Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL

Thursday, February 4, 2010

9:00 a.m. Session


DISCLAIMER:

The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.

09:05:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to

09:05:10 order.

09:05:11 Tampa City Council will now come to order.

09:05:16 Thank you.

09:05:16 The chair will yield to councilman Miranda.

09:05:20 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09:05:23 Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to introduce to all of

09:05:26 us someone we know as the esteemed city clerk of the

09:05:29 City of Tampa, and she will be providing the invocation

09:05:31 this morning.

09:05:32 Shirley Foxx-Knowles.

09:05:34 Please rise for the invocation and remain standing for

09:05:36 the pledge of allegiance.

09:05:37 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: Let us pray.

09:05:42 Dear heavenly father, thank you once again for another

09:05:45 beautiful day here in the City of Tampa.

09:05:47 Thank you for your grace and your mercy and all the

09:05:50 wonderful gifts you have provided.

09:05:52 Let us remember to show our gratitude by being kind to

09:05:56 one another.

09:05:57 Father, we thank you for all those assembled here for

09:06:00 today's council meeting, including the plant panther

09:06:03 football and volleyball state champions, and the

09:06:07 Hillsborough County coach of the year from Robinson

09:06:09 high school.

09:06:10 We celebrate them and all others being commended for

09:06:14 their extraordinary achievements.

09:06:16 May they continue to persevere in their future

09:06:19 endeavors and continue to be wonderful examples of

09:06:23 outstanding Tampa citizens.

09:06:25 Father, please provide your protection to those serving

09:06:29 on the front lines for our freedom.

09:06:31 And when their job is done, please bring them back

09:06:34 safely to their loved ones.

09:06:36 We truly thank them for their service.

09:06:39 Bless our council and continue to guide them in the

09:06:43 decisions they will make today.

09:06:45 Make them instruments of your will.

09:06:48 And now as we go about the worldly matters of this

09:06:50 city, keep us in your care and make us shining examples

09:06:54 of your love.

09:06:56 These things we ask and thanks we give with humble

09:07:00 hearts.

09:07:01 Let us all say amen.

09:07:02 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]

09:07:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

09:07:45 At this time we have several presentations that we are

09:07:49 going to make.

09:07:49 I am going to yield to Mr. Miranda first to make the

09:07:52 first presentation.

09:07:53 >>THE CLERK: Mr. Chairman, I need to take roll call.

09:07:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm sorry.

09:07:57 Thank you so very much.

09:07:58 Roll call.

09:07:59 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.

09:08:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

09:08:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

09:08:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

09:08:02 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.

09:08:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.

09:08:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.

09:08:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable

09:08:25 council members.

09:08:26 With the coach and the out standing state champions

09:08:30 plant volleyball team, would you please come forward?

09:08:34 [ Applause ]

09:08:53 I just told the coach she looks like one of the young

09:08:56 ladies.

09:08:56 She looks like a teenager herself.

09:08:58 Coach and young ladies of H.B. Plant, for three years

09:09:03 you won the consecutive championship under a different

09:09:09 class.

09:09:10 This year you won it in 6-A, which I believe is the

09:09:13 highest you can go.

09:09:14 So for four years this young lady, this coach, Ms.

09:09:23 Taylor and this team has made the commitment of

09:09:26 excellence.

09:09:26 And it's very rare that even in a commitment of

09:09:29 excellence, any elected official gets elected for four

09:09:32 straight terms because you have term limits.

09:09:36 But this team has no term limits.

09:09:39 They have a desire to continue to be the best they can

09:09:42 be, and they do that while making outstanding

09:09:47 commitments in education to themselves and to this

09:09:50 community.

09:09:54 This sport is very hard to play.

09:09:56 And believe me, I wouldn't try it.

09:09:58 But they are outstanding in what they do, and they won

09:10:02 this title for four straight years, which is something

09:10:06 that I don't know of any other team who has ever done

09:10:09 this.

09:10:10 Maybe there is somewhere in this country, but not in

09:10:13 this county.

09:10:14 Coach, I appreciate it very much for the work you have

09:10:16 done.

09:10:18 The mike is yours.

09:10:19 And the lovely ladies here.

09:10:20 >> Thank you very much for having us here this morning.

09:10:24 I just want to started by thanking of course my seniors

09:10:29 here.

09:10:29 They were able to make this all happen for four

09:10:32 straight years.

09:10:38 A great high school performance.

09:10:40 All of them breaking records and planning to go to the

09:10:45 next level.

09:10:48 So far how many have committed?

09:10:50 Three have committed, and two are still deciding.

09:10:55 Mattie is going to go to Penn state.

09:10:58 Leah Jordan is going play at Stetson.

09:11:04 And Ally McCurdy in the back will play at Duke.

09:11:05 Katie is still undecided, kind of between JMU, James

09:11:10 Madison, or Washington University St. Louis, and Becky

09:11:14 Howard has her choices down and we should know the next

09:11:16 couple of weeks where she would like to play.

09:11:18 So pretty unbelievable, five sending off to play in

09:11:23 college, and it's their year round hard work and

09:11:27 academics.

09:11:29 All of those schools are phenomenal academic

09:11:32 institutions. But I do also want to thank my

09:11:34 principal, Mr. Nelson, for all of his support, and

09:11:38 Mr. President Robinson, our athletic director of the

09:11:41 Hillsborough County schools.

09:11:42 Beginning this summer, we didn't know where our season

09:11:45 was going to go.

09:11:46 They were going to cut most of our season, and with the

09:11:51 commitment of a lot of people we were able to still

09:11:53 have a full 30-game season, and to continue to maintain

09:11:57 the excellence that this program has had, and we were

09:12:00 able to finish sixth in the country, and of course our

09:12:04 fourth state title.

09:12:06 So thank you all very much, the entire city has been so

09:12:08 great in supporting us.

09:12:10 We had our pep rally a couple weeks ago.

09:12:12 We were in the Gasparilla parade, and so just a lot of

09:12:16 fun to continue to support the city and represent them

09:12:21 as state champions.

09:12:22 Thank you very much.

09:12:26 [ Applause ]

09:12:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you and congratulations again.

09:12:38 Councilman Dingfelder?

09:13:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good morning, council.




09:13:11 What an honor and a privilege it is to have invited and

09:13:16 a be joined by our Robinson high school coach of the

09:13:20 year for Hillsborough County football, Mike DePue and

09:13:25 Robinson principal Laura -- I'm not going to try the

09:13:29 name.

09:13:32 It's been about 10, 12 years I think that I was at

09:13:37 Robinson teaching, and I had the honor to teach

09:13:41 together, how many years, coach?

09:13:46 Anyway, so Robinson was having some rough years in the

09:13:50 last decade in terms of football, but I was so thrilled

09:13:54 that the last couple of years they have turned it

09:13:56 around.

09:13:57 This year was unbelievable.

09:13:58 I went down for a few games.

09:14:00 And not only were they winning, but the enthusiasm that

09:14:05 the program was bringing, you have done fantastic

09:14:08 things with Robinson, the kids are just amazing, the

09:14:11 parents are involved, the band was going nuts, you

09:14:15 know, the cheerleaders, everybody was there.

09:14:18 That whole south end of South Tampa is just so involved

09:14:23 in the school.

09:14:24 And it's not just about the game, but it's about the




09:14:29 community.

09:14:30 And I felt it.

09:14:32 It gave me chills.

09:14:33 It was wonderful.

09:14:34 So in regard to the football, Mike, your peers, I

09:14:39 guess, with the Hillsborough County football

09:14:42 association, recognized your job and your hard work,

09:14:46 and your 10-3 season, and we would like to recognize

09:14:50 you as well.

09:14:51 Tampa City Council recognizes the selection of Robinson

09:14:53 high school football coach Mike DePue on being chosen

09:14:58 football coach of the year for 2009.

09:15:01 Having received the award by a vote, the 10-3 record

09:15:06 advancing to the class 2-A state semi-finals.

09:15:09 They almost made it.

09:15:11 And Tampa City Council commends coach DePue, staff, and

09:15:15 players for a job well done and wish the Knights

09:15:21 continued success.

09:15:22 Congratulations.

09:15:24 [ Applause ]

09:15:30 >> First and foremost, I want to thank John Dingfelder

09:15:33 for this opportunity to bring us forward.




09:15:36 I also want to thank the entire city and all of the

09:15:39 fans of Robinson high school.

09:15:41 It has been tremendous.

09:15:43 And Mike has worked so hard and is so dedicated, and I

09:15:47 want to applaud not just his winning season and his

09:15:51 many years of that commitment, but he really puts his

09:15:55 message to his players about the importance of being an

09:16:00 entire academic athlete.

09:16:03 As a matter of fact, they also took Hillsborough County

09:16:05 sportsmanship award of all of the teams in Hillsborough

09:16:09 County, and that can tell you the importance of being

09:16:13 well-rounded, not just as a player, but also the focus

09:16:17 that coach DePue has had with all of his athletes and

09:16:21 also with all of his coaches.

09:16:22 So I commend him, and I really truly appreciate the

09:16:25 opportunity to invite him to receive this recognition

09:16:30 this morning.

09:16:30 >>> Thank you very much for this honor.

09:16:36 Laura mentioned earlier that it's not just about being

09:16:40 a winning football team.

09:16:42 10-3 is real nice, going to state semi-finals is

09:16:45 wonderful but getting our kids to academically achieve,




09:16:49 and win with class and integrity.

09:16:52 I think winning the sportsmanship award really shows

09:16:54 what we tried to do in teaching these kids some values.

09:16:57 And in the number of years that I have been teaching

09:16:59 and coaching, it's important that we see young men

09:17:03 develop, got kids that went to Harvard, the

09:17:07 vice-president of Outback, of people like that, and

09:17:10 these kids get a chance to go to college and achieve.

09:17:13 But it also talks about setting the tone in South

09:17:15 Tampa.

09:17:16 We tell our football players that if you are successful

09:17:19 at the beginning of the year, it set the tone for the

09:17:21 year.

09:17:22 And we set the tone for this year.

09:17:24 We are going to have a great year at Robinson high

09:17:26 school this year and for years to come.

09:17:28 We have 17 kids who are seniors coming back.

09:17:30 I think we are going to have a little fun next year as

09:17:32 well.

09:17:34 See you again.

09:17:35 Thank you very much.

09:17:35 [ Applause ]




09:17:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern?

09:17:58 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:18:00 It's all sports commendations so far today.

09:18:03 We have a wonderful visitor that I would like to invite

09:18:05 up to receive this commendation.

09:18:09 The Swedish tall ship Gunilla visits the port of Tampa

09:18:16 every year.

09:18:17 It's a 165-foot three masted sailing ship that's crewed

09:18:26 by eleven professional sailors and 44 Swedish high

09:18:29 school students.

09:18:31 Now, they weren't here last week when we had the pirate

09:18:34 invasion, but this week we have got an invasion, it's

09:18:42 part of the school system and generates and fosters a

09:18:46 more sustainable future through cultural exchanges at

09:18:50 sea.

09:18:50 The students are studying courses related to

09:18:53 oceanographer, sailing, marine biology, fisheries and

09:18:56 the like.

09:18:57 Students visit many countries on their voyage from

09:19:00 Sweden to America and back including Cuba.

09:19:06 They return to Tampa every year in February.

09:19:08 It's a fully working tall ship, beautiful in her own




09:19:12 right.

09:19:13 Gunilla is now docked next to the victory ship by the

09:19:17 Florida Aquarium.

09:19:20 She has such a global purpose involving young people,

09:19:23 makes it just a magical thing.

09:19:24 So I would like to present this to the captain of the

09:19:32 ship.

09:19:32 And a you can tell us a little more.

09:19:42 >> My name is Lily, and I'm the director of the Gunilla

09:19:48 which operates as under sail.

09:19:51 The idea for our school is not to learn from books or

09:19:57 Internet but from reality, learning from people.

09:20:00 We have an opportunity to study city governments and

09:20:05 the U.S.

09:20:06 So on behalf of the children and crew of Gunilla I

09:20:11 would like to give thanks to Councilwoman Mulhern and

09:20:14 City of Tampa for recognizing us in this way.

09:20:17 Tampa is a wonderful city and we have enjoyed our time

09:20:19 here, and the people in the Tampa Bay in the future, in

09:20:28 our forthcoming visits.

09:20:31 Thank you very much.

09:20:34 [ Applause ]




09:20:43 >>MARY MULHERN: How much longer are you going to be

09:20:45 docked here?

09:20:46 >> We will leave Sunday morning for Havana, Cuba.

09:20:49 >> So we can come and look at the ship at any time?

09:20:56 If you send a couple -- the Coast Guard has regulations

09:21:00 of the

09:21:00 SPEAKER: Thank you, council, it is my honor to be able

09:21:23 to present the final commendation today to our state

09:21:28 champions.

09:21:31 (scream)

09:21:35 [ Laughter ]

09:21:38 I like that.

09:21:42 Our state champion Plant football team.

09:21:48 [ Applause ]

09:21:49 We will ask them to come and join us at the podium now.

09:21:56 Not only do we recognize plant today for their

09:22:13 accomplishment on the football athletics but also in

09:22:19 looking at the accomplishment also in terms of the

09:22:21 academics.

09:22:26 They were successful in having the highest G.P.A. in

09:22:29 Florida for the class 5-A conference, which is also

09:22:32 incredible, and something to be recognized.




09:22:35 So today the Tampa City Council is pleased to recognize

09:22:39 Rob Wiener and the Plant High School team on winning

09:22:45 their second straight state championship, and third in

09:22:47 the past four years, under the direction of head coach

09:22:52 Robert Wiener, Tampa has compiled a 13-1 record in

09:22:57 Garnering the class 5-A championship.

09:22:59 Now in capturing the title in a 20-14 victory over

09:23:04 Bradenton Manatee.

09:23:05 Panthers finished the season ranked number 4 nationally

09:23:09 by ESPN.

09:23:12 In addition, the team was honored for everything the

09:23:15 highest G.P.A. in Florida, class size A, and was

09:23:21 presented a national award being recognized as the

09:23:26 23rd team in the nation.

09:23:27 So on behalf of Tampa City Council, we would like to

09:23:31 present this plaque and commendation for a successful

09:23:35 season and for being state champions.

09:23:38 Congratulations.

09:23:43 [~Cheers and Applause~]

09:23:45 >> Mr. Scott, I would like to thank the council very

09:23:49 much for having us here.

09:23:50 I would like to take a moment, as our volleyball team




09:23:54 did, to recognize Mr. Nelson, our principal, and Ms.

09:23:58 Ficarotta, our assistant principal.

09:24:04 Mr. Nelson, I think coach Taylor and the volleyball

09:24:08 team, and us being up here as the football team, we are

09:24:11 just representing really a much bigger greatness in

09:24:16 excellence that is our school.

09:24:17 And we would like to think that our school there in

09:24:21 South Tampa along with coach Mike DePue, who I

09:24:25 congratulate as well down in Robinson, in fact that was

09:24:28 an award that he won from his peers, and I was one of

09:24:31 the people who nominated him, and I was one of the

09:24:34 people who voted for him for that award for what a

09:24:37 great job that he has done with this huge turnaround

09:24:41 this year.

09:24:42 We think we represent South Tampa and represent the

09:24:44 City of Tampa.

09:24:45 We try to do that the best we possibly can, and

09:24:48 football gives us a stage.

09:24:50 But if you look at the young men that I have here

09:24:54 today, our two seniors, Jackson and Eric Dungy are part

09:25:00 of a four year class that in four years have gone 53-4,

09:25:04 have won three state championships, three regional




09:25:07 championships, and four straight district

09:25:09 championships.

09:25:09 They have also been a part of the team that has won the

09:25:14 county academic award three years in a row, and the

09:25:17 state academic award two years in a row.

09:25:20 And with our underclassmen here, Philip Healey who is

09:25:24 coming back next year as a quarterback, he directed a

09:25:27 team when he took over for our injured quarterback

09:25:32 Aaron Murray, he's a starter and has two state

09:25:35 championships under his belt.

09:25:39 [ Applause ]

09:25:40 But we are really, as Mr. Scott says, very proud of our

09:25:43 young men, not only for all of those football numbers

09:25:46 but really proud of their dedication to academics, and

09:25:50 most of all the things that perhaps aren't measured in

09:25:53 numbers.

09:25:53 I'm proud of who they are as human beings.

09:25:55 I'm proud of who they are as young men and the kind of

09:25:58 character they represent and the way they carry

09:26:00 themselves in the community.

09:26:01 And that's really what we represent here today.

09:26:04 And we thank you all for having us.




09:26:06 [ Applause ]

09:26:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Again I want to congratulate all of

09:26:26 our recipients today.

09:26:28 The chair will now recognize councilman Miranda.

09:26:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the

09:26:33 Jim Walter Partnership Center for social work at the

09:26:37 University of South Florida, their Executive Director

09:26:41 Manuel DeVaro, Olga Gomez, Melissa Antaccio, and I have

09:26:49 22 students that I will be presenting a commendation

09:26:52 between our break between 12 and 1:30 down in the

09:26:54 Mascotte room.

09:26:55 These young men and women are in high school in five

09:27:00 different countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador,

09:27:03 Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama.

09:27:05 And they are here to learn about us, and in reality we

09:27:09 really learn more about them than they do about us

09:27:12 because that means we have friends in Central America

09:27:16 that we are vitally needed for and appreciate.

09:27:22 (Speaking Spanish)

09:27:23 So thank you all very much for coming.

09:27:33 (Speaking Spanish)

09:27:34 [ Applause ]




09:27:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, councilman Miranda.

09:27:48 At this time we will review the agenda.

09:27:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members

09:27:54 of City Council.

09:27:54 In front of you, you have a addendum to February

09:27:58 4th agenda.

09:27:59 Two items of new business.

09:28:00 They are walk-ons that we would ask you to take up.

09:28:04 They are resolutions that have been filed with the

09:28:07 clerk, one setting an adoption public hearing on March

09:28:12 11, 2010, 5:01 and April 1st at 9:30 on 3075 north

09:28:20 rocky point drive east.

09:28:21 The on the one is a transmittal public hearing,

09:28:23 resolution, set for March 11th, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.

09:28:29 Two amendments to the comprehensive plan, the future

09:28:32 land use element, future land use map, and also setting

09:28:35 a transmittal public hearing on March 11, 2010 at 5:01,

09:28:41 two text amendments to the future land use element, and

09:28:44 we would ask when you approve the agenda that you adopt

09:28:47 those resolutions so those can be set.

09:28:49 Mr. Chairman, I believe you have a memorandum regarding

09:28:52 your early departure from today's meeting.




09:28:54 Did you want top discuss that or just announce that?

09:28:57 >> Just make council aware I do have to leave by 10:30

09:29:01 today at the opening of the state fair, and go over for

09:29:05 that to do the invocation on greeting on behalf of City

09:29:11 Council.

09:29:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Also, council, item number 66 is the

09:29:25 appeal hearing on a petition regarding an appeal from a

09:29:29 decision of the Barrio Latino for property at 2410 east

09:29:34 9th Avenue cannot be heard.

09:29:36 So anybody intending to come, that will not be heard

09:29:42 this afternoon, and finally item 67 also in the

09:29:46 afternoon is a public hearing to consider a settlement

09:29:50 agreement.

09:29:51 You received a memorandum from senior assistant

09:29:55 attorney Julia Cole requesting a continuance of that

09:29:57 public hearing on March 4th, 2010.

09:30:00 So at the time that that hearing is set to open, we

09:30:04 would ask that it be opened and continued to March

09:30:06 4th.

09:30:07 So those people who would be here for that should be on

09:30:09 notice that there will be a request for a continuance.

09:30:12 I believe the only other items that I'm aware of is a




09:30:15 request by the chair to remove items 34 through 39 from

09:30:21 the consent docket, to pull it for discussion and take

09:30:24 it up immediately after the completion of the committee

09:30:27 reports and consent items so it can be taken care of

09:30:31 while Mr. Scott is here.

09:30:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

09:30:35 I would like to encourage all of my colleagues in the

09:30:37 future to do commendations on a workshop day.

09:30:40 We have a really full day today.

09:30:42 I move the agenda as discussed.

09:30:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And I believe Mr. Dingfelder had a

09:30:47 request to pull three items from the consent docket.

09:30:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have the numbers?

09:31:00 There was 30 --

09:31:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 39 already.

09:31:06 >> There was 31 --

09:31:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There were two sidewalk items.

09:31:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, I'm sorry.

09:31:13 The sidewalk items are items 30 and 41.

09:31:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the other one was an a issue

09:31:20 that we already work out so I don't need to do that.

09:31:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That would be item 42 so you don't




09:31:26 wish to query.

09:31:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you put in 30 and -- you are

09:31:32 pulling 30 and 41, right?

09:31:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When do you wish to have that taken

09:31:38 up?

09:31:40 During staff report, thank you.

09:31:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So move the agenda as discussed.

09:31:44 >> Second.

09:31:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

09:31:49 All in favor say Aye.

09:31:50 Opposes?

09:31:51 We will now have public comment.

09:31:53 The public comment time has been set aside for those

09:31:57 items first on the agenda.

09:32:00 The prayer invocation is not on the agenda for

09:32:02 discussion, but if you are here for items on the

09:32:04 agenda.

09:32:07 If you are here for items on the agenda, you may speak

09:32:09 to that item.

09:32:09 Yes.

09:32:10 >> On the copy of the agenda I have the invocation is

09:32:14 the first item on the agenda, the first item of




09:32:17 business that this council engages in.

09:32:20 And if you are suggesting that you want to silence

09:32:23 atheists because do you not want --

09:32:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Sir, it's a process and not an item.

09:32:34 Not an item for discussion.

09:32:35 That's the issue.

09:32:35 >> But I --

09:32:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, sir.

09:32:38 No, sir.

09:32:38 You're out of order.

09:32:39 Council is handling our business.

09:32:41 Okay?

09:32:41 >> When can we speak to it?

09:32:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Public comment is available for any

09:32:51 items both on the agenda or not on the agenda.

09:32:56 City Council makes it a policy to give preference to

09:32:59 items that are on the agenda.

09:33:04 And that being said, it is a matter of interpretation

09:33:08 by City Council, by the chair, as to whether or not you

09:33:11 wish to give preference to that item as the invocation,

09:33:19 as well as other items that are on the agenda for

09:33:22 legislative action.




09:33:22 So if council's decision is to want to hear items that

09:33:26 you wish to have discussed, that council will take

09:33:29 legislative action on, on the agenda, it is obviously

09:33:32 council's preference to take that up first.

09:33:34 And with the remaining time you can take up the other

09:33:37 items including the invocation.

09:33:38 But, in fact, one could argue that the invocation is on

09:33:42 the agenda as an agenda item, but the distinction is

09:33:46 that it is not subject to taking council's action

09:33:48 today.

09:33:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That is continued because here again

09:33:52 you look at the roll call, adoption of amendment, those

09:33:57 are not legislative items that we discuss or adopt.

09:34:00 Councilman Dingfelder.

09:34:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would agree with Mr. Shelby.

09:34:04 I just think our process is not that you can't speak,

09:34:06 it's just that you speak after the regular items on the

09:34:09 agenda.

09:34:12 We dot all the item.

09:34:14 Others go first and then you go after because your item

09:34:17 is not a regular item on the agenda.

09:34:19 On the front of the agenda it has the address of City




09:34:21 Hall, okay, but we wouldn't call that, you know, an

09:34:24 item on the agenda to speak to.

09:34:27 So that's just our process.

09:34:31 We are not picking on you.

09:34:34 And I agree with Mr. Chairman.

09:34:35 >> If I may, the premeeting is for which council is

09:34:45 going to take action.

09:34:46 Anyone else who wants to address any other issue

09:34:49 whether related to the agenda or not can speak after

09:34:51 the meeting, and there is an opportunity for public

09:34:53 comment after the meeting, and that would be the

09:34:55 appropriate place.

09:34:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, it's now, in the beginning.

09:34:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can clarify.

09:35:00 Mr. Fletcher is right in regard that council set aside

09:35:02 a certain amount of time.

09:35:04 And that's why you give preference to the items that

09:35:06 are going to be voted on, so that the public can come

09:35:09 forward and speak to the items you are going to vote

09:35:11 on.

09:35:12 But as you know, council, after they hear those items,

09:35:15 give the opportunity for those people who want to speak




09:35:17 on any item to address City Council.

09:35:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's right.

09:35:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Up until the time limit at which time

09:35:24 they have unlimited amount of time at the end of the

09:35:26 meeting subject to their three minutes to talk to City

09:35:29 Council about those issues.

09:35:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That is exactly right.

09:35:32 That is the process.

09:35:33 >> Thank you, councilman Dingfelder, for explaining

09:35:35 this.

09:35:35 And may I ask as a point of inquiry, what is this time

09:35:39 that you would set aside for us to speak to the council

09:35:42 about our deep concerns about the invocation which is

09:35:45 exclusive of atheists?

09:35:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I address that?

09:35:51 >>CHAIRMAN SCOTT: Yes.

09:35:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Basically, the chair, City Council

09:36:00 made a determination to discuss legislative matters

09:36:02 first, giving preference to those people.

09:36:05 Then at the time that's after that, anytime that's

09:36:08 remaining after that up until 30 minutes or whatever

09:36:10 time the council wishes to give, if they wish to waive




09:36:13 the rules, then anybody can speak on any item.

09:36:15 >>> Thank you for the clarification.

09:36:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.

09:36:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

09:36:20 So those items that are on the agenda, those who wish

09:36:22 to come, state your name and address.

09:36:25 You have three minutes.

09:36:25 Thank you.

09:36:26 >> Good morning to all of our youth.

09:36:37 I am with the Universal Circus of Atlanta, Georgia.

09:36:41 And I bring you greetings from Birmingham, Alabama.

09:36:44 Thank you, council, chairman.

09:36:46 I would like to thank you all for allowing Universal

09:36:48 Circus to return to Tampa, Florida.

09:36:50 We look forward to this great opportunity --

09:36:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Excuse me.

09:36:54 Is that on the agenda?

09:36:56 >> I'm sorry.

09:36:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, it's not on the agenda.

09:36:59 >> Same rule.

09:37:00 >> Oh, I'm sorry.

09:37:05 Does anyone want to address anything on the agenda?




09:37:11 Okay.

09:37:11 >> Good morning.

09:37:19 Buenos dias.

09:37:20 I think we had an interesting discussion, and certainly

09:37:23 I appreciate that, and thank you again for the

09:37:26 clarification of the policy.

09:37:27 I certainly don't want to jump ahead of anyone.

09:37:29 >>CHAIRMAN SCOTT: State your name for the record.

09:37:30 >>> Oh, yes.

09:37:31 For the record, my name is Rob Curry. I am executive

09:37:35 director for atheists of Florida. Our address is 3614

09:37:39 south Manhattan Avenue.

09:37:41 And the reason I'm here this morning is not to cause a

09:37:44 disruption in City Council, by no means.

09:37:48 I think it's important that there is a voice for

09:37:50 atheists in the community.

09:37:51 We are by best estimates about 10% of the population.

09:37:54 This means 10% of the citizens who come before you are

09:37:59 atheists.

09:38:00 That's not to be adversarial or hostile, it's not to

09:38:04 say we are against anyone's religion.

09:38:07 Atheists of Florida as a nonprofit entity fully




09:38:09 supports 100 percent the freedom of religion for all

09:38:13 citizens, so long as it's voluntary, and a this is what

09:38:17 concerns us, is that the City Council invocations are

09:38:21 involuntary.

09:38:22 You are setting up a situation at the beginning of an

09:38:27 official government meeting with officially invited

09:38:30 guests to say an official prayer.

09:38:33 And while I respect and understand the good intentions

09:38:35 of those who are giving this prayer, and I honor their

09:38:41 intentions to do so, I think it's important to respect

09:38:44 those citizens who do not share the belief in a

09:38:48 supernatural or the idea that leads to a higher being

09:38:53 in this state this morning, as to some kind of

09:38:57 metaphor, perhaps, or the literal father in heaven to

09:39:00 bless the council.

09:39:03 Some suggestions I have heard, why not start the

09:39:05 meeting by simply saying, let's get to work.

09:39:07 I would like to direct everyone's attention to the

09:39:10 pledge of allegiance, the final words of the pledge

09:39:12 that we all recited this morning which is "with liberty

09:39:15 and justice for all."

09:39:18 Now these words do not refer to a perfect world that we




09:39:24 live in, but they refer more to, I think, the world

09:39:27 that we want to live in, a world where there is justice

09:39:31 for all.

09:39:32 And this is something that this council has Don

09:39:35 admirably many times in the past.

09:39:37 Councilman Scott, I know that you of in November

09:39:40 courageously supported expanding the equal opportunity

09:39:45 laws for transgendered citizens in this city, to

09:39:49 protect them, along with the majority of the council

09:39:52 against discrimination.

09:39:54 What I would like to ask is that you please consider

09:39:58 protecting atheists from discrimination as well,

09:40:02 starting with something that is easy to fix, quick and

09:40:07 harms no one with, simply replace the invocation, which

09:40:11 is divisive, with a moment of silence or reflection.

09:40:17 That harms no one. It tramples on no one's rights.

09:40:20 And this is an issue of religion in government.

09:40:22 We are not against prayer.

09:40:23 We are against the entanglement of religion in

09:40:26 government, and councilman Scott, you in particular,

09:40:30 normally I respect the Constitution of the United

09:40:31 States fully in spirit as well as in letter.




09:40:34 Article 6 section 3 of the United States Constitution

09:40:38 states there should be no religious text for public

09:40:43 office and there shouldn't be, not only as City Council

09:40:45 but as pastor of the 34th street church of God --

09:40:50 (Bell sounds)

09:40:51 It's an interesting question.

09:40:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

09:40:59 There will be no clapping.

09:41:00 >> My name is Jason Rodriguez.

09:41:02 My address is 4354 Wallace circle.

09:41:06 I'm a resident of district 4.

09:41:08 First I want to mention something that many people

09:41:11 here, and maybe even members of the council might not

09:41:14 be aware of.

09:41:16 We are not just speaking exclusively for the rights of

09:41:19 atheists or secularists.

09:41:22 We are also speaking for the rights of the religious.

09:41:27 Some think that we are here because we have some kind

09:41:30 of animosity toward religion or religious people and

09:41:34 practice.

09:41:35 Absolutely untrue, as Rob was explaining a minute ago.

09:41:39 Although we may not respect the particular religious




09:41:43 practices or tenets of various religious, what we do

09:41:47 respect entirely is the right of every individual to

09:41:51 practice their religion.

09:41:54 So I just wanted to make that clear.

09:41:55 So this is not just about protecting the rights of us,

09:42:00 the non-religious.

09:42:01 It's also about protecting the right of the religious.

09:42:04 And the way I see it, I think the religious should be

09:42:07 right here lined up with us, outraged that government

09:42:11 officials are telling them how they need to pray and

09:42:17 telling them that they need to water down their prayer,

09:42:20 not mention specific names such as Jesus Christ.

09:42:25 So like us, there are people in the community,

09:42:29 religious people, friends of mine.

09:42:30 I even know some ministers who are opposed to public

09:42:33 prayer for this exact reason.

09:42:36 So like us, they believe that this should be reserved

09:42:39 solely for the private sphere and houses of worship.

09:42:45 So this is not about atheists picking on religion or

09:42:49 religious people.

09:42:50 In fact, we are actually allies of the religious in

09:42:55 this matter.




09:42:58 Now we have already dressed that this is an issue of

09:43:01 church-state separation, civil rights, so I don't want

09:43:05 to go through the litany of arguments there, even

09:43:08 though they are very important.

09:43:09 Way want to focus on instead for a moment is the work

09:43:12 that you all do every okay day.

09:43:15 You all are public servants.

09:43:16 You represent us, the people.

09:43:20 And I think I speak for many of us in the Tampa

09:43:23 community.

09:43:25 We really appreciate sincerely what you do every day.

09:43:32 Just in the few meetings that I have seen here, I have

09:43:35 noticed great attention to detail, critical analysis of

09:43:38 the issues, even some compromising.

09:43:42 Just for the sake of getting the job done, which is

09:43:45 very admirable.

09:43:46 I actually noticed it the most in one of the meetings

09:43:49 in which there was no prayer invocation to open the

09:43:53 meeting, and I thought, this is great.

09:43:54 This is exactly how it should be done, perfect, get in

09:43:58 there, get the job done.

09:44:00 I felt like a very satisfied taxpayer.




09:44:04 And it was the perfect way to do things.

09:44:09 Now, like you, I also work with public servants.

09:44:13 And I consider them the military personnel and

09:44:18 government civilians in the workforce.

09:44:22 And I had the privilege of attending briefings by

09:44:26 commanders, and government executives.

09:44:31 Their primary focus is always the mission, whatever

09:44:33 that may be at the time.

09:44:34 (Bell sounds)

09:44:36 So I urge you to follow that and not include public

09:44:40 prayers in these events.

09:44:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

09:44:47 >> Good morning.

09:44:48 My name is John Kieffer.

09:44:50 I'm the president of atheists of Florida.

09:44:53 And I'm a resident of Tampa.

09:44:57 Now last week, two weeks ago, I came in here and talked

09:44:59 to you about abolishing invocation, and you're still

09:45:03 doing it, so I'm going to try to put it in a little

09:45:05 more simpler terms and engineering terms -- in generic

09:45:08 terms.

09:45:09 Here it goes.




09:45:09 Believe it or not, there are people who believe in

09:45:12 invisible aliens.

09:45:14 These we'll call invisible alien believers.

09:45:17 The believers call their invisible aliens by different

09:45:20 names depending on language and tradition.

09:45:24 These believers tell me that the invisible aliens take

09:45:28 a personal interest in their affairs of human beings

09:45:32 and that they monitor and influence people's thoughts,

09:45:34 and they can even make earthquakes occur, as we saw

09:45:39 just in Haiti.

09:45:41 According to some of the invisible alien believers.

09:45:48 They usually talk to these aliens mentally and

09:45:50 silently.

09:45:51 But on the times outloud in a standing ritual, along

09:45:55 with other believers.

09:45:57 And when the believers find out that you don't believe

09:45:59 in invisible aliens, oh-oh, they can get very, very

09:46:03 upset, even hate you.

09:46:05 More over, they especially do not want you to speak

09:46:10 about non-invisible alien things in the part of

09:46:13 government meetings reserved only for invisible alien

09:46:16 communication.




09:46:17 This is known as the standing ritual called invocation.

09:46:22 In fact, once upon a time in land known as Tampa, when

09:46:25 one of those nonbelievers wanted to say that rationale

09:46:31 are good ways to make a better, safer, more loving

09:46:34 world, they -- during the standing ritual, three of the

09:46:43 land's six council members cried nonsense, her easy.

09:46:48 The three got off their thrones and stepped off

09:46:51 refusing to do the standing ritual with the others.

09:46:53 I was there.

09:46:54 I saw it happen.

09:46:55 It was in 2004, I believe.

09:46:57 So now when you do the invisible alien standing ritual

09:47:00 at your meetings, I don't know what you do.

09:47:03 You see, I'm not a believer in invisible aliens.

09:47:06 And you give me only two choices -- to lie or to be

09:47:10 truthful.

09:47:11 Choice one.

09:47:12 I lie.

09:47:12 That means I do the standing ritual like everyone else

09:47:15 and pretend to believe in invisible aliens.

09:47:18 I do this sort of thing to blend in and not be

09:47:23 identified as one of those hated, nonbelievers.




09:47:26 Or, two, I am truthful to you, myself and others.

09:47:29 I sit through the standing ritual causing me to be

09:47:32 identified as a non-believer.

09:47:34 By sitting through the standing ritual, I'm like a

09:47:37 ketchup stain on your white shirt, noticeable and

09:47:40 hated.

09:47:41 So I ask you, what should I do?

09:47:43 Be dishonest and give you my issues that I bring a fair

09:47:47 chance, or to be honest and take a chance that my

09:47:49 issues will be negatively influenced?

09:47:52 Which is it that you want me to do?

09:47:54 Lie to blend in, or be truthful and be like that hated

09:47:59 ketchup stain.

09:48:01 Now when you are thinking of your answers, I want to

09:48:03 remind you, especially for those believers that an

09:48:10 alien will be recording your answer.

09:48:11 Thank you.

09:48:11 >> Good morning.

09:48:21 My name is Matthew Cooper.

09:48:23 I recently moved from Tampa to 15636 Eastborne in

09:48:28 Odessa, Hillsborough County.

