Committee advances ordinance extending grace period for shared‑space permits; staff offer grants and curb management guidance

The Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Feb. 6 advanced an ordinance that would extend the grace period for businesses operating under pandemic shared‑space permits, providing additional time for operators to apply for permanent post‑pandemic permits and for city departments to review and inspect sites.

Planning Department staff said the ordinance would add up to 120 days to the existing 60‑day wind‑down period after the pandemic program’s expiration, for a cumulative 180 days, to allow permittees to implement safety and accessibility fixes, receive inspections, and secure post‑pandemic authorizations. Robin Abad of the Planning Department summarized outreach efforts and said about 350 former pandemic permittees had not yet submitted an application; staff are conducting phone‑banking and targeted follow‑up ahead of a March 31 submittal deadline.

The committee heard that staff will set internal processing milestones, including providing initial feedback within 30 days of a complete application and asking operators to implement required site fixes within 60 days after receiving departmental transmittals. Abad also described available resources: equity grants of approximately $2,500 per parklet site to defray safety and accessibility upgrade costs; staff pointed attendees to sf.gov/sharedspacesequity for application details and noted the continuation of neighborhood outreach and public service announcements.

Members pressed staff on enforcement and property‑owner consent. Board President Aaron Peskin sought clarification on the ordinance’s wording and whether the added 120 days would stack with the current 60‑day wind‑down; staff said the intent was cumulative and the deputy city attorney agreed to check the ordinance text and formatting. Peskin also told staff he would pursue future amendments (file duplication) to preserve the city’s ability to issue notices of violation during the grace period and to add a process that could deem nonresponsive adjoining property owners as having consented after specified outreach, so incoming businesses could assume stewardship of existing parklets when owners cannot be reached.

Vice Chair Dean Preston asked for district‑level data after noting that a relatively small share of operators in his district had applied; staff said figures are fluid and said they would provide updated breakdowns and partner with supervisors on outreach.

Monica Munowich of the Municipal Transportation Agency described a block‑by‑block curb‑management strategy that assesses commercial and passenger loading needs, assigns corridor typologies (including so‑called 'yellow zones'), and may require parklet relocations, reductions or removals to preserve loading and transit operations. MTA staff said businesses had been notified months in advance when assessments indicated a need to change parklet footprints and that approvals would be handled on a case‑by‑case basis.

One remote caller, Laurie Thomas, who identified herself as the executive director of a restaurant group (transcript phrasing unclear), praised outreach efforts and said the extension was a helpful approach for operators.

After discussion, Chair Mirna Melgar moved that the committee send the ordinance to the full Board with a positive recommendation; the motion passed 3‑0 (Peskin (recorded in some transcript lines as 'Paskin'), Preston and Melgar voting 'Aye'). Separately, the committee approved a motion by Peskin to continue the duplicated file to the call of the chair so the deputy city attorney could prepare proposed amendments. The committee adjourned.

The Board is expected to consider items advanced by the committee on Feb. 14 unless otherwise noted. The ordinance’s exact text and any future amendments (including any deeming process for nonresponsive property owners) remain subject to city‑attorney review and additional committee or Board action.