A community-centered review of accessibility, commerce, and quality-of-life issues related to parklets, OAPs and OEPs in the Belmont Shore and Pier areas. (May 24, 2022) Problematic Parklets
1 History & Context
JUNE 2020
Temporary parklets were established throughout Long Beach to help bars and restaurants survive during the pandemic when indoor dining was not allowed.
Under the city’s Office of Special Events & Filming, similarly structured Outdoor Activity Permits (OAPs) and Occasional Event Permits (OEPs) were extended to businesses that did not fit under the temporary parklets program.
Multiple restaurants and bars received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal PPP loans (largely forgiven), as well as state and city aid funds.
It has been two years and not one restaurant or bar in Belmont Shore has closed due to the pandemic.
2 History & Context
JULY 2012
George’s Greek Cafe sought a parklet comprising two parking spaces but was opposed by the Belmont Shore Business Association.
Concerns cited:
•Loss of parking
•Loss of parking meter revenue
•Alcohol being served in the parklet
•Hazards for drivers, pedestrians and diners
3 History & Context
JULY 2012 (continued)
Other business owners questioned the fairness, practicalities, safety and fit:
“You are taking a public space and making it private.” — Caught in the Moment co-owner Salvador Farfan regarding a business taking a space meant for use by the general public
“I would never want to take parking spaces away. Also, I just cannot imagine carrying food across the sidewalk.” — La Strada owner Lisa Ramelow “There may come a point in time where Second Street would fit perfectly with a parklet — today I don’t see it because of safety concerns, movement of traffic and even a greater issue of parking.” — Kurt Schneiter, owner of multiple properties on Second Street
4 History & Context
CIRCA 2010
The Belmont Athletic Club requested that a single parking space in front of its business be turned into a bike corral but was turned down.
Reasons given:
•Parking is too valuable in Belmont Shore.
•It would be dangerous.
•The sidewalk traffic would be unmanageable.
5 History & Context
1996-97
Bars and restaurants on Second Street
were already granted Sidewalk Dining,
allowing them to add tables and occupy
pedestrian space in front of the building
facade.
Most of these Sidewalk Dining spaces
encroach beyond the designated area,
into the pedestrian walkway.
6 The Realities
Temporary parklets, OAPs and OEPs
have had little to no oversight and
upkeep, resulting in unsightly spaces that
encroach on surrounding businesses and
public areas. A permanent parklet
program would result in permanent
problems.
The unique characteristics of Second
Street and the Pier area do not support
the imposition of structures with direct,
harmful impact to residents in close
proximity.
7 The Realities
This is not European-style dining, which is
plaza and sidewalk based, organic to the
neighborhood, not close to traffic, and does
not take away vital street space.
Input to city leaders should have focused on
residents of Belmont Shore as the essential,
vital stakeholders. Instead, the November
2021 survey initially polled only business
owners and their customers, typically visitors
from outside Belmont Shore, about a concept
that primarily benefits those businesses and
their customers. Outreach to actual residents
of Belmont Shore was minimal.
8 Retabulation of Parklets Survey Data
9
the survey’s only open-ended question, which asked respondents’ opinion of the parklets, but not permanent parklets.
After reviewing the raw data, reading all the individual responses, and retabulating the results, the data tell a different story.
Retabulation: Overview
The original survey
results misleadingly
included responses
from several districts,
not just Belmont Shore.
130 responses were
from other districts.
10 Retabulation: New Insights
The retabulated data show only 37% support for parklets by respondents in the impacted area.
49%
32%
9%
Source: City survey conducted November 2021.
Of 454 THIRD DISTRICT
Responders
30%Support the program
7%Support, but with restrictions
42%Parking & traffic objections
12%Accessibility objections
8%Other opposition to parklets
37%
Source: Same data retabulated with relevant defined criteria.
And one fifth of those respondents support
with restrictions, which may not be
addressed in a permanent parklet program.
11 Recoded Recoded
and CD 3
FOR 41.9% 37.1%
Support 33.7% 29.8%
Support w/ Restrictions 7.5% 6.9%
Support of Specific Parklet .7% 0.4%
AGAINST 56.4%61.4%
Negative Impact to Parking 15.0% 16.6%
Safety/Accessibility (ADA)
& Aesthetics 10.9% 12.1%
Traffic Congestion 8.9% 8.9%
Traffic & Parking Objections 11.5% 13.8%
Lack of Use 0.9% 1.1%
Parklet-Specific Complaint 1.0% 1.3%
Object w/o Elaborating 3.1% 2.8%
Support But Temporary Only 5.1% 4.8%
Comment But No
Stance 1.8% 1.5%
Comparison of
Retabulated Data
The City’s presentation stated that
that those opposed to the parklets
have “concerns.”