09:48:32 If I still lived in Tampa I'm not sure that I would




09:48:35 have been willing to come here today.

09:48:38 Allow me to illustrate.

09:48:41 This is mark 66 which takes place immediately after the

09:48:45 arrest of Jesus.

09:48:50 While Peter was in the courtyard one of the servant

09:48:54 girls of the high priest came by.

09:48:56 When she saw Peter warming himself she looked closely

09:49:02 at him.

09:49:02 You are with the Nazarene.

09:49:06 I do not understand what you are talking about, he

09:49:08 said.

09:49:09 When the servant goes on, she said to those standing

09:49:12 around, this fellow is one of them.

09:49:14 And again he denied it.

09:49:19 St. Peter, who later founded the church of Rome, was

09:49:24 forced to choose between publicly supporting the

09:49:27 believes of those in authority, the high priest, or the

09:49:31 nontraditional beliefs in his heart.

09:49:35 I ask this council to eliminate government prayer so as

09:49:39 not to force the citizens of Tampa to facing the same

09:49:43 choice.

09:49:44 Thank you.




09:49:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

09:49:49 >> Good morning.

09:49:53 Sandra Smith, 1202 big sky drive.

09:49:57 I'm also here to address the invocation.

09:50:01 It's my understanding that it's a tradition.

09:50:04 And traditions can be a very good thing.

09:50:07 But so can change.

09:50:09 My professional background is the computer industry.

09:50:12 And I remember back in 1983 when Steve jobs, who was

09:50:17 the co-founder of apple computers, was interviewing

09:50:21 John Scully, who was the president of Pepsi at the

09:50:23 time, and after a long conversation Steve jobs just

09:50:27 looked at him and he said, do you want to sell colored

09:50:30 sugar water the rest of your life, or do you want to be

09:50:33 a part of changing the world?

09:50:41 She took the job.

09:50:42 Can you imagine if there was never any change?

09:50:44 Personally I'm just asking you to keep an open mind and

09:50:47 consider changing, not the tradition.

09:50:49 You can keep the prayer on there.

09:50:50 It is a good tradition.

09:50:51 And it's a good one for a lot of people.




09:50:53 But would you please consider making it a moment of

09:50:56 silence?

09:50:58 There may be some people here who want to say their own

09:51:01 private prayer, who want to ask God or whomever it is

09:51:05 that they want, to give them guidance for coming up

09:51:09 here and shaking because it's not easy.

09:51:14 So in keeping everybody in mind, I'm just asking you to

09:51:16 please consider change.

09:51:18 Not change the tradition, just change the prayer to a

09:51:22 time of silence.

09:51:23 Thank you.

09:51:30 >> Good morning once again.

09:51:33 My name is Todd Morris.

09:51:34 I am with the Universal Circus.

09:51:38 I thank you for having me here in the City of Tampa,

09:51:41 Mr. Chairman.

09:51:41 And I would like to say Universal Circus returns to

09:51:44 Tampa.

09:51:46 We welcome all the fans of all ages and size to let the

09:51:51 fun shine in here in Tampa.

09:51:52 That's part of the theme we have as we go forward this

09:51:54 year, and letting the fun shine in is what we really do




09:51:59 here in Florida.

09:52:00 So I thank you all for having us.

09:52:01 The Universal Circus will return with national known

09:52:06 comedian Tony tones, also an impersonator.

09:52:09 He's done a lot of things.

09:52:10 He's recently been in a movie, and he's definitely a

09:52:17 wonder to see, and Universal Circus is definitely

09:52:20 something to be seen.

09:52:20 We thank you for allowing us to come back here to

09:52:23 Tampa.

09:52:24 17 years ago, Mr. Cedric Walker founded the Universal

09:52:27 Circus in Atlanta, Georgia, and he decided that we

09:52:30 would definitely take the chance and go out and make

09:52:33 this a national tour.

09:52:34 This year we will be playing at Raymond James stadium.

09:52:38 And Mr. Miranda's district.

09:52:39 And we would just like to say thank you all for having

09:52:42 us.

09:52:42 The dates for Universal Circus is March 18th

09:52:46 through 21st.

09:52:47 That's March 18 through 21 at Raymond James stadium.

09:52:49 Thank you all once again on behalf of Universal Circus.




09:52:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

09:52:55 Next speaker.

09:52:55 >> Good morning.

09:53:00 I'm Art Fyvolent, 4815 West Sunset in Tampa.

09:53:04 I was reading the paper the other day, and saw an

09:53:07 article that said -- up pops the New Tampa Museum of

09:53:12 Art logo, designed by a company in South Carolina.

09:53:16 And I was really shocked that there aren't rules,

09:53:22 procedures in place, for the city to manage how

09:53:26 contracts like that can go out of state when there are

09:53:30 lots of companies here locally that would do a great

09:53:34 job on something like that.

09:53:35 And when you're spending city money, you should spend

09:53:39 it locally.

09:53:40 And I know you had a workshop in October to discuss how

09:53:44 that's done, and by doing that, you might force

09:53:49 Jacksonville and Orlando and Miami to do the same

09:53:51 thing.

09:53:52 But I'm asking you to consider on high profile things

09:53:56 when there are going to be signature kinds of events,

09:54:00 you look to the community to find people who can do the

09:54:05 job well, and ask them to compete for the contract




09:54:08 first, if they can't find anybody locally, then go

09:54:11 outside.

09:54:12 And it's not just for creative, it's not just for

09:54:16 advertising and stuff, but I'm sure there are lots of

09:54:18 contracts who go outside of the Tampa area that should

09:54:23 stay here locally.

09:54:24 And I'm asking that you reconsider that and consider a

09:54:27 way to look for companies locally and spend the money

09:54:30 here before you go outside, especially going out to the

09:54:34 state of South Carolina.

09:54:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

09:54:37 Next speaker.

09:54:40 >> Hi.

09:54:41 My name is Elaine Simmons.

09:54:43 I'm at 4628 west browning Avenue in Tampa.

09:54:46 And I'm here to also have a word about the Tampa museum

09:54:51 logo being farmed out of state.

09:54:55 My name is Elaine Simmons but I'm representing a lot of

09:54:58 the creative community.

09:55:01 And my Tampa design group met Monday night and we

09:55:05 discussed the logo situation with the museum, and

09:55:11 everyone was extremely disappointed and upset, and at




09:55:18 best annoyed, and at worst deeply insulted that this

09:55:22 job has been farmed out from an art point of view.

09:55:27 This is a plum assignment and high profile.

09:55:31 And for it to be given to somebody that nobody knows

09:55:34 about in north -- or South Carolina is very surprising.

09:55:40 So I want to read one thing I got via e-mail from a

09:55:46 principal at a branding advertising agency, spark

09:55:50 branding house.

09:55:52 Tony Miller.

09:55:53 It is disappointing that a creative entity like the

09:55:56 TMA, who seeks the support of the local community, goes

09:56:00 out of state for creative execution.

09:56:04 I know there is the talent here locally that could

09:56:06 represent the museum equally well, if not quite a bit

09:56:09 better.

09:56:10 So it's an echo that I am hearing from a lot of

09:56:15 different people and from the creative and so what art

09:56:23 has said about how we could change, that this would not

09:56:26 happen again.

09:56:27 I understand that this is -- we all understand that the

09:56:31 time we read about it, it's already happened.

09:56:34 There's nothing we can probably do about it now but we




09:56:36 would like to present it in the future.

09:56:38 Thank you.

09:56:38 >>CHAIRMAN SCOTT: Thank you very much.

09:56:41 Next speaker.

09:56:41 >> Good morning.

09:56:48 My name is JoAnne Glover with Sabal Palm Education

09:56:52 Academy.

09:56:53 Today I think I gave each one of the City Council men

09:56:57 and women a sheet.

09:57:04 To get some assistance from the City of Tampa.

09:57:08 To house five families from Haiti.

09:57:11 We have a few of them right here.

09:57:12 The rest had to go to immigration this morning because

09:57:14 they would have been here with us.

09:57:15 We are just asking the city would they please assist us

09:57:18 with housing.

09:57:19 We have a list of names.

09:57:25 We are working with Bill Nelson as well as Kathy

09:57:29 Castor's office trying you to see what needs to be done

09:57:32 to for the rest of the family members here.

09:57:38 She has a brother 90 -- I'll let her speak.

09:57:43 >> I live 65 years.




09:57:59 I work all my life.

09:58:16 Three years or better here.

09:58:34 I'm 92.

09:58:39 But if you can help me to get here with daughter.

09:58:51 I will be happy to have some help.

09:58:54 Thank you.

09:58:59 >> Good morning.

09:59:00 My name is Dr. Toya scare.

09:59:03 I was born in Haiti.

09:59:04 I arrived here in America when I was eight years old.

09:59:07 And it has been a great pleasure to become an American

09:59:11 citizen here.

09:59:12 And it's been my dream to have an education.

09:59:17 I have an aunt that died in the quake and she left

09:59:19 behind a three-year-old and an eight-year-old, and they

09:59:22 are currently in the street.

09:59:25 And I implore you to Meece help me to bring them here

09:59:29 so I can give them the same future that I have.

09:59:36 My husband is a computer engineer.

09:59:38 I'm a doctor of pharmacy.

09:59:40 We just ask that you please provide us a way so that we

09:59:43 can get the children here so that we can give them a




09:59:47 future, that we can give them comfort after losing

09:59:50 their mother.

09:59:51 They had to see their mother die.

09:59:52 Her body lay in the streets only three days later to be

09:59:56 picked up by a bulldozer.

09:59:57 So if you could please provide us with help, we would

10:00:00 greatly appreciate it.

10:00:01 Thank you.

10:00:01 >> We ask if we can get some a assistance.

10:00:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Miller, if you can get with them

10:00:16 and assist them from an administration standpoint.

10:00:18 Second, I would say there's an organization that I was

10:00:20 at called Hope in East Tampa.

10:00:28 They have a Haitian component there as well.

10:00:32 Also, my church is heavily involved.

10:00:35 I plan to go to Haiti on the 2nd of March with a

10:00:38 group there.

10:00:39 So if you could contact Ms. Miller's group and also

10:00:44 contact my church because we plan to take a group over

10:00:47 on the 2nd of March as well.

10:00:49 Okay?

10:00:50 Thank you very much.




10:00:52 Next speaker.

10:01:05 >> My name is Frank R. Williams, 1112 East Sky Street,

10:01:13 Paradise Missionary Baptist church.

10:01:16 And I'm a believer in God and Jesus Christ.

10:01:21 What you believe, that's your problem.

10:01:23 I don't want them to infringe on my belief.

10:01:26 I believe in the almighty power of God and I believe in

10:01:28 his son Jesus Christ and that's the way I'm going to

10:01:31 live my life.

10:01:32 And another person believes in what they believe.

10:01:35 And I want to thank you for your prayer.

10:01:39 Keep praying regardless how a person feel about it.

10:01:41 If it wasn't for prayer, we wouldn't be here talking

10:01:43 today.

10:01:44 Thank God for Jesus Christ.

10:01:46 I don't care whether you are atheist or whatever.

10:01:49 That's your belief.

10:01:50 You have a right to your belief.

10:01:52 I'm not "religious" -- I'm a believer.

10:01:55 Thank God I am a believer.

10:01:56 I want to read something to you.

10:01:58 Because seems like United States is getting out of




10:02:00 hand.

10:02:01 And I almost believe God is going to bring down a great

10:02:07 damnation on us.

10:02:08 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men

10:02:11 are created equal, with certain unalienable rights,

10:02:15 that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of

10:02:17 happiness, that to secure these rights, goverenments

10:02:17 are instituted among men, deriving their just power

10:02:24 from the consent of the governed, that wherever any

10:02:28 form of government becomes destructive of these ends,

10:02:31 it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish

10:02:34 it, and to institute new government, the government of

10:02:37 the people, by the people, and for the people.

10:02:42 Citizens' rights, equal protection of the law,

10:02:45 opportunity, education and work, freedom to live,

10:02:48 travel, and use public facilities wherever one choose,

10:02:53 the right to participate in the democratic political

10:02:56 system.

10:03:02 City officials of Tampa is unjust, biased, racist,

10:03:05 liars, thievery, and that includes the mayor, City

10:03:08 Council, code enforcement, school board, county

10:03:11 commission, law enforcement, and the courthouse of




10:03:14 injustice.

10:03:15 All these people live off taxpayer money but we get no

10:03:19 justice.

10:03:23 A court that ignores principle of justice, a court that

10:03:24 characterizes incompetent and dishonor.

10:03:28 I would tell you God bless you --.

10:03:34 >> My name is Ed Solomon. I live at 3918 Watrous

10:03:58 Avenue.

10:03:59 Councilman Miranda's district.

10:04:03 Tampa 33629.

10:04:05 I have been a Tampa resident and taxpayer for half a

10:04:08 century, courtesy of the 1957 assignment to MacDill

10:04:13 strategic air command.

10:04:14 Today, I'm alarmed, and I invite your concern over

10:04:18 losing three local large bands over the past three

10:04:24 months.

10:04:24 First the schools lost their Monday night adult band.

10:04:27 Second, and this week, just this week, the city lost

10:04:31 the 18-piece shades of blue swing band, which played

10:04:35 for ballroom dancers coming from all over the country

10:04:38 and played for them weekly at Barksdale senior center

10:04:41 for the past 13 years.




10:04:43 And, third, the impending loss of our 40-piece

10:04:46 grassroots Tampa community band, which has played 92

10:04:51 concerts for city residents since 1988.

10:04:54 I managed the band over its 22 years, and Steve

10:04:58 Stolack, the esteemed director of bands of Hillsborough

10:05:02 high school and Jesuit, was our first conductor.

10:05:05 In 2002 pat Fowler and Pete Beauget, invited the band

10:05:14 to rehearse weekly at Kate Jackson center.

10:05:18 Pat recognize it is therapeutic of this band experiment

10:05:21 and its recreational value.

10:05:26 Fast forward to the president as council, parks and

10:05:29 recreation imposed the severe fee schedule and a $100

10:05:32 surcharge on nonresident musicians, in the case of the

10:05:39 senior dancers, the nonresident dancers that came from

10:05:43 all over the world to hear the shades of blue and

10:05:45 dance.

10:05:45 Anyway, half of our band is affected by the $100 a year

10:05:51 per head fee levied on nonresident participants,

10:05:56 musicians.

10:05:57 That's the unintended consequence of halting our local

10:06:01 contribution.

10:06:02 Peter Zinnenberg, a band horn player in the community




10:06:06 band and board member of the Hillsborough County arts

10:06:07 council, likened the city fees on music to charging the

10:06:13 Salvation Army for street space or requiring an

10:06:14 occupational license for Girl Scout cookies.

10:06:18 Dunedin, Carrollwood with, Pasadena, are among cities

10:06:21 which provide free rehearsal space for their community

10:06:24 bands.

10:06:25 On behalf of the Tampa community band I'm requesting

10:06:28 similar sensitivity for our musicians and audiences

10:06:32 with either, one, grandfather clause extending

10:06:34 rent-free consideration at Kate Jackson, or, two, a

10:06:39 waiver of non-resident $100 fees for those traveling

10:06:43 some distance to perform in the city, at notable

10:06:48 personal expense, or, three, locate some other city

10:06:51 facility where we could rehearse every week.

10:06:53 The options offered by the parks and recreation staff

10:06:55 do not address the band's contribution to the city's

10:06:58 cultural configuration and are constrained by council's

10:07:02 mandate, nor do they relate to the nature of volunteers

10:07:08 playing in a grassroots band.

10:07:10 Mayor Iorio came into office envisions a city where

10:07:15 creative energies are appreciated and fostered.




10:07:17 She said a climate where musicians find a home.

10:07:22 This is the kind of city we can be, she said.

10:07:24 Can we ask council to enhance the quality of life?

10:07:28 (Bell sounds).

10:07:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

10:07:29 Next speaker.

10:07:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?

10:07:32 >>CHAIRMAN SCOTT: Yes.

10:07:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Salmon, I have a question.

10:07:35 Could you give us examples of the places in the City of

10:07:38 Tampa where you all have played for free?

10:07:41 >>> In the 92 concerts we presented, out of the 127, in

10:07:52 the city limits, 18 were church related, 85 were

10:07:58 retirement centers, 25 grand court which was very

10:08:02 hospitable, received the band frequently, 18 of our

10:08:06 concerts were for city civic and city recreation

10:08:09 functions and six of our concerts were given at the

10:08:12 Moffitt Cancer center, at the hope lodge, for the

10:08:17 people that came to visit their patients at move fit.

10:08:23 A total of 92 concerts we gave for free, 30, 35 members

10:08:28 chose to play at each of those concerts.

10:08:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.




10:08:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

10:08:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After this speaker then we'll

10:08:38 discuss the issues brought up to us, right?

10:08:42 >> You may want to refer them to somebody else.

10:08:48 >> West Palmetto street, Tampa, Florida.

10:08:55 Actually, I'm here for another item on the agenda, but

10:08:59 I feel like Esther, that I'm here for such a time as

10:09:03 this.

10:09:03 I heard these gentlemen speak about this matter of the

10:09:06 invocation.

10:09:07 I'll be very brief.

10:09:08 I just want to say that the fools have said in this

10:09:13 heart that there is no God, and I would encourage the

10:09:16 council to continue your prayers of invocation.

10:09:19 Thank you.

10:09:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

10:09:26 >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

10:09:28 Al Steenson, 4100 west Leila Avenue.

10:09:32 Tampa, Florida.

10:09:33 President of the Gandy sun bay south.

10:09:35 I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning

10:09:37 about an agenda item, about a non-agenda item frankly




10:09:42 because I will not be here this afternoon, because I

10:09:46 intend I hope along with hundreds of other citizens

10:09:50 working on Bayshore honoring marine sergeant Daniel

10:09:53 Angus.

10:09:55 The item that -- the issue that I would like to address

10:09:59 is the opposition down in our community regarding the

10:10:03 expressways proposal for the elevator on Gandy.

10:10:08 And I do think it should be an agenda item.

10:10:11 And a I think if this council, members of this council

10:10:15 are not aware of the opposition that exist on there,

10:10:20 then shame on us.

10:10:21 We haven't got our message out.

10:10:23 If you are a aware of the opposition and remain silent,

10:10:27 then I have to say shame on you.

10:10:29 You are our elected representatives shall at least one

10:10:34 district and three at-large.

10:10:35 This is a very vital issue in South Tampa.

10:10:39 And I would hope that some day very soon that we might

10:10:45 have this become an agenda item so that the community

10:10:50 can more easily discuss it.

10:10:53 Thank you very kindly.

10:10:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.




10:10:58 >>> And if anybody cares, I have a copy of an e-mail

10:11:00 regarding the escort for sergeant Angus.

10:11:05 The escort will be coming up Florida Avenue and going

10:11:08 east on Jackson, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3:00

10:11:11 this afternoon.

10:11:12 Thank you.

10:11:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

10:11:14 I have a memo.

10:11:16 Anyone else want to speak on public comment?

10:11:18 I have a memo to that effect.

10:11:19 And so, council, my intent was that we need to find

10:11:24 what time he will be passing, maybe take a 5-minute

10:11:27 recess at that time so we can pay tribute to him.

10:11:29 Thank you.

10:11:37 >> Bayshore to Platt, Patt to Florida.

10:11:41 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to say before Mr.

10:11:44 Steenson left that at new business I am going to

10:11:47 propose -- requesting a report on the Gandy overhead at

10:11:56 our next regular meeting which will be February

10:11:59 18th.

10:11:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:12:01 Thank you.




10:12:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To follow up on the issue that was

10:12:06 brought to us by Mr. Solomon, I am really familiar, and

10:12:10 we all received this, really familiar with the good

10:12:12 that these people do in their band.

10:12:14 They perform for free for our citizens.

10:12:16 And I felt like -- I feel like there's got to be away

10:12:20 to accommodate them.

10:12:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me suggest you bring it up under

10:12:24 new business.

10:12:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

10:12:27 But I intend to do that because of the good that they

10:12:29 do for the community.

10:12:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Bring it up under new business.

10:12:31 I'm trying to push this because I have to leave in

10:12:33 about ten minutes, and we have a full agenda here.

10:12:37 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to say one thing, because

10:12:39 this is the third time that a number of these people,

10:12:42 the atheists have come to speak to us, and they haven't

10:12:47 been given the courtesy of anyone responding to them.

10:12:51 I want to a sure you that our legal department and

10:12:58 various of us council members have listened, are taking

10:13:01 your concerns into consideration, are investigating




10:13:07 possible changes to our procedures.

10:13:09 So I want you to know that.

10:13:10 The other thing that I wish I had spoken the last time

10:13:13 you were here, because I did feel -- I was not on the

10:13:19 council where some council members walked out when

10:13:22 someone was giving the invocation.

10:13:24 But I also want to say that I don't think anyone on

10:13:27 this board did that or would have been that

10:13:30 disrespectful.

10:13:32 I also want to apologize that no one said anything the

10:13:36 last time.

10:13:37 It's not that we are not listening or considering.

10:13:41 It's just that it's a pretty big topic, been debated

10:13:45 for a few centuries.

10:13:49 There's possibilities that I don't know that legal can

10:13:52 get into now about what we can do.

10:13:54 I think that one easy thing that we can do that would

10:13:59 not maybe come as far as you would like to go but would

10:14:03 be respectful to everyone is that if we continue the

10:14:09 invocation as we have it now, that we do not request

10:14:13 people to rise for that, so there would be no feeling

10:14:18 of having to identify your religious beliefs or not




10:14:25 beliefs.

10:14:26 And the other thing I want to say is there's a parents

10:14:29 in this room that told me something that I think is

10:14:33 really good advice for anyone who has children.

10:14:36 When his, I think, toddler child asked him -- I'm

10:14:44 sorry -- asked him about what religion and what

10:14:48 religion they were, he told her, the only thing you

10:14:50 need to know about religion is never criticize

10:14:55 anybody's religion.

10:14:56 Because if you do, they might kill you.

10:14:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well --

10:15:04 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to say one more thing because I

10:15:06 think this is important.

10:15:11 The idea of not having the establishment of religion is

10:15:18 that we respect all beliefs.

10:15:22 So if you are asking anyone here, everyone here that I

10:15:29 heard spoke, most people were respectful of other

10:15:32 people's believes.

10:15:33 But others were critical.

10:15:35 And I think that undermines our Constitution and our

10:15:41 freedom of religion.

10:15:42 So we may need to address and maybe change this and may




10:15:47 discuss it, a moment of silence, but to come as

10:15:52 atheists to mock people who do have beliefs is not

10:15:58 going to help your cause.

10:15:59 And to come as a religious person and condemn people

10:16:05 who don't have believes is not going to help you

10:16:07 either.

10:16:07 So that's all I have to say.

10:16:10 But I do want to a sure you that I will make sure that

10:16:13 this is addressed at some point by council.

10:16:16 >> Well said.

10:16:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't want to get into that.

10:16:27 It's not on the agenda.

10:16:28 I already discussed this with council and city

10:16:31 attorney.

10:16:32 I am not going to that.

10:16:33 That's not on this agenda today.

10:16:35 It's not on the agenda today.

10:16:36 We are not going to discuss it.

10:16:37 So whatever council wants to do in the office she can

10:16:40 do in her office, okay?

10:16:43 Okay.

10:16:44 Do we have anyone who wishes to request a




10:16:48 reconsideration on a legislative matter?

10:16:51 Okay.

10:16:51 Seeing none, let's move to our committee report.

10:16:54 Public safety.

10:16:57 Chairwoman Gwen Miller.

10:16:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Move resolutions 4 to 5.

10:17:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.

10:17:07 All in favor?

10:17:08 Opposes?

10:17:09 Okay.

10:17:11 Parks and recreation, Councilwoman Linda Saul-Sena.

10:17:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10:17:21 I would like to move resolution 6 through 17.

10:17:25 >> Second.

10:17:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:17:29 All in favor?

10:17:31 Public works, Mr. Charlie Miranda.

10:17:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move 18 through 27.

10:17:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:17:40 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:17:44 Finance Committee, Mary Mulhern.

10:17:46 >>MARY MULHERN: Number 28 and 29, I believe.




10:17:51 30 was removed.

10:17:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

10:17:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:17:56 Building and zoning.

10:17:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I believe there's items 34 through

10:18:02 39 that are being held so I'll move 31, 32, 33, and 40.

10:18:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:18:12 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:18:14 Transportation.

10:18:15 Councilman Dingfelder.

10:18:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Daignault, he gave me the

10:18:24 information I needed on items 30 and 41.

10:18:28 So with Ms. Mulhern's indulgence, I'll go ahead and

10:18:32 move 30 as well as 41 and 42.

10:18:35 >> Second.

10:18:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And through 45?

10:18:41 Those items as well?

10:18:46 >> No, I'll just move my committee.

10:18:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, fine.

10:18:49 Thank you.

10:18:51 Moved and seconded.

10:18:52 All in favor signify by saying Aye.




10:18:54 Opposes?

10:18:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Strike that for the staff report.

10:18:59 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to set 43 through 45.

10:19:03 >> Second.

10:19:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:19:08 Opposes?

10:19:08 What I would like to do now is take up those items that

10:19:11 are were pulled, Ms. Miller, if you would come forward

10:19:14 at this time.

10:19:15 I pulled these items.

10:19:16 There was an article -- 34 through 39.

10:19:20 >> Mr. Chairman, since you are going to be leaving and

10:19:23 since we have an important vote coming up, shouldn't we

10:19:25 do that?

10:19:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the vote?

10:19:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It was a continued hearing and all

10:19:34 we have to do is vote.

10:19:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, let me take this item.

10:19:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's going to be longer.

10:19:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't think so.

10:19:42 Do you want to speak to that?

10:19:45 >>CINDY MILLER: Director of Growth Management




10:19:47 Development Services.

10:19:48 I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify an article

10:19:51 that appeared over the weekend.

10:19:52 It had indicated in some fast facts regarding the

10:19:55 neighborhood stabilization program that the City of

10:19:57 Tampa has not acquired any property.

10:20:00 Let me correct that error.

10:20:02 I did send an e-mail to all of your offices.

10:20:05 The City of Tampa directly has acquired in the Sulphur

10:20:07 Springs area 15 properties.

10:20:11 All of the houses have been torn down.

10:20:14 They needed to be torn down.

10:20:16 And housing partners throughout the city have also

10:20:19 acquired or are about to close on eight additional

10:20:21 properties.

10:20:21 So we have a number bigger than zero.

10:20:25 We are not satisfied yet with how many we have

10:20:26 acquired.

10:20:27 And that is one reason why we are before you for items

10:20:30 34 to 39.

10:20:32 Originally, with our grant, HUD had basically said,

10:20:36 draw a very narrow focus when you have proposals to




10:20:40 contracts.

10:20:42 They change their advice to cities and communities

10:20:46 throughout the country.

10:20:47 We therefore are before you to request that we amend

10:20:50 contracts with contractors, developers, and

10:20:53 not-for-profit entities that want to acquire homes,

10:20:57 rehab them and then sell them to eligible home buyers.

10:21:01 We had restricted these contracts to four

10:21:03 neighborhoods.

10:21:04 What we now want to do is give these contractors the

10:21:06 opportunity to expand into other eligible neighborhoods

10:21:10 HUD has approved.

10:21:11 We have no changes that need to be done with our grant.

10:21:13 And from what we are hearing from those developers,

10:21:16 contractors and not-for-profits is that this is very

10:21:19 essential.

10:21:19 One example that was given to us in the old West Tampa,

10:21:23 which is one with of the current neighborhoods, only

10:21:25 one property since you approved these contracts in

10:21:29 November have come up that would be eligible for

10:21:32 foreclosure for the acquisition of this project.

10:21:34 We need to expand into on the neighborhoods and make




10:21:36 those available.

10:21:37 And I am available for any other questions.

10:21:38 >>GWEN MILLER: So pretty much expanded because given

10:21:41 the example that you just gave, you just need to go to

10:21:44 other areas, the target areas.

10:21:46 >>> Exactly.

10:21:48 It will expand the opportunities and also preserve

10:21:49 structures that are in great need of rehabilitation.

10:21:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: From a legal standpoint, has the city

10:21:54 attorney reviewed this and are we on good legal

10:21:57 footing?

10:21:57 I know originally it was targeted for a certain area,

10:22:00 also some lady came in protesting.

10:22:04 I want to make sure we are on good legal footing.

10:22:07 Okay.

10:22:07 >> Jorge Martin, assistant city attorney. Yes, I have

10:22:13 reviewed these contract and the contract amendments

10:22:15 that are before you for a vote this morning.

10:22:17 I do not see any problems as far as expanding the areas

10:22:22 of focus.

10:22:23 However, the focus still remains on the initial areas,

10:22:29 the expansion is only meant to bring in additional




10:22:33 areas, initial efforts to bring a property into the

10:22:38 hands of the partners or the city.

10:22:43 >>CINDY MILLER: To further clarify the particular

10:22:47 property that was outside of the scope of the

10:22:49 neighborhood, this is not those contracts.

10:22:52 Those were the social service contracts.

10:22:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

10:22:55 Also let me further state that the article that was

10:22:58 written, I believe on Sunday, was inaccurate even as

10:23:00 well with the county.

10:23:03 The county's affordable housing.

10:23:05 And they have already have contracts on 26 closed

10:23:13 properties, 13 rehabbed contracts, eight offers have

10:23:19 been accepted but not closed yet, and 13 other family

10:23:23 properties.

10:23:24 Then they have another $11.5 million on multifamily as

10:23:29 well.

10:23:29 So I just want to make sure that we are aware that

10:23:32 these dollars are being spent, and it was inaccurate.

10:23:38 And also given the reason by Ms. Miller for expanding

10:23:41 the area.

10:23:43 So with that, yes, Councilwoman Mulhern had.




10:23:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Thanks for clarifying that.

10:23:51 I still have a question, and I might have just missed.

10:23:55 You might have answered this.

10:23:57 But in any of these amendments, these are things that

10:24:04 we already proved, correct?

10:24:09 >>CINDY MILLER: The contracts have already been

10:24:11 approved.

10:24:11 >>MARY MULHERN: So these were bids based on a certain

10:24:17 area, correct?

10:24:19 They had to bid within certain areas to be eligible?

10:24:22 >>> It was identified that certain areas would be for

10:24:24 home ownership.

10:24:25 However in, our request for proposals we identified all

10:24:28 eligible neighborhoods under HUD, and that was included

10:24:32 in the RFP that these were on the areas.

10:24:34 >>MARY MULHERN: It looks to me like now we are

10:24:37 changing that, and that may mean that certain people

10:24:44 who may have applied and were not considered or awarded

10:24:54 might have, you know, if the boundaries were changing

10:24:57 to now are different, there may have been applicants

10:25:00 that --

10:25:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That was the question I raised earlier




10:25:04 about legal.

10:25:05 >>MARY MULHERN: I need more clarification because I

10:25:09 didn't hear an answer that satisfies me.

10:25:11 >>> What was to bid was not for particular parcels or

10:25:15 particular locations.

10:25:16 It was to qualify organizations to do work within areas

10:25:19 that were defined to go out and look.

10:25:22 >> So those areas were defined?

10:25:25 >>> The areas were defined but the qualifications for

10:25:28 the individual organizations didn't have anything to

10:25:31 really do with the targeted areas within the city.

10:25:33 >> It's not like they had properties that we were

10:25:38 identifying in the contracts.

10:25:39 >>MARY MULHERN: So can you tell me that nobody was

10:25:42 disqualified because they were outside the original

10:25:45 boundary?

10:25:47 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes, that's correct.

10:25:48 No one was disqualified because they were out of the

10:25:50 original entities.

10:25:52 Some were disqualified because they didn't meet the

10:25:54 minimum qualifications for doing business under the

10:25:57 program.




10:25:57 >>MARY MULHERN: And that wasn't one of the

10:26:01 qualifications?

10:26:02 >>> No, ma'am.

10:26:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

10:26:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:26:12 Move those items 34 through 39.

10:26:14 >>GWEN MILLER: I move 34 through 39.

10:26:16 >> Second.

10:26:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:26:20 Opposes?

10:26:21 >>MARY MULHERN: Nay.

10:26:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 62 requires just a vote.

10:26:26 Is that right?

10:26:37 Item 62 requires a vote by full council.

10:26:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Fletcher and I agree since this is

10:26:44 set for 10:30, just a few minute away, it would serve

10:26:46 everybody best to wait till 10:30.

10:26:49 I know for a fact that there are people coming in, at

10:26:52 least there were, and I know there are people who are

10:26:55 intending to watch this on television, with the

10:26:56 anticipation and expectation it will be at 10:30.

10:26:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder and then




10:27:01 councilwoman Saul-Sena.

10:27:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll wait till 10:30 at council's

10:27:11 direction but I did have a question.

10:27:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are you able to stay till 10:31?

10:27:17 >> If we are just going to take a vote I can do that.

10:27:19 But I can't stay here if we are going to discuss it.

10:27:24 >>MARY MULHERN: I was one of the members absent and

10:27:26 I'm ready to vote.

10:27:27 I have reviewed the record.

10:27:30 And I --

10:27:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, we have three minutes yet.

10:27:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If we can do some housekeeping for

10:27:38 the next few minutes that needs to be done anyway.

10:27:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:27:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I interrupt you one second?

10:27:43 If we are not going to have an opportunity at 10:30

10:27:48 then I would like to be regain the floor for one

10:27:50 second.

10:27:50 I don't think I was very articulate the last time on

10:27:56 why I was voting the way I did.

10:27:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It's not 10:30.

10:28:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know, but Mr. Chairman said we




10:28:05 couldn't speak at 10:30.

10:28:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, I didn't say that.

10:28:07 Way said was if you are going to reopen it, I cannot

10:28:10 stay longer than a couple of minutes.

10:28:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Give me some direction.

10:28:16 I would like to take 30 seconds why I voted the way I

10:28:19 did.

10:28:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's do the clean-up and then we'll

10:28:21 come to that.

10:28:22 I'll give you an opportunity to speak.

10:28:24 Okay?

10:28:25 Okay, Marty, what item do we need to work on?

10:28:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You are going to have second readings

10:28:30 so I ask that all written communications real which

10:28:34 have been available for public inspection be received

10:28:36 and filed into the record by motion and vote.

10:28:38 >> Second.

10:28:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

10:28:43 Opposes?

10:28:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Secondly if any members of council

10:28:45 had any conversations with the petitioner, his or her

10:28:51 representative or any members of the public, disclose




10:28:53 the person's group or entity with whom the verbal

10:28:56 communication occurred and the substance of that verbal

10:28:57 communication, and finally, Mr. Chairman, you may want

10:29:00 to take this opportunity now to swear in any witnesses

10:29:03 who intend to testify this morning relative to this

10:29:06 morning's hearings.

10:29:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Those who intend to testify before

10:29:10 City Council, please stand and be sworn at this time.

10:29:12 (Oath administered by Clerk)

10:29:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

10:29:24 We have about one minute till.

10:29:26 Mr. Shelby?

10:29:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We have one minute.

10:29:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Clerk, do you have about one minute as

10:29:35 well?

10:29:36 >> I do.

10:29:42 Item 46.

10:29:47 Do we have item 46?

10:29:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open.

10:29:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:29:57 Opposes?

10:29:57 Item 46.




10:29:58 Item 46.

10:29:59 Anyone here to address council on item 46?

10:30:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.

10:30:03 >> Second.

10:30:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance for

10:30:08 adoption on second reading, an ordinance of the city of

10:30:11 Tampa, Florida amending City of Tampa code of

10:30:13 ordinances, chapter 26, utilities, article II, water,

10:30:17 section 26-97 making revisions to the code provisions

10:30:21 relative to water conservation to provide consistency

10:30:24 with the Southwest Florida Water Management District

10:30:26 conservation requirements and to provide increased

10:30:29 consistency among Tampa and county resident providing

10:30:32 for repeal of ordinances 2009-81 and all ordinances in

10:30:35 conflict, providing an effective date.

10:30:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.

10:30:39 Record your vote, please.

10:30:48 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.

10:30:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We can take up item 62.

10:30:54 Mr. Shelby.

10:30:57 Excuse me, council.

10:30:59 Item 62, councilman Dingfelder.




10:31:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I wanted to say that

10:31:05 I really didn't clarify last Tim was my position was

10:31:09 really based upon the economic considerations.

10:31:11 And I just wanted to stress that to council members who

10:31:14 are here.

10:31:15 You know, we are in difficult times.

