Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Regular Council Meeting.
March 9, 2005, 9:00 a.m.

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

08:39:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:07:41 The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
09:07:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:07:46 This morning, it gives me great pleasure to introduce
09:07:52 Harold Scott, supervisor with the code enforcement and
09:07:53 Senior Deacon and Vice-chairman of the Greater Bethel
09:07:56 Missionary Baptist Church and long-time employee of
09:07:58 the City of Tampa.

09:08:00 Welcome.
09:08:00 He will give our invocation this morning.
09:08:05 Please stand for the invocation and keep standing for
09:08:08 the Pledge of Allegiance.
09:08:10 >> Let us pray.
09:08:16 Father God, we come in holy divine presence one more
09:08:20 time thanking thee for your love and your protections
09:08:22 as we travel this journey.
09:08:24 Father, you say we have not because we ask not.
09:08:27 We're asking for your love and your protection, for
09:08:29 your deliverance, for your healing which only you can
09:08:32 do, Lord Jesus.
09:08:34 Father, we have come a long way, and we thank you for
09:08:36 all your blessings.
09:08:38 That you would help us to do everything decent and in
09:08:41 order.
09:08:52 Whatever is in their family situation, Father, we know
09:08:54 you can heal, you can destroy.
09:08:56 You can defend, father, and we leave it all up to you.
09:08:59 That you remember the Mayor of this great city, Lord
09:09:01 Jesus, that you would go with her and strengthen her
09:09:04 and keep her strong in every way.

09:09:09 Those that have lost loved ones, that you comfort
09:09:13 them.
09:09:13 In Jesus' name, we pray, amen.
09:09:17 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:09:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:09:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:09:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:09:41 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:09:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:09:44 At this time, we need to make a motion to remove the
09:09:49 public comments on the agenda.
09:09:51 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:09:52 [Motion Carried]
09:09:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And I believe, Madam Chair, you
09:09:56 wanted to also consider moving the consent docket up
09:10:00 after the agenda public comment as well.
09:10:02 Is that something you wish to do?
09:10:04 >> We have a motion and second.
09:10:05 All in favor of that motion, aye.
09:10:09 Do any Council members have anything they need to move
09:10:13 up the agenda?
09:10:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is this when you would like me to

09:10:18 announce that Council members will be participating in
09:10:20 a taping today at 11:30?
09:10:25 >>GWEN MILLER: We will recess at 11:45, and then we
09:10:29 will be back at 1:30.
09:10:31 Council members will go and do a taping.
09:10:33 We'll have a break at 11:45.
09:10:36 Council will resume back at 1:30.
09:10:37 Anything else need to be moved from the agenda?
09:10:41 >>CLERK: Madam Chair, under items to be considered for
09:10:44 public hearings, on item number 47 and 48, there are
09:10:52 two resolutions requesting public hearings be set for
09:10:54 March 30th at 10 a.m. and April 13th at 6 p.m. on
09:11:00 brownfield designations.
09:11:01 Due to the size of your night meeting on April 13th,
09:11:05 we have been advised that these are to be referred
09:11:08 back to legal to have the public hearings reset for
09:11:10 April 13th at 10 a.m. and April 27th at 5:30 p.m.
09:11:14 And right now, on the 27th, you only have five
09:11:18 public hearings that night set for 6:00.
09:11:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that will be coming back next
09:11:22 week?
09:11:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On the 27th.

09:11:26 I would like to speak to a scheduling event that might
09:11:28 affect that.
09:11:29 We currently -- I believe it was last week,
09:11:32 Ms. Alvarez set the time to discuss the Channel
09:11:35 District plan --
09:11:37 >>CLERK: That's on March 30th.
09:11:40 This is the 27th of April.
09:11:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I thought we had March 30th here.
09:11:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's what I wanted to ask about.
09:11:48 Ms. Alvarez, I received some e-mails from residents in
09:11:52 Channelside -- and I don't know if other Councils did
09:11:55 also, saying, please don't have this in the daytime
09:11:57 when residents can't go because they are at work.
09:11:59 So I wondered if in the course of the day, we can try
09:12:02 to figure out a time to do this in the evening,
09:12:05 perhaps at 5:00 one evening.
09:12:08 Because we want citizens to be able to participate in
09:12:11 the conversation.
09:12:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We'll take a look at that.
09:12:14 We have a couple of weeks to do that.
09:12:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Sandy, what you're saying then, on
09:12:20 47, that would be moved to --

09:12:22 >>CLERK: 47 and 48, they are asking that the public
09:12:24 hearings be set for April 13th at 10:00 in the
09:12:27 morning.
09:12:28 And the second public hearing on April 27th at 5:30.
09:12:32 So those two items would need to be referred back to
09:12:34 legal to have resolutions prepared and presented back
09:12:37 next week.
09:12:39 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:12:40 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:12:42 [Motion Carried]
09:12:43 Anything else need to move from the agenda?
09:12:50 Okay.
09:12:51 We'll go to our staff reports.
09:12:52 Mindy Snyder.
09:12:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that request from the staff, the
09:12:59 sign-in sheet?
09:13:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Um-hum.
09:13:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
09:13:03 >> Good morning, everyone.
09:13:05 I'm Mindy Snyder with the office of cable
09:13:07 communication, and I'm also the 2006 Women's History
09:13:10 Month celebration committee chair.

09:13:14 And I'm here to talk about item number 7 on the
09:13:17 agenda.
09:13:18 And also with me, as you can see, are some of the
09:13:20 committee members that have worked very, very hard
09:13:22 this whole year to bring you this very important
09:13:25 celebration, and that's what I'm here to talk about
09:13:27 today.
09:13:27 I would like to invite everyone to the Women's History
09:13:29 Month celebration, which will take place March 10th,
09:13:33 which is tomorrow, 11 a.m., at the Tampa convention
09:13:37 center.
09:13:37 We're celebrating our 10th anniversary this year.
09:13:40 And our keynote speaker is Dr. Renu Khatur.
09:13:45 Provost and vice president of academic affairs at the
09:13:48 University of South Florida.
09:13:49 We'll also be honoring the Josephine Howard Stafford
09:13:52 award winner, Cindy Miller, who is director of
09:13:55 business and housing development.
09:13:56 We're very excited.
09:13:58 We're very pleased that your chair, Gwen Miller, and
09:14:01 Mayor Iorio will be participating in the program and
09:14:05 thank you in advance for the resolution on the agenda

09:14:10 today.
09:14:10 We hope you'll be able to join us to hear a very, very
09:14:13 special story from our keynote speaker and honor Cindy
09:14:16 Miller.
09:14:16 The celebration will be taped and replayed throughout
09:14:19 the month of March on City of Tampa television.
09:14:22 Any questions?
09:14:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for bringing this to us.
09:14:29 Thank you for working so hard on it.
09:14:31 >> Thank you.
09:14:31 As I said, the committee, this is some of the many
09:14:34 members of the committee.
09:14:34 And we started working on it very early in the year to
09:14:37 bring you what I think will be a very successful event
09:14:39 tomorrow.
09:14:39 And appreciate.
09:14:41 Hope we'll see a lot of you there tomorrow.
09:14:44 >> We'll be there.
09:14:45 >> Good.
09:14:45 Thank you so much.
09:14:46 >>CLERK: On item number 7, I do have the resolution
09:14:50 proclaiming March as women's --

09:14:52 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:14:54 All those in favor, aye.
09:14:55 [Motion Carried]
09:14:55 Rebecca Kert.
09:15:01 >> Rebecca Kert, Legal Department.
09:15:03 I'm here to make substitutions to item 33 and 34 on
09:15:05 your agenda.
09:15:06 The Clerk and Council have already been provided their
09:15:09 copies.
09:15:09 Item 33 is a Tampa Tech DRI bifurcation agreement.
09:15:14 This agreement will divide the DRI into two new
09:15:18 DRIs, East and West.
09:15:19 All the previous conditions in the DRI will follow
09:15:22 through and the substitution has no substantive
09:15:24 changes.
09:15:24 Item 34 to your agenda is the seam builtout agreement
09:15:28 for Tampa Tech East.
09:15:29 This will extend the buildout date by five years and
09:15:33 reduce the number of office by almost half to 480,000
09:15:36 approximately square feet.
09:15:37 And again, there are no substantive changes to this
09:15:40 item.

09:15:40 Thank you.
09:15:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:15:42 We'll do it when we get to that.
09:15:45 Now we need to go and approve the agenda.
09:15:48 Have a motion and second to approve the agenda.
09:15:50 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:15:51 [Motion Carried]
09:15:52 Ms. Saul-Sena, you wanted to do an introduction?
09:15:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, I would.
09:15:56 It's my pleasure at this time to introduce Maggie
09:15:57 potter, who is a student at the University of South
09:15:59 Florida, and she's working with me this semester as a
09:16:03 student intern.
09:16:04 [ APPLAUSE ]
09:16:09 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time, is there anyone in the
09:16:13 public who would like to speak on any item on the
09:16:15 agenda that is not set for a public hearing?
09:16:21 >> Good morning.
09:16:22 Sonya Lawson.
09:16:23 Do I need to be sworn?
09:16:25 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
09:16:25 >> Okay.

09:16:26 I would like to speak on item number 9.
09:16:32 >>CLERK: Madam Chair that public hearing has been
09:16:35 closed.
09:16:35 And what's before Council is the presentation of the
09:16:37 ordinance for first reading.
09:16:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Sorry, you can't speak on that.
09:16:41 It's a public hearing.
09:16:42 You can speak on anything not set for a public
09:16:44 hearing.
09:16:45 >> Okay.
09:16:46 It said public hearing closed.
09:16:47 >>GWEN MILLER: That means you can't speak on it.
09:16:49 It's closed.
09:16:50 >> Okay.
09:16:51 All right.
09:16:53 That was just it.
09:16:54 It's a little confusing.
09:16:56 >>GWEN MILLER: When it's closed, that means we won't
09:16:58 open it for anyone to speak on that item.
09:17:02 Anyone else in the public like to speak on any item on
09:17:05 the agenda not set for a public hearing?
09:17:11 All right.

09:17:11 We go to unfinished business, item number 1.
09:17:16 We need to read it for the first reading, Mr. White.
09:17:18 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:17:21 Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing and
09:17:22 abandoning a certain right-of-way, the remaining
09:17:24 portion of that alleyway running North and South in
09:17:27 block 2 of Livonia Dodds Cline subdivision generally
09:17:31 located southwest of the intersection of North
09:17:33 Franklin street and East Oak Avenue in Livonia Dodds
09:17:35 Cline Subdivision, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,
09:17:35 Hillsbrough County, Florida, the same being more fully
09:17:35 described in Section 2 hereof, providing an effective
09:17:44 date.
09:17:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:17:46 All in favor, aye.
09:17:47 [Motion Carried]
09:17:50 Item number 2, first reading.
09:17:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:17:53 An ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, approving
09:17:55 a third amendment to a development order rendered
09:17:58 pursuant to chapter 380, Florida statutes, for the
09:18:01 university center research and development park, FRI

09:18:03 number 161, and providing an effective date.
09:18:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:18:08 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:18:09 [Motion Carried]
09:18:10 Number 3, need to receive and file.
09:18:12 Got a motion and second.
09:18:13 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:18:15 Number 4.
09:18:17 Anyone from legal?
09:18:24 Got a written report.
09:18:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I guess no one is going
09:18:27 to address it, but this was something that I asked for
09:18:31 based on the -- that stormwater assessment that was
09:18:36 passed.
09:18:37 And if all my colleagues just take a chance and read
09:18:40 it, and then we can discuss if we want to make any
09:18:42 revisions to the code later on.
09:18:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number five, need to move the
09:18:47 resolution.
09:18:48 Motion and second.
09:18:49 All in favor, aye.
09:18:50 [Motion Carried]

09:18:51 Item number 6 need to move the resolution.
09:18:58 We have a motion and second.
09:18:59 All in favor, aye.
09:19:00 [Motion Carried]
09:19:01 Item number 8,.
09:19:13 >> Good morning, Shirley Foxx-Knowles, City Clerk.
09:19:18 I would like to talk with you this morning about the
09:19:21 proposed calendar for the rest of the year.
09:19:25 I've provided two memorandums for your consideration.
09:19:31 The first is the July 6th meeting, we're
09:19:34 recommending the July 6th and July 13th meeting be
09:19:41 cancelled for summer vacation.
09:19:46 And staying with that, we also have a second memo
09:19:49 requesting that you consider the last week in June and
09:19:54 the first week in July.
09:20:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So are you recommending, Shirley,
09:20:03 last week in June, first of July?
09:20:05 Or first two in July?
09:20:07 >> Well, initially, it was the first two weeks in
09:20:09 July, and a Council member asked that we consider the
09:20:13 last week in June and the first week of July.
09:20:18 So your choice.

09:20:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:20:23 I would prefer the last week in June and the first
09:20:25 week of July.
09:20:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do we have anything going on the end
09:20:30 of July -- June.
09:20:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually, I believe Ms. Coyle wishes
09:20:34 to address that.
09:20:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Cathy Coyle.
09:20:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Good morning, Council, Cathy Coyle,
09:20:41 Land Development.
09:20:41 The only thing that I would add is that the published
09:20:45 schedule that we place in our applications, because we
09:20:47 plan at least a year or two out in advance for
09:20:50 potential applications coming out, that we did put
09:20:53 July 13th as a tentative hearing date.
09:20:59 We can change that, of course.
09:21:00 I only ask you don't bump them earlier shedding a week
09:21:03 off the process.
09:21:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What you're saying, what your
09:21:07 schedule reflects is which?
09:21:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: July 13th being a hearing date.
09:21:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is that the second week in July?

09:21:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
09:21:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So you would prefer the last week
09:21:16 in June, first week of July.
09:21:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
09:21:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, they prefer the last week of June,
09:21:23 first week of July.
09:21:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: But if it doesn't fit your
09:21:26 schedule, obviously.
09:21:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I haven't made any plans for this
09:21:30 summer yet, so I don't really care.
09:21:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just going to actually defer
09:21:35 to Kevin and Shawn with children.
09:21:39 Linnda, you have a home child too.
09:21:43 >>KEVIN WHITE: I don't have anything specific.
09:21:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No problem with me.
09:21:49 It's fine.
09:21:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we need a motion?
09:21:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chair, I would like to move
09:21:52 that we accept the schedule including the last week in
09:21:56 June and the first week in July as our summer break,
09:22:00 and then the other dates that were on the calendar
09:22:02 that Ms. Foxx-Knowles presented as our holiday

09:22:07 schedule.
09:22:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you want to do just that one first?
09:22:11 Let's just do the holiday.
09:22:12 We have motion and second for the summer holiday for
09:22:14 last week in June and first week of July.
09:22:16 All in favor of that motion, aye.
09:22:18 [Motion Carried]
09:22:18 Now, Ms. Knowles, you had the thanks?
09:22:27 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLESYes, we were looking at
09:22:28 August 10th, that you cancel that meeting for the
09:22:31 Florida League of Cities Conference.
09:22:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:22:34 Question on the motion?
09:22:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, I just was wondering, I
09:22:38 personally am not going to be attending that.
09:22:40 And I just wondered if there were going to be, like,
09:22:43 more than probably two council members or two or more
09:22:46 Council members planning to attend that.
09:22:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We've always broken for that.
09:22:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:22:56 All in favor of that motion, say aye.
09:22:58 Opposed, nay.

09:22:59 Ms. Knowles.
09:23:00 >> And lastly, on the second page, we're looking at
09:23:06 the Thanksgiving and Christmas schedule and the new
09:23:09 year schedule, if you approve those.
09:23:16 Basically, to Council, the November 23rd, 2006
09:23:18 meeting for the Thanksgiving holiday and the
09:23:23 December 28th meeting for the Christmas holiday.
09:23:29 And January 4th, 2007 for new year's.
09:23:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that date okay in November?
09:23:40 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
09:23:42 The only thing I want to bring to your attention, a
09:23:44 couple of months back when the whole plan amendment
09:23:46 cycle came into question because there were so many
09:23:49 plan amendments being scheduled, we agreed internally
09:23:51 and Randy brought it before you, we were going to give
09:23:54 up three night meetings a year on the second meeting
09:23:57 of the month for -- so they could be slated for plan
09:24:01 amendments, especially if they had nine, ten, eleven,
09:24:04 twelve plan amendments being scheduled, we didn't want
09:24:06 to bump into that with our thirteen rezonings.
09:24:09 The cycle in November hits for the plan amendments.
09:24:13 So the November 16th meeting that we would have

09:24:15 normally slated for rezonings is actually slated for
09:24:19 plan amendments.
09:24:19 So we don't necessarily have a rezoning night in that
09:24:22 month.
09:24:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not one?
09:24:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Well, unless you bump is a week
09:24:26 earlier, which tends -- tends to hurt staff because
09:24:30 you are cutting a week out of the review time.
09:24:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What would you recommend?
09:24:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Well, I can say that historically,
09:24:38 the November and December meetings have been long.
09:24:42 I can't say at this point how many cases will be
09:24:45 submitted for plan amendments at this point.
09:24:48 I don't know if you want to have them all in one
09:24:49 night, or if you would like to find an alternative.
09:24:52 It's just difficult for us to shed a week off in the
09:24:56 rezoning process because it's so short as it is.
09:24:59 >>GWEN MILLER: So you recommend that we need to do two
09:25:01 in November?
09:25:02 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I would recommend that you do one
09:25:05 and it be long.
09:25:06 >>GWEN MILLER: That would be the second week in

09:25:07 November.
09:25:08 >>CATHERINE COYLE: November 16, for both plan
09:25:10 amendments and rezonings.
09:25:11 The plan amendments do start at 5:01.
09:25:13 And there is the potential that they be quick.
09:25:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.
09:25:17 Excuse me.
09:25:18 I'm not clear on this.
09:25:20 It appears from Ms. Foxx-Knowles' proposed schedule
09:25:24 that we not have an evening meeting on November 9th,
09:25:28 that we reschedule that evening meeting to either
09:25:33 November 2nd or 16th.
09:25:34 And you're saying the 16th we've kind of said we
09:25:37 wanted to do the plan amendments.
09:25:39 So maybe we should have the second for rezonings.
09:25:42 Is that what I'm understanding you say?
09:25:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: No, the 9th would be fine.
09:25:47 I apologize.
09:25:48 I misunderstood.
09:25:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: She's saying the 9th isn't good.
09:25:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The 9th we have a night meeting.
09:25:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here is what I would suggest.

09:26:01 Because it's the holiday season, because everyone has
09:26:03 got a lot of other things that they are trying to do
09:26:06 in November and December, and we have one night
09:26:08 meeting in each one of those months and we just -- we
09:26:11 stick it out as long as we need to.
09:26:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's what we've done over the
09:26:16 last several years.
09:26:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So there's no reason to change.
09:26:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If we do move it to November 2nd,
09:26:21 you do cut a week out of the process, and we wind up
09:26:24 having an eight-week process versus a nine-week
09:26:26 process.
09:26:27 Just that last seven days is very essential to staff.
09:26:31 We try to plan our vacations and time off around you
09:26:34 guys as well.
09:26:35 Sometimes people take off a week here and there, and
09:26:37 it gets difficult in the reviews of the PDs.
09:26:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I would move that we
09:26:42 have -- we stick with one meeting on November 16th,
09:26:46 and what was the one December meeting?
09:26:48 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The 14th.
09:26:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: December 14th.

09:26:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
09:26:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: On November the 9th, we're scheduled
09:26:57 to have a night meeting.
09:26:59 >>CLERK: We are recommending it be cancelled because
09:27:02 the city is closed the next day.
09:27:07 To the 16th.
09:27:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Why is closed that day?
09:27:11 >>CLERK: That's veterans day.
09:27:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And then on the 16th, we're going to
09:27:16 have a night meeting?
09:27:18 We have nothing on November the 2nd, so we're still
09:27:21 going with one meeting.
09:27:25 Oh, Jesus.
09:27:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, first of all, I don't
09:27:30 mean to barge in.
09:27:31 The Mayor and I were in an emergency room ceremony.
09:27:33 That's why I came in late.
09:27:35 I can resolve this whole discussion.
09:27:36 I think if we are the dedicated public servants that I
09:27:40 believe we are, I think we should work through all the
09:27:42 November holidays and all the December holidays.
09:27:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Emergency room, what did they do to

09:27:48 you?
09:27:48 Something to your head.
09:27:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think Kevin will second that motion,
09:27:54 right?
09:28:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm going to give this a whirl, I
09:28:09 know our November and December meetings have been
09:28:11 especially crazy.
09:28:12 And one meeting -- one meeting is really tough for
09:28:17 rezoning.
09:28:18 Because we have so many, unless we change something
09:28:27 radically, I would much prefer us having two meetings.
09:28:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can share an observation, if
09:28:39 Council were to take the two meetings in November,
09:28:42 leaving aside talking about December and separate the
09:28:46 plan amendments from the rezonings as opposed to what
09:28:52 happened previously.
09:28:52 It was based on Council's concern that Mr. Goers went
09:28:56 through a whole very involved process to be able to
09:28:59 create a system where he can separate the two.
09:29:01 Obviously it wasn't contemplated, you know, the
09:29:03 holiday schedule.
09:29:04 But if Council were to schedule two meetings in

09:29:06 November, it would at least allow the orderly plan to
09:29:09 have the plan amendments.
09:29:10 Unless Council knowingly schedules the long
09:29:14 meetings --
09:29:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Just what I made a motion to do,
09:29:18 Mr. Shelby.
09:29:19 Schedule one long meeting.
09:29:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no.
09:29:21 He's saying bifurcate it.
09:29:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I know.
09:29:24 And he's saying have two meetings.
09:29:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm saying on November 2nd, have
09:29:29 the plan amendments for Mr. Goers, which then won't
09:29:32 upset the staff because -- it's two meetings, but we
09:29:37 should have had three.
09:29:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: Why don't you all do two things.
09:29:41 The holidays are very packed for a lot of people.
09:29:43 I think Mr. Harrison's logic -- and this hopefully
09:29:45 will not affect me -- but he's talking about one long
09:29:48 meeting instead of two because of all the commitments.
09:29:51 Why don't you make one motion, if it fails, then go to
09:29:53 the other.

09:29:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't think it's clear to Council
09:29:56 members, that what we normally would have is one
09:29:58 meeting with all the plan amendments which is Randy
09:30:01 goers, which is not zoning, in two zoning meetings.
09:30:04 What Mr. Harrison is suggesting that we combine all
09:30:07 three into one, and I think that's too much.
09:30:09 I'm suggesting that we do plan amendments on
09:30:11 November 2nd, which wouldn't inconvenience Catherine
09:30:14 Coyle because she's dealing with zonings, so we do the
09:30:18 2nd for plan amendments and the 16th for two
09:30:21 meetings' worth of zonings packed into one.
09:30:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: Let's see where the majority wants to
09:30:25 be.
09:30:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We just wiped November 30th out
09:30:31 because of Thanksgiving.
09:30:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thanksgiving is the prior week.
09:30:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are we having a meeting on the
09:30:40 30th?
09:30:47 >> Planning Commission staff, I would suggest the plan
09:30:49 amendments be on November the 16th.
09:30:51 The Planning Commission is not scheduled to hear the
09:30:53 plan amendments until November the 13th.

09:30:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What we do on the 16th, have all
09:30:58 the plan amendments and two rezoning meetings packed
09:31:01 into one.
09:31:01 >>CATHERINE COYLE: What we typically do, we change the
09:31:04 limit from 10 new to 12 new and have three continued.
09:31:09 If you recall, we limited it to 15 to November and
09:31:12 December every year.
09:31:13 What it does, essentially, it pushes people back a
09:31:16 little bit into January and February.
09:31:18 And we typically try to even out sometime in February
09:31:20 or March.
09:31:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Cathy, what is wrong with
09:31:24 November 30th?
09:31:25 There's nothing on that calendar.
09:31:28 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I don't know what is wrong with
09:31:31 November 30th.
09:31:32 It's not a second or fourth Thursday.
09:31:34 That was never a consideration.
09:31:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a great idea.
09:31:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That would give us the 16th and then
09:31:41 the 30th.
09:31:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would second that motion.

09:31:44 >>GWEN MILLER: What was your motion?
09:31:48 >>CLERK: We had a motion, but there was no second to
09:31:50 the motion.
09:31:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to make it again.
09:31:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: One meeting, November 16th.
09:31:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Second?
09:32:00 Died for lack of a second.
09:32:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And my motion is that we have night
09:32:04 meeting on November 16th and November 30th.
09:32:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:32:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There's nothing on there.
09:32:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: November 30th would be the
09:32:10 rezonings and November 16th, we'll stick with the
09:32:13 plan amendments.
09:32:13 >>CLERK: We're closed for two days the following week.
09:32:20 There's only three days the following week because of
09:32:23 Thanksgiving.
09:32:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The 30th we have nothing.
09:32:28 And --
09:32:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Will you all be here?
09:32:39 >>CLERK: We're closed for the holiday for Thanksgiving
09:32:42 the week before.

09:32:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We're open the week of the 30th.
09:32:48 Great.
09:32:48 Let's meet.
09:32:49 There's a motion and second, Madam Chair.
09:32:50 >>GWEN MILLER: There's a motion and second to meet
09:32:53 November the 16th and the 30th.
09:32:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: For a night meeting.
09:32:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Any question on the motion.
09:32:58 >>CLERK: That would be at 6:00 on the 30th and 5:01
09:33:01 on the 16th.
09:33:04 >>GWEN MILLER: 5:01 on the 16th and 6:00 on the
09:33:07 30s.
09:33:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And all the zonings will be on the
09:33:09 30th.
09:33:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion?
09:33:11 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:33:13 Opposed, nay.
09:33:16 >>CLERK: I have one clarification, on August 10, since
09:33:21 you cancelled your day session, that was also a night
09:33:23 meeting, we had recommended August 3rd or
09:33:25 August 17th to reschedule that night meeting to.
09:33:28 I don't know if that would have --

09:33:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: 17th is fine with staff.
09:33:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to reschedule the
09:33:35 August 10th evening meeting to August 17th.
09:33:38 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:33:40 All in favor, aye.
09:33:41 Opposed, nay.
09:33:42 [Motion Carried]
09:33:43 Is that all the dates?
09:33:52 We need to go to item 9.
09:33:54 Read the ordinance.
09:33:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move an ordinance making lawful
09:33:59 the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than
09:34:02 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines
09:34:05 regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine,
09:34:08 2-COP-R for consumption on the premises only in
09:34:11 connection with a restaurant business establishment at
09:34:15 or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
09:34:17 located at 1617 West Platt Street, Tampa, Florida, as
09:34:21 more particularly described in section 2 hereof,
09:34:23 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon
09:34:26 certain findings, imposing certain conditions,
09:34:29 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,

09:34:32 providing an effective date.
09:34:32 >>GWEN MILLER: All those in favor, aye.
09:34:34 Opposed, nay.
09:34:34 [Motion Carried]
09:34:35 Anybody in the public like to ask for reconsideration?
09:34:40 Anyone like to ask for reconsideration?
09:34:43 Okay.
09:34:43 We go to our committee reports.
09:34:47 Public safety, are you ready, Ms. Ferlita.
09:34:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes, Madam Chairman.
09:34:51 Thank you.
09:34:51 I would like to move resolutions 12 through 17,
09:34:54 please.
09:34:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
09:34:56 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:34:58 [Motion Carried]
09:34:58 Parks, recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
09:35:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:35:03 I move items 18 and 19.
09:35:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:35:07 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:35:09 [Motion Carried]

09:35:09 Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
09:35:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:35:12 I'll move items 20 through 27.
09:35:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:35:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:35:17 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:35:19 [Motion Carried]
09:35:19 Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
09:35:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, move items 28 through 31.
09:35:29 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:35:34 [Motion Carried]
09:35:35 Building and zoning.
09:35:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to mention item 29,
09:35:40 since she's in the audience, Ms. Kimberly Crum is our
09:35:43 new director of human resources.
09:35:46 We just approved her and I think we'll congratulate
09:35:48 her.
09:35:48 [ APPLAUSE ]
09:35:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Ms. Linda
09:35:54 Saul-Sena.
09:35:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:35:55 I would like to move resolutions 32 through --

09:35:59 substitute -- is it for 33 and 34.
09:36:03 Through 37.
09:36:05 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:36:07 Transportation, Mr. Shawn Harrison.
09:36:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:36:11 I move items 38 through 44.
09:36:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:36:17 All in favor, aye.
09:36:20 New business?
09:36:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move items 45, 46, and 49.
09:36:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:36:37 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:36:38 Opposed, nay.
09:36:39 [Motion Carried]
09:36:40 We now go to our public hearing for second reading.
09:36:50 Anybody in the public going to speak on items 50
09:36:52 through 54, would you please stand and raise your
09:36:55 right hand.
09:37:03 (Oath administered by clerk).
09:37:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open items 50 -- we have a
09:37:11 motion and second.
09:37:12 All in favor, aye.

