AI-generated transcript of City Council Committee of the Whole 03-15-23

[Nicole Morell]: 23 at six p.m. is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Present tonight is absent.

[Adam Hurtubise]: That's just really really is absent. Say I'm just saying is that present for present three absent.

[Nicole Morell]: The meeting is called to order. Just close the window. Hold on a moment. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, March 15th, 2023 at 6 p.m. in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall and via Zoom. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss proposed updates to the outdoor dining ordinance with Medford paper 22-514. The committee has invited Interim Economic Director, Victor Schrader, Yvette Niwa from the Office of 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 Morella, Council President. So at our last meeting on this, we had a few motions related to having the PDS staff update, make some updates to the proposed ordinance. And we've gotten a reply from Yvette with some of those changes and responses. So if you wanna kick us off and then we'll go from there. And we do have the building commissioner with us tonight as well, which related to the outdoor seating license requirements. So if you wanna kick us off.

[SPEAKER_04]: ordinance, which reflects the changes we discussed at the February 8th Committee of the Whole, in addition to a few additional minor changes made by the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability. I've brought hard copies, and I think I've distributed them. And I also have, if you don't mind, I'll share screen with the red line. All right. So what I'll do here is I'll just walk through, and the redlined text is, is what's new, and some of that, like I said, is as a result of council motions from the last committee of the whole meeting. And then there are a couple other minor changes, and I'll describe each of them. Stop me at any time with questions or comments. So first on page one, up here in section 14-482, purpose, scope, and authority, we've added a statement of intent to this. And one of the comprehensive plan recommendations was to add policy statement at the beginning of ordinances or as a separate document, but in this case, we thought it was appropriate to add it at the top of the document to kind of set the stage, add a little bit of context to that purpose, scope and authority section. And you also express sentiments that may not be explicitly stated elsewhere in the ordinance, for example, in this ordinance, this ordinance sets a fee structure for the outdoor dining license fees. And not explicitly stated in that fee structure, which we'll go over later on, is the intent that these fees are commensurate or in some way compensating all or some of the expenses incurred by the city administrative time spent reviewing the applications or lost meter revenue. So that was the thinking behind adding a couple sentences at the beginning to that section. Pause for any comments or questions. Comments from the council this time? Okay. Go ahead. Great. All right. And scrolling down to the bottom of page one, Section 14-483 definitions added a line to the second definition for private outdoor dining. And this is just clarifying that private outdoor seating areas are not required to be licensed under this ordinance, but they are expected to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws regarding accessibility, health, zoning, building code requirements. And then if we move on to the top of page two, section 14-484, temporary seating. This is a clause that was carried over from the existing ordinance as a result of council motion at the previous committee of the whole meeting. And for the most part, that is exactly verbatim the same. We have added a little bit of language here. If you look at the third line, I'll just read it. 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 then what we've added here is under liquor licensing requirements and will not be counted, and that's the end of the ad there, under liquor licensing requirements, and will not be counted toward any requirement for the serving of alcohol, wine, cordials, malt beverages, and then additionally, this last sentence here was added as well. Nothing in this section shall be construed to negate any of the provisions in section 14-488 of this ordinance. The intent in adding those two bits of language is one, to specify that, to that this ordinance is not superseding or exempting any licensees from the requirements under local liquor licensing laws or state liquor licensing laws. And further, section 14-48 of the ordinance actually explicitly says that. So just pointing to that section of the ordinance as well.

[SPEAKER_03]: And yeah, I'll pause there, sure.

[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. The establishments that serve liquor, are they going to have to get an extension of their liquor license?

[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.

[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, so everyone will get an extension of their liquor license.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, exactly. So if an establishment has an existing liquor license and they wanna, you know, have an after seating area where they will serve liquor, they'll need to apply for an alteration of premises license.

[Richard Caraviello]: Even just for the temporary seating, correct?

[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, correct.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.

