hat was waived. Is that another way to look at it? Yeah, so that's the potential revenue that could have been collected since the initiation of the program in June 2020. My question was, was that based on the 2017 rates of the pre-pandemic parklet program? No, so that was based on our real parking meter revenue. Okay, great. Yeah. I'm going to open it up for council members to start asking any questions. I do see council member Brown, who's joining us virtually today. Go ahead, welcome. Thank you, mayor. It feels strange to be all the way out here, but being COVID safe. Thank you for the presentation, Rebecca. Thank you for all of your work on this, Bonnie as well. I know that there's a lot that goes into trying to navigate how to make this work. And it sounds like you've had a collaborative process, love being the progress. I just have two questions. One actually is a follow-up to mayor Bruner's question about the projected or possible revenue loss. I'm just wondering in that analysis, did you wait at all for the reduction in parking demand that occurred when we were in lockdown during COVID? Because 2021, it was a little different than that first year. So just wondering if that was included. And then I have one other question, which is a bigger question, I think. Okay. Yeah, I can give you the answer for the first. So the downtown numbers were using the 2021 data so that we were still had the less demand, but it was significantly more than 2020. So we looked at that also because it was the first year of full year of data that we had since 2020 we had, we were only operating from June to December. So just wanted to get that bigger picture. And then for the worth revenue dollars, that was looking at 2021 as well, just getting that full year picture. And then the beach area, that was looking at actually fiscal year 20 numbers. That was our sort of most recent increase in those meters. So grain of salt a little bit maybe because the actual revenue might not have been quite there given that people weren't really out and about. Just wanted to kind of understand that's a big figure. So, but I'm glad we're doing it. And then the other question I had is in your presentation was very clear and I like how you talk about providing, some options, but also the ability to really use a standardized process or I guess plans. And I guess I'm wondering what I haven't heard is just wondering how the businesses that you're, that have are operating under the temporary program, how they're responding to the proposal and what concerns or what kind of support there is there for moving forward in this way right now. Yeah, great question. So we did, I did host a sort of outreach meeting to the businesses in May of this year and gave the initial overview of the pre approved designs that we had to date then as well as the cost estimates. And our cost estimate really ranged between 40,000 to 75,000, which we heard was way too expensive and absolutely acknowledged that that was not reasonable for the intent of this, right. And so we've been working with our landscape architecture firm to bring those costs down and re-look at the partly designs. That was really some of the biggest feedback that we got was around the cost. And then we also got a lot of really great feedback around businesses wanting to be able to customize the look and feel of it. So the colors, the materials that are used and so wanting to have a little bit more flexibility in that rather than saying all of our workloads are gonna be this color and these things. There was a lot of interest in just having that customization. So we've looked at reworking sort of being able to have power coded materials and having that color customization or the ability to paint things and having a much lower cost material for some of the traffic barriers and things like that. So that's what we wanna be able to present to you at the November 15th meeting. A little bit more detail on that. We did also survey businesses about if they would want to use a pre approved design and a lot of the feedback was really we need more information and also a lower cost. And so that's something that we definitely need to be able to provide. I think that's a general review but happy to answer any additional questions around that. Yeah, and I just wanted to add to that in addition to the pre approved designs and those are what the cost estimates are for are for those that the city is working on because we wanted to be able to provide more information on what these pre approved designs would cost. So the other options for businesses are to really look at and look at my parklet now and that's part of the process. Well, we'll have a city team come out and do an assessment on their existing parklet if they want to say what can I do to just get it compliant under the new permanent under the new permanent ordinance that's an option and a route for them as well. And then the third one is, oh no, I have a designer, I want my own design and that's a third route they can go. So we're, and that's really based on the outreach that Rebecca conducted. So I just wanted to add to that. And then another thing that we didn't include in this presentation, but it is in the staff report and we'll come back to you in November is we've been working and this is based on the feedback from a lot of the businesses as well is that this is a big investment. We recognize that this is an investment on public property. And while there would be an agreement in place and they can operate it for many years into the future it's still a big investment and we recognize that. So as part of that we've been looking at a forgivable loan program where in each year they operate the parklet they would get, for example, 20% of the loan forgiven and up to a maximum of I think what we're proposing right now is 50% of what they want to borrow. So we've been meeting with a couple of different potential partners for this program including local credit union. And so we're still working on the details of that but that's something that we want to roll out as well so that businesses have the opportunity to be able to look long-term of how long they plan on having this and if this is a good investment for them and then looking at that potential to an effect turn part of a loan into a grant. So that's something we're working on. Thank you. I'm sad. Thanks, Mayor Brunner. Council Member Brown, did you have a second question? That was it, thanks. Thank you. I will move on to Council Member Cummings, Council Member Golder, Council Member Callentari Johnson. Thanks for that presentation. I do want to revisit that question that came up around the revenue losses from parking because I do want to know whether or not staff actually explored how much sales tax revenue was generated from those businesses through having the outdoor because while it's $7 per day per space, a lot of these businesses saw a huge increase in the amount of people they were able to accommodate under these circumstances, which we're still living under where there's a lot of people out there who are still very concerned about getting sick and there's a lot of people out there, myself included, who have recently gotten COVID. So I'm just wondering if you all explored how having that outdoor actually increased revenue for the city during this time, especially when people weren't really driving downtown, trying to eat indoors. Yeah, certainly. So we've been closely monitoring sales tax throughout the pandemic and especially related to the outdoor dining and doing specific dives into what businesses have outdoor dining and how their performance has been impacted. I don't have a direct comparison for you this evening, but we can certainly provide more of that data to you at the next City Council meeting. And I think generally I would say that the food and beverage industry within our tax has been sort of the quickest to recover, certainly amongst other industries. And not that that means that businesses are whole, but just that we have seen that that industry has increased and sort of come back to pre-pandemic levels over time, but I can provide more detail to you as well. Thank you. And then another question I had, I can have a bunch, but I'm gonna try to keep it limited. But I know that you all just mentioned the Forgivable Loan Program to businesses that are operating on private property and there's no discussion about private businesses on private property. And I know that there are a number of businesses that wanna operate in that capacity and could use some help with kind of getting going and getting started. I'm curious why there hasn't been any discussion about extending those same kinds of loans to private businesses on private property where we're still getting a lot of revenue from these businesses. And so is there any rationale behind not providing those same kinds of loans to those kinds of businesses? Yeah, I mean, I think how we've been looking at it, the Parklets that being on public property, they're permanent so far as they're within the public, that they're permanently installed. But they are also having to pay annual fees because it's on public property. So paying those parking revenue replacement fees and sort of those ongoing components. So in addition to the construction costs outlay at the beginning, there's also that ongoing cost to the city. And so being able to help sort of front load for the businesses, the assistance to build it out to get them going, sort of our initial idea. And with the private property spaces, they absolutely will still have a front loaded construction costs, but it is the one time permit fee and then they can continue to operate without annual recurring fees. So I think sort of incentivizing the use of the public space and having this amenity, we're looking to put those dollars that we have within our budget towards that and just looking at sort of what the impact that we can make with the limited, I think the $500,000 sort of allocated for that program. And so looking at how many businesses can we reach and have a meaningful impact in those funds that are available. I would just add to that, that is something we can definitely look at. We don't know at this point how many businesses are going to be interested in our loans. So I think that's just, it's something that we would request feedback from you on and we go back as Rebecca said, we are trying to leverage as much as we can with the limited funding that we have. And we were thinking that a loan could be up to $50,000. And so when you look at it from that perspective, we realized it's a limited program. So please, if you have thoughts on that, give us some feedback now. We are in sort of the structuring phase and we're really trying to have the biggest impact. Okay, I'll leave my questions there for now. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Cummings. Council Member Golder. I really want to appreciate Rebecca and Bonnie for all your work on this. And I couldn't be more thrilled to see this permanent pathway. This is something that I cared about before the pandemic. I just like sitting outside. And when I was calculating, I was thinking the same thing that Council Member Cummings said. And I was just kind of roughly thinking because I went to Hula's a few days ago and I was thinking we sat there for maybe an hour and we've spent 100 bucks, that's $10. And there was five tables, that's 50 bucks. Maybe they're open five hours for dinner, but it just seemed like that seems like a huge factor. And I would way rather see us bringing in revenue with increased sales tax to local businesses than any other way. Like that seems like a great way to drive our local economy. So if we could analyze that in some way, I agree, like bring it back. And any way that we can support our local businesses, private parking or public parking, thank you. So I guess I don't really have a question other than, I think that I was wondering the exact same thing. Thank you. Council Member Calantari-Johnson. Thank you for the presentation and the work. And thank you for working individually with us council members and individually with businesses, making that adjustment in the timeline. I know that was really big as I've been talking to local businesses. So my colleagues have asked some of my questions and made comments, I won't repeat those. I have a couple of nitty gritties if that's okay. And I'll just ask those. The alcohol services authorization, that isn't, there isn't a need to get an additional license, is that correct? From ABC, if you have an ABC license, you don't need to get an additional one for the parking lot, I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah, so they would just need to expand their licensed area. So just working with ABC to recognize this additional service area on their license. And do we know, I know ABC is a whole nother beast. I've worked with them on some of my youth prevention stuff. Do we know if that's gonna be another red tape that businesses have to go through? Is that something that should be fairly easy? It is an application process. I can't speak to the specific details of it right now, but I can definitely do that research and bring it back. I know that the governor has made it a mission that we have these expanded areas and support these permanently. So I believe that it's a pretty standard process, but we can bring more information on top. Thank you. My other one, the question is, the parklets are allowed on streets 25 miles per hour or less. I'm assuming that that's already the case, is that true? There aren't other, there are businesses in areas that are more than 25, okay. The other question I have is, let's see here. Oh, so there's that piece about maximum of two parking spaces per parklet and that there could be exceptions made. How does that impact any of our current, of course we don't know which of our current businesses want this permanently. Maybe we have an idea, but we don't have it in writing. Does that impact our current businesses who have parklets and what are those exceptions? Can you speak to that a little bit? Yeah, so we did a survey about a year ago now of who wanted to move to the permanent. So the exact numbers might be a little different, but we're estimating about 28 businesses, just so you're aware that wants to do a permanent parklet and the instances. So currently, I'm gonna think if we have any of that, we do have a couple on, or one on Walnut Street that currently is encroaching into an adjacent parking space and there's a little bit of overlap. And so sort of how that works is that if you are encroaching into your neighbor's frontage, we'll have a neighbor authorization form as part of the application, just to get their approval for your use of that space, just sort of a good neighbor practice. During the temporary program, we have had to sort of negotiate some of these instances where businesses were really wanting to expand and the adjacent businesses on their neighboring business wasn't as supportive of having that within their frontage. And so just trying to balance those competing needs. And then additionally, if a business has a very wide frontage, and maybe has like three or four spaces in front of it within their frontage, we would allow that if they wanna take that on as their part of it and just looking at it from a site-specific requirement and review the outcome, it works to make sure that it meets all the requirements, but allowing them to increase if they have that frontage. Great, last question, sorry. I'm really glad to hear that you saw feedback around the pre-proved design and that 40,000 to 75,000 was not realistic. Did businesses indicate what is a realistic number and how can we get there so that we can, I'll just make my last comment with that question that I'm really, really happy to see that we're on this path to permanent