09:37:13 [Motion Carried]
09:37:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, Council, I asked that all
09:37:16 written communications relative to today's hearings
09:37:18 that have been available to the public at Council's
09:37:20 office be received and filed into the record at this
09:37:23 time.
09:37:23 >>CLERK: I do have a few items.
09:37:25 So I need a motion to receive and file.
09:37:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:37:28 All in favor, aye.
09:37:29 [Motion Carried]
09:37:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
09:37:31 And a reminder to Council that if any member of City
09:37:33 Council has any verbal communications with a
09:37:35 petitioner, his or her representative, or any members
09:37:38 of the public in connection with any of the public
09:37:40 hearings that are going to take place, please remember
09:37:43 to disclose the identity of the person, group or
09:37:46 entity with whom the verbal communication occurred and
09:37:49 the substance of the verbal communication before
09:37:51 Council closes the public hearing and takes the vote.
09:37:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public like to

09:37:57 speak on item number 50?
09:38:00 Have a motion and second to close.
09:38:01 All in favor, aye.
09:38:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wanted to make sure I supported
09:38:13 it last time.
09:38:14 Move an ordinance for adoption on second reading, an
09:38:16 ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing and
09:38:17 abandoning a certain right-of-way, all that portion of
09:38:21 unnamed right-of-way lying South of West LaSalle
09:38:24 street, North of West Arch Street, East of North
09:38:26 Habana avenue and West of North Tampania avenue in
09:38:29 "B," Fisher's subdivision, a subdivision located in
09:38:32 the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the
09:38:34 same being more fully described in section 2 hereof,
09:38:37 providing an effective date.
09:38:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:38:40 Voice, roll call.
09:38:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
09:38:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
09:38:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
09:38:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
09:38:47 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

09:38:47 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Ferlita
09:38:50 being absent.
09:38:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public like to speak on
09:38:53 item 51?
09:38:54 Have a motion and second to close.
09:38:55 All in favor, aye.
09:38:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt the following ordinance
09:39:00 upon second reading.
09:39:01 Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing and
09:39:01 abandoning a certain right-of-way, all that alley, all
09:39:05 that portion Binnicker avenue lying South of bay
09:39:08 avenue, North of Averill avenue, East of South 4th
09:39:11 street and West of South 3rd street in Gadsen Avenue
09:39:15 subdivision, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,
09:39:17 Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more
09:39:18 fully described in section 2 hereof, providing an
09:39:20 effective date.
09:39:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:39:22 Voice roll call.
09:39:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
09:39:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
09:39:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

09:39:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
09:39:30 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
09:39:31 >>CLERK: The motion carried with Saul-Sena and Ferlita
09:39:35 being absent.
09:39:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody in the public like to speak on
09:39:38 item 52?
09:39:39 Motion and second to close.
09:39:41 All in favor, aye.
09:39:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following
09:39:44 ordinance upon second reading.
09:39:45 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
09:39:47 of 6107, 6111, 6113, 6115, and 6117 Interbay Boulevard
09:39:55 in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly
09:39:57 described in section 1 from zoning district
09:40:00 classification RS-60, residential single-family, to
09:40:03 RS-50, residential single-family, providing an
09:40:05 effective date.
09:40:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second.
09:40:08 Voice roll call.
09:40:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
09:40:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
09:40:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.

09:40:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
09:40:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
09:40:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
09:40:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
09:40:16 >>CLERK: The motion carried.
09:40:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public like to speak on
09:40:20 item 53?
09:40:21 Have a motion and second to close.
09:40:23 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:40:26 Mr. Harrison.
09:40:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following
09:40:28 ordinance upon second reading.
09:40:30 Ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
09:40:31 902 South Dakota Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida,
09:40:35 and more particularly described in section 1 from
09:40:37 zoning district classifications RS-60, single-family
09:40:39 residential to PD, multifamily residential, providing
09:40:42 an effective date.
09:40:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
09:40:47 My agenda doesn't have the votes from the previous
09:40:50 hearing.
09:40:51 >>GWEN MILLER: White and Miller were absent.

09:40:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Otherwise was it unanimous?
09:41:00 Don't we usually have -- but it doesn't indicate how
09:41:06 we voted the last time.
09:41:10 >>CLERK: It's unanimous unless you either marked it no
09:41:13 or abstain.
09:41:14 Otherwise, it's absent.
09:41:17 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:41:18 Voice roll call.
09:41:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
09:41:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
09:41:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
09:41:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
09:41:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
09:41:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
09:41:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
09:41:28 >>CLERK: Motion carried.
09:41:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public like to
09:41:30 speak on item 54?
09:41:33 Motion and second to close.
09:41:34 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:41:36 Ms. Saul-Sena.
09:41:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move the following

09:41:46 ordinance for adoption upon second reading.
09:41:54 A small-scale amendment to the Tampa comprehensive
09:41:56 plan future land use element, future land use map, in
09:41:58 the general vicinity South of cypress Street, North of
09:42:01 Cass Street, West of Oregon Avenue and East of Rome
09:42:04 Avenue from general mixed use 24 to community mixed
09:42:08 use 35.
09:42:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
09:42:12 >>CLERK: Madam Chair, I believe you need to read the
09:42:14 title below.
09:42:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Providing for repeal of all
09:42:18 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
09:42:20 providing an effective date.
09:42:21 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:42:22 Voice roll call.
09:42:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
09:42:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
09:42:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
09:42:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
09:42:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
09:42:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
09:42:30 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

09:42:31 >>CLERK: The motion carried unanimously.
09:42:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public who wants
09:42:46 to speak on items 55 through 57 --
09:42:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They are scheduled for 10:00, so we
09:42:53 can't -- but, Madam Chairman, on 55, since we have a
09:42:56 couple of minutes before this comes up, I would like
09:42:59 to get a report back real quickly on whether the City
09:43:02 of Tampa collected the fine that was levied on Kimmins
09:43:06 for all the trees that they took down without permit
09:43:09 on this property.
09:43:10 It's something that's, like, three years old, and I
09:43:13 have no idea.
09:43:14 So if somebody is listening from permitting or fine
09:43:20 collection or whatever the appropriate department is,
09:43:21 if you could come in and report on that by 10:00.
09:43:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll go from information from Council
09:43:28 members.
09:43:28 Mr. White, do you have anything?
09:43:30 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes, ma'am.
09:43:30 Real quickly, I have a memorandum from Gregory
09:43:33 Spearman requesting -- basically it's an informational
09:43:38 type deal that says the disparity study is near

09:43:41 completion, and we're -- the administration is
09:43:43 requesting the approval of Council to have a workshop
09:43:48 approximately one to one and a half hours in length on
09:43:52 Tuesday, May the 2nd, or Wednesday, May 3rd.
09:43:55 I talked to Mr. Spearman, and the reason that they've
09:43:58 requested those particular dates is that the
09:44:02 consultant will be in town on those days, basically
09:44:05 giving the Aviation Authority an update on the
09:44:11 progress of the disparity study.
09:44:13 And what I told Mr. Spearman, I said I don't
09:44:18 personally have a problem with that, but I said just
09:44:20 what we talked about last week in Council meeting,
09:44:23 we're continually trying to do these special
09:44:25 discussion meetings on days other than Council meeting
09:44:28 days.
09:44:29 We're not under the gun or under any particular
09:44:33 deadline and I don't have a problem with these dates
09:44:34 or any other date.
09:44:36 But what I asked Mr. Spearman, is there any
09:44:39 possibility of having a workshop during a Council day.
09:44:43 I would much rather stay here an hour to get a
09:44:46 briefing on a day that we are here.

09:44:48 They do not -- the administration is not opposed to
09:44:51 that, but the consultant would have to fly back in.
09:44:54 That would, quote, unquote, put a damper on the
09:44:57 consultant.
09:44:59 But the project itself is under budget at this point
09:45:02 in time.
09:45:04 I don't know what the pleasure of Council is.
09:45:09 I'm fine either way.
09:45:10 We're under budget.
09:45:12 If the consultant has to come back to Tampa to give us
09:45:14 a briefing, that's, you know, so be it.
09:45:20 I don't know.
09:45:21 Either Tuesday May 2nd, or Wednesday May 3rd,
09:45:24 we'll have the consultants here or we can give him
09:45:27 alternative dates that we may be able to hear an hour
09:45:31 workshop briefing.
09:45:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I would prefer a
09:45:33 Thursday, just because we know we'll all be here.
09:45:36 And I do want to be here for this.
09:45:38 If we are under budget, I think we can spring for the
09:45:41 cost of a plane ticket for him to come back down at
09:45:44 whatever meets his schedule.

09:45:45 That's what I would prefer.
09:45:48 >>CLERK: The memo also from Mr. Spearman is also
09:45:50 indicated that they would also like to schedule a
09:45:52 brief presentation on Thursday, May 4th at 11:00 by
09:45:55 the consultant.
09:45:56 In addition to either the special discussion meeting
09:45:59 on the 2nd or the 3rd.
09:46:02 >>KEVIN WHITE: I don't know if that fits within the
09:46:04 consultant's time frame, but I'm sure, but by the same
09:46:06 token, we hired the consultant.
09:46:08 The consultant ought to be at our disposal, I would
09:46:10 think.
09:46:10 >>GWEN MILLER: So you're saying on which Thursday?
09:46:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make that as a motion,
09:46:15 if that's okay with everyone else, that May 4th,
09:46:20 maybe at 1:30, when we come back from lunch, we can
09:46:23 have the presentation at 11:00.
09:46:27 And then if there's any discussion directly or after
09:46:31 lunch.
09:46:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If we don't need it, we can cancel
09:46:35 the 1:30 session.
09:46:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May 4th is clear.

09:46:40 >>CLERK: You're wanting to schedule the presentation
09:46:42 at --
09:46:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: The WMBE presentation at 11.
09:46:46 If we need the further workshop for the consultant, if
09:46:49 necessary, we'll come back at 1:30, if necessary.
09:46:51 >>CLERK: According to the memo, it says the consultant
09:46:54 is scheduled to make a brief presentation at 11:00,
09:46:56 which you have not set yet.
09:46:59 Sounds like he will be here in town on the 4th, 11
09:47:03 then?
09:47:03 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
09:47:04 >>CLERK: They didn't specify.
09:47:05 They just said a brief presentation on the special
09:47:08 discussion.
09:47:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: Said between an hour, hour and a half
09:47:11 maximum.
09:47:11 >>GWEN MILLER: You're saying have the workshop at
09:47:13 11:00?
09:47:15 Then if we need to meet --
09:47:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Come back after lunch if we have to.
09:47:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:47:21 This is a disparity study that we've been waiting for

09:47:23 the results of for years.
09:47:25 If they say they need an hour and a half, I daresay
09:47:28 they need at least an hour.
09:47:30 So let's let them know that they need to be able to be
09:47:33 available in the afternoon after lunch in case.
09:47:35 So we're scheduling this for 11:00, assuming -- when
09:47:39 they proposed these dates, they assumed we're going to
09:47:42 have, like, a long discussion workshop prior to this
09:47:46 brief sort of summation at Council.
09:47:49 What I understand Mr. Harrison to say is, he wants to
09:47:51 do the whole thing at Council.
09:47:52 So what I'm saying is, I think we're going to need at
09:47:55 least an hour.
09:47:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: At 11, and then if we need to come back
09:48:00 for the summation, after lunch or if they need more
09:48:04 time, that's fine.
09:48:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I wonder if we get it in
09:48:07 advance, and we read it, why would we schedule an hour
09:48:11 for it?
09:48:15 I mean, is there action -- is there going to be action
09:48:18 proposed associated with it at this point?
09:48:20 Or is it just the report itself?

09:48:22 >> I'm sure there is going to be action taken.
09:48:25 Or the recommendations of actions.
09:48:26 I'm not sure, until Mr. Spearman gets all the data
09:48:30 collection, we don't know --
09:48:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It seems early to be proposing
09:48:34 action if the report is just coming out.
09:48:37 I don't know if anybody has action plan yet.
09:48:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: I guess we'll find out.
09:48:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Probably be members of the public
09:48:44 that will want to speak on it.
09:48:46 So I think at least an hour is probably going to be
09:48:48 necessary too.
09:48:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If that's the intent for the whole
09:48:53 process be an hour including the public, that's fine.
09:48:56 But if it's sitting here listening to staff read a
09:48:59 report that we can read ourselves, I wouldn't be too
09:49:01 keen on it.
09:49:02 >>CLERK: I have a motion but no send on the motion.
09:49:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:49:05 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to do it at
09:49:08 11:00 on May the 4th.
09:49:09 If we need to come back for discussion, we'll come

09:49:12 back at 1:30.
09:49:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification.
09:49:17 Will that be at a time certain?
09:49:20 But the question will be, will Council stop wherever
09:49:23 it is and begin it at 11:00?
09:49:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that the consensus of the group?
09:49:30 We have a motion and second.
09:49:31 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:49:32 [Motion Carried]
09:49:34 >>CLERK: You are not scheduling any special discussion
09:49:36 meetings on the 2nd or 3rd.
09:49:38 >>GWEN MILLER: That Tuesday and Wednesday, no.
09:49:41 Anything else, Mr. White?
09:49:42 >>KEVIN WHITE: No, ma'am.
09:49:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
09:49:45 Just a couple of quick brief things.
09:49:47 Again, I would like to congratulate the administration
09:49:49 at Memorial Hospital.
09:49:51 Their emergency room was filled to capacity, and they
09:49:54 do the best they can.
09:49:56 This new expansion will be great, particularly for
09:49:59 South Tampa health care.

09:50:01 Just in the middle of our busy schedule here, I would
09:50:03 like to take a couple of moments to acknowledge
09:50:07 sympathy and prayer to a couple of families that are
09:50:11 involved in our community in many ways, Ted and robin,
09:50:16 have lost their son to an accident as well as Vin
09:50:20 Marchetti and his family have lost their daughter to
09:50:22 an accident.
09:50:24 And that's when we all just stop and some of the
09:50:26 things we do don't seem to be so important.
09:50:29 So my heartfelt sympathy and I know all of yours as
09:50:32 well to them with our prayers of whatever denomination
09:50:35 and our heartfelt sorrow to both of those families.
09:50:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a couple of things.
09:50:45 One of the things that I received in my e-mail was
09:50:49 from the Miami Herald talking about their streetcar
09:50:53 system.
09:50:53 And it was very enlightening to know that the
09:50:57 Miami-Dade area is planning to do a streetcar.
09:51:02 And original $132 million plan calls for modern
09:51:08 air-conditioned cars to run 6.7 miles of track.
09:51:13 And now, because they haven't really gone ahead, it's
09:51:16 going to be 200 million.

09:51:18 So you know what, I don't feel really bad that our
09:51:21 53 million-dollar streetcar is doing as well as it's
09:51:29 doing.
09:51:29 We got a bargain, I want to tell you.
09:51:31 Also, also -- the original starting date would have
09:51:37 been 2008, and now because of all the construction
09:51:41 costs and everything, it's going to be 2010.
09:51:47 And the problem is, thousands of new condo units --
09:51:51 and I want you guys to hear this really careful, will
09:51:54 be finished and ready for occupancy years before the
09:51:58 streetcar could be ready.
09:51:59 And without the streetcar, boosters and skeptics alike
09:52:04 envision a seriously gridlocked downtown core.
09:52:08 Now, isn't that interesting?
09:52:10 Here we are, we've been trying to put the streetcar on
09:52:13 the map, and all we get is criticism from the media,
09:52:16 and everyone else that's in the Hillsborough County
09:52:18 commission and on Hartline.
09:52:21 Not all of them, I want to say.
09:52:22 And besides -- at this point, I do want to
09:52:25 congratulate Mr. Dingfelder for sticking up for the
09:52:30 streetcar on the Hartline board.

09:52:32 But it's very interesting that we were the first with
09:52:34 the air conditioned cars in Tampa.
09:52:37 And now Miami is doing the same thing that we've done,
09:52:40 and we're ahead of them.
09:52:41 So when you hear of somebody talking about the
09:52:44 streetcar, that it doesn't have enough riders, just
09:52:47 tell them about Miami, because they are -- they want
09:52:50 to do exactly the same thing that we're doing, only
09:52:52 it's going to cost them $200 million so I just had to
09:52:59 say that.
09:53:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Cities all over this country want to
09:53:04 build streetcars.
09:53:07 It is catching on like wildfire.
09:53:08 And the reason for it is because there's federal money
09:53:11 to do it.
09:53:12 And that's why I was happy to see on the agenda today
09:53:14 that we're moving forward with at least starting to
09:53:18 look at the feasibility of the extension of the
09:53:21 one-third mile, because there's federal money in
09:53:24 Washington just sitting there waiting for someone to
09:53:26 come and ask for it.
09:53:27 I am convinced that we can make this extension

09:53:29 one-third of a mile without one dime of City of Tampa
09:53:33 taxpayer money being used to do it.
09:53:35 So I'm happy to see that we're moving forward with
09:53:37 that.
09:53:37 We'll see where it goes.
09:53:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one other thing.
09:53:43 Of course, my colleagues know that Linnda and I did
09:53:46 the Channel District.
09:53:48 And if we hurt anybody's feelings, I'm sorry about
09:53:51 that.
09:53:52 It's just that to us, the Channel District is very
09:53:57 viable piece of Tampa's history that's going to come
09:54:03 alive.
09:54:03 And it's coming alive.
09:54:05 And it's so important to us to see that the people in
09:54:08 that area are so vocal, and they want the best.
09:54:12 And we want to do the best for them, but if we don't
09:54:15 stay together with them and we don't -- if we don't
09:54:19 see the same things at the same time, I'm afraid that
09:54:22 we may make a mistake.
09:54:24 And that was my only intention on this.
09:54:26 I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings on that.

09:54:30 But I think we had a good tour.
09:54:34 The folks that went with us were very vocal about it.
09:54:38 They loved -- they loved their district.
09:54:40 It's just so heart warming to see that they're taking
09:54:45 an interest in that.
09:54:47 And I'm glad I went.
09:54:49 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:54:51 Ms. Alvarez, I read the article as well, and I can't
09:54:55 speak for my any other Council member on the board but
09:54:58 I personally took no offense at all, and I understand
09:55:02 your passion.
09:55:03 Channelside is my district and I would have wanted to
09:55:06 be there more than anybody, but one of the
09:55:08 unfortunate, I guess, realities of the situation is --
09:55:11 and I understand your passion -- is that some of your
09:55:16 colleagues have businesses to run, have other
09:55:18 obligations, and primary places of employment that we
09:55:23 just can't reschedule all the time.
09:55:28 And the scheduling, unfortunately, does at times
09:55:31 conflict.
09:55:33 I think that we try to be everything that we can be if
09:55:36 it's at all feasibly possible.

09:55:39 But there was no offense taken at all.
09:55:42 Just like Ms. Saul-Sena said earlier, she wanted us to
09:55:48 schedule a meeting in the evening for the people in
09:55:50 Channelside because they work and they want to attend
09:55:52 a night meeting.
09:55:56 It's the same for us.
09:55:57 Maybe if we went to some of the special -- I'm not an
09:56:01 advocate for scheduling everything in the evening, but
09:56:04 maybe if we did a 5:30 tour, you know that may have
09:56:07 been a more feasible thing for some of us that have
09:56:12 other obligations.
09:56:13 Those are some of the other options that we may want
09:56:15 to explore in the future when scheduling some of these
09:56:19 things and when the majority can.
09:56:22 I didn't take any offense at it, like I said, I think
09:56:24 most of the people here know that some of us do have
09:56:26 other obligations.
09:56:28 I didn't take any offense.
09:56:30 >>GWEN MILLER: I don't think any of us took any
09:56:32 offense.
09:56:39 Anything else, Ms. Alvarez?
09:56:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, that's it.

09:56:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison.
09:56:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:56:44 Speaking of studies, there was, if we all recall,
09:56:47 there was some sort of salary study that the
09:56:49 administration was taking on several months ago, that
09:56:53 was going to look at the salaries for the aides, the
09:56:58 Mayor, and Council members, as I recall.
09:57:00 And we haven't heard anything for months about that.
09:57:03 And so I would just like them to update us next week
09:57:07 on the status of that study.
09:57:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:57:11 All in favor of the motion, aye.
09:57:13 [Motion Carried]
09:57:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, Madam Chairman, Council
09:57:19 members, there's another way in which we have really
09:57:21 come out beyond Miami.
09:57:23 This is like -- our Performing Arts center with four
09:57:27 theaters and a conservatory which is absolutely a huge
09:57:31 success was built for $57 million.
09:57:34 Miami is going to break ground on their Performing
09:57:36 Arts center, which they haven't quite done yet.
09:57:41 We started planning 25 years ago at the same time.

09:57:43 Theirs is going to have fewer theaters and cost 400
09:57:47 million for a lesser facility than we have.
09:57:49 I'm very, very proud of that.
09:57:54 To also discuss the Channel District, the
09:57:57 administration said they would be willing to do custom
09:58:00 tours for any of the Council members who weren't able
09:58:03 to come.
09:58:03 We understand the scheduling challenges.
09:58:05 I really encourage you to do that.
09:58:07 Particularly, I think you should make sure Henry Lewis
09:58:10 opens his penthouse for you.
09:58:11 The view from there and the beauty of that building is
09:58:16 impressive.
09:58:16 You really see what is coming out of the ground and it
09:58:19 was very, very educational.
09:58:20 I think we have all received correspondence from
09:58:23 residents who very much want to participate in our
09:58:27 discussion of the Channel District plan.
09:58:30 What they said is please schedule it in the evening.
09:58:33 So we have currently scheduled it for, I think,
09:58:35 March 29th.
09:58:38 I'm sorry, may I borrow your calendar?

09:58:41 March 30th at 10:30.
09:58:43 And I'm wondering if we could somehow do something in
09:58:47 the evening when it's more convenient for these folks.
09:58:51 March 30th, I don't know, maybe at 5:00, on the
09:58:54 23rd instead of the March 30th.
09:59:00 I'm talking about the -- on March 30th at 10:30, we
09:59:04 have a workshop discussion on the Channel District
09:59:08 plan.
09:59:09 And residents really want to participate.
09:59:11 And it's, as Mr. White said, 10:30 in the morning when
09:59:15 they are working.
09:59:16 What I'm suggesting is that maybe we do something
09:59:19 before or after or something, like, perhaps, on the
09:59:22 23rd, we have a zoning meeting at 5:30.
09:59:26 Maybe we could hear from residents at 5:00.
09:59:29 And then, again, have the thing on the 30th at
09:59:31 10:30.
09:59:33 I really -- I don't have a suggestion in terms of a
09:59:36 time.
09:59:36 I just feel strongly that Council needs to allow --
09:59:41 encourage the participation of residents by scheduling
09:59:44 it in the evening.

09:59:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, first of all, March 23rd, I
09:59:50 know I will not be here.
09:59:52 And I do want to be here for that, because I did miss
09:59:55 the walking tour.
09:59:56 However, I don't -- I want to just caution us F all
09:59:59 we're doing is setting a workshop and it's just going
10:00:01 to be a discussion, I don't know that we really have
10:00:06 to have a night meeting for that.
10:00:11 If it's an ordinance or there's actually going to be
10:00:13 action that we take, then I think we would be more
10:00:16 productive to schedule that for a night meeting so
10:00:18 everyone can come in.
10:00:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, I belief as a result of the
10:00:24 special discussion meeting, both Mr. English and
10:00:27 Mr. Chen indicated that if Council wishes to give
10:00:31 staff specific direction to move forward with things
10:00:35 that are contrary or different from the plan, that it
10:00:38 be done by official action.
10:00:40 So basically what it would be, I guess, the workshop,
10:00:43 as I understand it, would be a discussion of the plan
10:00:46 amongst Council.
10:00:48 And if Council wishes to take input during a workshop,

10:00:51 Council can.
10:00:52 A consensus as to what within the plan, if any, thing
10:00:57 wish to be changed, and then an official action by
10:01:00 motion, direction to staff to do implementing
10:01:07 legislation consistent with what Council's direction
10:01:09 is.
10:01:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But would that come back to us,
10:01:12 then, for an opportunity for the public to see what
10:01:14 we've -- what kind of input -- when is the appropriate
10:01:18 time for public input?
10:01:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, there was public input at the
10:01:23 special discussion meeting.
10:01:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But that was during the day.
10:01:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's always opportunity for public
10:01:29 input at the end of council meetings on any item on
10:01:31 the agenda.
10:01:31 They don't have to come in at any particular time to
10:01:36 share what their points are.
10:01:37 I guess Mrs. Smith is here and Ms. O'Dowd with regard
10:01:40 to where this plan goes from here.
10:01:42 The purpose of the workshop, as I understand it was,
10:01:45 there were some issues that were raised by the public

10:01:49 that caused concern amongst Council members that made
10:01:52 them want to maybe reconsider recommendations within
10:01:56 the plan.
10:01:57 And Mr. Chen's request was rather than take an
10:02:01 individual Council member's objection and then have to
10:02:04 deal with that, what he wanted was any direction come
10:02:07 from Council as a body to the administration relative
10:02:11 to changes of the recommendations.
10:02:15 >> Good morning.
10:02:16 David Smith, City Attorney.
10:02:17 One of the things we would request you consider is
10:02:20 having this reviewed by the CRA first, because it's a
10:02:22 plan instrumental in that entire process.
10:02:25 And also the plan doesn't have any effect until we
10:02:27 make sure we comply with the comp plan, probably amend
10:02:30 the comp plan in compliance with the plan and then
10:02:33 amend any LDRs that we need to do.
10:02:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Land Development regulations.
10:02:39 >> Land Development regulations.
10:02:41 Sorry.
10:02:43 What seems to be the most efficient way to proceed,
10:02:45 the CRA has a lot more flexibility with respect to

10:02:48 what it is doing, and it is setting the tenor of
10:02:51 development for the area.
10:02:52 And it may be that the more appropriate venue is as
10:02:55 the CRA to deal with the plan and the concepts and the
10:02:59 issues and take action.
10:03:00 And then once that input is received, the plan will be
10:03:03 revised or not revised, depending upon what you do.
10:03:07 Then we can worry about the rest of the governmental
10:03:09 process.
10:03:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Got a great idea.
10:03:13 We've always talked about having meetings within the
10:03:16 CRA areas.
10:03:16 We haven't done it for a long time.
10:03:18 Why don't we have a town hall-style workshop in
10:03:23 Channelside on an evening session and call it a CRA
10:03:29 meeting.
10:03:29 That way we can all get out there.
10:03:31 We can take a walking tour that evening before the
10:03:34 meeting starts, and we can all --
10:03:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we had one scheduled in the
10:03:45 Channelside District.
10:03:46 Did you all get a memo?