[SPEAKER_04]: Go ahead, please proceed. All right, and then staying there on page two, section 14-485, application submission and review, item four. we've added in the description of the tiered fee structure that was discussed and was detailed in a motion in the last meeting. We basically just pulled the language that came out of the last meeting. And again, that's a tiered fee structure where parklet seating that's at the street level, so not level with the curb, is the most, it has the highest fee option, and then seating areas that are level with the curb, half of that fee. And then finally, seating areas on the sidewalk having the lowest fee. And then just jump down to item six. This is very minor, removing building department from the list of offices that the application will be forwarded to because the building department is where the application will be submitted to in the first place. If you'll look at the bottom of page three, section 14-487, insurance requirements, item two, As discussed in our last meeting, including language that says the insurance policies carried by the licensee shall meet minimum coverage amounts established by the building commissioner annually. And within that same item, at the very end, upon the recommendation of building commissioner 40, the applicant, requiring applicants or licensees to provide bond for their use of the sidewalk and or the street.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Thanks.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I just wanted to ask a question on that point. I know that, um, you know, an applicant like this getting getting general liability insurance is really normal. Something that, you know, probably applicants wouldn't bat an eye at the bond requirement is new to me. I was just hoping. Could you speak to will that be like a barrier to application for some restaurants? Or is that similarly something that restaurants will probably expect to have to furnish.

[SPEAKER_03]: Sure. I'll actually invite Commissioner Forty to comment on the bond.

[Bill Forte]: Thank you. Thank you, Yvette. Madam President, so I was asked about, you know, the insurance requirements and it came up while Yvette and I were discussing it. And the reason for the bonding that I recommended was that whenever equipment is established on a public way, whatever that equipment might be, it could be heating equipment could be barriers could be tables could be heavy tables could be, you know, makeshift, you know, types of structures that might, you know, contain the dining area, depending on how large that that public area is. I know that when if a contractor is setting up staging on a public sidewalk, they have to post a bond with the DPW. It's city property if it's if it's at all subject to any kind of damage that damage would have to be replaced alongside of the liability insurance would cover accidents and people who, you know, might get injured as a result and that would, you know, of course kick in the liability insurance but liability, their commercial liability would probably not cover damage to sidewalk so the bond is a similar bond that would be used for sidewalk crossing for opening up streets and so forth. It's, it's usually a minimal cost, it might be $50 $100, whatever it might be, but it's city property and I recommended it because if there is any damage to the sidewalk for whatever reason, you know, and I can't predict it now, but for whatever reason, you know, this this requirement should be in place. And I think it's a minor cost, or, you know, insignificant cost to someone who's going to have an outdoor dining establishment where, you know, so

[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.

[Bill Forte]: Councilor Collins. And again, I would take the recommendation from the DPW commissioner on that. If he doesn't feel as though it's necessary, then certainly you can waive it. But I thought I would add it just as a matter of preference, you know, so that we could, you know, consider it.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Councilor Collins, does that address your question?

[Kit Collins]: It does, thank you. I appreciate that context. I think I wouldn't mind hearing from the DPW commissioner on this, just because it seems like a different use case than, sorry, I'm distracted by the feedback. than with contractors like doing actual sidewalk work. However, it's good to know that it is nominal cost. I just had no frame of reference for what a bond like that would look like. So thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. So the city is gonna provide the cement barriers, correct?

[SPEAKER_04]: It's an option. I mean, licensees can request this.

[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, so the options are the cement barriers or I've seen like other cities have you know they do the plastic with the water inside. Those were the only options that you have for barriers.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, those are the options that the city has.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I mean you could potentially constantly, you could. would shut down a lane of a street or even a bike lane of a street. I don't that's not popular. I wouldn't feel comfortable with seats being out in the street without the required barriers.

[Richard Caraviello]: So I don't know who was so in the event that the city provides the barrier and heaven forbid, someone would hit that injure somebody who bears a responsibility. So are they taking out extra insurance? Are the restaurants taking out extra insurance to cover them for outdoor liability, or is the city gonna have some kind of a, I mean, especially if it's our barrier, say we give them cement barriers and something happens.

