and advocates, is that businesses themselves pay to construct and maintain their parklets.
Mat Schuster, the chef and owner of Canela Bistro & Wine Bar in the Castro, called the Shared Spaces program a lifeline for his business. (He’s also a member of the GGRA board.) He said that he and his staff have grown fond of their Market Street parklet, but it comes with challenges.
“If you want our small business to pay to build and staff public spaces, then you have to keep these spaces safe,” Schuster argued. “If we need to keep them open during non-business hours and if they are considered public spaces, then San Francisco needs to be responsible for what happens to and in them when our restaurant community is not taking care of them.
“They become literal toilets or worse,” he added.
Daily ablutions
Schuster said the decision to keep his parklet after the pandemic depends on whether the city can help him maintain it, and the degree of public access required by the new rules: “We will wait and see if it is bearable or not.”
Some weeks, Canela’s $12,000 parklet was vandalized every day, he recounted: “We always hold our breath when we walk up to the restaurant, not knowing what we are going to find.” If Schuster can’t lock it up after hours, he worries it may not be worth continuing to use it.
The GGRA’s Thomas said she’s heard reports from other business owners — “quite a few,” in fact — of people leaving needles and pooping in parklets, particularly downtown and in the Tenderloin. She described Peskin’s amendment, which calls for the Department of Public Works to clean up hazardous waste, as well intended but difficult to implement, “unless there is a lot of money added to DPW’s budget to ensure there are people available to help deal with this within a one-hour time frame to get businesses open.” Thomas also noted concerns that in some areas, people might congregate in open parklets at night and disturb neighbors.
The GGRA and others are still negotiating over the public access requirement, and Thomas is hopeful Peskin’s amendment will be modified.
What’s next?
As things stand, owners and employees often have to clean up trash and waste; Schuster said he and his team have to sanitize their parklet on a daily basis. If all parklets must include benches that are publicly accessible outside of business hours, people will likely leave a mess, according to Thomas. “What we’re not trying to do here is create safe sleeping spaces,” she said. “We want to get people housed in permanent housing, and this should not be a transitional housing plan.”
The city is reopening in the pandemic’s wake, and wants to work somewhat differently. For instance, it seeks to make running a small business easier. Just look at the mayor’s small business challenge from May, January’s small business fee waiver, and the grants for businesses affected by COVID. The Shared Spaces program can continue to aid recovery too, but only if legislators reach an access compromise that won’t lead merchants to tear down their parklets.
“We saw San Francisco adopt some really great programs during COVID that address some of our previous problems,” Schuster said. “We saw how, yes, San Francisco can move its butt when it wants to.”
Max Harrison-Caldwell covers local news and culture for The Frisc.
