Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

City of Tampa
Tampa City Council
Thursday, September 7, 2006
9:00 a.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.

09:08:40 [Sounding gavel]
09:08:41 >>GWEN MILLER: The Tampa City Council is called to
09:08:42 order. The chair is going to yield to Mr. Kevin
09:08:44 White.
09:08:44 >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:08:46 It's my pleasure this morning to introduce Patrick
09:08:49 Carlos Hughes, head of the Outreach Church Planning
09:08:55 Department of the New Life Tabernacle Church.
09:08:58 He sits on the Board of Directors for Operation for
09:09:01 Productive Endeavor. He's married with three
09:09:03 children.
09:09:03 At this point in time we ask him to come up, give our
09:09:07 invocation, and we will all rise and remain standing
09:09:11 for the invocation.
09:09:16 >>> Let us pray.
09:09:17 Heavenly father, Lord Jesus, we thank you right now,
09:09:20 Lord God, we thank you, Lord God for allowing us to be
09:09:24 here, God, and I pray Lord God you touch our leaders,
09:09:29 Lord God.
09:09:30 I pray that you guide and direct them, Lord God, for
09:09:33 this great City of Tampa that we live in, Lord God.
09:09:36 I ask right now in your name, that you touch each and
09:09:41 every person in this place and that your blessing will
09:09:43 be upon us, O God.
09:09:45 We thank it all in the name of mighty Jesus Christ, we
09:09:49 pray. Amen.
09:09:51 (Pledge of Allegiance).
09:10:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:10:17 (roll call)
09:10:19 At this time we need to approve the agenda.
09:10:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair.

09:10:24 I believe, with regard to item 12, you have a copy of
09:10:29 a letter to the chair from the expressway authority,
09:10:33 with regard to the request for continuance to no date
09:10:38 set or requested.
09:10:39 But do you have another memo from the administration
09:10:41 that you received this morning asking for a one-week
09:10:43 continuance to allow them to appear next week.
09:10:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:10:51 I think that we should continue this indefinitely
09:10:54 because -- we have a governor that's involved in this
09:10:59 thing, and we just don't know how long it's going to
09:11:01 take.
09:11:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can clarify the issue.
09:11:09 I believe it's regards the discussion.
09:11:11 And let me refer to the item itself.
09:11:13 A presentation on the proposal to build a beltway
09:11:16 connecting Pinellas-Pasco, eastern Hillsborough,
09:11:19 Manatee County.
09:11:20 Now my understanding is the expressway authority
09:11:22 because of other issues wish not to discuss that.
09:11:25 However, it's my understanding in a phone call that I
09:11:27 received this morning from Mr. Darrell Smith that the

09:11:29 administration does wish to take a position on that,
09:11:32 by is -- which is an additional week to be able to
09:11:35 come back and make a presentation to inform you what
09:11:37 the administration's position is.
09:11:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: All right.
09:11:40 I wasn't aware of that conversation so I guess it will
09:11:41 be all right.
09:11:45 >> Any other items on the agenda you would like to
09:11:48 pull at this time?
09:11:49 We need to approve the agenda.
09:11:52 >> So moved.
09:11:52 >> If we also can -- two things.
09:11:55 If we can have a motion now with regard to item 12 so
09:11:59 it can be handled up front.
09:12:01 I didn't hear a vote on that.
09:12:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to move to continue for a week.
09:12:06 >> So moved.
09:12:07 >> Second.
09:12:07 >>CHAIRMAN: Moved and seconded to continue item number
09:12:10 12 to next week.
09:12:11 (Motion carried).
09:12:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to item 15 you received a

09:12:16 memorandum asking that item be withdrawn from the
09:12:18 agenda.
09:12:20 >> So moved.
09:12:21 >> Second.
09:12:21 (Motion carried).
09:12:26 >> Number 15?
09:12:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Numbered 15, moved to withdraw it.
09:12:32 Anything else?
09:12:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe that's it.
09:12:35 >> Any other items?
09:12:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did we set a time to discuss not
09:12:45 this week but in the future the memo from Martin
09:12:47 Shelby about the appointment?
09:12:50 >>GWEN MILLER: That's coming up today.
09:12:53 That's on the agenda for today.
09:12:55 Any other motion --
09:12:58 >> So moved.
09:12:58 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second to approve the agenda.
09:13:01 We now go to our unfinished business item number 1.
09:13:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
09:13:19 Mr. Shelby passed out a staff report for myself.
09:13:27 There is a copy of the draft ordinance attached.

09:13:31 Council would need to schedule a public hearing for
09:13:38 that.
09:13:39 I'll wait till you each have the report.
09:13:50 The packet which is actually all of the
09:13:53 classifications, restaurants in the city limits.
09:14:12 Following your motion two weeks ago, the 31st of
09:14:14 August -- I'm sorry, on the 24th of August, staff
09:14:19 pulled together a meeting with land development,
09:14:21 legal, business, TPD to discuss your motion regarding
09:14:26 seating in restaurants, hours of sales and square
09:14:30 footages for restaurants.
09:14:32 What we did, we went through the seating requirements
09:14:35 and the square footage requirements first.
09:14:37 That seemed like the -- I hate to say easiest but the
09:14:45 most simple to tackle.
09:14:48 In the report, this is where we call out the "R"
09:14:50 classifications 1, 2 and 4.
09:14:53 And we simplify these to reduce the seating
09:14:57 requirements to 11 seats for each one, and that is --
09:15:02 you are able to do that inside, outside or combination
09:15:05 thereof.
09:15:12 If you do it outside there will need to be a barrier

09:15:14 to separate that seating area, with the exception
09:15:21 about seating on a public sidewalk.
09:15:24 >> Thank you.
09:15:26 Could it be vegetative?
09:15:31 >>CATHERINE COYLE: They can do that, yes.
09:15:33 That's the first change.
09:15:36 I did note also -- I'm sorry, that should be in the
09:15:43 next section. Anyway, that's the ordinance you have
09:15:45 before you for section 3-7-B at 3-30, the changes
09:15:51 needed for those exceptions.
09:15:53 That's the draft ordinance.
09:15:54 The second piece starting on page 2, the second piece
09:15:58 of that meeting, the staff meeting discussing the
09:16:00 hours of sales, and the conversation about how we
09:16:05 regulate that and why, and the changes that have
09:16:08 occurred over the years.
09:16:09 You will note right above on page 2 this section of
09:16:14 the code has been amended four times beginning with
09:16:17 1999.
09:16:17 And then it actually was like three times in 2003 in a
09:16:21 four-month period, which is very, very good.
09:16:24 But sometimes it can be a little reactionary.

09:16:28 But what I did is I went through each piece of the
09:16:30 regulation.
09:16:31 It explains what this was.
09:16:35 The first part, "A," includes all wet zoning, and
09:16:40 there are some exemptions.
09:16:42 There was an error in the printed version of the code
09:16:45 on Sunday which should read 11 a.m. to 3 a.m.,
09:16:49 actually 11 p.m. in our hard copy, so we can correct
09:16:54 that.
09:16:55 TIA was given an exemption by council to start at
09:16:57 7 a.m. on Sundays.
09:16:59 And under the exemptions for selling alcohol, or for
09:17:05 being open, rather, and not selling alcohol after
09:17:08 3 a.m. is for hotels, motels, convenience goods,
09:17:11 retail and shoppers goods retail.
09:17:17 Then they are defined also in subsection "E."
09:17:21 Now, the difference here is that these definitions
09:17:24 were derived from chapter 27, because that's for
09:17:27 zoning definitions defined in that code.
09:17:30 With the exception of the retail sales, that was one
09:17:33 of the modifications of 2003.
09:17:35 It excludes eating and drinking establishments in the

09:17:37 wet zoning code.
09:17:44 That was to address the combination, if you see a gas
09:17:47 station with RVs in it or gas station with
09:17:51 McDonald's, that combination of usage for zoning
09:17:53 purposes.
09:17:55 City Council requests that staff, when we read through
09:17:57 the transcripts to fully understand it's creating an
09:18:00 exemption for restaurants.
09:18:02 I did provide you the list of -- there are
09:18:07 approximately 265 "R" classes which obviously is not
09:18:11 the full amount of restaurants in the city.
09:18:14 These just happened to be the ones that have the "R"
09:18:17 designation.
09:18:18 TPD and business obviously was consulted on that.
09:18:23 Each division did have concerns about labor needs and
09:18:27 enforcement.
09:18:27 Just by adding those 265 "R" classes for monitoring
09:18:31 and review.
09:18:33 They are spread throughout the city.
09:18:34 They are not centralized on just Ybor or downtown.
09:18:39 And obviously they would need more laborers to cover
09:18:45 that for enforcement.

09:18:47 Then I gave you the section 320 under proposed code
09:18:51 revision.
09:18:51 And you can see most of these were stricken, and that
09:18:55 it was simplified.
09:19:01 And, let's say, then we proposed to change the
09:19:04 definition of restaurants in the white zoning code to
09:19:08 include food prepared on premises, ready to consume
09:19:17 and the restaurant in the wet zoning code would have
09:19:19 to have the "R" designation.
09:19:21 Oftentimes they'll come before you in a zoning case
09:19:24 and say they are a restaurant but not asking for an
09:19:26 "R" and we comment that they should be an "R" so we
09:19:29 can monitor it.
09:19:30 Lately council has been reacting to that pretty
09:19:33 positively, from staff's perspective. That would be
09:19:36 our change to restaurant definition.
09:19:39 And then the staff recommendation below that we have
09:19:41 been pretty successful in monitoring the semiannual
09:19:44 report.
09:19:48 TPD is here to comment, if you have any questions
09:19:50 regarding the labor and enforcement comments that were
09:19:54 on the staff report.

09:19:55 And if you are willing to move forward on the
09:19:57 ordinance again, for the seating, and square footage
09:20:00 requirements, you could schedule a public hearing that
09:20:04 could be noticed properly.
09:20:05 >> If the -- when they close --
09:20:12 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's in that proposed change.
09:20:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Not in this one.
09:20:17 >>> Not in this one, no.
09:20:19 There were a number of issues that came up in staff
09:20:22 meeting about enforcement city-wide.
09:20:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank you for moving
09:20:26 quickly on the request by council to lower the number
09:20:27 of seats.
09:20:29 That's more appropriate given the kind of
09:20:31 redevelopment that we are trying to encourage.
09:20:34 To get things done, I would move that we schedule a
09:20:39 public hearing on that.
09:20:42 >> Second.
09:20:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
09:20:45 Mr. Dingfelder.
09:20:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I don't really understand
09:20:49 FHP we are going to do that why we would do the

09:20:52 proposed changes to 3-20.
09:20:56 On page 4, hotels, motels, and "R" class restaurants
09:21:00 may get started after 3 a.m.
09:21:01 >> I didn't include that in the draft ordinance,
09:21:03 because the discussions that we had amongst the
09:21:07 different agencies.
09:21:07 And I was hoping to bring that to council so that we
09:21:10 could discuss the waiver and enforcement issues.
09:21:12 If we open that city-wide to having all of these
09:21:16 restaurant designations and other businesses monitored
09:21:19 after 3 a.m., it can be very difficult.
09:21:25 I think the statistic is it will generate 265 coming
09:21:32 on line after 3 a.m.
09:21:35 If we took it one step farther and actually opened it
09:21:38 to all restaurants after 3 a.m. it could be thousands
09:21:40 of additional calls annually.
09:21:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When we initiated this discussion
09:21:46 two weeks ago didn't we say when wanted a specific
09:21:49 report from the enforcement agencies so we could have
09:21:53 this discussion?
09:21:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's why I included the briefing
09:21:57 on the enforcement.

