Long Beach may change its ordinance governing how permanent parklets are approved, with the biggest change being the removal of community group opposition as a potential block to a permit being granted to a business.
Former Councilmember Suzie Price requested the changes last month saying that the ordinance language that allowed community groups to block businesses from building a parklet was a “big flaw” that was not intended when the council originally approved rules for parklets in 2018.
The 3rd City Council district that Price represented includes Belmont Shore, a neighborhood where some residents have been the most vocal in their opposition to parklets because of their potential to create safety hazards for people walking on the neighborhood’s narrow sidewalks and their removal of valuable parking spaces along the Second Street corridor.
Julie Dean, president of the Belmont Shore Resident Association and member of the “Parking Not Parklets” group, said some restaurants have created safety issues by putting heaters, host tables and other objects in the public right of way, which cause issues for walkers and people with mobility issues.
“The sidewalk doesn’t belong to them,” Dean said. “It belongs to the people walking on the sidewalks.”
Dean, who uses a mobility scooter, pointed to the city’s municipal code that says that there should be at least 5 feet of clearance for public walkways next to a parklet and said that’s rarely the case in Belmont Shore, where there were over a dozen applications being processed as of December.
“Every single time I go by Open Sesame I have issues,” Dean said. “There’s always people standing out front, in the walkway because they have great food but they’ve also been putting their heaters on the sidewalk.”
Dean and others are opposed to the removal of the language that would allow a group like the BSRA to block a permit by not giving consent to an applicant to build one in their neighborhood. Meanwhile business owners in the Belmont Shore area have argued that the term “community group” is too broad and gives outsized power to residents in the approval process.
The changes proposed to the municipal code would instead create a requirement for a public notice to be posted for 30 days where the parklet is being proposed and allows for residents to submit written support or opposition to its construction.
Public Works would be in charge of recommending whether the project should be approved or denied. Last year it released parameters that dictate where permanent parklets could go based on traffic safety issues, potential interference with public utilities and other factors.
Opposition to a project could result in a public hearing before the City Council, which would weigh public sentiment and city officials’ recommendations before voting to approve or deny a parklet permit.
Proposed parklets that are located within the Coastal Zone, which are subject to additional regulations set by the Coastal Commission, would require a local coastal permit. That process would be administered by the city and provide an additional opportunity for public input.
It’s unclear if the hearing by the City Council would require a fee similar to when a party appeals a decision by a governing body in the city.
Another proposed change to the ordinance would allow a parklet to be installed on a street with a speed limit of above 25 miles per hour if traffic calming improvements are made to the street, like a curb extension to help protect customers.
Temporary parklets that were allowed to stay up while applications for permanent structures were being processed by the city are expected to come down by the end of the month.
City Council, not community groups, could approve permanent parklets under revised rules