AI-generated transcript of City Council Committee of the Whole 02-08-23

[Nicole Morell]: 22-514 Committee of the Whole meeting Wednesday, February 8th, 2023 at 6 p.m. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Ferris.

[Richard Caraviello]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins. Present. Councilor Knight.

[Richard Caraviello]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli.

[Richard Caraviello]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Present.

[Nicole Morell]: Present. Seven present, zero absent. The meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, February 8th, 2023 at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chambers on the second floor of Medford City Hall and via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss a proposed update to the Outdoor Dining Ordinance within Medford paper 22-514. The committee has invited Interim Economic Development Director Victor Schrader and a representative of the Office Planning Development and Sustainability to attend this meeting. For further information, aids and accommodations, contact the city clerk at 781-393 2425, Sincerely Yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. We do have Alicia Hahn and Yvette Niwa here. Victor is unable to make it, so Yvette will be providing us an update. And I see Councilor Scarpellillo has his hand up. Just a quick, this meeting, we had an earlier meeting on this paper. We had a few edits that we wanted the PDS team to make to the current ordinance. They have made those suggested edits, and are here tonight to present it to us, and it's also in our email, and we have some hard copies for those of us in the chamber. Going to Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to reiterate and reinforce what I've been saying for at least the last couple of weeks, that I completely understand where we are as a council and try to bring business forward, but I think that I really want to implore my colleague to start looking at what we're asking to do in looking at ordinance like this one and things that could be maybe put on the back burner until we have a city solicitor, so we're not paying paying the fees for KP law, especially without understanding the funding mechanism and not seeing what the monies are and what we're paying them. So again, I completely understand, Madam President, for having the meeting. I know it's very difficult to sit back and understand that we can't do our jobs properly or do any job dealing with our city ordinances without some kind of legal review. But I just want to make sure the community knows that, and I know that most of us are on the same page, that until we find out where we are financially, I think we need to, you know, I request moving forward that we really look deeply in what we ask for KP law, what kind of work we ask them to do for us. When it comes, you know, I look at this ordinance of this situation as one that could maybe be held off until we find and get a city solicitor that works for us when we're not paying what we don't know. So again, I hate to sound that I'm just being critical. I don't mean to be. I understand I've talked to my colleagues individually, and I understand that we all need to try to find a way to do our jobs, but Um, I think it's time that we need to really try to figure out and pick and choose what we can do and what we shouldn't do. Because we're paying, we're paying an organization something that we really don't know what we're paying them and why we're paying them. Excuse me, I know why we're paying them because we don't have a city solicitor. And if the jobs being done by an outside vendor, and they're getting paid x amount of whatever dollars they are, and there's no reason why the administration should be, you know, put forth an aggressive step toward hiring a city solicitor or an assistant city solicitor that works directly with the council. So like again, I said, Madam President, I respect your position. I know it's a difficult one, but I just need to share my concerns publicly again. So thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And the ordinance before us tonight, I think any edits we have right now have only been provided by PDS. There hasn't been a KP law involvement, but I, you know, anywhere else to your point does have need to leave a review. So I just want to note that. Councilor. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Having had the opportunity to review this proposed ordinance, I really don't see, a reason to stand in the way of it. I certainly echo Council Scarpelli's sentiments. When you think about our relationship with the administration and the direction that I said he's going in. I think it's safe to say that you know when you look around the city and you see the conditions of our roadways and just what it looks like we're far better off. We were far better off four years ago than we are now. I said, but that being said, there are certain departments. in City Hall that are willing to work with the Council and promote an agenda that gets us to yes. And I think that this is a decent proposal as before us this evening. I'm very concerned about the lack of financial transparency that's going on with the administration, the lack of fiscal constraint that's been exhibited by the administration. And that's something that we're going to have to address down the line. But there are certain things that fall within this Council's purview. with this within this council scope. And I think this is one of them. And, you know, acting on this thing in a favorable manner, favorable manner, I think is not going to hurt the community, I think it's going to help the community. You know, it's my understanding, we've spent three times the amount of money on outside council with KP law, and we spent on what we're going to use to resurface our roadways. Now, that's not a situation that has anything to do with the city council. That is something that has really to do with the values of this administration. All right, you know, if they're spending $3.5 or $2.6 million on outside legal counsel that doesn't represent the city but represents that mayor's office, that just tells us where the values lay. But you know, when we look at what this council wants to do and what direction this council wants to move in, I think it shows, you know, that we're ready to move in a direction that's going to create development, create growth in this community, so that we can withstand some of the ill-advised financial decisions that are being made by the administration.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any other Councilors who'd like to speak before we hear from Yvette? Seeing none, when you're ready, and just name and address for the record, City Hall address is fine.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford. Good evening, Council. Thank you for having me tonight. I'm here with Alicia Hunt, Director of the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability. As you know, we previously met in December to discuss the proposed update to the City's Outdoor Dining Ordinance, and we are back today with responses to your feedback. Just to give you a quick overview of what we'll be discussing, we'll first discuss the motions made at the last meeting, and then a few additional changes made to the language of the ordinance that have been made since we last met. And finally, we'll discuss some options for licensing fees. For the fees, we'd like to get your thoughts on the best way to structure these. And based on your feedback, we're happy to come back with an additional proposal if necessary. All right, so there were two motions that came out of the previous meeting. The first motion was that outdoor dining furniture should be locked in place nightly and trash should be removed nightly as well. And additionally, that our office should propose design standards for outdoor seating areas. So for the first part of that motion, that furniture be locked away nightly and trash removed nightly, If you'll turn to the ordinance, and if you see page four, items seven and eight, we did add some language around procedures for furniture and trash after business hours. So item seven, outdoor dining furniture must be locked or stored inside during non-business hours. And item eight, the licensee shall provide and maintain trash receptacles, including clearing them daily at the end of service receptacles provided by the licensee must be stored inside during non-business hours. We also included some draft design guidelines, and we've actually included this in the second document that I provided you tonight. And we also sent this out in email, but Director Hunt has this up on the screen. So in the license requirements document, if you'll go to the last page, we have proposed some design guidelines. Also note, sorry on that, the requirements for trash and furniture, they're also included in this license requirements document on the first page. But the design guidelines are on the last page, and I'll just quickly run through those. So item one stipulates the appropriate materials for barriers and some options for art. Item two further expands on options for art and decoration for barriers such as planters, with the provision that any adornments to barriers do not impede sightlines. Item three covers requirements for canopies over seating areas. And similarly, item four covers requirements for umbrellas in seating areas. Item five provides guidelines for including flooring. It's strongly encouraged in parklets, but not permitted in sidewalk seating areas. Item six covers best practices and requirements for lighting and seating areas. And item seven stipulates the circumstances under which an electric permit would be required. And finally, item eight requires that all aspects of the seating areas design and decorations and furniture be included in the initial license application to the building department. I'll give you a moment to look over that or any comments or questions as well.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Knight, is your hand still up or up again?