Comments against parklets
expressed not just concerns but
strong anti-parklet positions.
12 13
Intensity of
Responses
There is a marked difference in the
vigor of responses on the parklets:
Those who support the parklets
tended to write short answers, but
those who oppose them wrote
lengthy, detailed explanations for
opposition.
Although the city’s survey responses
were tabulated based on a singular
reason, those who oppose tended to
state several reasons for
discontinuation of the parklets.
Source: City survey of November 2021. Comments
by respondents in support of parklets.
Source: City survey of November 2021. Comments
by respondents opposing parklets.
Residents’ and Customers’ Quotes
The parklets on 2nd Street are a safety hazard to vehicles and pedestrians. It’s dangerous to make a right hand turn onto 2nd Street.
And they create incredible parking problems for both residents and customers who walk to 2nd. “The parklets are unsightly, unsafe for vehicle or pedestrian views/travel, a place for transients to sleep, block the sidewalk/ ADA right of way with servers/patrons, eliminate much-needed parking, which negatively impacts residential streets and blocks views of the retail businesses which have also struggled.” “Reduced Safety. Pedestrian visibility lost. Increased Traffic. Parking impacts. Vermin increase. Difficult to walk on 2nd now- tables, patrons and servers block pedestrians. ADA issues. Lost parking revenue. Lost parking for residents. Businesses already had sidewalk dining,”
“Can we end this in the Shore?
14 “I have gone to Belmont Shore only once since the parklets were installed. I have tried to go back since the lockdown ended but it is too dangerous and chaotic. Parking and traffic were bad enough before parklets.” For years parking-impacted Belmont Shore worked with the sitting councilperson to improve parking on our streets. Great hype was afforded to reconfiguring red stripes to achieve 5 new parking places. Now scores are removed without any hesitancy. Making a right turn onto Second Street from our residential streets is an adventure because oncoming traffic is not visible because of the parklets.
Other CD3 Responses
Multiple respondents questioned the appropriateness
and legality of converting a thoroughfare to a for-profit business.
Although 1% cited lack of use as a primary reason for
opposing parklets, a full 15% cited low utilization as a secondary reason for opposing parklets.
Several respondents expressed the desire that the annual Christmas Parade be able to resume on Second Street, but feared parklets would halt or restrict the parade.
15 Residents Not Considered Stakeholders
Residents are not considered stakeholders* in the
Belmont Shore parklets despite being most affected
and expressing strong opposition in regard to parking
impact, traffic safety, and quality of life.
The city’s survey did not distinguish between
residents and customers, mingling the responses of
those impacted by parklets and those from other areas
just using the parklets.
*That framing of the issue has been stated and reiterated by Public Works staff in various conversations.
The original
flyer had no
mention of
residents.
16 Population of Belmont Shore: 7,680
Population of Long Beach: 491,500
Belmont Shore population 1.6%
Parklets in Belmont Shore: 31
Parklets in Long Beach: 84
Belmont Shore parklets 37%
Belmont Shore has 37% of the city’s parklets,
despite having less than 2% of the population.
Parklets do not belong in a population-
dense neighborhood on a busy
thoroughfare.
Sources: Belmont Shore Population: www.StatisticalAtlas.com, www.areavibes.com, www.city-data.com, www.niche.com Long Beach Population: City of Long Beach
Belmont Shore Parklet count: Conducted by B. Cochrane and E. Tejidor on April 26, 2022. This count refers to physical parklets as some restaurants have two structures.
Long Beach Parklets count: Public Works May 3 2022, R. Light Lack of Suitability
17 Decreased Traffic Safety
City of Long Beach Police Records reveal a significant
increase in the percentage of accidents with injury on
Second Street between Livingston and Bayshore.
Despite a decline in vehicular traffic from decreased commuting, there is a disproportionally higher rate of accidents involving injury.
