San Francisco’s Shared Spaces program is one step closer to becoming permanent. The SFMTA’s board of directors unanimously voted last week to adopt amendments to the transportation code for Shared Spaces that, among other things, streamlines the process to apply for parklets and take up street pavement for other uses.
The fate of the program — which has let restaurants and other businesses offer outdoor service during the pandemic — is now in the hands of SF’s Board of Supervisors. Its Land Use and Transportation Committee will convene later this month to consider the new legislation; a specific date has not yet been announced.
Concerned residents already have raised doubts around disability access and steep fees, but another feature of the legislation lets a single neighbor throw a wrench into a business owner’s plans — something that thanks to long-standing bureaucratic regulations has become a defining characteristic of our city. The clause in question, which has drawn little attention, states that merchants who want to extend a parklet along the curb and across the boundary of their neighbors’ frontages must get permission from those neighbors.
The requirement seems like a straightforward codification of common courtesy, but typically for SF, it builds in veto power from a single individual, be it a competing business or a plain old NIMBY.
“It sounds like we’re setting up a possible situation,” says Sharky Laguana, president of the SF Small Business Commission, “just kind of classic San Francisco — where one gadfly, one grumpalumpus, one person out there with a bone to pick or a chip on their shoulder gets veto rights over something the vast majority of the community would be happy to have.” He adds that he hopes the fear of this kind of interference is unfounded.
All parklets must fit within existing parking spaces, and as the legislation acknowledges, parking spaces do not always align with frontage lines. Under the latest version of the legislation, dated May 4, the consent requirement is only triggered if 50% or more of the desired parking space is within the neighbor’s curb space. (A previous version of the legislation held that an applicant would have to secure consent from their neighbor if any portion of their proposed parklet site was within said neighbor’s frontage.)
Robin Abad Ocubillo, director of the city’s Shared Spaces, says this isn’t a big concern for the program. “Conjecture about the abuse of these provisions is not something we’re focused on,” Abad Ocubillo writes via email. “Rather, the provisions for consent are in place to encourage clear and intentional open lines of communication between neighboring merchants.”
This provision has been in place since the emergency Shared Spaces program began, according to Abad Ocubillo, and also applied to the pre-pandemic parklet program. (Say that five times fast.)
The Shared Spaces team has not kept track of how many merchants have failed to secure parklets because of a nonconsenting neighbor, Abad Ocubillo admits, but he says it is “very plausible and probable” that the situation has arisen. Over 200 curbside permit applications have been rejected since the program began in July. “There are many reasons why it’s difficult to either obtain the consent or just get a hold of the tenant,” he points out.
Laurie Thomas, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, says she is not worried about abuse of the provision, and that businesses would need to learn to work together: “I would hope that in San Francisco we’re better humans than that.” Thomas also reports she has heard of very few conflicts between businesses around proposed parklets. (Thomas as well as Laguana are enthusiastic supporters of the Shared Spaces program overall.)
Fees in flux
The legislation is not set in stone, and the recent tweak to the neighbor consent provision is not the only change. In response to concerns about unaffordable fees, the Shared Spaces team announced in early May that businesses grossing less than $2 million per year would have to pay only half the established curbside fee. (For a private parklet, that’s $3,000 for the parklet’s first parking space and $1,500 for each additional space. Fees for movable and public parklets are lower.)
Businesses with existing parklets also will no longer have to pay to transition from a temporary permit to a permanent one. What’s more, these businesses will not have to pay for their Shared Spaces permits until March of next year, and their recurring license fees will be waived for this year and the next.
Further changes and amendments could come up before the program becomes law. Abad Ocubillo says that a business unable to get parklet permission from neighbors could still obtain a permit for one cleanly within its own frontage. In addition, appeals of decisions by city departments will be heard by the Board of Appeals.
With more than 1,200 active parklets already in San Francisco and more to come, disputes over curb space could soon become more common. According to Abad Ocubillo, 94 percent of surveyed Shared Spaces operators say they would keep their parklets even after indoor dining is allowed at full capacity. And with summer on the horizon, the demand for outdoor dining space may soon increase.
Though Abad Ocubillo and Thomas are optimistic that neighbors won’t use the consent provision to sabotage one another, Laguana is still wary: “I think we can be forgiven for being a little skeptical.”
Corrections: Parklets that are declined due to neighbor input can in fact be appealed with the city. A previous version of this story also overstated the fee amount for a parklet’s first parking space. The post has been updated.
Max Harrison-Caldwell covers local news for The Frisc.