[Adam Knight]: Still up.

[Nicole Morell]: Great. We'll go to vices and affairs

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. And thank you for the presentation. I also had a chance to review the draft ordinance and the kind of license requirements policy or regulations that'll go along with it. And I think it meets the intent of our motions from last meeting and also is a significant improvement over the current ordinance. I just had two questions about the actually like that structure of the ordinance itself. Is the intent here that we would strike the entire existing ordinance under Article eight or Chapter 14 Article eight and replace it with this new language? Or is there another intent there? I just want to clarify that because there's a couple sections that are currently in Article eight that aren't included in this new draft that I do think we should keep.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Okay. We do pull a lot of the existing language into the proposed. Procedurally, I am actually, I don't have the answer to that, but I'd be happy to clarify at a later point, whether we are deciding to just make adjustments or strike the whole ordinance. I'd also be interested to know which sections you'd like to hold over into the new version.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and it's really more of a technical question. I noticed that a lot of the language does move over. The two sections that I do want to work to keep in here would be everything under Division 3, which is really just one section, the severability section 14-494, and then there's one section under Division one generally section 14 dash 488, which has temporary seating. And that says, due to the seasonal and temporary nature of an outdoor dining area, the seating within an outdoor dining area will not be considered an increase in the number of seats serving a restaurant or eating establishment and will not be counted towards the require any requirement. for the serving of alcohol, wine, cordials, or malt beverages. And I didn't see that language included in the new draft, but I may have missed that. Those are the only two sections I wanted to include. And then the only reason I'm asking about the strike and replace, or if we're gonna do something else is just to make sure that we get the section numbers and division numbers right.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay, so Madam President. This is Alicia Hunt, the director of planning. It is the intention that this would be a strike and replace. And both of those are addressed. I think that it was actually the next section that Yvette was about to go to. It uses the word conflicts rather than severability. But we included on the last page of the ordinance, sorry, I'm doing multiple screens here. Conflicts of any provision of this outdoor dining ordinance, conflicts with any other city ordinance, this ordinance shall control. I believe that's the intention of the severability section. And if you prefer the language in 14-494, I think it's a matter of choice. We were just using more modern language. That says if any provisions, paragraph, sentence, or clause of this bylaw shall be held invalid for any reason. All other provisions shall continue in full force and effect. I guess that is actually slightly different.