parklets. It is something that our communities wanted, even pre-pandemic, as Council Member Golder said. So what is feasible? What's realistic? How can we really support businesses in having that pre-proved design if they want it? Thank you. You know, I would say that the general feedback we've heard was like under 20,000, typically, you know. Yeah, I don't know that I have the best gauge of sort of where everyone's at on that, but I do know that under 20,000 is sort of a preference. I imagine that there are members in the audience that can share their perspective on that, which I would love to hear. And, but I will also just add to that that what we've seen in other communities, we've been working closely with a lot of Bay Area cities and sort of how their parking programs have been rolling out and we are seeing that a lot of them are experiencing sort of 30 to $50,000 as their average cost. So there is a high number out there and but we want to work on our cost estimates to bring that down as much as possible. Thank you, Council Member Calantari-Johnson. Council Member Myers. Thank you for the presentation and all the work that you've done. I think, yeah, this is a wonderful thing to make permanent in our community for sure. They're really, I mean, especially with the weather we've been having, I would love to have some rain, but. Anyways, I think it's a great place and it's nice. I see a lot of families using these, you know, with kids and stuff, it's nice for them to be outside not be cooped up in a little place in the restaurant. I just have a couple of quick questions. So thank you, Rebecca, for all your work and Bonnie and the whole team. And I do like that idea a lot of seeing, you know, what these particular spaces, I don't know how you get at that data, but it would be nice to understand a little bit more about, you know, the revenue stream that's coming from these just so we get a sense of, you know, how private businesses are using these and so that we can kind of understand a little bit about our losses versus some of those revenues. I have a couple of quick questions. One was how did you arrive at the 11 p.m. operation end date, end time, just because I actually got one question about that. And then along with that, maybe Rebecca, because it's under operating standards, it says parklets may be used by food and drinking establishments. And so another question I got from somebody was, does that mean that parklets have to have both of those for customers so they can't just be drinks or, you know, what that actual sentence means or is interpreted as? Yeah, great question. So on the food and drink question, you don't have to serve both either or, but just it's really limited to, you know, restaurant industry or, you know, beer, wine, spirits, restaurant operators, but not exclusively that it has to be food and drink. And then on the hours of operation, the pre-pandemic ordinance had an 11 p.m. cut off time. And so we're sort of, we're looking at that model as what was allowed previously. Under our temporary program, we have limited it to 10 p.m. And so, you know, I would welcome feedback on that, you know, I think sort of providing a little bit more of that late night coverage is beneficial, especially in the downtown. I know that's something that DTA's really been focused on, you know, building up more well, so, but welcome feedback on those hours of operation. Yeah, I mean, I support, I think it is nice to have the street active, you know, kind of into that later evening, just, you know, and that's the way I read that sentence was that it could be either or, but I mean, we're not encouraging sort of just wine and spirits, we are trying to kind of get that full restaurant flavor into these kinds of, I mean, that seems to be what most folks are offering, so. Yeah, absolutely. And I would just add that, you know, we do actually have a number of wine tasting rooms that are using these for their tasting experiences as well. So, you know, there's sort of a mix of that rather than just, you know, traditional bar, there are sort of breweries and wineries taking advantage of it as well. Okay. And then my only other question was, again, just from an interested party, is there an appeal process, there's an appeal process if the design or the permit is denied based on application requirements, whatever, is there actual appeal process for not supporting the parklet? I'm not seeing that in the ordinance right now. So in other words, it seems like there's not an appeal process, for example, for some entity or whatever that found a parklet to not be, you know, maybe copacetic with the neighbor over time. So that was where that question came from was, you get an annual renewal and you pay the year 250 and then does that just make this a permanent and is the, you know, I hate to say it, but is the enforcement piece all on us to just try to make sure that the facility and the establishment is being operated. But it doesn't look like there's any way to appeal something at some point in time. And so I'm just, that just was just a question someone brought up to me. So just curious about your thoughts on that. That's a great question. So yeah, we don't have a component for sort of an appeal from a community member on a parklet. We only have it for the business operator who is wanting to obtain the parklet. But we do have enforcement built into it in terms of utilizing our code enforcement practices. So if they're not in, you know, compliance with the conditions of their permit, they're not operating within standard operating procedures. They're not upkeeping it, you know, we will utilize the code enforcement components for that. You know, I think there's also adjustments that could be made to conditions of approval. And then we do have revocations. So if it is a, you know, bad operator, there are some impacts that, you know, it's felt that they're not meeting the terms of the program. We do have those parameters to sort of take that action. Good. I gave them the right answer then because I pointed to our other code that said that, yeah. So one last question is, how many do you think are gonna be in the CULSA zone? It looks like there's like seven right now. Do you anticipate CULSA commission or is it eight? Do you anticipate any issues with the CULSA commission and getting these approved? Or I'd hate to see like a long lag time for the folks who are sort of dealing with CULSA zone. And did you get any kind of sense from CULSA staff, like what they may do with this kind of permit process? Yeah. So we did have an initial conversation with them just to talk through the extension that we're proposing and also this permanent program. There was not as much support for the parklets on the wharf. And we're actually working through the parklets on the wharf as well in terms of some maintenance needs and other impacts. The each street parklets, they were more supportive of their, with the access being created through the rail trail and some of the other components, they felt that there was some justification to be made for use of those parking spaces. And additionally, the one in LeBrand is further off of each street. And so I think there was more support there but we'll work through those conversations to figure that out. And yeah, and we would want still the businesses to be able to apply and go through the process and be ready once we seek that approval. Well, I hope they support us.  They want to sit outside and look at the ocean and the beach and enjoy the air. So I hope we don't get wrapped or on the racks with them on another thing. So I appreciate you reaching out to them. I think those are my questions right now. Wait on that, Donna, Council Member Myers. The city of Capitola really did help pave the way for us on this and they're utilizing, I believe that's 25 parking spaces in the village. So that is prime coastal access and they were able to find a path forward for that approval. So I'm pretty confident with sort of what they were able to pioneer there. So yeah. That's great. And I just want to thank all of our local businesses who really worked on this, really experiment with us. And you guys have all built really interesting places to be and at your own cost and you didn't know what was going to happen in the end. So I just want to thank you all for doing that and building out a more fun Santa Cruz. So thanks. Thank you, Council Member Myers, Vice Mayor Watkins. Yeah, I'll just sort of piggyback on what Council Member Myers was saying in regards to just the support for our businesses and our gratitude in that way. Like Council Member Golder mentioned, outdoor dining is definitely something that really fits with our community, I think really well and it's something that we've all desired and appreciated and seeing it expanded is a really great thing for so many reasons and particularly under the circumstances with COVID, right? So Council Member Myers asked my question in regards to the coastal access challenges and the wharf and sort of thinking about the impacts there. So, you know, I'm just curious to learn more. At some point it doesn't, I think you've already really spoken to the question I had in regards to that. The other question I had was really thinking about some of the other areas of our community. I know we really have a lot of these popping up in our downtown, but we have our midtown businesses and our west side businesses. And I guess just really thinking about the different areas of our community that could really benefit from this as well and how are we supporting them and where do they fit into this picture? If you could just maybe speak to that a little bit as well. Yeah, happy to. So yeah, we've definitely seen the most demand in our downtown. I think it's been sort of the largest concentration of restaurants and that easy street access. We do have one business, Humble Sea has a parklet on the west side and they were really excited to be able to sort of take that on. We did get some outreach initially from businesses, one business on Seabright for a parklet and we were sort of negotiating some of the traffic impacts there just sort of the speed of travel and safety. So I think we're happy to revisit that conversation under this permanent ordinance as well. I would also say that what we've seen the majority of businesses in sort of the midtown and Seabright and west side areas is really utilization of private property because they do have parking lots that they can utilize and be able to transform. And there's not as much of that street frontage space, but yeah, we definitely support expansion and interest from those businesses as well. Yeah, thank you. I think you're absolutely right in regards to the kind of the private property opportunities there for them. And then just also to Johnna's point or to Councilor Meyer's point, I do have a little one who I think was probably really benefiting from being outside and has one of those chairs that kind of rolls around throughout dinner. So I think in general, it's just a really great thing for not only enjoying our outside, our community and just sort of access to our businesses and all the wonderful things, but it really opens up opportunity in many ways. So really appreciate the work you've done on this and happy to find ways to continue moving it forward. And I just wanted to add on, we're talking about sort of on the midtown on the east side and our parking lot that we have there. We had the very successful midtown Fridays. And as we're going forward, we recognize we need these public spaces to be active. So we are very open to having conversations about from some of our food establishments, about activating those spaces. We've had some conversations with the farmer's market and some food truck vendors about different ways to really keep in different parts of our community in different commercial areas to really try to keep those areas active and looking at public spaces a little differently. So we're open to that as well. Well, since you brought it up Bonnie, sorry, I wasn't gonna say, but since you brought it up Bonnie, because I did think about that in terms of the midtown parking lot, that area for sure has so much opportunity and really truly activated that area. I live nearby, we would walk over, it was amazing to see so many people there and to have that utilization of a parking lot that is often really not really utilized on a regular basis. So as long as we're thinking about economic development and opportunity, I just wanna put in a plug for that area and thinking about even like having some of those containers. I know that was a thought for storage and also thinking about the incubator possibilities there as we do with our downtown businesses. Like that has true potential and it's really been an incredible asset to that side of town. So whatever direction you need or support from the council, I'll just put in my two cents here and saying that I'm 100% on board for that and would love to see that move forward in any way possible. And I appreciate you bringing it up because I thought that too. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor Watkins. So that concludes council questions. Everyone had a chance to ask their questions. Thank you so much for really going through and clarifying some of those questions. I do wanna open it up now for public comment. I know that we have many of our businesses here in person. We also have virtual hands, people joining us virtually for public comment. And again, thank you for separating out our public space permanent parklet program versus our private space permanent outdoor dining program. I think that really makes it easier to move forward with some of these components knowing that each of these locations have unique needs to work through and really appreciate some of the feedback that we received. So adjusting the October 31st deadline for both public and private. So at this time, I would like to ask anyone who would like to speak for public comment. If you're joining us in person, you can line up on the right of the dais. And I will alternate between our virtual attendees and our in-person attendees. So our first person in person here, welcome. And make sure the microphone is at your mouth so we can hear you. Okay, thank you very much. My name's Ian McCray, I own Hula's Island Grill and Tiki Room, about to go into our 17th year. I'm joined by a couple of my partners who are behind me as well as our landlord. And I'd just like to thank you, start out with thanking Rebecca and Bonnie for all the work they've done in the city council because I don't think we'd still be here if it weren't for what you guys have done for us on Calcard Street. So this may be a little redundant, I'm not sure if we have an extension through October 31st now or not because I came to ask for a year extension on Calcard Street. If we lose Calcard or it goes back to two ways, we lose 56 seats. I mean, that's just insurmountable. You know, like we've changed our menu over the past years as our people who are vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, so have we had to change our preferences for outdoor dining. I mean, it's just the new normal. Typically in the weekend, I'm gonna have a 60-minute wait for outside and no wait for inside. Something else that's been a big change is people's bringing their pets, their dogs. They're very attached. I mean, I think it's what the, you know, what's going on in our country and COVID and they just feel much more safe bringing their pets and it's just, we've seen a huge increase in that and of course, because of that, they wanna be outside. You know, COVID's still with us. We've got to, you know, hopefully we don't have a recession but we are looking at it.  