By now our parklet lifelines to local restaurants have the feel of permanence on the streets of B'game. Back in August 2020, I noted that parklets are far superior to closing the whole darn street and that has played out as expected. Now comes the question of permanence and payment. The Daily Journal is reporting that
While businesses thus far have not been charged for use of the public space, the City Council this week voiced favor for establishing cleaning and rental fees likely to cost upwards of $5,100 yearly. The charges would likely begin at some point next year for a one-year pilot period, after which the city would reassess and make changes as needed. The bulk of the cost, a $300 per month cleaning fee, could be reduced if the city’s expenses for the service were less than expected.
The remaining rental cost was determined based on Mountain View’s permanent parklet program that charges 9% of going rental rates. Given Burlingame commercial rents and the typical 300-square-foot size of parklets, a $1,500 yearly charge was decided on. Additionally, a $769 new application fee and $205 permit renewal fee would be levied.
If that is the algorithm, and I'm not sure it should be, then B'way parklets should be a little cheaper than on the Avenew. Burlingame is currently home to 43 parklets occupying 88 parking spaces, according to the city. So we are talking about $220K per year added to the restaurant bills in town. I'm not fluent in restaurants' P&L's but I will ask a few owners to find out. They are probably in "what choice do I have?" mode which might explain this:
Councilmember Mike Brownrigg, part of the economic subcommittee tasked with determining appropriate fees and guidelines, noted input from businesses in the process had been limited, though “not for want of trying.”
And then there is the street parking issue for non-restaurants which may come to a head when "permanence" starts filtering out
Also, in some instances where parklets extend into the frontage of a neighboring storefront, the neighboring business could request the parklet be moved or shrunk. Councilmember Donna Colson suggested the neighboring business could be required to pay for part of the rebuilding, or a timeframe could be established in which parklets would not be required to be moved or rebuilt.
“You have to have some fairness, you can’t build a $40,000 parklet and then your neighbor says ‘you know what, you have to take it down now,’” she said.
Left unsaid was the hubbub from San Francisco where a 60 page rulebook landed on restaurants' doorsteps causing havoc according to the Comicle.
The notices from multiple city agencies cited rules that she’d never seen: The walls needed to be lowered. The roof needed to be removed. It could occupy only one parking space. And if it wasn’t all fixed in 14 days, she’d be fined $100, then $200, then $500 on the third day onward.
Sidewalks less than 10' wide mean Fire Department access to the building would be impeded by having a roof on the parklet and they need to have 3' of buffer (meaning an opening) on each side also for emergency access. I'm reminded of the Chicken Chicken! fire in 2005. And SF wants a 20' clearance from any intersection which seems too small to me. I also worry about being able to see through the parklets to see on-coming traffic. When I drive north on Laguna at B'way, the Rocca parklet has a takeout sign on the side of the parklet that blocks the visibility of eastbound traffic. It's very tricky to get through that intersection in any direction.
Bottom Line: There are some refinements to be made and money to be collected, but parklets are here to stay at least until some climate warrior outlaws propane heaters. And there are some really nice ones in town. Maybe Beautification should start a new category-- Best Parklet.
Recent Comments