[Zac Bears]: I'm happy if both of them would be included as well. And that's just because I think this one protects us against the language you have in here protects if there's an issue with another city ordinance. But say for some reason, a court strikes down the dog license requirement, right? I mean, I don't know that that would happen. But I don't want the whole ordinance to be called into question. So I think the severability language and the existing ordinance protects us from agencies outside of the city.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, and that's easy enough to bring over that one as well. Conflicts and severability there, we'll bring that in. Did you have an answer?

[Zac Bears]: If you could point me to where 14-488 is factored in, because I just want to make sure that I saw that.

[Alicia Hunt]: That one actually, I'm double checking with Yvette, because at first I thought it was on a different thing. Did you guys discuss this about it?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: I don't believe so. The closest I think we get is talking about the plumbing code, which is kind of related to this. The guidance we've received from building department and building commissioners that while the The existing ordinance stipulates that the outdoor dining seating is seasonal and temporary and not to be included in an increase in the number of seats. I don't believe that's how it's interpreted in the state plumbing code and would be counted in the restaurant's number of seats. I understand that the existing ordinance specifically is referencing the requirement for serving alcohol, wine, and other malt beverages. but there would be, that is a difference when it comes to the plumbing code.

[Alicia Hunt]: Okay. It might be helpful to know that some of this is being discussed at a state level. I think that incorporating this paragraph about it being seasonal and not counting towards alcohol and malt beverages, unless you, so you've participated in a conversation with, statewide economic staff around outdoor dining. And so it sounds like you did not touch this one. They did touch on the plumbing code and some of the other issues that she's actually going to raise in a minute. And there is some interest statewide in making some change in addressing some of these issues statewide. So my recommendation had been that we keep ours as general as possible so that we can be responsive if the state adjusts some of their legal language around outdoor dining. Is that clear? But we could certainly, this is certainly a paragraph that could be incorporated in as well. Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and that's, yeah, I kind of saw it, it kind of was, I was wondering if that plumbing code paragraph was kind of related to this. Um, yeah, I would just, uh, you know, move and we can vote on them at the end. Just that the sections 14-488 and 14-494 language be incorporated into the new draft ordinance.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Does that address your questions for now, or do you have more?

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's it, and that's it.

[Nicole Morell]: Great. Councilor Cabrera, I saw you with your hand up before. Was your question addressed?

[Richard Caraviello]: I did, I just said, you know, regarding the alcohol. I know when existing restaurants put on patios, they were required to get an extension of their liquor license. Does this, where it's seasonal, does this constitute them getting an extension of their liquor license also?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Yes. For the past few years under pandemic emergency orders, businesses have been able to go to the Medford Licensing Commission to get what's called an alteration of premises license to extend their premises and ability to serve alcohol to the seating areas.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: And then you both just mentioned something about plumbing.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: You wanted to share or just as it pertains to how we count seats. But okay, we covered it.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Yeah, there's no other questions at this time, so if you want to share that.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: All right, so the second motion that came out of the previous meeting was to explore options for bringing parklets up to the curb level. We haven't added this language to the proposed ordinance or the proposed changes to the ordinance yet, but we have brought several options to present before you today and get your feedback. And I'll note that these options aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. They could work together one, two, or three of them. So the first option I'll present to you would be in the ordinance or license requirements, adding language that would require the dining areas located in the street, so parklet seating, be level with the curb. An alternate option, The city can create programs to encourage dining platforms. For example, a grant program that pays for the design costs and construction of a parklet. Somerville has a similar program where they provide up to $10,000 to restaurant owners who'd like to do this. We can also consider reducing licensing fees. And finally, a third option, would be to rely on the building department to enforce all accessibility requirements. So at the state and federal levels, at the federal level, there's the Americans with Disabilities Act. And then at the state level, we have the Massachusetts Architecture and Access Board. And I'll note in this scenario, a restaurant owner would likely apply to the building department. And let's say they wanted to keep their seating at the street level. may propose a ramp. And I'll note that the asphalt ramps that you've likely seen in Medford and other communities, especially early in the pandemic, the very small ones that just go from the curb and into the street level, would not be sufficient under state requirements, under the Access Boards requirements. So in this scenario, the building department may reject an application on the grounds that those requirements aren't met. And there's a few options here. As Director Hunt mentioned, there have been some discussions and presentations and meetings with statewide economic development staff. We actually received a presentation from an access board representative around this kind of statewide issue of access in seating areas. The principal issue with access is that and accessible path of travel must be maintained in all areas of the outdoor seating, including areas that are sunken, areas that are level. So it wouldn't be sufficient to just provide seating on the sidewalk next to a street level parklet. There needs to be an accessible path of travel through all areas of seating. So it's kind of a complex issue. And some cities are considering applying for waivers for citywide, to the access board, which is something that's possible. Others are waiting for guidance at the state level and seeing what happens. If we were to rely on the building department to enforce these standards and a business wanted to have street-level public seating, likely what would happen is they would apply for their own waiver from the access board. and they would work with the access board to come up with a configuration that was sufficient if they were not going to provide a parklet. So they could always just provide a parklet level with the curb and that would meet requirements.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. I see Councilor Knight with his hand up, Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Motion to adopt the third option as recommended by the board for the building commissioner to uphold the standard.

