Item #08
Date: June 16, 2026
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dan Flores, Community and Economic Development Director Mike Luken, Planning Consultant
Subject: Ordinance – Outdoor Dining Ordinance and Title 8 (Animals) Amendments Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing and take the following actions:
1. Introduce by title only and waive further reading of the Ordinance (Attachment 1) replacing Section 18.63 of the Marysville Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) for outdoor dining and amending Sections
8.12.020(17), 8.12.100, 8.12.130, and 8.12.390 of Title 8 of the Marysville Municipal Code; and
2. Set the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for the next regular meeting of the City Council.
Background:
An urgency ordinance previously adopted to allow outdoor dining during the pandemic has lapsed. Following its termination, two outdoor dining establishments that existed during the pandemic were removed in 2025. In 2025, the City Council requested that the Community Development Department update the City’s outdoor sidewalk dining regulations. The existing regulations were first adopted in 2005 to encourage outdoor dining and, as written, limit outdoor dining to seating only within the sidewalk area adjacent to eating and drinking establishments.
Members of the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission attended the League of California Cities Planning Commission Academy on March 5–7, 2025. While attending the Academy, the Commission viewed several outdoor dining decks and sidewalk dining venues in the City of Santa Rosa. On March 26, 2025, staff provided an overview of outdoor dining options to the Planning Commission. The Commission provided feedback including limiting both sidewalk seating and dining decks to local streets traveled at speeds that are less than 25 miles per hour.
Following that direction from both the City Council and the Planning Commission, staff researched ordinances from other jurisdictions and compiled an updated outdoor dining ordinance that allows for both sidewalk seating and street dining decks similar to those viewed in the City of Santa Rosa. On February 11, 2025, staff presented the draft ordinance to the Marysville Business Association (MBA). The MBA had questions and comments regarding outdoor furniture, shade structures, lighting, accessibility, vehicle barrier requirements and options, visibility relative to vegetation and landscaping, alcohol service, and utility repair implications. Overall, MBA input was positive and supportive of the ordinance, and the MBA recommended that staff make eating and drinking establishments aware of the ordinance on a citywide basis. In response, staff circulated a link to the ordinance, the PowerPoint presentation, and an outline of the ordinance to those businesses.
Item #08
On February 25, 2026, the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the draft ordinance and recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance as revised consistent with the Commission’s direction. Those revisions are reflected in the version of the ordinance attached hereto and are summarized in the section below.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, the Marysville Police Department requested administrative amendments to portions of Title 8 of the Municipal Code (Animals) to update references to State law and to address issues that have arisen in the field. Because the Title 8 amendments do not modify the Zoning Ordinance, they are not subject to Planning Commission review and have been incorporated as Section 2 of the ordinance for City Council consideration.
Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendations
At the February 25, 2026 public hearing, the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission received a presentation from staff, took public testimony, and discussed the draft ordinance in detail. By unanimous action, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the ordinance, subject to the revisions described below. The Commission’s comments and the corresponding revisions incorporated into the attached ordinance are summarized as follows:
• Definitions – Eating and/or Drinking Establishment (§ 18.63.B). The Commission requested that a definition of “Eating and/or Drinking Establishment” be included in the ordinance. Staff has incorporated the definition currently used in the City’s Zoning Ordinance into Section 18.63.B. • Use of “And/Or” (§ 18.63.B and Throughout). The Commission recommended that references to “eating and drinking establishments” be revised to read “eating and/or drinking establishments” to clarify that the ordinance applies to both eating-only and drinking-only businesses, as well as combined establishments.
Staff has made conforming edits throughout the ordinance. • Approval Process (§ 18.63.D.1). The Commission discussed the administrative approval process for sidewalk dining and dining decks and the opportunity for public engagement. Staff explained that the Minor Use Permit process is intended to streamline the entitlement process while preserving public input through the existing 10-day notice provision, which allows any member of the public to request a public hearing.
Where prescriptive standards are not met, the application is forwarded to the Commission for consideration. Following discussion, no changes to the ordinance were recommended. • Hours of Operation (§ 18.63.E.8.a). The Commission discussed whether the previously proposed hours of operation (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) were appropriate. Staff clarified that the original intent was for the outdoor dining hours to align with the operating hours of the host business. The ordinance has been modified to provide that the hours of outdoor dining operation will coincide with the operating hours of the business/permittee, subject to the overall not-later-than-2 a.m. limitation. • Permanent Attachments (§ 18.63.F.3). The Commission noted that the title of this section should be revised to remove the word “No” to clarify that permanent attachments are permitted, subject to the standards in the section. Staff has made the requested change. • Prohibited Design Elements and Walls (§ 18.63.G.9 and § 18.63.G.11). The Commission expressed concern with the use of K-rail or similar barriers that have not been architecturally screened or enhanced. The Commission did not wish to preclude the use of K-rail entirely but wanted to ensure that, when used, it is screened or enhanced to improve its appearance from the streetscape. Staff has incorporated language in both Sections G.9 and G.11 allowing K-rail or similar products only when screened or architecturally treated in a manner acceptable to the Community Development Department. • Emergency Removal (§ 18.63.G.16). The Commission requested clarification regarding financial liability for the removal of, or damage to, a dining deck during an emergency or emergency utility repair. Staff coordinated incorporated language confirming that the City and utility providers are not liable for any business loss, property loss, or other damage resulting from emergency removal of private improvements, Item #08
and that no permittee shall maintain any claim or action against the City or utility provider on account of such removal.