10:31:16 I think my vote might have been different if this was

10:31:19 three or four years ago.

10:31:20 But the thing that jumped out at me right before I

10:31:23 voted was that the regional manager stood up there and

10:31:25 he said with almost tears in his eyes, he said, now,

10:31:29 not only are we investing millions of dollars in this

10:31:31 facility, increased sales tax, property taxes, he said

10:31:34 but we are going to be creating 13 to 15 new jobs in

10:31:37 this community.

10:31:38 And I don't think we can turn our back on that.

10:31:40 I know the parking situation isn't perfect.

10:31:43 But life isn't black and white.

10:31:45 And especially in these tough times.

10:31:47 So I would urge council to support this.

10:31:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The city is in dire needs of tax

10:31:57 revenue.




10:31:59 This area is blighted.

10:32:00 It has a car lot, as we all heard.

10:32:05 Next week we could have a flea market there.

10:32:08 It's going to be more convenient for the people who

10:32:10 live in that area, who don't have cars, to drive to the

10:32:13 drugstore to get their diapers, whatever they need, and

10:32:17 their medicines.

10:32:18 We need to pass this today.

10:32:23 Either that or let postpone it to another day, if

10:32:26 people are undecided.

10:32:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Briefly we want the CVS.

10:32:32 We want one that reflects the years of work that this

10:32:36 neighborhood has put into a neighborhood plan which

10:32:37 says bring it up to the sidewalk.

10:32:39 It's not an anti-CVS.

10:32:41 It's a pro-respect to the neighborhood and the energy

10:32:43 they have put into their plans.

10:32:45 And CVS has done this in St. Petersburg.

10:32:48 They can do it in Tampa.

10:32:49 Thank you.

10:32:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me speak while he's gone.

10:32:57 Mr. Chairman, after viewing the tape and the




10:32:59 transcript, I heard and saw that several times they

10:33:03 asked to continue it because the community has items

10:33:06 they want to put on the site plan, and they would not

10:33:08 continue it, and I don't know why, because when you

10:33:10 have a site plan I think you should put it on the site

10:33:15 plan so when you get your building permit it will be

10:33:17 there and won't come back to us and say, it's supposed

10:33:21 to be done, they didn't do it.

10:33:23 So I don't know why.

10:33:24 I know they need it and like you say it's going to

10:33:28 generate jobs.

10:33:29 If the communities is asking for something I don't see

10:33:32 why you can't say yes, we'll put it on the site plan.

10:33:34 That's the only thing I have when I reviewed the tapes.

10:33:37 I couldn't understand why CVS wouldn't do that.

10:33:39 >> Let me clarify that one issue.

10:33:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, no.

10:33:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Can I open the public hearing?

10:33:52 No.

10:33:52 >> Then continue for two weeks then.

10:33:56 I don't see why.

10:33:57 Because I know the community wants it there, and I




10:33:59 can't see why you can't put this on the site plan.

10:34:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Mrs. Miller, I watched the tape.

10:34:05 And that opportunity was given and they did not want

10:34:10 that.

10:34:11 They already said they did not want to continue it.

10:34:13 I don't think that there is -- they had that

10:34:16 opportunity and they did not take it.

10:34:18 And it was repeatedly offered to them.

10:34:21 Not to mention the fact that we heard they spent 30

10:34:26 months talking to the city, to land development, about

10:34:31 how this could work.

10:34:35 Yes, we need CVS.

10:34:36 We need CVS and Walgreen's, because that's all we have

10:34:39 got.

10:34:39 Okay.

10:34:39 We have got a duopoly of pharmacies in Florida, and if

10:34:45 there is a pharmacy needed in Seminole Heights,

10:34:49 somebody is going to build it.

10:34:59 I feel very surprised, but also just saddened for the

10:35:02 residents of Seminole Heights who felt like they, in

10:35:06 order to get a needed facility there, to get a good

10:35:14 development of store, and a pharmacy, they had to give




10:35:19 away the store.

10:35:20 They had to just say, okay, fine, let's forget about

10:35:22 all this work that not only city staff spent two years

10:35:26 on, we worked on, and all these volunteers in Seminole

10:35:30 Heights, people who lived there for a very long time

10:35:33 had worked on, and they felt like, we really do need

10:35:37 this.

10:35:37 So we might as well just cave in.

10:35:40 I was very -- I thought Chairman Scott rocked when he

10:35:48 explained why we couldn't, you know, use this as a

10:35:50 precedent to not -- to conform with our new

10:35:58 comprehensive plan that we just passed.

10:36:00 And I did make some notes, and I think when Linda made

10:36:03 her motion she probably said all these things.

10:36:05 But just in case, I want to highlight a couple of

10:36:09 things that Ms. Feeley had pointed out.

10:36:14 Some of the PD criterias, one was the unique

10:36:18 circumstances, and it was made very, very clear that

10:36:21 there was enough land there, that there wasn't a

10:36:24 requirement for a planned development, which would

10:36:27 allow flexibility.

10:36:29 There's enough land there, they could move the




10:36:34 footprint.

10:36:35 Secondly, she pointed out the unique conditions.

10:36:38 This is not a unique condition.

10:36:40 It's a single use, single story building, which is so

10:36:45 not unique that they only have two or three cookie

10:36:48 cutters that they put all over the country.

10:36:51 It was not the most efficient use of the land.

10:36:57 And also the trees.

10:37:00 The problem with getting rid of -- the waivers, 78% of

10:37:04 the trees is not okay.

10:37:09 I just feel like we need CVS to be better neighbors.

10:37:18 And I know, I understand you are dealing with a huge

10:37:22 corporation and you are their council, and you are

10:37:25 their architect and their designer who feel they are so

10:37:29 limited in what they can do and I feel you all did a

10:37:39 great job.

10:37:40 But if there is a market, which obviously there is, for

10:37:49 a pharmacy in Seminole Heights we'll get one.

10:37:53 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to open the public hearing

10:37:54 so Mr. Shimberg can answer the question that I asked.

10:37:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's hear from council on that because

10:37:59 we have to take --




10:38:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Maybe we can continue for two weeks

10:38:03 then.

10:38:04 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.

10:38:05 This is the situation we are in.

10:38:06 And we have been in these situations before with these

10:38:09 rollover votes.

10:38:09 The public hearing has been closed.

10:38:11 The public hearing has not been continued for today.

10:38:14 The only action for today is a vote.

10:38:17 So we have two options.

10:38:19 Either you take a vote, and see where we end up with on

10:38:24 the vote, or alternatively it can be continued out with

10:38:26 enough time to renotice for a new public hearing so we

10:38:29 can have additional evidence in the record and that way

10:38:32 it's a fully noticed public hearing.

10:38:34 Unfortunately, those are the two options that we have

10:38:36 under the process that we have right now.

10:38:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, council, let me just say, you

10:38:40 know, please understand, understand, we just adopted a

10:38:47 new comprehensive plan.

10:38:48 The comprehensive plan is like the Constitution for us

10:38:51 of the United States.




10:38:53 Okay?

10:38:54 The comprehensive plan is what guides you, what governs

10:38:57 you when you talk about -- I am pro growth.

10:39:00 I am pro development.

10:39:02 Check my record.

10:39:02 I am not willing to put this community at risk on this

10:39:07 particular piece, particularly when they showed us a

10:39:11 picture of a footprint being changed in St. Petersburg,

10:39:15 Florida.

10:39:17 So I am going to -- we need jobs, yes.

10:39:21 But do we just violate all of our rules and our

10:39:25 guidelines?

10:39:28 As Councilwoman Mulhern said, just give away the store?

10:39:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.

10:39:35 Before we go any further, I just want to clarify Ms.

10:39:38 Cole's position.

10:39:39 I understand why she's taking that position, and I do

10:39:41 agree with her general proposition.

10:39:43 However, City Council in the past, where there have

10:39:47 been absent members who reviewed the record and there

10:39:50 have been questions about clarifying what the evidence

10:39:51 was, you have in the past reopened the public hearing,




10:39:55 allowed those specific things to be addressed, to get

10:39:58 clarified, and then take the vote.

10:40:02 You are not precluded from doing that.

10:40:03 You have done so in the past.

10:40:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I like yourself am

10:40:10 pro growth, like most of us I voted for difficult

10:40:12 things, in Hyde Park when somebody council members did

10:40:16 not.

10:40:16 But in September is when I believe this was changed in

10:40:22 the comprehensive plan.

10:40:25 This is a testament to never in my five terms on City

10:40:30 Council has the objections been so high from city staff

10:40:37 and from the Planning Commission, and from the

10:40:41 gentleman -- his name skips my mind right now -- who

10:40:44 was here from the city department of urban planning

10:40:52 office.

10:40:52 Do we need something there?

10:40:53 Absolutely.

10:40:56 If somebody wants to blame City Council, that's your

10:40:59 right.

10:40:59 But who you should blame are those that understand

10:41:03 before they started the process that what they wanted




10:41:06 there was wanted there, but it had to be directed in a

10:41:10 different direction.

10:41:13 So we want something to happen.

10:41:16 I've heard testimony, well, I want something to happen

10:41:19 here so they can walk through that store.

10:41:21 And I'm not mentioning any names.

10:41:23 And buy something because we need it.

10:41:26 What was not said at three blocks away, there was

10:41:29 another store that sells the same product.

10:41:31 So you get into this convoluted conversation about

10:41:35 facts that are not really true.

10:41:38 And those things bother me more.

10:41:41 And I believe the council representing them did an

10:41:44 excellent job in making their presentation.

10:41:46 I realize that, and the legal department asked to do

10:41:50 certain things.

10:41:51 Whether they were done or not, I don't know.

10:41:53 And that's where I'm at today.

10:41:55 I'll listen to this very intensely.

10:41:57 I don't usually vote against something that's pro

10:42:01 neighborhood to help things out.

10:42:03 But like you said, where do you stop if you start in




10:42:07 this direction?

10:42:08 That's the main question that I ask myself.

10:42:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion on the floor.

10:42:14 It's been moved and seconded.

10:42:15 All in favor signify by Aye.

10:42:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's a motion to reopen the public

10:42:20 hearing?

10:42:20 >> The motion is to reopen the public hearing.

10:42:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: How many questions?

10:42:25 10?

10:42:26 20?

10:42:27 >>GWEN MILLER: One question.

10:42:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:42:33 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:42:35 Opposes?

10:42:36 Okay.

10:42:36 >>GWEN MILLER: My question is, council asked to go for

10:42:44 two weeks to ask with the neighborhood so you can put

10:42:46 their concerns on the site plan.

10:42:48 And I want to know --

10:42:51 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Holland and Knight.

10:42:54 We are absolutely willing to do that.




10:42:56 What we weren't willing to do was to -- to move the

10:43:01 building close to the intersection.

10:43:03 We are absolutely willing to make sure that the

10:43:04 conditions on the site plan reflect every concession

10:43:08 that our clients have made with the Seminole Heights

10:43:10 neighborhood, every single one of those.

10:43:11 If that requires a continuance, we'll be happy to have

10:43:14 a continuance.

10:43:14 What we said that we could not do was move the building

10:43:17 right to the corner.

10:43:19 And one last clarification and then we'll shut up after

10:43:22 that.

10:43:23 I agree that city staff has a very impassioned plea

10:43:28 against this but if you listen closely to what Mr.

10:43:30 Garcia said about the comprehensive plan, his testimony

10:43:33 was that you probably could argue it either way but he

10:43:36 came down to the side that it was violate I've, that it

10:43:40 didn't comply with the comp plan, and as counsel

10:43:43 admitted they could defend you on the comp plan, if the

10:43:46 comp plan has a lot of language in there that says you

10:43:50 considered this, and it doesn't say you have to do

10:43:52 this.




10:43:53 So we believe that it is consistent with the comp plan,

10:43:55 and we would ask you to approve it.

10:43:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.

10:44:00 >> Or continue it.

10:44:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.

10:44:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.

10:44:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor say Aye.

10:44:06 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Move to continue this hearing.

10:44:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.

10:44:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, if I may.

10:44:24 Continuing it at this point isn't going to solve the

10:44:26 procedural defect.

10:44:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Point of order.

10:44:28 First of all, the motion should already be existing --

10:44:31 originally was supposed to open it just to take a vote.

10:44:34 Mr. Shelby, you need to give us direction now.

10:44:36 Now we have another motion that in my opinion is

10:44:40 directly in opposition to the motion on the floor.

10:44:42 So we need to address the motion.

10:44:44 The original motion was to deny.

10:44:47 And we came back today to just vote, take a vote on

10:44:50 that motion.




10:44:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe we have to dispose of the

10:44:55 original motion before.

10:44:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's hear from our attorney.

10:44:59 That's why you are paid all the money.

10:45:00 >> Without having opportunity to consult with Robert's

10:45:05 Rules of Order -- this is coming fast and furious --

10:45:08 but Mr. Caetano has made a motion to continue.

10:45:11 That motion right now is out of order.

10:45:12 First of all, it hasn't been seconded.

10:45:14 >>GWEN MILLER: It was.

10:45:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It was seconded?

10:45:22 If that is the case --

10:45:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's a motion on the floor.

10:45:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion would be to take the

10:45:28 motion on the floor to close, with the knowledge that

10:45:31 if it is closed then a motion to continue would be out

10:45:34 of order.

10:45:35 The motion would have to be made while the hearing is

10:45:38 open.

10:45:39 So if there's a desire of this council to continue

10:45:43 this, then the suggestion would be after the motion is

10:45:50 voted on, that's dispositive of whether council wants




10:45:54 to continue it or not.

10:45:55 Do you follow what I'm saying?

10:45:57 My suggestion is close --

10:45:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We already closed the public hearing.

10:46:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion on the floor is to deny.

10:46:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Oh, I'm sorry.

10:46:05 Then let me stop.

10:46:05 The motion to close as passed and now Mr. Caetano's

10:46:08 motion -- then his motion is out of order.

10:46:12 Your motion then, sir, would be to reopen for the

10:46:14 purposes of a continuance, if you wish to make that

10:46:16 motion and have it seconded before the vote.

10:46:18 But, again, Mr. Fletcher raises that issue that a

10:46:21 continuance does not address your problem, because this

10:46:24 is not a noticed continued public hearing.

10:46:27 This is here specifically for the vote.

10:46:29 So I guess the question would be, what would be the

10:46:33 purpose of your continuance?

10:46:35 Otherwise, and in consultation with the city attorney,

10:46:38 would have to be renoticed so that the public has an

10:46:40 opportunity to come for the continued public hearing.

10:46:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We never renotice when we have a




10:46:47 continued public hearing.

10:46:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, okay.

10:46:49 Mr. Fletcher?

10:46:50 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just to try to bring this in for

10:46:54 landing.

10:46:54 My recollection is there was -- that there was --

10:46:59 correct me -- there was a prior motion to act on this

10:47:02 item.

10:47:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

10:47:03 >> Under the rules there was not four votes previously.

10:47:06 It's before you now to act on this item with the full

10:47:09 council.

10:47:09 So I think that's what's before you.

10:47:13 I think the indication that the motion to continue

10:47:16 would be in conflict with that is correct.

10:47:18 So my recommendation would be to go forward with a

10:47:22 vote.

10:47:22 If council wants to take additional evidence into the

10:47:25 record, the public hearing was not continued from the

10:47:29 original noticed public hearing.

10:47:31 We would need to notice and schedule a new public

10:47:34 hearing to be able to do that.




10:47:36 What happened previously here, in my opinion, was not

10:47:40 accepting competent evidence in the strict sense of the

10:47:43 word for purpose of the quasi-judicial proceeding it

10:47:47 was augmentation by council so I don't see a procedural

10:47:51 defect there.

10:47:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Attorneys, Jim, all three of you, I

10:48:01 would like to make a motion that we waive the rules.

10:48:03 We are operating under our own rule right now which

10:48:05 says if we have the 3-2 vote which we had last time,

10:48:09 that we have to come back today and vote like that.

10:48:15 It's not in our ordinance, it's not -- it's under our

10:48:19 rules.

10:48:20 Okay, Ms. Miller indicated that perhaps a little bit

10:48:23 more time might be appropriate to allow them to work

10:48:26 with the neighborhood.

10:48:27 Mr. Shimberg has said on the record now that he would

10:48:30 like to work with them on some issues, maybe not on the

10:48:34 key issue but on some issues, maybe during that

10:48:36 conversation something might break in the corporate

10:48:38 side of it and maybe they can do something.

10:48:40 I don't know.

10:48:41 Time is not necessarily a bad thing, if we gave them 30




10:48:45 days to work it out, to come back in 30 days.

10:48:49 Otherwise, it's a no, and they are stuck with that for

10:48:51 at least a year, you know, before they could try to

10:48:54 come back with anything.

10:48:56 So what I would suggest is we move to waive the rules,

10:48:59 continue it for 30 days, come back at the same posture.

10:49:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You mean 30 days after notice?

10:49:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you want a notice, fine.

10:49:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe --

10:49:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We don't always notice when we

10:49:12 continue things.

10:49:12 But if you want a notice, that's fine.

10:49:15 That's fine, okay.

10:49:16 Include -- my motion would include to ask Mr. Shimberg

10:49:19 to notice.

10:49:20 And just come back in 30 days and see where we are at.

10:49:23 Let's all just take this down a notch, see if we can do

10:49:26 something.

10:49:26 If not, we'll be back in 30 days at the same place.

10:49:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

10:49:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that a motion?

10:49:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My motion is to waive the rules to




10:49:40 address this item, go 30 days, which Mr. Shimberg I'm

10:49:45 glad will be -- will be glad to do.

10:49:47 >> We have another motion.

10:49:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did I get a second?

10:49:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.

10:49:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, if I can read what's

10:49:59 going on here, they have already said today they are

10:50:05 not going to move the building.

10:50:07 They said that.

10:50:09 They said that today.

10:50:10 So we are going to wait another month, renotice, and

10:50:14 more than likely the vote is going to be the same way

10:50:16 because it doesn't meet what four of us or three of us

10:50:19 or how many of us think doesn't meet the requirements

10:50:22 of the comprehensive plan.

10:50:24 So we are just playing mind games with ourselves and

10:50:31 with yourselves, and I don't want to waste your time

10:50:33 and our time.

10:50:34 If the building is not going to be moved, then that's

10:50:37 the main objective.

10:50:38 You know, you are going to have a 22-inch tree and move

10:50:41 it over here, you are going to have -- you know,




10:50:46 somebody is going to buy something at someplace.

10:50:49 Some genius thought of this model and it works because

10:50:53 they have a neighborhood that needs something.

10:50:57 People go and eat in the scroungiest looking

10:51:00 restaurants because they have the best food.

10:51:02 That's a fact.

10:51:04 I used to own one of them.

10:51:07 [ Laughter ]

10:51:10 People go and do things because it's closer.

10:51:13 It's convenient.

10:51:14 It's the best place to shop.

10:51:16 It's relatively low priced.

10:51:19 They do that, and they become habits.

10:51:22 So what you're telling us is the habit -- and I am not

10:51:26 going to mention the name -- it's got to be this way or

10:51:28 no way.

10:51:32 That's what you have been directed to say.

10:51:34 And I appreciate that and I understand that.

10:51:36 But on the other side, like I said, I'm not against

10:51:39 this.

10:51:39 I'm for this.

10:51:40 But I'm speaking for myself because there's a battle on




10:51:43 between all seven of us what's right and what's wrong.

10:51:47 Do we do this or not do this?

10:51:48 And that's where the text of this conversation is.

10:51:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to call the question.

10:51:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.

10:51:59 There was a second on calling the question.

10:52:01 The vote on calling the question requires no

10:52:03 discussion.

10:52:03 So, Mr. Chairman, the vote on calling the question.

10:52:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

10:52:07 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:52:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion on the floor is now for

10:52:13 continuance of Mr. Dingfelder.

10:52:15 That requires a unanimous vote by council rules.

10:52:18 The resumes can only be waived upon unanimous vote of

10:52:21 City Council.

10:52:21 That being the motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman.

10:52:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I was going to vote no.

10:52:27 But since the rule says unanimous, I'm not going to let

10:52:30 my own -- what I feel is not going to happen, happen

10:52:34 because I said no.

10:52:35 So I am going to let it go 30 days.




10:52:37 And guess what.

10:52:37 It's going to come back to the same points, to the same

10:52:39 discussion, to the same vote.

10:52:42 I'm going to vote yes just to see if I'm right or

10:52:45 wrong.

10:52:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I'm not sure -- I'm not going to

10:52:51 vote.

10:52:52 Because the issue here is broader than just the

10:52:56 neighborhood.

10:52:56 The issue is if they are willing to come and abide by

10:53:02 staff recommendation or the comprehensive plan.

10:53:03 That's the issue.

10:53:06 They still don't meet the comprehensive plan, we still

10:53:08 have a problem.

10:53:09 >>GWEN MILLER: In 30 days county change.

10:53:12 The neighborhood can change and --

10:53:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry there was a motion to call

10:53:20 the question.

10:53:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:53:21 The motion on the floor is to continue for 30 days.

10:53:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Waive the rules, continue for 30

10:53:28 days.




10:53:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.

10:53:30 Opposes?

10:53:31 >>THE CLERK: Mulhern voting no.

10:53:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

10:53:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Now you are back to rule 4-C,

10:53:38 council.

10:53:39 The motion is that council deny said petition based on

10:53:43 the recommendations of staff, staff findings of the

10:53:46 Planning Commission, development review committee as

10:53:48 outlined in their respective staff reports.

10:53:51 The motion was not adopted.

10:53:52 Mr. Caetano and Mr. Dingfelder voting no and council

10:53:55 members Miller and Mulhern being absent.

10:53:57 Again the motion is to deny.

10:53:59 Before you take a vote I believe Mr. Caetano, do you

10:54:01 have a statement you wish to make?

10:54:04 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.

10:54:06 I spoke to Mr. Shimberg, gave him a phone number of

10:54:10 someone to call.

10:54:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Regarding what, sir?

10:54:16 The phone number, who was the phone number for?

10:54:22 Some description of why you did that or what the




10:54:24 purpose was.

10:54:25 What was the sum and substance of the conversation?

10:54:28 >>> The guy was an engineer and wanted to find out who

10:54:31 was in charge of that presentation.

10:54:33 >> And you gave that number to Mr. Shimberg?

10:54:35 >>> Yes.

10:54:36 >> Did you have any conversations with Mr. Shimberg

10:54:38 about the substance of this petition?

10:54:40 >>> I gave him the phone number and that was it.

10:54:42 >> And that was the extent of it?

10:54:44 >> Yes.

10:54:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.

10:54:46 Okay, Mr. Chairman.

10:54:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion is to deny.

10:54:48 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.

10:54:53 Opposes?

10:54:53 >> Caetano, Miller and Dingfelder voting no.

10:54:59 Motion carried.

10:54:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

10:55:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for our legal

10:55:09 department.

10:55:10 Couldn't the petitioner come back next week with a




10:55:16 substantive plan to -- change to their plan?

10:55:20 You know how on our agenda we have a place on the

10:55:23 agenda after public comment where people can come back

10:55:26 with a question for reconsideration?

10:55:30 >> Those are for legislative matters.

10:55:31 This is a quasi-judicial matter.

10:55:33 This goes back to the same issue of notice we were

10:55:35 talking about before.

10:55:36 The answer would be no.

10:55:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right, right.

10:55:39 Thank you for the clarification.

10:55:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: But, council, you are correct in

10:55:43 regard to the fact that there is no one-year -- I just

10:55:47 saw this -- there is no time bar under the statute, if

10:55:51 there is a substantive change to the plan, or make a

10:55:55 clarification to that?

10:55:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Zoning administrator for the city.

10:55:58 Just to be clear, there is a 12-month bar on

10:56:01 reapplying.

10:56:02 However, if within the 12 months the petitioner brings

10:56:05 forward a plan to me that shows a change in the reason

10:56:09 for denial, then I can consider rescheduling that




10:56:11 before council.

10:56:12 So whatever the reason for denial was, that new plan

10:56:15 would have to address that before it can be set for

10:56:17 hearing.

10:56:17 >> Thank you for the clarification.

10:56:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our items for second

10:56:26 reading.

10:56:26 We need to open items 47 through 52.?

10:56:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.

10:56:32 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

10:56:34 All in favor say Aye.

10:56:35 Opposed, Nay.

10:56:36 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on

10:56:38 item 47?

10:56:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.

10:56:48 >> Second.

10:56:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you read number 47, please?

10:56:52 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented

10:56:53 for second reading and adoption, an ordinance vacating,

10:56:55 closing, discontinuing, and abandoning a certain

10:56:59 right-of-way portion of Westshore Boulevard, south of

10:57:02 Cayuga street, west of Hesperides street, north of MLK




10:57:09 Jr. Boulevard and east of Tampa International Airport

10:57:12 in the replat of Drew Park a subdivision of the City of

10:57:16 Tampa, Florida, the same being more fully described in

10:57:19 section 2 hereof subject to preservation of certain

10:57:22 permanent easements as set forth herein subject to

10:57:25 certain covenants conditions and restriction as more

10:57:29 particularly described herein providing an effective

10:57:30 date.

10:57:33 Motion and second.

10:57:34 Vote and record.

10:57:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 47.

10:57:36 Second reading.

10:57:42 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Scott

10:57:44 being absent.

10:57:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

10:57:47 would like to speak on item 48?

10:57:53 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.

10:57:55 Items 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 on your agenda this morning

10:57:59 require certified site plans.

10:58:01 Items 48, 50, 51 and 52 were certified.

10:58:05 49 could not be certified as plans were not submitted

10:58:09 to land development.




10:58:10 Therefore, 49 would need to roll over, be continued to

10:58:17 February 18th so that the petitioner could submit

10:58:19 those plans and have those plans certified.

10:58:21 The other plans I am going to provide to the clerk now.

10:58:24 If you have any questions, staff is available.

10:58:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

10:58:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close 48.

10:58:31 >> Second.

10:58:33 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.

10:58:36 Opposed, Nay.

10:58:36 Mr. Miranda?

10:58:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance presented for

10:58:40 second reading, an ordinance approving a special use

10:58:42 permit SU approving a place of religious assembly in an

10:58:47 RS-50 residential single-family zoning district in the

10:58:50 general vicinity of 4021 and 4025 west Palmetto street

10:58:54 in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly

10:58:56 described in section 1 hereof providing an effective

10:58:58 date.

10:58:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

10:59:01 Vote and record.

10:59:01 >> Saul-Sena and Scott being absent at vote.




10:59:21 >> Move to continue to February 18th, number 49.

10:59:28 (Motion carried).

10:59:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 50.

10:59:29 Anyone like to speak on item 50?

10:59:32 >> Move to close.

10:59:32 >> Second.

10:59:33 (Motion carried).

10:59:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano, would you read item 50?

10:59:40 Wait, hold it one second.

10:59:44 Clerk is not ready.

10:59:48 ready, clerk?

10:59:51 Okay, item 50.

10:59:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance approving special

10:59:54 use permit S-2 approving a bank with a drive-in window

10:59:58 in a CG commercial general RS-75 residential

11:00:01 single-family zoning district in the general vicinity

11:00:04 of 2101 South Dale Mabry Highway in the city of Tampa,

11:00:07 Florida and more particularly described in section 1

11:00:09 hereof providing an effective date.

11:00:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

11:00:13 Vote and record.

11:00:13 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Scott




11:00:28 absent at vote.

11:00:29 >> Motion to close.

11:00:31 >> Second.

11:00:31 (Motion carried).

11:00:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move an ordinance

11:00:36 for second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning

11:00:38 property in the general vicinity of 3102 west Euclid

11:00:42 Avenue a, city of Tampa, Florida, more particularly

11:00:44 described in section 1 from zoning district

11:00:46 classifications PD planned development residential

11:00:48 single-family to PD planned development, business

11:00:51 professional office, providing an effective date.

11:00:52 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

11:00:54 Vote and record.

11:00:55 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott being absent.

11:01:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that

11:01:09 would like to speak on item 52?

11:01:11 >> Move to close.

11:01:11 >> Second.

11:01:12 (Motion carried).

11:01:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?

11:01:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance for




11:01:17 adoption second reading, an ordinance rezoning property

11:01:21 in the general vicinity of -- this is 52, correct? --

11:01:25 general vicinity of 3002 and 3031 north Rocky Point

11:01:30 drive in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

11:01:32 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

11:01:34 district classifications PD planned development

11:01:36 business professional office, park area, to PD planned

11:01:40 development, business professional office, medical

11:01:42 office, park area, providing an effective date.

11:01:43 >> Second: Vote and record.

11:01:46 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott being absent.

11:01:54 >> Is there anyone in the public that would like to

11:01:56 speak on item 53?

11:01:59 >>THE CLERK: We need to open item 53.?

11:02:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open 53.

11:02:05 >> Second.

11:02:06 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

11:02:08 on item 53?

11:02:09 You can come up and speak.

11:02:10 >> I'm John Riordan.

11:02:26 I'm on the 3900 block of West Gray Street.

11:02:28 On this zoning, when it came up before on Gray Street,




11:02:30 I watched on TV, and it seems nobody said anything

11:02:33 about it.

11:02:36 If you look through the pictures, at no point do you

11:02:39 see anywhere that it's posted there's a zoning change,

11:02:42 the big red sign that's supposed to be up.

11:02:45 That's because a couple days after it was put up, it

11:02:47 rained and it came down.

11:02:49 It's been on the ground and they are still on the

11:02:50 ground.

11:02:51 That's why nobody showed up for the night meeting.

11:02:53 Unfortunately speaking with people that are opposed to

11:02:55 it, either have to work, or sick, and stuck on March

11:03:01 4th, which is the final part of the PD that came up

11:03:04 after the zoning.

11:03:06 What I am speaking to is that it's too much too soon in

11:03:08 the location for where it is.

11:03:12 Part of it was this section right in here, which has a

11:03:17 nonconforming use.

11:03:18 It was built decades and decades ago.

11:03:21 Behind had it is the church.

11:03:22 All of that is all residential homes.

11:03:25 Through here, and across here on Gray Street, a new




11:03:29 development has gone in, which is single-family

11:03:31 attached, which is manageable growth.

11:03:33 It is becoming denser.

11:03:35 This area through here has already been taken for the

11:03:40 eventually the train.

11:03:41 However, that's a long ways off.

11:03:43 What we are saying is it's too much too soon in that

11:03:46 area.

11:03:46 It's all residential homes.

11:03:48 Where it hasn't been it has become detached town homes

11:03:52 or attached.

11:03:52 And that's the manageable growth that is there.

11:03:55 What does it say to those people that investigated that

11:03:58 suddenly have something so large plopped right into the

11:04:01 middle of the neighborhood?

11:04:01 I'm saying this because Kennedy Boulevard is down here,

11:04:04 and there are numerous of them that have become

11:04:06 attached to the.

11:04:07 I am going to bring up Courier City which is east of

11:04:10 Howard by the Soho area.

11:04:12 Years ago when it came up on the comprehensive plan,

11:04:14 they elected out of it and what happens is you get




11:04:18 dropped right in the middle of high density.

11:04:20 What happened after that was degradation, the

11:04:24 neighborhood started falling apart.

11:04:25 It was neglected buildings, trees, and when a PD would

11:04:29 come forward, it looked better than what is there.

11:04:31 And what's going to happen, no vote on this, would be a

11:04:36 yes vote for the comprehensive plan to let developers

11:04:39 and investors know that they are not going to have

11:04:41 those long, long PDs in fighting with the neighborhood

11:04:45 suddenly deciding what can be done to mitigate all

11:04:49 those problems?

11:04:50 This is just too much, too soon, in that area.

11:04:53 Westshore is way off over here.

11:04:55 This is Lois Avenue.

11:04:57 And here is the start of the next neighborhood.

11:05:00 If you go north a quarter mile you have Lincoln

11:05:01 Gardens, Carver City.

11:05:05 On Spruce and Lois there is a big development there,

11:05:07 went on for a long time and with the neighborhood

11:05:10 getting affordable housing for seniors put in.

11:05:13 It still isn't built.

11:05:14 It went on and on and on.




11:05:16 To encourage investors, and encourage development, stay

11:05:20 with that pace, this neighborhood doesn't need the

11:05:23 shock treatment of suddenly dropping this in the middle

11:05:26 of it.

11:05:27 It's too much too soon.

11:05:28 And a little bit was off to the side where there's a

11:05:33 nonconforming use that, was built after very, very long

11:05:35 time ago.

11:05:36 Behind it is the Westshore Baptist church.

11:05:38 You build towards Westshore, it's all residential

11:05:41 houses.

11:05:41 If you come down on Kennedy or towards Kennedy, A and

11:05:46 B, as well as Gandy, Gray Street going towards the

11:05:49 Westshore mall, it is single-family attached.

11:05:52 It's growing.

11:05:52 It will get there.

11:05:53 It's just too much too soon.

11:05:54 (Bell sounds).

11:05:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

11:05:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Sir, could you put that first

11:05:59 picture up that you put up?

11:06:09 That one.




11:06:10 That wasn't your first.

11:06:11 The on the one there shows a sign.

11:06:13 >> This one right here?

11:06:18 One sign tucked away these sort of the PD setting.

11:06:21 There is no red sign that is up here that says it's a

11:06:26 zoning change.

11:06:28 This was approved several years ago.

11:06:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, council, my understanding,

11:06:34 first of all, to bring to your attention, this is not a

11:06:37 re zoning.

11:06:38 What you have in front of you is a legislative matter.

11:06:40 This is a change to the comprehensive plan.

11:06:43 The notice requirements are different.

11:06:44 The Planning Commission is responsible for the notices.

11:06:47 There is no affidavit required in the file.

11:06:50 And just to remind you and to caution you that the

11:06:54 issues of rezoning have yet to come before this

11:06:57 council.

11:06:57 You are looking purely from a comprehensive plan

11:07:01 compatibility standpoint.

11:07:02 And it's again a legislative matter.

11:07:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Shelby.




11:07:07 Next speaker.

11:07:08 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of the

11:07:19 petitioner.

11:07:20 As you may recall the Planning Commission strongly

11:07:22 endorsed this land use amendment change.

11:07:24 They indicated to you that it was within the corridor

11:07:26 that they were expecting and anticipating and planning

11:07:29 for higher densities, to support the Westshore business

11:07:32 district.

11:07:34 And we had support for not only the land use amendment,

11:07:37 from the neighborhood association, but also the

11:07:39 rezoning.

11:07:40 And I'm not going to go into that.

11:07:43 But this was strongly endorsed by the staff and

11:07:46 recommended to you for approval.

11:07:48 It is an area that is anticipated for increased growth.

11:07:51 It is on the real corridor.

11:07:55 And without those supporting residential components

11:07:58 your corridor cannot succeed so we are respectfully

11:08:03 requesting your approval at second reading.

11:08:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

11:08:06 Would anyone else like to speak?




11:08:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a staff question.

11:08:09 If you could put up -- if the staff could put up an

11:08:14 aerial of the area.

11:08:18 Shirley somebody has an aerial.

11:08:24 Done dung how big an area?

11:08:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Of the area where this rezoning is

11:08:27 being requested.

11:08:28 I'm sorry, this proposed land use change.

11:08:39 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We are not the staff that represent

11:08:41 it is plan amendment.

11:08:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Shouldn't there be staff here for

11:08:45 this?

11:08:45 Well, okay, given that we don't have staff or a

11:08:48 picture, let me explain -- oh, good.

11:08:52 It's not very bright.

11:09:04 This is a planning issue that I think is a very

11:09:06 interesting one.

11:09:07 When we look at our plans, they tend to be big picture,

11:09:13 1,000 feet up.

11:09:17 Yes, Kennedy Boulevard is a major commercial corridor.

11:09:19 Yes, Westshore Boulevard is a major commercial

11:09:22 corridor.




11:09:23 The land use change proposed to us today, however, is

11:09:27 on neither of these major corridors.

11:09:29 It is north of Kennedy Boulevard and east of Westshore

11:09:34 Boulevard.

11:09:35 It is in the heart of an existing single-family

11:09:39 neighborhood.

11:09:40 The predominant land use, the reality of this

11:09:44 neighborhood are single-family detached homes.

11:09:46 What's being proposed here is an increase in density in

11:09:50 the underlying land use, and I think that if this site

11:09:57 were to the south a block and a half, to the west a

11:10:01 block and a half, we would look upon this differently.