[Nicole Morell]: So I have a motion from Councilor Knight to adopt the recommendation from PDS to have the building commissioner uphold the standard. Seconded by?

[Zac Bears]: I'll second it, but I have a thought.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Would you like to share your thought now?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Just, I think, I'm fine with that, that option, but I think we should also encourage the Parkwoods. So if the next discussion we have is going to be around the registration fee or whatever we're calling it, I think we should discuss having at least two tiers of registration fees when it comes to on-street outdoor dining, where there'd be a higher registration fee if a business was not planning to have a parklet. And then I think in that way we would encourage the parklets.

[Nicole Morell]: And understanding that the definition is parklet, parklet is when they have the raised.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: So parklet seating is actually any seating that's in the street. A parklet structure or a platform would be that's level with the curb would be what Councilor Bears is talking about. Is that what you meant?

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's what I meant, yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: Parklet structure, okay. Okay, do you wanna take the motion from Councilor Knight now? Or do you wanna wait till the end?

[Adam Knight]: I'll be happy to combine the motions.

[Nicole Morell]: I couldn't understand that.

[Adam Knight]: I'll be happy to combine the motions. To join my name, Councilor Villes.

[Nicole Morell]: Great, sorry, the fan kicked on. Okay, great. So on the motion, do you have a language, Mr. Clerk?

[Adam Hurtubise]: I have Vice President Bears, section 14-480 and 14-494 be incorporated into the draft ordinance. That's for Vice President Bears. I didn't have a second yet. Councilor Knight.

[Nicole Morell]: Councilor Knight seconded that first one.

[Adam Hurtubise]: and then Councilor Knight put down a third option, PDS, to have a building commission on the standards. The second, Vice President Bears.

[Nicole Morell]: And then Councilor Knight, did you mean you wanted to combine with what Vice President Bears just said about the two-tiered structure of fees?

[Adam Knight]: Correct.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay.

[Adam Hurtubise]: So is that an option?

[Adam Knight]: Yeah, that was an option. Adopt option three as amended by Councilor Bears.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Adopt option three, okay. Yes, yes. Yes, that was a motion, correct, Vice President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I mean, I think we're about to discuss the specifics of it, so I don't know if we want to vote on it now or hold all the motions till the end of the meeting.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, we can take them all, but we have them clear now from our clerk. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: I'm curious as to the discussions that you guys have had about these three different options, what you weigh as the pros and cons of these options. You don't have to go super in detail, but I'm just curious what has informed your thinking about this and if you guys lean towards any option.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Sure. So the advantages of a parklet structure. First and foremost, or it being kind of the gold standard in outdoors, outdoor dining for accessibility and providing access to, to all people with all mobility levels to outdoor seating area. the parklet structures are often also attractive. There are two in our community. Not right now, outdoor dining is not happening right now, but last year and they looked really great and added vibrancy to our streets. But requiring parklets does come with a cost, certainly for the business owner. What we've heard from ASK committee members and looking at other communities is that these structures can cost anywhere from $5,000 and beyond. And I'd say $5,000 for a parking space might be a good benchmark to think about it. And that's design costs and construction materials costs as well. And then each year, you would reconstruct the parklet. So that's our thinking.

[Nicole Morell]: Any bears?

[Zac Bears]: Sorry, I left my hand up.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, any other questions discussion at this time?