09:21:58 >>GWEN MILLER:
09:22:04 >> Is anyone here from TPD?
09:22:07 >>> Paul Driscoll, police department.
09:22:09 Good morning, council.
09:22:11 We really don't have a prepared report, because we are
09:22:14 just coming into this.
09:22:15 It's something we really prefer to do a little more
09:22:19 due diligence on before we say that we recommend it or
09:22:24 agree with it from the police perspective.
09:22:27 I spoke to Chief Hogue and the staff and certainly has
09:22:32 concerns about these "R" designated businesses being
09:22:34 open beyond 3:00.
09:22:35 We know the calls to service will increase.
09:22:38 A little difficult to quantify that right now.
09:22:41 But one of the things that I look at real quick was
09:22:43 the international house of pancakes on south Dale
09:22:46 Mabry.
09:22:47 And just in the last year, between the hours of 3 a.m.
09:22:51 and 5 a.m., they had nine disturbance calls there that
09:22:56 we had to respond to.
09:22:58 And my gut feeling is it's definitely alcohol related.
09:23:05 If you do the math, nine times or actually -- nine

09:23:11 times 265 is quite a few calls to service, just
09:23:14 dealing with those type of issues.
09:23:16 You still have the enforcement, the serving of the
09:23:20 alcohol after 3:00.
09:23:21 That would have to be monitored.
09:23:24 And in the police world, nothing good happens at 3:00
09:23:28 in the morning.
09:23:29 It's just a bad hour of the day.
09:23:36 Looking at the list you have in front of you, that we
09:23:39 are getting complaints on now, and if they are open
09:23:41 past 3, we expect there to be more problem with it.
09:23:54 They are all on that list and if we allow them to be
09:23:59 open past 3, we expect to get many more complaints.
09:24:02 It's definitely going to tax our resources and we
09:24:04 don't have a feel for what that would be right now so
09:24:06 we have concerns about that.
09:24:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: Paul, I have a lot of the same
09:24:12 concerns.
09:24:12 And I guess from what I hear there was some concern
09:24:15 two weeks ago, I had an emergency and had to leave.
09:24:18 I wasn't involved in that conversation.
09:24:19 But my question is, council, what was the motivation

09:24:23 for looking at this?
09:24:25 I have always had a problem with it and I'll tell you
09:24:27 why, and then maybe the answer to why we are looking
09:24:29 at this might make more sense to me.
09:24:32 But it's definitely going to be an enforcement issue.
09:24:35 And we already have those issues now, without bringing
09:24:38 this into play.
09:24:43 And you have a police officer going to make sure that
09:24:45 the establishment is not serving alcohol after 3:00.
09:24:51 For consumers somebody can go in there and order three
09:24:54 drinks.
09:24:55 Just straight whatever you want, you know.
09:24:57 No ice.
09:24:58 And so after 3:00 till whatever it takes for that
09:25:02 person to drink those three drinks he's still drinking
09:25:04 alcohol, which is what we want to do in terms of
09:25:06 cut-off.
09:25:07 You're still having to enforce it and you're having to
09:25:10 determine if the establishment serving alcohol, or the
09:25:13 guy came in at the 3:00 deadline with the alcohol,
09:25:17 since the transaction had already been finalized he's
09:25:20 not in violation.

09:25:21 So now you have to prove that they didn't serve to the
09:25:23 him after 3.
09:25:24 I think we are doing everything we can by putting this
09:25:27 in.
09:25:28 This is just my personal opinion.
09:25:29 I think we are doing everything we can to make the
09:25:33 life of law enforcement worse.
09:25:37 I just don't understand any benefit.
09:25:39 But maybe if we had some more dialogue, some more
09:25:41 conversation, somebody to convince me.
09:25:43 But right now I just can't support that.
09:25:44 I don't think I ever had and I don't think I ever
09:25:49 will.
09:25:50 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dingfelder.
09:25:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I recall a couple of years ago
09:25:52 being approached by some restaurateurs in Ybor City,
09:25:56 and basically their argument was the employees like to
09:26:06 have somewhere to go after the bars shut down,
09:26:09 somewhere to go for a meal or the winddown before they
09:26:12 go home, not alcohol related, just a place to go have
09:26:15 a 3 a.m. breakfast, I guess.
09:26:17 That was one argument.

09:26:18 The other argument they said was perhaps that it's a
09:26:25 God idea that when people got done drinking at 2:00
09:26:28 and 3:00 in the morning that they had somewhere to go
09:26:30 to just have a cup of coffee, eat a little something,
09:26:33 and then -- before they get in the car and drive home.
09:26:39 I don't know if either of those are valid and that's
09:26:44 why I always want to have the discussion.
09:26:46 I think that Pauls comments are pretty compelling, and
09:26:54 your --
09:26:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: If what you did is what people would
09:26:58 do we wouldn't be having this conversation.
09:27:00 But then you get into that gray area where if
09:27:02 everybody was going to comply, and it wasn't an --
09:27:07 you're right, it's probably better for people to stay
09:27:10 for an hour, whatever it takes, to have breakfast.
09:27:14 But I'm just not real convinced that that's what's
09:27:16 going to happen.
09:27:18 In the ideal world it can be perfect.
09:27:20 Many times you want to gone someplace late at night,
09:27:23 you can't find anyplace open.
09:27:25 >> I think wave to look at these issues on balance.
09:27:27 And I'll throw that back to you, Paul.

09:27:29 You know, if the restaurants want to make those
09:27:33 arguments, on balance, which way would you recommend
09:27:39 that this council go?
09:27:40 You're the professionals in this issue.
09:27:43 I'm not.
09:27:47 >>> I can't address the employees that have nowhere to
09:27:49 go.
09:27:50 >> I guess there is always IHOP.
09:27:54 >>> Or to go home.
09:27:57 >> Your house for breakfast.
09:27:58 >> As far as the alcohol discussion and winddown time,
09:28:02 officer Lowe's is probably in a better position to go
09:28:07 into that detail.
09:28:08 But if you drink until 3:00 in the morning it doesn't
09:28:11 stop.
09:28:11 You peak out sometime after 3.
09:28:14 Maybe 3, 4:30 with the effect of the alcohol so it
09:28:18 will be sitting around winding down sometimes is
09:28:20 actually worse, because they have more impediment from
09:28:26 the alcohol later on and the fights and everything
09:28:28 else that comes with alcohol abuse coming into play.
09:28:34 >> So it's your recommendation we leave it the way it

09:28:36 is.
09:28:37 >>> The police department would have less concerns.
09:28:40 >> And I'm find fine with that.
09:28:42 I think your statement and Paul's statements are
09:28:46 compelling but it's good to have the discussion.
09:28:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: John, let me say one other thing,
09:28:50 Madam Chairman, to Mr. Dingfelder.
09:28:52 On the flip side of it, I feel badly because there are
09:28:54 some establishments that legitimately want to do that
09:28:57 and legitimate serve food and will not tax the
09:28:59 enforcement process.
09:29:01 But it's just a balance.
09:29:02 We have to have some priorities.
09:29:05 >>> And I agree with that.
09:29:06 There's some places on that list that no doubt would
09:29:08 not generate any more calls to service.
09:29:11 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
09:29:18 floor.
09:29:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion is to set a workshop.
09:29:25 (Motion carried).
09:29:26 Do we need to pick a date?
09:29:28 Can you make a suggestion how long it will take us?

09:29:30 >>CATHERINE COYLE: a workshop or a public hearing?
09:29:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.
09:29:38 This does not require two public hearings.
09:29:40 It requires a first reading to be set for first
09:29:42 reading, and then after the first reading it will be
09:29:45 set for a public hearing.
09:29:48 >>GWEN MILLER: First reading today and then --
09:29:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It wasn't published.
09:29:54 One of the whereas clauses.
09:29:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to set a date for the first
09:29:58 reading then.
09:29:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does this have to go to the
09:30:01 Planning Commission?
09:30:04 >>GWEN MILLER: You want to set a date for the first
09:30:07 public hearing, Ms. Saul-Sena?
09:30:08 Or first reading?
09:30:09 Which one?
09:30:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How quickly can we do it?
09:30:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to the number of tables?
09:30:22 The alcohol issue?
09:30:25 >> Correct.
09:30:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Not number of tables.

09:30:31 >> How quickly can we set a public hearing?
09:30:33 Next week?
09:30:34 >>> It's ready to go.
09:30:35 So as soon as council desires, we can have it back to
09:30:37 you.
09:30:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
09:30:39 So next week is the 14th.
09:30:44 So I move to set it at 10:00 on the 14th.
09:30:46 Public hearing.
09:30:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I could ask Ms. Curt a question.
09:30:57 I have not seen a resolution until this morning.
09:30:59 So I have not read it.
09:31:00 Does this require in the resolution two public
09:31:03 hearings?
09:31:06 >> It says there were public hearings in the
09:31:08 ordinance.
09:31:09 That's a standard language.
09:31:10 There's one public hearing required for this.
09:31:12 And you can go to first reading, and have your public
09:31:16 hearing.
09:31:16 And I can change it from public hearings.
09:31:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's only one public hearing

09:31:23 legally required.
09:31:24 >>> Yes.
09:31:24 >> So if council wishes to read it today, or if
09:31:27 council wishes to allow the community to see what's
09:31:29 been distributed today and put it on for first reading
09:31:32 next week and have an opportunity for people to look
09:31:34 at this, prior to first reading, or if you wish to
09:31:38 have first reading you can do it today and then the
09:31:40 public hearing will be scheduled for two weeks.
09:31:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
09:31:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
09:31:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does it require the Planning
09:31:50 Commission?
09:31:52 >>REBECCA KERT: No, it does not.
09:31:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So we are just doing section 3.
09:32:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I make a recommendation from
09:32:10 purely a procedural standpoint?
09:32:12 Council just received this morning, obviously have not
09:32:16 had an opportunity to read through it, relying on the
09:32:19 staff report.
09:32:20 I would ask this be placed for first reading on the
09:32:24 agenda next week.

09:32:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 14th.
09:32:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we have the first reading and
09:32:34 public hearing simultaneously?
09:32:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe you can, no.
09:32:37 >>REBECCA KERT: You have to have two readings and
09:32:41 typically you have your public hearing at the second
09:32:45 reading.
09:32:47 >> So the public reading and second -- public hearing
09:32:50 and second reading the 28th.
09:32:53 That's my motion.
09:32:54 (Motion carried).
09:32:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 2.
09:33:13 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:33:15 Good morning.
09:33:16 The recent decision, I believe, referenced here is
09:33:19 with respect to the Expressway authority's decision to
09:33:21 change counsel.
09:33:24 We think that that won't have any direct impact on the
09:33:27 east-west connector.
09:33:29 Derivatively, the outcome process is fairly
09:33:36 unpredictable. I think you have all been reading the
09:33:39 paper. This is an issue statewide as well as locally.