[Bill Forte]: There might be something KP Law would be a little bit more equipped to answer.

[Richard Caraviello]: I mean, I don't know if it's ever happened, but I don't know if it's ever happened, but the event that it does, who bears the liability? have been somewhere to be injured or killed.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah. And I mean, don't forget this is outside the emergency order. So, right. You know, yeah, I do see.

[Richard Caraviello]: So I would say, yeah, so I would, my question would be, should there be some type of maybe a temporary insurance for the couple of months that they have it, maybe they should provide some type of... Yeah, I don't know that hold harmless clause for the city with their liability policy. Yeah, I mean, that's, I think that maybe something that we should look into in the event something ever happens.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.

[Richard Caraviello]: Madam President, if we can make that in the formal motion that the commissioner or the director look into if any additional insurance is required for the outdoor seating. and if there were to be an accident, would the city be held timeless?

[Nicole Morell]: Do I have a second on that motion?

[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. And we do have language to that effect in the ordinance. Is it in here?

[Richard Caraviello]: Page three.

[SPEAKER_04]: in the insurance section.

[Richard Caraviello]: What's that, page three?

[Nicole Morell]: Item one.

[Richard Caraviello]: It says that, but it doesn't say if it's gonna cover the outdoor part of it.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.

[Richard Caraviello]: Maybe they should have a separate policy or an extension of the policy to cover the outdoor dining. Because the insurance company may not even know that the restaurant is doing outdoor dining.

[Nicole Morell]: Yeah, it says such insurance shall cover the use of all equipment related to the provision of sidewalk dining services. I'm obviously not a lawyer, I don't know if that covers it or not, but.

[Bill Forte]: I would imagine an additional rider would be appropriate.

[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, yes. Just so we're held timeless in the event of something catastrophic happening.

[Nicole Morell]: Mr. Clerk, could you read back that motion? Give a second from Councilor Tseng. It's all voice votes and so it's on Zoom if we want to vote now.

[Zac Bears]: I would just request that we amend the motion to also say, sorry, what? That's okay. I would also just suggest that we amend the motion to specifically request language updating that insurance. I'll rephrase this in a second for you. So this is not the actual motion, but just since it says sidewalk dining services, I think it should probably say sidewalk and outdoor dining or sidewalk and dining services provided in the public way or something like that. So My motion would be to specifically request additional language to replace the word sidewalk in section two, subsection two of section 14-487. Sure, it's just additional language to replace the word sidewalk in subsection two of section 14-487. subsection two of section 14-487.

[Nicole Morell]: So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello, amended by Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Any other questions from the Council at this time? Thank you.

[SPEAKER_04]: continuing to page four, section 14-489, other minimum requirements. This was discussed in our previous committee of the whole meeting, requiring that the building commissioner uphold minimum design require standards in the licensing requirements document. So that added that bit of language to the end of item one, and then, It's also covered under item two, all components of the license area need to meet requirements of accessibility requirements of the federal requirements and state requirements. And I also provided a hard copy of the license requirements document and those design guidelines, which we went through at our last meeting or on the last page of that license requirements document. And finally, on the last page, section 14-492, severability. This was the result of a motion that came out of the last committee of the whole meeting. This is language that is in the existing ordinance and we're carrying that over in full to the proposed update. Thank you. I got. I have one thing to show on the licensing requirements document, but then otherwise I'm all right.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other questions on the draft ordinance before we move on to the licensing licensing document? Seeing none, I want to proceed to that.

[SPEAKER_04]: OK, so this is the licensing requirements document for as it's been pulled out from the ordinance and just for to provide background, specifies requirements for design, safety measures, operation, etc. On that first page, item 13, some small language changes were made at the Suggestion of Commissioner 40. And those are red lines there on the screen. Pull it up a little bit. Yes. And these are made to provide more certainty or clarify language around barrier requirements for parklet seating.

[Nicole Morell]: And then is that the only proposed change in this document? Yes. Okay, great.