10:03:49 Had to change something on there.
10:03:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do it in the port building.
10:03:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The fancy condo that you looked at.
10:04:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Maybe give us champagne while we're
10:04:02 there.
10:04:03 Mr. Smith, does that sound okay with you that we could
10:04:06 do -- and I'm speaking as the Chairman of the CRA
10:04:09 right now.
10:04:10 >> Yes, ma'am.
10:04:10 That's a great idea.
10:04:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That we could do a town hall meeting
10:04:13 and then invite people, maybe ask the port if we could
10:04:16 meet there, in their building.
10:04:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't we schedule that tonight
10:04:22 and if you coordinate it this afternoon.
10:04:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.
10:04:26 I'll ask Desiree to do something about that.
10:04:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Harrison, that is a good idea,
10:04:31 because I think we have always underevaluated what we
10:04:35 can do as a sitting CRA.
10:04:40 It seems that the frustration in terms of the height
10:04:42 limitations or the plan that's coming forward or what

10:04:44 Michael English tells us or doesn't tell us and what
10:04:47 we know and don't know is confusing to all of us and
10:04:50 frustrating to all of.
10:04:51 So I think under that heading with that umbrella,
10:04:53 Ms. Alvarez, you've got more power than anybody else,
10:04:56 including the administration.
10:04:57 And if we want to do something in Channelside, that's
10:05:00 an incredible idea and just go forward with it and
10:05:02 just not ask some people what we need to do.
10:05:05 But just do whatever we feel is the appropriate thing
10:05:07 to control the type of growth that Nevada in -- that
10:05:11 we have in Channel District.
10:05:12 I wholeheartedly support that.
10:05:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll leave it with Ms. Alvarez.
10:05:19 She'll come back with a date and time.
10:05:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
10:05:21 We are already working on that because the suggestion
10:05:23 that our board made at the time that we wanted the
10:05:25 group -- the CRA to do that.
10:05:28 So we're going to coordinate everything, and then
10:05:30 we'll let you know.
10:05:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul, anything else?

10:05:36 Mr. Dingfelder?
10:05:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
10:05:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I do have a question.
10:05:44 I know that Desiree Valdez has been our representative
10:05:46 on an affordable housing task force.
10:05:48 And recently when we've had zonings come up,
10:05:51 Ms. Alvarez has been saying, is there affordable
10:05:54 housing?
10:05:54 Is there affordable housing.
10:05:56 I know that the city must be developing some kind of
10:05:58 affordable housing policy or workforce housing,
10:06:00 whatever the acronym is, I think we need to know where
10:06:05 the administration is on this.
10:06:07 And I think it would be really helpful to schedule
10:06:09 something.
10:06:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Excuse me, Ms. Saul-Sena.
10:06:13 It's actually the Hillsborough County task force
10:06:15 that's doing it.
10:06:16 And Tom Scott is the -- is chairing that.
10:06:19 But Desiree can come over and give us a briefing on
10:06:24 what they've done so far.
10:06:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, that I think we need to know

10:06:28 how we need to phase it into our actual land use
10:06:34 process.
10:06:34 So I think that would be really helpful.
10:06:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have our housing director
10:06:38 participate in this.
10:06:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Green.
10:06:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The thing that we need to remember is
10:06:42 that there's affordable housing and there's workforce
10:06:45 housing.
10:06:45 And that we need to distinguish the two.
10:06:49 So Desiree, you want to chime in?
10:06:52 >> Desiree Valdez, City Council.
10:06:54 On the affordable housing task force, we actually have
10:06:56 a meeting on Monday.
10:06:58 And I can -- I have been trying to get with Sharon
10:07:02 West on it.
10:07:03 We cannot get together because of Sunshine Law.
10:07:06 So what we are doing is -- when we are actually in our
10:07:10 meeting, all of us are discussing it.
10:07:11 But we hope to have this wrapped up by April.
10:07:16 So we're going to be presenting our recommendations --
10:07:20 we've been working with Manny Rivero from USF.

10:07:24 USF is compiling up the plan for affordable housing.
10:07:27 And we're going to take it from there.
10:07:29 We're also requesting that a resolution be passed to
10:07:37 support the Sadowski Act, to take the cap off of the
10:07:42 Sadowski Act.
10:07:43 This is going before the legislature right now.
10:07:45 So we are anticipating coming together as Sharon West
10:07:51 and I before you to ask for that -- for that
10:07:55 recommendation, just our support from the city to be
10:07:58 able to send it up there.
10:08:00 I know the county, I think BOCC has already been
10:08:02 presented this.
10:08:04 I think it's been already passed.
10:08:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You need to bring it to us soon.
10:08:08 >> I will -- on Monday, I will find out about the
10:08:12 SANDOWSKI act and be able to give you a better update
10:08:16 on affordable housing task force.
10:08:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Desiree.
10:08:20 Mr. Dingfelder, did you have anything?
10:08:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
10:08:23 >>GWEN MILLER: I have one thing.
10:08:24 Ms. Alvarez has scheduled a CRA meeting for next

10:08:27 Thursday at 8 a.m.
10:08:28 But they got a long agenda.
10:08:30 She wanted to know if we could start our Council
10:08:33 meeting at 9:30.
10:08:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
10:08:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What's on the CRA agenda?
10:08:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It's going to be the Ybor City, the
10:08:40 YCDC's marketing and branding plan, campaign.
10:08:48 It's a campaign.
10:08:48 And we may not need all the way till 9:30, but so far,
10:08:52 what we're doing is going to take 45 to an hour.
10:08:57 Just that.
10:08:59 This is what we asked for.
10:09:01 And I've been making the meetings for this.
10:09:03 >>GWEN MILLER: we don't need but an hour.
10:09:06 You still want to start at 9:30.
10:09:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just leave it just in case.
10:09:10 We may still have questions.
10:09:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Start CRA at 8:00.
10:09:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Start Council when we're done.
10:09:23 Ms. Alvarez, I see you also have the Channelside
10:09:26 comment section.

10:09:27 We may want to take that off and focus only on the
10:09:30 town hall meeting for the Channelside stuff.
10:09:32 That might shorten it up.
10:09:34 >>GWEN MILLER: City Council meeting at 9:00 and if we
10:09:38 go over, just start the meeting as soon as we
10:09:39 finished.
10:09:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I talked with Mr. Chen about that
10:09:42 yesterday.
10:09:43 What we're going to do, is just do the marketing.
10:09:46 >>GWEN MILLER: We won't change the time.
10:09:47 The Council meeting will start immediately after the
10:09:49 CRA meeting.
10:09:51 Clerk, do you have anything?
10:09:53 >>CLERK: Just to receive and file documents.
10:09:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:09:56 All in favor of the motion, aye.
10:09:57 [Motion Carried]
10:10:00 Now we go back to our agenda, page 4, item number 10.
10:10:09 Is legal here to present first reading?
10:10:16 >>CLERK: I do have the ordinance that was prepared.
10:10:18 And it was an unanimous vote.
10:10:22 This is for the property at 308 West Sligh Avenue,

10:10:25 rezoning it from RS-50 to PD.
10:10:27 It was heard by Council on February 23rd.
10:10:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
10:10:32 the general vicinity of 308 and 310 West Sligh Avenue
10:10:36 and 219 West Elm Street, the City of Tampa, Florida,
10:10:38 and more particularly described in section 1, from
10:10:41 zoning district classifications RS-50, residential
10:10:45 single-family to PD single-family detached
10:10:47 residential, providing an effective date.
10:10:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second.
10:10:50 All in favor of the motion, aye.
10:10:51 [Motion Carried]
10:10:52 Item number 11 is another continued ordinance.
10:10:56 We need to read that.
10:10:57 >>CLERK: That's at 1:30 p.m.
10:11:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wanted to clarify, we had passed
10:11:05 item number 40 already.
10:11:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
10:11:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Claredon is here from Hartline.
10:11:13 Appreciate your attendance.
10:11:14 I wanted to mention, on the trolley extension that we
10:11:16 did pass this.

10:11:17 And I think it's great that we're moving forward at
10:11:19 least to study the extension of the trolley into
10:11:22 downtown.
10:11:23 The first we can extend the trolley into downtown, the
10:11:26 more viable it will be as a commuter vehicle.
10:11:30 So I applaud Hartline and the trolley board on moving
10:11:34 forward with studying this, using federal money and
10:11:38 hopefully we'll build it using federal money.
10:11:40 Thank you.
10:11:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Going back to page 13, item number 55,
10:11:46 56, 57.
10:11:47 Anyone in the public going to speak on any of these,
10:11:49 would you please raise your right hand.
10:11:51 (Oath administered by clerk).
10:12:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 55 is a continued public hearing.
10:12:05 >>CLERK: On item 55, I have received a copy of a
10:12:09 groupwise transmission from Jimmy Cook.
10:12:12 They are asking for it to be continued to March 30th
10:12:15 at 10 a.m.
10:12:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and a second.
10:12:19 All in favor of the motion, aye.
10:12:20 [Motion Carried]

10:12:21 Ms. Saul-Sena.
10:12:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
10:12:23 That's good, because that gives staff an opportunity
10:12:25 to get back to me with my question, which was has the
10:12:28 Kimmins corporation paid the fine for the illegal tree
10:12:31 removal?
10:12:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Will they incorporate that into the
10:12:34 report for this?
10:12:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I would like that to be, I
10:12:37 guess, at the beginning of the meeting on that date
10:12:39 under unfinished business, a written report will
10:12:41 suffice.
10:12:42 If the answer is yes, if the answer is no, then I want
10:12:45 a staff person to explain why not.
10:12:49 My motion is to receive a report from staff on the
10:12:51 payment of the fine for the illegal tree removal at
10:12:55 this location.
10:12:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
10:12:57 All in favor of the motion, aye.
10:12:58 [Motion Carried]
10:12:59 Item 56, staff report?
10:13:06 >> Good morning.

10:13:06 Dennis, manager of historic preservation.
10:13:08 I'm here to respectfully request that this item be
10:13:11 postponed until either after your 1:30 hearing or to
10:13:15 this evening's agenda on behalf of the administration.
10:13:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
10:13:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: For this evening --
10:13:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You mean at 1:30?
10:13:25 >>GWEN MILLER: After the 1:30.
10:13:27 >> Or the evening.
10:13:28 >>GWEN MILLER: 1:30 or 6:00, which one?
10:13:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Seems to me this evening is going to
10:13:42 be long.
10:13:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 1:30.
10:13:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue 56 for
10:13:49 1:30.
10:13:50 All in favor, aye.
10:13:51 [Motion Carried]
10:13:52 >> And also 57.
10:13:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
10:13:56 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor, aye.
10:13:58 [Motion Carried]
10:13:58 58.

10:14:08 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development.
10:14:14 This is a special use one appeal of the zoning
10:14:17 administrator's decision.
10:14:20 This request is for a special use of the property at
10:14:22 1423 East Mohawk Avenue for a development of one
10:14:27 single-family detached dwelling.
10:14:30 You'll note on your staff report that the proposed
10:14:32 special use was listed as two single-family semi
10:14:35 attached dwelling units.
10:14:37 That was a -- it was a typo.
10:14:40 It's actually one single-family detached dwelling
10:14:43 unit.
10:14:43 >>CLERK: This is a quasi-judicial, so you will need to
10:14:46 have your witnesses sworn in.
10:14:48 >>GWEN MILLER: I think most of the people -- anyone in
10:14:49 the public want to speak on item 58, would you please
10:14:52 stand and raise your right hand.
10:14:57 (Oath administered by clerk).
10:15:02 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The lot is -- measures 50 by 132.
10:15:07 The site plan does note that the setbacks will follow
10:15:11 a 25-foot front setback, 10-foot side setbacks and
10:15:15 52-foot rear setback.

10:15:17 The site plan does commit to comply with Seminole
10:15:19 Heights' overlay district.
10:15:22 If you'll note on the map, just for a point of
10:15:30 reference, this property does lie on Mohawk, which is
10:15:33 the East-West street running parallel to Hillsborough
10:15:36 on the North, 15th street runs North-South right at
10:15:40 this corner.
10:15:42 Just to give you a point of reference, if you've been
10:15:44 out in this area, there's a circle K on the northwest
10:15:49 corner, Texaco on the southwest corner, and a Wendy's
10:15:52 on the southeast corner, just so you know.
10:15:54 Anyway, this is a commercial corridor.
10:15:56 This property on the rear is zoned C.I.
10:15:59 When you look around it, all along Mohawk, everything
10:16:03 is residential.
10:16:06 There are single-family homes all the way around the
10:16:08 property.
10:16:12 The code requires for the zoning administrator to
10:16:15 approve this as an administrative approval.
10:16:18 The property is on either -- the properties on either
10:16:20 side have to be zoned residential.
10:16:22 They are zoned commercial; however, the use is

10:16:24 residential.
10:16:25 So it's a glitch in the code the way that it's
10:16:28 written.
10:16:28 We found -- we have no objection because either side
10:16:32 is residential now.
10:16:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What are they proposing?
10:16:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: One single-family house.
10:16:39 One on a 50 by 132-foot lot.
10:16:42 And they commit to comply with the overlay district
10:16:44 standards and they have to meet every other standard
10:16:47 we have.
10:16:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How come they didn't ask to rezone
10:16:49 it?
10:16:50 Was this easier?
10:16:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Well, the application fee is
10:16:55 cheaper.
10:16:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I noticed that it's been hanging
10:17:00 around for a long time.
10:17:01 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I haven't had this case from the
10:17:03 beginning.
10:17:03 I'm just actually doing the presentation.
10:17:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's all right.

10:17:06 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm sorry.
10:17:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
10:17:29 >> Robin Hujar, I'm the owner of the land.
10:17:34 Because we weren't exactly sure what we could do with
10:17:36 it, there was some confusion about density and that
10:17:38 sort of thing, that area.
10:17:40 So we finally just decided just single-family home if
10:17:43 possible on that.
10:17:45 The whole neighborhood is all single-family homes.
10:17:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm familiar with the street.
10:17:50 Thank you.
10:17:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public like to speak on
10:17:52 item 58?
10:17:54 We have a motion and second to close.
10:17:56 All in favor of the motion, aye.
10:18:09 [Motion Carried]
10:18:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance approving a special use
10:18:11 permit, S-1 on appeal of a decision of the zoning
10:18:15 administrator approving the location and construction
10:18:16 of a single-family detached dwelling located at 1423
10:18:20 East Mohawk in the CI, commercial intensive, zoning
10:18:25 district, in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more

10:18:27 particularly described in section 1, waiving the
10:18:30 requirement in section 27-272, regulations governing
10:18:34 individual special uses, providing an effective date.
10:18:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:18:37 All in favor of the motion, aye.
10:18:39 [Motion Carried]
10:18:39 Mr. Dingfelder.
10:18:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:18:41 Ms. O'Dowd, you just heard this case, and Ms. Coyle,
10:18:46 also, I would like the two of you to put your heads
10:18:48 together at some point on this issue, because we've
10:18:50 seen this issue before where your hands are tied.
10:18:54 The zoning administrator's hands are tied, but this
10:18:56 just seemed like a commonsense thing to do.
10:18:58 We're going from a commercial use to a less intensive
10:19:01 use of residential, maybe the zoning administrator
10:19:04 needs to have a little more latitude on that.
10:19:06 It's a funny question to ask you, you know, but I just
10:19:09 think that maybe you guys can look at it and come back
10:19:11 at some point.
10:19:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Actually in the chapter 27 interim
10:19:15 changes, it's actually a simple word change, because

10:19:17 it says "residentially zoned property."
10:19:20 We can put "residential use."
10:19:22 So it's changing of one word.
10:19:24 So I can process that through the changes that will
10:19:25 come before you in April.
10:19:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just point it out when you come
10:19:29 back to us and council will focus on it.
10:19:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else, Council?
10:19:37 Okay.
10:19:38 We stand adjourned until 1:30.
10:19:41 (10:19 a.m.)

Tampa City Council
March 9, 2006
1:30 p.m. Session

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

>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:32:17 Roll call.
13:32:17 [ ROLL CALL ]
13:32:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Before we begin our evening session,
13:32:29 the clerk has some unfinished business from this

13:32:32 morning we need to take care of.
13:32:33 >>CLERK: When Council was setting their proposed
13:32:36 Council or calendar for the rest of the year, we had
13:32:39 brought up the holidays for the November for
13:32:41 Thanksgiving and Christmas, but it wasn't formalized
13:32:44 in a motion.
13:32:48 So I need to have a motion to formalize that.
13:32:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: So move to formalize.
13:32:48 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
13:32:50 [Motion Carried]
13:32:52 >>CLERK: And then on item 49 on the agenda, that was
13:32:54 to set a wet zoning public hearing, but there was also
13:33:00 a request to waive the amendment fee due to
13:33:04 administrative error.
13:33:04 That needs to have a motion to waive the feel.
13:33:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:33:06 All in favor, aye.
13:33:07 [Motion Carried]
13:33:08 >>CLERK: That's all I have.
13:33:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go back to our 1:30 workshop.
13:33:17 >>CLERK: It's the presentation of the ordinance for
13:33:19 first reading.

13:33:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there a staff report or anything
13:33:23 before we move on our tree ordinance?
13:33:26 Ms. Miller, do you want to say anything?
13:33:30 >> Good afternoon, members of City Council.
13:33:32 Cindy Miller, director of business and housing
13:33:34 development.
13:33:36 Just a couple of very brief opening items.
13:33:39 This has been a very long number -- or I say a large
13:33:44 number of first readings for this particular
13:33:45 ordinance.
13:33:46 Just to sort of bring us all back to how we first
13:33:48 started here, this originally was a motion or first a
13:33:53 suggestion by city staff that we go back to what we
13:33:55 had done over the past year and take a look at those
13:33:58 item that were noncontroversial.
13:34:01 City staff had recommended a number of those.
13:34:03 It included definition changes and other items that
13:34:06 we -- came out of the tree committee that was
13:34:10 something that we would be able to work through as a
13:34:12 first effort in amending the code.
13:34:14 And that we both, department of business and housing
13:34:19 development and parks and recreation would be back to

13:34:21 you in the future.
13:34:22 There were other amendments that were made at various
13:34:25 times to those staff recommendations.
13:34:28 And basically, when it comes to the items most
13:34:32 recently requested, I would like to mention what had
13:34:37 come out of the last meeting.
13:34:41 As to the request from City Council, which has been
13:34:44 incorporated into the ordinance, specifically as to
13:34:47 that if a tree could damage a house within one year, I
13:34:53 think it is important to note that this is both the
13:34:56 recommendation of business and housing and parks and
13:34:58 recreation.
13:35:00 We believe that this would be extremely difficult, if
13:35:04 not impossible to enforce to be able to implement.
13:35:08 From the standpoint of my employees at construction
13:35:11 service center, they would have great difficulty from
13:35:15 the standpoint of evaluating whether something could
13:35:19 damage.
13:35:19 They also do not believe that it would be feasible to
13:35:24 have a totally independent professional be able to
13:35:28 make that determination.
13:35:29 There are just too many variables.

13:35:31 And I believe that for other reasons, the parks and
13:35:33 recreation staff would concur with us on that.
13:35:39 That is the one item.
13:35:41 As to the other, as to doing a canopy study every five
13:35:45 years, we do believe that is -- and I think, again,
13:35:48 this is more from my colleagues in parks and
13:35:50 recreation that five years is too short of a time
13:35:53 period, that a canopy study is more appropriate over a
13:35:55 longer period of time, say ten years.
13:35:57 Related to that, within the current ordinance, there
13:36:00 is also the requirement that the canopy study be done
13:36:05 prior to the end of 2006, just because of the timing,
13:36:08 both budgetary as well as to retain appropriate
13:36:11 professionals, we believe that is too short of a time
13:36:13 period, it would need to go into the 2007 calendar
13:36:17 year if we are looking at that.
13:36:18 So those are our comments just added on to what we
13:36:21 have previously testified too.
13:36:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions, Council members?
13:36:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
13:36:28 I had an opportunity, as you all know, as the Chairman
13:36:31 of this committee, and I had an opportunity to talk

13:36:33 with parks staff as well as Ms. Miller after the last
13:36:36 hearing about these points.
13:36:39 And I thought that their points were really well
13:36:41 taken.
13:36:42 And based on what they've said, I would like to -- I
13:36:46 guess I have a question for legal.
13:36:48 Could we move this for first reading making the
13:36:52 changes that were just discussed?
13:36:54 Do we have two drafts of this?
13:36:56 Or do we have to go back to first reading again?
13:37:02 >> Julia Cole, Legal Department.
13:37:04 Are you describing the changes that are currently in
13:37:07 or if you want to change off of what you have in front
13:37:09 of you?
13:37:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The last time this was before us,
13:37:16 it was a particular way.
13:37:17 And after our discussion, we changed the idea of could
13:37:19 do damage to a structure within a year, the tree study
13:37:22 in '06, and a tree study every five years.
13:37:26 What Ms. Miller just suggested, which I really concur
13:37:29 with, is we go back to the original version which was
13:37:33 not discussing could do damage within a year.

13:37:35 The tree study in '07, and then every ten years.
13:37:39 I'm saying if we did what I just said, do we have to
13:37:42 go back to first reading, or do we have a draft with
13:37:44 that language in it?
13:37:46 >> You would not have to go back to first reading.
13:37:49 I understand a draft was going to be done with some of
13:37:51 these changes, but I don't know if that had occurred.
13:37:54 Those are pretty minor changes.
13:37:55 You wouldn't need to go back to first reading on
13:37:58 those.
13:37:58 We could go ahead and make those changes in the
13:38:00 interim and present it as part of second reading.
13:38:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, we're going to hear testimony
13:38:08 on this, right?
13:38:11 Well, if we're not going to hear testimony on it, then
13:38:15 I would not be in favor of changing these.
13:38:17 Because we have broad support for the recommendations
13:38:22 that are now before us.
13:38:25 I know Ms. Miller has done her best to get everybody's
13:38:29 input on this, but to come back now when this thing
13:38:33 has been hanging around for first reading ad nauseam,
13:38:36 I would just say that we have a consensus, and we

13:38:40 should go with the consensus.
13:38:41 And we'll all have to figure out how to implement it
13:38:45 as we go.
13:38:46 We're not going to take public testimony on this -- it
13:38:51 looks like there are people that want to speak.
13:38:55 I would like to hear from the rest of my colleagues.
13:38:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I guess depending on
13:39:00 what the pulse of this Council is, we can decide
13:39:03 whether or not we want to hear testimony.
13:39:05 I'll weigh in on it and I'm sure all of us will do the
13:39:08 same thing.
13:39:08 No disrespect to all the time Ms. Saul-Sena has spent
13:39:11 on this issue with the tree ordinance.
13:39:16 The last time we were here, I was running late, as I
13:39:21 sometimes do.
13:39:21 And I was making it a point to try to be here.
13:39:24 Because I had met, as I declared on record, with some
13:39:28 of the representatives from the Builders Association.
13:39:30 And although there were some problems with
13:39:31 moratoriums, et cetera, et cetera, and it was much
13:39:34 more severe than other municipalities throughout this
13:39:37 country, they seem to have gone along with it and

13:39:40 tried to just accept what was offered.
13:39:45 I think the one issue that everybody was in favor of
13:39:47 or that everybody came to terms with was the five-year
13:39:52 tree study.
13:39:54 Maybe it's a lot of money.
13:39:55 And I'm sure that it is, Ms. Miller.
13:39:57 I'm going to tell you what, that is a perfect
13:40:00 mechanism so that we know what the tree inventory is
13:40:02 and there's no question about what is and what is not.
13:40:04 And I was very amazed, very grateful that everybody
13:40:08 walked away with what I thought was going to be
13:40:10 something that they would accept.
13:40:12 Obviously, Ms. Flynn, Ms. Lyon, Mr. Johnson, all of
13:40:15 the neighborhood activists that strongly support trees
13:40:18 and protect them were happy with the study, I believe.
13:40:21 And to my surprise, I must say, and the rest of the
13:40:28 building association representatives, they accepted
13:40:30 that too.
13:40:32 And I think the building bridge there was the
13:40:35 five-year study.
13:40:36 Frankly -- I guess I could say it in nicer terms -- I
13:40:40 don't care how much it costs.

13:40:41 If they were willing to accept that as a five-year
13:40:44 study, I wholeheartedly agree with what Mr. Harrison
13:40:47 said.
13:40:48 I think it was acceptable.
13:40:49 I was here ready to defend the fact that I was
13:40:51 concerned that maybe we were being a little bit too
13:40:53 strong compared to what the newspaper cited in
13:40:55 different cities in this country.
13:40:57 But it seemed to be a point at which we agree.
13:41:00 Now at the 11th hour, we have a decision as to
13:41:03 whether or not we want to hear testimony again and the
13:41:05 developers have to come in and weigh in on what they
13:41:07 want to do.
13:41:07 The neighborhood has to strongly reconfirm their
13:41:10 support of tree protection and canopies particularly
13:41:12 in South Tampa.
13:41:13 I don't know why we can't find the funding.
13:41:16 I mean, I can find many areas in which we can cut some
13:41:20 of the fat and find that funding.
13:41:22 I don't think this is the time nor place to be
13:41:24 sarcastic, but it was a place that everybody agreed
13:41:26 with.

13:41:27 And five years I think is reasonable.
13:41:28 I think it's a good mechanism.
13:41:30 I think it's a good tool.
13:41:31 And me personally will not support a five-year tree
13:41:35 study, a ten-year tree study, excuse me.
13:41:38 Because I think five years is the way to go and I
13:41:41 think everybody send that.
13:41:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Council members?
13:41:45 Mr. Dingfelder.
13:41:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two things, one, in terms of
13:41:51 financing the tree study, it's been pointed out that
13:41:55 the current tree trust fund, language in our code,
13:42:01 does not allow us to use it for this type of study.
13:42:05 However, it doesn't mean that right after we have this
13:42:08 discussion we make a motion to amend our tree code,
13:42:11 our tree trust fund code to allow specifically for
13:42:13 that purpose.
13:42:14 And I will make that motion when we're done with this
13:42:16 discussion.
13:42:17 So I think funding can take care of itself.
13:42:21 With that amendment, if Council goes with that.
13:42:23 If not, we'll have to take it out of another fund.