09:33:43 Currently we have a contract. We intend to comply
09:33:46 with the terms of the contract.
09:33:47 I believe the expressway authority intends to comply
09:33:50 with their terms of the contract.
09:33:52 I think they may be seeking an extension of the bid
09:33:55 process.
09:33:56 We are looking at our contract to see whether or not
09:33:58 that requires an extension of our performance
09:34:00 obligations as well.
09:34:02 We are certainly not opposed to finding additional
09:34:07 time if they need it.
09:34:08 I want to make sure it's not truncated by virtue of
09:34:11 that extension.
09:34:14 If there is legislative termination, it will depend
09:34:16 upon what will be put into place obviously.
09:34:18 So until we know that, I think we couldn't have too
09:34:22 much more fruitful discussion at this juncture.
09:34:25 But that's a quick summary of where I think we are.
09:34:27 If there's any questions I would be happy to try to
09:34:29 elaborate.
09:34:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, thank you for the report.
09:34:34 When we brought this up, there was some question about

09:34:37 whether the city could even theoretically take the
09:34:41 project over, based on the fact the city can't
09:34:44 administer toll road facilities.
09:34:47 Do you have an answer on that one?
09:34:51 >>DAVID SMITH: Mr. Rolando Santiago is here as well.
09:34:54 If I recall the problem was to have a toll road you
09:34:57 had to be one of those entities authorized by statute
09:35:00 to govern and operate toll roads and we are not such
09:35:03 an entity.
09:35:04 So it would have to be either the expressway authority
09:35:06 or the turnpike authority where I think the two that
09:35:09 are currently created that can operate a toll road.
09:35:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Roland, is that your understanding
09:35:18 as well?
09:35:19 I just want to be sure everybody is on the same page
09:35:21 here.
09:35:37 >>DAVID SMITH: Rolando is reminding we have outside
09:35:40 counsel that also assisted us in this process and we
09:35:43 have mixed views on that.
09:35:45 There is a bond counsel opinion that one reading of
09:35:47 the statute would allow us to operate a toll road.
09:35:51 But at the time we were going forward with this, that

09:35:54 didn't appear to be something we had to resolve
09:35:57 because we had an entity that had the management
09:35:59 background and experience to do it.
09:36:01 We haven't done it before.
09:36:02 I'm not entirely sure what we would have to do in
09:36:04 order to be able to do it from a management and
09:36:08 operational standpoint.
09:36:09 But that's an issue we can look at if we have to.
09:36:12 And if that becomes an issue, if we don't have that
09:36:15 partner, who can help us with those kinds of
09:36:17 considerations, then we can make the hard decision at
09:36:20 that time.
09:36:20 I think the preference would be to work with someone
09:36:23 like the expressway authority or the turnpike
09:36:25 authority who has all of the operational apparatus to
09:36:29 make this work.
09:36:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I agree that the ideal
09:36:34 situation is to let this continue to run its course
09:36:37 and the expressway authority or else some other entity
09:36:40 who takes its place, manages the project and builds
09:36:44 it.
09:36:45 But we are at such a critical juncture with respect to

09:36:48 that project right now, I don't want us to miss an
09:36:51 opportunity for the City of Tampa to come in and
09:36:54 rescue the project.
09:36:58 And it sounds like there is at least a difference of
09:37:00 opinion as to legally whether we can do that.
09:37:04 If legally we can do it then it becomes a policy
09:37:06 decision for us and the administration to make.
09:37:11 >>> That's absolutely correct.
09:37:12 And I would suggest that what we will do is evaluate
09:37:15 that possibility while we are still currently under a
09:37:18 binding contract with the Expressway Authority.
09:37:20 It could also be if they create a new entity right now
09:37:30 we are contractually bound.
09:37:31 But I agree with you, I think it is prudent to
09:37:34 evaluate our options in the event we become no longer
09:37:36 contractually bound.
09:37:40 We will be looking at that issue and also advising the
09:37:43 administration of that.
09:37:44 >> Let me then make a motion Madam Chair for a
09:37:47 positive day continuance of this discussion, you
09:37:49 determine what our legal -- let's revisit this issue
09:37:53 in 30 days and we'll see where everything stands.

09:37:55 We know that this situation changes day by day.
09:38:08 We need to protect them.
09:38:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:38:11 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:38:13 Opposed, Nay.
09:38:17 Item 3.
09:38:27 >>> Transportation division.
09:38:30 Providing a written report of an item that was
09:38:31 continued from a couple of weeks ago regarding compact
09:38:36 parking spaces.
09:38:38 I'll give those a second to go around to everyone.
09:38:40 A very short summary of some additional research we
09:38:46 did at your request.
09:38:50 We basically contacted the department of motor
09:38:54 vehicles since the initial request, and determined
09:38:57 that because it didn't track the debate that you were
09:39:02 interested in, we reached that for the federal highway
09:39:06 administration, highway policy information, had
09:39:13 extensive data that they looked into regarding the
09:39:16 sale.
09:39:17 Obviously the sales then translate to the DMV.
09:39:20 So that information is very interesting.

09:39:23 There's a graph on the second page of your little
09:39:26 handout that kind of gives you a visual view of the
09:39:29 information that is summarizing the a page and
09:39:37 basically it is showing that over the last 30 years
09:39:42 despite the gasoline prices that we are facing, the
09:39:45 trend towards vehicles being a 50-50 split in terms of
09:39:51 trucks and cars.
09:39:52 So we were really interested to see that was the
09:39:54 trend, because it was -- larger vehicles when in fact
09:40:02 it's not.
09:40:02 So that was one source of information we looked to.
09:40:04 The other thing we did is, we did some research on the
09:40:08 third page of your information there, looking at some
09:40:11 different municipalities, and then a couple different
09:40:14 cities outside of our state, just an example of what
09:40:21 they are using for criteria for compact spaces.
09:40:23 In some cases, the compact spaces, are allowed in
09:40:30 residential uses, in some cases they are not.
09:40:32 So we took that information, and did an average of
09:40:38 that information along with the information about the
09:40:42 size of the cars, and came up with an average of about
09:40:48 30% for those other municipalities that they are using

09:40:51 for compact spaces.
09:40:57 So looking at the vehicle size information and the
09:41:00 other municipalities, we came to the conclusion that
09:41:04 we would recommend about a 40% use of compact spaces
09:41:09 for our code with a remind theory we can always look
09:41:13 at these on a case-by-case basis for potential waiver,
09:41:16 if that's something that the council would want to
09:41:18 consider.
09:41:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for a very complete
09:41:26 study.
09:41:28 And when your recommendation said 40%, it didn't say
09:41:31 40% what.
09:41:32 But you're saying 40% compact.
09:41:36 According to the details that you shared with us, our
09:41:38 current regulation only allowed up to 65% compact.
09:41:44 I have witnessed in a number of parking lots this is
09:41:46 not adequate.
09:41:48 So I appreciate when we finish our discussion I am
09:41:51 going to make a motion that we change it.
09:41:53 And my understanding is, this is just a policy.
09:41:59 >>> It's a code change.
09:42:00 However, with that code is also the waiver option, if

09:42:04 you want to consider on a case-by-case basis,
09:42:06 something different.
09:42:08 >> Would that waiver come back to City Council for
09:42:10 consideration?
09:42:11 >>> Yes.
09:42:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez?
09:42:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
09:42:15 I'm kind of a little upset right now.
09:42:17 I understand -- and I appreciate you bringing this
09:42:20 report.
09:42:20 But I would like these reports a little bit sooner
09:42:23 than just handed out to me on a Thursday morning.
09:42:26 I understand that this motion was made on August
09:42:29 3rd.
09:42:30 You guys have had a lot of time to prepare these
09:42:33 things.
09:42:34 This is the second report now that we have gotten this
09:42:36 morning, and we can't even digest it because we
09:42:41 haven't had the chance to look at it.
09:42:45 >>> Yes, I want to apologize for that.
09:42:47 It was an oversight on our part that the written
09:42:49 report was longer than just a couple pages.

09:42:55 >> And I appreciate that too.
09:42:56 But the problem is this has been happening more and
09:42:58 more often.
09:42:59 And, you know, I'm not a quick study like some people
09:43:03 are and it takes me a little while to digest it and I
09:43:06 really don't appreciate getting the reports on
09:43:08 Thursday morning at this time.
09:43:11 I would prefer to have them a couple of days,
09:43:14 especially when you have a month to do this.
09:43:17 So, you know, please work on this.
09:43:21 And I plead the administration to help us out on this
09:43:23 issue.
09:43:25 >>> We'll try to do a better job of getting the
09:43:27 information when it's requested.
09:43:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: If this were an isolated situation,
09:43:33 things happen and sometimes we get rushed in the
09:43:35 schedule.
09:43:35 So this ultimately is not about you and the way you
09:43:39 presented it.
09:43:40 This is a policy that this council has decided to,
09:43:44 perhaps tolerated for a long, long time.
09:43:47 No big thing.

09:43:48 There are policy issues that are going to affect a lot
09:43:50 of people long after some of us are here.
09:43:54 Colleagues, I think we need to be smarter about this.
09:43:56 We cannot look at something like this and make a
09:43:59 decision just haphazardly without looking at. This
09:44:04 Ms. Saul-Sena is asking, what is this 40%?
09:44:07 40% of what?
09:44:08 It's like we are trying to hurry up to get ready for
09:44:10 an exam that's coming in.
09:44:14 I just think it is bad, bad policy for this council to
09:44:16 act on anything that they receive now.
09:44:19 Everything that we get in terms of handouts, in terms
09:44:21 of reports, in terms of anything, specific to
09:44:24 anybody's presentation, from the administration,
09:44:27 should be part of my homework.
09:44:29 And my homework gets done long before a quarter to ten
09:44:33 on Thursday morning.
09:44:34 I don't know where this will go but I'm going to tell
09:44:37 you once we finish with this, I would like to see if
09:44:39 there is any interest in making a motion that when
09:44:43 don't act on anything if we accept it or receive it
09:44:45 the very same day.

09:44:47 It's going to be like, thank you very much, you did a
09:44:49 lot of work, it's good research, we'll look at it and
09:44:52 we'll vote upon it next week.
09:44:54 That is good government.
09:44:55 That's -- this stuff about shoving it -- we are
09:44:58 looking at each other to see if we had enough to.
09:45:01 I'm not sure if Mr. Shelby had it.
09:45:03 I was going to give him mine so I could look at
09:45:06 Mary's.
09:45:07 Looking to see if the clerk got it.
09:45:09 This is no way to do it.
09:45:13 But it is a big deal because we are making policy for
09:45:15 the City of Tampa based on something that just got
09:45:18 slammed on this dais right now.
09:45:20 And it not about you.
09:45:21 It's about the way we have learned to accept business
09:45:23 from the administration.
09:45:24 It is pitiful.
09:45:25 I'm going to tell you, it is pitiful and it's more for
09:45:29 people after me, I don't much time here but it puts at
09:45:33 risk our decision.
09:45:34 Are they good?

09:45:34 Are they bad?
09:45:35 Do we have enough information?
09:45:38 We are making decisions based on information we have
09:45:40 on each and he have one of these issues that come to
09:45:42 us at the last minute at the eleventh hour.
09:45:44 I have repeated myself three times.
09:45:46 It is bad policy for the people we represent.
09:45:48 So I'm going to ask for some consideration in that
09:45:51 motion.
09:45:52 Mr. Shelby, if you tell me when I can make it or when
09:45:54 I should make it.
09:45:56 We have to deal with this, I know that but I'm talking
09:45:59 as a general policy.
09:46:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Going to the substance issue, I
09:46:04 think the parking suggestion is one that we should
09:46:07 consider in terms of compact cars.
09:46:11 But I certainly have a bigger concern about parking
09:46:13 and about our parking requirements under our zoning
09:46:19 code.
09:46:19 I think this is sort of a combination of you guys in
09:46:22 transportation but also, Kathy, you and Gloria and
09:46:26 your team.