The last thing I wanna do is lay anybody off and if we lose 56 seats, there's just, there's no way we can continue without laying people off. You know, the other thing we'd like to do is bring back our Mahalo Monday giving program that we've given over $200,000 through, since we began it, to over 56 local nonprofits and we'd love to bring that back. And, you know, if we felt a little more secure, we would definitely be doing that. You know, tomorrow we're meeting with an architect, Peter Bagnell, to talk about expanding our current parklet. So we're working on it but we'd like to be able to do it, get it done, without missing a beat, so to speak. So we have engaged, you know, my partners are in construction, I mean, we can do it but we just, we need more time. So we're not, you know, so we're not losing seats during that process. Okay, thank you guys, I appreciate it. Thank you for your comment. Okay, I'll bring the next person here in person. Welcome. So good evening, my name is Enda Brennan, I believe I know most of you and I am your appointee to the Downtown Commission and I also have a wife that owns SWAF and La Posta so they both have parklets. The first thing I wanna do is thank every single one of you for your unanimous support for the outdoor dining program. It has been made a difference for every single business and we would be hollowed out downtown if you had not stepped forward when you did. The second thing I wanna say is I was delighted to see that there was a change since I last saw of extending into October 31st and that started me thinking, okay, well if we're extending the actual date to October 31st, why are we adopting an ordinance tonight? And then when I heard your questions, I thought, hmm, you know, I think that there's some doubt on the exact details and specifics of this program and I'm encouraging you as a body to step back, put the brakes on, ask staff to come back with those cheaper design proponent proposals which can be out there, can be found and right now they're not being found as far as I know. I know that they're doing outreach, they've heard that it's as little as 30,000. I just have to tell you, I was at the downtown commission meeting on September 22nd and there was, we asked the same questions you guys did. Hmm, we said, what, what have businesses been saying? And Rebecca was very honest. She said they were, she didn't use the word uniformly. I will use that word because I've spoken to many of these businesses. Our uniformly concerned about the dramatic cost that's currently being proposed for the pre-approved designs and that's really what we need to try and do is ask staff to come back with lower numbers for those. And so I think as a result of that, one of the, I think it was one of the things they did after that was then start exploring this potential loan program. But that's all it is right now. It's a potential loan program. There's no flesh on those bones. There is nothing specific about it. So those are the main issues that I would ask you to consider is put the brakes on, do not adopt this ordinance in its first reading tonight. Send it back to staff with very specific and perceptive questions that you have and then take a closer look at it when it comes back to you. The one thing I will have to say on behalf of my fellow member of the Downtown Commission and he and I both sat on the Parklet Ad Hoc Committee which met with Rebecca afterwards and that's Joe Ferrara. And Joe is an interesting man. And what I would say very simply is Joe brought up the equity issue and he said, you know, we're doing this for the dining establishments and I understand that. But what about all those other retail businesses in the city of Santa Cruz? If you're gonna be taking a public spot which is a parking spot and you're gonna be dedicating it, why aren't you doing it, making this program for all retail business? Your time is up, thank you. Anyway, that was Joe's concern. And Rebecca heard that concern and it's not in this ordinance that's before you tonight. I will take our next caller virtually. There are a couple hands raised. Thank you. The first person with their hand raised is the name I am watching you. Okay, thank you. It seems to me permanent public property parklets need more examination and full debate on their basic principles. My basic principle of public property is that it belongs to all the city's people, should theoretically be uniformly usable by all the people if they desire and exceptions to apply equally to all people like being closed or open or fees or for improved resources or yes, sometimes a fee queue for a temporary exclusive use permits. This is none of those. Everyone can use parks, libraries, roads, play municipal golf, park, rent a civic, et cetera. Used to all is uniformly permitted and the basic city core principle of city purpose is charging normally via taxes but sometimes by temporary exclusive use fees for services or use rights that are available to everyone as well as defending all individuals' equal rights to health, safety, life and liberty. However, when the city permanently removes public access to public property, for instance, as a subsidy in developing affordable housing, this then only goes to benefit developers and a very small public minority and the vast rest of the entire public is shut out of use of that property long-term. A worst example is Measure K and L where the public assumes the debt of 100% the cost for developing segregated affordable housing but really has no shorter benefit from that 100% subsidized housing and additionally it's a sham using bonds to really pay for operational costs like an employee housing benefit similar to using a mortgage to buy food. Awful principles are involved. The parklets principles are even worse. It's like the adjacent business owner has granted a permanent use permit of what was heavily used a public property parking or access and now public control use is permanently lost. It's a cozy partnership between business and government where the public land use rights are just auctioned off to make city and business more money and the public is the property rights loser. It's a kind of fascism, yes it is. Additionally, I can't believe you suggest sticking the public with any costs for this whatsoever. The government is not the public. It's an obvious sell out of finite public land use. I'm not saying the pandemic response had no consequences that require temporary practices and fair consideration or even compensation but the public needs a value for permanently giving up public spaces and I mean the public, not the government. There are plenty of special moneyed interests that want this. The question is what guiding principles are you employing eroding public property rights? I see no permit number limits. What compensation does the public get? As usual, we find out later and I don't think a general fund deposit answers that. Don't forget you are employed caretakers of public assets, not self-interested public asset wheeler dealers. Ask yourself, when you've sold all the public land use rights where do you go from there? What's the worst? The public doesn't have the right to pay full restaurant fare to eat in a parking lot. Okay, thanks. Thank you for your comment. I will take one more virtual caller. The name is Alex Gershenson. Welcome, go ahead and press star six to unmute yourself. Good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Perfect. Thank you, city council. Thank you, city staff. My name is Alex and I am a business owner downtown but a slightly different business. I don't have a parklet. I run Siflashift, which is a software company and I wanted to put a few comments for consideration of the city council. My company benefits from the parklet program because I'm able to bring my customers, my investors, my employees to have lunch, to use public spaces safely. We are in a pandemic. We are going to be in a pandemic for a very long time and I wouldn't bring my staff. I wouldn't bring my team. I wouldn't bring my customers and investors inside. And so these parklets, these public spaces generate substantial additional revenue for the city. It just wouldn't be there without it. And so at the same time, I really want the city council to consider the fact that, you know, the fees that are being proposed on these businesses, you know, we're not just talking about these fees. We're talking about these fees in the context of interest rates that are really high right now because we have inflation. We have high Fed rates. And so, you know, business loans right now run, I mean, it depends where you're getting them from. SBA, I think is about 8.5% minimum and business lines of credit are certainly north of 10%. I've seen 16%, right? So it's not just the money that businesses would have to put out. It is also the interest rates, you know, forgivable loans, that's all, that's great, but they have to be concurrent as a previous commenter said. And more importantly, right now there are parklets that are beautiful and they've been well-designed. And, you know, I would suggest that the stuff that's already there should just be grandfathered in because businesses shouldn't have to spend additional money to do the same thing that is already there. And for the rest, I think there should be a lot more flexibility because I bet that the amount of money that the city gets for various public programs from the additional sales tax is far higher than the parking fees. So thank you so much. Really appreciate all your work and looking forward to the next iteration. Thank you for your comment. I will go to our next comment in person here. Welcome. My name is Elise Kasby and I've been watching the Parklets develop. I wanna start by saying that I think it adds robustly to our civic culture and life to have these dining places and to have restaurant tours who have already been in business facilitating these vehicles. I do have some things that I think that we should consider. First of all, I just wanna ask, have we had any IR? I just think that would be important to have some kind of environmental impact report. I suspect it would be very positive because there's less traffic and less cars in the parking spaces. I have no idea. But what I'm more concerned with here is really, as I'm a pedestrian and I take the bus, I'm an environmentalist and this is great not having a car. It really hasn't been much of a problem to have some of the restaurants moving on to the sidewalk, but there are a few who have just blatantly taken over the sidewalk and they're directing the traffic to walk on the street. Generally we are protected, but I'll just be honest here. My concern is with the public sentiment, the hit that I think that the public, the feeling of a public life is taking and the supremacy of a private kind of ownership that is maybe a little too oppressive. I'm just putting this out there for consideration. For example, could we have some parklets where you don't have to buy anything? So for example, one or two could be youth oriented, some could be specifically very friendly for people who are elderly to feel that they can sit and rest. I'm really just trying to bring in the sense of public space here and that you don't have to purchase something to be in this place. And I think that's important to consider in our civic life. And the last thing that I just wanna end on is, I really do think that what we need to start thinking about as a city is all kinds of traffic. Years ago we were in the Civic Center trying to possibly take out traffic from the downtown core. And that did not happen. I actually didn't live here, but I was residing here for a while. And I thought it was a fascinating option. I'd really like to see us more thoroughly think about pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks. Servers are coming out with tables and heaters and champagne service. And that's great. But I just also want us to think about what kind of access do pedestrians have? What kind of civic life are we really building here? And I just wanna end on saying, I think this needs more analysis of our pedestrian flow. And just wanna end by saying, I love the parklets. I really think they do add tremendously to our downtown life. And I'm glad they're there. And I just want us to really be a little thoughtful about it. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Our next comment will be in person. Welcome. Hi, my name is Alexis Carr and I work at SWAF in downtown Santa Cruz. Like pretty much everyone before me, I would like to just say again, thank you all so much for all the hard work, especially Rebecca, as well as a lot of the members on city council who I know have personally taken time out of their work schedule to talk to myself and the other manager at SWAF, Andrea Eckhart, about our concerns and the issues that we've had throughout the pandemic. I know one of the main problems before when we were talking about the original plan for the parklets moving forward was the cost that restaurants would face. And I think again, from what I've heard from other people who are also in the industry downtown and throughout Santa Cruz as well, we've all invested so much in parklets already that when we're proposing this additional cost of about 40 grand to 70 grand, that's not the original cost. That's on top of what we paid and had to redo and had to redo. So my concern is, well, if we put together this plan and then we put it all together, what's to say that we're not gonna get, oh, no, we need to change it and we need to invest more in changing it again. I'm a little concerned with currently the fact that it seems like not everything's quite there yet to invest for us to be, to invest again. It's kind of scary to be perfectly frank. And I really hope that we can look a little bit further before we spend the significant investment that it costs to do this. But I wanna thank everybody again and really just urge that for a lot of people, these are small businesses and this is their livelihood and it is a really big gamble. So thank you all for listening. Thank you for your comment. I'll invite the next person here in person. Hi, my name is Maya Zohara and I'm a frequent customer of these amazing businesses.  