01007.0001/1051539.1
Attachment 1 - 10-DAY REPORT ON
INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE 05-
25.docx
10-Day Report on Interim Ordinance No. 05-25,
01007.0001/1051539.1
On January 28, 2025, pursuant to a 5 -0 vote, the City Council of the City of Richmond adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 05-25 (the “Ordinance”), which established a temporary 45 -day moratorium on the establishment, expansion or term extensions of parklets within the City limits.
The moratorium was enacted pursuant to Section 65858 of the California Government Code, and took effect immediately. It will expire on March 14, 2025 unless extended by the Council.
The purpose of the moratorium is to allow the City time to study and consider the further regulation of parklets to ensure that public roadways and public property remain free from nuisances, sa fe and accessible for all users, clear of conditions that pose threats to public health, safety, and welfare, and to ensure that future development is undertaken in a manner consistent with the City’s General Plan, and that any parklet installations comply with State and City regulations that inure to the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, the City will analyze the possibility of including regulations pertaining to parklet aesthetics and consider options for mitigating impacts to the aesthetics of commercial areas and local City streets.
Subdivision (d) of Section 65858 of the Government Code provides that “[t]en days prior to the expiration of that interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance.” This report complies with the requirements of Government Code section 65858(d).
“Parklet” is broadly described on the City’s website as a “removeable platform made available to the public for recreational use that occupies a portion of a parking lane that is closed to motor vehicle parking.” The current procedure to obtain a parklet permit from the City entails completing a simple Parklet Application consisting of five basic questions pertaining to the applicant’s name, Parklet location, current permit status, whether the applicant has received a notice of violation from any state or l ocal authority, the name of the property owner and signatures, along with a simple site map reflecting the area impacted, and two photographs. It requires no indication of type of use, hours of operation, manner in which the owner will monitor the use, how potential complaints from local businesses or residents will be tracked or handled, what the potential impacts to vehicle or pedestrian traffic may be, or any other nuisances or detrimental impacts to public health, safety and welfare. Although it require s “letter(s)” of community support, it does not specify the level of support needed or the process for managing community concerns once the Parklet is established. Finally, enforcement procedures have been cumbersome.
During the period the moratorium has so far been in place, the City, particularly the Public Works Department, has begun the process of studying the details of parklet programs developed in other local cities, such as the local Cities of Alameda and Albany, and considering the details of those parklet programs and their impact on public health, safety and welfare, as well as the local aesthetics of city streets and commercial areas. But the City needs more time to complete the study, which would include a more detailed revie w of these local City’s programs, as well as possibly conducting traffic studies within the City of Richmond , and careful consideration of suggested design standards, specific areas within City limits that might be appropriate for parklet programing, and other factors. The City must also carefully consider what standards and regulations would serve the City’s needs and meet the essential goals of protecting the public peace, health, and safety
01007.0001/1051539.1
in Richmond, as well as developing possible design standards that mitigate impacts to or possibly enhance local aesthetics.
Completing the required analyses, as well as developing and implementing the appropriate modifications, is anticipated to take at least several months. Therefore, the initial 45 days’ effectiveness of the moratorium enacted by Ordinance No. 05-25 provides an insufficient amount of time to fully study and consider all the above, and any other impacts, as well as proposals and solutions.