09:46:27 And I'm wondering when the last time we did a
09:46:30 significant review of our parking requirements.
09:46:33 Have we had a big healthy discussion with the planners
09:46:36 in our community, the private planners in our
09:46:39 community, as well as the public planners, with the
09:46:42 Planning Commission to say where are we headed from
09:46:45 policy perspective?
09:46:46 You know, we are becoming more and more of an urban
09:46:49 community.
09:46:49 There's a lot of streets, urban streets that need
09:46:54 redevelopment.
09:46:55 And I've been told that the redevelopment is being
09:46:58 constrained because of the parking requirements.
09:47:01 You know, older streets beings, R, like MacDill
09:47:04 and Howard and Columbus and places like that where you
09:47:07 have got a very viable commercial parcel but, you
09:47:11 know, a very defined, limited amount of parking.
09:47:15 And then in contrast out in New Tampa, you have got
09:47:20 big wide-open green space where is there is plenty of
09:47:24 opportunity to build parking lots and maybe it's more
09:47:27 appropriate because you realize nobody is going to be
09:47:29 walking to those areas.

09:47:34 Even bike riding or what have you.
09:47:36 Maybe we have to have a different level of parking
09:47:38 standard.
09:47:42 Service standard or whatever for parking in the more
09:47:44 urban part of the city versus suburban part of the
09:47:48 city.
09:47:50 I think we should start having a dialogue about that,
09:47:52 or maybe you guys have already.
09:48:01 I would like to hear a little response on that.
09:48:05 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
09:48:06 I think it is a discussion that is warranted at this
09:48:08 point.
09:48:10 Within the last five years, we have had an enormous
09:48:13 development in Tampa and it has been brought to your
09:48:16 attention in many rezoning cases where you have
09:48:18 neighborhoods that are complaining about on-street
09:48:20 parking because of the residential development that's
09:48:23 occurring.
09:48:24 And a lot of the commercial developments is in
09:48:26 corridors surrounding those residential developments.
09:48:29 We also don't allow commercial access, vehicular
09:48:33 access to local streets.

09:48:35 So if it says limited parking they are going to spill
09:48:39 over into the neighborhood.
09:48:40 They are competing issues and I think we need to have
09:48:43 that discussion.
09:48:43 Especially in the urban -- at the core, not just in
09:48:48 downtown but the periphery and beyond.
09:48:49 Courier City in particular.
09:48:52 Really sparked a discussion of visitor parking
09:48:54 requirements.
09:48:55 Now we charge an extra quarter space per unit because
09:48:57 the parking was just growing on the public streets and
09:49:02 the people that were sitting there and single-family
09:49:04 houses were inundated with extra cars because they
09:49:07 don't know where they came from.
09:49:08 It's a much larger issue that we need to discuss, I
09:49:11 think.
09:49:11 We should have many discussions on that.
09:49:17 We haven't reviewed the overall parking requirements
09:49:19 in a number of years.
09:49:20 We do it piecemeal.
09:49:22 The other changes were as a result of various rezoning
09:49:24 case that is have come forward.

09:49:26 We were revised St. Joseph's when it came forward.
09:49:34 Basically everything we have done in parking has
09:49:35 increased the number of required spaces, not
09:49:38 decreased.
09:49:39 Also decreasing the number of compact spaces is going
09:49:42 to decrease the number of spaces they can fit on-site.
09:49:46 So looking again at each other and the policy that is
09:49:49 we put in place.
09:49:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And our friends from the Planning
09:49:52 Commission, Roy and Terry and Rose just came in, and
09:49:57 you guys, we were talking about the parking issue
09:50:00 city-wide.
09:50:01 And we need to start having a dialogue about where we
09:50:04 should head on those issues.
09:50:07 Anyway, I don't know, what's the best way to go on
09:50:10 that?
09:50:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: In the transportation department
09:50:21 they are woefully understaffed down there.
09:50:23 And I think we ought to give them the benefit of the
09:50:26 doubt here.
09:50:27 Because we are not being asked to act on anything
09:50:29 today.

09:50:29 This was just a report.
09:50:31 And I don't even know how much of a recommendation we
09:50:35 were expecting.
09:50:38 But I do think that it is a discussion that probably
09:50:41 should be had.
09:50:43 And we don't want to kill the goose that's laying the
09:50:47 golden egg by overreacting.
09:50:50 65% is probably not realistic.
09:50:52 Maybe 40% is more, I think somewhere in the middle
09:50:57 might be a good starting point.
09:50:59 But what we don't need to do is --
09:51:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Knee jerk.
09:51:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: over react and knee jerk with
09:51:11 respect to my colleague.
09:51:13 We are asking a lot of our staff members.
09:51:15 And I think we ought to give them a pass for today.
09:51:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the issue that Mr.
09:51:21 Dingfelder raised about an overall discussion of
09:51:25 parking requirements is absolutely timely.
09:51:28 Yesterday, I had a conversation with property owners
09:51:31 on north Frankland street.
09:51:32 They are suggesting perhaps we have an urban set of

09:51:35 requirements and a suburban recognizing the two
09:51:38 development patterns are very different.
09:51:40 And yet we at this point only have one set of rules,
09:51:43 which doesn't necessarily work well for folks.
09:51:45 But specifically on the report that we receive from
09:51:49 you, it said very clearly that Tampa has this much
09:51:52 greater number of basically any jurisdiction we can
09:51:58 come up with, and it doesn't really reflect the types
09:52:02 of cars people drive.
09:52:03 But based on that I would like to ask --
09:52:07 >>GWEN MILLER: You can have more comments.
09:52:16 Whit white I wanted to respond.
09:52:18 I understand totally that you all are understaffed and
09:52:20 I appreciate that.
09:52:21 And you all always do a wonderful job in responding to
09:52:26 anything from council.
09:52:27 I think that may have been taken a little out of
09:52:30 context and maybe I was incorrect.
09:52:33 But I don't think Ms. Ferlita's comments were directed
09:52:36 at the transportation department necessarily.
09:52:41 I think it's just --
09:52:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Frustrated today.

09:52:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: We have been making comments about this
09:52:52 the past three years and this was a very minor
09:52:55 presentation, not a three-page presentation but we
09:53:00 have been inundated with 100-page documents up here
09:53:05 and request requested to make informed decisions on
09:53:08 them that day.
09:53:11 I really don't think any of that was directed at you
09:53:13 and your graphic illustration that you had.
09:53:17 And if they were all that simple, I don't think these
09:53:24 guys would be having a problem with it at all but it's
09:53:27 just a culmination of what's been happening over the
09:53:29 past three years.
09:53:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: I really appreciate that because I was
09:53:33 in the back when I heard Mr. Harrison, and I'm sure he
09:53:35 can hear me in the back just like I heard him, his
09:53:39 rendition of woefully understaffed is something I have
09:53:42 been talking about for city employees for a long tame.
09:53:45 I think when I started to express my frustration at
09:53:48 the way business is conducted here, it has nothing to
09:53:53 do with you, Stephani, you are understaffed.
09:53:56 We gave to the you at the last minute.
09:53:58 But when you do give it to us at the last minute I

09:54:01 think it is our due diligence to hold it, to digest
09:54:04 it, to call you and say, can you come in?
09:54:06 I don't understand this, and how about this?
09:54:08 How did you come up with these percentages?
09:54:10 You know what?
09:54:11 There are a lot of different things that we can add to
09:54:12 make this more beneficial so you don't have to look at
09:54:15 it for a long time and change it again, because there
09:54:18 is some oversight and it wasn't comprehensive enough.
09:54:22 I don't know what determined or what factors came in
09:54:24 to play for you to come up with the percentages and
09:54:26 the suggestion, et cetera.
09:54:29 There's some research done.
09:54:30 Did you look at the different dealerships?
09:54:32 And see percentagewise, just to have some guidelines.
09:54:35 How many compact cars as opposed to full size cars are
09:54:37 sold in the Tampa area?
09:54:39 How much depth?
09:54:41 So when we do something let's make sure we have as
09:54:45 much information as we can to make the most informed
09:54:48 decision.
09:54:48 And this has been forever.

09:54:49 I'm sorry you happened to be here.
09:54:51 Because I know that later on sometimes it's an issue
09:54:53 and the media will come up and say, wow, look at
09:54:56 council voted that, council approved that.
09:54:58 You go back, oh, no, I don't think I voted on that.
09:55:02 Well, based on the information we had on any
09:55:03 particular item, not this one, any particular item, we
09:55:06 base our decision on what we have in front of us.
09:55:08 And it makes a lot more common sense to have this
09:55:12 stuff in front of us before we come here.
09:55:17 I see my friend Mary Alvarez saying, I'm not a quick
09:55:20 study and I can't suggest it, maybe somebody else can.
09:55:23 You shouldn't even have to say that, Mary.
09:55:25 You should have what any legislator has, is the time
09:55:28 to look at this.
09:55:28 It's not a matter of who can digest in the two minutes
09:55:31 and make a quick decision.
09:55:32 That's not doing our job.
09:55:33 So my point again is that if that were the
09:55:38 interpretation that anybody else other than Mr.
09:55:40 Harrison had, my comment is incorrect.
09:55:43 I protect the staff.

09:55:44 I know you are understaffed, particularly
09:55:47 transportation.
09:55:47 I have said this a hundred times with Mr. LaMotte.
09:55:51 He's trying to do the best he can with what he has.
09:55:53 Certainly understaffed.
09:55:54 But the point is, it's a process, it's not the
09:55:56 transportation department.
09:55:59 So I wanted to clarify that.
09:56:00 And I apologize if it came across any other way.
09:56:03 You were not in that equation at all.
09:56:06 Just general comment.
09:56:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know whether to get involved
09:56:14 in this discussion or not but I'll propose a
09:56:16 suggestion, that council too the opportunity to look
09:56:20 at the information that's been provided, continue it
09:56:22 for a week's time, perhaps, unfinished business, then
09:56:25 bring it back so that everybody will have an
09:56:27 opportunity to vote whatever motion is made with
09:56:30 regard to whatever direction you wish to give the
09:56:32 administration with regard to this item.
09:56:35 And --
09:56:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's a good idea.

09:56:38 And to follow up with what I was saying, Mr. Shelby, I
09:56:40 agree with you, because I'm sure if any of us have any
09:56:44 questions -- if one week is not enough, two weeks,
09:56:55 whatever.
09:56:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be to reappear next
09:56:58 week under unfinished business.
09:57:05 >> Second.
09:57:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Clerk, did you say -- okay, all right.
09:57:13 Second?
09:57:14 Mr. Dingfelder, question on the motion.
09:57:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know that we should really
09:57:18 do anything on this particular issue in isolation.
09:57:22 I think that we have heard from Cathy.
09:57:27 I saw some nods in the back from ray Chiaramonte.
09:57:33 I think we should study it holistically. The contact
09:57:39 space issue, if we -- the compact space issue, if we
09:57:43 put it in that direction it moneys it's going to have
09:57:46 a contract on the total development picture and a lot
09:57:48 of other things.
09:57:49 So I don't think we should look at it in isolation.
09:57:51 I think we should put that discussion off until we
09:57:54 have a workshop on the total parking subject.