11:10:06 In the particular location, if you look at the existing

11:10:08 growth patterns, and you look at how the widening of

11:10:13 the interstate, there is a dead-end at the end of the

11:10:17 street, because the interstate construction will

11:10:20 ultimately be there.

11:10:22 This is -- it's on a local residential street that I

11:10:27 think has 22 feet of pavement, and I don't think it's

11:10:29 appropriate for to us make this density change so I

11:10:32 encourage my colleagues to not support this proposal.

11:10:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?




11:10:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm glad you put the picture up

11:10:39 because I think we can see in the top right-hand corner

11:10:41 of the picture is some fairly dense stuff that I think

11:10:46 we a approved in the last couple of years.

11:10:48 I think the reality of this quadrant, I come full

11:10:51 circle on this quadrant.

11:10:53 Specifically as related from Lois to Westshore, from

11:10:56 the interstate to Kennedy.

11:10:58 That's what I'm referring to as the quadrant.

11:11:00 I have come full circle on it because I used to argue

11:11:02 against specifically this petitioner when he was trying

11:11:05 to develop higher density in this neighborhood, and I

11:11:09 argued against projects.

11:11:10 But that was about four or five years ago.

11:11:12 What I realize now is specifically in this quadrant,

11:11:17 it's getting denser and denser.

11:11:19 And I don't see the significant neighborhood objection.

11:11:24 With all due respect, the folks we heard from mainly

11:11:28 live on the other side of Lois.

11:11:31 They live over there.

11:11:34 And I want to protect that side of Lois, okay?

11:11:39 And I went out of my way last time, a couple of years




11:11:43 ago, to do so, and I'll continue to do so because I

11:11:46 think on the other side of Lois to the east it's a

11:11:49 different ballgame and it really is pretty much a pure

11:11:54 single-family area.

11:11:55 And I know that's what they are concerned about.

11:11:56 They don't want us jumping over this precedent, jumping

11:11:59 over Lois and coming toward them.

11:12:01 I wouldn't support this.

11:12:02 But on this side of Lois between Lois and Westshore,

11:12:05 it's a lot of multifamily.

11:12:07 Now you have the interstate that took out a whole block

11:12:10 and a half swath, and I think it's just the reality of

11:12:14 that particular corner there.

11:12:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Michelini?

11:12:21 How wide -- is it 20 feet wide?

11:12:27 >>> The transportation you heard from the department

11:12:30 was the pavement was 20 feet, the right-of-way was 60

11:12:33 feet wide.

11:12:33 I think we had some confusion when there was a

11:12:35 discussion about that earlier.

11:12:39 Specifically that the right-of-way is typically 60 feet

11:12:42 wide.




11:12:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.

11:12:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.

11:12:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Unless Mr. Michelini has any words of

11:12:51 rebuttal.

11:12:52 >> Just regarding the single-family development in

11:12:55 there, it's not in the majority at all.

11:12:57 There's a great deal of number of apartments and

11:12:59 townhouses and a variety of other higher density

11:13:02 elements.

11:13:03 That's why it's RES 20 instead of RES 10, and our

11:13:07 request is actually developing at a lower density than

11:13:10 the land use that we are requesting.

11:13:12 But as I said to you earlier, it's strongly endorsed by

11:13:15 the Planning Commission, on their targeted area for

11:13:17 increased density.

11:13:19 And without that density, you cannot support the

11:13:21 business district, nor can you support the light rail

11:13:24 components that are coming behind.

11:13:27 So I am respectfully requesting your approval.

11:13:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.

11:13:32 >> So moved.

11:13:34 >> Second.




11:13:34 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor?

11:13:36 Opposed?

11:13:37 Would you read that, please?

11:13:39 >>THE CLERK: For second reading?

11:13:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ordinance presented for second

11:13:44 reading and adoption, an ordinance amending the Tampa

11:13:47 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future

11:13:50 land use map, for the property located in the general

11:13:52 vicinity of 401, 403, 404, 405, 406 Hubert Avenue and

11:13:58 4214 Gray Street on the south side of West Gray Street

11:14:01 and on the east and west sides of north Hubert Avenue

11:14:04 from residential 20 to residential 35, providing for

11:14:07 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an

11:14:09 effective date.

11:14:09 >> Second.

11:14:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.

11:14:13 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no

11:14:25 and Scott being absent.

11:14:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to unfinished business.

11:14:29 Item number 54.

11:14:32 Shirley Foxx-Knowles.

11:14:34 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City clerk.




11:14:51 We had Mr. Ramos.

11:15:02 He's an applicant for the Barrio Latino.

11:15:04 And I believe he wants to give us an update.

11:15:06 >> Good morning.

11:15:11 Two weeks ago you guys heard me.

11:15:14 I had to become a member of the greater Tampa Chamber

11:15:17 of Commerce and I have already done so with the

11:15:20 organization.

11:15:20 >> The Ybor chamber.

11:15:23 >> So I have already done so.

11:15:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, in anticipation of that, if

11:15:35 council so chooses, I have a written resolution

11:15:37 prepared for the clerk if council wishes to move the

11:15:41 resolution.

11:15:41 >> So moved.

11:15:42 >> Second.

11:15:42 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor?

11:15:45 Opposed?

11:15:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I thought the idea behind the --

11:15:48 that your membership in the chamber was to do something

11:15:51 that was directly connected to Ybor, and so I thought

11:15:54 it said Ybor chamber.




11:15:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, council, I can pull up the

11:16:00 statute, but the statute directs the alternate be

11:16:03 chosen from any of the categories.

11:16:05 Normally, the way it's been --

11:16:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe in the future we'll revisit

11:16:09 the rules and say Ybor chamber because that's the whole

11:16:13 point to be connected to Ybor and that would be the

11:16:15 connection.

11:16:15 >>GWEN MILLER: You are now an alternate so good luck.

11:16:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think he will be dedicated.

11:16:28 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item 55.

11:16:29 We need to receive and file.

11:16:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chair, I am really

11:16:34 disappointed in this written report.

11:16:38 It's extremely well written.

11:16:39 It's not that it isn't well written.

11:16:40 But the reason I asked for this report was to find out

11:16:43 what we are going to do to protect our trees.

11:16:45 We have all this excellent work done by the University

11:16:47 of Florida.

11:16:48 We all agree -- they say they are not going to do

11:16:52 anything till 2011




11:16:58 Oh, good, thank you.

11:17:00 Great report but it says you are not going to do

11:17:01 anything for a year and a half.

11:17:02 >> Good morning, everyone.

11:17:05 Karen Paulus, Parks and Recreation director.

11:17:08 Yes, we do have the plans to move forward with the new

11:17:12 analysis which takes some of the -- and we'll have the

11:17:17 next one ready to go.

11:17:18 In the meantime we are working with our consultants on

11:17:21 the survey that will go out to the neighborhood through

11:17:25 the University of Florida.

11:17:27 USF and some on the partners are working with us on

11:17:29 that.

11:17:30 It's just about 85% finished, and just test piloting

11:17:36 with that right now to make sure the information we are

11:17:41 trying to gather, and then we are also in the process

11:17:43 of trying to work through our community tree program,

11:17:45 and working on the education which I shared in the

11:17:48 report as well, as well as dealing with the educational

11:17:52 aspect of right tree, right place, and those things.

11:17:55 So there's several things that are going on.

11:17:57 But as far as like the mix and balances, that will be




11:18:00 2011.

11:18:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

11:18:07 I probably wasn't as crisp in what I should have been

11:18:10 when I requested but what I would like for you in the

11:18:12 next 30 days because now what you are doing but it

11:18:14 isn't clear here, is the time line, the things that you

11:18:17 mentioned, are they ongoing?

11:18:19 And when do you expect that they be completed?

11:18:21 Thank you.

11:18:22 So my motion would be to follow up to this with just a

11:18:25 very clear executive summary, you know, like you say,

11:18:27 community education.

11:18:28 Is it ongoing?

11:18:30 And when will it be completed?

11:18:31 Thank you so much.

11:18:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

11:18:34 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:18:36 Opposed, Nay.

11:18:36 Okay.

11:18:37 We go to item 56.

11:18:39 Cindy Miller.

11:18:40 >>CINDY MILLER: Director of Growth Management,




11:18:42 Development Services.

11:18:45 The motion is for me to appear and provide an update

11:18:47 regarding the diversion program.

11:18:49 I have already submitted a memo a few weeks ago, the

11:18:54 contract to increase the funding for center for women.

11:18:58 With this increased funding we will be able to address

11:19:00 the backlog from the diversion program from the

11:19:03 rehabilitation.

11:19:04 So thank you, council, for taking that action a few

11:19:06 weeks ago.

11:19:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

11:19:07 Any questions?

11:19:09 We go to item 57.

11:19:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question on that.

11:19:13 Thank you.

11:19:16 And maybe Catherine Coyle and maybe somebody from legal

11:19:18 to pay attention.

11:19:20 57 is about driveways.

11:19:21 We have sort of a lack of clarity on driveways, whether

11:19:26 the driveway material trumps the sidewalk or not, and

11:19:31 we got sort of a gray answer from transportation.

11:19:37 And I received requests from neighborhoods to crisp it




11:19:40 up.

11:19:41 The people in the neighborhoods want sidewalks to be

11:19:44 clear.

11:19:45 They want the sidewalks to be continue us a so

11:19:52 pedestrians know they are safe on the sidewalks.

11:19:54 And this answer is not clear.

11:19:55 So what I would like is to ask -- it says prefer this,

11:20:02 but on a case-by-case basis we might change it, and

11:20:05 it's just not crisp.

11:20:07 I would like legal, because you are the clearest

11:20:10 thinkers around, to come back to us in 30 days with

11:20:15 taking this answer in hand and coming back to council

11:20:17 to say how do we clearly state that sidewalks trump

11:20:21 driveways?

11:20:22 It's a motion.

11:20:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I'll second your motion if

11:20:28 you tweak it a little bit.

11:20:29 Because you are stating what you believe the

11:20:31 neighborhood wants and therefore what council policies

11:20:33 should be, et cetera, et.

11:20:34 I think to give us our options, and I'll be glad to

11:20:41 second it.




11:20:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Gladly.

11:20:42 Thank you.

11:20:43 And then we can have a public discussion on it to see

11:20:45 what the public really wants.

11:20:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have heard both sides of the

11:20:50 issue but the community/home builders and homeowners

11:20:55 sometimes say they would rather have their little

11:20:59 chunky thing go all the way through.

11:21:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But the way it is now, it's just

11:21:03 completely gray.

11:21:05 So get our clear options.

11:21:06 >> I'll second that.

11:21:07 >> We have a motion and second.

11:21:09 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:21:10 Opposed, Nay.

11:21:11 Okay.

11:21:13 Item 58.

11:21:35 >> Good morning, council.

11:21:37 Catherine Coyle, land development.

11:21:40 The paper is large that I handed out.

11:21:42 The graphics are a little small.

11:21:43 But I did highlight the number on the table to the




11:21:46 right.

11:21:47 I would remind you, council had requested to appear and

11:21:53 provide a report on the number of parking lot located

11:21:57 in the downtown area.

11:21:59 I'll take that first point directly.

11:22:04 The number and purpose of parking lot located in the

11:22:06 downtown area, this particular map that I have given

11:22:09 you -- and you all have a copy -- had is something that

11:22:12 was generated through the parking division along with

11:22:16 kind of a collaborative effort with all the operators

11:22:19 of parking lot, and owners of the parking lots

11:22:22 downtown.

11:22:23 This is generated in late 2007, and I believe has been

11:22:27 kept up as far as the inventory.

11:22:29 The three pages that I have handed you, the very top,

11:22:31 is Monday through Friday parking, which is the typical

11:22:34 business hours parking.

11:22:36 And in the downtown area, there are 58 lots and a

11:22:40 approximately 7,143 parking spaces available for

11:22:44 regular business hours.

11:22:46 The second page is evening and weekend.

11:22:48 And then the last page is just City of Tampa parking




11:22:51 spaces.

11:22:52 Obviously the purpose of these lots and garage is to

11:22:55 provide public access for parking.

11:22:58 The second point in your motion was to provide

11:23:01 suggestions for requiring more impervious surface

11:23:04 parking lot and advise whether the green ordinance can

11:23:06 be amended to have this requirement.

11:23:08 The green ordinance is not actually the place to recur.

11:23:14 The requirements for paving of parking lots is actually

11:23:18 contained in chapter 27, the zoning code.

11:23:21 And currently on the books, we have essentially three

11:23:24 types of parking lots that can be built.

11:23:27 There's variations on a standard parking lot, but I'll

11:23:31 take principal parking as the one that I'll relate to

11:23:35 you.

11:23:35 Principal parking is just the parking lot.

11:23:37 There's no other use of the property.

11:23:39 The parking would be associated with principal parking

11:23:41 lots are allowed, downtown CBD1 and 2, a special use 1

11:23:45 applications, and there's specific criteria.

11:23:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me for one moment of

11:23:51 clarification.




11:23:52 I think perhaps I didn't use the right words.

11:23:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.

11:23:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Surface parking lot.

11:23:57 Are you including surface parking lots in this?

11:24:00 Or are you thinking of only structured parking lots?

11:24:03 >> No, surface parking lots.

11:24:05 >> What about all the surface parking locality that are

11:24:07 not reflected on this map?

11:24:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I believe they actually you will all

11:24:11 are.

11:24:12 Surface parking lots.

11:24:14 It's late 2007.

11:24:15 As I understand, it has been updated.

11:24:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But just to be very specific, for

11:24:20 example, near the St. Pete Times Forum, there are a

11:24:23 number of lots, of places where people park cars, which

11:24:28 I wouldn't determine a lot or surface parking area that

11:24:32 are not reflected on this.

11:24:33 I mean, if you and I were to drive up the street when

11:24:37 there's a hockey event, I can show you a dozen places

11:24:40 where people are charging for parking and people are

11:24:44 parking, they are not reflected.




11:24:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you looking just at the yellow

11:24:48 or the red squares?

11:24:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The red squares are the private

11:24:52 lots.

11:24:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The yellow is what, buildings?

11:24:59 >>> The yellow are city-owned, city-operated.

11:25:01 There are lots, most of the parking --

11:25:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Dingfelder, you are

11:25:08 right.

11:25:09 There are still a bunch that aren't on here.

11:25:10 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The green ordinance is not where

11:25:16 those would be.

11:25:17 Chapter 27.

11:25:18 Principal parking lots anywhere in the city are allowed

11:25:20 to be essentially half pervious.

11:25:24 You do have to meet chapter 13 requirements.

11:25:26 There's landscaping and buffering required.

11:25:28 The parking spaces can be a hard rock surface or some

11:25:32 type of permeable material.

11:25:34 Only the aisles and aprons are required to be a hard

11:25:39 surface.

11:25:39 Some people, however, don't use the multiple types of




11:25:42 materials.

11:25:42 They will just use asphalt, they may have to provide

11:25:46 dwindle stormwater for the extra hard surface.

11:25:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the ones that are

11:25:51 grandfathered in?

11:25:52 You are talking about new construction --

11:25:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm giving you typical code

11:25:56 requirements, yes.

11:25:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think what Linda is referring to

11:25:59 is many of them are preexisting sort of defacto lots,

11:26:04 right?

11:26:04 >>> Yes.

11:26:05 The thought behind this request, in the report, was to

11:26:08 understand, because we are putting such tremendous

11:26:12 public investment into our downtown, and we have put so

11:26:16 much work into making our downtown attractive, if we

11:26:20 don't have some basic quality urban design standards,

11:26:25 such as landscaping, lighting, surface that is not a

11:26:32 mud hole.

11:26:33 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You think this is a similar request

11:26:37 or event that happened with Ybor, we took through

11:26:39 different alternative standards for lots in Ybor?




11:26:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

11:26:43 And frankly I thought that we had standards downtown,

11:26:47 and we have all seen in the last couple of weeks

11:26:49 there's a lot immediately across the street from the

11:26:53 embassy sweets near our convention center where we

11:26:57 invest millions of public dollars, it's a mud hole.

11:26:59 It's a fenced mud hole but it's mud hole.

11:27:02 And we need to make sure that not only that, but we are

11:27:04 talking about the Maas Brothers block, the surface

11:27:08 parking lot, that was all of the emphasis that we spent

11:27:11 on improving our downtown that we don't have some

11:27:14 quality standards in terms of surface parking lot.

11:27:17 That's what this report is attempting to move us

11:27:20 toward.

11:27:20 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay.

11:27:22 It wasn't stated like that in the motion so I wasn't

11:27:24 quite clear.

11:27:25 If you are looking for -- to understand better what the

11:27:30 inventory is out there --

11:27:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's a good first step.

11:27:33 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It's not that we couldn't go out and

11:27:36 reinventory.




11:27:37 It might take us a few month because we have to go back

11:27:40 and understand in the process what was legal, what

11:27:42 wasn't legal, and what kind of enforcement mechanisms

11:27:45 there are for those.

11:27:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But also what our current standards

11:27:48 are and what our standards should be given that there

11:27:50 are significantly visible peaces of land in our

11:27:53 downtown, that it appears might be just parking lots

11:27:57 for a number of years to come.

11:28:01 Now you have Mr. Callahan on your staff.

11:28:04 You have very capable people of doing this.

11:28:06 How long would it take you to report back to us in

11:28:09 terms of what our current standards are and what you

11:28:13 think they should be?

11:28:14 60 days?

11:28:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We just started working on different

11:28:19 committees with the partnerships, looking at some new

11:28:22 things to do.

11:28:23 If you could, so that we can get with additional

11:28:25 property owners and stakeholders downtown, influential

11:28:29 property owners, I want to make sure that we understand

11:28:32 what their options are, what their desires are as well.




11:28:35 I would say probably 120 days just to make sure that we

11:28:38 get a full report to you, that we have a clear

11:28:41 understanding from all the entities out there.

11:28:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask for a follow-up

11:28:46 report for to you appear and present in the 120 days on

11:28:50 the options for what our current rules are governing

11:28:54 surface parking lots downtown, and what you would

11:28:56 propose to enhance.

11:28:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Thank you very much.

11:29:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.

11:29:03 Is there a second?

11:29:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, I'll second it.

11:29:06 I think it needs to include legal, because I think

11:29:08 there could be legal ramifications to that issue in

11:29:12 terms of grandfathering things and that sort of thing.

11:29:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me clarify, interim as well.

11:29:20 Because interim, you know.

11:29:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You are looking for all

11:29:26 possibilities for surface parking lot, the different

11:29:28 mechanisms that we use and the different standards that

11:29:30 we have, and then any possible changes that we make for

11:29:33 cars.




11:29:34 Thank you.

11:29:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

11:29:36 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:29:37 Opposed, Nay.

11:29:39 We are going to go to item 63.

11:29:43 It's one to be continued.

11:29:44 >>> Kathryn O'Donnelly, Holland and Knight, 100 North

11:29:51 Tampa Street.

11:29:52 I would like to request a 30 day continuance, as well

11:29:54 as the applicant, explore some other options under the

11:29:58 rezoning request.

11:29:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 63 is a companion, alcoholic beverage

11:30:07 permit, to item 62.

11:30:09 >> Don't you need more than 60 days?

11:30:14 >>> 60 days is fine as well.

11:30:16 I mean, I think 30 will probably have a pretty good

11:30:20 idea what's going on.

11:30:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would suggest maybe one of our

11:30:26 legal folks come in and tell us whether there are any

11:30:28 limitations on asking for continuances because you

11:30:30 might want to pick the more long-term number of days.

11:30:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.




11:30:42 Just to clarify, there's a 180 day provision on these

11:30:45 types of applications, rezoning and special uses.

11:30:49 Their 180 days isn't until June of 2010.

11:30:53 About June 15th.

11:30:54 So I would probably say you might want to give them a

11:30:58 slightly longer continuance just to make sure what you

11:31:01 are going to do.

11:31:02 >>> I think 60 would be fine.

11:31:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.

11:31:12 >> Second.

11:31:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue --

11:31:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We need a date and time.

11:31:18 Your normal alcohol you can beverages are handled on

11:31:19 the second meeting of the month, which would be April

11:31:23 15th at 1:30 in the afternoon.

11:31:25 The other option again would be 30 days.

11:31:27 Your alcoholic beverages because of the schedule can be

11:31:30 the fourth or the 18th of March.

11:31:32 So if you wish, is April 15th to your satisfaction?

11:31:36 Or is that too long?

11:31:38 April 15th at 1:30 in the afternoon?

11:31:40 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of that motion say Aye.




11:31:44 Opposed, Nay.

11:31:45 Okay.

11:31:45 We'll go back to the unfinished business.

11:31:48 Item number 53.

11:31:54 59, I'm sorry.

11:31:55 59.

11:31:56 A written report.

11:31:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to schedule this for a

11:32:05 workshop, because I feel like we could do way better

11:32:09 than we are doing.

11:32:10 And I don't have a schedule of future work shops.

11:32:19 Is there a March workshop?

11:32:21 Thank you so much.

11:32:29 I think February is going to be pretty busy.

11:32:31 Actually, it looks like March would be perfect because

11:32:35 we are discussing multimodal transportation, which is

11:32:37 what this is really about.

11:32:39 So I would like to add this discussion, complete

11:32:43 street, to our 9 a.m. workshop, the big picture with

11:32:46 regard to multimodal transportation.

11:32:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Does that include the Planning

11:32:52 Commissioner, MPO?




11:32:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

11:32:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.

11:32:56 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

11:32:59 All in favor?

11:33:00 Opposed?

11:33:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Then to receive and file the written

11:33:03 report.

11:33:03 >> Second.

11:33:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

11:33:07 All in favor?

11:33:08 Opposed?

11:33:09 Okay, we go to item 60.

11:33:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have a staff person?

11:33:13 >> Irvin Lee, director of public works.

11:33:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm really satisfied with this

11:33:31 report.

11:33:32 And sometimes things get lost in translation.

11:33:35 The City of Tampa buildings we acquire are not really

11:33:40 adjacent to residential areas.

11:33:42 They are kind of in industrial areas, and they are

11:33:44 industrial kinds of uses.

11:33:47 And I'm satisfied that we are not besmirching our




11:33:52 residential areas by putting up barbed wire next to

11:33:56 them.

11:33:56 I appreciate this report.

11:33:57 I think what my intent was to just protect residential

11:34:01 areas from having barbed wire facilities next to them,

11:34:05 because it's kind of a negative commentary on the

11:34:07 neighborhood to have a lot of barbed wire around.

11:34:11 It says we think this place is dangerous, and I think

11:34:17 what my intent was to get protecting residential areas

11:34:21 from adjacent barbed wire.

11:34:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you leave.

11:34:30 Madam Chair, normally I would wait until new business

11:34:33 but as long as he's here.

11:34:38 Basically we have the perpetual issue of cut throughs

11:34:41 on those last four, five streets between MacDill and

11:34:45 Bayshore.

11:34:45 I happened to be down there recently and talking to

11:34:48 folks, and it continues to be the number one issue.

11:34:52 And you and I talked about some solutions.

11:34:56 But I don't want to put you on the spot because you are

11:34:58 not prepared right now.

11:34:59 But I am going to make a motion to come back in 60 days




11:35:03 to see what we can do to address that, in the form of

11:35:06 traffic calming, you know, the possibility of the no

11:35:11 right turns during certain hours, now, that sort of

11:35:14 thing.

11:35:14 I think inherently folks are going to want to cut

11:35:18 through those streets and go very fast to get to the

11:35:22 base gates but I think we need to do everything to

11:35:25 discourage that.

11:35:26 I want to give you a heads up on where I am coming

11:35:29 from.

11:35:30 60 days on that.

11:35:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

11:35:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

11:35:34 All in favor say Aye.

11:35:35 Opposed, Nay.

11:35:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam clerk, do you have that?

11:35:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 61.

11:35:41 >>RANDY GOERS: Land Development Coordination.

11:35:47 I'm here to give you a brief status report on the

11:35:51 efforts to update TCA procedures consistent with the

11:35:55 comprehensive plan.

11:35:57 The comprehensive plan was adopted February last year,




11:36:01 went into effect may 1st, had about a year to bring

11:36:04 their land development regulations into conformance

11:36:06 with the comprehensive plan.

11:36:07 City staff and the transportation consultant have been

11:36:10 working on updating the procedures over the last eight,

11:36:14 nine months, going through the comprehensive plan, and

11:36:16 translating the policies that we have read into some

11:36:19 draft procedures, and some changes to the code.

11:36:23 There's still about four or five issues that need to be

11:36:26 worked on internally.

11:36:27 We are at a point that we can begin discussing em them

11:36:30 with you and stakeholders, on the people that will be

11:36:33 interested with the procedures.

11:36:34 What we had, a schedule that we would like to put

11:36:37 forward.

11:36:39 This is a little something Luke we might see on Sunday

11:36:42 at Super Bowl and the game plan.

11:36:44 You can see the beginning meeting in February, just

11:36:49 giving you a status report, we have -- if you remember

11:36:52 through the comprehensive plan there were a number of

11:36:54 groups, stakeholder, representatives partnerships, the

11:36:58 Westshore alliance, and so forth, that were interested




11:36:59 in where the procedures were going to go, and how the

11:37:02 TCA was going to be administered.

11:37:05 We scheduled three large meetings over the ones to

11:37:10 occur starting in March, April and May.

11:37:13 The first meeting is a presentation of those, of the

11:37:17 procedures.

11:37:17 The second meeting is a feedback session.

11:37:19 You get the input from the stakeholders.

11:37:22 The third meeting to come back and let them know how we

11:37:26 would intend to resolve the issue.

11:37:28 We also have, you see, tentatively, this is one

11:37:32 question I am going to ask you today, to schedule a

11:37:34 couple workshops with City Council.

11:37:35 The first workshop is to get the same type of

11:37:38 presentation we were going to give to the stakeholders.

11:37:41 The procedures are very detailed, very transportation

11:37:48 oriented.

11:37:49 So it does take some time to understand how they are

11:37:51 going to be applied in some of the issues.

11:37:54 So we wanted to have one meeting where you are getting

11:37:56 the same information that we are delivering to everyone

11:37:59 else, a certain amount of time to be able to digest




11:38:03 that, also if you have questions with your

11:38:05 stakeholders, a frame of reference, then come back near

11:38:08 the end of the process where we can deliver to you how

11:38:10 we think we are going to resolve those issues, also

11:38:13 give you feedback from all the meetings that we have

11:38:15 had.

11:38:15 We also have the stakeholder meetings.

11:38:19 Usually people, the staff of the organizations, that we

11:38:24 contact.

11:38:26 T.H.A.N. will send somebody, partnership will send

11:38:28 somebody.

11:38:29 There's usually one person from the organization.

11:38:31 Then we get requests to come and brief their

11:38:33 subcommittees or their organizations.

11:38:35 So we plan to make available during that period from

11:38:38 March on, come out and brief the organizations on the

11:38:44 procedures, so we can make sure that we have done

11:38:46 everything we can to keep the various stakeholders

11:38:49 informed of what we are doing.

11:38:50 And then we are going to have a Web site that will be

11:38:55 upon the land development coordination Web site that

11:38:57 will have all of the information that's being




11:38:59 generated.

11:39:00 The goal is by June to have a final draft of the

11:39:05 procedures, which will then be brought into the July

11:39:07 cycle of the code amendment.

11:39:09 As you know, the cycle for code amendments, there's a

11:39:13 whole public involvement process with that as well.

11:39:15 So it will be more opportunity for those that for some

11:39:19 reason didn't participate in this process.

11:39:21 So today, it's to show you what that schedule is, and

11:39:24 then to ask for your consideration of two workshops,

11:39:31 one we thought maybe would happen in March.

11:39:33 We probably need about a half hour to be able to

11:39:36 present to you the TYA procedures, maybe a little bit

11:39:39 longer just for some questions.

11:39:40 And then to be able to come back May 27th workshop

11:39:45 to be able to do what we think are the final drafts,

11:39:50 the procedures, and then some of the results of our

11:39:52 meetings.

11:39:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.

11:39:56 Two quick questions.

11:39:57 You talked about downtown Westshore.

11:39:59 Are you meeting with T.H.A.N. people, also?




11:40:01 >>> Yes.

11:40:02 I do have a list.

11:40:03 I'll put that up there as well so everybody can see.

11:40:10 These are the variety of stakeholders that we have been

11:40:13 through the comp plan process and other --

11:40:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like for to you do, if

11:40:17 you wouldn't mind, is get with our neighborhood person,

11:40:20 Shannon Edge, and share all this with her so that those

11:40:25 folks have an opportunity to attend these meetings that

11:40:28 you are going to be having.

11:40:29 Because some of those people are not in T.H.A.N.

11:40:31 There are some neighborhood organizations that are

11:40:33 separate from them, but are still really interested.

11:40:35 >>RANDY GOERS: Good point.

11:40:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Secondly, on council we have been

11:40:39 talking about livable roadways.

11:40:41 We have been talking about complete streets.

11:40:44 Mary Mulhern is the chair of the MPO livable roadways

11:40:49 committee.

11:40:50 And on our plan we have many references to livability,

11:40:53 the idea that land use and transportation work really

11:40:56 hat in glove.




11:40:57 And I think we all want to understand what you are

11:40:59 saying is comprehensive, and not just cars.

11:41:07 >>RANDY GOERS: It is comprehensive as it relate to

11:41:10 transportation concurrency exception areas.

11:41:13 There's still other parts of the code which are going

11:41:15 to be brought forward over the year, which will deal

11:41:17 with a lot more than livability issues, in terms of the

11:41:20 design, urban design, the livability, form and

11:41:25 function.

11:41:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just cars?

11:41:29 >>RANDY GOERS: Not just cars but moving people in the

11:41:31 context of transportation concurrency exceptions.

11:41:34 But it's the mobility issue of concurrency exception

11:41:36 areas.

11:41:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But what I want, what I'm hoping to

11:41:40 hear from you is that it isn't just cars.

11:41:44 >>> It's not just cars.

11:41:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

11:41:46 Good.

11:41:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern.

11:41:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Randy, I might have missed this.

11:41:52 Is this your complete list of stakeholders here?




11:41:56 >>RANDY GOERS: It's stakeholders in the

11:41:58 non-governmental stakeholders.

11:42:01 Dealing with MPO --

11:42:06 >> Because I don't see T.H.A.N. on there, and I --

11:42:11 okay.

11:42:12 I'm sorry to I see it.

11:42:14 It looks mostly business.

11:42:16 >>> If there's a particular stakeholder we missed we'll

11:42:21 add that but I think we did a pretty good job of trying

11:42:23 to track.

11:42:24 >>MARY MULHERN: I think everyone who lives here is

11:42:27 interested in this.

11:42:34 So we are all stakeholders in this.

11:42:36 I think T.H.A.N. is probably the best way to get

11:42:39 activists, neighborhood activists.

11:42:41 >> For any of those that did not feel that they are on

11:42:44 that stakeholder list and they are watching, this is

11:42:49 the scheduled meeting we have right now.

11:42:51 All of them are going to be at the Construction

11:42:53 Services Center from one to three, a series of

11:42:56 meetings.

11:42:56 We do understand that digging through the information,




11:43:01 parts of it will be very technical because we are

11:43:03 talking about transportation, mobility issues, level of

11:43:05 service and so forth.

11:43:06 So it will take a little bit of time to bring people

11:43:09 through and understand what the procedures really are

11:43:13 and what they are not, because as you mentioned today,

11:43:16 there are some issues that will come forward in other

11:43:18 parts of the code which will not be part of the

11:43:21 procedures.

11:43:21 So we do want to make sure that we are framing this

11:43:24 accurately.

11:43:25 >>MARY MULHERN: But, I mean, I think Linda brings up a

11:43:30 really good point in that it's really of the land use

11:43:35 being part of the transportation.

11:43:36 >>RANDY GOERS: It's all about the mechanism to bring

11:43:42 land use, transportation together, and how we are going

11:43:45 to review development to achieve the vision that you

11:43:49 adopted in your comprehensive plan.

11:43:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There was a young plan we are

11:43:57 Tyndall Oliver who did a great job explaining this

11:43:59 about a year and a half ago.

11:44:01 Would he be the person leading this conversation?




11:44:02 >> He's one of the transportation consultants.

11:44:05 He is one of the staff of the transportation

11:44:07 consultants.

11:44:08 And most likely he will be doing the main presentation.

11:44:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Good.

11:44:12 He's clear of the he's one of the best communicators I

11:44:15 ever heard on this topic, and clarity is good.

11:44:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Schedule a workshop for March 25th,

11:44:25 at 10:00, we have one that's going to be rescheduled.

11:44:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That has been rescheduled.

11:44:29 The workshop on alcoholic beverage --

11:44:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to schedule this for the

11:44:35 25th at 10:00.

11:44:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Why don't you make it 11:00?

11:44:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Frankly, it's really like a big

11:44:42 transportation morning.

11:44:44 You can come early and listen to the previous ones, and

11:44:46 just take over when they --

11:44:49 >>GWEN MILLER: 11:00.

11:44:51 Mr. Dingfelder, do you have a question on that?

11:44:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll support the motion and second.

11:44:58 You might have mentioned this a second ago, Randy.




11:45:00 If you did, I apologize.

11:45:02 The status of the house bill, the Florida house bill,

11:45:08 what was that?

11:45:09 >> Senate bill 360?

11:45:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.

11:45:13 And I know that kind of interwoven with all of these

11:45:19 issues.

11:45:21 Is that bill going to be changed in this section?

11:45:24 Is that what you are hearing at all?

11:45:27 Positive, negative?

11:45:28 Also, how does that interweave?

11:45:33 >> We have not heard any indication it's going to be

11:45:35 changed.

11:45:35 The good news is that Tampa already had a TCA.

11:45:40 The law basically made on the areas fall in line with

11:45:43 the same requirements that we were already -- that we

11:45:48 already met in our updated comprehensive plan.

11:45:50 The biggest impact for us will be the park, being south

11:45:56 of Fletcher, the statute said the entire city now, the

11:46:01 TCA.

11:46:01 We will be bringing forward a plan amendment this

11:46:03 summer to address that requirement.




11:46:04 >> Senate bill 360 will not affect our procedures

11:46:13 moving forward.

11:46:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But in March and May I hope you

11:46:16 will be able to a sure us that a large development that

11:46:21 does come in will still have to fund off-site

11:46:26 improvements to accommodate their demands.

11:46:29 >> We'll bring back the procedures and show that it's a

11:46:34 function of where you are located.

11:46:36 Because you remember the comprehensive plan gives

11:46:37 direction, if you are located downtown in the

11:46:39 Westshore, or along the major transit corridors, that

11:46:43 the review was going to be less intense than if you

11:46:46 were in other areas of the city.

11:46:47 And we'll brief that, again those procedures and the

11:46:51 details, where we can all take a look at them and

11:46:54 digest them completely.

11:46:55 >>GWEN MILLER: We have motion and second on the floor.

11:46:58 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:46:59 Opposed, Nay.

11:47:00 Okay.

11:47:02 Anything else?

11:47:04 >>THE CLERK: Madam Chair, you also have a workshop for




11:47:07 May 27th.

11:47:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

11:47:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

11:47:12 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:47:13 Opposed, Nay.

11:47:14 >>THE CLERK: And what time?

11:47:18 9:00?

11:47:21 May 22nd?

11:47:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

11:47:26 That's it?

11:47:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May 27th, is that correct?

11:47:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to set a commendation.

11:47:33 I just want to encourage council members, let's do them

11:47:36 on the day we had agreed on, which is our workshop day

11:47:38 so it doesn't make our council meetings run late.

11:47:42 For February workshop date looking at the 25th.

11:47:49 Accommodation we already voted on which is for the

11:47:51 women in surgery, Dr. Sherona Ross, that she would come

11:47:56 at 9:00 on the 25th.

11:47:57 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

11:48:00 All in favor?

11:48:02 Opposed?




11:48:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Secondly, we have all been provided

11:48:04 a packet of materials by Mr. Solomon.

11:48:07 He's the manager of the Tampa community band.

11:48:09 It's really impressive the work that they have done in

11:48:11 this community.

11:48:11 So I would like to have our parks director appear

11:48:16 before us at the second meeting this month, which is

11:48:24 the -- February 18th to make this information

11:48:31 available to her.

11:48:33 And in light of the number of community concert that

11:48:36 they perform to see if there isn't the ability for her

11:48:39 to create some kind of waiver -- not waiver provision

11:48:43 but sort of a trade-off between the concerts that they

11:48:47 do for the community and putting that value against

11:48:51 what they would have been charged in fees.