[Kit Collins]: Thank you and thanks so much for this helpful overview and preparing all this food for thought regarding this ordinance, really appreciate it. Just while we're on the topic, I think that combining these two approaches makes a lot of sense. I think that it's good to reinforce in the language of this ordinance that the building department should be making sure that accessibility requirements are upheld. And at the same time, I think it's important that we try to incentivize individual licensees to build their own parklets and put up some mechanisms to make it, you know, offer some rewards for doing so. I think that, you know, there's a lot of reasons in terms of visual appeal as well as, you know, more importantly, accessibility for trying to promote those. And I think that the two-pronged approach makes the most sense. So, thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Collins. Then I just have a question regarding the seating license requirements as it's to be separate from the ordinance and other establishing only by the building commissioner, the design guidelines fall under this. Did you speak with Commissioner Forti about this at any point or is this?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: We did review our proposal with Commissioner Forti. Yeah. These are also, the design guidelines in particular were also inspired by other communities, but also Director Schroeder, Interim Director Schroeder, heavily edited them to be specific to our community as well. Great, thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other discussion from the Council at this time or is there anything else you wanted to, Councilor Collins?

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. I just wanted to touch on one other subtopic while we have you. I know that on our last Committee of the Whole, one of the discussion points was around having dogs at outdoor seating. And I saw that there's some draft language included here, but I was just hoping if you could briefly walk us through that just to understand what we're looking at here.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, absolutely. So make sure I get the whole list. So included in the license requirements, which yes, is intended to be separate from the body of the ordinance and promulgated by the building commissioner. If you look at, I believe it's page two, item 27, it provides a provision that would allow restaurant owners to permit dogs in their seating area if they'd like to. So certainly no restaurant owner is required to allow dogs in the seating area. But the requirements would be that A, every dog must be leashed and licensed with the city of Medford or I suppose if they're visiting from another community that they would be licensed in that community. The licensee shall provide bowls of water for the sole use of the dogs. Employees are not allowed to touch, pet, or handle dogs. Dogs are not allowed on the outdoor dining furniture, and dogs are not allowed to eat from plates. And that a sign be posted to designate the outdoor dog area as in where dogs are permitted, not where dogs would use the restaurant, but where dogs are permitted in the seating area. And I'll note that these rules do not apply to service animals. Service animals are allowed anywhere in the seating area and in the restaurant as well.

[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you. And looking at the part about this in the text of the ordinance under other minimum requirements. So I just wanted to confirm my read on this. It's that dogs aren't allowed in the outdoor seating areas by default. Licensees can apply to have dogs if they wish to, but petitioners don't have to allow dogs in their outdoor seating areas unless they apply for that. Is that correct?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Confirmed, yes. In their license, it would be specified. And in their application, they would specify that they'd like to allow dogs and then show that they're going to meet the requirements set up.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: And where are those requirements outlined for like what the requirements are to have the dog permit?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Sure. Yeah, the it's in the address seating license requirements document on the on the second page. Okay, sorry. So under 27 that those Yeah, those are the requirements for that. Okay. Yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other question, discussion from the council? Is there anything else you'd like to share with us, make sure we're aware of, or I guess in response to what we reported out last time as well?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: No, I can move on to the next item if you'd like. So before we get to the fees, because I know we discussed a little bit about that, but before we get to the fees, there were some additional changes that were made to the ordinance, and mostly just changes to language. since we last met in December. So first, I'll note that a clause was added to the ordinance, and I believe that's on the last page of the ordinance, allowing the building commissioner to promulgate the rules and regulations. And because of this, the standards or the license requirements, so what you see in the license requirements document, have been removed. They're not gonna be included in the ordinance, the body of the ordinance. established by the building commissioner annually.