[Kit Collins]: Councilor Collins. Thank you. I have just two quick questions and they aren't related to the new stuff, or they're related to the licensing requirements, but not to the stuff that's changed since our last meeting. Just to clarify, I saw on number 17, it's mentioning not having objects taller than 42 inches from sidewalk elevation. Is that supposed to create like an upper height limit for the barriers in general?

[SPEAKER_04]: Exactly. So barriers and anything, sometimes restaurant owners will like to provide some type of screening along the top of barriers or decorative planters. Just the purpose is to create a nicer dining environment. But the height limit is to ensure visibility and sight lines, especially in environments where pedestrians and cars are intersecting.

[Kit Collins]: Okay. Great. Thank you. I just wanted to, I didn't see any sort of like top line dimensional requirements. So I just wanted to make sure I understood that that was what it was about. And then this is just maybe, maybe a dumb question. Maybe just out of curiosity for number 21, why are yellow, blue, and red lights specified as lights to not have in seating installations?

[SPEAKER_04]: This was included at the suggestion of Director of Traffic and Transportation, Todd Blake. And my understanding is that this is to not mimic or emergency lights of ambulances, police trucks, or police cars, fire trucks.

[Kit Collins]: Cool. Thank you. Just wondering.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other questions or comments from the council? Any questions for Commissioner Forti as we have them here as well?

[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. On the concrete and the barriers that are gonna be provided, they're not, Like I say, on the concrete ones, they're not rebarred down, they're just left there loose, but nothing actually stops them from not moving.

[Bill Forte]: Am I correct? Yeah, that's correct. I wouldn't see that the DPW would put anything like that down.

[Richard Caraviello]: Maybe like a rebar to hold them down.

[Bill Forte]: I don't think that pinning them would make them any more sound. If a barrier, God forbid, a car did hit it, uh, pinning it to the ground wouldn't do any, any good. Um, I think to, um, Councilor, I do have some discretion in the matter. So if I see something that's not safe, we, we, we really can make modifications that would, you know, um, make it safer. I know that a vehicle barrier is supposed to take 6,000 pounds of lateral force, which is never going to happen with a a temporary concrete barrier. And I don't even know if these things would even be locked together like they would be in the federal highway standards. But here, I think that the minimum of protection basically is that if a car does happen to veer off, that it's gonna limit the damage and hopefully protect the pedestrians. But it doesn't serve as a solid barrier that would meet any type of regulation. So it is a bit concerning. You know, any kind of, you know, obviously on sidewalks you have different, a different standard but here again, you know, nothing is ever going to stop a person from being out of control.

[Richard Caraviello]: So, what type of protection does the water filled one offer, does that, is that a less protective barrier versus.

[Bill Forte]: They're again, they're designed more for a barrier for the pedestrians to not go out on the street than it is for the vehicles to actually, I mean, the vehicles will absorb some impact, but they're designed for low speed, a local impact. They're not designed for, you wouldn't put them on a thoroughfare and expect to live through an accident involving them. So, they do serve more as a barrier for pedestrians,

[Richard Caraviello]: more decorative than anything else. Yeah, I mean, obviously, nothing, maybe we maybe we take them out of the language altogether. Get rid of the plastic. I mean, no on any on any seating that actor is actually on the street.

[Bill Forte]: So if if there were if there were an attempt by the city to create safe barriers. Let's just say, you know, on the backside over here where the donut places and you want it to seal off that entire thing full of spaces and make an outdoor seating, that would be a more substantial barrier. I think that we could probably get highway barriers to lock, but the cost of the city, I think is, you know, significant enough that you wouldn't be able to recover a permit fee from all this by doing it. It would be something that the city would have the extra funding to do because it would, it's a little bit of an operation. I mean, I know DPW commissioner could speak to a little bit more of what it would take to actually create that but I mean, I didn't, I don't think anybody use the water ones here but I have seen them in other communities.

[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah. And I was just, you know, the concern was, you know, if somebody hit it.