Special shout out to Oswald and SWAF and Hulus and all of the other Midtown and Worf and whatnot. Basically, they helped us get through a very, very difficult time with the pandemic. Breaking bread together is a heart of a community globally. It often, breaking bread together transpires divisive experiences. It brings a community with shared experiences. I wanna reiterate what Martin said just about and someone else with bringing your animals outside and having more formal quiet adult only experiences inside, having families come together with their children, being able to dine outside, not just for safety, but also just for a need that was unrecognized in our community. I am in support of our restaurants and their recommendations. I do wanna say as a pedestrian, I write public transportation. The only concern I've ever had is if the city could do something that would be a bit more directional for those in need, the handicap community with walkers, wheelchairs, blind, it's a little bit challenging. I do not wanna place the burden of that on our restaurantiers. I'm an advocate for whatever way we can to make these permanent parklets permanent in our community in a cost-effective way for our restaurantiers because they are small businesses. Also, it brings us up to the global standard of many countries. I lived all around the world and I will tell you this, it was very hard coming back to the United States. It was so isolating in this model that we had and the pandemic model really brought us forward in a sense that is just wonderful breaking bread and sharing tables, talking in a safe way. So anything that we can do to support our restaurantiers and also there is a pedestrian issue that needs to be solved around accessibility that I think we could resolve in a cost-effective way without putting that burden on the restaurantiers. So anyway, I just wanna thank you very so much for all that you're doing, your support of our small businesses, the engagement of community life and public spaces has been outstanding benefit of our pandemic and this pandemic is not gonna just resolve, there's gonna be other things that come forward. So to eradicate and then have them restart is just financially not wise. And in my opinion, I think that the tax revenue really may outweigh the public space parking loss issue. So anyway, thank you for your time. Thank you for your comment. I will go to our next caller joining us virtually with our hand raised and that is Peter be here. Go ahead and press star six to unmute. Hello, can you hear me? Come city council. Yes, welcome Peter. Thank you, mayor. This is Peter B. Shea community liaison for the city of Santa Cruz, but right now I'm speaking on behalf of David Torres and he wrote me his message from up to my phone. He's obviously behind the kitchen in La Taqueria, La Montaña. Hola, Pedro, y el resto del concilio. Hi, Pedro and the rest of the city council. Básicamente lo que me gustaría decir en la junta para nosotros es muy importante el espacio afuera. Basically what I would like to share with you all that the space outside is very important. El año pasado nuestras ventas cayeron un 80%. Last year my incomes went down, fell down by 80%. En particular mi negocio también depende del boardwalk, especially that my business depends on the boardwalk. Now that the boardwalk is open, it's also better for me in having more people outside. La gente de Santa Cruz le encanta comer afuera, so the people from Santa Cruz love to eat outside en el aire libre y el espacio que estoy tanto permanentemente no interfiere con el tráfico and the space that I'm also interested in permanently does not interfere with traffic. And ya que estaria ese color a mío since this is a yellow zone, it's yellow bandit y me digo hasta una rampa pública and also I have a public ramp and the owner of the place also is in the green. I really thank Rebeca Unit and the group in the economic development who have been helping us strongly to survive this tough year. I hope we're able to have these permanent permits from David Torres, just through me. Thank you. Peter, thank you. I did not hear who you said that was from. Are you still there? Did anyone catch that? It's David Torres. It's David Torres. Thank you. Yes, correct. It's David Torres from Taqueria La Montaña. Thank you. Did you have a question, Council Member? Okay, our next caller is the name Sandra.  You are six. Okay, star six, hold on a second. We hear you. You hear me. Okay, great, great. Hi. You know, I hadn't really planned on speaking. I don't really have anything prepared, but I'm very passionate about a certain topic. And I was listening to the earlier public address and my computer was still on. And so I hear these wonderful people talking about the restaurants and how to keep them open on the street. And I hear people extolling the virtues of the east side, the parking lot that's there, which to me looks pretty shabby, could definitely be spruced up as a public space. And I guess I want to segue back to the parking garage proposed to be and the affordable housing and the library proposed to be on our vacant lot and kind of tie it all together and let the restaurateurs think about what it might be like to have their people sitting on the street dining with the construction happening during the day, all the dust, all the debris being back and forth, all the traffic, all the traffic hold up. So I'd like the restaurateurs who actually haven't really stopped to visualize or think about how that's gonna affect their business. Think about that. And hopefully there's time for them to vote because I'm a little bit despondent that the way that the measure O has kind of transpired with the new permits on the trees. It's sort of like if measure O doesn't pass, does that mean that the parking garage and the affordable housing and the whole block long construction site, that's a done deal? Is that how it goes? Like if measure O doesn't pass, yes, you get to put permits on the trees to take the trees down. You get to move forward because measure O didn't pass. I guess I'm not that familiar with government.  But it seems like if it doesn't pass, now it's people are backed into the corner to build this huge building. And I'd like the people who extoll the virtues of public land. I like to take their little ones on Friday night to the East side to think about that's our last public land right there. And once it's gone, it's gone. There's no bringing it back. If anybody's lived in a city that's watched that happen to a neighborhood, you know that there's no bringing a neighborhood back. So I would like the restaurateurs to think about how their sidewalk dining experience is gonna be for their clients after this happens, if it happens, hopefully not. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. I will now invite anybody else. Are you waiting to talk on this item? Okay, come forward. Thank you. Hello again. Welcome. Thank you. Max Mission West Bar over on the West side. I'm thoroughly impressed with that packet. Renee and Bonnie, thank you guys. Seriously, I think we've been, you know, not sure of what we were gonna see for the last two years and it's just nice to have something to go off. I do kind of wanna piggyback off this gentleman about, it might be good to take a look at a couple things. You know, I think overall it's really nice, but let's sleep on it, right? For at least a day or two. I am eager to see what might be a similar packet for private property. That is what my business is dealing with right now. And I want to urge and piggyback off of council member Cummings and Golder and most of you in saying that the loss in parking money is, I mean, percentages of tax revenue. It's not just the sales tax. It is the guy that I go buy my plants from, the water that I water them with.  And maybe even more important is the additional employment that we get to give money in people's hands that live here. Ian has talked about this, how many more people he can employ. So important. So I want you guys to think about that when you're looking at the fees. You know, I saw this one for the parklets. Not saying it's unrealistic or that it's not fair, but I think it's something to consider is that you guys are gaining essentially way more restaurants. Even though they're not more restaurants, it's tons more seating. Something for private. I want to kind of put out there is that we're in a situation with our landlords if we don't own the property. And these guys are seeing that there's potential for more money and some of them have expressed that they want to charge us more money or rent. While they might not be able to do that in public, they can in private in most cases. So again, when we're forming a private packet, please consider the additional fees that could be coming our way. You know, nothing's free, right? Let's see what else. I know that one thing that I'd like to do, the Midtown Fridays have been an incredible event. Private property has a lot more space on them, typically, and more build-out costs. And I think that that's something to be considered about the loans that Bonnie had kind of brought up. It could be more, but it could bring the community more in regards to, you know, we have a West Side similar to the Midtown Fridays. One thing I'd like to present in good time. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. There are no virtual attendees with their hands raised on item. We are discussing agenda item 17 on our agenda, the permanent outdoor dining program on public on-street parking spaces. And we just had comments from members of the public. Members of the public. And it looks like that concludes public comment. And so at this time I'd like to bring it back to council for deliberation and action. I did want to clarify one thing. There was one caller who said, do not adopt the ordinance in its first reading tonight. And the way that this typically works is this is what's called a first reading. And then we have a second reading. And then we have an option to adopt it. So I know that we, anybody still has the option to email us, email or connect with economic development team to further refine specific questions or input or suggestions. But if we move forward with this first reading and second reading on November 15th, and if it does get adopted, then this would then take effect December 30 days later. So that's kind of the process of how it works. And then businesses for the November 15th that would also include the parklet fee schedule. I think there was another comment about the fee schedule. So I will bring it over to council member Cummings. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank everybody for their comments on this item. I did have one question for staff before we move on. One of the members of the public brought up Oswald's, which then also made me think about, there are a few businesses. I think there might, maybe it's just two, maybe it's Oswald's in the parish public house on the west side where they use sidewalks and they don't use the streets. And we haven't actually discussed that and how those businesses are not, well, if there's anything that needs to be done about businesses that want to work, that want to conduct their outdoor on sidewalks. And we also heard some comments from members of the public around pedestrian access. So just wanted to see if you can make some comments on those businesses that have been operating outdoors, but operating on sidewalks and not in public streets. Yeah, absolutely. Great question. So we do still have our outdoor extension area, it's a cafe extension program in the downtown which has been in place for a long time. So that has a traditional permit process through the planning department. It is on my to-do list and goal is to refine that process as well to bring into the compliance so that's something that I wanted to also explore as we're working on repealing the outdoor curb extension is looking at refining that cafe extension program. And I think that, you know, with the, that program is long established and has some clear guidelines within the ordinance and it's not as much of a lift as sort of the parklet details. So that is something that is our priority to revise those before the October 31st deadline as well. Okay. Thank you. So I did have a motion that I prepared and just want to thank everybody for all the work that they've done on this and also thank the community for their input this evening because I think I was able to incorporate some of that into this. Just understanding that, and I do want to kind of clarify something around, you know, first readings and second readings. Oftentimes when we make changes to ordinances that come before us during that first reading, the second reading is really to adopt that language. But one of the things that we've heard tonight from staff, from some of the concerns from council members and concern from the community is, you know, needing to have some more input on this. And so the language that I proposed is that we, so I'll move that we establish an outdoor dining subcommittee to work with staff and community stakeholders on issues and concerns related to temporary and permanent outdoor dining. Two, that we direct staff to bring the parklet guidelines and parklet fee schedule and an ordinance establishing a permanent parklet program city-wide for adoption by no later than the second city council meeting in February 2023. And we direct the subcommittee to work with staff and community stakeholders to explore extending forgivable loans to businesses on private property for the coordination with the subcommittee and community stakeholders direct staff to coordinate with the coastal commission and process a coastal permit to authorize implementation of the parklet ordinance, the construction use or operations of parklets within the coastal zone under chapter 5.83 of the Santa Cruz municipal code and five direct staff to initiate the process of repealing SCMC section 24.10.2341 outdoor curb extension area pursuant Santa Cruz municipal code chapter 24.06. I'll second that. We had a motion by council member Cummings seconded by council member Golder. Any further? I just have one question. It was five, because you made me think when you mentioned Oswald and the public parish house, I was also thinking of what's that one on the website, the your place, Humboldt, and they kind of take over the sidewalk and when someone mentioned the pedestrian access, it is something I think we should look into because if someone was in a wheelchair or pushing a stroller or walking a dog, if it's interfering with that, I don't look into it. Oh, sorry. I'm so sorry. I usually have such a loud voice.  Did you hear what I said or? Okay. I'm assuming this is a council subcommittee. I just want to clarify that. I see council member Calentari Johnson and then council member Myers and one second here while I pull this up. Okay. Council member Calentari Johnson. Yeah, I had a question item, I had two in the motion. So is this a shift from staff recommendation that we would be, I'm just trying to compare it to the staff recommendation that staff recommendations November 15th and we're proposing February 23rd or is this different? This is a question for council member Cummings. It's the language is no later than the second meeting in February. So it can come before. It could be anytime before. Okay. And so the additional really is around the subcommittee. It's a big piece. It's around the subcommittee and then providing more opportunity to work with staff working with council members and the businesses so that everybody's kind of getting on board with, you know, everything as it's rolling out and we're taking all those concerns into account. Okay. Council member Myers and council member Golder. I guess my question. I mean, I'm supportive. I think of the motion as it's written. I just want to make sure I understand kind of how and what will be different in these, except for the fact that the council members could kind of be part of the discussion now. Just curious from staff's perspective, will we gain a lot more? I'm just, I mean, I'm not against the motion at all, but I'm just trying to understand whether or not we're going to really gain anything or if staff feels like they missed something along the way is curious. Yeah. Thanks for the question council member Myers and I would pull Bonnie Lipscomb and Rebecca back into the conversation, but there has been a significant amount of outreach as was reflected in tonight's presentation and ultimately resulted in the recommendations that were brought forward. As we often do with council subcommittees, it's an opportunity for council members that are interested in the topic to support staff in that work as well as engaging with our key stakeholder groups. So defer to the council if there's interest in doing that. I do think a number of the concerns that have been raised throughout that work, staff have done a good job of addressing, but open to that suggestion. My one comment then would just to make sure that we, you know, it seems like we've done a lot of outreach, but, you know, just again, making sure we get communications around, you know, a newly appointed, you know, commission, because it sounds like went through our commissions, which is kind of typical downtown and then public works and transportation. So those two kind of, you know, looked at it, said yes, there were some recommendations. So I just make sure that the communication goes back out and makes the big round again so that we don't lose people on the way. Thanks. Council Member Golder and then Vice Mayor Watkins. I just wanted to say