[Nicole Morell]: Is the thought of that allows to be more nimble as things change?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Exactly. It provides some flexibility to respond to changes in how the city of Medford would like to administer outdoor dining requirements and also changes in technology. We may If we were to require a certain type of material in the ordinance, and then something came along that was better or acceptable to use in an outdoor dining area, we'd have to come back and do a few readings in accordance with state law to make small changes like that. Thank you. And then we did receive a few comments from KP Law about changes to language in the ordinance. First, I'll highlight, we changed some language to make sure that the building commissioner is clearly stated as a clear licensing authority in the document. Whereas before there were many mentions of review committee, we've mostly swapped out all mentions of review committee for building commissioner. So an example of that change, if you look at page two of the ordinance, under other minimum requirements, I think it's item eight, used to say the review committee may impose conditions, et cetera. And now it says the building commissioner may impose conditions. Those same departments that have been a part of that review committee that has been processing after dining applications for the last three years under the COVID-19 emergency orders will still be looking at these applications and providing the same input, but just clarifying in the ordinance that the building commissioner is the licensing authority. I'll pause there if there are any comments on that. don't see any at this time. We also wanted to raise an issue about requirements for insurance. So if you look at page two of the ordinance under insurance requirements at the bottom of the page, we've pulled the language from the existing ordinance over into this. So this is just what's in the existing ordinance. There are a few options we could approach this differently if desired. First option, of course, is to keep the same, but we could also specify minimum coverage amounts in the body of the ordinance. For example, a common one is for general liability, a minimum of $1 million per occurrence coverage up to that point, or coverage minimum. And then another option in that, We could also, so we could specify the amount in the ordinance, or we could leave it to the building commissioner to specify an amount, coverage amounts annually, or on a project by project basis. So sorry to reiterate, there's a few options there, leave it the same, specify in the ordinance, coverage amounts, or have the building commissioner establish that. Thank you, Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you for that set of options. I mean, I'd be curious to hear the perspective of the building commissioner on this, but to me, that sounds like the kind of thing that I would trust the building commissioner to weigh in on as opposed to putting it into the body of the ordinance.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any other discussion from the council on that specific point?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Seeing none, we'll proceed with that. Great, thank you. So, and the last bit of language change was on the last page of the ordinance, we've just added two sections, and we kind of already touched on this complex and regulatory authority. That was not in our proposed first draft, and now it is. All right. So, if all right with you, councilors, we'll move on to the matter of licensing fees. please. Great. So this issue did come up at the first committee of the whole meeting back in December. And I think I believe originally our proposed fee was a flat fee of $200. You gave some feedback in that meeting. And since then, we've also received additional feedback from the business community that the fee proposal of $200 was too low. and creates a competitive disadvantage for existing businesses that lease patio space or own their own patio space. Now, legally, fees have to be proportionate to the costs incurred by the city. For example, staff time it takes to review, lost revenue from parking spaces. They cannot be based on market rents of the public right away or what it costs to lease a patio. The sentiment is noted. So we talked a little bit about fees already. We were going to propose a suggestion, but it does sound like maybe there's a desire for a slightly different structure, but I'll put this on the table. An option would be to keep the $200 license fee for all, so sidewalk seating and parklet seating. And I'll note for the for the benefit of discussion that sidewalk seating includes small bistro tables outside of a bakery. And so that $200 licensing fee for all with the requirement that an additional $200 per parking space be imposed for parklets. And then also keeping in mind that for parklet seating, the business owner will incur an additional cost either in their own time, for parking. Um, either, uh, applying for a waiver for parklet seating in the street or paying for a parklet structure to bring that up to curb level. Um, but. Open to comments and feedback on different fee structures as well. Thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Any vice president bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam to review the license applications. Do we have cost estimates for those? Like I said, $200 based on the idea that an application would cost the city about $200 to review or something else.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: We don't have that data presently. We did run the $200 number by building commissioner. He felt like that was appropriate with staff time, but we'd be happy to come back with that data. I'm sure we can the parking department on the matter of the beaters.

[Zac Bears]: And these would only apply to sidewalk or. Sidewalk seating or Parkwood in the right of way, right?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: I should say it'll apply to anyone who applies to the program. So, um. The I so anyone who's applying to have public seating and there have been a couple instances where we've licensed public seating in a public parking lot. So in that case, the $200 would apply as well.

[Zac Bears]: What about for a private, like if they own their own land, how would it apply to them?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Private outdoor dining is not required to apply for a license under this ordinance. It only applies to public seating.

[Zac Bears]: OK, OK, got it. Yeah, I mean, I would like to see a little bit more of a tiered structure and a little bit more of an incentive-based structure. I think what you said generally makes sense, as long as everyone agrees that those figures are based in reality on the numbers themselves. I mean, I'm not going to dispute it. It sounds low to me, given what you were kind of noting about. you know, renting a patio versus renting public space, or, you know, Gavin now having access to public space for just a registration fee. But at the very least, what I'd like to see would be maybe a registration fee for sidewalk seating, a registration fee for parklet seating with a structure, and a registration fee for Parkwood City with no structure. And in that way, you know, try to encourage them to, you know, the businesses to have the Parkwood structure. And I do like the idea that the more parking spaces are being taken up, that each parking space should add to the registration fee.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Vice Mayor Bears. Any other discussion from the council? That's a Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I just want I just wanted to echo those sentiments. I think that that's a really good start I would also just echo Councilor versus comments that I think having having like the three tiered for the three scenarios. more targeted way to try to incentivize and have it be fair, depending on how much less how much of public space licensees are using and also incentivize building the parking structures. Similar to what was just said I, I'm curious if the $200 floor is correct or I'm not really you know not not speaking from my own expertise here but I'm curious if it sounds low to members of the business community I'm just curious like, Does it sound low like it should start at $250? Should it start at 300, $350? I think if there's more data to gather around that, I think it'd be good to get that as right as possible from the jump. And I think together with that sort of three prongs. three tiered approach also having a correlate to the number of parking spaces makes sense. If there's a way to combine those to come up with a formula that seems ideal to me, but this seems like a good, a great jumping off point.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to say that I'm open-minded to what we take on, but I also believe that this is a great opportunity to create incentives where we can.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Any other discussion from the council?