[Bill Forte]: it will provide some protection but not much right exactly yeah and i think it's maybe it's appropriate in in some instances yeah but not at all you know um because most of the seeing that that's being provided is actually on a on a on a street right so maybe maybe we just eliminate the plastic from the ordinance altogether just to Yeah, I mean it would, if a person wants to set up their own barriers, you know, and you're not giving that option it might be a little cost prohibitive. I don't know. I mean it certainly is up to this.

[Richard Caraviello]: I'm just looking for the for the public safety aspect of it.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah. Nothing else. I think the other thing while I'm up here. The other thing that's not addressed in here, but is in the fire code are our patio heaters. These things can become problematic, especially in the early spring and late fall. And so there could be a mention of it. Yeah, the patio heaters shall be regulated by 527 CMR, which is the state's fire code. Okay, so what will happen is, you know, when a person applies for a permit, they'll provide us with a sketch, a neat sketch drawn to scale, you know, showing the seating and all the other things that they would be required to show the patio heaters as well. And what will happen is the permit application will be routed similar to a building permit, it'll be routed to the traffic, to the traffic department, it'll be routed to, We routed to DPW, routed to the fire department, and the health department, obviously. So it'll be the same as a building permit, if you will. So there may be a section added just about patio heaters. I don't see it mentioned in here. You'll see them all the time in early spring and in fall. So maybe just one sentence. I can give it to Yvette, and she can add it in. Thank you. All right.

[Nicole Morell]: But do you want to add something?

[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, Commissioner Forte. I just hoping to provide some context on the discussion of the barriers on what we've done for the last few years. Typically, the concrete barriers, we've used both concrete and water-filled barriers, and We would always place a concrete barrier in the direction of oncoming traffic. And then there were instances where water-filled barriers would be used, slower streets, not on the side of oncoming traffic. For a seating area that was built out with a parklet in the decking, in level with the curb, for example, Tenoch, and then Picante this last year, There was a water filled barrier on one side and then on the side facing oncoming traffic, we had a diagonal concrete barrier. The concrete barriers are longer than the water filled barriers. One potential outcome of requiring only concrete barriers. it would be difficult to take up, you would require more space for the barriers to take up in the outdoor seating area because they need to be angled at the curb and to the meeting the drive rail or the drive lane or the bike lane. And they'll cut into more of that seating area, which is fine. I mean, maybe, you know, a business can extend to use more parking spaces in that case, but just something to consider. But that was the fun, That was the function in the last couple of years. We did have water filled barriers and they were used in some locations depending on safety and speed of traffic, things like that.

[Nicole Morell]: Thank you. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Number one, I'm personally fine leaving it as is in the design guidelines because I trust that the building commissioner and all the departments who are reviewing it are going to take into account all the factors that you just listed and create the best option that they can with whatever's available. But I'm also just interested now that we're having the discussion, have we had any instances in the last three seasons that we've done this where vehicles hit a barrier or caused any injury or significant damage?

[SPEAKER_03]: Not to my knowledge, no.

[Zac Bears]: Okay, thank you.

[Nicole Morell]: Any other discussion, questions? Questions from anyone on Zoom? Seeing none, any motions? I know we have the one motion already voted on. Vice President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: I would just move to include the language recommended by the building commissioner regarding the fire code.

[Nicole Morell]: Do you have that, Mr. Clerk? Yes. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Do you want to keep this in committee? Those changes? I mean, do you want to report out as amended?

[Zac Bears]: Okay. Yeah.

[Nicole Morell]: So on the motion of Councilor Caraviello to report the paper out favorably with the amendments.

[Zac Bears]: Second.

[Nicole Morell]: Second by Vice President Ferris. All those in favor?

[Zac Bears]: Aye.

[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes.

[Zac Bears]: Motion to adjourn.

[Nicole Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Ferris to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor?

[Zac Bears]: Aye.

[Nicole Morell]: All those opposed? Motion passes, meeting is adjourned.