when we're thinking about stakeholders, another stakeholder that we might want to include is local architects. My neighbor Pete Bagnell, was talking to him about this and he thinks it could be done for a lot cheaper. And especially if like businesses work together and they made the good design that they kind of cloned, but I just think if that was brought in into the mix, if during that conversation, we could save some money for businesses too. Vice Mayor Watkins. Yeah, I just wanted to see what Rebecca and Bonnie had to say in regards to this proposal and knowing that I think it's essentially the same other than the subcommittee kind of joining forces and kind of understanding what has been done and between now and February, what could be done. I know that that's also a holiday time and a lot of other things are going on, right? So anyways, if you want to speak to that too or if you want to weigh in, happy to hear your perspective. I'll let Rebecca weigh in on some of the programmatic elements in the outreach. I think we're always open to receiving more feedback. I do think we've had quite an extensive amount of feedback where the ordinance is today. I think the way that we're having the first reading today, be very happy to meet with community members, meet with the committee of the existing commission committee that had already weighed in and had a subcommittee on this, meet with them again. I think where I do have some concerns is tabling the first reading today and waiting until February. And the reason why I have some concerns about that is looking at the extension date and wanting to make sure we have enough time for those that want to have a permanent program to be able to apply, submit their application and have time to go through the permitting process and construct their parklet prior to the expiration of the temporary program. I mean, the concept behind the temporary program is that we are allowing at no additional cost folks to work their way through to permanence and we're gonna work with them one-on-one. And so delaying us having the permanent ordinance out there where people know these are the parameters, delaying that, I'm worried that's going to impact the overall timeline and schedule for businesses who are ready to go and just as an option is right now, want to do the minimal to take their existing temporary parklet and make it permanent because that's always an option. I think we're some of the feedback and requests for more information is around, is involving our pre-approved sort of designs or the streamlined. And I think I really appreciate that feedback. I know we have tried to get some quotes for some local architects that's something we're committed to trying to get a lower cost point and having some options of not having some of the overhead features with some of those elements that could bring the cost down a little bit. And on the, I would say the permanent, the funding program is a separate process from completely from the ordinance. And so I don't want those two to get wrapped up together. I think we can have a similar timeline where we're working on that. We've been meeting with the Credit Union and our other potential provider and just really working through the program details. I will say, during the pandemic, when we had our initial emergency loan program, we did turn that around really quickly. I know we can do that again for this program, but I think delaying this from October all the way to February before we have the beginning of an ordinance could be really problematic for us. Yeah, we have a follow-up question from Vice Mayor Watkins. I see Council Member Brown has her hand up. I wanted to chime in and Council Member Cummings as well. So Bonnie, if I hear you correctly, I understand your concerns. And so if I hear what you're suggesting, I mean, if it was up to you, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what I'm hearing is to have us move forward with the first reading, knowing that there could be changes and modifications between now and the second reading, potentially, as well as additional information that would inform enhancements along the way. Is that accurately kind of summarized your thoughts on that? I appreciate that, because I think we don't want to undo harm here and delay this ordinance if it's not necessarily gonna be who the business is as well. So yeah, anyways, that brings concern for me with the motion as proposed, but I appreciate your perspective. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Thank you. I guess I'm a little confused because I'm hearing a response that this is gonna be a problematic, it could be problematic for businesses, but we've heard businesses themselves asking us to take more time. And so I feel a little, I guess I'm just confused by that. It seems like a mixed message. Mike, I am supportive of delaying a first reading. I think that the February 2023 timeline no later then, if people wanna say we need to do it sooner, that's great, that's fine, but I do wanna just ask about, well, the wisdom of moving forward with an ordinance that could end up being changed enough and it doesn't require a significant amount of change to then require a new first reading. Why we would not at a minimum consider first reading somewhere further down the road once Council committee, once people can get back together with the businesses and get some feedback on a proposal that I recognize has been in the works and a lot of sharing has happened with the businesses, but there still seem to be lots of questions and concerns and so it feels to me like doing a first reading when we've maybe worked through a little bit more of that makes sense, not to put this off and hurt businesses that are ready to go, but I'm also hearing businesses say we're ready to go, but not necessarily on the terms or without some questions being worked out for us. So, and I recognize that's not all of the businesses who are enrolled in this program, but I guess to suggest that making this decision when hurt businesses, when it's businesses asking us to take more time, this leads me to think we should take more time. I would love to respond to that. I think in general, having some of this information in advance would from a staff level been really helpful from council. I will say that we've had many businesses tell us, how soon can you get to council? And so with having a different recommendation presented at the council meeting, it's hard for us to process that in real time, particularly for communication out to businesses to know that this could be delayed again. So I think for the number of the businesses that have really been pushing on us to bring this forward, I feel like it's not fair to them that you're not hearing their voices tonight because they agreed with the recommendations in the staff report. So I just feel like it's important to share that because from a staff level perspective, we also had a lot of pressure and we really took extra time to make sure we were trying to accommodate a lot of the concerns and feedback that we have and feel like that is why we came to you tonight. So while just in general, the waiting till February wouldn't be an issue for the reasons I stated earlier, I am concerned around the timeline. And I'm also concerned that we're not fully representing some of the businesses that wanted us to come forward earlier than later so that they had ample time to go through the permitting process and construct their parklets before the termination of the temporary program. So I don't know, Rebecca, if you have some additional comments you'd like to add to that. Yeah, I just had a clarifying question as well in terms of the changes that we wanna work through on the ordinance. I'm wondering, I just wanna clarify if it's to the actual ordinance components or if it's the parklet guidelines, which we'll be bringing to the November 15th meeting for final adoption. We've shared a draft with you tonight and it's in the agenda packet. And I would love to take in that feedback and be able to incorporate that for the November 15th meeting. And the pre-approved designs, I'm meeting with our LSU architecture firm tomorrow to talk through some of the revised cost estimates that we reviewed a couple of weeks ago. So I just wanted to understand if it's components of the ordinance language or if it is the guidelines and the fee schedule. So just for my own understanding. Do you have any comment on that? Sure, I've comment on a lot of what's come up right now. Okay, on the guidelines or the fee schedule? I think all of the above. Okay. So first, this is the first time many members of the public have seen this document including council members and many members of the, many of the businesses they're here to. And this is an opportunity as many have expressed tonight for them to have a chance to really dive into this working with council members and staff to really look at some of the issues that they've brought up. It sounded like today that there had been some discussion for example with the approved design options and sounded like based on staff's communication that that was like one conversation that they had had with some businesses and that the businesses that expressed that the 50 to the 75,000 is cost prohibitive. The businesses that are here and maybe the businesses that haven't been able to get here, you know, haven't, since they've seen this for the first time, it's unclear whether they have concerns with those fee schedules. It sounded like there is some concern based on comments that have been brought up. And so the reason why the recommendation was to form the subcommittee is because it's an opportunity for council members who are very much interested in this to sit down with impacted stakeholders, to sit down with staff and have an opportunity to have a conversation of what are the concerns that they have? What are the changes they would like to see made? And there's nothing in this motion that precludes this item from coming back to council before February of 2023. So this is not saying it has to come back February 2023. It's providing flexibility so that if there needs, there's more time that's necessary that staff can push this out because we know that there's a lot going on. But I think what we've heard from the businesses here tonight and what I've been hearing, what I've been having conversations with businesses is that what they really wanted to understand was what's happening with the temporary extension? Are we gonna get another extension? And is there the process moving forward for permanency? And I think, and what's unfortunate is we don't have all this, I mean, I understand why we've separated this out, but I think that there was some discussion around the March expiration date and what one of the edits that we have before us is extending that to October. I think I've heard from other members of the public who wanna see the temporary extended out for a year after the statewide expiration of COVID, which happens February of this year. And I know that's one of the next items on our agenda. But to kind of sum all this up, there's nothing stopping this from coming back before February. I think the main thing that we've been hearing from people tonight is that they would like a chance to be able to read and absorb and understand how this is gonna impact their business. And by putting together a subcommittee to work with members of the community and with staff, it's an opportunity for us to bring something forward that everybody can agree on or get to a point where they're okay with what's gonna be coming forward. Does that conclude your? For now. Council Member Calantari Johnson. So I heard a couple of different things tonight and in my conversations over the last several months with business owners is that we do want a pathway for permanency. And I see what was brought before us tonight as that pathway to permanent permanency. I really appreciate the motion around developing a subcommittee as we look at those guidelines and look at the parklet fees. I think that's really important. But I really heard clearly from several of the businesses who spoke that this is an amazing packet. You really listen to us. I see some of what I heard from business owners that I've relayed to Bonnie, Rebecca and staff integrated in here, including the extension of that March deadline to the October so that it's an alignment with the private program and it's an alignment with what the county's doing. So I guess what I'm trying to say is maybe there is a middle ground to this motion Council Member Cummings and I'm not making a friendly commitment, I'm just an amendment, but that we proceed with the subcommittee and we do what's laid out here but we do have the first reading of that ordinance because it doesn't seem to me that the ordinance is where the challenges are. It's the details within the guidelines and the parklet fee. The ordinance would create that pathway for us to move forward and that's what I've heard really clearly both tonight and in speaking to community members along the way. So I'm just putting that out there as a comment, not ready to make a friendly amendment until we've kind of thought through it and talked through it. Thank you, Council Member Callentary Johnson, Council Member Golder. Yeah, after hearing staff's comments and other Council Member's comments, I was thinking kind of along the same lines another thought that popped into my head was that if there are businesses that are ready to go, I would hate to have them lose funding opportunities with interest rates rising and things like that. We really have to take that into account that we don't know what's gonna happen with the economy and for them to be able to establish permanence as quickly as possible if they're able then. But I do agree that it's really the details that need to be worked out. And so I'm wondering if we can come to a compromise here in that. Vice Mayor Watkins. Yeah, no, I really appreciate the comments. I do, I share the sentiment and that I think this could be really a both and and truly this is a first reading and a lot can change if I don't anticipate a lot changing, but I mean, things can change between now and the second reading. So I don't see the harm in that. I also, I do hear loud and clearly that there is concern around the delay and I share that. I think there's only one meeting in November and there's a lot of business that I'm sure will likely occur between that and then December. And there's a lot of holidays in between. And I think for me, I think just even realistically that there is concern with that being postponed. So I don't see the harm in that. I really appreciate the suggestion. If that is a friendly amendment or a substitute motion, I'm happy to second that, but I hope that we can get to that compromise because I think that's the way to go. Council Member Cummings. Just based on the discussion, I'm wondering if we can just move, we can remove that and have that as a separate. Motion that we take so we can, you know, the subcommittee, sounds like there's interest in having the subcommittee work with the fee schedule, working on exploring the extension of forgivable loans, coastal permit and process and then, you know. Design. Correct. And, but it does seem like there's some difference in the adoption of the first reading tonight. So maybe what we can do is just pull that out. We can take that as a separate motion and then that way, you know, if we can't agree on that, then that's something. So you're proposing, if I can just make sure you're clear, is that you're proposing the motion to be essentially the staff recommendation, but to encompass a subcommittee in addition to that, to really look at some of the elements you laid out. The motion would be to take the number two where it says direct staff to return to council no later than the second