13:42:27 And the other thing is, I'd like to hear from legal on
13:42:33 this issue of, Mr. Graham came up in front of us last
13:42:38 time and said that would be really difficult language
13:42:41 for him to work with.
13:42:42 Ms. Miller has reiterated that Ms. Cole, are you
13:42:49 weighing in on this?
13:42:51 >> Julia Cole, Legal Department.
13:42:53 Yes, the staff has told you that that particular
13:42:55 provision, including the language will likely grow in
13:42:59 one year as a standard that they approval -- that they
13:43:02 professionally don't have any ability to enforce.
13:43:05 And when you have a situation where you have a
13:43:06 provision in a code that staff is saying that is
13:43:10 something that they cannot professionally say they can
13:43:13 enforce, you end up with a provision that is either
13:43:16 unenforceable or has no standards by which can be
13:43:19 enforced and could potentially subject the ordinance
13:43:22 to challenge on the basis of unbridled discretion.
13:43:26 So that is a point of concern from the Legal
13:43:27 Department's perspective on that particular phase.
13:43:32 As it relates to the funding and tree trust fund and
13:43:35 the utilization of the tree trust fund that provision,

13:43:37 which is 16-26, would have to be amended to allow the
13:43:40 tree trust fund to be utilized for the purposes as set
13:43:44 forth in the ordinance, if that's the intent.
13:43:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And then the only other thing I was
13:43:48 going to say, Madam Chair, was, I guess since we're
13:43:52 coming in on halfway through 2006, maybe what we could
13:43:56 do is just tweak that language slightly and say we
13:44:00 will initiate the tree study in 2006 as opposed to, I
13:44:03 think, the language that I proposed last time which
13:44:06 said we will complete the study by 2006.
13:44:09 That way we have -- Mr. Graham seems to be nodding in
13:44:13 agreement.
13:44:13 Looks like he's okay with that.
13:44:15 That way we can at least make everybody happy by
13:44:17 saying, well, initiate the study in 2006, obviously by
13:44:21 2007 is will be done.
13:44:22 So I think that's a reasonable modification, and
13:44:24 not -- Ms. Cole, that wouldn't require going back to
13:44:27 first reading.
13:44:28 One word change like that.
13:44:30 >> That's such a minor change that would not require.
13:44:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else from Council members?

13:44:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we probably should have a
13:44:39 couple of different motions on each part.
13:44:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a good idea.
13:44:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: Have we decided if we're going to
13:44:47 listen to the public.
13:44:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think if we make any revisions
13:44:50 other than just the initiation of the study, which I
13:44:53 don't have any problem with, I don't think anyone in
13:44:55 the room has any problem with that, and we need to
13:44:58 revise so that we can spend the money for the tree
13:45:00 canopy study, no one is going to disagree with that.
13:45:04 If we are going to change the idea or could cause
13:45:08 substantial damage, we've got to let public testimony.
13:45:11 Because that is a huge change over the negotiated
13:45:13 point that we're at right here.
13:45:16 And if we're going to take that up, we're going to
13:45:18 have to listen to what both sides think about it.
13:45:21 Otherwise, I think we're ready --
13:45:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a point of order then, Linda,
13:45:27 did you make a motion and did it die for lack of a
13:45:29 second?
13:45:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I asked legal if we had

13:45:32 something in front of us that we could use.
13:45:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because I don't think I support
13:45:36 changing it.
13:45:38 I think I would just leave it as it is over the
13:45:41 objections of staff and legal.
13:45:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Then I'll second that, if that's a
13:45:47 motion or else I'll make that motion.
13:45:52 That portion of the ordinance will stay the same.
13:45:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So we don't have to have public
13:45:56 testimony again.
13:45:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that's probably what their
13:46:02 biggest concern is right now is that.
13:46:05 No, not the five-year study, it's the language that
13:46:08 says, if the -- if there is going to be prospectively
13:46:13 damage to a home, then the tree can be removed.
13:46:16 I don't remember the particular details, but that's
13:46:19 the crux.
13:46:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I find myself in a really awkward
13:46:24 position of voting against an ordinance that I've
13:46:26 spent two years trying to get to bring before us.
13:46:30 But I feel like staff is really dispassionate and
13:46:34 objective.

13:46:35 And if they are telling us that this will be really
13:46:37 difficult to administer, then all I can say, if we
13:46:40 adopt this ordinance and we do have problems with it,
13:46:42 I hope that the staff will bring us those problems so
13:46:45 that it will educate us about the complete challenge
13:46:50 in being a mind reader and knowing what damage this
13:46:53 tree may or may not do in a year and whether or not
13:46:56 that can be used as a basis for the tree's removal.
13:46:59 So I believe that staff has said that they are going
13:47:01 to come back to us with further revisions to this.
13:47:04 I hope when you do, you can give us some evidence that
13:47:07 this is either not causing the problem that you
13:47:09 anticipate, which would be wonderful, or if it is
13:47:11 causing a problem, that you'll share that with us with
13:47:14 an idea toward readdressing it.
13:47:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Please forgive me for questioning,
13:47:21 I'm concerned with regard to that provision about
13:47:23 being prospective.
13:47:24 Is it Council's decision or consensus to leave that
13:47:29 provision in at this point in time?
13:47:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
13:47:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.

13:47:36 --
13:47:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not unanimously.
13:47:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: But the concern was, I just wanted to
13:47:40 be clear because I did have a discussion with the
13:47:42 Legal Department about this.
13:47:43 They are rendering to you a legal opinion that from
13:47:48 the perspective of the Legal Department, that is an
13:47:53 unenforceable provision.
13:47:55 And that was their legal recommendation to you.
13:47:57 And I just wanted to be clear that Council understands
13:48:00 that.
13:48:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, yes, and we certainly
13:48:06 appreciate and respect the opinions that our Legal
13:48:08 Department give.
13:48:09 But I think, if I'm understanding the mood of the rest
13:48:13 of this Council or some of this Council to the right,
13:48:16 we are in a position today where everything is not
13:48:18 great for everybody, but the neighborhood is happy
13:48:21 with what is going on.
13:48:22 The Builders Association, it seemed last time were
13:48:24 willing to accept what we had.
13:48:26 And I think if we considered taking their advice and

13:48:29 making that revision, we have to go through the whole
13:48:33 thing again.
13:48:34 Everybody has to be listened to.
13:48:36 And just like many other things that we do.
13:48:40 We enact ordinances.
13:48:41 And if there's a problem, then we amend it.
13:48:43 So I think that staff has never been shy about coming
13:48:47 to us and saying we have a problem with this, look at
13:48:48 it again.
13:48:49 I think look at it again is later.
13:48:52 If there seems to be some problems.
13:48:53 I think we should go ahead as is.
13:48:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion that
13:48:57 we open to the floor and hear public comment before we
13:48:59 move on this.
13:49:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll second that.
13:49:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
13:49:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just to hear what --
13:49:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To hear the public who has come to
13:49:12 us to weigh in on first reading on an ordinance that's
13:49:15 been two years in the making has to say.
13:49:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We haven't heard already in the

13:49:20 past?
13:49:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: These two changes came up at our
13:49:23 last hearing.
13:49:23 They hadn't been discussed at length before in the
13:49:26 committee.
13:49:26 And I think the public, who has bothered to show up at
13:49:30 City Council should be heard before we move on this.
13:49:33 My motion is to hope the -- is to open the floor to
13:49:36 hear from the public.
13:49:37 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
13:49:38 All in favor, aye.
13:49:40 [Motion Carried]
13:49:40 Is there anyone in the public who would like to speak
13:49:43 at this time?
13:49:48 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Steve Michelini.
13:49:51 I'm here on behalf of the Builders Association.
13:49:53 Basically, as you know, a compromise was presented at
13:49:56 the last meeting.
13:49:58 And that was based on a lot of different things.
13:50:02 And the moratorium issue was also an issue that came
13:50:05 up at the last minute.
13:50:06 That didn't go through the committee.

13:50:07 That was something that was added on by Council.
13:50:11 There was no motion coming out of the committee in
13:50:14 their recommendations to you for that to occur.
13:50:17 There are a series of recommendations that came out of
13:50:19 the City of Tampa urban ecological analysis, which
13:50:23 includes the canopy study and a variety of other
13:50:25 recommendations.
13:50:26 I'd like to pass this out and make this part of the
13:50:29 record.
13:50:29 But in the interim from the last two weeks, we've been
13:50:32 working with the administration on a variety of
13:50:34 issues, including the language that Ms. Miller came up
13:50:38 and asked you to delete and some things regarding the
13:50:42 canopy study, pushing it off to ten years instead of
13:50:45 five years.
13:50:46 And in the spirit of compromise, the Builders
13:50:48 Association, yeah, that's fine, but there has to be
13:50:50 some benchmarks that occur in between here that make
13:50:55 it a more fair and equitable position.
13:50:59 The moratorium issue was brand-new.
13:51:02 Some of the representatives that were here were sort
13:51:05 of under the gun to say, yeah, we agree if we can get

13:51:09 the five-year study.
13:51:10 Now we're off the five-year study and potentially on
13:51:12 to a ten-year canopy study.
13:51:14 The moratorium should be removed from the ordinance as
13:51:17 well.
13:51:17 Or take all the issues that are not controversial out,
13:51:20 go back to the bare bones that we had before, and then
13:51:23 come back to you with the amendments on the variety of
13:51:26 different issues.
13:51:27 It is a complicated ordinance.
13:51:29 It has a lot of far-reaching effects, and it's not
13:51:33 something to be taken lightly.
13:51:34 The Builders Association obviously doesn't want to
13:51:37 come in here and bother you all of the time, any more
13:51:39 so than the neighbors do.
13:51:41 And good developers save good trees.
13:51:43 Trees are renewable resources.
13:51:45 They are not something that don't come back.
13:51:47 You plant new ones, and there's some information in
13:51:50 here about the canopy of the city being in a decline.
13:51:53 We've got aerial photographs from various periods of
13:51:57 time that clearly indicate the canopy of the trees in

13:52:00 the City of Tampa is, in fact, increasing.
13:52:03 And every project that you know that you approve in
13:52:05 here comes with trees attached to it or vice versa.
13:52:08 The project has trees or the trees have the project,
13:52:12 whichever.
13:52:13 And as a matter of principle, most of the project
13:52:16 developers have come to you and said, let's plant
13:52:19 bigger trees so you have an instant canopy instead of
13:52:25 small two-inch trees.
13:52:26 We come to you and say four-inch trees that make and
13:52:30 create that canopy that's in the city.
13:52:32 Our request, if you go to the ten years, then the
13:52:34 other things need to be looked at as well.
13:52:36 Otherwise, leave it alone and move forward.
13:52:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And the other two things that we
13:52:41 just mentioned, you all are fine with those, right?
13:52:52 Initiated by the end of the year, you are fine with
13:52:54 that.
13:52:55 The other thing is we have to do in order to spend
13:52:57 money from the tree --
13:52:59 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, we're absolutely in favor of
13:53:01 that.

13:53:02 Basically, you know that I work with the
13:53:04 administration on a very involved different issues,
13:53:06 including permitting.
13:53:07 And it is a difficult analysis that occurs over in
13:53:11 construction services.
13:53:12 And you're asking staff to try to weigh in on things
13:53:16 that they may or may not have the expertise that they
13:53:21 need to to analyze how these things affect each other.
13:53:27 It's a difficult process.
13:53:29 That's why we're coming to you and say, help us
13:53:31 straighten it out.
13:53:32 Make it a better process where everyone walks away,
13:53:35 save the trees that need to be saved and take out the
13:53:38 ones that need to go.
13:53:39 Thank you.
13:53:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
13:53:40 Next.
13:53:43 >> Good afternoon.
13:53:43 I'm Wofford Johnson.
13:53:46 I live in Sunset Park.
13:53:47 I was a member of the tree committee, and I'm almost
13:53:50 vice president of T.H.A.N.

13:53:51 I just wanted to advise you that the revisions to
13:53:54 chapter 13, which were discussed at the T.H.A.N.
13:53:58 meeting last night and while we have not seen the
13:54:01 latest revisions, Gloria just gave me a copy before I
13:54:04 walked in here, but it is the position of T.H.A.N.
13:54:07 that we support and ask that you proceed with and
13:54:12 approve the proposed changes to chapter 13.
13:54:14 We do have a couple of concerns.
13:54:17 One, is when the revisions to chapter 13 were
13:54:22 originally presented to you, it was indicated that
13:54:25 these were initial recommendations and that in this
13:54:28 year, or later this year, they would be -- there would
13:54:32 be additional recommendations coming forth to you from
13:54:35 the tree committee or from staff.
13:54:37 I think I heard Ms. Miller say this morning, also kind
13:54:40 of reiterated that.
13:54:41 Now, if you push that off, you know, further and not
13:54:44 going to initiate the study until later in the year,
13:54:50 then when will we be able to come back with additional
13:54:53 recommendations?
13:54:54 I guess that's the question.
13:54:56 But the second thing is -- of course, we think that

13:55:00 the work of the tree committee should be continued and
13:55:03 try to work with you, the builders, everyone, so that
13:55:06 we can come up with a truly effective tree code.
13:55:09 Regarding the tree canopy study, we support the study;
13:55:12 however, we do believe the study should be -- should
13:55:15 be completed under the supervision of the City of
13:55:18 Tampa, forest and that -- the specifications for the
13:55:22 study should be specific as to the reasons and purpose
13:55:26 of the study and specific on how will the results of
13:55:29 the survey be used.
13:55:32 Also establish a specific date for the completion and
13:55:36 publication of the study.
13:55:39 And those are the two concerns we have or two things
13:55:41 we would like you to consider.
13:55:42 Thank you.
13:55:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait, Mr. Johnson, I have a
13:55:46 question.
13:55:47 Specifically, did T.H.A.N. have an opinion about
13:55:50 whether the provision for -- if a tree might do damage
13:55:55 within a year to a structure, did you all weigh in on
13:55:58 that?
13:55:59 >> No, not at all.

13:56:00 It wasn't discussed.
13:56:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, thank you.
13:56:02 Mr. Johnson, then you are fine with five-year instead
13:56:06 of a ten-year as we had it before today.
13:56:09 >> Yes.
13:56:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: I guess some of your concern seems to
13:56:11 be the same as my concern, changing the terminology,
13:56:14 the language about initiating this in '06.
13:56:17 I don't know, Madam Chairman, who can answer this for
13:56:19 me and maybe for Mr. Johnson as well.
13:56:22 You can initiate something now, and it can be
13:56:25 completed in six months or 16 months or 18 months.
13:56:28 So has anybody put some sort of closure to when we
13:56:31 will finish what we are initiated?
13:56:34 Or will it just be a long, long time?
13:56:36 Who can answer that?
13:56:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Graham.
13:56:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Graham.
13:56:40 If we change that language to just initiate now, what
13:56:44 is your expectation in terms of a completion date?
13:56:47 Because I think some things get lost in the shuffle
13:56:49 and we could be doing this study for two or three or

13:56:52 four years.
13:56:52 >> Valid question.
13:56:53 Steve Graham, Parks Department.
13:56:55 And I've spoke with several consultants who do this
13:57:00 type of work.
13:57:01 Generally, it takes about six months to do the study.
13:57:04 And should allow probably at least two months to put
13:57:07 it true the -- put it through the purchasing process
13:57:10 and resolution for purchase order.
13:57:14 So we conceivably could have it done within the next
13:57:17 12 months.
13:57:20 That's a ballpark estimate.
13:57:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, maybe there's some way to put
13:57:27 some sort of a definition on that with a plus or
13:57:29 minus, depending on conditions that are not accepted.
13:57:32 But at least we'll have some expectation of when it's
13:57:35 going to be done.
13:57:36 And I think everybody will be more comfortable with
13:57:37 that.
13:57:38 >> If you're looking for recommendation, I would
13:57:40 recommend 18 months.
13:57:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just to weigh in and say, we have an

13:57:47 ordinance in front of us now, and I think it's been
13:57:51 studied to death, and I think everybody that's been
13:57:57 involved in this thing has been very candid with us,
13:58:02 and I think that we should go ahead and do something
13:58:05 and then do amendments as we go along.
13:58:07 But at least we've got something in place for it.
13:58:09 And so I don't know -- still hearing.
13:58:14 But that's the way I'm feeling on this thing.
13:58:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
13:58:18 Next.
13:58:19 >> Hi.
13:58:19 My name is Vicky Pollyer.
13:58:22 1311 South rudy avenue.
13:58:24 I am speaking just for myself, not as -- I didn't
13:58:27 attend the meeting last night, although I do usually
13:58:29 attend T.H.A.N. meetings.
13:58:31 But I am very passionate about this.
13:58:33 I wasn't on part of the tree committee, but three
13:58:35 years ago, when this was -- the process was started
13:58:40 after some significant abuse, I was really thrilled.
13:58:43 And I think I sent you all letters three years ago and
13:58:46 two years ago and one year ago and two months ago

13:58:49 saying we need to proceed with this.
13:58:52 I think that in any process, it will be modified, and
13:58:56 you will work on it.
13:58:57 But to keep delaying it, as we tweak -- try to tweak
13:59:02 everything out of it, is going to result in a loss of
13:59:05 trees.
13:59:05 It already is.
13:59:07 And although I understand the necessity to try to
13:59:11 cover all the bases, you know, and obviously this
13:59:14 committee has worked very hard with the builders to
13:59:16 make a compromise to come up with a solution, I really
13:59:20 feel like we need to move forward with this and come
13:59:23 back in six months and then look at it.
13:59:26 But to delay it and keep delaying it, I think puts our
13:59:31 trees, our urban forests at much more of a risk.
13:59:36 I personally think we need to take a stand on this.
13:59:39 It's time to do it.
13:59:40 I also think that if we have the trees being evaluated
13:59:44 by trained arborists instead of just people from
13:59:47 building services, they might be able to say what can
13:59:50 happen in a year to a tree.
13:59:52 People that are arborists versus somebody just in

13:59:57 building services that hasn't been trained by
14:00:00 Mr. Graham in a short-term study program.
14:00:04 An arborist is somebody who understands trees.
14:00:06 And that is one issue that if we had arborists making
14:00:10 these decisions, I think would make a tremendous
14:00:13 difference.
14:00:13 Just as a thought for something in the future to
14:00:15 consider.
14:00:16 Thank you.
14:00:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
14:00:22 Council members, do you have any --
14:00:26 >> Fernandez, Builders Association.
14:00:29 I would like to say I agree with most of the points
14:00:33 that the neighborhood has made.
14:00:34 I mean, I think what we're talking here is responsible
14:00:37 growth, and I think the tree study is -- goes a long
14:00:41 ways towards that.
14:00:43 The question is, are we going to do a citywide tree
14:00:46 study or is it going to have specific areas like the
14:00:50 previous study did?
14:00:51 If we do that, then I think in addition to whoever
14:00:54 from the city that is responsible to oversee that, we

14:00:58 should have representatives from the various groups,
14:01:00 neighborhood groups, Builders Association so that we
14:01:03 can come together prior to to the direction given to
14:01:08 whomever is doing the study.
14:01:10 >> That's a good idea.
14:01:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, next.
14:01:17 >> My name is Sue Lyon.
14:01:18 3233 West fair oaks Avenue.
14:01:22 I think we're all ready to vote and put this on the
14:01:27 board and go.
14:01:29 We're all here to protect the trees and the
14:01:31 neighborhood is willing to go with this.
14:01:33 We don't really understand how you'll figure out if
14:01:36 the tree is going to damage a house in a year, but we
14:01:40 trust Graham, and if he's the one that will be
14:01:42 checking it, then we'll go with it.
14:01:44 And every time we do this, one side says, well, we
14:01:48 need this.
14:01:48 And the other side says, no, we need this.
14:01:51 We go back to the drawing board and it's getting old.
14:01:54 I got things to do and places to go.
14:01:57 >>ROSE FERLITA: Sue, it's been so long that we have a

14:02:00 new City Council attorney over there.
14:02:01 That's how many years went by.
14:02:03 >> Always wondered what he was doing here.
14:02:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
14:02:08 All in favor of the motion, aye.
14:02:09 [Motion Carried]
14:02:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:02:11 The other day, I saw this grand tree that was on the
14:02:14 construction site and it had these really puny ribbons
14:02:17 between little sticks in the ground.
14:02:19 One of the components of our new tree code will be
14:02:21 that we define how you protect a grand tree during
14:02:25 protection, and it will be less -- it will be much
14:02:27 more secure than puny little ribbons between sticks.
14:02:30 So that's yet another reason to hurry up and do this
14:02:33 before some backhoe destroys another grand tree.
14:02:38 I would like to move an ordinance vacating, closing,
14:02:40 discontinuing and abandoning -- wrong ordinance.
14:02:45 11.
14:02:47 I would like to move an ordinance of the City of
14:02:48 Tampa, Florida, amending City of Tampa Code of
14:02:51 ordinances chapter 13, landscaping tree removal and

14:02:54 site clearing.
14:02:54 Amending section 13-4 definitions, amending section
14:02:58 13-7 exemptions for certain trees, departments and
14:03:02 aviation public safety.
14:03:03 Adding section 13-9, tree canopy study.
14:03:07 Amending section 13-44, permit-site inspection and
14:03:12 tree clearing; exemptions; amending section 13-45,
14:03:16 same-tree removal and replacement and tree trimming
14:03:20 exemptions.
14:03:21 Amending section 13-146 technical standards adopted.
14:03:26 Amending section 13-161 landscape and tree planting
14:03:29 requirements.
14:03:30 Amending section 13-162 landscape and tree planting
14:03:33 standards.
14:03:34 Amending chapter 16, parks and recreation, adding
14:03:37 article III landscape area trust fund.
14:03:40 Providing for severability, providing for repeal of
14:03:42 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
14:03:44 date.
14:03:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder.
14:03:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Want to make sure we are
14:03:50 substituting the word initiate "instead" of

14:03:52 "complete."
14:03:52 So we're going to initiate the study in 2006.
14:03:55 I'm getting a nod from counsel and everything else
14:03:59 stays the same pursuant to direction from last time.
14:04:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, would there be any benefit
14:04:06 to adding the language with the expectation to have it
14:04:10 completed in approximately 18 months or what?
14:04:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Expectation, I don't think that's --
14:04:19 I mean, if Council wishes to do that, but I don't know
14:04:21 whether that would be necessary.
14:04:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: If it's not done in a year, you can
14:04:25 question why it's not done.
14:04:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Absolutely.
14:04:28 Everybody wants this study done.
14:04:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
14:04:33 We have a motion and second on the floor.
14:04:34 All in favor, aye.
14:04:35 [Motion Carried]
14:04:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, pursuant to our
14:04:39 discussion before, I would like to direct legal staff
14:04:42 and administration to revisit the tree trust ordinance
14:04:47 to allow for the possibility of funding the canopy

14:04:52 study.
14:04:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
14:04:55 All in favor, aye.
14:04:55 [Motion Carried]
14:04:56 Anything else?
14:04:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to thank everyone who
14:05:00 worked so hard on this.
14:05:02 And hopefully this will be just the first phase of
14:05:04 improving our canopy protection.
14:05:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
14:05:07 We're going to item number 56.
14:05:15 Mr. Hernandez.
14:05:19 >> Madam Chair, this is a continued public hearing.
14:05:22 I would ask considering now it's the afternoon session
14:05:25 that you please take the opportunity again to ask the
14:05:30 witnesses to be sworn.
14:05:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody who will speak on 56 or 57,
14:05:34 would you please stand and raise your right hand.
14:05:41 (Oath administered by clerk).
14:05:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to ask the clerk if there are
14:05:49 any additional items that need to be filed with regard
14:05:51 to this that you have?

14:05:54 >>CLERK: I have received two e-mails.
14:05:57 One from Jim Hartnet and one from Diane Jenkins.
14:06:03 Those are the only two items I've been presented.
14:06:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
14:06:07 All in favor, aye.
14:06:08 [Motion Carried]
14:06:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This being the afternoon, just a
14:06:10 reminder, please, that if any member of City Council
14:06:13 has had any verbal communications with the petitioner,
14:06:16 his or her representative or any members of the public
14:06:18 in connection with these hearings that have been
14:06:21 continued, that that member should disclose the
14:06:24 following information.
14:06:25 The identity of the person, group or entity with whom
14:06:27 the verbal communication occurred and the substance of
14:06:30 that verbal communication.
14:06:31 Thank you.
14:06:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to disclose that I did
14:06:36 have a conversation with Mr. John Grandoff and
14:06:41 Jeannette Jason on the Newberry and Woolworth
14:06:48 building.
14:06:49 And the substance was whatever it was.