09:58:00 And I love the workshop, by the way, that we had
09:58:03 yesterday.
09:58:03 I love the format of us sitting in the audience log at
09:58:06 a screen, having presentations, people come up and
09:58:10 make presentations.
09:58:11 It was wonderful.
09:58:12 And I think that that type of format was much better
09:58:16 than downstairs in that room.
09:58:20 In the mascot.
09:58:21 But, anyway, that's just a thought.
09:58:23 I think that discussion of parking, especially if
09:58:26 we -- obviously T.H.A.N. would need to be involved and
09:58:30 other groups.
09:58:31 It's probably a six or eight-week time delay.
09:58:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that the parking lots that
09:58:47 I see are really -- the design doesn't mimic the real
09:58:54 way we use them.
09:58:55 I would like to move ahead with the motion for this
09:59:00 percentage and also support what Mr. Dingfelder is
09:59:02 proposing because, frankly, it is an involved
09:59:05 conversation.
09:59:06 It's going to take awhile.

09:59:07 We all know how long it takes to translate policy
09:59:11 creation to ordinance form.
09:59:13 So I would like to do both.
09:59:14 I encourage you all to support the motion to put this
09:59:17 back on the agenda for next week.
09:59:18 And then I also look forward, Mr. Dingfelder, to
09:59:22 creating a special discussion meeting on our parking
09:59:24 requirement policy as a council.
09:59:35 Call the question on the motion.
09:59:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Wait a minute.
09:59:38 What -- excuse me.
09:59:40 Why are we bringing it back again next week?
09:59:42 You got me confused.
09:59:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be solely on the
09:59:47 conversation about having 40% compact requirement to
09:59:51 65%.
09:59:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think it's too early to do that
09:59:54 right now, even through a confession.
09:59:57 And I withdraw my motion -- my second on that.
10:00:00 Because I think Mr. Dingfelder's more comprehensive
10:00:03 study on this thing would be a better deal than just
10:00:07 coming back to give the transportation department some

10:00:11 time to digest and do the due diligence of getting the
10:00:16 transportation study, and going back with the parking
10:00:20 lot study.
10:00:25 I don't have it yet.
10:00:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I happen to agree with those two
10:00:28 colleagues.
10:00:28 I think that now we have your recommendation and we
10:00:32 all need a chance to digest that a little bit, that
10:00:34 given the full plate that we have in the
10:00:37 transportation world right now, I'm not sure that this
10:00:40 rises to the level of something that we need to work
10:00:44 on immediately.
10:00:46 And so I would just say probably it's a God idea to
10:00:50 lay this on the table for a little while and come back
10:00:53 and take a look when we figure out when we put out the
10:00:57 other fires in transportation that we have got to put
10:00:59 out right now.
10:01:00 >> Then I withdraw my motion but I would love to set
10:01:04 it for a special discussion meeting on parking
10:01:06 strategy.
10:01:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cathy, I need a recommendation.
10:01:10 I know your plate is full, too.

10:01:12 But I think it would be great to at least start to
10:01:14 have a community dialogue on this topic of parking.
10:01:17 And obviously it's very convoluted.
10:01:20 You have residential parking.
10:01:22 Single-family.
10:01:23 Muscle I-family.
10:01:24 Commercial.
10:01:25 Urban.
10:01:27 Suburban.
10:01:27 Et cetera.
10:01:29 But I'm thinking, eight to ten weeks, you know, to do
10:01:33 something like that.
10:01:34 >> For us to have a workshop on it and pull everybody
10:01:37 together, like in the Mascotte room?
10:01:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Like we did yesterday.
10:01:42 Were you there yesterday for that one?
10:01:44 >> No.
10:01:44 I don't think I was there yesterday.
10:01:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you wish to do a workshop that
10:01:51 way, you can do it at the end of a meeting for that
10:01:56 purpose.
10:01:56 Otherwise you have to coordinate with the other board.

10:02:04 Space unavailable due to Code Enforcement Board.
10:02:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's available Wednesday
10:02:09 afternoon because that's when we had the workshop.
10:02:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that was very fortuitous.
10:02:14 There are times when the Code Enforcement Board goes
10:02:17 very late in the afternoon.
10:02:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I guess they could do that when they
10:02:20 are making their study or whatever it is,, they can
10:02:25 check with all the boards.
10:02:28 >> Set it for the Mascotte room until we find out.
10:02:31 >> You know how we said we are going to start doing
10:02:34 workshops at 1:30 on Thursday because we don't have
10:02:36 anything that night.
10:02:37 On November 2nd, we have nothing that night.
10:02:40 At this point, a completely blank day.
10:02:44 I would suggest we do this at 1:30 on November 6 --
10:02:49 >>CATHY COYLE: I would ask exactly what you expect out
10:02:51 of staff on that.
10:02:56 Actually coming in December.
10:02:57 We have the joint land use study which is running
10:03:00 through January which is going to be a huge
10:03:02 undertaking.

10:03:03 We have many of the chapter 3 changes that still need
10:03:06 to occur.
10:03:08 A couple other -- the Bayshore overlay which I have a
10:03:11 report in October, and then submittal of the Planning
10:03:13 Commission in December.
10:03:15 We have so many projects, very little resources.
10:03:20 We can certainly have an open discussion on it.
10:03:22 I don't know what I can actually bring to the table
10:03:26 beyond basically what we have today.
10:03:27 I don't know how much research I would actually be
10:03:30 able to pull together in a matter of a few weeks.
10:03:33 >> So you need to go to January?
10:03:35 >> Before we get on the discussion of what we know
10:03:37 now.
10:03:37 >> If we wanted to have an open discussion with the
10:03:39 directions, and maybe we could at least take down
10:03:44 visions or ideas of what you heard from your
10:03:47 constituents and what we have seen in the rezoning
10:03:49 cases and that would give us a direction, then report
10:03:51 back in late January, early February, to actually move
10:03:54 forward with something.
10:03:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And invite the various communities,

10:03:59 the whole list.
10:04:00 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes, the 300 people.
10:04:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any of us have K a have meeting down
10:04:07 in the Mascotte room.
10:04:10 So I would suggest, Ms. Saul-Sena, why don't you
10:04:14 schedule it, keep us advised when you are going to do
10:04:16 this, and hear back once somebody is ready to take the
10:04:20 motion.
10:04:21 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Thank you.
10:04:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to item number 4.
10:04:29 We hear from the water department.
10:04:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll go ahead and schedule it so we
10:04:33 know -- I would say November 1st, which is a
10:04:37 Wednesday at 9 a.m. in the Mascotte room, to have a
10:04:40 general discussion.
10:04:43 >> Second.
10:04:44 (Motion carried).
10:04:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone here from the water department?
10:04:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I did speak with Darrell Smith and
10:04:53 he advised that they did submit a written memo.
10:04:59 The memo says throws no intention to do anything with
10:05:02 respect to any watering restrictions on the part of

10:05:04 the administration.
10:05:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:05:07 Item number 5.
10:05:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wanted to elaborate a little bit.
10:05:10 I know Mr. Baird and his senior staff are out of town
10:05:13 at a water conference, or water recycling, reuse
10:05:18 conference, and that's why he's not here.
10:05:21 Secondly, the memo is pretty comprehensive those part
10:05:26 of our package on item 4 that speaks to the fact that
10:05:29 even though we had some very isolated and intense
10:05:33 rains, it not raining like it needs to be.
10:05:35 And we are not getting the daily afternoon, you know,
10:05:39 God one-hour rains and it's not filling up the green
10:05:42 swamp and the river is still low.
10:05:44 So based upon all of that we are still in the drought
10:05:47 condition and everybody needs to water one day a week
10:05:51 pursuant to our rules, and conserve appropriately.
10:05:57 >>ROSE FERLITA: John, I agree with you.
10:05:59 Historically, for comparison, the county automatically
10:06:02 lifts the restrictions much quicker than the City of
10:06:04 Tampa.
10:06:05 And that doesn't as far as I'm concerned prove to be a

10:06:10 good practice.
10:06:10 I don't think it will hurt us.
10:06:12 In addition to that, that will give our marketing
10:06:14 department more opportunity to talk about reclaimed
10:06:15 water.
10:06:16 Wonderful thing.
10:06:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No one was suggesting that we were
10:06:19 going to lift watering restrictions across the board
10:06:22 or allow it to go back to two days a week.
10:06:24 This was a specific request about fountains and
10:06:28 whether or not they could be lifted for fountains.
10:06:31 I personally don't know enough about the water
10:06:33 department as to how big of an impact it would really
10:06:37 have, but ill accept their comprehensive report that
10:06:39 we shouldn't do anything at all right now.
10:06:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 5 to be continued to
10:06:45 September 21st.
10:06:46 >> So moved.
10:06:47 >> Second.
10:06:47 (Motion carried).
10:06:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 6.
10:06:54 Legal department.

10:07:03 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:07:05 This is item number 6.
10:07:15 We are still waiting for the development that would
10:07:19 allow an abatement.
10:07:21 Dy attend a visioning session.
10:07:23 I believe councilman Dingfelder was there as well.
10:07:25 The study area, as I understand, has been reduced to
10:07:28 the Bayshore as opposed to the larger area that was
10:07:30 discussed during the visioning process.
10:07:33 However, there have been no study objectives clearly
10:07:35 identified.
10:07:37 Staff has not identified anything in terms of a
10:07:40 particular development or design which can be targeted
10:07:43 as harmful in the interim.
10:07:45 The staff does plan on presenting this to the Planning
10:07:47 Commission early December 2006.
10:07:50 Unfortunately, there has been somebody staff -- Ms.
10:07:54 Lamboy is leaving and joining the Planning Commission
10:07:57 staff.
10:07:58 So at least we'll have a trained Planning Commission
10:08:03 staff, not that we don't have some already.
10:08:05 So essentially it's premature at this point, if you

10:08:08 want to put it on the calendar those fine.
10:08:12 I think we understand what council would like to have
10:08:14 happen.
10:08:14 I think the staff, when we have an adequate
10:08:17 understanding as to the nature of the issues that
10:08:19 should be abated, we can come to you as we did with
10:08:23 JLUS.
10:08:27 We need to be careful this arena because we are also
10:08:29 dealing with property rights.
10:08:30 So we need to have a predicate fact and a basis for
10:08:34 doing what we want to do.
10:08:36 And it's apparent according to what I am being told
10:08:38 there's not a lot of permits or applications coming in
10:08:41 right now anyway.
10:08:42 So practically speaking it may not be a big issue
10:08:44 either.
10:08:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Frankly I'm disappointed that we
10:08:50 aren't moving ahead, those of us who represent
10:08:52 constituents along Bayshore, have heard very, very
10:08:56 clearly what their concerns and wishes are.
10:08:57 And I hope that you will look at this.
10:08:59 I think putting something on the pending calendar, I

10:09:06 would rather put this on our agenda for the first
10:09:09 meeting in January to hear back if any progress has
10:09:13 been made or any clarity.
10:09:15 My motion would be to reschedule this for an update
10:09:18 the first week in January.
10:09:35 The first council meeting in January.
10:09:39 >>DAVID SMITH: If we are back sooner, we'll be back
10:09:41 sooner.
10:09:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But I don't want it to go on
10:09:44 pending calendar because then we never see it again.
10:09:47 >>GWEN MILLER: There's a motion and second.
10:09:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification of the motion whether
10:09:51 it's unfinished business.
10:09:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It would be January 4, and it would
10:09:56 be under unfinished business.
10:09:59 >> Motion and second.
10:10:00 (Motion carried).
10:10:00 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
10:10:19 Jimmy Cook is handing out to show examples of the
10:10:24 right-of-way that I think are involved with this item.
10:10:26 Over the past few months code enforcement has issued a
10:10:28 number of -- notice of violations relating to

10:10:33 encroaching in public right-of-way.
10:10:34 These violations include retaining walls and other
10:10:37 decorative features as well as landscaping that may be
10:10:41 causing visibility issues at intersections.
10:10:45 I believe, in fact, I'm scheduled to come before City
10:10:48 Council next week concerning the Palma Ceia area and
10:10:54 how staff is proposing to amend the code to consider
10:10:58 administrative remedies for these encroachments.
10:11:03 So it's timely that Seminole Heights, and the
10:11:06 violations that have been touted there, have come at
10:11:09 this time.
10:11:10 Because what staff is now proposing to do is deal with
10:11:16 both issues, retaining wall situations and those type
10:11:18 of encroachments along with the encroachments that are
10:11:22 occurring.
10:11:23 Right now the city code only allows for the process of
10:11:28 encroachment for permanent structures.
10:11:33 These are buildings, basically, and balconies, such as
10:11:37 that.
10:11:37 A fence or wooden retaining wall is not considered a
10:11:39 permanent structure, and currently is not allowed as
10:11:44 encroachment into public rights-of-way.