council meeting of February 2023 with the Parkland guidelines and Parkland fee schedule. That'd be a period. And then the rest of that with the adopting an ordinance, that would be a separate item. And so the motion could be made to adopt the ordinance tonight. I'll introduce it for publication. Yeah. You mean tonight? Yeah. So that would just be a separate motion. You don't want to incorporate that into your motion? No, because I think that might be one area of difference. Of difference. Okay. Yeah. Your problem. And I guess I could just comment if I have the floor on that. Go ahead. Yeah. And I just wanted to say that again, the reason why there's the flexibility in the language is so that if this can come to council sooner, that will provide the council with an opportunity the subcommittee to work with the businesses to have a conversation with the businesses and staff together on the ordinance language before it's adopted and to get more input from the community. But if that's something that council wants to take action on that, I'm happy to pull it out and we can have that as a separate motion. Bonnie Lipscomb, I see your hands raised. Thank you. I just, I really appreciate this recommended change. I feel like this is just seeing this now, I think, and I appreciate council member Cummings you suggesting that because I, now that I'm looking at this and look, I feel like this can really work for us. And I think working as we have all along, I think with the community, having a council and subcommittee that's rolling up their sleeves, working on that with us, that's great, particularly on the design guidelines and the park with fee schedule because that is something that, we just presented some data tonight, but we really do need to have more feedback on that. So separating that out from the ordinance, which I do think is a different process and we have spent a lot of time on that and having that first reading tonight, that it's like we can work within this timeline because I do think we have some room on the guidelines and the park with fee schedule outside of the ordinance, the first reading of the ordinance to work on that. So thank you for making that recommendation. And I also want to appreciate council member Palantari Johnson for making that observation about the guidelines as well as being a little separate from the ordinance language itself. Thank you. Okay, so we have a... I was gonna say, I haven't heard if that was acceptable to the maker of the second. We have a motion by council member Cummings, seconded by council member Golder and the change was acceptable to the maker and the second. So may we have a roll call vote, please? Council member Calantari Johnson. Aye. Golder. Aye. Cummings. Aye. Brown. Aye. Myers. Aye. Vice mayor Watkins. Aye. Mayor Brunner. Aye. That motion passes unanimously. And I'll move the first recommendation in the... First item of the recommendation, which is the motion to introduce for publication and ordinance establishing a permanent part of the program. Okay. We have a motion by vice mayor Watkins to establish an ordinance for an ordinance establishing a permanent public program citywide, seconded by council member Calantari Johnson. Any comments on that? Council member Cummings. Yeah, I'll just say for the record that while I am supportive of us having this kind of ordinance, I think that it would be in the best interest of the community. I know that a lot of community members would like to weigh in on this more before we take action tonight. And so I won't be voting in support of the ordinance as it's proposed this evening. And my hope is that between now and the second reading, that there will be an opportunity for community members to provide input and that we can incorporate that input at the time that it's heard. And I know that that also may mean that it will trigger another first reading, but my hope is that we can get some input from the community at that second reading. Thank you. Council member Calantari Johnson. Yeah, and I'll echo those sentiments. This gives us a path forward and gives us something concrete for the businesses in the community to work with. So I'd like to invite any of the businesses who wanna work directly with any one of us to reach out so that if there are changes that need in the ordinance, we have a month to work through it, or about a month. Before the November 15th second reading. Okay. Okay, may we have a roll call vote? Council member Calantari Johnson. Aye. Boulder. Aye. Cummings. No. Brown. No. Myers. Aye. Vice Mayor Watkins. Aye. And Mayor Brunner. Aye. That motion passes five to one. Five to two. I apologize. Council member Brown and council member Cummings. Or no. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We will now move on to item number 18. On our agenda, this is the permanent outdoor dining program on private property. For members of the public who are streaming this meeting, if this is an item you wish to comment on, now is the time to call in using the instructions on your screen. The order will be a presentation of the item by staff followed by questions from the council. We will then take public comment and return to council for deliberation and action. And with this, I would like to welcome our presenter of agenda item 18, Rebecca Unit Economic Development Manager. Thank you. All right, I'll share my screen to begin the presentation. So this is our second item on our permanent outdoor dining program updates. So looking at private property permitting. Okay, so currently we have about 21 businesses that have expressed interest in seeking permanent approval from some hours that we did last year. These include restaurants, bars, wineries, breweries. And we have worked with the planning department to do a review of sort of what the permitting process looks like under our existing codes. We've worked with individual businesses to get an understanding of sort of how those codes impact them and the process to permanence for them. And so we found that there are a number of challenges that came up in a number of permits that are required under our existing codes. So I just want to give some examples of what we found sort of most common. In a lot of cases for businesses, if they're serving alcohol or even just expanding into outdoor dining, that's triggering an administrative use permit. That is the city's sort of lowest level of discretionary permit, which goes to the zoning administrator hearing. It also has a 30 day review time initially and has a hefty fee attached to it as well. And then also a design permit can be required. We also found in instances where businesses are serving alcohol, we have a section of our code that states that if you're increasing your floor area, so the amount of space that you're serving alcohol in beyond 20% that can trigger a special use permit. And that's our highest level of discretionary review and often goes to the planning commission for approval. So a lot of these businesses who have expanded outdoors, many of them have exceeded 20%. And so that's another significant barrier and permit process that they would have to go through to get that approval. We've also seen that with the number of the businesses who are utilizing their parking areas, in some instances, their parking lot might be on an adjacent parcel. So it's not necessarily the same piece of land and under our codes. That can require either a lot line adjustment to combine those parcels together so that that permit can go with one parcel or I can require an AUP to recognize the business operating on two separate parcels. So it's another sort of barrier and permit process that business has to undertake. And then a lot of the most common challenges that we saw across businesses was really some of the restrictions around our minimum parking requirements. So based on your square footage of a seating area, you're required to provide a certain number of parking spaces on site and removing those spaces to provide more outdoor dining means that you're deficient in spaces and not able to actually expand into those areas. So sort of a high level from the common permitting challenges that we came across in that review. In response to that and some of the communication that we've had with businesses really wanting to expand onto private property, similarly with the Parklet program, they're really looking for an easier path, a streamlined permit process, lower fees, just a clear guidelines of how they can operate and be able to continue doing what they've been doing since June of 2020 and having this expanded outdoor space on their outdoor dining or on their private property. So what we are seeking direction on today is to begin the process to create a new staff level review permit under the municipal code in our community design section to establish our requirements for outdoor dining. We've reviewed a couple of cities. There's not a lot of cities have taken on sort of the private property streamlining as compared to how much cities have undertaken Parklet programs. But we have looked to some of the work that the city of Fremont has done in really creating an easy one permit process. And so looking at some of their lessons learned and what team need to Santa Cruz, we're proposing that we would establish a staff level review permit. We would have the permit run with the operator with the property owner approval. And that's really so we can just have it tied to that particular use and have the revocation suspension and modification rules providing standard operating requirements similar to sort of how we've outlined things in the Parklet but specific to the unique needs of private property spaces. So looking at reducing impacts to noise and fight sound hours of operation, keeping in mind where the businesses are located if there's a decent residential or just different uses nearby. And then because these are permanent changes on private property, there are still requirements for building permits for fixed structures or improvements. So if businesses are wanting to install roofs on any fixed seating, electrical lighting or heating, that is still a requirement but we're trying to really simplify the use approval piece of it and then enabling businesses to go through that standard building code building permit review process. Just additional information and sort of what's informing the permit development process and things that we have to keep in mind as the city is that the building and fire codes really require building permit review for permanent private property extension and some of the things that may be triggered from these extensions becoming permanent is increase in the number of restrooms or fixtures required because of that increased seating capacity. And so we're reviewing now with the businesses to make sure that those impacts won't be triggered and that can be done by either reducing indoor capacity which we know a number of businesses have already done because there's so much more demand for outdoor or just refining sort of how much space they are utilizing outdoors so that they don't need to make those bigger improvements within their space. So that's sort of just the navigation piece of what those codes are to that particular business. We'll also need to look at accessibility and ADA compliance in the outdoor seating areas for the actual seating as well as sort of how the parking lots are configured and making sure that we have those accessible routes. So if businesses are utilizing outdoor dining in areas that were once accessible parking spaces making sure that that is replaced somewhere else and that the appropriate routing is provided just making sure that that's all clearly defined and in compliance. We've also had a lot of allowances for the temporary tents and canopies under the temporary program and under the fire code those are really supposed to be limited to I believe it's no more than six months but it's really a temporary measure. And so looking at helping businesses to put in more permanent overhead structures if that's something that they wanna pursue navigating that through the building process. And similarly the electrical permit for lighting and electric heaters on private property. We do also have a number of businesses that are operating in the coastal zone on private property. So we would be reviewing this in tandem with the coastal commission as well to get their approval and work through any challenges that might impact the businesses on in the coastal zone as well. And so our recommendation for you this evening is to direct staff to make the necessary revisions to the municipal code for future council consideration in early 2023 to develop a streamlined permit for private property outdoor dining and direct staff to continue to work with the coastal commission staff to allow for the construction user operation of permanent outdoor dining on private property within the coastal zone. And I also wanna add that with this direction we would be doing outreach and coordinated meetings with the business owners in their private property spaces getting feedback on this permit process which are functional, just taking in the feedback from the last item and just acknowledging that these rules are intended to be specific and helpful to these businesses. So getting that going on in the process and as we bring it forward for council consideration. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, Rebecca unit. I'm going to bring it out to council members for any further clarifying questions, council member Golder. Okay, then I will bring it out to public comment. And at this time I will look to members virtually and in public if you're joining us virtually and would like to comment on agenda item number 18, permanent outdoor dining program on private property permitting.  And there should be instructions on your screen. And I will also ask anybody in person who would like to speak to line up on the right of the dais. So our first person virtually is the name I am watching you.  Okay, thank you. Hey, I see it's a wee wee break time at the council when the public speaks once again. Wow. Anyway, recurring annual C permit fees have little private property parkless justification. This is private property that already pays property taxes on the entire property. Presumably unless they are going to remodel the parklets once approved and built, they're good to go permanently until one of several conditions occurs. Annual permit fees seem like a pure fundraising greed on the part of the city to fund its insatiable spending habits devoid of justification. Annual payments are a matter better suited to the county property appraiser via a property taxes if at all. Yes, private parking destruction is an issue and I can't imagine how it won't stay bad or get worse but then before COVID if more businesses adopt private property parking lot parkless.  I suppose a nominal fee for annual safety inspections makes sense but how much is there really to inspect here that can't be a few minutes of some other inspection. The matter of perpetual COVID fear mongering is a serious consideration and any permanent social distancing of outside air parklets are a reinforcing reminder, narrative and supporter of the presumption of some needed perpetual fear of closeness to other people which if not false already will become baseless soon. The day must come as rapidly as it can when people can return to hugging rubbing elbows, being close and not fleeing from other's presence. The psychologically damaged ones can still be seen around wearing masks even if outside was young missing their early social development years abound and anything that perpetuates that damage isn't a good thing. Although I will admit the public has gotten used to the luxury of quieter, spaciously spaced out tables instead of noisy crowded restaurants and bars. However, the day can't come soon enough when any social distancing or master requirements or vaccine apartheid or COVID mandated anything needs a final removal and hopefully people of reasoned principle can prevail against those with the opposite agenda. When the day comes, I hope soon I see no need for semi-practice parkless permits but I do also respect private property rights and the need for economic recovery. I have a divided mind on this proposal except for the animal fees which are pre-extortionist greed and hope some consideration to parking congestion can be solved, thanks. Thank you for your comment. Our next member of the public is the name Karen Madura.  