Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shared Spaces topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco planners push to codify ‘shared spaces’ after year of pandemic experiments
Summary
The Planning Department and SFMTA presented legislation to make temporary shared‑spaces (parklets, curbside dining, movable parklets) permanent with streamlined permits, fee deferrals and ADA provisions. The proposal drew extensive public comment—small business owners urged certainty, disability and neighborhood advocates pressed for stronger accessibility, enforcement and public‑access guarantees—and the committee continued the item to June 7 to allow more consultation and ground‑truthing.
The Planning Department on May 24 outlined an ordinance to codify San Francisco’s emergency shared spaces program, proposing new permit categories, fee deferrals and a timeline for sponsors to bring temporary installations into compliance.
The department’s director for shared spaces, Robin Abad Okabillo, said the proposal aims to keep the streamlined processes that helped merchants survive the COVID‑19 economic shock while reintroducing stable rules: one‑stop permitting, 30‑day permit reviews, and fee deferrals until March 31, 2022 with license fees waived through 2023. Abad said the program has supported immigrant‑ and women‑owned small businesses and that an interagency grants program—backed by a $2.3 million supplemental appropriation—would help merchants meet accessibility and capital needs.
Deputy Program Manager Monica Munowich (SFMTA) described three permit typologies—public parklets, movable parklets and commercial parklets—and said all would keep a public‑access requirement during daylight hours. She outlined fee levels and eligibility for partial waivers for businesses with under $2 million in annual gross receipts, and said curb management rules would guide decisions where transit, loading and blue accessible spaces compete with shared‑space uses.
Why it matters: The temporary program—created as a pandemic emergency—allowed businesses to operate outdoors at a scale not seen in prior parklet efforts. Supporters argued permanent rules will protect small businesses and jobs, while opponents cautioned that long‑term private control of curb space can displace public uses, harm residents and create accessibility hazards if not tightly regulated.
Public comment: More than 100 callers weighed in. Restaurant and bar owners, merchant associations and tourism groups described shared spaces as a lifeline that enabled rehiring and reduced closures; many urged rapid adoption of permanent rules so owners will invest in durable parklets. Disability advocates and Senior and Disability Action asked for more time and technical guidance, citing that a large share of ADA complaints remain open and that sidewalks and crosswalk sight lines have been compromised in some quick‑build installations. Residents in multiple neighborhoods raised concerns about noise, late‑night activity, double parking and unclear enforcement channels.
What’s next: Facing the volume and range of concerns, the committee continued the item to June 7 to allow staff to deepen consultations with disability advocates, neighborhood groups and enforcement agencies and to report on a field survey of existing installations. The Planning Department said staff will inventory on‑the‑ground conditions to identify installations that can be made compliant and sites that may need removal for safety or transit reasons. Committee members emphasized no immediate fees should be charged while sponsors organize capital work to comply and asked staff for clearer standards on public access, neighbor consent and enforcement timelines.
Officials and key details: The department estimates roughly 1,632 active curbside shared‑space permits citywide; staff told the committee some installations on slopes or at reinstituted transit boarding areas may not be salvageable and will need to be removed or redesigned. The legislation would codify public‑access requirements, a progressive discipline regime for violations (notice of correction → notice of violation → fines → revocation), and a transition period for sponsors to reach compliance. The committee asked staff for a clearer schedule for the field survey and for specifics on which sites will be prioritized for modification or removal.
Ending: The committee did not vote on the ordinance. The item was continued to June 7 for further staff work and targeted stakeholder consultation; sponsors and operators said they want certainty quickly so they can invest and hire, while advocates said more time is needed to ensure the permanent rules protect accessibility and public use.