• Maintenance (§ 18.63.H.3). The Commission requested additional language to notify business owners that they are responsible for all costs incurred following City inspection. Staff has added language confirming that the applicant is responsible for all costs incurred when addressing required repairs identified by the City and that maintenance items must be addressed within 24 hours of notification. • Smoking. The Commission discussed the potential use of sidewalk seating and dining decks as smoking areas, particularly in connection with bars (which, unlike restaurants, are not subject to the same State-law smoking restrictions). Following discussion, the Commission directed staff to incorporate a provision prohibiting smoking within sidewalk seating and street dining deck areas. Staff has added a definition of “Smoking” in Section 18.63.B and a corresponding prohibition in Section 18.63.E. • Loitering. The Commission expressed concern regarding individuals loitering outside of dining deck areas.
Staff confirmed that the City’s existing anti-loitering ordinance addresses this issue, that the business owner is responsible for maintaining adequate paths of travel as part of the permit process, and that gatherings outside the deck area are independently regulated as obstructions to the path of travel. No changes to the ordinance were recommended.
• Special Events. The Commission discussed the potential interaction between dining decks, vendor tent spacing, and parade viewing during special events. Staff noted that the streetscape includes a mix of uses spread across the eligible streets, that the ordinance applies only to eating and drinking establishments, and that adequate space is anticipated to remain available for parade viewing and vendor setup. No changes to the ordinance were recommended.
•
Project Description – Section 1 (Outdoor Dining)
Section 1 of the ordinance promotes outdoor sidewalk and street dining deck use through a cohesive, attractive, and streamlined approach that adds value to the business environment. The ordinance establishes both shared operating and development standards that apply to all outdoor dining, as well as standards specific to sidewalk dining and standards specific to street dining decks. As structured, it allows businesses to use both sidewalk seating and a dining deck, provided each component meets the applicable standards. The following is an overview of the key elements of Section 1 (incorporating the Planning Commission’s recommended revisions).
Application and Approval Process
To promote the use of outdoor dining venues, the ordinance streamlines the approval process. An outdoor dining area that conforms to the development standards established by the ordinance may be approved administratively via a Minor Use Permit, with a 10-day public notice that allows any member of the public to request a public hearing. Deviations from the prescriptive standards require a Minor Design Review Permit. Following entitlement approval, an Encroachment Permit is required, and depending on the level of improvements a Building Permit and/or Fire Department approval may also be required. Encroachment in the public right-of-way for a dining deck requires a stamped set of plans by a licensed architect or engineer.
Key Operational and Development Standards
The following provides a brief overview of the key elements contained within the ordinance. A full summary is provided in Attachment 2.
• Visibility and Aesthetics. Outdoor dining is to maintain clear visibility from the street into the host business. Height limits have been established for barrier walls to allow for visibility into the business as a crime prevention measure. Cohesive but not identical dining deck designs are encouraged. Corner sight visibility is maintained per State regulations and police needs.
Item #08
• Lighting. Lighting is allowed, with solar/battery options recommended. Battery-powered table lamps and candles are allowed, but no open flames. Permanent fixtures are allowed but trigger additional permitting requirements.
• ADA and Clearances. Improvements must maintain a 48-inch minimum clear path of travel and accessible surfaces, and must preserve street gutter drainage.
• Vehicle Safety Barriers. Vehicle safety barriers are required for dining deck applications where public parking is being converted to public seating. Examples include sand- or rock-filled planters, metal railing, and architecturally treated K-rail. All vehicle barriers must be engineered to meet vehicle crash loads.
Consistent with Planning Commission direction, K-rail or similar products are permitted only when screened or architecturally enhanced in a manner acceptable to the Community Development Department. • Street Eligibility. The ordinance limits installations to streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less and fewer than 5,000 average daily trips. Caltrans-owned highways (e.g., Highway 20) are generally excluded, and specific high-volume corridors are listed as ineligible. • Operations. Outdoor dining hours align with the host business’s hours of operation, with no operation permitted after 2 a.m. Amplified sound is allowed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. unless otherwise approved by the City. Waste management is required. Alcohol service is allowed subject to ABC compliance and may require additional improvements. No food preparation, food storage, or storage of materials is permitted in the outdoor dining area. Smoking is prohibited within sidewalk seating and dining deck areas, and signage is required.