10:11:47 Jimmy has put them on the Elmo, the larger examples of
10:11:50 what -- he went out yesterday and shot these shots.
10:11:57 You can see that they this is a retaining wall.
10:12:09 He estimated the property line to be.
10:12:19 >>JAMES COOK: (off microphone).
10:12:21 >>GLORIA MOREDA: And they are very attractive, I
10:12:24 think.
10:12:24 This is a good example.
10:12:25 It appeared that this is new wood tilings that were
10:12:30 put in there.
10:12:31 You can see that that retaining -- that retaining wall
10:12:34 situation, they --
10:12:49 >>> Actually behind the tree.
10:12:52 >> Thought that, it wouldn't be there.
10:12:54 So there is real justification to allow for, I think,
10:12:57 streamlining of the encroachment process.
10:13:00 To deal with these historical, and especially the
10:13:03 retaining walls where it's holding back.
10:13:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you go to page 4, Gloria?
10:13:11 I think the little retaining walls on page 1, 2 and 3
10:13:15 are pretty consistent.
10:13:16 They seem to be about a foot or two tall.

10:13:19 >>GLORIA MOREDA: The page 4 are actually the legal
10:13:21 ones.
10:13:29 >> That one in particular that I'm looking at, that
10:13:31 one.
10:13:32 So that looks to be about five or six feet tall.
10:13:35 Why isn't that a fence in the front yard?
10:13:44 >>> (off microphone).
10:13:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's the dirt behind that?
10:13:48 Wow.
10:13:48 I stand corrected.
10:13:52 >>GLORIA MOREDA: It does have elevations going up.
10:13:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I stand corrected then.
10:14:00 >>GLORIA MOREDA: But those are actually legal -- they
10:14:03 are on private property so they are fine.
10:14:04 But there are situations where it makes sense to view
10:14:08 encroachments into the public right-of-way.
10:14:10 And we do want to streamline the encroachment process,
10:14:13 especially to recognize the historical encroachments.
10:14:17 I do want to emphasize those that hold harmless
10:14:29 agreements are required.
10:14:30 It may be necessary for them to come in and do
10:14:33 improvements in the right-of-way.

10:14:35 It's not to be assumed that the city should assume the
10:14:38 cost of reestablishing especially decorative
10:14:41 improvements to the public right-of-way.
10:14:45 I think looking at these pictures, you can see that
10:14:47 they are oftentimes very nice log improvements.
10:14:52 And enhance the neighborhood.
10:14:54 So we don't want to necessarily discourage that.
10:14:56 But we also -- the property owner needs to understand
10:15:00 that he needs to take responsibility or she needs to
10:15:04 take responsibility of assuming that cost, if in fact
10:15:08 public improvements are needed in that space.
10:15:11 In terms of the time line that we hope to come back
10:15:14 with you, we are wanting to come back with you -- to
10:15:19 you for the comprehensive approach to our code, in the
10:15:25 sense of dealing with the fences, the retaining walls,
10:15:28 the vacating process, and we are hoping that this all
10:15:33 can be accomplished in the -- by the end of the year.
10:15:40 I do want to tell you that I think at this point I
10:15:42 have been advising the code enforcement offices, since
10:15:46 they are the ones that have issued a number of these
10:15:48 violations, that if there is a public health safety
10:15:55 issue right now, he would don't want to delay the

10:15:58 processing of that code violation.
10:16:00 But if there is the ability, since we are trying to
10:16:05 deal with this in our amendment process, that to allow
10:16:08 for a continuance of any action against them till the
10:16:11 end of the year.
10:16:12 That way, we can try to resolve this before going for
10:16:17 code enforcement.
10:16:18 I did want to show you a couple of things that -- the
10:16:22 ones that were right at the edge of the street.
10:16:35 You can see that the retaining wall is right at the
10:16:37 edge of the street, at this location.
10:16:38 And one of the things that I do have concern about is
10:16:44 when people are taking these encroachments to the edge
10:16:47 of the pavement of the road, it really does become a
10:16:50 safety issue.
10:16:55 If you're walking down the Street maybe there is no
10:16:57 sidewalk and all of a sudden there is on coming
10:16:59 traffic.
10:17:00 We all have serious concerns about -- even though this
10:17:08 may be a low, 18 inches, the average person I think
10:17:10 would be fine jumping into that.
10:17:12 But if you are handicapped or whatever, it really does

10:17:16 become a safety issue.
10:17:17 And those are the types of things that I have to --
10:17:20 that we have to seriously consider in the amendments
10:17:23 that we talk to the code.
10:17:28 There is one other one that shows --
10:17:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are there any trees behind that
10:17:37 retaining wall?
10:17:45 >>> Just holding in the ground.
10:17:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did they put the ground there prior to
10:17:49 the retaining --
10:17:50 >>> That I don't know.
10:17:51 That to me looks relatively new.
10:17:54 I don't know which came first, the ground or the
10:17:56 retaining wall.
10:17:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Looking at the adjacent properties,
10:17:59 they seem to have --
10:18:04 >> When you look at this, you look at the amount of
10:18:12 vegetation.
10:18:13 That amount of vegetation can be very difficult for
10:18:16 them to see.
10:18:17 I mean, there are some safety issues here.
10:18:19 I wouldn't be surprised -- and I don't know if the

10:18:22 property owner is watching or anything.
10:18:24 But, you know, when you get something like this, you
10:18:31 think, this person does not want someone parking in
10:18:33 front of my property.
10:18:35 And, you know, there's another picture that has that
10:18:38 same -- what I think is the same effect.
10:19:02 Maybe it would make it hard for someone to open their
10:19:04 car door.
10:19:06 I don't know that that's the reason or what.
10:19:09 But, you know, of these things that we're seeing in
10:19:11 terms of improvements into the public right-of-way may
10:19:16 be a way to try to get people to not allow for parking
10:19:19 in front of their property, I think.
10:19:22 But those are the types of things that we are going to
10:19:24 be looking at and bringing back before council.
10:19:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Gloria, you and Jimmy have been
10:19:32 around enough to know that this is a very sensitive
10:19:35 subject for the individual property owners.
10:19:37 And I think those what we saw in Palma Ceia.
10:19:40 That's what we are hearing in Seminole Heights.
10:19:43 People put a lot of work into their own scheduling.
10:19:45 And then we have the physical issues of the retaining

10:19:48 walls that are actually holding dirt onto the
10:19:50 property.
10:19:50 Because if you don't hold it on property it goes into
10:19:55 our storm sewers.
10:19:56 So I'm confident that the two of you, when you work on
10:20:00 this, that you will be very, very sensitive to those
10:20:02 issues.
10:20:06 Obviously it's a very daunting balance between the
10:20:08 public needs and the individual.
10:20:10 >>GLORIA MOREDA: And we have been working closely with
10:20:13 Roy LaMotte and his staff to make sure that public
10:20:15 works is comfortable with the amendments that worry
10:20:19 going to bring forward.
10:20:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know you are scheduled on the
10:20:22 fence issue.
10:20:23 But the fence issue is really pretty similar.
10:20:25 >>GLORIA MOREDA: It's exactly the same.
10:20:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was going to suggest -- because
10:20:34 most of those fence cases have been abated, except for
10:20:37 the ones that are involved in the public health safety
10:20:41 issues, and those will move forward.
10:20:42 I don't have a Ned for you to come forward on the same

10:20:45 issue related to fencing, if you want to just bundle
10:20:47 them together, I'll make a motion to put off next
10:20:51 week.
10:20:51 >>GLORIA MOREDA: That would be great.
10:20:54 And I think our goal is in the next month to bring
10:20:57 back at least a draft of the ordinance, and at that
10:21:01 point maybe when could schedule a workshop or
10:21:03 something.
10:21:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That motion by next week.
10:21:12 Scheduled for next week.
10:21:13 But then put it off till --
10:21:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine, John.
10:21:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And Gloria, based on what your
10:21:25 comments were, that you had some conversations with,
10:21:28 the Old Seminole Heights neighborhood association, and
10:21:31 I think that was good.
10:21:32 Because you got that side of the story there.
10:21:36 >>GLORIA MOREDA: We are very sympathetic especially
10:21:39 when many of these have been there for a very long
10:21:42 time.
10:21:42 It makes sense to -- you know, an easier accounting of
10:21:47 the encroachments, and processing, as long as the

10:21:51 public use aspect of the public right-of-way are
10:21:53 protected, staff is willing to come up with an
10:21:57 administrative remedy.
10:22:02 >> Glad to hear that.
10:22:03 Thank you very much.
10:22:04 >>GWEN MILLER: How long do you need?
10:22:05 >>GLORIA MOREDA: I think the whole process is to the
10:22:08 end of the year.
10:22:09 Jimmy Cook has been working very hard on trying to
10:22:13 draft the amendments to the code.
10:22:15 And then we want to get with the public works
10:22:17 department.
10:22:17 I think a month to six weeks would be best before City
10:22:21 Council for at least the draft.
10:22:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:22:25 Six weeks.
10:22:27 Mr. Dingfelder, your motion.
10:22:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's pull the discussion off of
10:22:30 next week's calendar, we'll bundle it all together and
10:22:33 schedule it for six weeks from today.
10:22:36 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
10:22:37 (Motion carried).