11:48:54 I don't know if I said that eloquently but that's what

11:48:57 I am trying to get at.

11:48:57 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll second that.

11:49:00 This is one of the first public complaints or questions

11:49:05 we had about these new fees in the Parks Department.

11:49:09 There's some other things bubbling up.

11:49:11 So I think I would like to ask Ms. Palus to report on




11:49:20 how her new fee structure is, if it's resulted in other

11:49:28 programming, parks programming being canceled.

11:49:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll expand my motion to include

11:49:34 that.

11:49:35 And we'll provide this to her and come and discuss this

11:49:39 under staff reports.

11:49:41 >>MARY MULHERN: And approximate anything else, if

11:49:44 there have been on the complaints, or if council has

11:49:46 heard from on the people, we would like to know.

11:49:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, funny coincidence.

11:49:54 Recently, we talked to a couple of different folks, and

11:49:58 especially seniors.

11:50:00 And a couple of seniors.

11:50:08 And they have complained heavily about those in the

11:50:14 different rec programs.

11:50:16 We got a petition signed by about a dozen seniors and

11:50:21 other folks and retirees, including captain Bartalotti,

11:50:30 a retiree.

11:50:33 Saying that we used to go down there and do these

11:50:36 exercise programs and now they want to charge us, I

11:50:38 think, $1.50 a session and if you do that several times

11:50:42 a week, which typically I guess they were doing several




11:50:45 times a week, then it can add up.

11:50:47 And I don't know why we are charging seniors anything.

11:50:49 You know, folks who are on a fixed income.

11:50:52 I don't really understand it.

11:50:54 I mean, I do understand we have had budget issues.

11:50:57 But I think that this is a budget area where we should

11:51:00 be accommodating our folks and especially our seniors

11:51:04 in our community.

11:51:05 They have earned it.

11:51:06 And I would like to broaden the motion to address all

11:51:11 of our rec programs and to specifically address our

11:51:14 seniors.

11:51:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor.

11:51:17 All in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:51:19 Opposed, Nay.

11:51:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Did you accommodate mine?

11:51:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

11:51:24 It was a nod.

11:51:25 You just couldn't see that in the transcript.

11:51:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Caetano would like to do a

11:51:29 commendation to allow the Boy Scout troop 188, and he

11:51:35 will present it on February 27th.




11:51:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

11:51:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

11:51:42 If there's nothing else we will stand --

11:51:45 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a couple.

11:51:46 I'll try to be quick.

11:51:48 Number one, I am making a motion to request city staff

11:51:54 to appear in two weeks, February 18th, and provide

11:51:58 a report on the proposed elevated roadway on Gandy

11:52:01 Boulevard.

11:52:03 Specifically, one, what is the time line of decision

11:52:07 points of all involved entities?

11:52:11 Two, what is the city's role?

11:52:15 Three, what role does City Council have?

11:52:19 And, four, there's a need to receive input from

11:52:22 constituents as to their concerns on the proposed

11:52:24 project so that City Council as their elected

11:52:28 representatives can seek to address those concerns to

11:52:30 the extent we can.

11:52:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second of the all

11:52:36 in favor of the motion say Aye.

11:52:37 Opposed, Nay.

11:52:37 >>THE CLERK: Dingfelder voting no.




11:52:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, you don't have --

11:52:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll tell you why I voted no.

11:52:50 Mr. Chairman is not here today.

11:52:51 I guess he has to go out of town this morning, and he

11:52:55 is our expressway authority representative, and this

11:53:01 has issue has not come to council.

11:53:03 I don't anticipate it's going to come to council.

11:53:06 So I kind of prefer to wait for him.

11:53:09 So my vote will carry that over.

11:53:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually, under council rules, the

11:53:16 motion dies.

11:53:18 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll bring it up when with he's next

11:53:22 here.

11:53:22 I'm sure he would, as our authority, want to hear from

11:53:25 his constituents, as our representative.

11:53:28 But then I had another motion that I'm making

11:53:35 reluctantly but feel compelled because of all of the

11:53:40 constituents that have been to council several times

11:53:45 and have called me, and I would like legal to give

11:53:51 council a report on our invocation procedure, it's

11:53:56 Constitutionality, options for changes to the current

11:54:02 policy, and I would like this legal -- not just the




11:54:10 legal opinion.

11:54:12 I want this -- I'm going to ask you to do this in two

11:54:15 weeks at our next regular council meeting.

11:54:17 But I invite my colleagues who have a much longer

11:54:22 history of this controversy to participate in the

11:54:26 discussion.

11:54:29 >>> Madam Chairman, I can tell you unequivocally that

11:54:35 council's process is fully Constitutional a.

11:54:37 I can tell you that today and I will tell you again.

11:54:41 You may not need to make that part of the motion.

11:54:43 >>MARY MULHERN: I need that to be an agendaed item,

11:54:49 because no one has responded three times this group has

11:54:54 been here, and no one responded.

11:54:56 Legal didn't respond.

11:54:57 And no one on council responded until today.

11:55:01 When I spoke.

11:55:03 I didn't bring up this issue.

11:55:07 I have never had any question, personal, with my

11:55:14 selections for invocations or anything like that.

11:55:16 But I think -- one individual who said 10% of our

11:55:23 population are probably atheists, and they are that

11:55:27 concerned.




11:55:28 They did want to be heard and be responded to.

11:55:33 >>GWEN MILLER: I'm going to vote no because I think we

11:55:37 need a full council.

11:55:38 I think everybody has an opinion on this before --

11:55:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

11:55:42 I'll bring it back again.

11:55:43 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just so the folks at home are

11:55:47 clear, when this first came up Chairman Scott did make

11:55:50 a statement that council intended to continue what he

11:55:52 called an ecumenical practice.

11:55:53 So that is on the record.

11:55:55 But if council wants us to look at this and give you

11:55:58 options and go -- I have actually no problem with

11:56:01 doing.

11:56:01 That I am fully comfortable with that.

11:56:03 And it's the pleasure of council how to deal with the

11:56:06 issue.

11:56:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to Britt back at another

11:56:11 time so we can have a full vote of council to have an

11:56:14 input.

11:56:14 >>MARY MULHERN: One point that was made today by one

11:56:17 of the atheists, and which I have run into, is on




11:56:20 either end, there are problems with our procedure, and

11:56:23 there are very religious people who won't give an

11:56:29 invocation because they are not able to express their

11:56:37 beliefs.

11:56:38 So I think this isn't just about, you know, separation

11:56:41 of church and state.

11:56:43 I think we need to clear up our procedure so that we

11:56:49 are not making anyone -- you know, we are being as

11:56:52 inclusive and fair as we can be.

11:56:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just on that issue, not to kick it

11:57:10 too hard.

11:57:11 I personally have responded to many people by e-mail

11:57:13 that communicated with me on both sides of the issue,

11:57:16 and what I have told them is I am comfortable with the

11:57:18 process that we have.

11:57:19 I think we are very accommodating to priests, Rabbis,

11:57:29 ministers, nonbelievers, whatever, who want to come and

11:57:33 give the invocation.

11:57:34 And we have done that for a number of years.

11:57:39 I think the fact that they have come down several

11:57:41 times, and council has chosen not to necessarily

11:57:45 address it, I think, is in fact a response that council




11:57:51 doesn't necessarily want to change anything.

11:57:53 I think by agendaing it, I think we are going to amp it

11:57:58 up, and then we are going to, now, spend many, many

11:58:01 hours, and perhaps have to go over to the convention

11:58:04 center, like we do, like we have had to on issues past

11:58:10 that get this heated.

11:58:12 And I'm not really sure that's the right direction for

11:58:14 council right now.

11:58:15 But, anyway, that's just my feeling on it.

11:58:19 I feel like my guess is, the majority of council is

11:58:23 comfortable with where we are.

11:58:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, anything else?

11:58:27 Mr. Shelby?

11:58:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A reminder.

11:58:30 City Council, you received a memorandum from the mayor

11:58:34 regarding a meeting that she's requested to have in her

11:58:37 conference room with you on February 22nd at 3 p.m. to

11:58:41 discuss information and revenue projections for the

11:58:45 FY-2011 budget.

11:58:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to --

11:58:50 >>GWEN MILLER: I have already responded because I had

11:58:52 my aide.




11:58:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we need to notice it?

11:58:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the clerk -- do you

11:58:58 normally notice those?

11:58:59 And do you record those.

11:59:00 The clerk is aware of it.

11:59:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

11:59:02 >>THE CLERK: I have one piece of new business.

11:59:07 We have received a request from Judy Lisi asking to

11:59:09 make the annual presentation of the annual performing

11:59:12 arts center to council on March 4, 2010 for

11:59:15 approximately ten minutes.

11:59:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to add that to our agenda.

11:59:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When did you want to put that?

11:59:24 >> We normally put it under staff reports.

11:59:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For 10:30.

11:59:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Did we get a second?

11:59:31 >> Uh-huh.

11:59:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

11:59:33 All in favor?

11:59:34 Opposed?

11:59:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to again applaud the

11:59:39 city staff for the excellent job they did this




11:59:41 Gasparilla, from law enforcement to our clean-up folks

11:59:45 to our parks and rec people who put out the barricades,

11:59:48 everyone in the city just did a suburb job and they are

11:59:53 to be congratulated by City Council.

11:59:54 >> Especially the police who made a lot of arrests.

12:00:03 >> Especially Bob Seigers who made it rain.

12:00:10 >> I think that we are really turning the corner in the

12:00:13 culture of Gasparilla to make at more

12:00:14 community-friendly event.

12:00:15 >>GWEN MILLER: If nothing else, we stand adjourned

12:00:18 until 1:30.

12:01:40 (The meeting recessed at 12:00 noon)

12:01:49



DISCLAIMER:

This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for
complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.




Tampa City Council




Thursday, February 4, 2010

1:30 p.m. session



13:37:02 >> CHAIRMAN SCOTT: Tampa City Council will come to

13:37:04 order.

13:37:04 Roll call.

09:07:59 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.

09:08:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.

09:08:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.

09:08:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.

09:08:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.

13:37:06 >>CHAIRMAN SCOTT: Thank you, sir.

13:37:13 Okay.

13:37:13 We are on item 64, I believe.

13:37:16 I understand we completed our morning agenda.

13:37:18 Thank you.

13:37:23 We'll pick up with item 64.

13:37:24 >>TONY GARCIA: Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.

13:37:33 We appreciate you allowing us some time this afternoon

13:37:36 to give you a brief presentation the principles coming

13:37:44 to you in the form of some text policy, text amendment

13:37:47 before this body on March 11th, the this upcoming




13:37:50 month along with three or four other plan amendment

13:37:52 that will be briefed before you that a evening.

13:37:55 Without further ado, if we can get the presentation

13:37:59 cued up, I will be more than happy to begin my

13:38:02 presentation.

13:38:18 Okay.

13:38:22 Transit oriented development for Tampa and Hillsborough

13:38:26 County.

13:38:30 Basically, transit oriented development is a compact

13:38:34 with housing, jobs and neighborhood services within

13:38:36 easy walking distance, public transit systems that

13:38:39 offer multiple travel options.

13:38:42 Several examples on the bottom part that shows you high

13:38:45 density adjacent to existing transit stations in

13:38:49 different cities across the nation.

13:38:51 Why TOD?

13:38:52 TOD is more sustainable and efficient, traffic

13:38:56 ridership, reduces traffic, provides a rich mix of

13:38:59 housing jobs an shops, provides public and private

13:39:04 sectors, creates a sense of place and helps conserve

13:39:07 open space in rural areas.

13:39:10 Also helps address the requirements of the state law.




13:39:15 The foundation of the mobility strategy, multimodal

13:39:18 transportation, more efficient land use pattern and

13:39:21 reduction of vehicle miles traveled, use of transit,

13:39:25 focuses growth in the urban service area.

13:39:27 One of the policies that will be in the text that will

13:39:29 be presented to you in March is a policy that says all

13:39:33 the station locations will be located within the

13:39:36 service area.

13:39:38 As far as the federal transit administration, as you

13:39:43 can see in the box amongst the green boxes there is

13:39:47 land use.

13:39:48 The game was changed at the latter part of July this

13:39:50 past year by FTA which places a greater emphasis on

13:39:54 land use, and you can also see operational efficiencies

13:39:58 as one of the boxes there.

13:39:59 So those almost account for approximately 40% of all

13:40:03 the other criteria that are there in the FTA

13:40:08 determining how funding is going to be appropriated to

13:40:11 those areas submitting for funding for sections, that

13:40:16 we mate get as relates to fixed transit in Tampa,

13:40:19 Hillsborough County, ultimately the seven-county

13:40:21 region.




13:40:25 I'm going to have to ask -- I don't know how to do this

13:40:29 If they could put the close captioning on the top.

13:40:31 Thank you.

13:40:37 We talk about process, stakeholder involvement in the

13:40:40 proposed top policy framework.

13:40:41 That's where the ensuing sides will show you.

13:40:44 There was a joint land use at the Planning Commission

13:40:46 forum as a collaborative effort between Hart and

13:40:50 Hillsborough County had Planning Commission, and the

13:40:52 Hillsborough County MPO.

13:40:54 In doing this, we were able to go ahead and put quite a

13:40:57 few stakeholders together.

13:40:59 The purpose behind it was to coordinate efforts to

13:41:02 implement fixed transit, and transit-oriented

13:41:05 development.

13:41:05 So the operation to stakeholders was to get input on

13:41:08 the Hart alternative analysis as far as all the

13:41:11 different routes, potentially.

13:41:12 The Planning Commission's development of transit

13:41:14 oriented development policies which as I said we will

13:41:16 be bringing to you in March, and the MPO long-range

13:41:19 2035 transportation plan.




13:41:21 The stakeholders let you know how broad-based the

13:41:32 involvement was.

13:41:33 Hillsborough County, the cities of Tampa, Plant City,

13:41:36 Temple Terrace, EPC, Aviation Authority, the business

13:41:39 interests are represented by MAYA, the naming

13:41:43 association of industrial office parks, development

13:41:45 community, Department of Transportation, Westshore

13:41:48 alliance, Tampa downtown partnership, a neighborhood

13:41:52 group, and of course Tampa homeowners association

13:41:54 neighborhoods, and adjacent local governments as

13:41:57 Pinellas County and Pasco counties have been involved.

13:42:02 The existing transit systems as far as how we are going

13:42:07 to be looking at certain areas are looking at planning

13:42:10 processes within a quarter mile which are going to

13:42:14 range from 3% to 13%.

13:42:16 Then we looked at how this might occur within the seven

13:42:21 prototype stations.

13:42:22 And of course the relationships, the importance of

13:42:24 transit to development potential.

13:42:27 Part of this process in working with our consultant who

13:42:31 is here this afternoon will talk on this presentation,

13:42:34 developers were interviewed, had experience in




13:42:37 transit-oriented development and in the Florida market.

13:42:40 As you know we don't have a lot of transit development

13:42:43 in the state which is why this concept is so exciting

13:42:45 and so viable for the state.

13:42:47 The findings were to establish current policies that

13:42:50 remove a major potential impediment.

13:42:52 The select flexibility -- and it is market driven as

13:42:55 far as the findings were concerned.

13:42:56 The likelihood of development in prototypical stations

13:43:01 are 34% likely without rail transit, 83% likely with

13:43:06 rail transit, a significant difference in interest by

13:43:09 the entities.

13:43:12 That being said, I am going to hand off to Mr. Evan

13:43:15 Johnson from Wilson Miller and he will continue the

13:43:18 presentation.

13:43:18 Thank you.

13:43:21 >> My name is Evan Johnson with Wilson Miller, and

13:43:26 Michael English is here with me from Wilson Miller

13:43:29 today as well.

13:43:30 We have been working with the Planning Commission,

13:43:33 developing some draft policies going to the Planning

13:43:34 Commission and will be coming back to you all for




13:43:36 public hearing in March.

13:43:39 And what is being handed out right now are just a few

13:43:43 exhibits that will include in policies in your packet

13:43:48 when it's given to council.

13:43:49 And I will be hitting on the topics that are covered in

13:43:53 those exhibits, but not too specific since we are

13:43:56 limited for time.

13:43:58 If you want to go ahead and queue the PowerPoint again.

13:44:02 Basically, there are four components of the policies

13:44:05 that we have been working on.

13:44:07 And I am going to quickly go through each of the four.

13:44:10 First is quick discussion about the difference transit

13:44:14 stations, that we are recommending be adopted into the

13:44:18 comprehensive plan.

13:44:19 The second would be the actual future land use overlay,

13:44:23 which will basically signify the beginning of the

13:44:28 station area and planning area process.

13:44:30 The third are the components of station area and plans.

13:44:33 These are the recommendations for pieces of

13:44:35 station plans around each station.

13:44:39 And finally some design principles which should be the

13:44:41 last page in your packet, which are basically guiding




13:44:45 principles for doing transit-supported development.

13:44:51 There are seven station types.

13:44:53 I am going to run through them all quickly.

13:44:56 Just to note that for the most part there was some

13:44:59 slight tweaking and changes.

13:45:01 These stations are actually brought in from the 2007

13:45:04 MPO transit study that was done and adopted by the MPO.

13:45:07 So we really just kind of took those and tweaked them,

13:45:11 and then had recommended implementation to the comp

13:45:15 plan.

13:45:16 The first of these is the high intensity urban station.

13:45:19 And this really is the station for transit system that

13:45:22 would be located in mainly the downtown, the cultural

13:45:26 economic hub of the transit system in the region.

13:45:29 The type of development around that station will be

13:45:32 high intensity and density mixed use development, much

13:45:34 of what already there in much of the downtown now.

13:45:37 And those types of stations will likely serve multiple

13:45:41 types of transportation and transit.

13:45:44 So it could be buses, could be streetcar.

13:45:46 We have a high speed rail line that is going to be

13:45:49 coming into downtown.




13:45:50 That could all be part of a downtown high intensity

13:45:52 station.

13:45:53 The next station type that is in your exhibits is the

13:45:58 mixed use regional station.

13:46:00 These stations will be located in regional areas --

13:46:03 areas of regional importance, regional shopping areas,

13:46:06 regional office areas.

13:46:08 An example could be like a Westshore.

13:46:09 Again, mixed use moderate to high intensity

13:46:12 development, and connections to local transit

13:46:15 connectors as well as street cars or buses.

13:46:20 The next station type is the community center station.

13:46:23 Best way to think about a community center station is a

13:46:25 station that serves several neighborhoods around it.

13:46:28 So it acts as a center in a transit node for

13:46:32 surrounding neighborhoods.

13:46:33 Again, moderate to lower density, development,

13:46:36 residential, and neighborhood retail serve the

13:46:39 surrounding neighborhoods.

13:46:41 The next one is the neighborhood center station.

13:46:45 The most important thing about a neighborhood center

13:46:47 station is that it protects in its context sensitive to




13:46:51 its neighborhoods.

13:46:52 You think about Tampa and all the wonderful

13:46:54 neighborhoods we have.

13:46:55 This station and development that is going to be

13:46:56 encouraged around it -- around it will be consistent

13:47:00 with what is on the ground now, so that could be a mix

13:47:02 of uses but it won't be intense uses and intensity uses

13:47:05 that are very different.

13:47:08 We have an employment center station.

13:47:10 And the employment center station will be designated

13:47:14 for places where large employment centers, whether they

13:47:18 westbound be industrial, office centers, and really the

13:47:20 design of that again, the development will primarily be

13:47:23 nonresidential employment based.

13:47:28 Finally we have park and ride and special stations.

13:47:31 Park and ride is pretty obvious.

13:47:33 It's stations where people will drive into town, park

13:47:35 their cars and come to the core to work.

13:47:38 And stations are for those instances such as Tampa

13:47:41 International Airport, where they have very special

13:47:43 purposes but will be actual stations to move, say,

13:47:48 passengers in and out of the airport.




13:47:50 The second component of these policies -- and I do

13:47:53 apologize, I know that this is a lot.

13:47:57 It's a pretty good framework.

13:48:00 The second component of these policies is called the

13:48:02 future land use overlay.

13:48:04 And there are three steps to that future land use

13:48:06 overlay.

13:48:07 The first is once we have actually adopted a transit

13:48:10 system, with stations along it, within a half a mile of

13:48:14 those stations, the overlay will basically become

13:48:17 effective.

13:48:18 Now what this overlay will do is it basically starts

13:48:21 the analysis for station area planning so it is kind of

13:48:25 a trigger to begin a station area planning process

13:48:28 around these stations.

13:48:29 The second step will be specific boundaries to be

13:48:33 determined for each station area plan and to do plans

13:48:39 for the station areas and get them adopted.

13:48:43 And just real quick, step one, the floating overlay

13:48:46 again, once we have adopted a preferred transit line

13:48:50 and preferred station types and locations, the overlay

13:48:54 will become effective.




13:48:55 And this will become an area of influence where

13:48:58 station area planning will take place.

13:49:03 Step two, the station area plans will be determined.

13:49:06 These will basically be the goal is where feasible to

13:49:11 include a half mile walking distance around any given

13:49:13 station.

13:49:14 The actual boundaries will take into effect

13:49:17 neighborhood boundaries, environmental boundaries and

13:49:19 constraints and so forth.

13:49:21 And once those boundaries, the recommendation will come

13:49:25 back to council for adoption to start the station area

13:49:29 planning process.

13:49:36 And then the third piece is obviously the completion

13:49:40 and adoption of station area plans.

13:49:44 Plans for each of these station areas will be completed

13:49:48 by the Planning Commission, the city, the transit

13:49:50 agency, consultants if that choice is made, and that

13:49:53 will be laid out.

13:49:54 And we are recommending an interlocal agreement to be

13:49:57 executed before the planning process begins.

13:50:01 Also, they can be potentially funded by private

13:50:05 interests, say a developer.




13:50:06 However, if a developer chooses to fund it to speed the

13:50:09 process along, that process will still be overseen by a

13:50:12 public agency so we are leaving that option in there.

13:50:17 Finally once those plans are developed, it will come

13:50:19 back to City Council for public hearing.

13:50:21 And if those plans have specific recommendations for

13:50:24 changes in zoning, it would also come back to City

13:50:28 Council at a later date for public hearing.

13:50:32 The next component of the policies that we are

13:50:35 recommending are the station area plan components.

13:50:39 This is also in your packet as table 3.

13:50:41 It's really just a list of things that we are

13:50:43 recommending to be considered in any station area plan

13:50:46 that deals with issues of land use, design, policy and

13:50:49 implementation strategies, again just a recommendation

13:50:51 for these things to be considered in the planning

13:50:54 process.

13:50:57 Finally, the design principles.

13:51:00 This is the last page in your packet that was handed

13:51:03 out to you.

13:51:04 The TOD principles are just principles to encourage the

13:51:08 transit supported development we need within




13:51:10 station areas to ensure they will be redevelopment in

13:51:15 those areas that focus on issues of land use, mix of

13:51:19 housing types, mix of affordability, different types of

13:51:23 price points, market analysis, those design principles

13:51:28 require that a market analysis be performed for each

13:51:31 station area plan in order to ensure that the

13:51:33 recommendations we are making in these plans are

13:51:35 feasible given the market.

13:51:37 And finally, they also, these design principles, talk

13:51:41 about density and intensity and the way in which where

13:51:44 to put density in a station area versus where to maybe

13:51:47 not put as much to ensure that surrounding

13:51:49 neighborhoods are protected.

13:51:52 The next set of principles on your charts have to do

13:51:57 with connectivity.

13:51:58 This really is connectivity just what you think.

13:52:01 It's roadways, it's bike paths, bike parking and also

13:52:05 flexibility in auto parking.

13:52:07 So making recommendations about trying new ways in

13:52:10 which to control parking within transit station areas.

13:52:15 So the joint use parking garages, or shared parking,

13:52:21 those types of things we are recommending be addressed.




13:52:25 Finally is the community design components.

13:52:28 These really have to do with building design,

13:52:30 architecture, streetscape design and encouraging

13:52:34 transit and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes.

13:52:37 Also encouraging that new public spaces and public

13:52:40 space programming being considered for these transit

13:52:44 areas.

13:52:44 These station areas will be hubs of activity, hubs of

13:52:48 new development, and we really want to encourage people

13:52:50 to even travel from area to area, station to station,

13:52:53 to enjoy public amenities as well.

13:52:56 Finally, I am going to hand it over to Tony real quick

13:53:00 so he can talk more about scheduling and we are here

13:53:02 for any questions.

13:53:02 (Bell sounds).

13:53:09 >>TONY GARCIA: Great timing with the buzzer.

13:53:11 We had our hearing on February 8th in front of the

13:53:14 Planning Commission.

13:53:14 We'll have hearings with the City of Tampa as well as

13:53:17 Hillsborough County had, your public hearing regarding

13:53:18 this particular plan amendment will be March 11th.

13:53:21 We are looking forward to bringing it to you.




13:53:22 We are excited about it, as I said before, have great

13:53:25 support by public and private entities.

13:53:29 Also regionally with the Florida joint land use working

13:53:32 group, the Tampa Bay regional Planning Commission, too.

13:53:35 We have been the lead.

13:53:36 Hillsborough County has been the lead for them on this.

13:53:39 That's it.

13:53:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just thank you so much for

13:53:44 bringing this to us today.

13:53:45 We have been talking about this for ages.

13:53:46 It's exciting to see it before us.

13:53:49 I hope we can hold to our schedule and get it adopted.

13:53:52 Thank you.

13:53:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

13:53:57 Other questions?

13:54:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Tony, you are the consultant, but I

13:54:08 think -- let me put it this way.

13:54:11 I think all of these things look really neat and

13:54:15 exciting.

13:54:15 I think the hardest part will be implementing them as

13:54:21 we go.

13:54:24 Especially making sure that there is a good




13:54:29 communication and good transition with the surviving,

13:54:33 remaining uses and specifically residents that would

13:54:38 live within close proximity to a new station.

13:54:45 And I am just wondering, I haven't had a chance to look

13:54:48 at this in great detail but I'm just wondering how we

13:54:52 plan on accommodating that as a community.

13:54:55 Are we -- are we addressing that at the plan level?

13:54:59 Or are we waiting to address that at the LDR level?

13:55:08 >> You are getting down to the specifics as relates to

13:55:11 the building -- these will all be, by the way, based on

13:55:14 your form-based codes that are currently being worked

13:55:19 on.

13:55:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But a lot of these potential

13:55:22 stations will be in areas that won't necessarily have

13:55:25 form-based codes yet.

13:55:27 I mean --

13:55:30 >>> It's not there yet.

13:55:30 It's a little premature to have a discussion on it yet.

13:55:34 When you look at the tables you will see there are

13:55:36 guidelines for the different types.

13:55:38 We have to determine whether it will be a neighborhood

13:55:39 station, a community station, a regional station.




13:55:42 And those stations have the respected FDRs and

13:55:50 densities.

13:55:51 Once the type is determined, it will be, as evidenced,

13:55:55 as discussed to you, there's going to be quite an

13:55:58 opportunity to go ahead and have a lot of public

13:56:00 participation involvement with all those stakeholders

13:56:03 within that -- that's part of the station area planning

13:56:09 process is to do analysis and survey of what's there,

13:56:12 the variety of conditions you have to look at, whether

13:56:14 they be environmental, social, the degree of low

13:56:17 density neighborhoods there, or high density, the

13:56:20 stability of the neighborhoods, the parcels, the

13:56:25 difficulty with parcel assemblage, how much is publicly

13:56:28 owned, privately owned.

13:56:29 There's a variety of conditions that will have to be

13:56:32 taken into consideration when you are doing the actual

13:56:33 analysis of the area.

13:56:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In regard to, for example, the

13:56:41 principles, design principles and land use principles,

13:56:47 we have, for example, understood building and zoning

13:56:49 says "include policies to insure consistency with the

13:56:52 scale and architectural style of historic districts if




13:56:56 applicable."

13:56:57 That's good.

13:56:58 I want to make sure we include similar type language --

13:57:00 and it might be there already, I just haven't seen

13:57:02 it -- that would say that we are going to be sensitive,

13:57:05 that, you know, it might not be consistent with the

13:57:09 existing use.

13:57:11 And I'm not talking about historic districts here, I'm

13:57:14 talking about other districts.

13:57:15 Might not be consistent but I think we should ensure

13:57:17 compatibility, sensitivity, that sort of thing, because

13:57:21 I think we all know there will be some tension coming

13:57:27 down the road, hopefully when we pull all this off.

13:57:31 >> Well, hopefully not.

13:57:32 >> Well, I'm not hoping for -- I'm hoping for the end

13:57:38 result of light rail but I think we will have some

13:57:42 tension and I think it's important the plan address it

13:57:44 as well as the LDRs.

13:57:45 >>> I would just say the design principles and those

13:57:51 tables included in the packet are to be adopted as part

13:57:54 of the plan.

13:57:55 They will be put in the actual plan as well.




13:57:57 Along with the policies.

13:57:59 And I would also say that one of the policies in there

13:58:01 that are in the recommended policies specifically state

13:58:04 that, you know, neighborhood plans, CRA plans, need to

13:58:08 be considered first and foremost, starting with that as

13:58:12 your base.

13:58:12 This is what has to find an area to this point.

13:58:16 And that's why moving into a new public process, it's

13:58:20 really going to be about planning that area carefully.

13:58:22 So as much as possible we have addressed it in those

13:58:24 policies, and hopefully, I think as the LDRs begin,

13:58:28 the discussion begins, it will become more apparent.

13:58:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A quick question.

13:58:34 When you talk about transit-oriented development, are

13:58:36 you also including express bus stops and streetcar

13:58:39 stops?

13:58:40 Is that part of your thinking?

13:58:43 >>> The definition that's included, recommended to be

13:58:46 included into the policies for the comp plan, it

13:58:51 includes anything, it could be ERT if it's on a

13:58:56 designated --

13:58:57 >> That's rapid transit?




13:58:58 >> Yes, bus rapid rah transit, light rail or streetcar,

13:59:02 as long as it is a designated fixed guideway, and that

13:59:05 cannot change on a regular basis.

13:59:07 So that is the trigger.

13:59:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think you should mention that.

13:59:11 Also, when you do your presentation, you used a couple

13:59:16 that, you know, you are going to be talking to regular

13:59:19 people.

13:59:21 I understood "type."

13:59:22 >> I think you are absolutely correct and you are sorry

13:59:25 for that, because you make your presentation to so many

13:59:27 planners and public officials, you get used to that

13:59:30 audience.

13:59:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you all very much.

13:59:35 Thank you, Mr. Garcia.

13:59:36 Thank you very much.

13:59:38 Item 65.

13:59:39 >> Dennis Fernandez here on item 65.

13:59:50 I have a brief introduction to the case.

13:59:53 November 2nd, 2010 public hearing, the

13:59:56 Architectural Review Commission heard an administrative

13:59:58 appeal to a determination by the zoning administrator




14:00:01 by the property located at 2101 Bayshore Boulevard,

14:00:04 which is owned by City National Bank of Florida

14:00:07 trustee.

14:00:08 The case was before the ARC under case 09-165, and

14:00:13 under the appeal method delineated in chapter 27,

14:00:16 373-A.

14:00:18 The Bayshore condominium company, Inc., also referred

14:00:21 to as the Bayshore condominium is a neighboring

14:00:24 property to the subject property, but the subject

14:00:26 property and the property on which the Bayshore

14:00:29 condominium is associated or located within the Hyde

14:00:31 Park local historic district.

14:00:33 The appellant's appeal was based on the zoning

14:00:36 administrator's determination stated in a letter dated

14:00:39 August 25, 2009, as to the South Howard commercial

14:00:44 overlay district to a portion of the subject parcel.

14:00:47 The appellant contended that the zoning administrator

14:00:50 failed to apply the SoHo overlay to the proposed

14:00:53 project on the subject property approved by the ARC

14:00:57 under ARC 03-114-A.

14:01:02 This is a photo of the parcel, I think.

14:01:05 Most everyone is familiar with it.




14:01:10 You see the subject parcel in the foreground, the

14:01:12 Bayshore roil beyond.

14:01:15 After hearing testimony from the zoning administrator

14:01:17 Catherine Coyle and the appellant's attorney James

14:01:20 De Furia and taking public comment, the ARC motioned

14:01:23 that the appeal, the administrator's determination, be

14:01:27 denied.

14:01:27 The motion to deny the appeal was passed by a vote of

14:01:30 5-2.

14:01:31 The language of the motion is found on page 93 of your

14:01:33 transcript, which was provided to you.

14:01:37 Catherine Coyle will now provide you additional

14:01:40 background information related to the appeal.

14:01:42 Thank you.

14:01:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Zoning administrator for the city,

14:01:52 for the record.

14:01:54 I will briefly go through the highlight of the process

14:01:58 that occurred.

14:02:00 The appeal that occurred before the Architectural

14:02:02 Review Commission was based on August 25th, 2009

14:02:06 letter that I wrote to the appellant with 15 questions,

14:02:10 which I highlighted on pages 14 through 20 of your




14:02:25 packet.

14:02:26 And I went through each question verbatim, read the

14:02:30 question, gave the response --

14:02:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we continue, we need to swear

14:02:35 in all of those that are going to be testifying in this

14:02:38 case.

14:02:39 Stand, if you are going to be speaking or addressing

14:02:41 council.

14:02:42 Please stand and be sworn at this time.

14:02:43 (Oath administered by Clerk)

14:02:45 >> I do.

14:02:53 And I have. Anyway, through page 20, I read each

14:02:57 question.

14:02:58 I gave the response with limited commentary on each

14:03:02 question.

14:03:04 It was August 25th, 2009 letter.

14:03:08 I further went on page 21 and described the reference

14:03:15 to parcel 2, which was the subject parcel to this

14:03:18 appeal, and gave a background information on additional

14:03:23 pieces of testimony that I did submit for the record,

14:03:26 one being the memorandum from 2004 that was issued by

14:03:29 the previous zoning administrator that highlighted that




14:03:34 particular piece of property as well as the rest of the

14:03:37 lot and how the setbacks were measured for that

14:03:40 development.

14:03:42 In 2004 they made that determination.

14:03:44 I also went through other historical determinations

14:03:48 that have been made related to Howard overlay district,

14:03:54 how setbacks are measured, and then gave some

14:03:58 additional testimony about the title of the district,

14:04:02 the purpose and intent of the overlay district, how

14:04:10 yards were determined, compliance with the district,

14:04:17 ultimately how yards were determined, on page 24, which

14:04:21 I referenced section 545 and chapter 27, noting that

14:04:25 Bayshore Boulevard and DeSoto were both front yards,

14:04:29 and how the yards are measured on this particular lot.

14:04:34 I went through further -- I did answer a few questions

14:04:41 in the beginning.

14:04:46 The case that I made at the end of that particular

14:04:48 testimony was based on all of those particular pieces

14:04:52 of evidence, including as I said, to recap quickly

14:04:57 before the applicant speaks, or the appellant speaks,

14:05:00 is the historical 2004 memo that was issued with the

14:05:04 determination of the yards, the South Howard overlay




14:05:08 district title, the purpose and intent section, the

14:05:11 definitions of yards designating Bayshore Boulevard and

14:05:17 front yard, how setbacks are measured in this

14:05:19 particular district.

14:05:20 And I believe that was it in the beginning.

14:05:29 I'll reserve any additional comments or questions.

14:05:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

14:05:34 Thank you.

14:05:35 My materials don't contain any maps or any graphics

14:05:39 showing -- did you include --

14:05:45 >> Well, I don't prepare the record.

14:05:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just think that's pretty

14:05:49 important and I wonder if it's part of the record and

14:05:51 if there are any --

14:05:52 >>> It is part of the record.

14:05:53 If you look at the very last page, I believe this

14:05:57 should be a document that's in your packet.

14:06:00 It was in mine.

14:06:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, it's not in mine but maybe

14:06:03 it's in somebody else's.

14:06:04 Did any of the other council members get that?

14:06:13 Oh, there's another.




14:06:14 Okay.

14:06:14 >>> My pages were provided to me front and back copies

14:06:18 so I'm not sure how it was provided to you.

14:06:20 The appellant, I think, provided those copies.

14:06:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?

14:06:26 Okay.

14:06:27 Petitioner?

14:06:30 >>> Thank you.

14:06:32 Good afternoon.

14:06:33 My name is Jim De Furia, and I represent the Bayshore

14:06:37 Royal.

14:06:38 I first want to thank all the council members for being

14:06:40 here today.

14:06:42 It's an important issue for my client.

14:06:57 First I want to identify a fact that is not at issue.