14:07:00 The historic preservation of it.
14:07:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could just be a little more
14:07:08 specific, the substance of what they said or the
14:07:10 substance of what you said to them in reply.
14:07:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, I heard.
14:07:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
14:07:17 Anything else more specific?
14:07:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, I heard what they had to say.
14:07:22 It was their argument and I listened.
14:07:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was it anything other than what was
14:07:28 said previously to this point in time?
14:07:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It was what was said previously.
14:07:34 Am I going to be punished?
14:07:37 Am I going to jail?
14:07:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: He'll make you wear that silly hat for
14:07:46 a week and a half.
14:07:48 I as well had some conversation, but with Mr. Shimberg
14:07:51 and Mrs. Jason.
14:07:53 And the subject of that conversation was reviewing
14:07:58 some of the transcript and documents and their
14:08:01 contention that they did not support the designation
14:08:05 of the other two buildings and that that's what they

14:08:10 were going to come today and substantiate.
14:08:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ditto.
14:08:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Same thing, different person.
14:08:17 >> David Smith, City Attorney.
14:08:20 This hearing has gotten very complicated because
14:08:22 you're trying to balance two very important sets of
14:08:25 values.
14:08:26 Sometimes when one is doing that, it appears as though
14:08:28 we change our mind, but in reality we're trying to
14:08:31 find a balance that works, and that balance sometimes
14:08:33 is appropriate to be placed differently, depending
14:08:36 upon the individual circumstances.
14:08:39 So I would suggest we not be too hard on ourselves.
14:08:41 This is a difficult question.
14:08:43 Very legitimate interests on both sides and you are
14:08:46 really struggling with them in trying to come up with
14:08:48 a solution that makes sense.
14:08:49 I think anyone who has observed Council knows that you
14:08:52 value historic preservation.
14:08:54 That's been an issue that you have spoken strongly
14:08:58 about for many years.
14:08:59 I think it's a position that's also shared by the

14:09:03 Mayor.
14:09:05 She has asked me to see if we can find what I would
14:09:08 identify as a win-win solution.
14:09:10 And that is a solution that allows us to do what we
14:09:14 can to advance the goals of historic preservation
14:09:18 while at the same time trying to advance the goals of
14:09:20 downtown residential and having a vibrant and active
14:09:24 downtown core.
14:09:28 Although this is complex, I think I have a basic
14:09:30 concept that we're prepared to recommend.
14:09:33 And that recommendation is that we postpone the
14:09:36 determination specifically with regard to the
14:09:39 determination of whether or not this is designated for
14:09:42 one week.
14:09:44 While we elaborate on what are some of the existing
14:09:46 protections under the zoning.
14:09:48 Let me clarify.
14:09:53 There are a variety of measures in the zoning
14:09:57 conditions that exist now, specifically conditions
14:09:59 number one and ten.
14:10:01 And although we're here to speak about whether or not
14:10:04 to designate historically, I think it's important that

14:10:06 the context be clear.
14:10:08 Conditions one and ten talk about preservation of
14:10:10 certain facades.
14:10:12 For sake of clarity, I always get this upside down,
14:10:16 hopefully that's right.
14:10:20 That is essentially right.
14:10:25 North is probably at the top of the screen.
14:10:27 So what you'll see is the facade in the northwest
14:10:30 corner, which I believe is the Newberry building and
14:10:33 the facade in the southwest corner, which is the
14:10:35 Woolworth building.
14:10:36 Fortunately they are labeled.
14:10:39 Those are the primary portions of the facades that
14:10:43 have the most significant architectural and historical
14:10:45 significance.
14:10:48 Although we have some protections under the zoning
14:10:51 code, neither Cathy Coyle nor I are comfortable that
14:10:56 they are sufficiently elaborated or clarified.
14:10:58 That's why we're requesting an additional week to do
14:11:01 that.
14:11:03 Although that is really an administrative function and
14:11:07 typically is done by the zoning administrator, because

14:11:10 of the significance of this and because of the
14:11:11 importance of this to Council, the Mayor has
14:11:15 instructed me to bring that agreement back to Council
14:11:17 for Council to see exactly what that elaboration is.
14:11:21 So you can see for yourself how adequate you believe
14:11:25 the protections are with respect to the preservations
14:11:28 of these facades.
14:11:34 The agreement -- the current zoning among other things
14:11:36 requires that there be a submittal of specific
14:11:39 construction plans 30%, 60%, and 90% complete.
14:11:46 Those plans need to be elaborated with respect to what
14:11:50 must be shown with regard to those facades at the 30,
14:11:54 60 and 90 percent level to ensure that they will be
14:11:58 preserved.
14:12:00 We are comfortable we can work this kind of agreement
14:12:02 out with the developer in the interim.
14:12:04 What they have indicated verbally and what they have
14:12:07 indicated at every turn, even in front of the other
14:12:10 regulatory bodies is that they intend to preserve
14:12:13 those facades.
14:12:14 There are issues with regards to the flexibility or
14:12:16 lack thereof under the administrative structure that

14:12:22 applies once you are designated.
14:12:24 So we are proposing -- I think, clearly, we are
14:12:29 proposing that we defer this for a week, that we
14:12:31 elaborate on an agreement, and come back to you, show
14:12:34 you that agreement so you have an opportunity to see
14:12:35 that.
14:12:36 That having been said, I think it's important that we
14:12:38 have people here who have come to speak to this issue.
14:12:41 I think there are some things you should hear from the
14:12:45 developer with respect to their specific plans for the
14:12:49 facade.
14:12:50 So you know exactly what they are talking about
14:12:53 committing to.
14:12:55 It's also important that this be placed on the record
14:12:59 so that we have a clear record as to what those
14:13:01 commitments are, because we are going to enforce them.
14:13:03 It is important that you also understand, and the
14:13:06 Mayor specifically directed me in this regard, that we
14:13:09 are to make sure at every turn that the commitments
14:13:13 made by the developer are followed.
14:13:15 So we will be monitoring this, not just at the 30, 60,
14:13:19 and 90-degree stage, but with regard to any demolition

14:13:22 permit that's issued and the assurances that will have
14:13:25 to be provided in conjunction with that permit.
14:13:28 So it's important, I think, that you understand, this
14:13:31 is very much, as it has your attention and as it is
14:13:34 very important to you, it also has the
14:13:36 administration's attention and it is very important to
14:13:38 them.
14:13:39 So what I would like to do is suggest -- I believe --
14:13:44 sorry, I don't know your last name.
14:13:46 But he has a presentation with respect to the types of
14:13:49 things they are proposing to do with regard to the
14:13:53 facades at issue.
14:13:55 And I think it's important that you also hear from
14:13:57 others in the community, those with historic
14:14:01 preservation is a very important value for them.
14:14:04 I also think we should make sure that we provide an
14:14:07 equal amount of time so that those in the community
14:14:10 dedicated to historic preservation have the ability to
14:14:13 speak with you and tell you their views and so that we
14:14:17 don't have a skewed process in any way.
14:14:19 With that having been said, what I would like to do is
14:14:22 at least provide you the additional information that

14:14:24 Mr. Otendorf has.
14:14:27 Did I get that right?
14:14:32 Dr. Otto Fetterhoff.
14:14:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to clarify that the
14:14:40 petitioner is the City of Tampa.
14:14:41 >> That's correct.
14:14:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And so what you're suggesting is
14:14:44 that we hear from the property owner, and we also hear
14:14:48 from preservationists and people in the community.
14:14:51 I just think it's really important for us to keep in
14:14:53 mind that the petitioner is the city.
14:14:56 It's the vehicle of the historic preservation
14:14:58 commission, which has brought this forward to Council.
14:15:01 >> That's correct.
14:15:01 And Mr. Fernandez is here today.
14:15:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I could follow up on that, what
14:15:06 that means, if Council wishes to set a time
14:15:10 requirement for these parties, Mr. Smith, you were
14:15:12 talking about people -- Council should make that
14:15:16 decision up front and enforce it consistently and
14:15:18 fairly, how much time to give the parties, the
14:15:22 interested parties.

14:15:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would say no more than 30 minutes
14:15:24 for each side.
14:15:31 >> That seems to be a fair amount for both sides.
14:15:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was thinking 30 each.
14:15:38 Want to say 20 each?
14:15:41 Lots of people want to speak.
14:15:43 30 for each side.
14:15:44 30 minutes for the property.
14:15:46 30 minutes for the preservation community.
14:15:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Or what you could do is just say 30
14:15:50 minutes for those in favor and then 30 minutes for
14:15:53 those opposed.
14:15:54 You could do it that way.
14:15:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would be my motion, no more
14:15:57 than but you certainly could use less and make us all
14:16:00 real happy.
14:16:01 But 30 minutes for those who are proponents and 30 for
14:16:04 those not proponents.
14:16:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion dies for lack of a second.
14:16:11 >>KEVIN WHITE: 30 minutes total, 15 minutes per side.
14:16:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
14:16:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

14:16:16 All in favor, aye.
14:16:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
14:16:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nay as well.
14:16:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There are a lot of people here.
14:16:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think the attorney for the
14:16:31 petitioner does not need that much time.
14:16:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The city is the petitioner.
14:16:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: I apologize for the error.
14:16:42 Truly, I apologize for the error.
14:16:44 In any case, whether you are for or against, against
14:16:47 or for, I think 30 minutes for both sides is not
14:16:50 enough.
14:16:55 This is as onerous for them as it has been for us.
14:16:57 Counting heads out there, I don't think half of 30
14:17:00 minutes is going to do it.
14:17:01 We just have to stay longer.
14:17:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Still don't know if everyone is going
14:17:05 to speak.
14:17:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Maybe.
14:17:08 >> I think from our side, we can do it in 30 minutes.
14:17:14 I will be the spokesperson.
14:17:16 We can all do our speaking within 30 minutes.

14:17:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Each side have 30 minutes.
14:17:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We just had a motion that carried.
14:17:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: If they don't need as much, fine.
14:17:40 They have it.
14:17:55 >>CLERK: [INAUDIBLE].
14:18:03 Vote was no.
14:18:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to try another motion
14:18:06 that we give each side 30 minutes.
14:18:13 I make a motion we give each side 30 minutes.
14:18:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:18:17 All in favor, aye.
14:18:19 Opposed, nay.
14:18:37 >> Good afternoon, Council members, Jim Shimberg,
14:18:40 Holland and Knight.
14:18:41 Representing Kress Square.
14:18:45 We are here on second reading.
14:18:46 We know that Mr. Smith has asked for a slight delay
14:18:49 and we are okay with that.
14:18:50 We want to oppose the local landmark designation of
14:18:53 the portion of the facade of the Woolworth building
14:18:55 and the entire facade of the Newberry building as

14:18:57 recommended by HPC.
14:18:59 This is consistent with the position that the
14:19:01 developer has consistently taken on this project where
14:19:03 they have agreed to save and restore these facades or
14:19:06 the portions of these facades as part of the
14:19:09 residential project being developed on the Kress block
14:19:12 but not wanted the facades to be locally designated.
14:19:15 Newberry building, HPC was recommending the entire
14:19:18 building facade be designated and that's not
14:19:21 consistent with what is being saved.
14:19:22 As Mr. Smith said, we do not believe the designation
14:19:25 of these facades is necessary or required in order to
14:19:28 achieve the protection and restoration of these
14:19:29 facades.
14:19:30 The city oversight will be there without the
14:19:33 designation.
14:19:34 We have given detailed information to each of the
14:19:36 Council members and staff in advance of this hearing,
14:19:38 which includes a chronology of events beginning at the
14:19:41 time of the condemnation notices issued by your code
14:19:45 enforcement inspectors in the fall of 2004, which
14:19:47 triggered the original hearings in front of HPC.

14:19:50 The rezoning hearings followed and were concluded in
14:19:53 August of 2005.
14:19:55 I want to just clarify that the rezoning approval did
14:19:57 not reference or require these facades to be
14:20:00 designated.
14:20:01 We believe the renderings incorporated into the
14:20:03 rezoning, the testimony presented during that hearing
14:20:06 clearly establish which portions of the facades are
14:20:09 being retained and which portions are being replaced.
14:20:11 Dr. Fetterhoff will go through a presentation in just
14:20:14 a minute.
14:20:15 Go through a detailed presentation of how we'll save
14:20:17 these facades during demolition and how we'll restore
14:20:21 the facades during the construction.
14:20:23 Everybody agrees that the portion of the Newberry
14:20:25 building -- the portion that's not shown is the
14:20:35 wraparound corner, which is being recommended for
14:20:37 designation, is not being saved and is being taken
14:20:40 down and replaced.
14:20:46 I would just like to read just a quick message that
14:20:49 received last night from Jason, where in his opinion,
14:20:52 we're restoring the facades as close as possible to

14:20:54 the original condition.
14:20:55 And Otto is going to go over that in a little more
14:21:00 detail in just a second.
14:21:01 We asked Council to not move forward with these
14:21:05 designations.
14:21:05 We're okay with the administration's request to delay
14:21:09 it for a week.
14:21:10 Assuming that we clearly understand what we're going
14:21:12 to be able to accomplish in that week.
14:21:14 Hopefully after you hear the detailed presentation, we
14:21:18 believe we're really on the same side, because we're
14:21:20 going to preserve these facades.
14:21:21 The city will be there every step of the way to make
14:21:23 sure that we do what we say we're going to do and to
14:21:26 make sure it turns out the way that everybody wants it
14:21:28 to.
14:21:28 The Mayor has given her word that that will be the
14:21:30 case, and she's warned our client that if they don't
14:21:33 do that, that there will be consequences.
14:21:36 If we could ask Dr. Fetterhoff to give his
14:21:39 presentation right now, and then we'll have to answer
14:21:42 any questions.

14:21:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record, you have been sworn.
14:21:44 >> Yes.
14:21:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When you state your name, please
14:21:47 reaffirm you have been sworn.
14:21:49 >> Otto Fetterhoff.
14:21:51 I have been sworn in.
14:21:53 I am representing the owners of development manager.
14:21:56 I'm with URS corporation.
14:21:58 I live in Melford, Florida.
14:22:00 What I would like to do is talk with you very briefly
14:22:02 about the technical details of preserving these
14:22:04 facades and what we're going to do here.
14:22:06 I think the extent of the facades has been discussed
14:22:11 and everybody is clear on the extent of the facades.
14:22:14 What I would like to do is take you through the
14:22:16 methodology, the means and methods we'll use here.
14:22:20 I've had several years of experience.
14:22:21 I worked as an employee for the Walt Disney World
14:22:23 company, and I had several years of experience working
14:22:25 in very highly thematic resorts and hotels and
14:22:29 facilities and buildings that we had to restore.
14:22:31 And we've pulled off complete facades and put them up.

14:22:35 And in this case, we won't be doing that, but we also
14:22:37 renovated existing facades and maintained them during
14:22:41 the construction.
14:22:41 These procedures and methods and means are very
14:22:44 typical nationwide.
14:22:45 They are not unusual.
14:22:47 I mean, there are companies and firms and divisions of
14:22:52 companies that do nothing but building support,
14:22:55 renovation support, isolation, structural support
14:22:58 during the renovations.
14:22:59 So this is a full industry.
14:23:00 This isn't anything that's very unique throughout our
14:23:02 industry or throughout the country.
14:23:04 So basically, it falls into two categories.
14:23:07 It falls into two phases, so to speak.
14:23:10 The first phase is protecting and isolating
14:23:12 structurally supporting the facades.
14:23:14 And when you do that -- essentially, what we're going
14:23:26 to be doing in this instance is you have to first come
14:23:29 up with a design to support the facades.
14:23:31 And that means it's a foundation design and structural
14:23:34 design.

14:23:35 And what it ends up being, once a design is done, you
14:23:37 would install your foundations at the base of this
14:23:41 facade.
14:23:41 And this would be typical for the Woolworth facade as
14:23:44 well.
14:23:44 And then there's a series of vertical steel trusses
14:23:48 that go up and down, and they fasten to the facade.
14:23:51 We would try to reuse the penetrations, wall
14:23:55 penetrations, window penetrations here and over the
14:23:57 top to minimize any disturbance of the actual tile.
14:24:01 But there will be tile that will need to be removed
14:24:04 and bolted through.
14:24:05 We want to ensure the integrity of the facade, that it
14:24:07 doesn't move.
14:24:08 At that point in time, once you have the structure up,
14:24:10 and that you have facade secure, then what you do is
14:24:12 you would pull the actual structure that's holding the
14:24:16 facade up now out behind it, because there's going to
14:24:18 be 24, 27-story building respectively being put up
14:24:22 behind these.
14:24:23 So at that point in time, you have the facade
14:24:25 freestanding, once the demolition is done, and then

14:24:28 you would get into the backside of it and correct any
14:24:30 water or moisture infiltration or damage that's done,
14:24:34 mold, mildew, that type of thing that's in there.
14:24:36 So you would remediate that structure so it could be
14:24:39 used.
14:24:40 Then would you protect it from any of the
14:24:41 construction.
14:24:42 At that point in time, you would construct your new
14:24:44 foundations and your new structure behind it.
14:24:46 And that's really Phase One.
14:24:48 And I guess at that point in time, would you clip or
14:24:51 fasten the existing facade to the new structure.
14:24:56 So then you have a structure that is -- a facade that
14:25:01 is reliant on the new structure at that point in time.
14:25:04 And then the temporary shoring or vertical steel that
14:25:06 is supporting that facade.
14:25:08 That gets taken away.
14:25:09 And then at that point in time, you go into the second
14:25:11 phase, which is repair of the existing facade.
14:25:14 And I think that all of what I've told you so far is
14:25:17 very standard processes.
14:25:18 Very standard procedures.

14:25:19 They do it almost -- if they are working next to an
14:25:22 existing building, even if it's not part of the
14:25:24 project, they have to do those type of things just to
14:25:26 maintain the structural integrity and there's no
14:25:28 damage.
14:25:28 So the idea is to protect and minimize any damage to
14:25:31 what you're working around.
14:25:34 So at that point in time, we get into the repair phase
14:25:36 of this.
14:25:37 And I think that's where a lot of the unclear means
14:25:44 and methods that we're going to use.
14:25:46 I'm going to try to elaborate on that a little bit
14:25:50 here.
14:25:50 I think that's where some of the confusion is coming
14:25:52 in.
14:25:52 I'll break it in by system on the exterior facade.
14:25:56 If you have any questions, I would like this to be
14:25:58 interactive just so I can thoroughly explain this.
14:26:01 Essentially, there will not be any roof behind this
14:26:04 because the building behind it will be gone.
14:26:06 But the first thing I'll start out with is the tile,
14:26:08 which is the most obvious and apparent portion of that

14:26:11 facade.
14:26:11 As you can see, there's some growth and water and
14:26:15 moisture damage throughout that building.
14:26:16 We will try to remediate that from behind the best we
14:26:19 can.
14:26:19 There are some tiles that are missing.
14:26:21 There are tiles that are cracked.
14:26:22 There are some tiles that are loose, and we would have
14:26:24 to pull those off carefully and we would replace the
14:26:28 ones that we can.
14:26:28 Typically what you would do, you would clean the film
14:26:31 off those tiles, clean the oxide off the tiles and
14:26:35 take a representative tile sample.
14:26:36 And that tile sample will be sent out to a
14:26:39 manufacturer, kiln manufacturer, ceramic tile
14:26:43 manufacturer.
14:26:44 That's really the only thing that we'll have to custom
14:26:48 make to match what is there.
14:26:50 And we'll have to do the same with Woolworth.
14:26:52 It has a unique texture, tile pattern.
14:26:56 We'll have to minimize that because it costs money,
14:26:58 but you'll have to do it because there's just tile

14:27:01 missing, broken and damaged now.
14:27:03 The joints most likely will be sealed.
14:27:05 Some are open.
14:27:07 They'll be sealed with a caulk.
14:27:08 They'll be sealed with some type of sealant, and
14:27:11 they'll look just as you see it now to the untrained
14:27:14 eye, no noticeable difference.
14:27:16 The windows and penetrations get a little more
14:27:18 complex, but not much.
14:27:20 We can take this one on the North side, for example.
14:27:22 That penetration has 12 lights, 12 windows, three by
14:27:25 four.
14:27:26 We will not be changing the location, the size of the
14:27:28 penetrations.
14:27:29 In fact, even the depth or reveal of those windows,
14:27:32 how far they set inside the facade will be matched
14:27:35 identically.
14:27:36 The sills matched identically, the frames, window
14:27:40 frames same size.
14:27:41 If the glass is clear, it will be clear.
14:27:44 Woolworth building, if it's amber, on the industry
14:27:47 right now, reds and greens and blues, ambers and

14:27:50 bronzes and 15 shades in every one of those color
14:27:53 categories and we'll simply match as close as we can.
14:27:56 I don't think there's any intention of getting into a
14:27:57 custom color matching program.
14:27:59 We can work with the city as we have in the past on
14:28:01 this project here to come up with something that's
14:28:04 agreeable and looks identical to what's out there.
14:28:09 The aluminum and frame and metal that's there, to be
14:28:11 honest with you, I went out there last week and looked
14:28:14 again, and I was concerned about having any special
14:28:16 ribs or reglets or grooves or contours or profiles,
14:28:21 and the construction of these facades right here was
14:28:24 not very unique.
14:28:25 It was very simple.
14:28:27 In fact, it was very plain.
14:28:28 Very tubular, very square.
14:28:31 The finishes were aluminum.
14:28:33 No polished finishes.
14:28:35 If the finishes on the aluminum frames down at the
14:28:37 storefront section or up in the top windows are -- if
14:28:43 it's brushed aluminum, we'll match it with brushed
14:28:46 aluminum.

14:28:47 Mat finish, we'll match it with a mat finish.
14:28:50 All of these are available on the markets.
14:28:52 We won't get into specialty rolling or specialty color
14:28:55 match because they have such a gradient of colors on
14:28:57 the market nowadays that we'll be able to come up with
14:29:01 something so close, again, it won't look any different
14:29:03 from the street at all.
14:29:04 The glass block is a little more complex.
14:29:07 I think the jury is still out on that.
14:29:09 I would say that the glass block is made up of grout
14:29:12 and glass modules.
14:29:13 It's brick basically what it is.
14:29:15 A lot of this glass block is damaged.
14:29:18 Seals are broken.
14:29:20 Green inside of there, water inside of there.
14:29:23 Obviously we can't have that.
14:29:24 What we're looking at is possibly replacing that.
14:29:27 We'd have to work closely with the city again.
14:29:29 We would take samples of new block out on the market.
14:29:31 And right now, that is a standard size block.
14:29:34 Not an unstandard size block.
14:29:36 If it's White grout, we'll use White grout.

14:29:39 If it's gray, we'll use gray.
14:29:41 If it's sand, we'll use sand.
14:29:43 If it's epoxy, we'll use epoxy.
14:29:46 The means and methods of when this building was
14:29:48 constructed have not changed tremendously.
14:29:50 There's not fear that we can't match it.
14:29:52 My experience from Disney, we can match just about
14:29:56 anything with the existing materials on the market.
14:29:58 We don't have to get into custom rolling and that kind
14:30:01 of thing.
14:30:01 To make it crisp and clean and bright, our thoughts
14:30:04 right now are to replace the glass block here and
14:30:07 here.
14:30:08 Size of the openings, location of the openings, depth
14:30:11 of the openings, the pattern, the layout, the grid,
14:30:14 the grout, everything else will remain exactly the
14:30:17 same.
14:30:17 Just look new and crisp and bright and clean.
14:30:20 I can jump down to the canopy here.
14:30:22 Now, the canopy -- I guess I can step back a little
14:30:25 bit.
14:30:26 This canopy and this projecting sign piece up here,

14:30:29 those will have to be removed when we pull the
14:30:31 building down because they are connected to the
14:30:32 structure behind it.
14:30:33 Once the structure behind it is completed, those
14:30:37 elements are then added back through.
14:30:38 So essentially what you have is this facade laid out
14:30:41 as a very near -- veneer over the top of the
14:30:46 structure.
14:30:46 This canopy here will be matched in depth, in
14:30:49 thickness and radius and width.
14:30:51 It will be matched completely.
14:30:53 I think the only area that will not be matched
14:30:55 obviously will be the roof system.
14:30:56 We'll put something on that might be a little bit
14:30:58 more -- better life cycle, better warranty, better
14:31:04 protection.
14:31:04 Meet the current wind loads and that type of thing.
14:31:07 But as far as the facades go and on the Woolworth
14:31:10 side, if it had a red porcelain -- not a ceramic, red
14:31:14 porcelain or enamel face with stainless steel strip on
14:31:19 the top and stainless steel strip on the bottom, in
14:31:21 fact, I have, right here --

14:31:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
14:31:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez has a question.
14:31:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Dr. Fetterhoff, you want to put the
14:31:42 Newberry building back?
14:31:49 When that facade -- right now, it's over block.
14:31:54 >> It's over block and some structure.
14:31:56 It's sort of combined.
14:31:57 We did an investigation.
14:31:58 Little bit of steel in there as well.
14:31:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And you're planning to remove the back
14:32:02 part, which is the building, right?
14:32:05 >> Actually, the inside of the Newberry, it has
14:32:08 already been stripped down, almost to its structure.
14:32:10 The Woolworth has not.
14:32:12 So we would strip it down to its structure.
14:32:14 We didn't strip it down.
14:32:16 It was previously stripped down.
14:32:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So there would be no danger of any of
14:32:23 this facade coming down then if you had to remove all
14:32:26 that stuff, like, for instance, now in the Woolworth
14:32:30 building, would that be -- how would you do that?
14:32:33 >> When you say any of that stuff coming down, you

14:32:35 mean the tile, the exterior pieces?
14:32:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The interior part of it.
14:32:40 How do you protect the exterior of it if the inside of
14:32:44 the building is still there?
14:32:47 >> Well, the tiles are mounted on a frame, which is
14:32:50 mounted to the inside structure.
14:32:55 Or it could be applied directly to the frame.
14:32:57 We are only removing or demolishing up to the
14:32:59 structure behind it.
14:33:00 We are not touching the structure that actually
14:33:02 connects the veneer or the tile or the glass that you
14:33:04 see to the wall.
14:33:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But is there a danger that that could
14:33:07 be harmed in any way?
14:33:09 >> There's always a danger, but the idea during the
14:33:11 design phase and working with the city is to minimize
14:33:15 that as much as you can.
14:33:18 Again, it's not an unusual practice.
14:33:19 There are contractors that do this all over the
14:33:21 country, including in this region here, central
14:33:23 Florida, downtown, Orlando.
14:33:27 It's a well-worn practice.

14:33:29 But there's always that risk and danger.
14:33:31 If there's a section that moves or cracks or
14:33:33 something, it's typically repaired.
14:33:35 It just has to be repaired because it happens.
14:33:38 But it's not -- it's typically never catastrophic.
14:33:42 If it's catastrophic, it's typically a problem up
14:33:44 front in the design.
14:33:46 And the whole integration of the construction and the
14:33:51 protection and isolation of the facade.
14:33:53 It just wasn't planned out very well.
14:33:55 But that's very unusual.
14:33:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The balance of the building in the
14:34:00 back will be demolished, correct?
14:34:03 >> Correct.
14:34:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you plan to implode the building?
14:34:07 >> No, no, you couldn't do that.
14:34:08 You are in such proximity to the Kress building, it
14:34:13 would be selective demolition.
14:34:15 Essentially work from the Franklin side of the street
14:34:17 up to this point and then leave the existing frames
14:34:20 behind this, the whole cube, so to speak, behind it,
14:34:23 and you would pull that down.

14:34:25 By that time, you would have all your structural and
14:34:27 isolation for the facade.
14:34:29 And at that point in time, you actually hand remove
14:34:31 the rest of the steel.
14:34:32 That's how it works.
14:34:33 You don't come in with big equipment and pull it
14:34:35 apart.
14:34:36 This structure is actually connected in brick to the
14:34:39 Kress building.
14:34:41 All that has to be cut individually by hand and pulled
14:34:43 off.
14:34:44 That's how it would work.
14:34:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It sounds to me like you're
14:34:54 planning on doing a very detailed structure.
14:34:56 I guess the structure goes on the front and then you
14:34:58 build a structure behind.
14:34:59 You kind of sandwich it for a while, that sort of
14:35:02 thing.
14:35:04 And you do that for historic buildings around the
14:35:07 state.
14:35:08 >> Yeah, we've had to do that on several.
14:35:11 In fact, the one that I can remember the best is in

14:35:13 downtown Orlando.
14:35:13 It was a smaller structure.
14:35:14 It was probably -- it was probably the same size as
14:35:17 this.
14:35:17 And it was a brick front.
14:35:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So is it your claim that everything
14:35:22 you do is the same thing that the city requires you to
14:35:26 do under the city's historic preservation process?
14:35:31 >> No, not necessarily.
14:35:32 Again, I think that we would -- yes, from the
14:35:39 untrained eye, this facade is going to look just as it
14:35:43 would if it was historically preserved.
14:35:46 I guess I would let the owner speak to this a little
14:35:48 further.
14:35:49 Again, if there are small fins or reglets or some
14:35:53 other colored glass and that type of thing, I don't
14:35:57 think we're interested in going out and getting custom
14:36:01 runs of glass or custom runs of aluminum or that type
14:36:06 of thing.
14:36:06 Because to be honest with you, what is currently there
14:36:09 right now is not -- it's no the that expensive of a
14:36:11 system.

14:36:12 It's pretty similar.
14:36:13 So what we could provide is current energy-efficient
14:36:17 systems that meet the current wind loads.
14:36:19 They are safer.
14:36:20 They perform better, and they would look almost
14:36:23 identical.
14:36:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So, in other words, from a
14:36:28 structural perspective, you feel pretty comfortable
14:36:30 that you can peel this will off and save it, but when
14:36:34 it comes down to the nitty-gritty details, it's not
14:36:39 going to be exactly historically preserved as we would
14:36:43 under the current historic preservation code.
14:36:48 >> And I guess the code is an interaction, an ongoing
14:36:53 dialogue between the city and the developer.
14:36:56 It's not -- let me see if I can explain this simply.
14:37:01 It's not looking at a drawing.
14:37:03 Let me show you one.
14:37:04 Here's a good example.
14:37:09 It is not the point of trying to focus in on a
14:37:15 rendering.
14:37:16 And everybody microscopically looking at this
14:37:18 rendering and saying, is that what I want?