10:22:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Under unfinished business.
10:22:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so we are clear.
10:22:45 >>GWEN MILLER: 12th of October.
10:22:58 10 a.m.
10:22:59 Unfinished business.
10:23:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
10:23:10 >> Martin Shelby, City Council attorney.
10:23:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Have you been sworn?
10:23:16 [ Laughter ]
10:23:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I have been sworn at.
10:23:21 I'm here on item number 8.
10:23:25 As you know, under Florida's resign to run law, Ms.
10:23:34 Ferlita and Mr. White were required to with resign
10:23:40 from City Council before they can run for office.
10:23:42 Their terms are due to expire on April 1st of next
10:23:44 year as are all of your terms.
10:23:48 Under the city charter, a majority of the City Council
10:23:52 must make fill those vacancies within 30 days from the
10:23:57 date they exist.
10:23:58 Therefore, you must make a decision by December
10:24:02 21st.
10:24:06 Of in expectation of council wanting to have a

10:24:08 defined, orderly and fair process for the selection of
10:24:11 the remaining terms I have drafted for your review a
10:24:16 document entitled the City Council policy and
10:24:19 procedure guidelines fulfilling vacancies in district
10:24:22 2 and district 5 existing on November 21st of
10:24:26 2005.
10:24:26 And rather than go into it -- I'm sorry, 2006.
10:24:31 Thank you for that correction.
10:24:32 And -- this is the first time I have ever used the
10:24:35 Elmo.
10:24:36 [ Laughter ]
10:24:47 Basically for the benefit of your viewing audience, on
10:24:54 October 12, 2006, I will have presented to you a draft
10:24:57 of the application form to be reviewed by you by City
10:25:00 Council.
10:25:03 You will direct Leme to make changes if you wish.
10:25:06 That form will be prepared with feedback from members
10:25:11 of City Council if you wish either before or on
10:25:14 October 12th.
10:25:16 It will be with feedback to the city clerk and with
10:25:19 city attorney David Smith.
10:25:24 You will direct to prepare the final version, you will

10:25:26 approve the application, and direct the city clerk to
10:25:29 make the form available to the public both in hard
10:25:32 copy, at the office, or by electronic means.
10:25:37 November 15th, 2006, Wednesday at 5:00, will be
10:25:42 the deadline for application submission.
10:25:47 No deadline will be -- there will be no application
10:25:51 accepted after that time and the deadline shall not be
10:25:54 extended because the next day, at the regular meeting
10:25:56 of Thursday, November 16th, 2006, the compiled
10:26:01 applications will be distributed to City Council.
10:26:03 On November 30th, at the regular meeting, the
10:26:08 people will have the opportunity to submit a completed
10:26:11 applications, 3-minute presentations, at which time
10:26:17 City Council will have the opportunity to question the
10:26:19 individual applicant, and after that, a ballot
10:26:24 selection for your appointments.
10:26:29 Council will then direct me to prepare a resolution
10:26:32 for presentation to City Council as the first order of
10:26:35 business at the evening meeting, which you will
10:26:38 already have scheduled for November 30th.
10:26:42 And after that, that will require a vote of four.
10:26:49 And after that selection the following week at the

10:26:52 first order of new business the knew council members
10:26:54 will be administered the oath of office by city clerk.
10:26:57 In a nutshell, that is my recommendation.
10:27:03 I am prepared to receive questions from counsel or
10:27:06 comments, make any changes that council wishes.
10:27:07 If council should choose to accept the draft as it is
10:27:12 written in the final for today, I have prepared a
10:27:14 resolution with that document attached to it for
10:27:18 council action today.
10:27:20 But, if not, I will ask it to be continued to make
10:27:22 whatever changes council wishes and bring it back to
10:27:25 you for your approval.
10:27:26 Thank you.
10:27:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Shelby, for giving us
10:27:30 this a couple of days before we have -- [ Laughter ]
10:27:37 I have read it and I didn't see anything that I would
10:27:39 change.
10:27:39 I think that you did a great job on this based on the
10:27:42 fact that you and I have never been through this
10:27:44 process before.
10:27:45 And of course we are going to miss these two jokers on
10:27:50 the side.

10:27:52 [ Laughter ]
10:27:52 But I just want to thank you for bringing this to our
10:27:57 attention as quickly.
10:28:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you very much, council member
10:28:07 Alvarez.
10:28:09 Once council does take action on this, this document
10:28:12 will be available to the public, so they'll also be
10:28:14 able to share in the guidelines of what your
10:28:17 procedures will be.
10:28:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Also, we'll listen to other
10:28:21 discussion.
10:28:22 But then I would like to make the motion.
10:28:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:28:25 You did a great job.
10:28:27 It is so clear.
10:28:27 There's one thing I would like to add.
10:28:29 And I'm saying this as a person who was running for
10:28:36 office many, many years ago when there was a situation
10:28:38 of a vacancy and an appointment made.
10:28:41 At that time, council expressed the concern that a
10:28:43 person who was seeking this appointment not run for
10:28:49 office and the person selected said she agreed to.

10:28:51 That then after she was appointed she said, oh, my
10:28:54 constituents really want me to run for office.
10:28:56 And it struck me as a little disingenuous.
10:29:00 So I would like to spell it out clearly for everyone
10:29:02 is to have as part of the -- is it the intention of
10:29:08 council not to select someone who is then going to run
10:29:10 for one of the vacancies, the seats on City Council.
10:29:14 Because I think that the purpose of this is to find
10:29:17 someone in the community who is an upstanding person
10:29:20 with integrity who is not seeking this particular
10:29:24 elected office at this time.
10:29:25 And I really feel very strongly that we should add to
10:29:28 these guidelines that a person seeking one of these
10:29:31 slots agree and understand that they will not then
10:29:36 flip around and say they are running for this -- for a
10:29:39 City Council seat.
10:29:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me speak to that first.
10:29:44 I agree with that philosophically.
10:29:47 I think I would not vote -- I think I would not vote
10:29:52 for anybody who I would anticipate would be running
10:29:56 three months later.
10:29:57 But I don't know that we should make that a policy as

10:30:01 part of this procedure.
10:30:02 I think -- I think perhaps the better way to do it
10:30:06 would be just ask the question as part of the
10:30:08 application form that Marty will bring us.
10:30:13 Is it your intent to run for office, you know, in
10:30:17 March 2007?
10:30:18 Yes or no?
10:30:19 That way, they answer.
10:30:23 You can't hold them to it.
10:30:24 There's nothing binding we can do, if they lie, but at
10:30:28 least the public would see on their application that
10:30:31 they said no.
10:30:34 And then if we pick them and four weeks later they
10:30:37 change their mind, at least that will all be part of
10:30:38 the public record.
10:30:40 But, anyway, that's just the way I look at it.
10:30:43 So as part of the application form -- and Marty, you
10:30:47 haven't drafted that yet.
10:30:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's in the process of being done.
10:30:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Couldn't we say it is the intent of
10:30:54 council not to appoint --
10:30:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can make that motion, but --

10:31:03 let me raise a couple other issues, Mary, if I could.
10:31:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Sure.
10:31:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Line 2 on page 2 says application
10:31:14 shall only be accepted on forms approved for such
10:31:16 purpose by council.
10:31:19 What if somebody attaches their ten-page resume and
10:31:23 their 30 letters of support?
10:31:25 I think we need to accommodate that, because some
10:31:28 people will want to do that.
10:31:30 So I think your idea probably is, you have got to fill
10:31:33 out the basic application.
10:31:35 But if you want to supplement that with additional
10:31:38 information, we wouldn't turn away the supplemental
10:31:40 information.
10:31:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt, but that was
10:31:47 my understanding, that if they wish to annex anything
10:31:50 to that, that would be part of the directions or
10:31:52 instruction was regard to the form.
10:31:54 I certainly don't think council would wish to bar
10:31:56 anybody from doing that.
10:31:57 The purpose of having the application would be very
10:32:02 briefly two fold.

10:32:03 Number one, it makes it a uniform process.
10:32:05 It allows council to ask what questions it wishes to
10:32:08 ask of all the applicants at the same time and be able
10:32:10 to compare your answers.
10:32:12 Number two, in this day and age it's easy to turn on
10:32:15 your personal computer, pop out a resume.
10:32:19 To go through this process obviously shows somebody is
10:32:21 committed to the position, and perhaps narrow down the
10:32:23 number that you will have to work with.
10:32:25 And the third thing I would like to address is,
10:32:28 although one can change one's mind, having a hard copy
10:32:31 of an application will also allow you to have a
10:32:34 notarized signature affirming the truth of its
10:32:37 contents, so that will show that at least as of that
10:32:41 day, that person committed to making that statement.
10:32:47 But with regard to denying one the ability to seek
10:32:50 public office, council can make it a policy they will
10:32:55 not appoint, but perhaps a better way of doing it
10:32:59 would be to follow council member Dingfelder's
10:33:02 suggestion to put it on the application, and unless
10:33:05 council wishes to by majority vote, but then that will
10:33:08 open a whole discussion as to whether council wishes

10:33:10 to do that, whereas individually you can make that
10:33:13 determination as to whether you personally will
10:33:15 support somebody who will use this opportunity to
10:33:19 become an incumbent to run for public office or only
10:33:23 support those who choose to serve in the allotted time
10:33:26 remaining till April 1st.
10:33:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I can just finish.
10:33:32 Two other things.
10:33:33 One, there has been some discussion -- I don't know if
10:33:36 it's been public from this board or not -- about
10:33:39 whether or not we would ask TPD to do a little
10:33:42 background check or slight investigation of the people
10:33:46 that would apply before we make the final appointment.
10:33:51 And I am not going to say anything more about that.
10:33:53 But I think it's something that we might look into it.
10:33:57 And I'm not saying exhaustive background checks.
10:34:00 You know,.
10:34:01 But just something.
10:34:02 I don't know.
10:34:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How many people do you figure are
10:34:07 going to want to do this job?
10:34:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, if that's a way to weed them

10:34:12 out, it might be okay.
10:34:13 But, anyway, Mary, we don't want to get caught in a
10:34:16 situation where we appoint somebody and all of a
10:34:18 sudden a week later Janet or Allen find out they have
10:34:24 a felony record.
10:34:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You have to be an electorate.
10:34:33 >> I am throwing these questions out.
10:34:35 Let's discuss them.
10:34:36 If you want to disregard them, that's fine.
10:34:40 It's important, Mary.
10:34:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, do we do that with the
10:34:45 Planning Commission, the candidates?
10:34:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.
10:34:48 City Council members.
10:34:51 >> They are doing it for the board.
10:34:52 >> They don't do it for us.
10:34:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But the electorate does it for us.
10:34:59 One last thing.
10:35:00 If we intend this to be a public process, I have a
10:35:03 little bit of concern.
10:35:05 And I think it should be a public process.
10:35:07 I can't say that enough.

10:35:09 We are starting out on the right foot.
10:35:10 We have a process.
10:35:12 We have a procedure.
10:35:12 The question is, what happens when people start
10:35:17 calling us, when the candidates start calling us, can
10:35:19 we make it, as Linda indicated, perhaps our intent
10:35:24 that, you know, that we discourage people from
10:35:27 lobbying us individually, from the candidates lobbying
10:35:33 individually?
10:35:34 I want to throw that out for discussion.
10:35:43 If I haven't accepted their calls how do I know the
10:35:46 rest of everybody else hasn't?
10:35:48 >>GWEN MILLER: You have my word.
10:35:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You have my word, too.
10:35:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then maybe we should make it a
10:35:53 policy.
10:35:54 >> Hear hear.
10:35:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita?
10:35:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have something to add but go ahead.
10:36:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we are on the verge of
10:36:04 taking ourselves way too seriously in this process.
10:36:09 This will be a decision that each one of us will make.