14:07:04 Everybody admits this.

14:07:07 This is from a letter dated January 30th, 2009,

14:07:14 from Ms. Coyle, the zoning administrator to me, in

14:07:18 response to a series of questions I asked.

14:07:22 Question number 1.

14:07:23 Is parcel 2 of the subject property in the South Howard

14:07:27 commercial overlay district?




14:07:30 Response: Yes.

14:07:31 It is unquestioned that parcel 2 -- excuse me.

14:07:47 -- is depicted on this drawing as the shaded portion.

14:07:55 And if you just give me a moment to identify some

14:07:58 relevant areas.

14:08:00 This is Bayshore Boulevard.

14:08:04 This is South Howard.

14:08:08 The entire project to be developed is the combination

14:08:12 of two parcels beginning here and moving this way.

14:08:19 As you can see, approximately, I would say a third to a

14:08:24 half, I'm not sure, of the parcel lies within the South

14:08:28 Howard overlay.

14:08:32 In a broader sense, council members can see where the

14:08:49 parcel lies in relationship to the entire overlay.

14:08:56 The shaded vertical stripe, if you will, is within the

14:09:02 boundaries of the overlay.

14:09:06 Parcel 2 of the subject parcel, which lies within the

14:09:10 overlay, is approximately here.

14:09:19 South Howard, of course, is here.

14:09:22 On August 25th, 2009, I again presented a series of

14:09:50 questions to the zoning administrator.

14:09:52 I would call your attention principally to questions 3




14:09:59 through 6.

14:10:00 Again, it's unquestioned that the parcel 2 lies in the

14:10:05 South Howard overlay.

14:10:07 These questions, in essence, ask whether parcel 2,

14:10:21 which is unquestionably in the overlay, is subject to

14:10:25 the provisions of various sections of the code.

14:10:32 Section 27.460 is the commercial overlay in general

14:10:43 ordinance which applies to all overlays which are

14:10:45 designated as commercial overlays.

14:10:49 That's true, also, obviously for 27-460-B.

14:10:55 Which is a subsection of 460, of course.

14:11:01 Question five deals with 27.461, which is specifically

14:11:05 the SoHo overlay, and of course question 6 deals with

14:11:10 the subsection of the SoHo overlay.

14:11:14 In each case, in each instance, I should say, the

14:11:18 zoning administrator stated that the general overlay

14:11:26 provision of the code, 27-460, and the SoHo overlay do

14:11:33 not apply to parcel 2, even though it is unquestioned

14:11:37 that parcel 2 lies within the overlay.

14:11:47 Let's look at those sections.

14:11:57 This is section 27-460, scope of commercial overlay

14:12:06 district regulations.




14:12:10 The provision of the overlay district apply to new

14:12:13 construction, additions or structural alterations, on

14:12:20 all land.

14:12:21 On all land within the designated commercial overlay

14:12:26 district.

14:12:29 These provisions shall serve to supplement underlying

14:12:33 zoning regulations in order to support the stated

14:12:35 purpose of the district, and shall control in the event

14:12:40 of a conflict.

14:12:43 Two things are established here.

14:12:46 First, the overlay applies to all land.

14:12:52 Regardless of its joined we are other lands.

14:12:59 Mower over, the overlay controls in all instances in

14:13:03 the event of a conflict with other provisions of the

14:13:05 code.

14:13:06 Now let go to 461.

14:13:13 461-D.

14:13:27 Every building or site permit application for new

14:13:32 construction or major renovation of an existing

14:13:35 structure, as defined in 27-460, within the South

14:13:43 Howard overlay district shall comply with all

14:13:49 applicable land development regulations and the




14:13:54 standards set forth in subsection E through M.

14:13:57 This is from the South Howard overlay.

14:14:03 This section says "every building," whether it's part

14:14:09 of some other building -- strike that -- whether the

14:14:13 entire building lies within the SoHo or not.

14:14:16 It says "every building."

14:14:20 It also uses the word, the mandatory word, "shall."

14:14:28 Shall comply.

14:14:30 There's a definition of the word "shall" in the code.

14:14:43 27-543.

14:14:47 The word "shall" is always mandatory.

14:14:54 There are no exceptions.

14:14:59 Always mandatory.

14:15:01 27-368.

14:15:22 This is with regard to what the zoning administrator

14:15:27 may and may not do with regard to a zoning

14:15:31 certification.

14:15:35 Under no circumstances is the zoning administrator

14:15:38 permitted to grant exceptions to the actual meaning of

14:15:42 any clause, standard, or regulation contained in this

14:15:48 chapter.

14:15:50 Going on, the zoning administrator is not permitted to




14:15:58 make changes to this chapter or to vary

14:16:19 The terms of this chapter in carrying out his duties,

14:16:22 except to specifically provided below in subsection

14:16:26 27-368-4.

14:16:29 That section has to do with variances.

14:16:31 This is not about a variance.

14:16:36 The zoning administrator understands what her role is.

14:16:46 This is a portion of the transcript from the ARC

14:16:50 hearing.

14:16:51 Mr. Wheeler who was on the ARC states:

14:17:10 That's what I'm asking about.

14:17:14 I'm trying to decide.

14:17:22 Does it -- meaning the overlay -- only apply if the

14:17:26 entire parcel is within?

14:17:28 Or does it also apply whether it's partially within the

14:17:33 overlay district?

14:17:35 And my question to you, the zoning administrator

14:17:40 responds, this generally applies to any overlay

14:17:43 district boundary that's written.

14:17:47 Mr. Wheeler: Okay.

14:17:48 So it would.

14:17:51 In this instance then, it would apply to this parcel or




14:17:56 to a parcel typically?

14:18:01 The zoning administrator: I think that by the cold

14:18:05 read of it, yes, and I think that there are always

14:18:09 circumstances --

14:18:11 >> Mr. Mealer: Sure.

14:18:13 >> Zoning administrator: That you have to evaluate.

14:18:20 There are no circumstances to evaluate.

14:18:25 The ordinance is clear.

14:18:28 The land is in the SoHo overlay, and it has to be

14:18:33 applied.

14:18:35 There are no circumstances.

14:18:39 The ordinance couldn't be any clearer.

14:18:45 Every parcel of land.

14:18:53 Every building.

14:18:54 The SoHo must be applied.

14:19:05 This is the motion of the ARC.

14:19:19 Move that the administrative appeal for ARC, property

14:19:23 located at 2101 Bayshore Boulevard, for zoning

14:19:26 interpretation section 27-373-A be denied for the

14:19:31 following reasons.

14:19:35 This has come before us multiple times of the it has

14:19:38 been reviewed by the city multiple times.




14:19:41 It has been reviewed by multiple zoning administrators.

14:19:45 In every case thus far it has been interpreted, if this

14:19:48 is a de novo hearing.

14:19:50 I heard nothing new that I have not heard before in

14:19:53 considering this case.

14:19:57 My client has been denied due process.

14:20:05 There has been no finding by anyone to date, whether

14:20:09 the zoning administrator, whether City Council, whether

14:20:14 anyone associated with the city, that for whatever

14:20:18 reason the SoHo overlay does not apply to this parcel.

14:20:27 Even though explicitly it does.

14:20:33 I have taken this argument to before City Council once

14:20:36 before, and in that case the position of the city was

14:20:40 that since the council was considering appeal from a

14:20:45 determination of ARC as to a certificate of

14:20:48 appropriateness, and not from a decision of the zoning

14:20:51 administrator, the matter was not ripe for decision by

14:20:55 the council at that time.

14:21:00 Fine.

14:21:02 We went ahead, and I asked for zoning interpretation

14:21:07 from the zoning administrator, and it is then where,

14:21:11 without equivocation, she said that the overlay doesn't




14:21:17 apply.

14:21:21 So I am here in a posture that is procedurally correct.

14:21:27 I am here with a clear determination by the zoning

14:21:31 administrator that is contrary to the ordinance.

14:21:35 And I would ask this City Council to reverse the

14:21:39 decision of the zoning administrator and to instruct

14:21:42 the zoning administrator to apply the SoHo overlay to

14:21:47 this parcel.

14:21:53 Thank you very much.

14:21:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions by council?

14:22:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, thank you.

14:22:02 Not a question for you.

14:22:06 A question for Mr. Shelby.

14:22:12 It's my understanding that we are not supposed to be

14:22:14 making the decision about whether we think this is a

14:22:17 swell idea.

14:22:18 We are supposed to be looking at the evidence presented

14:22:21 by the petitioner and seeing if it makes sense.

14:22:25 Is that the guidelines?

14:22:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.

14:22:27 And I'll site the section, 27-373, the standard of

14:22:31 review, at the appeal hearing before the City Council




14:22:35 no new evidence may be presented to the City Council,

14:22:37 and the City Council's actions shall be solely based

14:22:40 upon the record created during the public hearings

14:22:42 before the board of commission.

14:22:43 The City Council in reviewing the decision of the board

14:22:46 or commission shall determine, one, whether, one, the

14:22:51 board's decision was supported by competent,

14:22:52 substantial evidence; two, whether due process was

14:22:56 accorded; and, three, whether or not the law had been

14:23:03 observed.

14:23:03 The City Commission may either a affirm the board, may

14:23:08 remand the board or commission for further proceedings

14:23:10 with direction on how the board or commission failed to

14:23:13 comply with the above standards, or may overturn the

14:23:16 decision of the board of commission, thereby granting

14:23:18 the petition.

14:23:19 If a petition is remanded back to the board or

14:23:21 commission, then the board or commission shall only

14:23:24 consider and take action based upon the direction from

14:23:26 the City Council indicating how the board or commission

14:23:29 failed to comply with the above standards.

14:23:32 And it goes on to finish, if the petition is again




14:23:37 appealed to the City Council, and the City Council

14:23:38 finds that the board or commission has still failed to

14:23:41 comply with the standards a directed by the City

14:23:43 Council then the City Council may take any action which

14:23:45 the board or commission was authorized to take.

14:23:48 In making this determination, the City Council shall

14:23:50 not take any new evidence or testimony but shall only

14:23:53 review the record established during the public

14:23:56 hearings by the board or commission and hear argument.

14:23:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on what I heard today, it

14:24:10 seems --

14:24:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can.

14:24:14 Just so you know, several-fold.

14:24:16 Number one is per your council rules, you do have the

14:24:21 opportunity to make available public comment.

14:24:26 That's part of your procedures.

14:24:27 And again only those who spoke at the original hearing

14:24:30 are permitted to testify.

14:24:32 You may want to give your city staff, the zoning

14:24:35 administrator, opportunity to address some of the

14:24:38 things made during the argument.

14:24:40 Obviously, also I should point out, Mr. Grandoff, the




14:24:44 attorney for the owner of the parcel in question here,

14:24:50 is present.

14:24:51 He may want to choose to speak.

14:24:52 Of course, he doesn't have to.

14:24:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did he speak at the first hearing?

14:24:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's a question we have to inquire.

14:25:00 It's in the record whether or not he did.

14:25:01 But if you want to make inquiry, could you ask the

14:25:04 witness.

14:25:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask our staff?

14:25:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can do that if you wish.

14:25:09 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

14:25:11 No, nobody for the underlying property owner spoke at

14:25:14 the first hearing.

14:25:16 They did receive notice.

14:25:19 However, nobody chose to participate at that hearing.

14:25:23 He is, however, the underlying property owner of which

14:25:26 your question will affect.

14:25:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Aren't we just supposed to deal

14:25:29 with the people who spoke at the first hearing?

14:25:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, we are.

14:25:32 That's true.




14:25:33 So he did not speak.

14:25:34 Okay.

14:25:36 That being the case, the last point is that the

14:25:40 appellant shall have the last word after all your

14:25:43 questions have been answered, and that before you make

14:25:47 any deliberation you hear all the evidence, give the

14:25:49 appellant the opportunity to make his last argument on

14:25:52 rebuttal, and then deliberate amongst yourselves before

14:25:54 you draw conclusions.

14:25:56 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just for clarification on the

14:26:03 record, Mr. Grandoff representing the property owner

14:26:06 could address you all at this point, as representative

14:26:11 of the property owner but he as well would be limited

14:26:13 to the record below.

14:26:14 That's the main issue, that the evidence before you is

14:26:17 limited to what was considered by the ARC.

14:26:20 Just so we are all on the same page.

14:26:22 Thank you.

14:26:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

14:26:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Chip, it sounds like you just

14:26:30 contradicted what Marty said.

14:26:32 So I Ned more explanation.




14:26:33 >>> I think that's possible.

14:26:39 We are in a rather unique posture here where we have a

14:26:44 request for a zoning interpretation by someone who does

14:26:46 not have a direct interest in the property.

14:26:48 That creates a number of due process issues.

14:26:52 I think in order to make sure that everyone, including

14:26:54 the property owner, is afforded due process, the

14:26:57 appropriate action here today is if the property owner

14:27:00 wants to address council, they should be able to, but

14:27:03 as everyone else would be limited to the record below.

14:27:08 They did not participate in the proceeding below before

14:27:12 the ARC so they have waived their opportunity to put

14:27:14 evidence in the record.

14:27:15 Certainly they should have the opportunity to address

14:27:17 council if they so choose.

14:27:19 >>MARY MULHERN: So they can address council but only

14:27:26 based on the record of the hearing where they did not

14:27:30 speak, so they can't bring anything up that was not

14:27:33 brought up in that hearing?

14:27:37 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Correct.

14:27:38 Just like Mr. DeFurio did they would be limited to the

14:27:42 transcript and what was presented below and they could




14:27:45 present information based on that.

14:27:46 In my experience, typically the property owner

14:27:48 participants blow.

14:27:49 In my experience this is the first time we had one

14:27:51 where they did not.

14:27:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can follow up on that.

14:27:54 Your rules as they are written do not contemplate what

14:27:57 you have before you, which is another one of those

14:27:59 situations where you have a third-party appeal, and it

14:28:04 would be wrong for this council, if the property owner,

14:28:07 who is the subject of this, wished to speak and was

14:28:11 denied that opportunity --

14:28:13 >>MARY MULHERN: No, it makes sense.

14:28:14 >>> it's really an issue of standing to participate.

14:28:20 The property owner by standing it's their property.

14:28:23 The on the folks obtain standing by partnering in the

14:28:27 proceeding below.

14:28:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: May I ask the attorney a question?

14:28:31 I trade to word it where I'm walking a fine line.

14:28:38 Is there anywhere in the record, are we clear, was

14:28:41 there litigation between the property owner and the

14:28:43 city for some time before this came up to council?




14:28:46 Is that all cleared out?

14:28:49 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No, sir, there was underlying --

14:28:52 was litigation.

14:28:53 The property owner sought damages against the city for

14:28:56 delay and on the damages related to the prior land use

14:29:00 proceedings before council, that the council is fully

14:29:03 aware of, that was dismissed by the trial court, but

14:29:06 that is still on appeal.

14:29:07 So it is still an active case and is still an issue,

14:29:12 that our office is still defending on behalf of council

14:29:14 and the city.

14:29:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?

14:29:19 We'll hear from the public.

14:29:21 Anyone from the public -- you have the opportunity.

14:29:24 You will have opportunity.

14:29:26 You have the final word.

14:29:27 So anyone from the public who is part of the record may

14:29:32 come forward at this point.

14:29:36 State your name and address for the record.

14:29:39 >>> George Deakin, 1408 south DeSoto.

14:29:43 And I did speak at the previous hearing.

14:29:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, council, per your rules




14:29:49 with regard to the public, absent any designation by

14:29:55 City Council otherwise, speakers are limited to three

14:29:57 minutes.

14:29:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's correct.

14:29:59 Our rules are three minutes.

14:30:00 >>> I live at 1408 south DeSoto, approximately 400 feet

14:30:04 from the project.

14:30:06 Just some background information.

14:30:08 The owner of the subject property bought the property

14:30:13 in 1996, SoHo overlay district ordinance was adopted in

14:30:18 1997.

14:30:19 Therefore, the ordinance was in place well before he

14:30:25 submitted his plans to the ARC.

14:30:27 The property owner had never asked for a variance from

14:30:31 the SoHo standards, he never asked in 1997 when the

14:30:35 ordinance was adopted, and he never asked when he

14:30:38 submitted his plans to the ARC.

14:30:41 The procedure is clearly defined in the district code

14:30:44 in section 27-46-1.

14:30:52 Subtitle, variances.

14:30:53 Any property owner in the SoHo district seeking a

14:30:55 variance from the design standards and application for




14:30:59 variance with ARC administrator, and certainly the

14:31:03 property owner never filed a variance request.

14:31:08 Now the city staff says, let's give the property own

14:31:11 area variance, even though he never filed for one.

14:31:14 To my knowledge, this will be the first variance in the

14:31:16 SoHo district, and the ARC decision did not consider

14:31:21 the SoHo district standards to the second property.

14:31:26 If you set a precedent, even though it's clearly

14:31:29 defined legal procedure for variance ha not been

14:31:32 followed.

14:31:32 Another issue is that the city staff noted that the

14:31:35 SoHo district was the first overlay district, and

14:31:38 subsequent district have floating boundaries rather

14:31:41 than the hard-to-feigned boundaries, and argue that the

14:31:48 floating concept is better and therefore will be better

14:31:52 when looking at the subject property.

14:31:54 However, the floating property boundary concept is not

14:31:57 permitted in the SoHo ordinance.

14:32:00 The ordinance, over three pages, covers exact

14:32:04 boundaries and limits the district.

14:32:10 It's clearly defined, there's no ambiguity in the SoHo

14:32:15 district.




14:32:20 Another issue is that the city may be concerned that

14:32:22 the property owner will sue the city, if the city

14:32:27 reaches a decision not favorable to the property owner.

14:32:30 I think that's based on past history.

14:32:33 A few in the city are afraid of the develop are because

14:32:35 he may sue, and may be setting a precedent, and if the

14:32:40 developer doesn't like the decision, then the developer

14:32:42 just has to threat tone sue to get his way, regardless

14:32:46 of what the zoning code says.

14:32:48 That concludes my presentation.

14:32:49 Thank you for considering these facts.

14:32:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

14:32:52 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

14:32:56 In my review of the record, and fast review, I have

14:33:00 been unable to find any evidence at the hearing below

14:33:04 about whether or not the property owner had applied for

14:33:06 any variances to the South Howard overlay so I ask you

14:33:09 to disregard that unless someone can point to somewhere

14:33:12 in the record, and I would just ask any remaining

14:33:16 speakers to limit their comment to the record, and

14:33:18 that's important, because in the event you get the

14:33:21 result you want, if it's appealed to a higher court,




14:33:24 you could end up jeopardizing your decision.

14:33:27 Thank you.

14:33:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

14:33:29 Next speaker.

14:33:33 >> Rosario Urso.

14:33:35 I reside at 2109 Bayshore Boulevard.

14:33:40 As you know, as you now know, a sizable portion of

14:33:45 Citivest lot is in the SoHo -- in the South Howard

14:33:49 overlay district.

14:33:52 In the opinion filed on May 23rd, 2007, by the

14:33:56 Second District Court of Appeal regarding case number

14:34:00 2-D-06-1383, City of Tampa versus City National Bank of

14:34:07 Florida, and Citivest construction corporation, the

14:34:12 court ruled the following.

14:34:15 I'll read what the court wrote.

14:34:18 The city could have solved this issue by rezoning this

14:34:21 property or alternatively carving this land out of the

14:34:26 historic district, or even defining an overlay district

14:34:30 encompassing this property and others that would

14:34:33 include height limitations.

14:34:36 Obviously, when the court wrote its opinion, it was not

14:34:39 aware of the fact that a sizable portion of Citivest's




14:34:44 lot is in the South Howard overlay district.

14:34:48 The implication is that had the court of appeal,

14:34:51 knowing this fact, it would have ruled against the

14:34:54 circuit court's decision to reverse the city's denial

14:34:58 of a certificate of appropriateness for Citivest to

14:35:01 build its proposed multi-story condominium.

14:35:07 Subsection C, section 27-461, in article 20, regarding

14:35:14 overlay districts, says that the purpose and intent of

14:35:19 the South Howard commercial overlay district design

14:35:23 standards are to promote and enhance the pedestrian

14:35:27 environment and scale of the district while creating an

14:35:30 active and a interesting ambience and preserving the

14:35:33 unique character of the area.

14:35:36 It also says that it is important that development in

14:35:40 this district be compatible with surrounding

14:35:43 residential neighborhoods.

14:35:44 In particular, article 20 requires that buildings in

14:35:49 the overlay district be set back no more than 18 feet.

14:35:53 This requirement imposes a serious limitation on

14:35:57 height.

14:35:58 The decision of the ARC affirming the zoning

14:36:02 administrator's interpretation would allow the




14:36:05 construction of a building on Citivest lot that is

14:36:08 grossly incompatible with the requirements in article

14:36:12 20.

14:36:13 So upholding the ARC's decision would be in violation

14:36:17 of that article.

14:36:19 Therefore, please do not uphold the ARC's decision.

14:36:26 Thank you very much.

14:36:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

14:36:29 Just before the next speaker comes, we are going to

14:36:31 stand in recess for about 15 minutes in honor of the

14:36:36 marine sergeant Daniel Angus, who died as you very well

14:36:41 know, in Afghanistan, and that procession is scheduled

14:36:44 to come by in about five minutes, at the corner, I

14:36:47 think they are passing at the corner of Florida Avenue

14:36:49 and Jackson.

14:36:50 So we will stand in recess for about 15 minutes.

14:36:53 Thank you very much.

14:36:54 We'll come back then.

14:36:57 Thank you.

14:36:58 (City Council recess)

14:37:03

14:57:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to




15:12:23 order.

15:12:23 Roll call.

15:12:23 [Roll Call]

15:12:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just say to all of the audience

15:12:33 and to City Council, thank you for the last 20, 25

15:12:39 minutes.

15:12:42 I thought it very appropriate of that we take the time

15:12:44 to pause as sergeant Angus passed by and we pay tribute

15:12:50 for his giving his life as a sacrifice for the

15:12:55 democracy for freedom, and 20 or 25 minutes was worth

15:12:59 it all.

15:12:59 So thank you very much for indulging us at this time.

15:13:02 We continue with our public hearing at this time.

15:13:07 Rosemary Armstrong was up, and then those following

15:13:10 her.

15:13:29 For those people that spoke at the hearing?

15:13:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'll ask, Mr. Wyatt, did you speak at

15:13:45 the hearing?

15:13:46 You did not.

15:13:48 You cannot give that.

15:13:50 Ms. Weber, neither of you?

15:13:53 Okay.




15:13:54 Then the speaker waiver form does not apply.

15:13:56 >>> That's what I realized after I got it here.

15:14:00 I have to rush through this and not cover everything.

15:14:02 I'm Rosemary Henderson, 2001 Bayshore Boulevard.

15:14:08 One thing -- there won't be enough time to are all of

15:14:13 them -- but I would like to read from the record some

15:14:15 comments from Julie Brown, who is on the ARC

15:14:18 commission, and Mrs. Brown is also an attorney, and I

15:14:22 thought she had some very compelling comments as to why

15:14:25 she was in favor of applying the overlay district.

15:14:28 Also, I want to read some comments from David Hunter on

15:14:32 the commission, an architect.

15:14:34 And I thought he had some very compelling reasons why

15:14:37 he also was in favor of this.

15:14:38 So I have a lot of respect for the ARC.

15:14:46 They have done some wonderful things to help preserve

15:14:48 the integrity of our community.

15:14:49 But several things that came up at this last ARC

15:14:53 meeting concerned me, and I feel that it's too

15:14:55 important not to point them out.

15:14:57 The first one is the fact that it was a de novo

15:15:01 meeting.




15:15:01 And I won't read all of this.

15:15:03 I'm on page 3.

15:15:05 When Ms. Kert was giving instructions to the ARC as to

15:15:09 what de novo means and how it's to be used.

15:15:12 And she says: Any new evidence and testimony can come

15:15:15 and be heard by you, and you all will be making the

15:15:18 determination tonight, at the end of the public

15:15:21 hearing.

15:15:21 And then at the very end, almost the very end of the

15:15:26 meeting, a question came up about de novo.

15:15:33 One of the commissioners had just said that -- she

15:15:37 said, we have already approved something earlier.

15:15:40 This is just confusion, and I think it's very clear.

15:15:45 Already approved something earlier about this

15:15:46 development and now here we are having a discussion

15:15:48 about an overlay district that, you know, doesn't seem

15:15:51 to me that every came up before.

15:15:53 And we have known this.

15:15:54 Well, she's right.

15:15:56 That is de novo.

15:15:57 And then Julie Brown on the commission says:

15:16:01 This is a de novo hearing.




15:16:03 One of the commissioners says: What does that mean?

15:16:06 Then the other commissioner said: I don't know what

15:16:08 that means. I'm not a lawyer.

15:16:10 She said, This is ab de novo hearing and I don't know

15:16:13 what that means. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't speak

15:16:15 Latin either.

15:16:17 Ms. Kert then on page 86 gives the instructions again.

15:16:21 But it's clear that nothing that had been said, at

15:16:25 least two commissioners, were sifted through the eyes

15:16:28 that this is a de novo hearing.

15:16:30 And what we are doing is legitimate. We can bring

15:16:33 these issues up.

15:16:34 One commissioner says:

15:16:36 I just sort of found out.

15:16:38 It's's kind of ironic, on page 86, once the

15:16:43 interpretation came back not favorable to the

15:16:44 applicant, then all of a sudden the applicant seemed to

15:16:47 change their tune and question the role and

15:16:49 responsibilities of the administrator.

15:16:51 And she says: I feel this was inappropriate.

15:16:55 So it's even been judged or deemed inappropriate that

15:16:58 we are back before them.




15:17:01 And another commissioner says:

15:17:04 This project has been going on for a very long time,

15:17:06 and goes on to say: All these conversations regarding

15:17:11 setbacks, the trees, Bayshore Boulevard, historic

15:17:13 district, which as we pointed out before is not what

15:17:18 this is about.

15:17:19 Those were not relevant to this.

15:17:20 But then he says:

15:17:23 And overlay district.

15:17:25 He says: We all discussed at that point.

15:17:29 Well, not the overlay district.

15:17:31 I don't believe that's correct.

15:17:32 (Bell sounds)

15:17:34 Is that three minutes?

15:17:35 >> Yes, ma'am.

15:17:36 >> Oh, wow.

15:17:38 I just would encourage you to really view it.

15:17:43 Thanks very much.

15:17:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

15:17:44 Next speaker.

15:17:45 >> My name is Ann Altman.

15:17:52 I live at 2109 Bayshore Boulevard in the Bayshore




15:17:55 Royal.

15:17:58 As a resident of the Bayshore Royal, I'm a member of

15:18:00 the Board of Directors.

15:18:02 I'm here on behalf of the board and those residents who

15:18:05 could not get away from work today to be here.

15:18:09 I would just remind each and every one of you that we

15:18:12 cherish the neighborhood, and the historic district

15:18:14 that we live in, historic Hyde Park is very much alive.

15:18:19 At the end of the day, through all of this, however, it

15:18:22 really isn't about the developer, it's not about

15:18:26 anything other than simply a determination of the

15:18:36 validity of following and applying the adopted

15:18:41 provisions of the SoHo overlay district as they relate

15:18:45 to the property in question, and that is truly all that

15:18:51 we are asking in our a appeal.

15:18:53 That's all that we were really putting in front of you

15:18:56 all.

15:18:57 Is it absolutely not the intent of the developers of

15:19:03 the SoHo overlay, they had a vision, and they clearly

15:19:07 stipulated what it was.

15:19:09 We are merely asking that you acknowledge and honor

15:19:11 that adopted provision.




15:19:14 Thank you.

15:19:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

15:19:19 Anyone else?

15:19:20 Okay, Ms. Coyle, do you have anything else you want to

15:19:23 add?

15:19:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I do.

15:19:26 Catherine Coyle, zoning administrator for the city, for

15:19:29 the record.

15:19:31 I want to go back and briefly set the stage again just

15:19:36 to -- I guess to better define the outcome of the

15:19:42 decision that was made, the original decision that led

15:19:47 to this appeal.

15:19:49 What I want to make clear -- and it's referenced on

15:19:52 page 45.

15:19:53 I said it several times.

15:19:55 On page 45, specifically, I said, line 19:

15:20:00 As I stated earlier I was starting originally from the

15:20:03 previous determination, as I said, from April 5th,

15:20:06 2004, where the setbacks and the height limitations

15:20:09 were set by the previous zoning administrator of this

15:20:11 particular parcel.

15:20:13 This document is part of the record.




15:20:15 It was submitted at the hearing.

15:20:17 This is a memorandum that was generated by Gloria

15:20:22 Moreda to Del Acosta, the manager of the architectural

15:20:26 review.

15:20:27 Division at that time, dated April 5, 2004.

15:20:32 It very explicitly goes through and determines what the

15:20:34 yards are for the parcel, and then line by line, at

15:20:38 various building Heights, defines what the setbacks are

15:20:41 for each of those yards.

15:20:43 This 2004 determination was a hard determination.

15:20:47 It told you exactly what the setbacks were and the

15:20:50 height limitations at that time.

15:20:51 That is what carries through the process.

15:20:55 The property owner relied on that information.

15:20:57 The ARC and City Council relied on that information at

15:21:00 that time.

15:21:02 In moving forward.

15:21:05 That was the foundation of the determination that I had

15:21:07 to use in making my determination.

15:21:10 It is not normal protocol for me to overturn historical

15:21:14 interpretations or determination as.

15:21:16 I do have to rely on them as they are given through




15:21:20 time.

15:21:20 People rely on them to determine their property.

15:21:23 So starting with that, that particular piece of

15:21:30 information, I went back through and looked at the

15:21:32 remainder of the regulations.

15:21:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could I ask a question?

15:21:45 >> Sure.

15:21:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What you just said is you relied on

15:21:50 this piece of information from 2004.

15:21:57 But what is the information created -- what if the

15:22:01 information created in 2004 didn't recognize the

15:22:04 non-flexible, very specific standards that were

15:22:06 referred to earlier today?

15:22:10 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Well, you can see from the memo --

15:22:13 and any zoning administrator would do and should do by

15:22:17 the regulations -- is that the entire code is reviewed

15:22:20 as a whole.

15:22:21 This determination was made specifically by building

15:22:24 height, yard and setback.

15:22:27 Based on the code.

15:22:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, what if the

15:22:30 previous zoning administrator, Gloria Moreda, didn't




15:22:33 take into account the SoHo zoning rules?

15:22:40 Maybe she was looking at other rules but she wasn't

15:22:43 looking at the SoHo rules.

15:22:44 >>> I don't know that I am able to answer that

15:22:49 question.

15:22:50 I'll let the legal department answer that.

15:22:52 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

15:22:54 I believe at this point it's for the zoning

15:22:59 administrator to continue her presentation, because she

15:23:02 relied upon several points, and that was a starting

15:23:05 point.

15:23:05 And that's what she argued, and I think it may be

15:23:10 better if you let her finish.

15:23:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: All right.

15:23:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a point of order.

15:23:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before you do that, I think Ms.

15:23:18 Mulhern had her hand up.

15:23:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I did have a quick question but I

15:23:22 think she answered it.

15:23:24 In your appeal hearing did you present that memo.

15:23:27 >>> Yes.

15:23:30 You will see as part of the record.




15:23:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I apologize.

15:23:34 It's called a point of order but it really is.

15:23:39 I need to think 100 percent sure that I know what was

15:23:42 appealed, okay.

15:23:44 And I'm looking at Mr. DeFurio's letter dated August

15:23:47 25th.

15:23:52 I am on page number -- I have this big bundle of

15:23:55 materials.

15:23:56 But I'm looking at Ms. Coyle's response.

15:23:59 I think it's Mrs. Coyle's response dated August 22,

15:24:03 2009, to -- how many questions?

15:24:08 >>> 15.

15:24:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 15 questions.

15:24:13 And what I haven't sorted out completely, in reading

15:24:19 the transcript and everything else, is which of those

15:24:25 questions.

15:24:26 Then she answered the questions pretty straightforward.

15:24:28 Which of the questions that Mr. DeFurio appealed to the

15:24:34 ARC and up on appeal to us.

15:24:38 I think it's critical that we all have a clear

15:24:40 understanding of that.

15:24:41 And I'm sorry to interrupt you, Cathy.




15:24:44 But if I could get clarification, Mr. DeFurio, very

15:24:48 short and succinct, which of those 15 questions or

15:24:54 responses are you a appealing?

15:24:56 If it's all, that's fine.

15:24:57 But if it's not all of them, then which ones are you

15:25:00 appealing?

15:25:04 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

15:25:11 The reason I ask is that she says subject 27-77, she

15:25:16 says yes, that's an answer that is likely favorable to

15:25:20 you, sir.

15:25:21 >>> Let me suggest to council, to allow Ms. Coyle to

15:25:28 finish her presentation, allow her to do that, and then

15:25:31 allow him to come and answer your question about what

15:25:34 he's appealing ooh.

15:25:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I can't even understand Cathy's

15:25:38 answer until I understand what the specific issues are

15:25:42 that were appealed.

15:25:43 I think it will only take a second, Mr. Chairman, I

15:25:46 promise.

15:25:47 If it takes more than a minute or so, then we are off

15:25:50 in the wrong direction.

15:25:51 He should know what he appealed.




15:25:53 >>> I'll go through the list.

15:25:56 I'll go through Ms. Coyle's letter of August 25.

15:26:00 We dispute 3.

15:26:02 We dispute 4.

15:26:04 We dispute 5.

15:26:05 We dispute 6.

15:26:07 We dispute 8.

15:26:23 We dispute 9.

15:26:25 We dispute 10.

15:26:30 We dispute 11.

15:26:37 12.

15:26:41 13.

15:26:47 4 is not applicable.

15:26:55 Well, I guess we would dispute 14 because she answered

15:26:58 13, no.

15:27:06 And we dispute 1615.

15:27:11 >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

15:27:12 >> Thank you, Catherine Coyle again.

15:27:15 I will state for the record -- and this will probably

15:27:17 cause more discussion -- at the appeal hearing and

15:27:19 based on the appeal application, the entire letter was

15:27:24 of dispute.




15:27:25 I read every single question, responded to every single

15:27:28 answer, all 15 questions.

15:27:30 I'm reading his September 22nd appeal letter that was

15:27:33 submitted to Mr. Fernandez, and it simply references

15:27:35 the letter dated August 25th.

15:27:37 The appeal information on the next page simply

15:27:40 referenced exhibit A, the attached, which is the entire

15:27:44 letter.

15:27:45 So as I understand it, it's every single question.

15:27:48 Just to make that clear.

15:27:49 And that's how we presented it to ARC.

15:27:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

15:27:55 >> You're welcome.

15:27:59 Let me backtrack really quick.

15:28:01 As I stated, this was the foundation, the beginning of

15:28:03 the basis, the beginning point, I should say, the base

15:28:06 decision that I read through, the underlying

15:28:08 determination made by the previous zoning

15:28:11 administrator, set out building Heights, yards, and

15:28:14 setbacks for each yard.

15:28:19 What I took into -- took into account next and there

15:28:24 were many pieces of information, and my additional




15:28:28 testimony starts on page 42.

15:28:33 Mr. DeFurio in his initial presentation, on page 32,

15:28:42 very clearly -- what the application of the SoHo

15:28:47 overlay would do.

15:28:49 And in weighing the previous zoning administrator's

15:28:51 interpretation, I then have to go back and read what

15:28:53 the rules are and understand if they apply, how they

15:28:56 apply, and all context, every piece of the code.

15:29:02 He states on page 32 at the very top: Because if you

15:29:07 can only go back 18 feet maximum, that has a direct

15:29:10 effect on the height of the building, a direct effect.

15:29:14 What with I want to broaden that slightly and just read

15:29:18 to you on page 30 where he states that the SoHo

15:29:21 overlay -- and additionally in my initial presentation

15:29:24 went through what the building standards mean for the

15:29:26 SoHo overlay.

15:29:27 But there's a 10-foot setback minimum at the front

15:29:30 yard.

15:29:31 At the second level, 10 to 18 feet at the ground level,

15:29:35 and the second level is no farther than the first

15:29:40 level.

15:29:40 It can be placed at zero if there's an arcade,




15:29:44 essentially.

15:29:44 I can read that specific requirement into the record.

15:29:50 One thing he argued -- and you have heard it from

15:29:52 several of the public comment folks as well as it's

15:29:59 cited in the testimony they gave at the hearing -- is

15:30:02 that the presumption is made that if it's a 10-foot

15:30:05 setback, the building would get shorter, which in fact

15:30:10 is potentially not the case, and that is what I relayed

15:30:14 back.