18.9%
47.8%
July 2019-June 2020 July 2020-June 2021
AccidentDateTime Description Location
7/7/2020 13:00Hit And Run Without Injury Park Av/E 2Nd St 7/8/2020 9:58Traffic Accident With Injury E 2Nd St/Nieto Av 7/23/2020 12:00Hit And Run Without Injury E 2Nd St/Santa Ana Av 8/17/2020 11:30Traffic Accident With Injury St Joseph Av/E 2Nd St 8/29/2020 17:30Hit And Run Without Injury St Joseph Av/E 2Nd St 9/5/2020 19:32Traffic Accident With Injury Santa Ana Av/E 2Nd St 9/28/2020 6:28Traffic Accident With Injury E 2Nd St/Roycroft Av 10/23/2020 14:27Traffic Accident Without Injury5000 Block E 2Nd St 12/13/2020 7:30Hit And Run Without Injury E 2Nd St/Granada Av 12/20/2020 12:12Hit And Run Without Injury St Joseph Av/E 2Nd St 1/15/2021 17:43Hit And Run With Injury E 2Nd St/Quincy Av 1/20/2021 17:48Traffic Accident With Injury E 2Nd St/Santa Ana Av 1/29/2021 19:13Hit And Run Without Injury E 2Nd St/Nieto Av 1/30/2021 16:13Traffic Accident With Injury E 2Nd St/Park Av 2/1/2021 16:15Traffic Accident With Injury E 2Nd St/Park Av 3/15/2021 15:33Traffic Accident Without InjuryE 2Nd St/St Joseph Av 3/21/2021 17:14Traffic Accident With Injury E 2Nd St/Corona Av 4/2/2021 21:08Traffic Accident With Injury E 2Nd St/Santa Ana Av 4/25/2021 12:27Traffic Accident Without InjuryE 2Nd St/Granada Av 5/12/2021 5:59Traffic Accident Without InjuryE 2Nd St/Park Av 5/20/2021 17:39Traffic Accident Without InjuryPark Av/E 2Nd St 6/2/2021 12:20Hit And Run Without Injury E 2Nd St/Nieto Av 6/12/2021 16:44Traffic Accident With Injury E 2Nd St/Roycroft Av 18 Who Gains?
Just a dozen or so bars and
restaurants that have already
been given public space in the
form of Sidewalk Dining and
who barely use the temporary
parklet spaces outside peak,
high-traffic periods
19 •Neighboring businesses that are
barely visible behind and next to
the parklet structures
•Their current and potential
customers, who can’t see the
facades, can’t find parking close
to the business and have lost
many of the former 24-minute
green loading zones
Who Loses?
20 Who Loses?
•Residents and visitors, who have seen the loss of 62+
parking spaces to temporary parklets and would only
lose more access should permanent parklets be allowed
and other businesses inevitably seek permits as well
•While the Parking Commission plans to charge an offset fee to bars and restaurants with parklets that result in the loss of meters, the spaces themselves are forever
lost to residents and visitors.
•Pedestrians, especially those with disabilities, lose
navigability and face safety hurdles on the sidewalks,
crossing at intersections and reaching non-bar, non-
restaurant destinations.
21 Issue: Underutilization
Parklet spaces are congested during just a small
handful of peak periods.
But they’re vastly underused most of the time:
•Breakfast places that close midafternoon
•Bars and restaurants that don’t open until later
afternoon or early evening
Absent Covid restrictions, parklets largely just
relocate patrons who would have otherwise dined
inside or used a Sidewalk Dining space.
Space cannot be reclaimed or repurposed while it is
not being used.
The cost-benefit ratio to the community is not
reasonable or fair.
22 Issue: Parking
It’s a longstanding and ever-problematic challenge in Belmont Shore.
The City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars multiple times for consultants to conduct parking studies to find solutions for the highly parking-impacted Belmont Shore. The challenge only worsens. 62 parking spaces are currently occupied by temporary parklets.
Creating permanent parklets means never regaining lost parking spaces and almost certainly losing even more.
Existing access hurdles for residents and customers of Second Street businesses were exacerbated by the temporary parklets and would only expand with permanent parklets.
23 Issue: Traffic and Public Safety
Making a right- or left-hand turn onto Second Street has become appreciably more dangerous, as the parklets obscure the view of intersecting traffic.
There is a pronounced lack of visibility at crosswalks on Second Street with the existing temporary parklets: People with a low profile can’t see or be seen around the parklet structures and other objects.
Traffic accidents have increased since
Belmont Shore parklets were installed,
and several parklets have been
obliterated by automobiles.
24 Issue: ADA and General Accessibility
Many restaurants and bars encroach on the sidewalk and allow just 3 feet of “walk zone” even though the city permit and parklet documentation require 5 feet.
The cross traffic on sidewalks has made it very difficult for people with mobility- related disabilities and for those who are visually impaired to visit Second Street.
Large delivery trucks cannot find legal
parking, so they park in bus stops,
causing people with disabilities to
travel beyond their destination. They
also double park in the right-hand
lane of Second Street, posing traffic
hazards.
