Long Beach could soon change its rules governing permanent parklets to give the final say to the City Council if a proposed installation meets with community resistance.
The changes are coming after the council voted Tuesday night to revise a 2018 ordinance that, as written, put the onus of approving or denying permanent parklets—which are often used for outdoor dining at local restaurants—on neighborhood groups.
Under the current ordinance, businesses seeking to install parklets must get approval from “community groups,” but because that approval process is ill-defined, it essentially gives veto power to groups like neighborhood associations, according to Councilmember Suzie Price, who proposed changing the rules.
“I believe it leaves a big flaw because that wasn’t the intention,” Price said.
Council members and some members of the public said the current process has caused confusion about who qualifies as a “community group” because the process isn’t clearly defined in the ordinance.
“I love pugs. Say I get 10 of my friends with pugs, now we’re a community group? How do they get to decide anything?” said Kurt Schneider, president of the Belmont Shore Business Association.
Other speakers though, argued the approval process should remain with residents instead of ultimately ending up in front of the City Council.
Julie Dean, president of the Belmont Shore Residents Association, one of the groups that could block a parklet under the current ordinance, pointed to a petition with 530 signatures during her public comment calling for the council to vote against changing the rules.
“They all oppose permanent parklets in our neighborhood. They signed because the issue matters deeply to all of us and our quality of life,” Dean said. “How many residents is enough to hear and heed their concerns?”
Belmont Shore residents have been among the loudest opponents of parklets in recent months, saying that the installations that allow restaurants to extend their footprint into the street have created traffic and safety issues, taken away valuable parking spaces and led to quality-of-life issues for residents who live near parklets on Second Street.
There are currently over a dozen permanent parklets in the application process in the Belmont Shore area and a total of 30 across the entire city. The permanent installations have to meet a higher standard of design and safety than the temporary parklets the city allowed during the pandemic to prop up restaurants by allowing them more outdoor dining. At the height of their use, there were over 120 such parklets.
Under the ordinance changes Price proposed, community input would still be weighed when a business applies for a permanent parklet, but it would be one of the factors considered by the city, not the factor that determines if an application can move forward.
Because some are in the Coastal Zone, which is subject to additional regulations set by the California Coastal Commission they would also require a local coastal permit, a process that the city would administer but would provide another platform for public input. Not all businesses will be eligible for a permanent installation and have to be pre-approved by the city to ensure they’re not blocking public utilities or causing other safety hazards.
While the proposed language has not been drafted, Vanessa Ibarra, a deputy city attorney, said that it could include a noticing requirement to the public so they can have an opportunity to weigh in on the application. The Public Works Department would then make a recommendation to approve or deny the application with those receiving community pushback going to the City Council for final approval.
A revised ordinance is expected to return to the City Council in mid-January. Multiple meetings will be canceled in the coming weeks because of the holidays and the annual state of the city, generally held in early January, could push the vote to Jan. 17.
Businesses that have already applied for a permanent parklet will be able to keep their temporary structures through the end of January after the council’s vote Tuesday.