14:37:20 Is that what I don't want?
14:37:22 Is that what I'm going to get.
14:37:24 It's an interactive process with the city.
14:37:26 Basically, we'll sit down with the city's team and
14:37:28 developer's team and we would go through and they
14:37:30 would recommend what they want it to look like.
14:37:33 This is a perfect example here.
14:37:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me just clarify, because I'm
14:37:35 not sure that we're on the same track.
14:37:38 I've been very confused ever since Mr. Smith stood up
14:37:41 and talked, now I'm even more confused.
14:37:43 When you say you're going to get with the city's team,
14:37:47 is that the -- is that the A.R.C. board that you're
14:37:51 going to get with?
14:37:53 Is it the A.R.C. staff that you're going to get with?
14:37:57 Or is it the Mayor?
14:37:59 I guess I don't understand.
14:38:01 >> It would be the process currently outlined on the
14:38:03 site plan, on the approved site plan.
14:38:05 I think maybe that might be a legal question on who we
14:38:08 would deal with.
14:38:09 But I think we would work with the city through the

14:38:12 guidelines that are set forth in the site plan.
14:38:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But it's not the A.R.C.
14:38:17 You're not anticipating -- well, you put up your
14:38:20 expert, you put up your person to talk.
14:38:22 I guess, you know, I don't know why you're jumping in,
14:38:27 John.
14:38:31 >> I don't want to guess at the answer.
14:38:32 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Co-counsel with Mr. Shimberg.
14:38:36 And I'm advising the client on the specifics of the
14:38:40 site plan and how they relate to the historic
14:38:42 designation ordinance.
14:38:43 The zoning site plan charges the urban design manager,
14:38:47 Wilson stair, with oversight at 30, 60, and 90 percent
14:38:52 drawings.
14:38:52 And that's the rezoning site plan.
14:38:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We recall all that.
14:38:57 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Dr. Fetterhoff's presentation you
14:38:59 just saw was provided to the Mayor this morning in
14:39:02 full detail, probably even more detail.
14:39:04 And she was very comfortable with it.
14:39:06 And explained that she was not in favor of the
14:39:08 designation of the process.

14:39:09 Because she trusted the process that was described by
14:39:12 Dr. Fetterhoff and the oversight of her administrative
14:39:16 person, Wilson stair, the urban design manager.
14:39:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But to answer my question, because
14:39:23 I don't want anybody to be confused up here on this
14:39:25 panel especially, what Dr. Fetterhoff is saying
14:39:30 sounded like historic preservation that he's going to
14:39:33 historically preserve it.
14:39:34 I don't want anybody to be confused that it's not
14:39:36 going to go through the A.R.C. process.
14:39:38 It's not going to be reviewed by the A.R.C. staff even
14:39:43 necessarily, because Mr. Wilson stair W all due
14:39:46 respect, does great work on the urban issues, but he's
14:39:49 not our historic preservationist.
14:39:52 So I just wanted to make -- if you want to correct me
14:39:54 and say anything I just said now is wrong, do so now.
14:39:57 Other than that, I'd say I describe what had is going
14:40:00 on pretty accurately.
14:40:02 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: They can have some input in the
14:40:04 process.
14:40:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know where that input would
14:40:05 come.

14:40:07 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: In the construction permitting
14:40:08 process, according to the zoning site plan.
14:40:12 It's condition nine.
14:40:13 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Jim Shimberg.
14:40:16 Just to clarify one point.
14:40:17 I think you're saying, you know, there's going to be
14:40:20 some huge distinction.
14:40:21 I think what we said all along, we think there's a
14:40:23 little bit more flexibility in working with the city
14:40:26 and doing it the way Dr. Fetterhoff just described.
14:40:32 Whoever the city puts in working with them, I don't
14:40:33 know who that will be.
14:40:34 The Mayor will decide that.
14:40:36 It could be anybody on her staff, it's specifically
14:40:39 described as the urban design manager in the site
14:40:40 plan.
14:40:41 Somebody could be the assistant and work with them.
14:40:44 It is going to be very similar.
14:40:45 I think you'll end up with a very similar product but
14:40:48 maybe not exact.
14:40:49 What we're saying is the common eye is not going to be
14:40:52 able to tell the difference.

14:40:53 It's going to look the way it looked.
14:40:55 Nobody knows exactly what it looked like 50 years ago.
14:40:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I do.
14:41:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Doctor, I heard from enough lawyers.
14:41:11 It sounds to me like what you're saying is to 99% of
14:41:17 the world, what they are going to look at when you're
14:41:20 done is going to look like what was there
14:41:23 historically.
14:41:25 And it could be that there may be some little piece of
14:41:28 aluminum attached to tomorrow -- attached to some
14:41:33 window that instead of have ridges that go like that,
14:41:35 it may not have the ridges.
14:41:37 But everything else is going to be the same.
14:41:40 So the product at the end of the day is going to be
14:41:46 the same or 99% the same as if it went through the
14:41:52 A.R.C. process versus going through the Wilson stair
14:41:57 process at 30, 60 and 90, which I have ultimate
14:42:01 confidence in.
14:42:06 And you all -- the end result will be the same.
14:42:09 You don't have to deal with the time and the
14:42:13 bureaucracy of the other process.
14:42:17 And what you're going to present is going to be

14:42:21 essentially the same as if it had gone through the
14:42:26 other process.
14:42:26 >> That's my understanding, yes.
14:42:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And how much is all of this going to
14:42:30 cost for both of these buildings to do what you're
14:42:33 talking about?
14:42:35 >> Well, we have preliminary estimates on the total
14:42:37 project.
14:42:37 Just the construction value ranges between 120 and 130
14:42:41 million currently.
14:42:44 So that's the total value.
14:42:45 If you are talking about the renovation piece.
14:42:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm talking about to keep the
14:42:49 facades as is, how much is that costing you?
14:42:52 >> Without the repair of the facades, just the
14:42:54 structural isolation and the excavation -- there's
14:43:03 currently no basement underneath this building.
14:43:05 That means the foundations for this are almost at
14:43:08 grade.
14:43:09 And we have a parking structure that goes underneath
14:43:12 it.
14:43:12 So we have to excavate that and put foundations under

14:43:16 foundations.
14:43:16 All of that work including structural reporting right
14:43:20 now in our estimates are well over in excess of a
14:43:22 million dollars.
14:43:25 Just to save the facades.
14:43:27 And that doesn't include repair.
14:43:30 It's a significant amount of money.
14:43:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a couple of questions.
14:43:37 You said you've done this before.
14:43:38 Can you give me some examples?
14:43:41 >> Sure, off the top of our head --
14:43:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just one.
14:43:45 >> One.
14:43:46 Yes, New York City, and I probably have it in my --
14:43:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Where?
14:43:52 Which?
14:43:53 What?
14:43:54 >> I don't know the name of the hotel, but there are
14:43:55 several in New York City that we have done.
14:43:57 I could get those for you.
14:43:58 I don't want to guess the names.
14:44:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would be real interested.

14:44:02 What concerned me is when you referred to doing work
14:44:04 at Disney World.
14:44:06 Nothing against Disney World, but, Council, I think
14:44:08 this is the crux of the issue.
14:44:10 Disney World is an approximation of life.
14:44:14 It is not the authentic thing.
14:44:16 The thing so special about these two structures, they
14:44:18 are the real thing.
14:44:19 And I think that's the whole reason why you go through
14:44:21 the trouble of going through the A.R.C. so that it's
14:44:24 authentic.
14:44:25 You have really impressed me, Dr. Fetterhoff.
14:44:28 You are very knowledgeable about the structural stuff.
14:44:31 Your attention to detail is good.
14:44:32 My question is, as long as you're going to this degree
14:44:35 of detail, why not just satisfy our hearts and call --
14:44:44 what we want.
14:44:45 There's this great bumper sticker in Florence, Italy.
14:44:48 It says, "Florence is not Disney World."
14:44:53 Tampa, Florida, is mostly Disney World.
14:44:56 We have very few examples of authenticity.
14:44:58 We have such a new and stucc-ified culture.

14:45:05 We have very few things resonant and this is one of
14:45:07 them.
14:45:08 It sounds like you'll go to huge detail and expense to
14:45:11 preserve what is really special.
14:45:12 And I guess that's what we're aiming for.
14:45:16 >> You asked two fundamental questions.
14:45:17 The first one about Disney.
14:45:18 I was talking procedurally on how it works.
14:45:21 Example, the Grand Floridian Hotel.
14:45:25 I was responsible with the removal of the entire
14:45:27 facade of the Grand Floridian Hotel, which was an
14:45:27 existing structure.
14:45:29 Regardless of how old it was, it was built in '88 --
14:45:30 or when it was built -- it had to be removed because
14:45:34 of the water damage.
14:45:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It was built in '88?
14:45:38 >> It was built in '88.
14:45:40 The facade had to be completely removed on the lodge
14:45:42 building and all of the out buildings.
14:45:44 What we have to do there, we have to pull those off,
14:45:46 but we have to work with the internal creative
14:45:49 consultants who are the thematic consultants within

14:45:51 Disney.
14:45:51 And we have to work with them just like we would work
14:45:53 with your staff and put everything back to the way it
14:45:55 was.
14:45:56 Because there's an architectural intent there.
14:45:59 So that is the process that I was speaking about.
14:46:01 When we do it here, it's a very similar thing.
14:46:04 There's interaction between the creative side within
14:46:06 the Walt Disney World company, because we've pulled
14:46:08 something down that is historic and thematic to them,
14:46:12 which is a big investment, which is true.
14:46:14 And we have to put it back identically, but we have to
14:46:18 put it back with new and better materials.
14:46:20 So that was the process that I was talking about
14:46:22 there.
14:46:23 I hope that answers your question.
14:46:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:46:25 I look forward to getting the examples you've worked
14:46:28 on in New York.
14:46:30 >> Sure.
14:46:32 Thank you very much.
14:46:33 Thank you for your time.

14:46:37 You did want to say something, Ms. Miller?
14:46:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: She shouldn't take time from either
14:46:44 side.
14:46:50 >>JIM SHIMBERG: One last point.
14:46:52 The other thing Mr. Jason wanted me to mention,
14:46:55 besides the expense, they are also losing parking
14:46:57 spaces.
14:46:58 And that is significant downtown in order to save
14:47:00 these facades.
14:47:01 So that's not something that we are complaining about.
14:47:03 We're just saying that's a specific point.
14:47:08 Parking space will be lost because of the saving of
14:47:10 these facades.
14:47:11 Thank you.
14:47:13 >>GWEN MILLER: That's all from your side?
14:47:15 Okay.
14:47:16 Ms. Miller, you may come down now.
14:47:21 >> Cindy Miller, director of business and housing
14:47:23 development.
14:47:23 Just very briefly, councilman Dingfelder asked about
14:47:27 who would be involved and how it would interface with

14:47:30 staff.
14:47:30 One thing I wanted to clarify, one reason why David
14:47:33 Smith and I believe it's important to have a
14:47:35 clarification of what is in the rezoning documentation
14:47:38 on the PD.
14:47:40 When it takes everything from going for the
14:47:44 appropriate demolition permits, for the appropriate
14:47:46 construction permits, it is going to take a bit more
14:47:50 documentation, in our opinion so that my staff,
14:47:53 whether they are a construction service center
14:47:55 coordinating with del Acosta, coordinating with Dennis
14:47:58 Fernandez, to be able to identify what is the
14:48:01 appropriate process.
14:48:02 Therefore we need better clarification of what is in
14:48:05 the PD documents, and that is one reason why David
14:48:09 Smith and I are interested in getting that
14:48:11 clarification and bringing it back to you in the next
14:48:13 week.
14:48:13 The presentation you saw is part of the type of
14:48:15 documentation we believe we need.
14:48:17 So it would be really a team effort to be able to
14:48:20 accomplish the project under appropriate preservation

14:48:23 techniques so the type of quality of historic
14:48:26 preservation that we all want to see can be put into
14:48:29 place.
14:48:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And Ms. Miller, I think that we are
14:48:32 going down the right path, and I think this can be
14:48:36 instructive when we have the cigar factory debate as
14:48:41 well.
14:48:42 I'd like everybody to keep that in mind, that I think
14:48:46 there are ways to fix that process.
14:48:47 So that also is a win-win for everyone concerned.
14:48:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think you have a few hats on
14:48:55 today, too, Ms. Miller.
14:48:57 You wear them well.
14:49:02 I think what I'm confused about because the last time
14:49:05 we sort of heard similar testimony, and I think what I
14:49:07 heard from staff, including your staff, Dennis sitting
14:49:12 right there, if it didn't go through the A.R.C.
14:49:15 process, and these alternative glass, the alternative
14:49:21 glass, the alternative trim, the alternative this, the
14:49:24 alternative that was applied to the naked uninformed
14:49:27 eye like Mr. Harrison and myself, you know, we might
14:49:30 not know the difference.

14:49:31 But at the end of the day, would it still meet federal
14:49:34 historic standards?
14:49:36 And I thought I heard Dennis or somebody else clearly
14:49:40 indicate that the answer was probably no, that once
14:49:43 you started monkeying around and doing other things
14:49:46 and alternatives and this and that, that it was no
14:49:49 longer ever going to meet historic standards.
14:49:51 Now, would it look somewhat historic in sort of the
14:49:55 way it does, yes, that might go to essentially the
14:49:57 same standard that Mr. Harrison might feel comfortable
14:50:00 with.
14:50:00 But is it truly historically preserved the way that --
14:50:05 the way that -- Mary.
14:50:08 Is it truly historically preserved the way that the
14:50:13 national folks look at it?
14:50:15 I thought I heard something different.
14:50:18 >> Councilman, I think, and again, as you mentioned,
14:50:21 I'm wearing a couple of different hats.
14:50:22 I think the key is, from the time you had the
14:50:24 testimony before to now is that we have been able to
14:50:27 take at least looking at the presentation you saw
14:50:30 earlier in this hearing, is that we need to have that

14:50:35 kind of information provided to us so that we can do
14:50:38 the proper evaluation.
14:50:41 Can we say yes or no?
14:50:43 I don't think we can today.
14:50:44 And I think that's where the developer and their
14:50:47 representatives and their engineers and professionals
14:50:49 are going to provide us the information in the coming
14:50:51 days so that we can come back to you with an agreement
14:50:54 that we are able to stand before you and be able to
14:50:56 say that it's being preserved under appropriate -- for
14:51:01 appropriate characteristics.
14:51:02 I can't answer that today for you.
14:51:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In other words, you're saying that
14:51:06 by next week you hope to be able to come in front of
14:51:08 us and say that this compromise approach will still
14:51:13 meet national standards?
14:51:16 National historic standards?
14:51:17 Is that where the administration is headed?
14:51:20 Or are we just headed toward a compromise that says it
14:51:23 might look what similar?
14:51:26 >> I think we're hoping to be able to weren't to you
14:51:28 the standards under which you can reach a good

14:51:31 determination to show that historic preservation has
14:51:33 occurred.
14:51:34 And we have to bring that back to you.
14:51:39 Let me just say, I think for facades, part of our
14:51:41 dilemma is most of the time when we're dealing with
14:51:44 secretary of interior standards, we're talking about
14:51:47 entire buildings.
14:51:48 We're talking about something that has a very
14:51:51 different approach than just preserving the facades.
14:51:53 And that's something that we all have to work with.
14:51:56 And I think that we're all willing to work together to
14:51:58 make sure that the appropriate historic preservation
14:52:00 occurs.
14:52:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought facades are covered
14:52:06 within the national standards.
14:52:07 >> They are covered, but I think we have to be able to
14:52:09 work with both the period of time, the materials, and
14:52:12 be able to come back to you.
14:52:13 I don't have enough information today for you, and
14:52:16 that's why we're trying to work to make sure that
14:52:18 information is available a week from now.
14:52:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate that.

14:52:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want the city to be
14:52:23 realistic about a week.
14:52:28 This sounds pretty complicated to me.
14:52:30 I'm going -- I mean, if you don't think it will be a
14:52:33 week, then please don't set it for a week and then
14:52:35 have us continue it because it's stressful for
14:52:38 everybody.
14:52:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
14:52:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Now it's the preservationists.
14:52:50 >> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
14:52:53 I think the way -- yes, I was sworn.
14:52:56 The way we're going to do this with our 30 minutes,
14:52:59 I'm going to speak first and kind of set the stage,
14:53:01 and some of these other preservation leaders from
14:53:04 Tampa preservation Inc. who were here when some of our
14:53:09 ordinances were first created will speak, maybe show
14:53:12 some pictures, explain some economic incentive
14:53:14 programs and then I'm going to conclude if I have
14:53:17 enough time.
14:53:21 And I'm here just to make it clear, I'm representing
14:53:23 Tampa Preservation Inc. and their new preservation
14:53:26 leadership panel.

14:53:27 I want you to remember what we're here to do today.
14:53:32 And on your agenda is an agenda item that talks about
14:53:35 a public hearing on designation of these facades.
14:53:42 That's what the public has been noticed on.
14:53:44 That's what we're supposed to be hearing.
14:53:46 If we continue it, I want to make sure something
14:53:48 doesn't happen which is what happened last time with
14:53:51 the cigar factories, which is that we flew
14:53:54 representatives from the national trust for historic
14:53:56 preservation down here to speak to an issue, many of
14:54:01 you acknowledged that you all had been lobbied by
14:54:04 representatives for the developer, and the hearing was
14:54:07 continued.
14:54:08 And the City Attorney's office has said, well, it was
14:54:11 just continued.
14:54:12 No real action was taken.
14:54:13 But what has happened is the slippery slope that is
14:54:20 starting now.
14:54:20 If you don't believe me, you can take the word of
14:54:23 Mr. Grandoff who said in the paper today, apparently,
14:54:26 he'll argue that the spirit of this cigar factory
14:54:29 debate should be upheld when considering whether to

14:54:31 label the Newberry building and Woolworth buildings
14:54:35 historic.
14:54:36 So what apparently happened was you had some people on
14:54:40 board who were willing and you're exactly right,
14:54:43 Mr. Dingfelder, to go through the process as it exists
14:54:47 in our city.
14:54:48 And I'm going to go over what that process is.
14:54:51 Because it is not ownership.
14:54:53 I'm sorry, it is not onerous.
14:54:55 There is an ability to abate the designation process
14:54:59 if you utilize it.
14:55:00 There is an ability when it goes back before the HPC
14:55:05 to show economic hardship.
14:55:07 And there is an ability to appeal to City Council and
14:55:10 then to Circuit Court.
14:55:12 So before we throw out the baby with the bath water,
14:55:15 you need to understand that the ordinances that you
14:55:18 have are effective.
14:55:22 And even -- I respect all of you all.
14:55:25 I think you know that.
14:55:26 But it's so upsetting to have lobbying done for you
14:55:30 all to admit lobbying and then not to open the public

14:55:34 hearing.
14:55:34 Because I think had you all opened the public hearing
14:55:39 for the limited purpose of responding to the lobbying,
14:55:42 we would not be in the situation we're in today.
14:55:46 I want to disabuse everyone of the notion that just
14:55:49 because they are promising to do something that is
14:55:51 going to look and smell like historic preservation
14:55:53 that it's going to meet the preservation requirements.
14:55:57 I have not heard how if this property is sold, the
14:56:02 promises that are made today apparently on the record
14:56:05 run with the land.
14:56:05 I don't know about that.
14:56:07 I also know that when it gets to the construction
14:56:14 or -- I think his first name is Wilson.
14:56:16 I apologize, I don't know his last name.
14:56:18 But the 30 percent, 60 percent and 90 percent, that's
14:56:21 done behind closed doors where people -- lawyers are
14:56:25 being paid several hundred dollars an hour to meet as
14:56:29 long as they want with these people.
14:56:31 If Mr. Grandoff got up here and said, it will all be
14:56:35 opportunity to be heard, well, we tried to meet with
14:56:37 the Mayor just an hour ago.

14:56:39 There was a closed-door meeting with the Mayor.
14:56:41 We stood out there for half an hour.
14:56:43 I asked Mr. Grandoff or I asked Mr. Smith, rather, if
14:56:47 we could come in.
14:56:48 Mr. Grandoff said no.
14:56:50 And, you know, so I don't have a huge comfort level
14:56:55 that the proceedings that take place out of the public
14:56:58 eye are going to be effective.
14:57:00 And with all due respect, Mr. Harrison, result in
14:57:04 something that the national trust and the Florida
14:57:06 trust would support.
14:57:08 I want to real quickly show you some pictures, because
14:57:11 I want to give them sufficient time.
14:57:15 But we're not just talking about any history here.
14:57:19 This Woolworth building is where the civil rights
14:57:23 sit-ins for Tampa were conducted.
14:57:29 This is our history.
14:57:30 My understanding is the HPC made certain
14:57:32 recommendations and made certain concessions that were
14:57:36 signed off on.
14:57:37 And now at the 11th hour, instead of going through
14:57:40 the process, we're changing the whole procedure.

14:57:45 I also want to talk about very briefly what our
14:57:48 ordinance does.
14:57:49 I alluded to it, but the initiation process, like I
14:57:53 said, is not onerous.
14:57:55 The hardship criteria, not onerous.
14:57:57 Mr. Grandoff stated in one meeting, oh, it's onerous.
14:58:00 It's too hard to do.
14:58:04 He knows exactly what those criteria are.
14:58:06 In a matter that involved myself and my husband, he
14:58:08 spoke against the hardship criteria.
14:58:10 So he's aware of them.
14:58:11 He knows what they are.
14:58:13 They are not onerous to meet.
14:58:15 People have to live with them all the time.
14:58:17 At the time Mr. Grandoff spoke against those hardship
14:58:20 criteria in the matter that concerned my property,
14:58:24 because he said he believed in historic preservation.
14:58:29 I think that we're on, like the newspaper article
14:58:31 said, I'm looking down at it, our whole historic
14:58:34 future is on a collision course.
14:58:37 You are here today on second reading for the
14:58:40 designation of these facades.

14:58:43 That's the only way these facades are going to be
14:58:45 protected.
14:58:46 If not, this will be like the old courthouse.
14:58:50 It will be like numerous other buildings in Tampa.
14:58:52 And that history of that civil rights sit-in will be
14:58:57 lost forever.
14:58:58 Thank you.
14:58:58 I will come back if there's time after some of the
14:59:00 others have spoken.
14:59:08 >> Good afternoon, Council members.
14:59:09 My name is Anna Thomas.
14:59:11 I'm president of Tampa preservation.
14:59:13 I reside at 821 South ORLEANS and I have been sworn
14:59:19 in.
14:59:19 Tampa preservation would like to go on record as
14:59:22 stating that we are requesting that the Newberry and
14:59:25 Woolworth facades be designated as local landmarks
14:59:29 with absolutely no question as to their future.
14:59:34 Many cities across the United States differ from Tampa
14:59:39 in regard to their historic landmarks or buildings
14:59:43 that are contributing buildings, entities, they do not
14:59:47 leave the protection of those buildings to the

14:59:50 developers.
14:59:51 Those cities recognize, as city governments,
14:59:55 municipalities that they have the responsibility for
14:59:59 protecting those.
15:00:00 They do not leave it to outside interests to do so.
15:00:05 We are asking this city to follow suit in its
15:00:08 responsibility to this.
15:00:09 It's not just the preservation committee.
15:00:12 It is Tampa as a whole and our history.
15:00:15 We recognize that development is necessary, and it's
15:00:19 good.
15:00:20 It's beneficial for the community.
15:00:22 However, it can be done intelligently and creatively
15:00:26 and compassionately with the structures that exist
15:00:30 now.
15:00:30 They can be combined and beautifully blended with new
15:00:35 construction so that all interests, both historic and
15:00:38 future interests are well protected.
15:00:41 We have an historic preservation commission on the
15:00:45 city's payroll.
15:00:46 We pay them to do their job.
15:00:48 We look to them for their expertise and guidance.

15:00:50 And to preclude them or really cast them to the side
15:00:57 as to the importance they bring to this party is
15:00:59 self-defeating and short-sighted.
15:01:02 Again, we ask that these two properties be given the
15:01:06 honor that they deserve as local landmarks.
15:01:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
15:01:18 >> Good afternoon.
15:01:18 Becky Clark.
15:01:19 5139 South Nichols street.
15:01:22 I have been sworn.
15:01:23 I serve as the Executive Director of Tampa
15:01:25 preservation.
15:01:27 I would just like to make a few short points, and then
15:01:30 I'll turn it back over to my colleagues.
15:01:33 From the presentation we heard today, this developer
15:01:38 states that he does have the greatest of intentions.
15:01:40 And it sounds like he may.
15:01:43 The process that they are proposing, however, will not
15:01:46 protect these facades.
15:01:48 We all have seen many development proposals that look
15:01:51 great and have great intentions, but for a variety of
15:01:54 reasons, they never develop.

15:02:02 In this circumstance, if these well-intentioned
15:02:05 developers are not able to finish their project, what
15:02:07 will happen next?
15:02:08 Where will the protection for these facades be?
15:02:10 We will have possibly lost them to the next developer.
15:02:15 The only permanent protection we have is the
15:02:17 designation.
15:02:20 It would also protect them from future alterations.
15:02:23 Once this initial development is done, what's to say
15:02:25 they don't want to come back and do something else?
15:02:29 Years ago, the family that owned the Maas Brothers
15:02:32 building expressed their compassion and caring for
15:02:35 their property and its importance to our city.
15:02:38 They vowed that they would take care of it.
15:02:40 If you've driven down the street and seen what's
15:02:44 happening on that block today, obviously, that didn't
15:02:47 happen.
15:02:47 Please don't let that happen to these buildings.
15:02:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How many years have you been
15:02:56 involved in this?
15:02:57 >> In preservation?
15:02:59 About 20 or so.

15:03:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And mostly in Tampa?
15:03:04 >> Mostly in Tampa but I'm now also involved on a
15:03:08 statewide basis.
15:03:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why?
15:03:09 Why does it matter?
15:03:11 What's the difference between essentially similar or
15:03:15 truly historically preserved?
15:03:17 Why should we be so darn picky?
15:03:21 >> Because it's what gives our communities character.
15:03:24 When I travel, I don't know about you, but I like to
15:03:26 go and see what makes a city unique.
15:03:29 I don't care necessarily about looking at a hundred
15:03:35 sky raises -- rises raising above the city.
15:03:38 I want to see what their history is.
15:03:49 >> Hello.
15:03:50 Leania Youngren.
15:03:52 Presently I'm serving as the president of Tampa
15:03:55 Heights Civic Association.
15:03:56 In Tampa Heights, we are the oldest, as you know, I've
15:04:00 said that many times, the oldest community of the City
15:04:02 of Tampa being first started to settle in 1890s.
15:04:10 We as a community went out ourselves and initiated the

15:04:13 creation of our historic district.
15:04:15 We didn't wait for a city.
15:04:17 We didn't wait for others to help us.
15:04:19 We initiated it ourselves.
15:04:22 At that time, we recognize that we had something that
15:04:26 we could use as a marketing tool, something that made
15:04:29 us unique.
15:04:30 Something that made us special in Tampa Heights.
15:04:32 We were losing our historic buildings ongoing.
15:04:37 Today, if we went to try to get historic designation,
15:04:41 we would not be able to get it because we would not
15:04:44 have 75 percent of our housing stock in place today.
15:04:48 And even with that being put in place, we continue to
15:04:52 have the fight ongoing.
15:04:54 One of our issues in Tampa Heights as we look at it
15:04:58 from our community's perspective, is that we need a
15:05:01 process, a process that helps us when we desire
15:05:07 something -- some things for our community that we
15:05:09 could go to a process that's dependable and get a way
15:05:15 of putting what we want on the table.
15:05:16 One of the reasons we appreciate being able to come
15:05:18 before City Council, because there's a process that we

15:05:20 go through, and we could depend on that.
15:05:22 When any developer comes into our community and starts
15:05:25 talking about what they want to put in, we have a
15:05:28 means of saying, well, we have our historic district.
15:05:31 We have our neighborhood plan.
15:05:32 We have our association with our elected officials.
15:05:35 We have a process that we know that we could follow.
15:05:38 So while this is an issue specifically on these
15:05:42 buildings that are being discussed, for us, from our
15:05:45 perspective, is that we want a dependable process, not
15:05:49 something that's going to change whenever another
15:05:51 project comes in place.
15:05:53 So my presentation to you or my comment to you is
15:05:57 please help us to have something that we know we can
15:06:01 follow and not be unsure of whether we'll get what we
15:06:04 want today and get something else tomorrow.
15:06:08 And change the things that we've worked so hard for so
15:06:11 many years to have in place.
15:06:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: After everybody --
15:06:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Were you sworn in, ma'am?
15:06:19 You were not sworn.
15:06:26 (Oath administered by clerk).