25 City Response to ADA and Traffic Issues
Guidance: Following an April presentation to the city’s Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Disabilities (CACoD), the commission sent a letter (May 12, 2022) to the mayor and council members “urging the City and its departments to re- evaluate the parklets with our disability community in mind, and not after complaints are made.”
Action: After learning in April that delivery trucks are parking in bus stops because they cannot find other parking amid 62 spaces being taken up by parklets on Second Street. LB Transit “dispatched a supervisor to monitor this corridor, bus operators are being instructed to call in all trucks blocking bus stops so that we can build a better case, and the police will be dispatched if necessary. We are going to continue to closely monitor this situation to make sure that it gets resolved.” 26 Issue: Public Land to For-Profit Businesses
If the city allows permanent parklets, public land will be turned over to for-profit businesses. These businesses increase their real estate at the cost of impacted parking and reduced safety. The legality and ethics of such a giveaway are highly questionable.
27 As new restaurants and bars
move in, the number of
parklets will increase.
The move to permanent
parklets will be irrevocable.
Other Issues
Quality of Life (due to petty crime, trash, noise,
safety, vermin) has been greatly affected.
Unsuitable and unprofessional appearance:
•“Artwork” and gaudy promos on some parklets
•Sidewalk trees not being watered
•Crumbling parklet walls not repaired
•Dogs urinating and defecating in the spaces
when they’re not occupied
•Outdoor storage of standing heaters/umbrellas,
which is against city ordinance
•Standing water around the barriers and platforms
28 The Pier Area
Three businesses — Belmont Brewing Company, Iconix Fitness and Primal Alchemy Catering — operating under OAPs and OEPs and not officially “parklets,” have:
•Substantially and detrimentally encroached on public walkways •Impeded safe operation of neighboring businesses
•Created and exacerbated transit and accessibility hazards •Generated illegal and inappropriate levels of noise in a compact residential area All three are situated within the Coastal Zone and subject to Coastal Commission oversight and not exempted as part of Long Beach’s authority under the LCP.
Protection of public access to the beach and waterfront are essential to this area, per the Coastal Commission and state mandates.
29 The Pier Area: Belmont Brewing Company
BBC installed permanent anchors and railings in violation of its permits in July 2020.
Expansion east of the space was explicitly denied by the Coastal Commission previously.
BBC vendors, suppliers, staff and customers routinely park in and obstruct the public plaza and pedestrian walkways adjacent.
Its customers blare music and their dogs bark continuously just 100 feet from residences.
Staff loudly drag tables and chairs in and out twice a day. They loudly drag and dump bottles and trash 10-20 times per day into an outdoor dumpster. BBC vendors regularly do construction and repairs (loudly sawing, drilling and stapling) in the public walkway.
BBC delivery trucks bring in supplies in the middle of the night and very early hours of the day. They noisily drop lift ramps and pile kegs and cartons onto pallets that are dragged through the narrow public plaza adjacent to hundreds of neighborhood residents. 30
31 The Pier Area: Iconix Fitness
Iconix Fitness took over an entire side of Olympic Plaza Drive under its OAP, one of the few metered streets servicing both beach visitors and adjacent businesses, resulting in the loss of some 21 parking spaces and several loading zones.
Iconix instructors use a PA system to loudly conduct classes outdoors, with the sound reaching high volumes and projecting more than 100 feet from the facade in violation of its OAP permit. Profanity-laden music infiltrates an adjacent children’s daycare center.
Iconix conducts classes not just in the OAP-permitted area but on the public path and in the public park space on the other side of Olympic Plaza Drive.
The fenced outdoor area utilized by Iconix, full of debris and sandbags, extends well past the property line and obstructs adjacent businesses. 32 33
The Pier Area: Primal Alchemy Catering
Under an OEP, Primal Alchemy has held public sales and promotional events in front of its building, extending into and encroaching on the public plaza and walkway with tables, entertainers and owner/employee vehicles.
Despite having a back parking space as part of its lease, Primal Alchemy owners and employees routinely park their vehicles in the public walkway, impeding pedestrians and blocking the curb cuts for handicapped access.
Owners and staff routinely and loudly unload service trucks and vehicles in the public walkway at all hours of the day, pulling out and dropping noisy lift ramps and dragging supplies 20-100 feet across the walkway to the business entry.
Owners and employees regularly hold after-hours parties in front of the building, playing loud music, drinking in public, and obstructing the public walkway. 34 35
Restore the neighborhood feel, safety and walkability of Second Street and the Pier by returning them to their pre-pandemic state.
End the temporary parklets, and prohibit permanent parklets, OAPs and OEPs on Second Street and at the Pier.
Parklets should not
be made permanent.
The Goal. The Ask. … The Necessity.
36