15:30:21 Let me find the exact quote.

15:30:29 But way want to make clear, it's footnote 5.

15:30:34 For each four feet above the building height above 30

15:30:37 the required yard shall be increased by one foot.

15:30:40 This is a standard ratio for the RM-75 district.

15:30:43 So every four feet above 30 feet, you step back an

15:30:47 additional foot.

15:30:48 It's a 4 to 1 ratio.

15:30:50 There's a historical interpretation --

15:30:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which question are you on now?

15:30:56 Which question are you answering?

15:30:58 1 through 15.

15:30:59 >>> I am actually responding to the testimony that was




15:31:03 just given.

15:31:05 This is part of the record.

15:31:06 It's part of the overall argument.

15:31:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm trying to hone in on which

15:31:12 questions.

15:31:13 >> I think that's part of the issue that we didn't

15:31:15 individually track each question.

15:31:16 I had to respond to the information that was brought

15:31:19 forward.

15:31:24 The 1987 interpretation, by Gloria Moreda, describes

15:31:30 how the zoning setbacks are interpreted, and how those

15:31:34 ratios are met.

15:31:36 The example, OP setbacks, 25 feet from 75, 60-foot

15:31:42 height limit, the setbacks for building 30 feet, high

15:31:44 or less works meet the minimum setbacks.

15:31:47 As the building increases height, the building walls,

15:31:50 above 30 feet, would set back at a one to one ratio.

15:31:53 This is in the record as well.

15:31:55 What happens is that stepback happens at and above the

15:32:01 30 feet.

15:32:02 You get the initial footprint, the initial podium is

15:32:05 what saves the 30 feet -- I'm sorry, of the front




15:32:08 setback or the side or the rear, whichever it happens

15:32:11 to be.

15:32:11 So in the case of the SoHo overlay, as I was weighing

15:32:15 the different options and different code provisions,

15:32:19 this is also in the record, this is the double front

15:32:22 lot.

15:32:24 This in this particular case would be Bayshore, and

15:32:26 this would be DeSoto.

15:32:30 What happens along Bayshore is instead of a 25-foot

15:32:35 front setback which is mandated because it's determined

15:32:37 to be a front yard by definition, is that now that

15:32:40 would become a 10-foot setback if I were to apply the

15:32:44 SoHo overlay.

15:32:45 My entire point of whether or not to apply the SoHo

15:32:48 overlay and understanding maybe why it wasn't applied

15:32:50 previously is that by title, it's the South Howard

15:32:54 commercial -- South Howard Avenue commercial overlay

15:32:57 district.

15:32:58 Then further as it goes to the building standards, time

15:33:00 and tame again, it relates back to how things should

15:33:08 address South Howard.

15:33:10 This is the area description.




15:33:11 It does note that right here in particular, it goes

15:33:14 through different types of buildings.

15:33:16 In general parking which serves commercial uses in the

15:33:19 area, located to the side or rear of the building,

15:33:21 parking bays and curb cuts are not previous lengths on

15:33:25 South Howard, one ton two blocks along South Howard and

15:33:28 it establishes boundaries.

15:33:30 Further, it goes to the building standards, as I

15:33:34 mentioned.

15:33:36 Building standards, South Howard is mentioned, and

15:33:39 three or four of the particular standards.

15:33:42 What I would note as part of the submittal

15:33:44 requirements, exterior elevations of all sides of the

15:33:48 project fronting or visible from South Howard include

15:33:51 an existing structures abutting the proposed project on

15:33:54 the same street wall.

15:33:55 This is the requirement that they are referencing.

15:34:00 The belief somehow, at least the understanding from the

15:34:03 people that have presented, is that this 10-foot

15:34:06 setback with an 18-foot maximum along Bayshore would

15:34:10 make the building shorter.

15:34:12 If the podium were to get bigger because of setback




15:34:15 decreases, there is a potential then, for the portion

15:34:20 of the building to get taller or at least have larger

15:34:22 mass.

15:34:24 My believe was in reviewing the information that was in

15:34:26 the code, and then going back to the original

15:34:30 interpretation that was made, I could understand why

15:34:33 the decision was made the way that it was.

15:34:35 The way that the overlay is written excluding the legal

15:34:39 description that's actually in the code, it doesn't

15:34:41 appear to apply reasonably to this particular piece of

15:34:46 property.

15:34:46 I also noted that particular finding on page 67,

15:34:54 towards the end when I was responding to some of the

15:34:57 commissioners, on line 21, I said, but like I said, we

15:35:01 have development all over the city that is split on

15:35:04 many different designations, be it a land use, a

15:35:07 zoning, an overlay, different design standards, and we

15:35:11 had to balance those standards to apply the code

15:35:13 reasonably and fairly to the property as it develops.

15:35:16 Which is generally how we a apply things.

15:35:18 And you have seen rezonings, before you, time and time

15:35:24 again that have split zonings, split land use, and




15:35:28 there has to be way to balance those reasonably and

15:35:31 fairly.

15:35:32 I also want to clarify.

15:35:36 This is part of your packet that was submitted, I

15:35:41 believe was the last page.

15:35:43 One person mentioned that it was a sizable portion of

15:35:45 the property, maybe mention that it was half, at least

15:35:51 half of the property.

15:35:52 The general line of parcel 2 is here.

15:35:56 This particular side based on the information that's

15:35:58 contained in the record from the property it a

15:36:00 appraiser is 120 by approximately 180.

15:36:04 The remainder of the parcel is about 155 to 160 to

15:36:08 almost 200 feet in depth.

15:36:10 So the majority of this side, which is outside of that

15:36:14 designated area, constitutes the majority of the

15:36:17 parcel.

15:36:18 I also referenced in the materials the definition of a

15:36:22 zoning lot.

15:36:26 It's on page 42.

15:36:38 Line 13.

15:36:45 Actually I'll start at line 5, the beginning of my




15:36:49 comments.

15:36:52 What I wanted to make clear was the implications that

15:36:55 would result in an altered setback.

15:36:57 If you were to apply the overlay district even though I

15:36:59 do not believe it applies in this case, I'm afraid the

15:37:02 way that Mr. DeFurio relayed the information isn't

15:37:06 historically how setbacks or buildings have been

15:37:09 interpreted and that's the information that I just

15:37:11 showed you.

15:37:11 The building doesn't necessarily get shorter because it

15:37:14 starts at the top of that podium.

15:37:18 The ratio. This is the site plan that was the last

15:37:20 exhibit in the application for appeal indicating.

15:37:23 I was showing the plan on the overhead.

15:37:26 The line that I have drawn here is the approximate line

15:37:28 where it divides parcel 2 and as I mentioned in my

15:37:32 previous statements one of the considerations, also,

15:37:33 that I had was in 27-545, definitions for zoning law, a

15:37:39 particular definition of a zoning law is that a parcel

15:37:42 of land be one lot of record or multiple lots of record

15:37:45 or pieces of lots of record that are submitted for and

15:37:48 receive a zoning compliance permit for compliance




15:37:51 permit with zoning requirements.

15:37:54 This particular parcel is a zoning lot.

15:37:59 And that's what I'm trying to relate to you, is even if

15:38:03 parcel 2 were stand-alone, it may be a different

15:38:07 scenario. But the bottom line is if it's joined in

15:38:10 with the majority parcel on the outside of this area.

15:38:14 And looking as a whole that's where we have to

15:38:17 reasonably apply the standards that are in the code.

15:38:19 The final point that I would like to make, in the

15:38:24 questions that were made, some of the comments made by

15:38:29 some of the ARC members which were mentioned, I believe

15:38:33 the point in a lot of questions they asked me and how

15:38:35 they were reviewing the information, stating that they

15:38:39 have seen some of this information before, was really

15:38:42 relaying back to the information that I had given them,

15:38:46 showing historical interpretations back that this

15:38:49 property owner relied on through many iterations but

15:38:52 went through ARC, City Council, ultimately on the

15:38:55 venues and then came back.

15:38:57 I did weigh several different pieces of information,

15:38:59 and that's the determination that I came to.

15:39:02 I'm available for any questions.




15:39:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?

15:39:04 Yes, Councilwoman Mulhern.

15:39:07 >>MARY MULHERN: The last thing you were talking

15:39:11 about -- and a I can see how difficult this was for you

15:39:16 to deal with, trying to figure this out.

15:39:21 But is there somewhere in the code where it says when

15:39:24 you have a combined parcel with different zonings what

15:39:34 rules?

15:39:35 I mean, it does look like -- you know, I don't think

15:39:37 anyone is contesting that more is outside of that

15:39:38 overlay district, but where does it tell you how you

15:39:49 make that determination?

15:39:50 Is there somewhere in the code that would have told,

15:39:52 you know, Gloria or you how to --

15:40:07 >>> I'm sorry, just one second.

15:40:09 I apologize.

15:40:27 I got thrown off there for a second.

15:40:31 I could not give you the exact section of the code.

15:40:55 I believe it's 371 or 372.

15:41:04 I'm not really sure which section.

15:41:05 I would have to go look it up.

15:41:07 There's a phrase in there about ambiguities in the




15:41:10 code.

15:41:10 There's also language in the comp plan that deals with

15:41:12 blending of zoning -- blending of land use

15:41:15 designations.

15:41:17 There's some language in the beginning of the code as

15:41:18 well in the determination of where boundaries are, in

15:41:23 27-25, which offensive look up to give the exact

15:41:27 information.

15:41:28 >>MARY MULHERN: For me to be able to accept that

15:41:29 rationale, you know --

15:41:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I can look that up for you.

15:41:36 >> Two different zoning applications.

15:41:39 I mean, this has been going on so long, and before I

15:41:42 was here, but I wasn't here for a lot of this.

15:41:53 The original application by the property owner was for

15:41:55 zoning -- was it rezoning?

15:41:58 Or was it land use change?

15:42:01 >>> The zoning is RM-75 so it does allow high-rise

15:42:05 multifamily.

15:42:06 >> So there was no request -- was it a PD?

15:42:09 >>> No.

15:42:10 This particular request originally started as a




15:42:12 certificate of appropriateness.

15:42:13 >>MARY MULHERN: I see.

15:42:16 So the place for this would be the zoning administrator

15:42:23 to the initial review.

15:42:28 Is there in anywhere in the record that shows that

15:42:31 either Ms. Moreda or you actually -- other than when

15:42:39 this appeal came, when you first brought the peel, Mr.

15:42:43 DeFurio had ever considered those -- that disparity in

15:42:49 zoning on the parcel, and actually said this is -- the

15:42:57 decision was just this is RM-75?

15:43:02 >>> Well, it is RM 75.

15:43:04 As I received the record to review for the certificate

15:43:07 of appropriateness, within that record contained the

15:43:09 original interpretation, then laid down building

15:43:13 height, building setback, yard determinations.

15:43:16 So that was the original piece of information that I

15:43:17 had to rely upon.

15:43:19 >> So I don't know if this is an appropriate question

15:43:21 to ask in this case.

15:43:25 But it's the first time the city heard the argument

15:43:33 that the parcel was in the SoHo overlay when this

15:43:39 appeal was filed.




15:43:40 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

15:43:41 I don't believe that that question was ever asked at

15:43:43 the hearing and I don't believe that information is in

15:43:46 the record.

15:43:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

15:43:50 We have heard different things from Ms. Cole, and as I

15:43:55 understand it now possibly part of one district and

15:43:59 part of another district.

15:44:00 So the Bayshore district has a setback, Ms. Coyle?

15:44:07 The Bayshore -- the Bayshore district has a setback of,

15:44:12 what, 18 feet?

15:44:14 You mentioned 18 feet setback.

15:44:16 Is that what you are talking on the frontage on

15:44:18 Bayshore?

15:44:20 >>> No, sir.

15:44:21 Bayshore Boulevard is a front yard by definition, in

15:44:24 27-545.

15:44:25 Front yard dimensions vary by district.

15:44:30 And RM-75 the front yard is 25 feet.

15:44:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 25 feet.

15:44:36 So if this building was to be moved forward, I heard

15:44:40 you say that.




15:44:40 >>> Correct.

15:44:41 >> Then you would have the wed being cake effect on

15:44:44 height?

15:44:45 >>> Yes.

15:44:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And if it's 4 to 1 ratio, how much

15:44:50 higher could this had building be, approximately?

15:44:54 >>> I couldn't tell you without actually doing the

15:44:56 math.

15:44:58 My question was not directly asked so I did not do that

15:45:01 calculation at the ARC hearing, either, it wasn't

15:45:05 directly asked.

15:45:06 >> The map that I saw covers all the way to the end.

15:45:13 Is that building or just land?

15:45:17 The SoHo district, historic district.

15:45:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The overlay district?

15:45:25 I believe it's in here.

15:45:36 The boundaries, the way they are drawing drawn on this

15:45:52 particular map and the way they are written by legal

15:45:53 description is by property.

15:45:56 So it wraps this way.

15:45:59 And then in and out.

15:46:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Coyle, would you leave that map




15:46:20 up there for a second?

15:46:22 >>> Sure.

15:46:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was looking at that map a minute

15:46:26 ago.

15:46:27 How would you describe this map?

15:46:29 Just for the record.

15:46:31 It's not labeled.

15:46:32 I don't know.

15:46:32 >>> Honestly, I don't even know if it's part of the

15:46:36 code.

15:46:37 I keep in the my code as a reference.

15:46:40 It's in the record.

15:46:41 This is a GIS map.

15:46:44 The parcel map.

15:46:45 >> But it shows the boundaries of the SoHo district,

15:46:47 the DeSoto commercial overlay district, right?

15:46:50 >>> It's presumably so, yes.

15:46:52 >> Okay.

15:46:54 Are there any parcels that you see similar to this

15:46:58 parcel that do not face -- I was going to say, are

15:47:05 there any lots of record that you see on this map that

15:47:09 do not actually front Howard Avenue other than the




15:47:12 parcel that we are talking about today, the Citivest

15:47:15 parcel?

15:47:15 >>> I'm unable to determine lots of record.

15:47:21 >> I thought that's what the little lines are.

15:47:24 >>> No, those are simply parcels generated by the

15:47:27 property appraiser.

15:47:28 >> Isn't that a lot?

15:47:29 >> Not necessarily.

15:47:30 Not a lot of record by definition in our code that

15:47:32 could be developed.

15:47:33 >> Okay.

15:47:33 Well, specifically, I guess I'm looking at the Bern's,

15:47:39 the western side of the Bern's property.

15:47:41 That little jog out, that little triangular parcel.

15:47:46 It looks like there's two or three lots that face that

15:47:52 side street.

15:47:52 As a matter of fact, I recall in the original PD they

15:47:55 were actually going to view those as townhouses, the

15:48:00 ones I'm talking about, the ones that face the side

15:48:03 streets.

15:48:04 Do you remember those?

15:48:05 >>> I do.




15:48:05 >> Okay.

15:48:06 Do you agree with me?

15:48:07 >>> Do I agree the townhouses face south?

15:48:11 Yes.

15:48:11 >> Do you agree with me that if those are lots of

15:48:17 record that they do not face Howard Avenue?

15:48:26 >>REBECCA KERT: I don't believe that question was

15:48:27 asked and I don't think the response is in the record.

15:48:29 Certainly the map was in there but to give you factual

15:48:32 determination without part of the record, I would be

15:48:35 concerned.

15:48:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.

15:48:37 I guess I'll just make my own notion that I see at

15:48:41 least three or four lots that are similar to this lot,

15:48:44 that somehow or other ended up in the district that

15:48:47 don't front Howard Avenue.

15:48:48 Whether or not they should have ended up in the

15:48:50 district I don't know, but that's just my observation.

15:48:53 A couple of other questions.

15:48:57 I think it's a shame -- and frankly I'm inclined to

15:49:00 want to remand this back to the ARC to go through

15:49:03 question by question in terms of saying "this is my




15:49:10 answer, and this is why I answered it," and then they

15:49:13 can decide whether or not they want to uphold that.

15:49:16 But it seemed to have gotten a little blobby in terms

15:49:19 of just sort of this big -- this big answer to 15

15:49:24 questions, some of which he stipulated to, one, two,

15:49:29 and seven, stipulated, he didn't have a problem with

15:49:35 your answer.

15:49:35 It's a little bit messy.

15:49:37 But, anyway, with that I want to focus on your answer

15:49:40 to question 3, 4, 5 and 6.

15:49:46 The question was: First, questions 1 and 2, especially

15:49:52 question 2.

15:49:57 Well, --

15:49:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman, for a minute, are you

15:50:01 asking a question?

15:50:03 I just want to make sure.

15:50:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think you had answered on an

15:50:09 earlier set of questions, is this parcel in the Howard

15:50:15 overlay district?

15:50:15 I think that was a prior set of questions.

15:50:19 >>> You are referring to the January 30th letter.

15:50:23 >> Right.




15:50:24 I think you said yes.

15:50:25 I think that's sort of uncontroverted, right?

15:50:29 The parcel number 2 is in the SoHo overlay district.

15:50:34 >>> Yes.

15:50:36 The question specifically was, is parcel 2 of the

15:50:39 subject property in the South Howard commercial overlay

15:50:41 district?

15:50:41 I responded yes.

15:50:42 >> Okay.

15:50:43 So then I take that yes, and I go to question number 3

15:50:47 on the August 25th letter which is the subject of

15:50:49 today's hearing.

15:50:51 And question 3, 4, 5 and 6, it says:

15:50:56 Is parcel 2 subject to the provision 27-460?

15:51:00 Is par parcel subject to 27-460-B?

15:51:08 461?

15:51:10 And then 461-H-4 and you answer no to all of these.

15:51:15 My question is, going to 27 -- let's see, 460 (B) which

15:51:29 you pointed out in question number 8, and they said:

15:51:35 What happens when there's a conflict?

15:51:39 And you pointed out 27-460 (B) which says -- this is

15:51:48 your own answer, 27-460-B, shall serve to supplement




15:51:54 underlying zoning regulation in order to state the

15:51:56 stated purpose of the district and shall control in the

15:52:00 event of a conflict.

15:52:02 So that's when I got a little lost on this.

15:52:11 In terms of -- and frankly it's different than the

15:52:16 Second DCA and the judge in the earlier case, because

15:52:20 there, they looked at the ARC regulations.

15:52:22 The ARC regulations didn't have language that said the

15:52:26 ARC will control a conflict.

15:52:29 And that was what the court had a problem with.

15:52:32 But here, 27-460 says the SoHo guidelines will control.

15:52:38 I mean, this property is in the SoHo district, then I

15:52:42 don't know how we can't have it be controlled.

15:52:48 And that's my question.

15:52:49 >>> That's a question?

15:52:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

15:52:55 I can restate it very succinctly.

15:52:58 Because I sort of analyze it a little bit verbally.

15:53:03 How can you possibly answer yes on one hand, it's in

15:53:07 the district, okay, and then you recognized that this

15:53:11 provision 27-460-B says if this provision will control

15:53:16 if there's any conflict, but then you go on to say, in




15:53:21 questions 3, 4, 5 and 6, that parcel 2 is not subject

15:53:25 to these provisions.

15:53:27 >>> I had a similar line of questioning in the hearing.

15:53:32 >> Good.

15:53:33 >>> And I answered -- I don't want to read it verbatim.

15:53:41 The questions that were asked both in the January

15:53:43 30th letter and the August 25th letter, I read

15:53:46 as black and white, yes or no questions.

15:53:48 When I read that question on the January 30th

15:53:50 letter, is it in the district?

15:53:53 My answer was yes, because on our legal description it

15:53:57 is.

15:53:57 However, the second question was: Does it apply?

15:54:00 The answer is no.

15:54:01 And the reason being was, as I stated in all the

15:54:04 different documents that I just went through, starting

15:54:07 with the very first piece of information that I had,

15:54:10 which was the original interpretation that was made,

15:54:14 that I had to ultimately rely upon, and I can only

15:54:19 presume that the entire code was reviewed at this

15:54:21 point, because this is the determination of record at

15:54:25 that time, I tried to say at that point that it doesn't




15:54:29 apply.

15:54:30 I don't know how else to answer that question.

15:54:32 I have to go back to the original interpretation that

15:54:34 was made.

15:54:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you had to rely on this April

15:54:40 5th, 2004 document from Ms. Moreda to give your

15:54:45 answer to this question?

15:54:50 >>> It was the original piece of information that I had

15:54:52 to rely upon, yes.

15:54:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My concern is that assumption.

15:54:58 You said I had to assume that a that was part of the

15:55:01 process.

15:55:01 I was here through all of those early stuff, and I

15:55:05 don't recall the SoHo guidelines being part of the

15:55:08 criteria that was wrestled with at that time.

15:55:12 I recall the ARC guidelines being wrestled with, but I

15:55:16 don't recall the SoHo guidelines, at least when it came

15:55:19 to council.

15:55:28 >>> What I can do, council, is again run through the

15:55:42 provisions of the overlay and describe to you again the

15:55:44 analysis that was done, starting with the title of the

15:55:48 overlay, and then go through provision by provision.




15:55:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have one more question.

15:55:57 It might resolve one-plus a little bit depending on

15:56:01 your answer.

15:56:02 There's a provision in here under 27-460 that states to

15:56:05 variance.

15:56:06 Okay?

15:56:07 In other words, if something doesn't fit, all right --

15:56:13 and I will give you that this is not a great fit.

15:56:17 This is on a weird edge of the SoHo overlay district.

15:56:20 It doesn't front the SoHo overlay district.

15:56:23 That's all sort of uncontroverted, so it's a weird fit.

15:56:28 When you have weird fits like that, isn't that what the

15:56:30 variance process is for?

15:56:31 >>> The variance process is for if you need a variance,

15:56:40 the code provision and the applicant shows some type of

15:56:42 hardship --

15:56:43 >> Right.

15:56:43 And typically, in my experience, having served on the

15:56:46 variance review board, that --

15:56:49 >>> The application for variance --

15:56:51 >> It's based upon a hardship and often related to the

15:56:54 unusual characteristics of that particular parcel.




15:56:56 So if somebody had this parcel, and they said -- and

15:57:03 then you said, this should be subject to the SoHo

15:57:06 guidelines, can they -- then they say, it doesn't fit,

15:57:10 I would think you would point them to the variance

15:57:11 process.

15:57:12 >>> It's actually just what you said.

15:57:15 I think the premise of a variance in applying for one

15:57:18 is based on the initial interpretation.

15:57:20 If the initial interpretation is that the rule doesn't

15:57:22 apply, there is no variance to seek.

15:57:24 >> Right.

15:57:28 But if we get reversed and this council or this city

15:57:34 concludes that ultimately that we need to uphold the

15:57:39 SoHo guidelines because they have value, because

15:57:42 somebody -- how many years ago, 15 years ago -- put

15:57:47 them into place, okay, I mean, it's kind of like what

15:57:51 we were talking about earlier.

15:57:53 We better hold this code sacrosanct, and if somebody

15:57:57 comes along and says this isn't a good fit, let's do a

15:57:59 variance, then if that's the case and we re reverse

15:58:05 you, couldn't this property come in for variance?

15:58:07 >>> I think that's the entire basis of my review of the




15:58:10 entire code and the comprehensive plan.

15:58:12 You have to remember --

15:58:13 >> Wait a minute, give me the answer first.

15:58:15 >>> Restate the question, please.

15:58:16 >> The question is, if we reversed you, with all due

15:58:20 respect, but if we reversed you and said, no, this

15:58:24 needs to be subject to the SoHo guidelines because it's

15:58:27 within the SoHo district, then the property owner came

15:58:29 along next year and said, hey, I'm a weird parcel, I'm

15:58:33 on the edge of this thing, I front the Bayshore,

15:58:36 blah-blah-blah, what can I do, Ms. Coyle?

15:58:39 You can point to the variance provision and say, sir,

15:58:42 ma'am, please come in for a variance.

15:58:44 Correct?

15:58:44 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If the interpretation were made that

15:58:48 the SoHo applies to whatever course, then, yes, that

15:58:52 person could seek a variance.

15:58:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

15:58:55 Thank you.

15:58:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?

15:58:57 >>CATHERINE COYLE: May I have a final statement?

15:59:00 >> Yes.




15:59:01 >>CATHERINE COYLE: What I would say, and I think you

15:59:03 have to consider the scenario that Mr. Dingfelder

15:59:06 brought up.

15:59:08 Applying SoHo, which I may not have clearly stated

15:59:10 before but I want to reiterate, there are several

15:59:13 different layers of regulation, not just the overlay,

15:59:15 not just the historic district, not just the

15:59:17 certificate of appropriateness, or historic guidelines.

15:59:20 I also raised in the testimony the Bayshore scenic

15:59:23 corridor, which does not have the setbacks that gives

15:59:27 Bayshore a very distinct scenic corridor designation.

15:59:31 There's also the definition of a yard, mandating that

15:59:35 Bayshore is the front yard.

15:59:36 I didn't see it through all the regulations include

15:59:40 consistency with the comp plan that Bayshore would be

15:59:43 mandated a 10-foot setback.

15:59:45 It wasn't reasonable to me.

15:59:47 Also, coupled with the fact that height of this

15:59:51 particular parcel was an issue, mapping, everything

15:59:54 else to deal with the guidelines that are going to be

15:59:57 in place, giving a smaller setback along Bayshore,

15:59:59 which I felt went against the designation, then in turn




16:00:04 may allow additional mass of the building and how we do

16:00:07 the wedding cake scenario, and may in turn allow

16:00:10 additional height.

16:00:12 I saw a reduced setback -- I'm sorry, increased setback

16:00:15 of 25 feet, plus was actually the reasonable course to

16:00:19 go weighing all these definitions and code provisions

16:00:23 and the comp plan.

16:00:24 That's why the determination was capped from the

16:00:27 original one in 2004.

16:00:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cathy, didn't one of your answer as

16:00:32 say you applied the SoHo guidelines when it comes in

16:00:35 for permitting?

16:00:36 I thought that was one of your answers.

16:00:38 >>> The January 30th letter, I believe, yes.

16:00:43 >> Right.

16:00:44 And that hasn't changed.

16:00:45 >>> The specific question -- and I will read it for the

16:00:48 record, just because of the way that it's being asked.

16:00:53 The question was: At what point in the development

16:00:58 review process does the zoning administrator review a

16:01:00 development proposal against the requirements for South

16:01:02 Howard overlay district?




16:01:04 That is a very general hypothetical question of the

16:01:06 code.

16:01:07 General interpretation.

16:01:08 I said during a typical development of review the

16:01:11 zoning administrator designee would review the proposed

16:01:14 development plan during the permitting process.

16:01:16 That is, if there are no variances, no rezonings

16:01:20 required, that's the normal course.

16:01:21 The property comes in, the SoHo overlay district, it

16:01:25 goes to permitting.

16:01:25 If there are no special considerations, I would review

16:01:28 it through that normal course.

16:01:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.

16:01:32 We will now hear from the applicant.

16:01:34 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

16:01:36 I just wanted to bring up two points.

16:01:39 One with had to do with the prior SABA litigation and

16:01:44 somebody had articulated at the Second District Court

16:01:47 of Appeals had mentioned that the City of Tampa could

16:01:49 have enacted a South Howard overlay district, or could

16:01:52 have enacted an overlay district, and, if so, that

16:01:55 would -- those height restrictions would have applied.




16:01:59 And that is correct.

16:02:00 They did say that.

16:02:01 But the implication was that the Second District court

16:02:03 of appeals is not aware of the South Howard overlay

16:02:05 district.

16:02:06 And I need to clarify that in fact there was an amicus

16:02:11 brief filed by the by shore royal that did bring to the

16:02:15 court of appeal's attention the existence of the South

16:02:18 Howard overlay.

16:02:19 That's just a point of clarification.

16:02:21 The other thing that I just wanted to bring up is that

16:02:24 there was a question of whether the zoning

16:02:27 administrator did gets the authority that she did based

16:02:32 on some of the other language in the code that was

16:02:34 cited by the appellant in this case.

16:02:36 And section 27-368 sets out the powers and limitations

16:02:40 of the zoning administrator including the duties of the

16:02:42 zoning administrator that provides for the zoning

16:02:45 administrator to meet the terminations and

16:02:47 interpretations that are necessary or required to

16:02:51 enforce the chapter, chapter 27 as a whole.

16:02:55 And I believe what the zoning administrator explained




16:02:57 to you what she felt were different sections that

16:03:01 provided either a conflict, or when applied together,

16:03:07 an ambiguity that she needed to further interpret.

16:03:09 Then she explained to you the basis for those including

16:03:11 the South Howard overlay district, the fact that the

16:03:16 parcels there are generally on Howard overlay, the fact

16:03:19 that these didn't, and agreeing with that or not, I

16:03:21 believe that she has articulated to you as she

16:03:24 articulated to the ARC the basis for her decision.

16:03:27 And we are all here today -- the hearing for the ARC

16:03:31 was a de novo hearing, and the hearing before you is

16:03:33 not.

16:03:33 It's limited to the record below, and your

16:03:36 determination is to see whether or not there was

16:03:38 substantial, competent evidence to uphold the ARC's

16:03:41 decision.

16:03:42 It was the ARC's decision to reweigh that as well as

16:03:45 determine whether the essential requirements of law

16:03:47 were provided as well as due process.

16:03:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.

16:03:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Ms. Kert?

16:03:55 I want to make sure that we are, you know, following




16:04:03 the record and sticking to that, because one question

16:04:10 is when the person brought up the Second DCA decision,

16:04:14 and that was the overlay language that was in the

16:04:18 original appeal hearing?

16:04:20 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes, the appellant submitted that case

16:04:23 as part of his original application.

16:04:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

16:04:26 Well, then, my follow-up, because I brought up that

16:04:29 question earlier, and you told me I couldn't ask it,

16:04:32 was if this question had come up before, of applying

16:04:36 the overlay, so now we hear that it had been brought up

16:04:41 before, so I think I would like to hear if you can tell

16:04:45 me if there was language in the decision that referred

16:04:54 specifically to the South Howard overlay district --

16:04:58 or --

16:05:01 >>REBECCA KERT: I will answer that question, and I

16:05:03 want to say my answer to you was misleading.

16:05:05 My understanding was you were asking whether or not

16:05:07 anyone within the city itself had in fact applied that.

16:05:11 That's my understanding.

16:05:13 >>MARY MULHERN: And that's way too many hearings.

16:05:15 So you understand.




16:05:16 >>> What the Second District Court of Appeal said, they

16:05:20 did not mention specifically the South Howard overlay

16:05:23 district.

16:05:23 However, the district court actually did state in their

16:05:27 order that they had reviewed and considered each and

16:05:34 everything that was submitted before them, from all

16:05:37 parties.

16:05:37 So that's what this case says.

16:05:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Wait a minute, let me find out here.

16:05:55 Because here again, let me hear from legal on the

16:05:59 issue.

16:06:04 Just make sure -- we just need to make sure, because

16:06:07 all prior to had spoken either though the party of

16:06:13 record is allowed to speak.

16:06:15 Is it an opportunity under public comment or is he

16:06:17 getting a special, I guess, as a property owner

16:06:20 representing the speaker?

16:06:21 I just want to be clear when we talk about these legal

16:06:24 proceedings.

16:06:25 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: City attorney.

16:06:27 Our procedures are quite frankly a little unclear.

16:06:32 This is particularly odd circumstance.




16:06:34 But in my view in order to afford due process the

16:06:37 property owner, it's appropriate to give them an

16:06:39 opportunity as a party to address council at some point

16:06:41 during the proceeding.

16:06:42 And if representatives of the property owner is

16:06:44 requesting that now, I think it's appropriate that we

16:06:47 give them that opportunity.

16:06:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: How much time are we talking about now

16:06:51 since our code is unclear?

16:06:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be three minutes unless

16:06:55 council specifies otherwise.

16:06:57 So you can inquire of him.

16:07:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Grandoff in.

16:07:04 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: My name is John Grandoff.

16:07:07 Suite 3700 --

16:07:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For the record, three minute is

16:07:13 starting.

16:07:14 >>> That's fine.

16:07:15 We represent the property owner.

16:07:16 We initiated our permitting dialogue with the city on

16:07:18 this project in 2003.

16:07:21 Seven years ago this spring.




16:07:23 We have been up and down the permitting chain and

16:07:26 through and around, through the courts.

16:07:29 One court opinion commented that they have scoured the

16:07:32 record on this project.

16:07:34 This is residential property.

16:07:37 I worked on the drafting of the SoHo guidelines.

16:07:40 The reason was, Howard and swan was going to become a

16:07:43 suburban intersection and the intent was to force all

16:07:46 of the commercial development fronting Howard to the

16:07:49 front of Howard and to put the parking lots in the rear

16:07:51 of Howard.

16:07:52 And that's why you have the beauty that is Howard

16:07:54 Avenue today.

16:07:55 This property does not front on Howard Avenue.

16:07:58 Why are we here?

16:08:00 Probably a mistake of drawing is my best guess, because

16:08:04 there's an easement that serves Mr. DeFurio's

16:08:09 condominium that goes over our property.

16:08:12 Surmising that at the time assumed that property

16:08:17 fronted Howard Avenue.

16:08:18 It does not.

16:08:19 It doesn't make sense, it does not make common sense to




16:08:23 put us subject to the South Howard commercial overlay

16:08:28 district.

16:08:29 We are residential property.

16:08:31 There's never been a rezoning on this project.

16:08:33 We initially filed a PD.

16:08:35 We withdraw it.

16:08:36 We developed a project.

16:08:37 We permitted the project.

16:08:38 We have gone through the ARC on the project under RM

16:08:41 75.

16:08:43 We had a heated argument over forcing a second front

16:08:46 yard on this property on Bayshore Boulevard.

16:08:49 We lost that argument.

16:08:51 We designed the building with a second front yard on

16:08:53 Bayshore Boulevard as well as DeSoto Avenue.

16:08:56 This is an Achilles heel, last-minute argument to

16:09:00 somehow force this building down.

16:09:03 It's all about the height.

16:09:06 Let's be upfront.

16:09:08 It's all about the height of the building.

16:09:10 Ms. Coyle is the brightest person in this room as to

16:09:12 the zoning code.




16:09:13 The charter says that.

16:09:15 She is the chief arbiter on zoning codes' intent.

16:09:19 That is her duty.

16:09:21 She's made a decision reading the intent of the South

16:09:24 Howard commercial overlay district.

16:09:26 She's made a decision.

16:09:28 Ms. Moreda made a decision.

16:09:30 Many people have made a decision.

16:09:33 In reliance upon the fact that the South Howard

16:09:35 commercial overlay district does not apply.

16:09:38 It doesn't make sense.

16:09:40 Common sense.

16:09:42 To apply that to this property.

16:09:48 What would occur if it applied?

16:09:50 You would have a 10-foot setback on Bayshore that would

16:09:55 incent the very folks that are telling you to apply the

16:09:57 South Howard overlay district to our property.

16:10:00 You cannot have two masters of code.

16:10:02 Ms. Mulhern, I want you to be very clear that this is

16:10:05 not a conflict of zonings.

16:10:07 There's no zoning conflict here.

16:10:08 It's RM 75 zoning.




16:10:13 The South Howard overlay district was created because

16:10:16 Eckerd drugs is going in on Swann and Howard.

16:10:19 That was the reason.

16:10:20 You have to look at that to read the intent.

16:10:23 It was not --

16:10:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Our attorney -- I just want him to

16:10:31 know.

16:10:31 I know what's in the record because you just said.

16:10:34 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I withdraw that.

16:10:37 (Bell sounds)

16:10:38 Follow the intent of the code.

16:10:39 Follow Ms. Coyle's interpretation.

16:10:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question of Mr. Grandoff.

16:10:46 I wanted to wait to be recognized.

16:10:49 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I withdraw what I said about --

16:10:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's all right.

16:10:55 That's not what I'm concerned about.

16:10:57 John, you said this is residential, and I'll give you,

16:11:00 what is it, RM 75?

16:11:03 >>> RM 75.

16:11:04 >> but I wouldn't want the record to be wrong.

16:11:08 There are many other residentials up and down Howard




16:11:11 Avenue that face Howard Avenue that are in the SoHo

16:11:16 commercial district.

16:11:16 Correct?

16:11:18 >>> They have frontage on Howard Avenue, that intersect

16:11:21 with the right-of-way, correct.

16:11:22 >>REBECCA KERT: Again, Mr. Dingfelder, Mr. Grandoff,

16:11:27 you need to stick to the record.