15:06:32 >> I have.
15:06:41 >> My name is Rachelle gross and I have not been sworn
15:06:44 in.
15:06:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody else need to be sworn in?
15:06:48 (Oath administered by clerk).
15:06:53 >> I do.
15:06:54 The first time I saw a facade being saved was as a
15:06:57 college student in Washington D.C.
15:06:59 And I remember thinking because, of course, we knew
15:07:02 everything back then, why did they go do this?
15:07:05 What was the point?
15:07:07 And after the building was built, it was clear.
15:07:10 It was because the character was still there.
15:07:13 Nobody builds new buildings like they used to build
15:07:16 old buildings.
15:07:17 This block downtown is the last retail block.
15:07:19 Woolworth, the fact that it was -- had the sit-ins
15:07:23 during the civil rights is so incredibly important.
15:07:25 The Newberry building, you're talking about two little
15:07:30 walls, just corners on each side of their huge
15:07:33 development.
15:07:33 It's going to be less than 1% of their total building

15:07:36 cost to preserve these adequately.
15:07:39 Dr. Fetterhoff mentioned that phase two, the means and
15:07:43 methods were unclear.
15:07:44 Well, the secretary of interior standards were formed
15:07:48 to provide clear means and methods.
15:07:52 They sound like they have every intention of
15:07:54 preserving these facades.
15:07:55 Well, if so, what's the big deal about designating
15:07:58 them?
15:07:58 If they really had that intention, then they would
15:08:01 designate them, because it doesn't sound like it would
15:08:03 hurt them in any way.
15:08:05 I mean, it sounds like they are going to do it
15:08:07 accurately, from what I heard.
15:08:09 And I beg of you, please, please preserve these
15:08:13 facades.
15:08:14 You look -- you walk around the city offices, Burgert
15:08:18 brother photos all over the walls.
15:08:20 The buildings are coming down, they are gone.
15:08:23 You go through Tampa Heights, used to be Victorians on
15:08:26 all the empty lots and they are gone.
15:08:28 Once these buildings are gone, they are gone, and

15:08:30 there's no getting them back.
15:08:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:08:32 Anyone else like to speak?
15:08:45 >> I don't have much to add.
15:08:46 I think that they said it all correctly.
15:08:49 But I did want to say when the two lawyers from the
15:08:52 national trust did come and visit with us and then we
15:08:54 had meetings with David Smith after that, they
15:08:57 commented that if anything, our existing ordinances
15:09:01 could be strengthened for preservation.
15:09:04 So if you create an opt-out procedure that does not
15:09:08 exist, you have weakened what already needs
15:09:13 improvement.
15:09:14 I think the best thing that was said today is we need
15:09:17 to have something that we know we all can follow.
15:09:21 The ordinances need to be there.
15:09:22 It's not something that is done behind the scenes by
15:09:27 different administrators.
15:09:28 It's out in the public.
15:09:29 We know what we can follow.
15:09:32 Thank you.
15:09:33 I hope you'll do the right thing.

15:09:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
15:09:39 I'd like to hear from Mr. Wilson stair pertaining to
15:09:43 this.
15:09:43 And I also would have liked to have seen Stephanie
15:09:49 Ferrell be here too.
15:09:51 Because I understand that she has sent an e-mail to
15:09:53 someone that she thought that it would be better in
15:09:58 lieu of the designation.
15:10:01 I'm sorry that she's not here.
15:10:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: She's been hired by the developer
15:10:06 so she might not be so objective.
15:10:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Stair, would you please come up
15:10:14 and give us your take on these proceedings.
15:10:16 >> Yes.
15:10:17 Thank you.
15:10:17 Wilson Stair.
15:10:18 I'm with the Urban Development Department.
15:10:20 I have been sworn in.
15:10:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Were you paid by the developer?
15:10:25 >> No, ma'am.
15:10:25 [ LAUGHTER ]
15:10:26 I would first like to make the point that our process

15:10:32 is not done in a vacuum, and it's extremely important
15:10:39 that the community be involved even as we speak to
15:10:43 developers.
15:10:44 So we make it as public as we can, but any of my
15:10:50 sessions with developers are certainly open to the
15:10:52 public.
15:10:53 And I think that's only appropriate that the city
15:10:58 works that way.
15:10:58 We're open to the community.
15:11:01 I will say that if any of you want to sit in on any of
15:11:05 the meetings with the developer, you're very welcome.
15:11:07 That's how we work.
15:11:09 Originally, Stephanie Ferrell was involved and worked
15:11:14 with the developer on looking at the building facades
15:11:18 and working through the process.
15:11:21 And I will say that in this particular case, the
15:11:27 developer has tried at least in terms of being
15:11:32 sensitive to what we've laid out in terms of design
15:11:37 review and the process and our urban design guidelines
15:11:42 and standards require us to be -- maintain the
15:11:47 heritage of Tampa's central business district by
15:11:49 adaptive reuse and sensitive rehabilitation of

15:11:55 existing structures and districts that contribute to
15:11:58 the character of downtown.
15:12:01 And it is important that we maintain and preserve our
15:12:06 historic structures as much as we can, because it
15:12:11 shows the history of the city.
15:12:14 If we just keep building new buildings, you don't get
15:12:19 the variety.
15:12:21 You can't see where we've been, and it just is
15:12:27 important.
15:12:29 I toured a lot of the cities out West, and they seem
15:12:32 to really be into preserving the buildings, even the
15:12:38 small towns.
15:12:40 And I think it's important in this case, either way.
15:12:46 I think this discussion merits a lot of thought.
15:12:50 And either way, if you vote to designate it, that's in
15:12:56 our process.
15:12:58 As far as I'm concerned, if we don't go that route,
15:13:03 then as we work with the developer, we'll call the
15:13:06 experts in in terms of historic preservation and even
15:13:10 Dennis Fernandez has very good staff.
15:13:13 I mean, he's got someone on his staff that has an
15:13:17 architectural background specifically in historic

15:13:20 preservation.
15:13:23 So in terms of my review at the 30, 60, and 90, I
15:13:27 would be pulling that talent into the process too.
15:13:32 From my standpoint, that's how I would operate.
15:13:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So when you have your 30, 60 and 90
15:13:42 day reviews, do you publicly notice this so that the
15:13:45 preservation group would be right there with you?
15:13:48 How does that work?
15:13:51 >> Not normally, but we certainly could.
15:13:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How would you get them to come in and
15:13:57 be part of the discussions?
15:13:59 >> Well, I think I would be working through our zoning
15:14:03 department and press evaluation.
15:14:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
15:14:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Stair, you know how much we
15:14:24 think of you and the work you do.
15:14:25 You used the sentence a minute ago, you said we need
15:14:28 to preserve these buildings as much as we can, right?
15:14:30 >> Correct.
15:14:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there anything in our system --
15:14:35 is there any way we can preserve them better than to
15:14:38 actually designate them?

15:14:40 Wouldn't that be as much as we can?
15:14:43 >> Yes.
15:14:44 That's, actually, the $64 question.
15:14:49 It's economics -- I mean, we could just let the blocks
15:14:55 stand like it is and not do anything and it just
15:14:58 deteriorates over time.
15:14:59 Maas Brothers, there were lots of opportunities in the
15:15:03 sense of developers coming in and wanting to do
15:15:05 something with the building, but they just couldn't
15:15:09 economically do it.
15:15:11 That's what I mean, if we can.
15:15:14 But, you know --
15:15:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But the greatest way to preserve
15:15:17 something is to go through the designation process,
15:15:19 correct?
15:15:20 >> Correct.
15:15:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Stair, were you in attendance at
15:15:32 that meeting earlier today?
15:15:34 >> No, ma'am.
15:15:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: All the Wilson questions now.
15:15:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: You were not in that meeting today,
15:15:47 but at the same time, you offered the assurance, let's

15:15:53 say, that it would be an open process.
15:15:56 And then we talked about the 30, 60, and 90 day
15:16:00 benchmark dates, and it appeared that the way it's
15:16:04 structured now, that those won't be open either.
15:16:08 That if someone is concerned about the preservation,
15:16:10 they'll have to go through zoning.
15:16:12 I'm kind of getting mixed messages about, is it going
15:16:14 to be an open process or is it going to be a developer
15:16:17 and an administration talking about something?
15:16:19 And at this point, I'm not taking sides, but I'm
15:16:22 trying to take the side of fairness.
15:16:24 But the people more concerned about preservation than
15:16:26 perhaps the developer might be, what assurances we go
15:16:29 forward and if you don't think you are able to answer
15:16:31 this, then same question will be posed to Mr. Smith.
15:16:35 If, in fact, this goes to a continuance like the
15:16:38 administration wants, everybody has got to feel good
15:16:40 about the fact that they can weigh in on this and it's
15:16:42 important and they have some assurance that what is
15:16:44 going to be done is going to be done.
15:16:46 Maybe you are not the person to answer that.
15:16:48 If you are, then go ahead.

15:16:49 If not, never mind.
15:16:50 >> I just make one quick comment regarding that, when
15:16:55 I said we worked the process in the zoning department,
15:17:00 they normally are put out -- normally put out public
15:17:04 notices, and they are used to doing that process.
15:17:08 I was just saying that I would be very open to do that
15:17:13 or even take on the responsibility of trying to notify
15:17:19 all the people that want to have input.
15:17:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: My concern, and I'll ask this question
15:17:27 after we complete everything else, perhaps to
15:17:29 Mr. Smith.
15:17:29 But if we're going to go forward and this would be an
15:17:31 alternative suggestion from the administration, who is
15:17:34 it that's going to determine that an appropriate
15:17:37 amount of stuff has been done because it's not
15:17:41 mandated or regulated by a preservation requirement.
15:17:45 How do we know enough is enough?
15:17:48 I mean, am I making sense to you?
15:17:52 I'll give you a perfect example.
15:17:53 I always go back to this and I'm sorry.
15:17:55 It's kind of embedded in my mind.
15:17:58 We were talking about the trump towers and I was the

15:18:00 only one who didn't support it because we were talking
15:18:02 about scaling up or scaling down.
15:18:03 And you said the issue is always a problem about how
15:18:05 much scaling down is enough.
15:18:07 Well, that still remains the highest building and I
15:18:09 don't think we scaled down enough.
15:18:11 How do we know what kind of assurance can we give the
15:18:13 preservation community that what is going to be done
15:18:17 in this alternate plan is going to be enough to
15:18:20 preserve it or it's just going to be a system we're
15:18:23 going to go through for the heck of it.
15:18:25 >> I think they need a vehicle for input, whether it's
15:18:30 through our own preservation department or another
15:18:36 means to set when we do our 30, 60 and 90 percent.
15:18:44 Other than that --
15:18:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, later, will you address
15:18:48 that as well as to what the actual process will be if,
15:18:51 in fact, that is what happens.
15:18:54 Thank you, Mr. Stair.
15:18:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You mentioned the Maas Brothers
15:18:57 building or did somebody mention?
15:18:59 >> Yes.

15:19:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Why wasn't that put under local
15:19:03 designation a few years ago?
15:19:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because --
15:19:06 >> That I can't answer.
15:19:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I mean, it's a perfectly
15:19:12 legitimate question because now we see the demolition
15:19:15 of it.
15:19:15 Why wasn't somebody in the city interested in putting
15:19:21 a local historic designation on it.
15:19:23 I would like to know.
15:19:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The director from TPI can answer.
15:19:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't care who answers.
15:19:29 Just give me an answer.
15:19:31 We're talking about saving, saving, saving.
15:19:33 And here we have a perfectly beautiful building that's
15:19:36 coming down.
15:19:37 >> Becky Clark.
15:19:37 I think I can give you an answer for that.
15:19:40 Around the time when the Maas Brothers block was
15:19:42 getting looked at, it was around the time when we had
15:19:46 a slight disagreement over some other downtown
15:19:49 buildings.

15:19:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The Lykes agreement.
15:19:51 >> And what the result of that was a separation -- and
15:19:55 we had no historic preservation commission in place.
15:19:59 The ordinance was not in place.
15:20:01 We had no means to designate a building for quite a
15:20:05 few years.
15:20:05 By the time we did have that mechanism back in place,
15:20:10 it was demolition by neglect.
15:20:12 The building had not been cared for, not maintained,
15:20:16 and it was in such bad condition that I'm not sure we
15:20:18 could have gotten a designation through.
15:20:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, excuse me.
15:20:23 These buildings are being demolished.
15:20:26 All we're doing is saving facades.
15:20:29 What's the difference?
15:20:30 Isn't that demolition by neglect?
15:20:34 >> No.
15:20:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: They are demolishing the buildings
15:20:40 behind this facade.
15:20:41 >> This is the best circumstance we can make out of
15:20:43 this.
15:20:43 I was in the historic preservation commission meetings

15:20:45 when these buildings first came to -- onto their
15:20:49 agenda.
15:20:50 And the commission's wishes were to designate the
15:20:53 entire buildings.
15:20:57 They were asked and approached, you know, presented
15:21:00 these plans by the developer, and really, the
15:21:02 developer was pleading hardship, that their whole
15:21:06 development plan would not work.
15:21:07 And the commission in their magnanimous efforts to
15:21:12 make good things happen to downtown reached a
15:21:16 compromise and said they would settle for protecting
15:21:20 the facades.
15:21:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just the facades.
15:21:23 >> Just the facades.
15:21:26 Whereas they really truly wanted to landmark the whole
15:21:29 building.
15:21:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How long ago was that?
15:21:32 >> Two years.
15:21:32 Sometime in the last two years or so.
15:21:34 I don't remember the exactly date.
15:21:36 I don't have any of my notes with me.
15:21:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.

15:21:40 Thanks, Becky.
15:21:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm very disappointed that we were
15:21:48 not provided what I had requested at today's meeting,
15:21:51 which is a chronology of the different steps.
15:21:54 I had requested that, and I hope that when this is
15:21:56 continued, that we can go over it.
15:21:59 But my -- but I think to clarify the question before
15:22:03 us that we'll be discussing in two weeks -- that's
15:22:06 okay -- presented by our staff in a methodical way.
15:22:14 But I thought that what we were supposed to be
15:22:15 determining is this question.
15:22:18 On second reading is the question, are these buildings
15:22:20 historic?
15:22:22 I think it's extremely clear that they are historic,
15:22:25 and, therefore, worthy of this level of protection.
15:22:29 And I think the city needs to think about the question
15:22:32 as the petitioner, what is before us.
15:22:35 Are these historic buildings?
15:22:36 Well, I think the place that Tampa civil rights
15:22:38 movement got going is historic.
15:22:40 I think the only art modern facade in our entire
15:22:45 downtown is historic.

15:22:47 And I can't imagine that there was a -- well, I look
15:22:50 forward to our next meeting.
15:22:52 And the point of our staff is to address that
15:22:56 question.
15:22:58 If they are historic, then they should be designated.
15:23:01 They should be authentic, they should not be Disney
15:23:03 World.
15:23:08 >>KEVIN WHITE: Question for Mr. Smith.
15:23:10 The question arose a little earlier.
15:23:12 If it was answered, I didn't hear it.
15:23:16 If we give the developer what they want, what happens
15:23:21 if the building is sold?
15:23:25 Does what the city mandated upon this developer run
15:23:28 with the land?
15:23:30 Run with the new owner or does it start all over
15:23:33 again?
15:23:33 What type of agreement have we come up with?
15:23:37 >> Your zoning runs with the land.
15:23:38 Your zoning has a site plan.
15:23:40 And what is in the zoning that relates to this issue
15:23:42 is several -- are several things.
15:23:45 You have the conditions I spoke about previously,

15:23:47 particularly condition one and condition 10.
15:23:50 What you also have in the zoning is you have
15:23:51 elevations.
15:23:53 The elevations show what is supposed to be the
15:23:56 finished product.
15:23:58 And those three conditions in particular or three
15:24:02 aspects of the rezoning is what you have currently in
15:24:05 the zoning to, quote, protect the preservation of the
15:24:10 facades.
15:24:11 And that's the issue I was trying to address earlier
15:24:13 when I said both Cathy Coyle and I are not
15:24:16 comfortable -- shouldn't put words in her mouth --
15:24:19 there needs to be additional clarification and
15:24:21 elaboration in order for me to be comfortable telling
15:24:24 you or anyone else who needs to know that I think
15:24:28 every aspect of it has been addressed.
15:24:30 It hasn't been.
15:24:32 That's why the need for additional time, if you want
15:24:34 to take this compromise approach, the addition time to
15:24:37 prepare that agreement.
15:24:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: That I don't have a problem with.
15:24:42 But contrary to popular belief, I guess some in the

15:24:45 preservation community, I guess because of my stance
15:24:47 on the cigar factories, that was just brought up, not
15:24:50 jabbing at anybody in particular, the reason that I
15:24:56 would feel so strongly about the preservation for
15:24:58 it -- this more so than the cigar factories, these are
15:25:02 the last standing.
15:25:04 You have to no more.
15:25:06 Once these are gone, there are no more.
15:25:10 We still have over 25 cigar factories in Tampa.
15:25:13 We have five -- it's either five or seven.
15:25:17 I forgot what the exact number are that are already
15:25:19 designated.
15:25:20 And we have five more that people want designated.
15:25:23 And the others that don't want it.
15:25:26 So at that point in time, we still have a great deal
15:25:29 of Tampa's history that is still preserved.
15:25:32 And that will be preserved for, henceforth and
15:25:35 forevermore, hopefully, barring any natural disasters
15:25:38 or fires or anything like that.
15:25:41 This, on the other hand, is a totally separate issue.
15:25:46 This clearly -- Ms. Saul-Sena, I don't think we need
15:25:48 any discussion of whether these buildings are historic

15:25:51 or not.
15:25:52 It's plain, and it's clear to me.
15:25:55 But the clear-cut difference, in my perspective, is
15:25:58 this the last of something that once this is gone,
15:26:01 Tampa's history is gone forever and the only place we
15:26:04 can ever look at it again is in the history books?
15:26:08 Or do we have an opportunity to preserve something or
15:26:10 hopefully preserve something for our children,
15:26:12 grandchildren, and great grandchildren to actually
15:26:14 walk up to touch, see, and smell.
15:26:17 And I think that's probably the most germane thing
15:26:25 that this Council should be looking at and history of
15:26:28 itself of what the buildings reflect and represent in
15:26:31 Tampa's history.
15:26:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Smith, three questions.
15:26:38 One, there was a discussion from one of the speakers
15:26:41 about an open process.
15:26:45 You and the Mayor met with the developer.
15:26:48 To the best of your knowledge, did she get the other
15:26:51 side from the preservationists in the last couple of
15:26:54 weeks?
15:26:55 >> She directed me -- she had a conflict.

15:26:57 She directed me to stay along with Mark Huey and Cindy
15:27:01 Miller to speak with the preservationists.
15:27:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Has the Mayor met with the
15:27:06 preservationists on this issue?
15:27:09 >> I don't know what -- who she's met with.
15:27:11 All I know is what she did today.
15:27:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It doesn't sound like she has.
15:27:15 They said she hadn't.
15:27:16 I just wanted to see if you knew if she had.
15:27:19 >> I have no idea.
15:27:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number two, the Mayor said, if --
15:27:22 I'll trust Ms. Gadias' quote in the paper here, the
15:27:27 Mayor said that the decision rests with Council.
15:27:30 >> Correct.
15:27:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that correct?
15:27:33 >> That is correct.
15:27:34 That is what she says, too.
15:27:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We all respect the Mayor.
15:27:37 She does a great job on numerous issues.
15:27:39 She really wants downtown to be redeveloped, and we
15:27:41 understand that.
15:27:42 But at the end of the day, is this her decision or

15:27:46 ours?
15:27:46 >> At the end of the day, it's your decision.
15:27:48 She reiterated that this morning.
15:27:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
15:27:51 I don't want there to be any confusion about that.
15:27:54 The other thing that I am confused about and I
15:27:57 apologize for stepping out of the room when you were
15:27:59 speaking.
15:27:59 I had a phone call.
15:28:01 The -- you and Ms. Miller seem to be talking about a
15:28:08 compromise approach.
15:28:09 Give us another week or two or at least that's what I
15:28:12 read in the paper and I think that's what is being
15:28:14 insinuated here.
15:28:16 Give us another week or two to look for a compromise
15:28:19 approach, a middle ground.
15:28:22 Is that what a week or two is supposed to be
15:28:24 intending?
15:28:25 In other words, if we're going to designate it, we
15:28:29 could designate it today.
15:28:32 But the week or two would great an unit, some kind of
15:28:36 compromise approach.

15:28:37 But I don't see that that compromise approach includes
15:28:40 any designation at all.
15:28:44 Is that true?
15:28:45 Or am I missing something?
15:28:47 >> Well, no, let me first back up, because the
15:28:50 compromise issue is unfortunately much more
15:28:52 complicated.
15:28:53 And this was part of what Ms. Johnson addressed.
15:28:56 We have an unfortunate and confusing set of
15:28:59 circumstances due to the current status of our
15:29:02 preservation ordinance.
15:29:04 And articulated position of this Council, which, of
15:29:07 course, is also my client.
15:29:09 What I'm trying to do, and why my involvement in this
15:29:12 is as involved as it is, is that we have pending
15:29:16 litigation currently, which you know will be on appeal
15:29:19 shortly with the second district court of appeal, and
15:29:22 we have a very complicated set of facts and
15:29:24 circumstances, and we have action by this Council with
15:29:26 regard to the cigar factories that has either been
15:29:31 misconstrued or is being mischaracterized by some
15:29:33 people for their own benefit.

15:29:36 It is important that we try to be careful in how we
15:29:39 handle these things.
15:29:40 I think we can get to where we need to be which is an
15:29:44 ordinance with revisions that accomplishes the goals
15:29:48 we need to accomplish for historic preservation,
15:29:52 provide some additional processes that I think will
15:29:55 generate the support from the development community
15:29:57 and the property owners so that we have an ordinance
15:29:59 that works for the entire city.
15:30:01 Right now, we don't have that.
15:30:02 We have an unfortunately dysfunctional situation.
15:30:07 My department has been involved in negotiations, not
15:30:09 me personally, but has been involved in negotiations
15:30:12 in this regard for months.
15:30:13 So we have been involved for a long time with this
15:30:16 developer with respect to issues pertaining to their
15:30:19 development.
15:30:20 So my involvement this morning in the meeting was --
15:30:25 Morris was primarily the attorney previously.
15:30:27 He is no longer with us -- was to assist the Mayor in
15:30:30 helping her understand what the legal constraints were
15:30:33 of things she may want to consider, as I would do with

15:30:36 you if you needed any advice with regard to legal
15:30:41 constraints.
15:30:42 I try not to get involved with the policy as you know.
15:30:45 My personal preference with regard to preservation are
15:30:47 irrelevant.
15:30:47 But I am involved in trying to make sure that we do
15:30:50 the best possible job we can to protect our ordinances
15:30:53 and accomplish the purposes that I think Council wants
15:30:55 to accomplish.
15:30:58 So we had a discussion in which the developer, and
15:31:02 from what I understand, not being involved in a prior
15:31:05 discussions, made progress in terms of agreeing to
15:31:09 additional clarification and requirements that as the
15:31:14 administration saw was sufficient to protect the
15:31:17 historic values while promoting the other values.
15:31:21 I am communicating that to you, because I was simply
15:31:23 the person in the meeting, and because we have a lot
15:31:25 of related concepts that are of concern to me.
15:31:28 And I would like to address one of those in
15:31:29 particular.
15:31:31 And that is, Ms. Johnson's comment with regard to the
15:31:33 due process denial.

15:31:35 Our position is, what the Council did previously with
15:31:41 a motion on the cigar factories, they did not take
15:31:44 action.
15:31:44 And there's no, therefore, denial of due process.
15:31:47 The action is, if you will, still pending.
15:31:49 There will be other opportunity for other input.
15:31:52 This Council also directed my office to look at the
15:31:55 possibility of changing the ordinance to consider and
15:31:58 opt out, consent provision, I believe I specifically
15:32:02 said I would want to include in that us doing research
15:32:06 as to the validity of that, whether it would leave you
15:32:08 with an ordinance that was completely ineffectual and
15:32:11 whether it would affect your certificate process.
15:32:15 Because I don't want you making a decision without all
15:32:17 the information.
15:32:18 That's why I asked for six months.
15:32:20 >> This goes to the whole crux of my confusion.
15:32:23 Two, three weeks ago this Council voted 5-0 with two
15:32:27 people being absent.
15:32:28 5-0 to designate.
15:32:30 That was first reading.
15:32:31 So I don't know where this direction from Council

15:32:33 comes from, you know, I think that that in itself is
15:32:36 confusing, because maybe you're referring back to a
15:32:40 previous vote of the cigar factory.
15:32:42 The direction of Council on this project was
15:32:44 unanimous, 5-0.
15:32:46 Now, this compromise position sounds to me like a
15:32:50 whole lot like opt-out.
15:32:53 That's what it sounds like to me.
15:32:55 And I know you and I have spoken privately and you
15:32:59 have serious reservations as you just stated on the
15:33:02 record about any, quote, opt-out provision.
15:33:05 So I don't understand why this isn't opt out.
15:33:10 These guys say they can do it just as well but don't
15:33:13 want to be governed by A.R.C., why is that not opt
15:33:16 out?
15:33:17 >> I think rightly or wrongly, it is distinguishable
15:33:19 here, because they'll have to make a commitment to
15:33:21 preserve the very facades that would be preserved, if
15:33:24 you choose to designate them, which you are still free
15:33:27 to do.
15:33:27 >> Not under the same standards.
15:33:29 We've been told by staff, not under the same

15:33:31 standards.
15:33:32 >> You are absolutely correct.
15:33:33 The standards will be different and therein lies the
15:33:36 crux of the issue.
15:33:36 It's a process issue.
15:33:37 This council is free to insist that the process that
15:33:38 must be applied is the process under the ordinance.
15:33:41 That is certainly something Council could do, and it's
15:33:44 very defensible.
15:33:45 All I'm doing is presenting to you an issue that came
15:33:49 up today that was thought would be a win-win
15:33:51 situation.
15:33:52 Mr. Stair mentioned the fact that he would like this
15:33:55 process to be open.
15:33:56 That is what we haven't addressed.
15:33:59 We haven't addressed the specifics, how to articulate
15:34:02 what is generally a vague condition in our zoning
15:34:06 ordinance that passed this and provide the kind of
15:34:09 detail that we'll be sure that these facades are
15:34:14 preserved.
15:34:15 If when we complete that process and we come back to
15:34:18 you with that agreement and you look at it and you

15:34:20 say, David, I don't think this remotely accomplishes
15:34:22 that and I'm voting against it.
15:34:25 Hopefully that won't be the case, we'll make sure it
15:34:28 does accomplish that.
15:34:29 That's the recommendation today.
15:34:30 You're certainly free to decide up or down or to
15:34:33 continue.
15:34:34 Those are your three options today.
15:34:35 You can designate these facades as historic, and we
15:34:38 move forward to the next stage.
15:34:40 You can say they are not historic for whatever
15:34:42 reasons, but I would hope you have substantial,
15:34:44 competent evidence for that determination.
15:34:46 Or you can continue it and wait to see what happens if
15:34:48 we come back with protections that you consider to be
15:34:52 adequate to allow you the comfort you need to make a
15:34:55 decision.
15:35:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The Woolworth building, which was
15:35:03 the site of great significance in the civil rights
15:35:08 movement in Tampa, what happened -- where is the --
15:35:12 where is the lunch counter that the sit-in took place
15:35:16 at?