[Zac Bears]: If I may, Madam President, just a thought. Um, would. Something and I just want to run advice since you've had some conversations about what would meet legal muster with something like a $500 registration fee, plus $500 for each additional parking spot for park. What's with no structure? Uh, 2 54. with a structure and then 250 for each additional parking spot, and then 125 for sidewalk seating. Would that pass legal muster based on the conversations that you've had?

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: As long as those costs are commensurate with the costs that the city incurred, I don't think there's a problem with having a tiered structure, but as long as those costs are equal to the staff time or the lost meter revenue, We can't go over that and profit. So we'd be happy to, you know, get that data and make a determination on what the ceiling is and then that certainly a tiered structure like that could fit into that.

[Zac Bears]: Given what you just said, I think it would have to be, maybe you could do 500, 250, 125, but then the cost of additional parking spots would need to be the same regardless of if there was a parking structure or not, because that wouldn't change depending on the registration fee. In my opinion, I think more time would have to go into reviewing an application with a structure than one with, or well, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know how that would factor in. But at least for the parking additional parking spot that he would probably have to be the same. That would be my recommendation. I'm happy to make it into a motion. But also, if there's additional discussion that I would be happy to discuss it more.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other discussion from the council on this or specifically vice versa point? Yeah, speaking one, I think that makes sense. I was embarrassed about what you said about the additional, the spot impact, you know, that amount, like you said, wouldn't change because it's the same spots being removed regardless of what the structure is. I would be curious to have the parking data around that. I also don't want that, you know, if that takes X number of months to get, I don't want that to hold things up when we're trying to ideally, I would think get this in place for the warmer months. So I guess I'm just kind of, discussing that. I can't make a motion anyways, but just, you know, having that point that out there.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, to that point, um, on the you know, since we've empowered the Building Commissioner to have to review accessibility requirements, I think it could be easily argued that there would be an additional staff cost for any park that doesn't have a structure with it, because then they would have to review ramps and all the accessibility stuff around that in addition to it. So I personally would move that we and let's see Director Hunt getting up here maybe to correct me. But I would, after hearing from Director Hunt, be willing to make that motion. And then I also would be willing to move to report this out of committee pending the changes based on the motions that we passed tonight. But I'll wait to hear from Director Hunt.

[Nicole Morell]: Would you want to amend your previous motion? I know we didn't get the two-tiered to make it the three-tiered suggestion you have.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Okay. Sorry, a point of clarification, and apologies if it's redundant, but just to clarify that when we say we can't go above the city cost, that's the ceiling, the cost incurred to the city. We can, and it sounds like we're considering doing this, we can discount below that as an incentive. And so I think the tiered structure would meet that. Okay, yeah, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, I would motion to amend my initial motion to have three tiers, a $500 tier for parklets without a structure, $250 for parklets with a structure, 125 for sidewalk seating, and then $250 for each additional parking spot beyond a single parking spot, above a single parking spot.

[Nicole Morell]: Um, so you said President Bears is a 250 for anything above the single parking spot.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, an additional $250 for each parking spot requested greater than one. If that's more specific, but essentially, okay, we'll read it back before we go.

[Nicole Morell]: I'm just gonna go to Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Ultimately, I think that the theory behind this is there has to be what they call what a rational nexus. between the amount of money that we charge for the permitting fees versus the cost that the city encouraged to provide the permitting in the in the service right. So that's going to change from year to year. So why would we set a fixed cost? Why wouldn't we just give that authority to the building commissioner to establish the fee schedule on that as well? Why are we going to codify an ordinance and make it something that needs to be changed through legislative action? when it could be something that's more regulatory in nature and then be a little bit more dynamic and fluid and also maybe fall more in line with market controls. You know, it's very difficult for the legislative process to keep up with market controls, but through the regulatory matter, it's a little bit easier.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. I think that's a great point because I think this is something we've run into reviewing other ordinances, just the fee structures being out of date and the process to change it being. conversation. So if you have something to add to that or thoughts on that idea.