16:11:28 >> I shouldn't really end with question.

16:11:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, you put in the point that this

16:11:35 is a residential property.

16:11:37 >>> That's in the record.

16:11:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And my point is that there are

16:11:42 other residential must have families that front Howard

16:11:45 Avenue along there.

16:11:45 >>> You are testifying now.

16:11:47 I don't know the answer to that question.

16:11:50 I know for a fact, there is a fact in the record that

16:11:52 this property does not intersect with the right-of-way

16:11:55 of Howard Avenue.

16:11:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, gentlemen, we'll be here all

16:11:59 day.

16:12:02 We are going to move this hearing, wrap it up.




16:12:04 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to respond since this is

16:12:10 somewhat directed at me but I don't think it was part

16:12:13 of the record before either, and I don't think this is

16:12:15 an assumption that anyone would make that the line

16:12:21 defining the overlay district was scrivener's error,

16:12:26 and if there was some testimony to that at the earlier

16:12:30 appeal, I would like to hear about it.

16:12:32 But I don't think there was.

16:12:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Please, will you come quickly?

16:12:40 >>> Yes, I will, I promise.

16:12:42 I promise.

16:12:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I was trying to get you up before --

16:12:47 you have five minutes.

16:12:48 >>> I'll be very brief.

16:12:50 Let's go back to that Second DCA appeal.

16:12:56 The record on a appeal said nothing about the overlay.

16:12:59 Nothing.

16:13:00 Zero.

16:13:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which overlay?

16:13:03 >>> The South Howard overlay.

16:13:04 Said nothing about the South Howard overlay.

16:13:06 The only reason it came up, and practicing law all




16:13:09 these years there's many things I regret, and one of

16:13:12 the things I regret is in my brief, my client, the

16:13:15 Bayshore Royal, was not a party.

16:13:17 I filed an amicus brief, a friend of the court, by

16:13:20 permission of the Second DCA.

16:13:23 I mentioned in it a little blurb it was in the SoHo.

16:13:32 I learned about it in my research for the brief.

16:13:34 That's why when with you read the second DCA opinion

16:13:36 they don't mention the SoHo.

16:13:38 Why?

16:13:38 They couldn't.

16:13:39 It wasn't part of the record on appeal.

16:13:41 That's why.

16:13:43 So what happened?

16:13:45 That appeal was decided of the it came back down.

16:13:48 That's why I'm here.

16:13:50 I am trying to get the law applied, finally.

16:13:55 So that's enough on that.

16:14:00 There's nothing to interpret here.

16:14:08 There are no ambiguities.

16:14:10 There's nothing where the intent of the SoHo overlay

16:14:16 couldn't somehow help us to discern some vague




16:14:19 ambiguous language.

16:14:23 The SoHo ordinance says all the land, any land, and

16:14:29 every structure in the overlay has to have the overlay

16:14:33 applied.

16:14:33 That's what it says.

16:14:34 It couldn't be clearer.

16:14:37 There's not ambiguity.

16:14:38 There's no ambiguities to interpret at all.

16:14:43 All of the setbacks, Bayshore Royal, Bayshore

16:14:46 Boulevard, putting the cart before the horse.

16:14:51 That's the cart before the horse.

16:14:52 We are here to determine one thing.

16:14:56 Should the SoHo overlay be a applied by the zoning

16:15:00 administrator?

16:15:02 Answer, yes.

16:15:03 I am not going to go through my argument again and bore

16:15:05 you.

16:15:08 So that's why the central questions that I discussed in

16:15:15 my opening remarks, was the zoning administrator's

16:15:19 response to questions 3 through 6, in her letter of

16:15:23 August 25.

16:15:24 Why?




16:15:24 Because when those questions changed -- let me answer,

16:15:29 yes, the SoHo ordinance applies, that changes virtually

16:15:32 every other answer.

16:15:33 That's the way it works.

16:15:37 Because all of the other questions have something to do

16:15:39 with the application of SoHo.

16:15:42 Once she says the SoHo doesn't apply, then all of the

16:15:45 other responses then must change as well.

16:15:50 Another point.

16:15:56 The SoHo overlay applies, residential or commercial.

16:16:02 That's not an issue.

16:16:03 That's not an issue.

16:16:06 One other.

16:16:07 The 2004 memorandum, didn't mention SoHo.

16:16:18 Not a word about it.

16:16:19 The zoning administrator today, in 2010, can't have it

16:16:22 both ways.

16:16:24 She can say back in 2004 we applied it, we new all

16:16:27 about it and we applied it.

16:16:28 And then answer a letter, answer a query from me on

16:16:33 behalf of my client, and say, no, it doesn't apply.

16:16:36 Can't have it both ways.




16:16:37 Either it does or doesn't.

16:16:39 If it does apply, they haven't applied it correctly.

16:16:46 So this whole idea that back in '04 Ms. Moreda applied

16:16:50 it and we were considering, completely inconsistent

16:16:53 with her written response, which is the SoHo does not

16:16:56 apply.

16:17:00 Having said all of that, I appreciate all the

16:17:04 questions.

16:17:04 I don't know if you have any questions for me.

16:17:07 That's basically my rebuttal to the remarks made by the

16:17:11 zoning administrator.

16:17:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

16:17:22 Any questions for legal?

16:17:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are we going to close?

16:17:28 >> When we close you can't ask.

16:17:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Go ahead if you want to ask a

16:17:38 question.

16:17:38 >>MARY MULHERN: My question is based on whether we are

16:17:43 ready to make a decision so I am going to wait.

16:17:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then are we ready to close?

16:17:49 Do you all want to ask any more questions?

16:17:54 Before we close the hearing?




16:17:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

16:17:59 My very first question when we started this is what do

16:18:02 we pay attention to?

16:18:03 Do we pay attention to the law, or common sense is the

16:18:05 And I think we are directed to pay attention to the

16:18:08 law.

16:18:09 Is that what we are supposed to pay attention to?

16:18:13 I discovered that the two things are not mutually --

16:18:19 >> In this context, I think you have a couple things to

16:18:23 look at.

16:18:24 One is what's your standard of review?

16:18:26 One is whether there was competent, substantial

16:18:27 evidence for the ARC.

16:18:30 Whether or not due process of law was followed.

16:18:33 And Rebecca is going to have to provide me with the

16:18:35 third one.

16:18:37 >> That's clear enough.

16:18:38 >>> Whether requirements of law were met.

16:18:40 Now in this context what you heard from the zoning

16:18:42 administrator was that there was this legal description

16:18:45 that was done.

16:18:46 But in her view, in common sense, it was not intended




16:18:50 to apply to all of that particular parcel.

16:18:54 It was intended to a apply to those portions fronting

16:18:59 the Howard street.

16:19:01 That was her view of what common sense was.

16:19:05 In this context.

16:19:06 And so using that, and applying the law and a applying

16:19:08 the code, in its totality, her determine was while --

16:19:17 determination was that it make sense it --

16:19:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's not mentioned in the legal

16:19:21 description.

16:19:21 >> Yes, it was.

16:19:24 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: That there is a legal description

16:19:26 for the overlay district.

16:19:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

16:19:28 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Half of the Citivest parcel is

16:19:33 within it, half without it.

16:19:35 It doesn't make sense that the narrow small 10 to

16:19:38 18-foot setback be applied to Bayshore Boulevard.

16:19:40 It wasn't rational, didn't make sense, so her

16:19:43 interpretation was it does not apply in this context.

16:19:47 So I think that's how you apply both the law and common

16:19:50 sense in this context.




16:19:52 And in answer to your question I think you need to use

16:19:54 both.

16:19:55 I don't think you can do one without the other and

16:19:58 reach a valid result.

16:19:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.

16:20:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.

16:20:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to follow up on that, Chip, to

16:20:06 make sure I'm really clear, too.

16:20:08 The competent, substantial evidence, we are determining

16:20:13 part of what we are doing is determining if the ARC's

16:20:20 decision was based on competent substantial evidence.

16:20:24 Is that correct?

16:20:25 Or are we talking about whether the zoning is

16:20:29 administrator's --

16:20:31 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: It's the ARC's determination, and

16:20:33 what you are not doing is reweighing the evidence.

16:20:36 You are not saying is there more or less evidence on

16:20:39 one side or the on the?

16:20:40 You are looking at saying, was there any competent

16:20:42 evidence to uphold their decision?

16:20:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any?

16:20:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Is there substantial competent




16:20:52 evidence to uphold it.

16:20:53 That's way was thinking.

16:20:55 Is that right?

16:20:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In the sense, yes, if I can, Mr.

16:20:57 Fletcher, the answer is yes, it has to be competent

16:21:01 substantial evidence.

16:21:03 But it's not a weighing or reweighing of evidence and

16:21:08 you don't have to determine whether they contemplated

16:21:10 specific things of evidence.

16:21:11 The question is looking at the record below, whether

16:21:14 the board's decision was supported by competent,

16:21:17 substantial evidence.

16:21:18 In other words, if you have competent, substantial

16:21:20 evidence in the record, and that decision reflects

16:21:27 that, then that's not a reweighing as Mr. Fletcher said

16:21:31 of the evidence.

16:21:32 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.

16:21:34 And then the on the question is the other two standards

16:21:39 that whether due process was afforded, and the

16:21:43 essential requirements of law, do all three of those

16:21:48 have to be met?

16:21:50 Or if one of those is not met -- any one of those.




16:21:56 >> Is needed to overturn the ARC decision.

16:22:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Then my next question is, what are our

16:22:03 options if we were -- what are all of our options at

16:22:10 this point?

16:22:10 >>> There's three options.

16:22:15 One is to uphold the ARC's decision.

16:22:17 One is to remand for further fact-finding.

16:22:21 And the third would be through a legal interpretation

16:22:25 reach a different conclusion and uphold the petition.

16:22:29 >> The second one, remand for further fact-finding

16:22:36 to --

16:22:37 >>> The ARC.

16:22:39 >>MARY MULHERN: To the ARC.

16:22:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And if I can, also --

16:22:43 >>MARY MULHERN: We can't remand it to the zoning

16:22:45 administrator?

16:22:46 >>> Not in this context, no.

16:22:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Also when you remand it for further

16:22:50 proceedings, it is with direction on how the board or

16:22:53 commission failed to comply with those standards, the

16:22:57 three standards.

16:22:57 >>> If I may, the typical reason for a remand is if you




16:23:02 believe there is an area that they did not do fact

16:23:05 finding on, that you need answered to weigh the

16:23:10 decision, and so you would need to identify that area,

16:23:13 for example, where there was additional fact finding

16:23:16 that needed to be made.

16:23:17 >> We can uphold the ARC, remand for further fact

16:23:25 finding, or we can grant the appeal.

16:23:27 Is that it?

16:23:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, also, council, it depends,

16:23:34 Mr. Fletcher mentioned fact finding but there are

16:23:36 additional bases for that.

16:23:38 For example, if there's a due process issue, or whether

16:23:40 the essential requirements of law have been observed.

16:23:43 If the essential requirements of law as you determine

16:23:45 them are from a legal argument have not been observed

16:23:50 then you can remand it with those instructions to

16:23:53 observe the essential requirements of law, which your

16:23:56 finding would be just argument that had not been met.

16:23:59 So there are other bases on the than additional fact

16:24:03 finding.

16:24:03 >> It's direct with regard to any one of those.

16:24:06 If due process hadn't been afforded add and you found




16:24:09 out where in the process it hadn't you would remand

16:24:12 with instruction to cure that.

16:24:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.

16:24:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Fletcher, I've read 460 just

16:24:30 recently.

16:24:31 I'm sure you have read it more carefully over the last

16:24:33 couple days coming into this hearing.

16:24:35 Is there anywhere in 27-460 that gives the zoning

16:24:40 administrator the right to carve out any particular

16:24:45 parcel and say that it's not subject to the provisions

16:24:51 of 27-460 as you responded to 3 and 4?

16:24:55 >>> I think the question is whether or not in its

16:24:57 context --

16:24:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.

16:24:59 I asked my question first.

16:25:00 And is there anywhere in 27-460 that specifically

16:25:08 allows the zoning administrator to carve out any

16:25:11 particular piece of parcel?

16:25:12 To the contrary, I saw it said all parcels identified

16:25:17 within those well defined legal boundaries, and they

16:25:22 went to great length to talk about metes and bounds,

16:25:25 must be with -- are covered within the SoHo district.




16:25:28 >>> To answer your question, sir, and you missed the

16:25:33 point of the zoning administrator's presentation.

16:25:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.

16:25:36 I heard the zoning administrator's presentation.

16:25:38 I'm asking you as the city attorney, okay, if there's

16:25:43 anywhere specifically in 27-460 -- you can go look

16:25:46 elsewhere and that's fine, and I think that's what

16:25:49 Cathy did.

16:25:50 But I'm asking if there's anywhere in 27-460 that gives

16:25:55 her the ability to exclude parcels that are in that?

16:26:00 >>> What she did would not exclude a parcel.

16:26:02 What she did was determine whether or not it was

16:26:05 reasonable for those standards to be a applied on a

16:26:08 road other than South Howard.

16:26:11 That's what she did.

16:26:13 It's not saying it's excluded.

16:26:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Immaterial reading questions very

16:26:18 clearly.

16:26:18 Is parcel two subject to code provisions 27-460?

16:26:23 She said, no.

16:26:24 What I'm saying, is there anywhere in 27-460 which

16:26:27 gives her the right to carve out that parcel or any




16:26:31 other parcel, within 27-460?

16:26:35 >>> She did not carve out that parcel.

16:26:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

16:26:39 Then --

16:26:40 >>> She said the standard --

16:26:41 >> Is there anywhere in 27-4660 by gives her the right

16:26:45 to carve out any parcel?

16:26:46 >>> She cannot change the metes and bounds description.

16:26:49 She can determine how the standards are applied within

16:26:50 the metes and bounds description.

16:26:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the answer is what?

16:27:00 >>> She cannot change the metes and bounds description.

16:27:02 >> Well, that's not answering the question.

16:27:04 My question is, is there anywhere in 27-460 that gives

16:27:08 you or her or any other administrator the right to not

16:27:14 include a parcel that is defined in the metes and

16:27:18 bounds?

16:27:18 >>> The zoning administrator can determine how the

16:27:22 standards are to be applied within the legal

16:27:24 description.

16:27:26 The zoning administrator does not have the authority to

16:27:28 change the legal description.




16:27:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

16:27:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.

16:27:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?

16:27:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Before we close I have to say

16:27:37 something.

16:27:38 There are no winners.

16:27:39 There's a lot of losers.

16:27:40 That's the general taxpayers of this city.

16:27:43 No matter what happens, they are the ones that are

16:27:45 paying this bill.

16:27:49 That's all I have to say.

16:27:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second to the motion?

16:27:53 >> Second.

16:27:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.

16:27:55 All in favor?

16:27:57 Opposes?

16:27:58 What's the pleasure?

16:27:59 Councilwoman Mulhern.

16:28:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is your mike on?

16:28:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to move to grant the

16:28:12 appeal based on the fact that this was no constant

16:28:24 substantial evidence presented showing that the parcel,




16:28:34 at least one third minimum of the parcel, did not have

16:28:38 to follow -- what did not fall within the South Howard

16:28:43 overlay district, and because clearly both by our

16:28:49 zoning administrator and our code, and the appellant,

16:28:55 it has been shown that the requirements of the overlay

16:29:00 district trump the zoning requirements, and there was

16:29:05 no question of that.

16:29:09 I also think that it didn't meet the essential

16:29:15 requirements of law in that the requirement for our ARC

16:29:24 and for this council is to apply our code, and our

16:29:29 district boundaries, and I feel very badly for Ms.

16:29:37 Coyle to have to deal with this, because it was nuts,

16:29:44 messy.

16:29:45 The lines weren't drawn correctly, people didn't

16:29:48 understand what they were there for.

16:29:50 But I would certainly like to challenge the assertion

16:29:53 by Mr. Grandoff that these were somehow mistaken or

16:29:57 arbitrary.

16:29:58 What I'm thinking is there were some property owners

16:30:00 that really wanted that drawn into that SoHo overlay

16:30:06 district.

16:30:06 I don't know why.




16:30:07 But it was drawn that way very clearly, and the fact

16:30:11 that it doesn't really make sense makes me think that

16:30:14 there was a determination by staff and by council at

16:30:21 some point to draw that into the SoHo overlay district.

16:30:27 I feel that, you know, we have to grant the appeal.

16:30:32 And I think that means that -- I'm not sure what that

16:30:38 means.

16:30:38 I guess I need some direction from Mr. Shelby if that

16:30:43 means then we do remand this back to the ARC, or if we

16:30:46 can just -- I don't know where we go from here.

16:30:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The way your code is written, you

16:30:58 would have an option to remand it with instructions on

16:31:05 direction of how the board or commission failed to

16:31:07 comply with the standards, or may overturn the decision

16:31:09 of the board or commission, thereby granting the

16:31:12 petition.

16:31:19 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I agree based on the statement you

16:31:21 can uphold the appeal based on the legal interpretation

16:31:24 of the code.

16:31:25 I did not here anything that required additional fact

16:31:27 finding in your motion.

16:31:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.




16:31:30 So it's just -- well, I'm moving to overturn the

16:31:35 decision of the board.

16:31:41 I know there's going to be a lot of comment.

16:31:43 But I want to make sure I say everything I need to

16:31:46 first.

16:31:48 I want to point out on page 20 and 21 of the record,

16:31:52 which Ms. Coyle pointed out herself where she did

16:31:55 agree, the answer: Of course, yes, that it is part of

16:32:00 the legal description based on that legal description

16:32:04 of the code; that that portion did fall within --

16:32:09 parcel 2 did fall within the overlay district.

16:32:13 And I would also like to point out what I think Mr.

16:32:16 Dingfelder was driving on, and saying that we didn't

16:32:24 see any evidence anywhere in the code that showed that

16:32:32 this combined parcel could be determined by the zoning

16:32:37 administrator not to have to fall within the

16:32:49 descriptors of the overlay district.

16:32:51 The code is very clear on that and I didn't see any

16:32:53 evidence in the record, the first appeal or today or

16:32:56 ever, that this was a legal way to just decide, because

16:33:09 part of it was not in the overlay, it didn't have to

16:33:12 comply, I think it's very clear that it did need to.




16:33:16 I think that's it.

16:33:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I think Mr. Dingfelder was first.

16:33:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, councilman Dingfelder.

16:33:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not testifying, I'm just

16:33:31 trying -- I'm making an argument here.

16:33:33 And specifically, I want us to reflect back to another

16:33:41 set of arguments that we talked about very recently,

16:33:45 okay?

16:33:46 Because the purpose of intent of the SoHo commercial

16:33:49 overlay district, reading right out of the code, design

16:33:53 standards are to promote and enhance the pedestrian

16:33:56 environment and scale of the district, while creating

16:33:59 an active interest in the ambience and preserving the

16:34:01 unique character of the area.

16:34:03 In addition it's important that development be

16:34:05 compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods.

16:34:07 That's (C) of 27-461.

16:34:14 It sounds very familiar to something else we talked

16:34:17 about and debated last Thursday night and today, okay?

16:34:21 In other words, we take this street, and we identify

16:34:27 specific parcels on this street, and then we created

16:34:30 design standards.




16:34:32 In that case it happened to be the comprehensive plan.

16:34:34 In this case it happens to be something even stronger

16:34:37 which is our Land Development Code.

16:34:39 We create these very strong standards.

16:34:41 And then we say, And all of the parcels within it have

16:34:44 to abide by these standards.

16:34:51 Now, let me point something out on (D) because I just

16:34:54 found this.

16:34:56 It says: Alternative design concepts may be considered

16:34:58 by the zoning administrator or his or her designee if

16:35:01 consistent with the above-mentioned purpose and intent.

16:35:04 Then (E) speaks to variances.

16:35:08 Any property owner within the district seeking a

16:35:10 variance from these design standards shall file

16:35:13 application with the ARC staff in accordance with the

16:35:15 procedures of 27-214.

16:35:18 All right.

16:35:18 This is not -- if we reverse this administrator, this

16:35:21 is not the end of the road for this parcel.

16:35:24 This doesn't take us back to court, et cetera,

16:35:26 et cetera, because there is an alternative for this

16:35:29 property owner.




16:35:30 All right.

16:35:31 It might not be an alternative that these property

16:35:35 owners like, I mean the neighbors like, but there is an

16:35:38 alternative, and it's extremely important to point out

16:35:40 that that alternative exists, because I don't like to

16:35:43 throw people down dead-ends.

16:35:45 But in this case they have an alternative, but it's

16:35:49 very dangerous precedent for us to say that there's a

16:35:53 parcel in the district that the administrator has

16:35:56 determined that we are not going to apply the SoHo

16:35:58 guidelines, because that could be used against this

16:36:02 city over and over as people come in for projects a

16:36:05 along the SoHo district.

16:36:07 So I would urge council to uphold the sanctity of the

16:36:11 SoHo district, okay, in this case and every other case,

16:36:15 and then tell any potential developer, if you don't

16:36:20 think your parcel is appropriate, okay, then please

16:36:24 follow the variance.

16:36:25 If you don't think you can follow the strict guidelines

16:36:27 of this, then, please, ask the zoning pursuant to --

16:36:35 that you have alternative design concept that you want

16:36:38 him or her to consider.




16:36:39 Okay.

16:36:39 But don't throw out the baby with the bath water and

16:36:43 get rid and just create this bad, bad precedent.

16:36:46 It's the same exact situation we faced earlier.

16:36:49 And I urge council to uphold Ms. Mulhern's motion.

16:36:53 >> Are you seconding?

16:36:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Linda already seconded it.

16:37:00 I'm thirding it.

16:37:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Six hours to change your mind.

16:37:05 So you are either right in the morning or wrong in the

16:37:07 afternoon or you are either wrong in the morning and

16:37:09 right in the afternoon.

16:37:12 That's the way I just heard.

16:37:15 Who is right and who is wrong?

16:37:16 So what I am hearing is the law as it applied to the

16:37:21 standards, but it was not the law that was applied to

16:37:25 the standards, it was the interpretation of the land

16:37:28 that was applied to the standards at that time.

16:37:32 I would hate to be the rider -- the writer writing

16:37:35 about this subject matter and I would hate to be those

16:37:38 watching this program on television trying to

16:37:39 understand what everyone said.




16:37:41 Because we are voting on something, and it's still not

16:37:44 clear to the public, anyway, what does uphold mean,

16:37:49 what does remand mean, what does this motion mean, what

16:37:51 did that motion mean?

16:37:53 So let me tell you what it means to me.

16:37:57 And if this goes down and you uphold that developer to

16:38:02 bring in that building much closer to Bayshore, at a

16:38:09 much higher height, and if it's four to one -- and I'm

16:38:13 not a mathematician -- and you are moving in from 25

16:38:17 feet, to 15 feet at four to one.

16:38:23 Am I correct so far?

16:38:24 >> Yes.

16:38:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So the building gets much taller,

16:38:28 maybe much narrower, but much taller.

16:38:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And closer.

16:38:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And closer.

16:38:36 I must look like a preacher to you.

16:38:38 But what I'm saying is there are no winners here, like

16:38:41 I said earlier.

16:38:43 The losers are the general public that are paying for

16:38:45 this, all the overtime that's going on, everything

16:38:47 else.




16:38:48 This code has to be changed.

16:38:49 If you are a third party you know it on your own.

16:38:53 And I love these good people here.

16:38:55 But it's got to change, that somebody -- not that they

16:39:00 are not paying their bill now, about you this thing,

16:39:02 there's two lawyers here.

16:39:03 What happens when there's two lawyers in any room?

16:39:08 It goes before a judge sooner or later.

16:39:10 It's very hard to settle things when there's two

16:39:12 different mind sets.

16:39:13 And that's what I understand is happening today.

16:39:17 So I'm not going to support this.

16:39:20 It's been going on since 2003, and it's now 2010.

16:39:26 And it's time something gets settled.

16:39:29 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

16:39:29 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think you were referring to me

16:39:35 because I think I was very consistent today in applying

16:39:39 the code, applying our code, and a applying our law.

16:39:44 And I think people understand that.

16:39:45 The code is the law that we are supposed to apply.

16:39:49 And the overlays and the comprehensive plans and code

16:39:56 for planned developments and for Euclidean zoning are




16:40:02 the rules that we have to follow, and that's what I'm

16:40:05 basing my motion and my recommendation on today, and I

16:40:08 agree with you that it's probably not the best solution

16:40:12 for anybody.

16:40:13 But if we are not going to follow our code, some of

16:40:19 which we have written, most of which we have inherited,

16:40:24 then there's no point in being here.

16:40:25 And I think if the code isn't working, we need to

16:40:29 rewrite it.

16:40:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the only problem with that is

16:40:32 that some of those came into play.

16:40:35 So therefore with that the zoning administrator had to

16:40:38 take all the fact, all the information and make their

16:40:41 determination.

16:40:42 That's the problem.

16:40:43 It wasn't just one code.

16:40:44 You have several of them that came into play.

16:40:46 That's the issue.

16:40:47 And so either way you go, councilman, we talked about

16:40:52 earlier, you know, around -- whereas only one plan or

16:40:57 one code was in place, this one here has several.

16:41:00 So that's the biggest -- that's a little different than




16:41:03 what we dealt with this morning or last Thursday,

16:41:05 because the zoning administrator in totality looked at

16:41:10 the code, looked at the regulation, looked at what the

16:41:13 prior zoning administration went by, and also went back

16:41:17 to that and made a determination, and that was upheld

16:41:20 by the ARC.

16:41:22 Okay.

16:41:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to say however we vote on

16:41:27 this, I think at least three of us are in agreement

16:41:33 that some of this is above our job descriptions, not

16:41:35 being lawyers, and being a lone administrator and

16:41:42 having the volunteer boards questioning your

16:41:44 professional decisions, and that we really need to get

16:41:47 a hearing master.

16:41:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I would say,

16:41:55 Mr. Chairman, and you are absolutely right, that's the

16:41:57 way Ms. Coyle described it.

16:41:59 But she he acknowledged, council acknowledged, I

16:42:03 pointed out, 27-4606 specifically says when there is a

16:42:08 conflict, okay, the 27-460, the overlay district will

16:42:12 prevail, all right.

16:42:14 And we didn't see or hear that happening.




16:42:18 It appeared that when there is a conflict that it went

16:42:23 a different direction, that, I believe, goes to what

16:42:29 Ms. Mulhern said in her motion in terms of beyond the

16:42:35 due process.

16:42:36 And I just want to say to Ms. Coyle, you are between a

16:42:40 total rock and big hard place on this, and you know how

16:42:42 much I respect you, and I apologize for cross-examining

16:42:46 you and all that other stuff.

16:42:47 But I think obviously I was just trying to make some

16:42:50 points.

16:42:50 But again I apologize to you personally for any offense

16:42:54 that might have been taken in regard to my manner.

16:42:59 So, anyway, let's go.

16:43:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have a motion made by Councilwoman

16:43:04 Mulhern that was seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena,

16:43:07 and that is overturning the ARC recommendation and

16:43:11 granting the ARC recommendation and granting the

16:43:11 appeal.

16:43:12 All in favor of that motion signify by saying Aye.

16:43:15 Opposes?

16:43:23 >>THE CLERK: (off microphone)

16:43:25 >>CHAIRMAN SCOTT: Okay. What do we --




16:43:26 Mr. Shelby?

16:43:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Rule 4-C.

16:43:33 If a motion to approve, deny or continue an ordinance

16:43:34 or resolution fails to receive at least four votes

16:43:36 either in support or opposition, it shall automatically

16:43:40 be brought before the council at the next regular

16:43:44 council meeting as unfinished business.

16:43:48 So by your calendar --

16:43:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I will not be here on the 18th.

16:43:56 >> It can be continued to a point where there's a full

16:44:00 board.

16:44:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We'll set it for the 18th at what

16:44:09 time?

16:44:11 >> Sometime after 10:30 under staff reports.

16:44:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (off microphone)

16:44:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What about next Thursday?

16:44:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Your next regular meeting, when is

16:44:33 that?

16:44:33 The night meeting.

16:44:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We could do that.

16:44:38 We can do that.

16:44:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We can do it next Thursday morning,




16:44:50 right after the CRA meeting.

16:44:54 Yes.

16:44:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does everybody plan to be here?

16:44:58 >> Yes, I do.

16:44:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so we have the date then.

16:45:03 February 11th at one time did you want to do that?

16:45:06 The CRA is scheduled to start at 9 a.m.

16:45:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's do this at 9:00.

16:45:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We just have to vote and reopen it we

16:45:14 could do it at 9:00.

16:45:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, again as you saw today, people

16:45:20 who have the opportunity to review the record, if they

16:45:22 have any questions, council has always granted people

16:45:25 the opportunity to reopen the hearing to have the

16:45:28 questions based on the evidence clarified.

16:45:30 So there's no guarantee, you cannot --

16:45:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Put it at the end of the CRA which we

16:45:38 don't know what time that's going to be.

16:45:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You could set it for 10:30.

16:45:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Set it for 10:00.

16:45:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Anytime after that you would be able

16:45:50 to take it up.




16:45:51 Now, the question, I would ask, is two-fold.

16:45:54 Number one, I would ask you to make a motion which has

16:45:56 to be unanimous to waive rule 4-C.

16:45:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

16:46:02 >> Second.

16:46:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?

16:46:05 Opposes?

16:46:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And now it's council's intent to set

16:46:08 this for February 11th at 10:00.

16:46:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: At which time it may come anytime

16:46:15 after that time.

16:46:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry, Mr. Fletcher?

16:46:19 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just more for the public.

16:46:21 Just a reminder, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding.

16:46:24 There should be no communication between now and the

16:46:27 time you ultimately render your decision, and any

16:46:29 ex parte communication during that period should not

16:46:31 occur.

16:46:32 So just as a reminder for the public.

16:46:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Also with regard to e-mails, that the

16:46:39 appeal is closed, and anything that does come into

16:46:41 council's office, I would advise you to not look at,




16:46:45 and to certainly not have any bearing on your decision.

16:46:49 >>> DeFurio: I have to apologize.

16:46:55 This is kind of new to me.

16:46:56 Mr. Shelby, can you tell me the procedures what to be

16:46:59 employed February 11th?

16:47:00 Will there be further argument?

16:47:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't know.

16:47:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, sir.

16:47:04 Normally what happens is the city charter requires a

16:47:09 requisite four votes in order to effect wait action,

16:47:11 either in favor or in opposition.

16:47:14 There being not able to have a vote today, City

16:47:19 Council's own rules of procedure address that issue,

16:47:22 and that's with when I referred to rule 4-C, and that

16:47:26 requires it come back.

16:47:27 Normally what happens is the appeal is closed.

16:47:29 I will ask -- first of all, I will notify the members

16:47:33 who are absent that this has been -- will be coming

16:47:37 back to them.

16:47:38 They will have the obligation to be prepared to vote

16:47:42 when they come back.

16:47:43 I will inquire of them if they are in fact prepared to




16:47:45 vote, and they will then vote without reopening any

16:47:49 sort of hearing.

16:47:51 If, for some reason based on their review of the

16:47:54 record, they have a question that they would have had

16:47:57 the opportunity to have answered during the hearing,

16:48:01 that could be answer ad, but it doesn't call for any

16:48:03 additional evidence, it doesn't call for any additional

16:48:06 witnesses, and basically it is a straight -- and

16:48:09 everyone has the opportunity, every council member gets

16:48:11 to revote.

16:48:12 So it will be a total council vote at the time.

16:48:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to point out, though,

16:48:18 we had this situation this morning and somehow we ended

16:48:20 up reopening the hearing and hearing from everyone.

16:48:22 So I just want to put it out there that sometimes that

16:48:24 happens.

16:48:25 Hopefully it will be just to close the public hearing

16:48:32 and just to vote.

16:48:33 But at times we have reopened it.

16:48:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

16:48:37 Any other business?

16:48:38 Yes.




16:48:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.

16:48:48 All in favor?

16:48:49 Opposes?

16:48:52 (off microphone)

16:48:53 >>MARY MULHERN: I had to restate this motion because

16:48:55 you weren't here.

16:48:56 I am requesting the city staff appear in two weeks

16:48:59 February 18th and provide a report on the proposed

16:49:01 elevated roadway on Gandy Boulevard, specifically what

16:49:07 the time line of decision points of all involved

16:49:08 entities, what is the city's role, what role does City

16:49:12 Council have, and also there is a need to receive input

16:49:16 from constituents as to their concerns on the proposed

16:49:20 project so the City Council, as their elected

16:49:23 representatives, can seek to address those concerns to

16:49:27 the extent we can.

16:49:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

16:49:29 You are putting it on the regular agenda?

16:49:33 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm putting it on the agenda for staff

16:49:35 report from transportation.

16:49:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I understand that, but you say citizen

16:49:39 input, and our rule is a staff report, there is no




16:49:42 citizen input.

16:49:43 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't know how else to handle it

16:49:46 because before the expressway authority meets which is

16:49:49 a few days after this, and I am getting overwhelming

16:49:52 requests from constituents for some input to their

16:49:56 elected representatives, which they have had no

16:49:59 opportunity.

16:50:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm for that.

16:50:05 My only issue is our own process.

16:50:09 You know how I am about that.

16:50:10 Our own process.

16:50:11 And I am going to tell you, once you do that, you are

16:50:14 going to have the place packed South Tampa from Gandy

16:50:18 wanting to speak.

16:50:21 I'm just telling you.

16:50:22 >>MARY MULHERN: And under our rules of public comment,

16:50:26 when it's limited to three minutes, so however many

16:50:29 people we can fit in, you know, one minute 30 second.

16:50:34 I don't think there's going to be that many people.

16:50:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council rules also give the people

16:50:40 who are not able to speak in those 30 minutes time

16:50:42 after the meeting as you would today to be able to




16:50:45 address council at the end of the meeting.

16:50:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Are you going to allow the staff,

16:50:52 expressway authority --

16:50:54 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think so.

16:50:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: They will come anyway.

16:50:57 >>MARY MULHERN: We can invite them if you want me to,

16:50:59 but my point is that it's something that city staff has

16:51:02 been working on, with the expressway authority.

16:51:06 City Council has had no input at all.

16:51:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm just trying to make sure.

16:51:11 Most of the time you only get one perspective.

16:51:14 >>MARY MULHERN: I know.

16:51:15 We can have them here.

16:51:16 But what can happen is they will take up-oh all the

16:51:19 time will take up their half hour.

16:51:21 So that will be another half hour.

16:51:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyway, this is the motion.

16:51:26 I support the motion.

16:51:27 Okay?

16:51:27 Is there a second?

16:51:28 >> Second.

16:51:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor say Aye.




16:51:31 Opposes?

16:51:32 Okay.

16:51:33 Receive and file?

16:51:34 >> So moved.

16:51:34 >> Second.

16:51:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.

16:51:44 All those will be removed, right?

16:51:46 Because they cannot be heard?

16:51:47 >> So moved to remove 66 and much.

16:51:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 67 has been continued, I believe,

16:51:55 under the agenda to March 4th.

16:52:01 We set the public hearing so it can't be.

16:52:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It needs to be continued, please.

16:52:08 Do you want to open the public hearing?

16:52:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to open that item.

16:52:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

16:52:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor say Aye.

16:52:16 >> Move to continue to March 4th.

16:52:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 1:30, sir?

16:52:23 >> Second.

16:52:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to number 66 -- I'm

16:52:26 sorry, was there a vote?




16:52:27 SPEAKER: All in favor signify by saying Aye.

16:52:31 Opposes?

16:52:31 Okay.

16:52:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 66, did you have a date?

16:52:38 You thought the April date, madam clerk, would be

16:52:40 appropriate?

16:52:42 April 15th? 1:30?

16:52:51 SPEAKER: Moved by councilman Miranda, seconded by

16:52:56 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.

16:52:57 All in favor significant by saying Aye.

16:53:00 Opposes?

16:53:10 >> (off microphone).

16:53:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: February 11, council?

16:53:14 All in favor?

16:53:15 Opposes?

16:53:15 Anything else, madam clerk?

16:53:18 >>THE CLERK: (off microphone).

16:53:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

16:53:21 >> Second.

16:53:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public?

16:53:24 Nobody wants to say anything.

16:53:25 Thank you.




16:53:26 We stand adjourned.

16:53:26 Thank you.

16:54:40 (City Council meeting adjourned)

16:54:47



DISCLAIMER:

The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon
for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.