15:35:16 >> It's gone.
15:35:17 If you look at the transcript, which is in your backup
15:35:20 with respect to the Woolworth building, part of the
15:35:21 problem was even the HPC was recommending since there
15:35:24 was nothing left of the interior, that the only
15:35:27 appropriate thing to do was to preserve the facade.
15:35:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: My point.
15:35:30 The building, what happened in that building is
15:35:33 historic.
15:35:34 The facade of that building is not what gives it the
15:35:42 significance.
15:35:44 So what you are suggesting, Mr. Smith, is that we give
15:35:48 you an opportunity to see what you, on behalf of the
15:35:53 city, and the developer of this project can do to come
15:35:57 up with to see how close we can get to what the A.R.C.
15:36:01 process would have been without having to go through
15:36:03 the A.R.C. process.
15:36:06 And then it's up to us to determine whether or not
15:36:09 that's close enough.
15:36:12 But what everyone is saying -- what everyone here
15:36:14 seems to be agreeing on is that the facades are going
15:36:17 to be preserved.

15:36:19 It's just the process by which they are going to be
15:36:21 preserved is different than what we traditionally use.
15:36:26 And I don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing
15:36:29 for us to explore a different process that may at the
15:36:34 end of the day make historic preservation for everyone
15:36:37 in this community a much more appealing designation.
15:36:43 And what I said with Ms. Miller was, I think that we
15:36:46 are on the right track when it comes to the broader
15:36:50 discussion, and that is of the cigar factories and
15:36:53 other historic designations, that it's not necessarily
15:36:57 that people are objecting to the designation itself.
15:37:02 It's the process by which they have to go through once
15:37:05 that designation occurs to be able to build their
15:37:07 projects.
15:37:09 And that, I think, is clearly something that many
15:37:15 people in this community aren't willing to go through.
15:37:17 They would rather just say, you know what, we're not
15:37:20 going to do it.
15:37:21 Just let the building stay as is.
15:37:22 Let them deteriorate for another 20 or 30 years.
15:37:26 And I just think that's the wrong approve.
15:37:29 And I think that the Mayor is absolutely on the right

15:37:31 track here, because the Mayor's responsibility, as
15:37:33 you've articulated, is to balance what is happening
15:37:37 downtown with historic preservation.
15:37:39 It is, we have an opportunity to bring in jobs, to
15:37:42 bring in workforce housing, to create employment
15:37:45 centers, to revitalize downtown, and to do so in a way
15:37:50 that respects the historic significance of these
15:37:53 buildings or the facades of those buildings and gets
15:37:57 us to maybe 99% of where we would have been by going
15:38:00 through the A.R.C. process, but in a way that the
15:38:03 developers of these projects will agree to do.
15:38:09 And otherwise, you know what, maybe they are just
15:38:11 bluffing.
15:38:12 Maybe they are going to go ahead and build these
15:38:14 buildings if they go through the A.R.C. process or
15:38:16 not.
15:38:17 I don't know.
15:38:17 But they say that they are not interested in it.
15:38:22 And I don't know if that's a bluff I want to call if
15:38:24 we can get 99% of the way there without having to call
15:38:27 that bluff.
15:38:32 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I'm not real sure what

15:38:35 would have been the appropriate point to interject
15:38:36 this but I have some comments, thoughts and confusion,
15:38:39 too, Mr. Smith, that I would like to share with you.
15:38:41 This has been a very difficult process for all of us.
15:38:44 I don't think we were happy with not designating the
15:38:45 cigar factories, and I don't think we were happy with
15:38:48 designating the cigar factories, but we were balancing
15:38:51 fairness and that's for sure and that's where we are
15:38:53 today.
15:38:54 I have had conversations as my colleagues I'm sure
15:38:56 with both Ms. GADELIAS and Ms. Zinc about doesn't this
15:39:01 appear that the Council is flip-flopping.
15:39:04 Well, maybe I didn't make a good explanation to either
15:39:07 one of the ladies, but this was my expectation today.
15:39:12 I was expecting to come in here as a follow-up to the
15:39:15 conversation I had with Ms. Jason and Mr. Shimberg,
15:39:18 for them to give me -- for us to give them the
15:39:20 opportunity, rather, excuse me, to show us that they
15:39:23 were in one of two places.
15:39:25 If they didn't oppose the designation as we went
15:39:29 forward on the others, or if they did oppose it, to
15:39:32 show us something today that supported their

15:39:34 opposition of that designation.
15:39:36 I think that would bring them to the same situation
15:39:38 that the cigar factory owners had.
15:39:40 They definitely opposed it from the get-go.
15:39:43 We knew that.
15:39:43 We respected it.
15:39:44 We tagged it as property rights.
15:39:49 That whole process today that I didn't hear anything
15:39:51 about hardly, was going to be the determining factor
15:39:54 about whether or not I was going to support the
15:39:55 request to deny the designation or to enforce the
15:39:59 designation.
15:40:00 We didn't get that.
15:40:01 And those were the two different bases for where I was
15:40:06 going in terms of what I wanted to support.
15:40:09 I think you were right when you said maybe some people
15:40:12 misconstrued or misconstructed what our positions
15:40:14 were.
15:40:15 And I don't think anybody on this Council, whether
15:40:17 they are passionate to one side or not so passionate
15:40:20 on the other about preservation.
15:40:21 We all care about preservation.

15:40:23 It's all part of the community we all live in.
15:40:26 I don't think this particular plan that you're
15:40:29 bringing up is going to satisfy the pure
15:40:32 preservationists, whether some of us think getting
15:40:34 close to the product is better than not getting to it
15:40:38 at all or vice versa, depending on whatever side of
15:40:42 the argument you are on.
15:40:43 I think that the whole problem is, that the process
15:40:46 has not been looked at for 15 or 20 years.
15:40:49 The whole A.R.C. preservation ordinance, everything
15:40:52 else, needs to be reviewed, needs to be modified.
15:40:57 And I think you're giving us something that could
15:40:59 work.
15:41:00 Here, what you're doing, you're giving us something
15:41:02 that's going to get us beyond this process.
15:41:05 I think we need to spend our time looking at the
15:41:08 process as it is so that we can get that fixed with
15:41:15 all due respect to my neighbor, my friend,
15:41:16 Ms. Johnson, I'm sorry, but I happen to believe that
15:41:19 the process as we have it now is nondiscretionary and
15:41:23 is onerous.
15:41:24 And that's why people run from it.

15:41:26 Why would they not want to have a part of Tampa that
15:41:29 is preserved in history?
15:41:31 Because it's too difficult.
15:41:32 Because it's hard to do, and it's hard to get along
15:41:35 with.
15:41:35 So they would rather just say forget it.
15:41:38 When I video -- voted to support the code amendment
15:41:42 that Mr. Grandoff put in place that will probably come
15:41:45 back to us in August, I want to tell you, in all
15:41:47 candidness, I was not happy, but that was the best we
15:41:50 had going.
15:41:51 So hopefully between now and August, we can look at
15:41:54 the process that makes sense for everybody.
15:41:57 And not that we have to piece it with situations like
15:42:01 we have today.
15:42:02 But, I mean, that's the confusion.
15:42:04 That the first one was absolutely voluntary.
15:42:06 They wanted to get out of it.
15:42:08 Here they are saying that they did object.
15:42:09 But I'm not sure that from the testimony I've heard
15:42:12 I'm convinced that they did or did not object.
15:42:14 And then to throw an extra wrench in it, you, the

15:42:18 administration, are trying to come up with a deal.
15:42:21 Well, the deal -- I mean, Mr. Dingfelder is right,
15:42:25 it's not going to take the place of preservation.
15:42:27 So I don't know, I think we're trying to come up with
15:42:30 a Band-Aid effect that will satisfy the
15:42:33 nonpreservationist, that's going to satisfy the
15:42:36 developers, that's going to satisfy the people that
15:42:38 don't care a toot about preservation, and so we then
15:42:41 all move along.
15:42:42 We have to go back to the problem before we can find
15:42:44 some resolve.
15:42:45 The problem is the process.
15:42:47 That's where we need to focus our attentions.
15:42:50 I don't have a problem waiting for another week to see
15:42:52 what you guys come back with.
15:42:54 I'll tell you what, unless it's fixing the process,
15:42:56 this 30, 60, 90 day, you know, suggestion is not -- it
15:43:01 doesn't sound like it's going --
15:43:03 >> That's 30, 60, 90 percent completion.
15:43:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's what I meant.
15:43:07 I'm sorry.
15:43:08 But I'm not sure that that's going to take the place

15:43:11 of what we really need to hear in terms of fixing the
15:43:13 process, not just for cigar owners, not for developers
15:43:17 on Franklin Street, for everybody that has anything to
15:43:22 do with the building that has preservation.
15:43:24 For those of you who didn't, you should go back.
15:43:26 For those of you who did, read an article in the
15:43:30 Tribune last week, an op-ed by Busto.
15:43:36 It was perfect.
15:43:37 He hit it right on the nose.
15:43:38 We need to look at the process.
15:43:40 People want to preserve, not fight.
15:43:43 >> Let me make sure Council knows, we are in the
15:43:45 process of doing that.
15:43:46 Part of what came up in the meeting today with
15:43:48 Ms. Johnson and others, she and I are going to
15:43:51 schedule a regular work session where I'll get the
15:43:55 input from them with regard to things we can do to
15:43:58 improve our ordinance.
15:43:59 I've already got some excellent suggestions for
15:44:01 meeting with the people that Ms. Saul-Sena had come
15:44:03 down here.
15:44:04 Some of which I think will be very effective towards

15:44:07 moving this ordinance in a way that is more palatable
15:44:11 to the entire community while preserving its
15:44:14 efficiency in terms of preserving those assets that
15:44:16 are historical.
15:44:17 So that is the answer.
15:44:22 The problem is we have this interregnum to deal with
15:44:22 in some way.
15:44:24 It's an interregnum that's very difficult because of
15:44:28 some of the actions we've taken.
15:44:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: I guess I will give you "A" for effort
15:44:32 and a "we'll see."
15:44:34 Thank you for your clarifications and everything else.
15:44:36 >>GWEN MILLER: You stated that the lunch counter was
15:44:39 gone.
15:44:40 >> Yes, ma'am.
15:44:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anything in that building --
15:44:46 >> The only thing I can tell you first hand is what I
15:44:49 read in the transcript.
15:44:50 Historic preservation commission themselves said the
15:44:54 interior no longer exists, and we cannot designate
15:44:58 that.
15:44:58 Had that been the case, they may have had a different

15:45:01 view.
15:45:01 Their effort was, we can at least preserve the facade
15:45:04 as a remembrance of its importance.
15:45:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
15:45:12 You know, a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Smith, I was
15:45:14 asked how many people that I know of that have gone
15:45:18 through the designation process have done it
15:45:20 voluntarily.
15:45:21 I couldn't answer that question, but I said to myself,
15:45:24 probably not many.
15:45:25 And it is because of the process that we speak of.
15:45:31 And because of that being so drawn out, onerous and
15:45:35 still somewhat speculative and unknowing, that becomes
15:45:41 a part of the process that doesn't make people want to
15:45:46 take part in it.
15:45:47 Now, I wanted to address a comment Mr. Harrison made a
15:45:51 minute ago about the lunch counter not being there and
15:45:57 does that not make the building significant anymore?
15:46:01 I don't know, but I do know the bus that Rosa parks
15:46:06 stood up on no longer has the original seats that she
15:46:11 sat in to fight the civil rights movement, but that
15:46:14 bus is historically preserved and it is in a national

15:46:19 museum.
15:46:20 Now, by the same token, does that make that bus any
15:46:23 less significant to the civil rights movement or what
15:46:27 that stood for?
15:46:28 I say no.
15:46:29 And I say the same thing to this one.
15:46:34 But like I said, as far as this Council member is
15:46:36 concerned, as I stated a few moments ago, as far as
15:46:41 preservation, seriously the first and foremost thing
15:46:46 that I look at is are there any more left?
15:46:49 Cigar factories, yes, we have some left.
15:46:52 We do not have any more of these left.
15:46:55 This is it.
15:46:56 If their attempt at preservation fails, if a bulldozer
15:47:01 comes down the wrong way, if a dump truck backs into
15:47:04 it, it's done.
15:47:05 It's history!
15:47:06 It's gone!
15:47:07 All we have are pictures and a book.
15:47:10 That's it.
15:47:11 We don't even have movies.
15:47:13 We have pictures in a book.

15:47:14 That's it.
15:47:15 I want to do whatever we can when possible to preserve
15:47:19 Tampa's history.
15:47:20 As long as there's none left, I'm in all the way.
15:47:24 If we have some others that are in, then I think it
15:47:26 should be voluntarily or looked at on a case-by-case
15:47:29 basis.
15:47:30 Like I'm looking at this one.
15:47:31 This is a case-by-case basis.
15:47:34 The other one I couldn't support.
15:47:36 This one I can because it is the last living legacy we
15:47:39 have of each one of these institutions.
15:47:41 And that's how I look at that.
15:47:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. White, that was eloquent.
15:47:48 That was really eloquent.
15:47:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You get a star.
15:47:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That really was.
15:47:52 And the slogan of protecting the irreplaceable is the
15:47:57 preservationist slogan, and these buildings are
15:47:59 irreplaceable.
15:48:00 So what I would like to move is that we continue
15:48:02 this --

15:48:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can close the public hearing and
15:48:07 we can vote to designate today.
15:48:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to close the public hearing.
15:48:16 >> We don't have a rebuttal right?
15:48:19 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
15:48:22 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Can't clarify any of the questions?
15:48:26 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
15:48:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have a question for Mr. Fernandez.
15:48:31 Mr. Fernandez, how many historic buildings do we have
15:48:34 left in the downtown corridor?
15:48:37 >> -- Dennis Fernandez, City of Tampa historic
15:48:40 preservation manager.
15:48:45 Are we talking about buildings designated or
15:48:47 undesignated or in general?
15:48:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: In general, in the downtown area.
15:48:53 >> I don't have the exact number.
15:48:55 I would say somewhere under two dozen.
15:48:59 On Franklin Street.
15:49:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are they all designated?
15:49:03 >> No, they are not.
15:49:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Why aren't they designated?
15:49:06 Why hasn't the HPC come back and say, look, we have

15:49:09 this building over here.
15:49:10 It's over 50 years old, why hasn't there been a
15:49:13 designation for that building?
15:49:15 >> The HPC which was essentially created in 1999 has
15:49:20 steadily brought forth designations to this Council
15:49:22 for approval.
15:49:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And we have approved every one of
15:49:26 them.
15:49:26 >> And speaking for the HPC, that's appreciated.
15:49:29 We feel that that link of time and place to our past
15:49:33 is important.
15:49:34 However, we must work with owners to try to promote
15:49:41 the advantages of preservation and not just dictate
15:49:44 preservation.
15:49:45 When you see -- when you see these cases come before
15:49:49 you, when we're at an impasse such as the cigar
15:49:54 factories, that's because that has been identified as
15:49:56 a historic resource.
15:49:58 There's already been a great deal of effort to try to
15:50:00 come to some sort of agreement on exactly what the
15:50:03 future holds for those buildings.
15:50:04 And a lot of times, with the development trends the

15:50:07 way they are, that's very uncertain.
15:50:09 It's not the policy of the HPC to seek out
15:50:12 designations unless there's an endangerment to the
15:50:15 property.
15:50:16 Many of these properties that are downtown are
15:50:18 occupied and are put forth in a good use.
15:50:22 The ones that are not, we probably have many of those
15:50:26 on our work plan.
15:50:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So the ones that are being used now,
15:50:30 why don't you put them under historic preservation?
15:50:35 >> Because we're looking at the ones in danger like
15:50:39 the ones before you today.
15:50:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The only thing in danger maybe are the
15:50:42 facades.
15:50:42 It's not the building.
15:50:43 The buildings are gone or will be gone.
15:50:47 The other question, and you brought up a thing, you
15:50:49 said that you worked with the owners.
15:50:51 These owners said on April the 12th, 2005, that they
15:50:55 did not want the designation.
15:50:58 They were opposed to it.
15:51:00 I have the transcript right here.

15:51:04 >> The owners in April did object to the designation
15:51:08 of the entire building, of the KRESS, of the Woolworth
15:51:11 and the Newberry.
15:51:12 At that point, the HPC continued the hearing in order
15:51:16 to have legal investigate the possibility of
15:51:18 designating the facade.
15:51:19 If you look on the transcript from the HPC hearings,
15:51:24 which was item 2 in your package, pages 12 and 13 --
15:51:38 item 2, City of Tampa historic preservation commission
15:51:40 meeting transcript, the bottom of page 12.
15:51:46 This is Mr. Shimberg's response to the proposed
15:51:50 designation of the cess -- KRESS building or Woolworth
15:51:56 building facade.
15:51:57 Jim Shimberg junior with Holland and Knight again
15:52:00 representing the owner and applicant here.
15:52:02 We, consistent with the last, referring to the
15:52:04 Newberry facade designation, we would ask the board to
15:52:08 consider designating the art deco facade of the
15:52:11 Woolworth building.
15:52:12 We have shown you presentations before as to what we
15:52:14 plan to do, and why portions of the block facade are
15:52:19 not able to be restored exactly as they are.

15:52:21 So we would ask you to consider just preserving the
15:52:24 art deco facade with a similar motion.
15:52:26 We appreciate it.
15:52:27 We are here to answer any questions.
15:52:29 He then concludes after the HPC has voted on that
15:52:34 motion to designate just the facade portion, he
15:52:37 concludes by saying, thank you very much.
15:52:39 You guys did a real good job considering this.
15:52:42 Thank you.
15:52:45 I consider that consent.
15:52:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Sounds to me like that.
15:52:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: I saw Mr. Grandoff was trying to get
15:52:55 up.
15:52:56 I was just going to say, not that whatever he may say
15:52:58 may change my mind, I just thought in matter of
15:53:01 fairness give him two minutes.
15:53:03 Ms. Johnson did get an opportunity to come back up.
15:53:07 >>GWEN MILLER: That was part of their 30 minutes.
15:53:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: Okay.
15:53:11 Well, anyway.
15:53:12 Never mind.
15:53:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just to try and put something on

15:53:15 the table.
15:53:16 I'm going to move to close with the clear intent that
15:53:20 we would close this hearing and make a -- I'm going to
15:53:24 make a follow-on motion after we close the hearing
15:53:27 that we designate this and be done with it.
15:53:30 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
15:53:32 All in favor, aye.
15:53:33 [Motion Carried]
15:53:34 Mr. Harrison.
15:53:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
15:53:36 Now, we've closed.
15:53:38 Are you making your motion now to designate?
15:53:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:53:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:53:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
15:53:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll just elaborate a little bit
15:53:47 just for the record.
15:53:48 I'll move to designate based upon all the testimony
15:53:50 that we've heard today, and at all the prior hearings
15:53:54 cumulatively.
15:53:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just as a matter of course, the
15:53:58 ordinance title has to be read before the vote.

15:54:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's not a question, it's a comment.
15:54:06 I will not support it.
15:54:07 And here is why.
15:54:11 Everyone up here except perhaps my two colleagues here
15:54:13 think that the process doesn't work.
15:54:18 And what we're doing is sticking with that process
15:54:21 that everyone thinks doesn't work.
15:54:23 We've been given an opportunity by legal staff to say
15:54:25 we think that we can get to where that process would
15:54:30 take it, but with a different one.
15:54:33 And this is the opportunity for us to take this
15:54:39 example and see if we can extend this into bigger
15:54:42 things for historic preservation in this community.
15:54:45 In other words, we might be able to reach a consensus
15:54:47 that everyone can live with.
15:54:49 Cigar factory owners, Woolworth and Newberry
15:54:52 redevelopers will never know if -- we'll never know if
15:54:56 we can get there if we don't give them an opportunity
15:54:58 to try.
15:54:59 And I think that there is absolutely no harm in giving
15:55:02 them one week to see what they can come up with and
15:55:06 how close and maybe it's not even a question of close,

15:55:08 maybe they are there.
15:55:11 They arrive at the exact same place that the A.R.C.
15:55:14 process would have taken them.
15:55:16 If we designate, we're going right back to the process
15:55:18 that everybody says doesn't work.
15:55:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My motion is on the floor to
15:55:23 designate.
15:55:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm speaking to the motion and to
15:55:26 Mr. Harrison's comments.
15:55:27 Mr. Harrison, I guarantee you that Ms. Miller,
15:55:30 Mr. Smith, and the preservation community and the
15:55:33 development community are going to work on improving
15:55:35 the process, irregardless of what happens today.
15:55:37 Because we all -- and you see the people nodding out
15:55:40 there.
15:55:41 Everyone believes that the process can be much
15:55:42 crisper, cleaner, more timely.
15:55:44 Mr. Grandoff and I debated it the other day, and I
15:55:47 said we are going to improve this process, whatever.
15:55:50 But to speak to the motion on the floor, which is
15:55:53 should these facades be protected by the secretary of
15:55:57 interior standards because these buildings are unique

15:56:00 and historic and significant, I think the answer is
15:56:03 clearly yes, based on all the evidence we've heard.
15:56:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions from Council
15:56:09 members?
15:56:09 Ms. Ferlita.
15:56:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: You made that motion.
15:56:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion and second are on the floor.
15:56:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just back to my original comments.
15:56:17 Although what Mr. Harrison is saying might be simpler
15:56:21 way to get through this, if I was not consistent in my
15:56:24 thought process, then I would be guilty of what the
15:56:27 media sometimes thinks we are in terms of
15:56:28 flip-flopping.
15:56:29 From the testimony I saw, from the comments that
15:56:32 Mr. Fernandez made, I believe that the petitioner or
15:56:37 the attorney who represents that petitioner did not
15:56:39 oppose the designation.
15:56:41 So I'm going to stick with the same type of logic that
15:56:44 I did for the cigar factories.
15:56:46 They clearly showed they were opposed from the
15:56:48 beginning.
15:56:49 We supported that.

15:56:49 We respected it.
15:56:51 We had nothing else to go to except for the fact that
15:56:54 we could look at a code amendment that would change
15:56:58 the process.
15:56:59 In this particular case, I think that the developer
15:57:04 clearly did not oppose the other designation.
15:57:06 And because of the development pattern of these three
15:57:13 buildings, I'm going to have to support designation.
15:57:16 Because that's the same type of logic.
15:57:18 Now, hopefully between, as I said, now and August,
15:57:21 something else will come up that might be good.
15:57:23 I was willing to go, actually out of the way in terms
15:57:26 of the proposal that Mr. Smith gave, to see if this
15:57:28 30, 60, 90 percent process would have worked.
15:57:32 But if I'm looking at the same facts and I have to
15:57:35 decide on that same basis, the other petitioners
15:57:41 opposed it.
15:57:42 This petitioner did not oppose it from the onset.
15:57:45 And since we're looking at the whole thing as one
15:57:47 process or one development, I will support
15:57:49 Mr. Dingfelder's motion.
15:57:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It puts me in a bad light, because I

15:57:55 thought for sure that there was -- there was an
15:58:01 opposition to the designations of the facades, and it
15:58:06 was kind of embarrassing to find out there was an
15:58:09 agreement on that.
15:58:10 So I will go for designation.
15:58:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
15:58:16 floor.
15:58:17 All in favor, aye.
15:58:18 Opposed, nay.
15:58:20 >>CLERK: Harrison voting no.
15:58:23 There is an ordinance to be read.
15:58:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move item 56.
15:58:27 Move the adoption of second reading.
15:58:28 An ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida,
15:58:30 designating the facade of the property known as the
15:58:32 J.J. Newberry building located at 815 North Franklin
15:58:36 street, Tampa, Florida, as an addition to the North
15:58:38 Franklin street downtown local Landmark Multiple
15:58:40 Properties Group as more particularly described in
15:58:43 section 3 hereof as a local landmark, providing for
15:58:46 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for
15:58:49 severability, providing an effective date.

15:58:50 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
15:58:52 >>CLERK: Voice roll.
15:58:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:58:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:58:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
15:58:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:58:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
15:59:00 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
15:59:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
15:59:02 >>CLERK: The motion carried with Harrison voting no.
15:59:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move item 57, move the
15:59:07 adoption of ordinance upon second reading, ordinance
15:59:09 of the City of Tampa, designating fatted so of the
15:59:11 property known as the F.W. Woolworth building located
15:59:14 at 801 North Franklin street, Tampa, Florida, as an
15:59:17 addition to the North Franklin street downtown local
15:59:19 Landmark Multiple Properties Group as more
15:59:22 particularly described in section 3 hereof, as a local
15:59:25 landmark, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
15:59:27 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
15:59:28 effective date.
15:59:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a second and roll call vote.

15:59:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
15:59:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:59:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
15:59:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
15:59:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
15:59:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
15:59:36 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
15:59:37 >>CLERK: The motion carried with Harrison voting no.
15:59:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to receive and file all
15:59:43 documents.
15:59:43 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
15:59:45 [Motion Carried]
15:59:45 Anything else to come before Council?
15:59:51 5:00 meeting.
15:59:54 5:30 meeting.
15:59:59 Hold it one second.
16:00:00 Ms. Alvarez slow in the process.
16:00:04 Like a commendation.
16:00:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Common Tommy and Bertha Saladino as
16:00:08 organizers and founders of Tony Saladino baseball
16:00:12 tournament.
16:00:13 This will mark the 26th year.

16:00:14 I would like this presented at our Council meeting
16:00:17 March 16th at 9 a.m.
16:00:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: That's 20 commendations for the 16th.
16:00:27 >> We have the police, the sheriff, the dogs.
16:00:29 >>CLERK: On March 16, you have the police officer and
16:00:31 you have the sheriff's department that day.
16:00:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Can you do it another Thursday?
16:00:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, their tournament starts on March
16:00:44 the 20th.
16:00:44 So I guess we'll just do it on the 23rd.
16:00:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: Can we do it at night?
16:00:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Go to next Thursday.
16:00:54 >>CLERK: That would be the 23rd.
16:00:58 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of that motion on the
16:01:00 23rd.
16:01:00 Aye.
16:01:00 [Motion Carried]
16:01:04 Anything else?
16:01:04 We stand adjourned till 5:30.
16:01:10 (4 p.m.)