• Utilities. Setbacks are established to maintain separation between seating and utilities. Improvements within the right-of-way are non-permanent and removable to facilitate utility repairs. Utility providers have an opportunity to secure access requirements through the encroachment permit process. The City and utility providers are not liable for losses associated with emergency removal of improvements. • Maintenance. Permittees are responsible for maintaining the outdoor dining facility in good repair and in a neat and satisfactory condition. Maintenance items must be addressed within 24 hours of City notification, and the applicant is responsible for all costs incurred when addressing required repairs identified by the City.
Section 1 establishes a streamlined entitlement and permitting process that encourages the use of outdoor dining venues. It offers the business community the opportunity to expand operations while promoting a safe and aesthetically pleasing use of the City’s right-of-way. It reflects collaboration between the business community, the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission, and the City to create a more vibrant experience for customers utilizing Marysville’s eating and drinking establishments.
Section 2 – Title 8 (Animals) Amendments
Section 2 of the ordinance amends four sections of Chapter 8.12 of Title 8 (Animals) of the Marysville Municipal Code. These amendments were requested by the Marysville Police Department to update references to current State law, to clarify field-enforcement authority for animal control officers, and to address administrative provisions regarding licensing and fencing. Because the Title 8 amendments do not modify the Zoning Ordinance, they were not within the Planning and Historic Preservation Commission’s purview and were not part of the Commission’s February 25, 2026 hearing. They are presented here for City Council consideration as a companion item to the Outdoor Dining Ordinance, as both are administrative updates to the Marysville Municipal Code.
The four sections being amended are summarized below.
• Section 8.12.020(17) – Definition of “Livestock.” The definition of “livestock” is updated to mean all domesticated bovine, equine, swine, ovine, avian, and rodent species. The revised definition aligns with the categories of animals routinely encountered by Police Department and animal control personnel and provides a clearer regulatory baseline for the balance of Chapter 8.12.
Item #08
• Section 8.12.100 – Emergency Summary Action. This section is updated to clarify the authority and obligations of the animal control officer (or peace officer) when an injured cat or dog is found without its owner in a public place and away from the owner’s property. The revised language directs that such an animal be taken to a veterinarian as specified in California Penal Code Section 597, and authorizes the animal control officer, with the approval of his or her immediate supervisor, to humanely destroy any abandoned animal in the field where the animal is too severely injured to move or where a veterinarian is not available and humane disposition is appropriate.
• Section 8.12.130 – Dog Licenses, Exceptions. Subsection (d) is updated to provide that residents 65 years of age or older may have one dog per household licensed free of charge for a period not to exceed 36 months.
Proof of the owner’s age must be provided by a valid driver’s license, birth certificate, or similar document.
This update modernizes the senior license exception and standardizes the documentation accepted by City staff.
• Section 8.12.390 – Fencing. Subsection (b) is updated to clarify that the property owner, lessee, or caretaker is responsible for maintaining or installing fencing that will prevent the ingress and egress of any domestic animal housed, corralled, or grazed on the property. The revised language closes a gap in the prior text and supports Police Department enforcement when animals stray from inadequately fenced properties.
Because these revisions are administrative and regulatory in nature, do not authorize any new physical development, and do not modify any provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, they did not require Planning Commission review under State Planning and Zoning Law or the Marysville Municipal Code.
Environmental Review:
Section 1 of the proposed ordinance (Outdoor Dining) is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), in that the ordinance establishes minor alterations in land use limitations for outdoor dining areas in the public right-of-way that do not result in any changes in land use or density and do not involve property in areas with an average slope of greater than 20 percent.
Section 2 of the proposed ordinance (Title 8 – Animals) is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (Common Sense Exemption), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the administrative and regulatory amendments to Chapter 8.12 of the Marysville Municipal Code may have a significant effect on the environment.
Alignment with City Council Goal(s):
Goal #2 Expand Economic Development
Legal Review:
This item has been reviewed by the City Attorney and approved as to form.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the recommended action. Section 1 of the ordinance is designed to encourage private investment in eating and drinking establishments in the City of Marysville and to support a more vibrant downtown business environment. Section 2 of the ordinance addresses administrative provisions of the Municipal Code and is not anticipated to have any measurable fiscal impact.
Attachment(s):
• Proposed Ordinance (Outdoor Dining and Title 8 Amendments) – V9, dated April 29, 2026 • Outline of the Proposed Outdoor Dining Ordinance
• Planning Commission Summary Memorandum, dated February 27, 2026