Let's see, Karen, go try pressing star six to unmute or use the unmute feature in your webinar controls. There we go. Hi, my name is Karen Madura and I just wanted to speak out in support of these patios and I don't have a lot of time because I'm busy right now but I really appreciate the city council taking the time to meet with all of us and to do this for everyone. Thank you very much, good evening. Thank you so much. And so sorry. Our next member of the public here in person, welcome. Welcome back. All right, thanks for having me again. I realize now I got up too soon but to circle back and I've learned more since then I think I thought that with the private, I'm sorry the public spaces we were going to kind of amend that to a private property and I'm kind of seeing now that it's a whole another monster that maybe you guys might have less control over because it's not your land which brings up my biggest concern which is planning and public works and all types of fun stuff. And I'm concerned now, going back to we're looking at early next year on just getting back in like just even getting close to what I just saw with public. I'm asking you guys to please understand that we have these relationships with our landlords right now that are in like, it's not just me, it's a lot of other people. It's so shaky. You know, we have certain amount of years left even and we don't even know if we're gonna be able to bring negotiate with our landlords based on what they're gonna want. I mean, time is, when I say time is money, I really mean that. Also, we've been, we're half-assing what we're putting into our patios right now with temporary seating, our plants, we can't put a lot of money into them because we don't know how long we're gonna have them. You guys already know this. And for the real stuff on what we wanna do with these properties, we don't wanna keep half-assing it. We wanna go big and make it nice and permanent. Yes, we're willing to even pay more rent. We're willing to increase our landlord's property value. I think they're up for that too. But as you know, it's gotta be realistic. I'm looking at 150 to 250,000. It's not realistic. So I was really hoping that we would have something a little more clear about how we're gonna work with planning and zoning as that is everybody's biggest concern. You guys have all been amazing in your vision, shared vision for our private property. But yeah, I'm back to being concerned for sure. I feel like we're having a really, actually, I don't know, we made a lot of progress, but the private guys are concerned right now. I'm kind of feeling like we're bringing another year. Makes it extremely difficult. But thank you guys still, and we will be in touch. Thank you for your comment. We have a virtual hand raised, Alex Groshensen. Go ahead and... Hi, good evening again. And I wanted to echo, again, I have many friends who run businesses in the town and some of them run them on the private property. And one of the concerns is that there isn't a very clear set of rules and they keep shifting. And investment is hard when rules keep shifting. Dealing with the permit department is very challenging, of course. And I know that right now I believe that the deadline is expiring in March for private property. Oh, and probably should be extended. And they're, again, getting funding, getting loans is expensive. And to echo Max's concern, businesses with private property outdoor public spaces should get equal support to the businesses with parklets on public parking lots. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak to item number 18? I just want to add a creative thought. I hope that it is creative and not just a total waste of your time. I'm really concerned when I see the inflation, the cost of food, when I see what business owners are going through, knowing some things about food, accessibility, knowing that food not bombs is going on close to something like 1,000 days of being the main hot meal for hundreds and hundreds of people in the city. And it's in a difficult place. It's on public property, but it's difficult for a lot of people. They don't like it. So I just want to ask also that the city maybe consider maybe the homeless garden project in conjunction with the city could start a food program and perhaps it could be educational where people could learn to cook like from Cabrillo College. And I think that the city should start to be in a meal provision service to some extent so that we don't have the effort that I see food not bombs providing is amazing, but it's a really small staff that's going to this outlandish amount of personal effort to provide this meal to hundreds of people. And I know it's not agreeable to a lot of people in the city. So all's I'm really doing is inserting at this moment because it might be an opportunity to ask for the businesses to have their needs streamlined, but also to really think about who are the people that are getting these meals provided for. I mean, that's great. It's a business. If it's an out of town person, whoever it is, but we have real hunger issues in the city. We are facing food shortages from what I hear. And I just hope that the council will start to really think about maybe some creative program to employ people. It's just maybe a city program to provide a hot meal for people at a low cost. And to consider that as you're considering things like this, if not tonight or in conjunction with this particular process, because that would probably just slow the whole thing down, but to consider it at another time. And I just appreciate your time. And I hope I haven't wasted it too much. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. It looks like that concludes our public comment. And so I would like to bring it back to council. And, I'm happy to make it. Did you have something? Go ahead. We're looking for vice vice mayor Watkins.  I'm just happy for the purposes of moving this along. I'm happy to make the make the motion to, which is essentially the recommendation, which is to direct staff to make the necessary revisions to the municipal code for future council consideration in early 2023. To develop a streamlined permit for private property, outdoor dining and direct staff to continue to work with the coastal commission staff to allow for the construction use and operation of permanent outdoor dining on private property within the coastal zone. Now, second with one minor friendly amendment, which would be the, since in the last, in the last item that was heard, there was the establishment of subcommissioned and given that there is concern from business owners about how long this is taking, you know, having that work done in conjunction with the small business owners and with the subcommittee with the staff seems like it'd be a good way for us to make sure we're all staying on track to actually making sure we're coming up with something that's going to be brought forward to the community sooner than later. And so I would just add that in addition to directing staff that they work with stakeholders, and subcommittee to make the necessary revisions and everything else would stay the same within the staff recommendation. Is that amenable to the... Yeah, I think that was implied by Rebecca also that she would continue to work with the staff and the community and the subcommittee and the council to get this moving to expedite the process. So, yeah, happy to do that more specifically with the friendly amendment. And then I just have a comment. I just had to get one too. Okay. So we have a motion by Vice Mayor Watkins a second by Cummings with a minor friendly amendment to have the language included that staff will work with subcommittee and stakeholders to make the necessary revisions to the municipal code. Okay, so I'm going to bring this out to comments and is that clear to staff? To Rebecca and Pony, you'll be working on this. Okay. Council Member Calantari-Johnson. Yeah, just thank you for your comment and it just goes to the previous agenda item that there really is urgency. I've heard loudly and clearly from many business members that they want a clear pathway and they want it yesterday and I know staff has worked so hard for so long to get us there. So just that confirms the vote we just took around the moving forward with the ordinance and I'm happy to see that we're moving forward in this way. I heard loud and clear the extension of the timeline which is our next agenda item and a clear pathway with guidelines and an ordinance right away. So thank you for you've got a lot of work to do. Thank you for being here and making your comments and thank you to the work that staff has done. Thank you. Council Member Calantari-Johnson. Council Member Cummings. I just want to, you know, again, thank staff and thank members of the public who've spoken up about this many, many times because, you know, we've provided direction in the past for us to work on this and I think some of the emails that we've gotten have just demonstrated that, you know, for moving forward with permanent programs on private property, there's a lot of challenges that we don't have with the public right of ways and I know there's been a lot of emphasis on the public right of way, you know, ordinances, but the people who are operating their businesses on private property really want to see us making advancements on this and so I'm happy to see that there will be a subcommittee working directly with business owners so they're not constantly asking us, hey, what's going on, what's moving forward and we're just kind of like, well, we'll talk to staff. I think us working in collaboration on this will really help us make some meaningful strides forward and will help us as we try to expedite this private program to move forward. So I just want to thank everybody for their ongoing input and for their, for them pushing us to actually start moving this forward. Thank you. The one thing I would just add to that is the importance of also communicating early on with our staff and with our colleagues to make sure that we have these things in place from the very beginning so as we move forward there's things, there's a lot of opportunity for these ideas to come forth with having staff input early on so that we can have an informed discussion with everybody in the know. So those are just my additional comments. Great and I would just like to say thank you to all of the restaurants outdoor dining businesses that were able to meet and talk with me and were able to meet and talk with staff and share some of the challenges on private property. I know it included everything from fencing and signage and grease traps and sprinkler systems, lighting, heaters, et cetera and I think because each location has unique needs and different triggers based on state law, I know it has been challenging to make one kind of blanket solution so I hope that each business will continue to receive that one-on-one work through what their vision is and what their needs are and that our city staff can really be a support to them moving forward to really encourage and say and show that we want to see you succeed.  So I think that's really important for the private property businesses that are really struggling with that. Council Member Myers. Yeah, I guess I just, I want to think the businesses that came out tonight and I'm glad we're moving forward with the permanent or the public, excuse me, for the privately held properties. And yeah, I guess, you know, what I'm hearing is that folks have been waiting for some, you know, just direction and overall sort of process-based actions that they can take and so just want to be cautionary that we can over, over, sometimes overdue on our process in terms of, you know, reaching out and, you know, especially during the holidays we're going to lose a couple months and I know it's going to be February and I just hope that this, you know, through scheduling very busy people that this, you know, doesn't kind of stall out in a few months from now, you know, businesses in the private part haven't moved forward in the way that they want. So I appreciate the work by our staff and I'm getting the message loud and clear that folks want some clarity, I think on both sides and I'm hoping that our staff can really think about this industry-blind vision that is in the staff report and that, you know, we do want to try to get these business owners stabilized in what they're investing in and have some permanency in what they're going to be able to put on the property. So I appreciate the work that everybody did. Thank you. Okay. Are there, does that conclude council comments, discussion? Okay. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Watkins seconded by Council Member Cummings with a minor friendly amendment. May we have a roll call vote please? Council Member Callentary Johnson. Aye. Boulder. Aye. Cumming. Brown. Aye. Myers. Aye. Vice Mayor Watkins. Aye. Mayor Brunner. Aye. Anyways, prior comments to arms is a amendment from Vice Mayor Watkins. You're not~] unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Our next agenda item is agenda item 19 permanent outdoor dining program update. First reading of an ordinance amending un codified ordinance 2020-27 extending temporary use of certain adjacent public street and outdoor areas for we're back in your economic development manager. Hey number three our final item I thank you very much again for hearing this item so this is our discussion of extension of our temporary outdoor expansion programs so that covers all of our outdoor uses that we've approved throughout the pandemic so just I'm gonna go through this based on where the outdoor expansions are located so just a refresher I showed this earlier on but temporary outdoor expansion parklets this is the location of our current temporary permit holders which you are very well versed in now and then we have our you know as we were talking about this extension and the work that we're doing on the parklet ordinance and the feedback that we received earlier this evening this was our draft timeline that we pulled together just to talk through sort of how we're envisioning this transition period going so just you know looking at the timeline that we originally projected of November 15th second reading with the ordinance taking effect December 15th we are also still proposing and this is a recommendation we welcome feedback on having a permanent parklet application deadline of March 31st so that we know what businesses are ready to move forward with their permanent parklets and be able to you know support those permit reviews through the transition period to enable them to construct by the proposed temporary permit expiration date of October 31st of next year we also want to look at that March 31st date still as an opportunity to make some changes some of the public safety health safety and welfare impacts in the downtown and looking at removing some of the tents and canapes removal of the inactive parklets and underutilized parklet areas and so that is we welcome your feedback on that at the conclusion of this presentation and then in terms of the temporary outdoor dining on private property as I just shared in the previous item you know