[t15sh-lyws8_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, Councilor. We'd be happy to discuss that with the building commissioner. And how that would work. Yeah, thank you. Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: Councilor say, I agree with the sentiment and with the idea. I just thought and I think it would make it more flexible. I the only thing I wonder is, whether legally we need to include it, or whether it'd be fine to leave it out legally, because we already do it for other ordinances and other things, but that's my only question.

[Nicole Morell]: Can you think about the top of the head, I'd like permits that the fee isn't spelled out in the ordinance, it's set by whichever body manages it? I believe that, I can't have things in front of me for examples, I believe that exists. I mean, my thought there too, I like that idea, Councilor Knight. I do wonder if maybe it's, you know, requesting the building commissioner set a three tier, you know, but not saying what the numbers actually are. Councilor Collins. Oh, you made my point, thank you. Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Ultimately, I think that the language they're looking for would probably say that the fee schedule she'll be established by the building commissioner and approved by the council and can be amended from time to time thereof with approval of the council.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Blessing bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's fine with me to, um, Councilor, it's language. I would like to say my only request would be that we would add it in that, you know, Parklets with a parklet structure shall be, the fee for parklets with a structure shall be half of the fee for parklets without a structure. And the fee for sidewalk seating shall be one quarter of the fee for parklets without a structure. And then we keep the scale and the incentive, but it's still up to the commissioner to set what the actual fees would be. So moved.

[Nicole Morell]: Do you want to amend once again? I mean, the clerk's giving me a look. Do you want to withdraw your other amendment? How do you want to do this?

[Zac Bears]: I'm not sure. Withdraw the first amendment to the original paper and then maybe the second amendment to the original paper or the original motion.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay, can you, do you want to send that to the clerk? I mean, does everyone on the council understand what VP Bears is motioning? Councilor Knight.

[Adam Knight]: Sure, I understand it. My hand was up from before, not for now.

[Nicole Morell]: Okay. Um, okay. So any further discussion from the council? We have a few motions, uh, waiting to be voted on. Do you have them all?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Okay.

[Nicole Morell]: So we'll take that one first and then we'll take the other ones you have for language advice. Prison bears will send you language. Um, but for some bears, I understand the motion is that request that the building commissioner set a fee structure, but within that free structure, the cost for permits with parklet structures be one half of that of those without, and the cost for permits for, was it single parking spot or just sidewalk seating, be one quarter of the original. That's where I'm like, I mean, I know what he means. I just can't think of the words to say it. Great, so.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Oh, here we go. He just put in the chat. I'll read it for everyone just so. The fee for parklets with a parklet structure level with the sidewalk shall be one half the fee for parklets without a structure. The fee for sidewalk seating shall be one quarter of the fee for parklets without a structure. And that's in the chat. So on the motion of Vice President Bears is seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll actually, sorry. And that motion includes asking that the building commissioner set the fees, correct?

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great.

[Nicole Morell]: So on the motion of Vice President Bears seconded by Councilor Knight, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, I mean the information that I gave the motion passes, and then we have the motion to adopt those two portions of the previous, making sure we move over those sections of the previous ordinance can you read that back Mr.

[Adam Hurtubise]: that the language for section 1480.4 be incorporated into the draft ordinance of the second council meeting.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Please call the roll when you're ready.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bearson.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Ntuk.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes, seven in front of zero and then I get the motion passes. Do you have any other outstanding motions?

[Adam Hurtubise]: I believe that's separate because we had them. We had them.

[Nicole Morell]: Set the fee is that we did not have him set that. Sorry, what's the language again? It's for him to.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Third option, yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Uphold the standards. Yes, we did not vote on that. Okay, yep, yeah, that was amended. Okay, so we have a motion of Councilor Knight to adopt the option to have the building commissioner uphold the design standards.

[Zac Bears]: I think it's accessibility. It was accessibility as well.

[Nicole Morell]: Second by Vice President Bears. Please call the roll when you're ready.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: Yes. Seven in front of zero. And then I have the motion passes any further discussion or anything else that covers the presentation for PDS and I don't see any further discussion. I think there's a very dimension reporting out.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I had a motion to report the paper out of committee to the council agenda pending changes based on the motions passed at this meeting.

[Nicole Morell]: So on the motion of Vice President Bears to report the paper out of committee to a regular meeting pending the changes made through motions at this meeting. Seconded by the councilor. Please call the roll when you're ready, Mr. Clerk.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Yes. Yes.

[Nicole Morell]: I've been the infirm is there in the night of the motion passes on the motion adjourn adjourn second by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Negative motion passes meeting is adjourned.

[35lad50Uazc_SPEAKER_10]: Thanks all.