we do have 21 businesses that are seeking permanent approval and operating their temporary outdoor dining spaces and we also have been talking with the county about how they're approaching some code changes towards private property outdoor dining and they're currently extending their permits until October 31st 2023 as well and all of the permits are on private property they don't have any public permits in their temporary program and as we shared in the last presentation we're also going to be working on that new permit process another part of our item today is discussion around the Cathcart Street temporary closure so when we started the program in June of 2020 we also created this temporary partial closure of Cathcart Street just for the restaurants and businesses in that area extending into into the street closure we also previously had had a street closure on the 1100 block of Pacific Avenue between Lincoln and Cathcart Street and that was a full closure of that area which allowed the businesses to extend into the street and really expand their outdoor dining we did a review of that in late 2021 and and recommended removal based on some of the conflicts around some of the business uses access for residents in that area and some of the public safety access as well we've been reviewing Cathcart Street as well with our with our colleagues in fire and public works and there has been a recommendation to move to maintain the expiration of the Cathcart Street closure at the end of this year and we've been talking with the businesses and talking through you know the impacts around the closure and the impacts their business as well so I want to talk through some of the points that we've put together as staff in terms of making this decision or making this recommendation to council for consideration so you know this is largely coming from our colleagues in the fire department from their experience and sort of level of service as they're navigating through this partial closure or around it in terms of the public safety challenges Cathcart Street is the only direct two-way east-west street that connects Cedar Pacific in front and that's really critical to their emergency response and the one-way layout really cuts off a major eastbound route for them the Cathcart Street is also crucial in terms of fire access to some of our multi-level residential buildings on Pacific Avenue so it does provide direct access towards 10-tent Pacific University Town Center El Centro Apartments and Gularte Apartments and then another impact is the one-way traffic results in increased response time increased hazard traveling opposite of traffic and reversing the lane still has those same impacts of sort of the hazard of that one-way traffic and opposite driving. We've also consulted with public works and received feedback around the circulation and some of the construction activity downtown and what we're seeing from those impacts and really having the two-way traffic is critical for connectivity and circulation with construction that's occurring downtown right now with a lot of the new developments. Those developments don't have a lot of room for staging on site and also they're having a lot of trucks come into the downtown area to deliver supplies or performance options for that construction and with the closure on Cathcart there are some reroutes that are needing to occur into residential neighborhoods and we have heard they've heard some complaints from residents around these large trucks traveling on their residential streets and sort of the vibration of of those in their homes and then also looking at this from a business equity perspective as we are working on implementation of the permanent parking lot program you know we did remove the 1100 block closure previously and required those businesses to sort of cut down on their spaces and with the permanent parking lot program there will also be some reductions in number of spaces or utilization of the parking area that or result in loss of table space and we would also support the businesses on Cathcart applying for and using additional parking spaces within their frontage, excuse me, temporarily and long term. And so we have a recommendation for you this evening. We also shared a revised temporary ordinance reflecting the change in the expiration date for the public right of way users so our recommendation is to adopt an amendment to uncodified ordinance 2020-27 extending temporary use of certain adjacent public streets and outdoor areas for eligible businesses that extends the temporary program for commercial use in the public right of way currently set to expire at the end of this December through October 31st 2023 and similarly extending the temporary period for commercial use on private property from the end of this December through October 31st 2023 and maintains the expiration date of December 31st 2022 for the partial closure of Cathcart streets. We're also requesting Council direction to return to the City Council on November 15th of the timeline for transition to permanence for Parklets in the public right of way, including an application deadline, removal of inactive Parklets health safety and welfare adjustments and attendant fee schedule for consideration for the temporary permits. And with that, I will take the sheets. Thank you. Thank you, Rebecca unit. I have a quick question. I'm curious on the Cathcart Street why it's not recommended to align it with the extension of the the Parklet program. Yes, so the concerns that I laid out in the presentation is really why we're recommending that early removal. I mean, in consultation with the Fire Department, especially throughout this year, even early on in this year, they were really requesting for earlier than December expiration of that closure. And we do also have Tim Shields here and Nathan from Public Works as well to answer questions. Great. Thank you. Welcome, Tim Shields. Welcome, Nathan, you and Public Works and Fire Department here. Yes. Good evening, Mayor, Reiner and Council members. You know, Public Works has felt very strongly that we want to maintain the two way access on Cathcart Street for quite some time. And so during the closure with during the pandemic, the closure of Civic Avenue, once I got reinstated, we felt that we want to reinstate Cathcart as well at the same time. Again, there's a lot of development that's happening in the downtown area right now that you guys are well aware of. There's many different traffic, temporary traffic control plans that are being implemented and will be implemented with the development with the construction of the Riverfront Project, the Cedar, the Cedar Center Project, as well as you still have pure water paving and then with the future development of Metro Station, etc. So we really want to push forward getting the two way traffic operation and circulation back so that we can get the maintain access and allow for again this different types of construction staging in this upcoming year. Thank you. Does fire have anything to add to that? I think Rebecca hit all the points pretty well and I appreciate that. Thank you and thank you Council members for having us here today. It's just one of those things where when the COVID pandemic happened, we made a lot of concessions in terms of life safety to allow these parklets to happen, which is great. I think it was a fantastic thing for the city. But as we look into the future, we've been asking for this to open up for an extended period of time, understanding the impacts to businesses. We keep allowing concessions, but at some point we're going to have to draw the hard line and open these roads up. As Rebecca mentioned, it is a key route 1100 block of Pacific and there are several multi residential multi store buildings there. It's also a key route to Front Street where we actually did have a fire today inside one of the vacant structures. So things like that just is ours on the forefront of our response in our response times. And it does become difficult responding. Opposing traffic is never a safe thing. And one of our biggest concerns in public safety are vehicle accidents. It's very dangerous component of our job. And it also increases response time. So those are considerations that we've we've looked at. And it's something that we would recommend as well. Thank you. Thank you. I have one more question for Rebecca and the the Cathcart Street businesses there. So in this proposal, Cathcart Street would open back up. They would lose their seating until they could build extended parklet areas outside. Is that what how that would affect them? Yeah, I mean, it would definitely be an impact to the number of seats that they have total there. But we would support, you know, either shifting the barricades that they have in place now into the parking spaces along their frontage and extending along the street rather than out into the street. Or we can provide some of the barriers that we have at the city as well. But you know, yeah, if they would lose seats, but not that they would need to construct a full parklet, you know, right away, we would allow them to operate in that temporary manner just within the parking spaces. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I will open it up for other council members and Council Member Callentari Johnson. Thank you, Maria. You asked one of my questions around this December is right around the corner. So what does that mean for the businesses that are there? And do they then lose all of their outdoor space? That's still not really clear. It sounds like no. So they would have a they would. What I'm understanding is they would be able to do a temporary parklet. And we would help them with that. So if you could just confirm that.  If we were to consider flipping the direction so that we were going from the fire department to the east side, so the directions the other way, if we flipped it, what are the public safety impacts and considerations there? Are they the same? Or would it reduce it if we were to flip the direction the other way? So those two questions. I'll go I'll go ahead and hit the first point or actually your second point. Where I'm not a traffic engineer, and I leave that to public works in terms of doing traffic studies in terms of reversing the lane. The way that would work, though, it would be I think confusing because then you would be traveling and crossing to opposing traffic basically for normal traffic to go eastbound into Pacific. And so that I think that would increase the danger and risk safety by doing that. But again, I'd have to defer to public works in terms of like a traffic type study. Again, it's one lane again. And anytime that we're responding lights and sirens, people have to pull over and if it's a single lane, there's nowhere for someone to go to pull over. So that's another one of them. Yeah, I would say that it's, you know, it's a balance here that we're trying to strike. We do want to maintain this two way access on Cathcart. And it's kind of more about and more about if not if but when we want to reopen that street and we've really had that thing closed down for over sounds like about a year and a half now due to the pandemic. And for us in public works, we just know that that Cathcart is going to be that critical access between front Pacific and center. As Tim has to noted, now that the closure of the temporary closure right now of Cathcart, if we reduce it or we take reinstate the two way traffic on Cathcart, it doesn't eliminate the the Parklet on Cathcart, but it does reduce it drastically because currently it's extended from the sidewalk all the way out into the center of the street. And so in reversing the direction what Tim was mentioning is that currently it operates with normal travel lane with the westbound on the north side. So it doesn't look like you're traveling in the wrong direction. But if we were to try to reverse that, we would have to reverse all the traffic as well with the parking on the north side and to be driving in that in that westbound lane. Thank you. And Rebecca, you don't mind the first question just confirming I mean, I heard earlier 56 seats would be lost from one business. I know there are other businesses that use that space. So what does what does that mean for those businesses? How are we helping them not lose all those seats and potentially lay off employees and lose revenue and all of that? Yeah, so there there is additional frontage adjacent to loop or excuse me adjacent to Hula's as you're traveling east on Cathcart. Next to the there's some store frontage that is not, you know, publicly accessible necessarily. And so we could extend their parking spaces in that direction. So let me I can look into the exact number, but it is an additional number of spaces. And then on Cedar Street, there are three parking spaces that loop low had previously had as part of the temporary permit, and they weren't utilizing it because they were really focused on the partial closure area. And we would be a supportive of reinstating those additional spaces for loop low so that they can retain some of the additional seating. I just need to confirm the number of spaces adjacent to Hula's that we'd be able to provide. Rebecca, do you know how many seats are in the the existing pre pandemic parklets that Hula's and loop low have? Does they have those pre pandemic parklets? So essentially it would be lengthwise instead of widthwise where the expansion for them would be so 56 seats would be reduced to what 24 or like, what is that how significant of a reduction? It's likely, yeah, 24 seats, potentially more because they'd be able to utilize the full parking space with it temporarily. But if they did go towards the permanent, then there would be a little bit of reduction in the setback area. Okay. Council Member Myers, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I just had a question. I believe it was Mr. Mc. I think it was Ian that mentioned this, this idea of utilizing the spaces on the other side to gain some some width. And I'm just looking on my Google Earth, trying to see if that would work. So I'm just curious about fire and everybody's response to that.  But the idea is that they would use those spots across the street so they could, you know, move out a little bit on the away from the singular linear that we're proposing. So I'm just curious if there's could just get some feedback for the stuff on that. You guys understand what I'm saying? I would if you look at it from the sky. Thank you, Nathan. Yeah, happy to, happy to respond to that. Thank you, Council Member Myers. I believe Ian did reach out to Public Works and I believe even buyer staff to discuss the idea of reinstating two way by incorporating the four parking spots on the north side of Cathcart. And so we did explore that idea with them and asked them if they wanted to actually hire a traffic engineer to develop that design. We would be open to discussing that with them to create that two way access. Now, it's very likely that there would be a bit of a jog in the roadway between center and Pacific. And so we have to make sure and that's the reason why we wanted to make sure that an engineering firm reviewed that it was good with fire to make sure that we still had that two way access. But that is something that would be that was discussed and again to be, you know, additional four parking stall losses on the north side, but it could be explored within this segment to maintain two way. And sorry, I'm going to jump in real quick. Yeah, sorry. Go ahead, Tim. All we're really looking for is the two way access and for us, you know, whether or not you move, you move the entire thing over where we would support that. So I guess my, you know, my, I guess my thought on that is, you know, December 31st feels like a pretty fast time. I think, you know, Ian's been a great long time run