10:36:12 It is -- I am not saying that the process shouldn't be
10:36:16 well thought out.
10:36:17 But what we are doing is pointing two people in what
10:36:22 is essentially a caretaker position for three months.
10:36:29 >> Five.
10:36:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: From December through the end of
10:36:31 March.
10:36:38 I think this should not be a job application where you
10:36:40 have to go through this litany of things we are
10:36:47 proposing.
10:36:47 And Ms. Saul-Sena, I think from a policy directive
10:36:50 each one of us has their own opinion whether or not
10:36:53 this person should or should not be allowed to seek
10:36:56 this office.
10:36:57 I think we don't want to -- we do want people to serve
10:37:00 for the right reason.
10:37:01 But for us to say it is the stated policy of this
10:37:04 council that we will not appoint anyone to that.
10:37:07 I think that that's a difficult prospect for us.
10:37:11 So I would just encourage us, as my colleagues, I
10:37:14 think, have said, don't overcomplicate this.
10:37:18 Don't discourage people from putting their names in.

10:37:21 And we will all make what will be a very intensely
10:37:26 personal decision, based on reasons that we may not
10:37:32 care to share with everyone.
10:37:34 And I think that it is just -- I think the more and
10:37:40 more complicated and convoluted that he would make
10:37:44 this, the less chance that we are all going to have to
10:37:47 come out looking well here.
10:37:52 I don't know exactly what I just said.
10:37:54 [ Laughter ]
10:37:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I understand.
10:37:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we need to simplify as
10:38:00 opposed to complicate.
10:38:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, council members, that will
10:38:03 come to you, and that's why I had it for awoke before
10:38:07 you have to make a decision.
10:38:08 That will come to you on October 12th.
10:38:10 You will have the floor and as a collective body you
10:38:14 will give direction whether that meets your need to
10:38:17 meet your determination.
10:38:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to add something.
10:38:26 I just want to bring this to the attention of my
10:38:27 colleagues.

10:38:28 When I came to this office and won election in 1999, I
10:38:34 wasn't replacing somebody who had terminus at the end
10:38:40 of their term.
10:38:43 Fran Davin actually had this position before me.
10:38:48 Because you have a council member, and then she
10:38:50 departed, and then she came in, and then I came in,
10:38:53 you had some fragmented type leadership because
10:38:58 everybody leads differently.
10:38:59 It is beneficial to me, and Fran was very nice.
10:39:01 We had lunch and we talked on several occasions and
10:39:03 she walked me through the ropes and showed me what to
10:39:06 do.
10:39:07 In an effort to try to do the same thing, I was naive
10:39:09 in terms of the policy and in terms of the charter.
10:39:12 And I thought that the person could be selected before
10:39:16 they actually are put in office and he said, no, it
10:39:20 has to be after the time we resign effective whatever
10:39:23 it is,, because I hoped they could come into my office
10:39:29 and show them through the thing, and benefit, like I
10:39:32 benefited from what Fran showed me.
10:39:33 But that wasn't the case, that was a different
10:39:35 transition.

10:39:37 I want you to think about this.
10:39:39 And it's ultimately your decision.
10:39:40 Linda, you bring up a God point.
10:39:42 John brings up the opposite good point.
10:39:44 If you have somebody who comes in, has the
10:39:47 qualifications and has the wherewithal and the energy
10:39:49 and the commitment to try to run for this office, if
10:39:52 he or she is here for three or four months, that can
10:39:56 work for them or against them.
10:39:57 I think that can be a benefit or a disadvantage.
10:39:59 Because once they are here, and they are in the
10:40:04 process, people can determine whether or not that's
10:40:06 the type of legislator they want, before they commit
10:40:08 to voting for that person.
10:40:10 So if it's not the right person, I think the process
10:40:13 itself will weed them out as a viable candidate in
10:40:16 March.
10:40:17 I don't know.
10:40:18 That's just my thought based on how I came into this.
10:40:24 I mean, I think you don't want to discourage a bunch
10:40:27 of people for different reasons, because the process
10:40:29 will take care of that.

10:40:30 And I think Mr. Harrison is right.
10:40:32 This is going to be a personal decision from each
10:40:34 council member who remains to try to decide who is
10:40:38 best to fit the big shoes of Mr. White and shoes of
10:40:44 Ms. Ferlita. But I think it will all take care of
10:40:47 itself.
10:40:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Just real briefly.
10:40:50 I tend to agree with Mr. Dingfelder about the
10:40:52 background check.
10:40:53 But I don't agree for this reason, in concept, the
10:40:58 theory, it's wonderful.
10:40:59 All of the applications will be in the clerk's office
10:41:01 a week before.
10:41:02 I guarantee you, the media will do their job as
10:41:05 they've done so eloquently for the past three weeks.
10:41:08 [ Laughter ]
10:41:09 And I don't think they would relinquish their
10:41:14 responsibility at all.
10:41:15 The other thing is -- and when you have people that
10:41:20 will be coming in to fill the jobs on the interim
10:41:23 basis, that gives someone else, an outsider, the
10:41:27 opportunity to come in and see what a real part-time

10:41:30 job this is.
10:41:32 And see if this is really what they want.
10:41:37 The other thing that I would like to clear up, I know
10:41:39 that it's a draft form but I would just like to put on
10:41:42 the record for the people that may be interested in
10:41:45 running for my seat, and just want them to know that
10:41:50 they must be a resident of this district, which you do
10:41:52 have on your draft form, they must live within the
10:41:55 district.
10:41:55 And to apply for either one of these, they must live
10:41:58 within the city limits of Tampa for the past year,
10:42:01 which is a part of our charter.
10:42:06 But more than that, I think the people that will be
10:42:08 standing before us putting in the applications are
10:42:10 going to be some of the same people that we see day in
10:42:14 and day out, our community activists, our neighborhood
10:42:18 leaders that have been coming before this body for
10:42:20 years and years in the past, and I really don't think
10:42:24 there's going to be a bombardment of a new genre of
10:42:31 people, that the community as a whole, respect and or
10:42:38 recommend someone in that particular neighborhood, I
10:42:40 think that ought to be taken into great consideration,

10:42:42 too.
10:42:43 And I don't necessarily think, just like you said, Ms.
10:42:47 Saul-Sena, somebody said, well, that wasn't my
10:42:49 intention yesterday but, oh, I was bombarded by
10:42:51 constituents to run.
10:42:52 I don't think -- I don't even know if it's legally
10:42:56 defensible we can say that if you are running for
10:43:00 office you can't apply.
10:43:02 That may be a deterrent as well.
10:43:04 They may get in here and find out, like I said, what a
10:43:08 real "part time" job this is, that people say, I don't
10:43:12 want any part of that, and-or, it's just a whole
10:43:19 arduous process.
10:43:20 But I'm glad that you all are not me.
10:43:25 And, you know, I really think that -- I really don't
10:43:29 care if you are going to be bombarded with a whole lot
10:43:31 of new people that we don't know a lot about, and that
10:43:35 we are not either respectful of or at least know who
10:43:39 they are, or respected community leaders.
10:43:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby and I discussed, on page
10:43:50 1, if you look at section.
10:43:54 The section, there's actually a conflict between the

10:43:56 two provisions.
10:43:58 As you know, council, any action we ever take, whether
10:44:00 or not it's resolution or whatever, we always have to
10:44:03 have four votes.
10:44:05 That's in 2.07.
10:44:07 But section 8.21 specifically -- specifically says
10:44:11 when we are going to fill a vacancy, it's done by a
10:44:14 majority of the remaining City Council.
10:44:17 Mr. Shelby, anytime you have a conflicting provision
10:44:21 like that, I think we probably need a legal opinion,
10:44:24 and ill defer to you on this.
10:44:25 But how do we get around that conflict?
10:44:34 Three votes or four?
10:44:36 >> If you look at section 8.21, that is under the
10:44:40 related laws, which were approved by special acts.
10:44:46 Section 2.07 is part of the charter itself.
10:44:48 I too was aware of that seeming conflict.
10:44:56 I would point out section 10.01 within the charter
10:44:59 itself, says all elections shall be conducted and
10:45:03 vacancies filled in accordance with the provisions of
10:45:05 law.
10:45:11 So I take that that the council does recognize the

10:45:14 validity of 8.21.
10:45:17 And the way I have resolved it is to view your process
10:45:23 as a procedural process to choose the name.
10:45:26 Therefore, see if you can follow me, in order to
10:45:28 select the name for appointments will require a vote
10:45:33 of a majority of the remaining members.
10:45:36 And please, council members, the five of you who
10:45:39 remain, I beg you to make sure that you are here on
10:45:45 November 30th.
10:45:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My 10th anniversary.
10:45:50 I don't know.
10:45:50 >>GWEN MILLER:
10:45:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm already working with the city
10:45:55 clerk and administration to make sure that agenda will
10:45:57 be light on that day for you to be able to schedule
10:45:59 the time for the presentations and discussions.
10:46:03 And I ask for the administration support.
10:46:06 And I'm in the process.
10:46:09 And working with Ms. Coles and land development to
10:46:12 make sure there are no first readings that day to be
10:46:17 able to assist you.
10:46:18 You make your selection by ballot.

10:46:21 That requires three.
10:46:23 When you make your selection, you direct me to prepare
10:46:27 a resolution for appointment.
10:46:33 And that will come back to you the evening of the
10:46:34 30th.
10:46:35 After you go through the process and the majority of
10:46:37 council has made their decision, you will have that
10:46:40 resolution for the official appointment.
10:46:42 That will require the vote of four.
10:46:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Will we have two separate battles?
10:46:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's correct.
10:46:53 You will pick them up separately.
10:46:56 Tanned district 2 at-large seat will be addressed
10:46:59 first just so people know the order.
10:47:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can people apply for both?
10:47:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
10:47:07 That is specifically in here.
10:47:09 Rather than complicate mat towers see whether somebody
10:47:14 is eligible for another seat.
10:47:15 They specifically have to choose at the time of the
10:47:17 submission of the application.
10:47:18 If they don't choose, or if they put down both by this

10:47:23 guideline, the clerk is authorized to reject the
10:47:26 application in its entirety.
10:47:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So it will take three votes to
10:47:36 appoint the person, to select them, but it will take
10:47:39 four of us then to procedurally install that person,
10:47:43 or to make it official.
10:47:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
10:47:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And that's fine.
10:47:50 Whoever gets the three or however the vote happens.
10:47:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could end up with a 2-1-1.
10:48:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With the ballot?
10:48:03 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes, with the votes of five councilmen.
10:48:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Let me address that so you know. I
10:48:10 direct your attention to page 3, paragraph L.
10:48:15 It says in the event no applicant receives the three
10:48:18 requisite votes, only the applicants receiving the
10:48:21 greatest and the next greatest or equal number of
10:48:24 votes shall be eligible for another ballot.
10:48:26 The city clerk will then distribute another ballot
10:48:29 with the only names legible being those applicants in
10:48:31 the run-off, and to expedite those things, what
10:48:34 they'll do is cross it off or take out the other names

10:48:36 and present you with that.
10:48:37 And that will continue until you get the requisite
10:48:40 three votes.
10:48:40 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is it legible or eligible?
10:48:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Legible.
10:48:46 What happens for the sake of time, we use the same
10:48:49 ballots but just cross out the names of those people
10:48:51 who have been eliminated.
10:48:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well done, Mr. Shelby.
10:48:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We look forward to seeing you in
10:49:01 October.
10:49:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If there are no changes, if it's
10:49:03 acceptable to council the way it is, I have removed
10:49:05 the word draft from the front page.
10:49:07 I have prepared a resolution setting forth what I
10:49:09 explained to you.
10:49:10 And I will submit to the clerk if you wish to move the
10:49:12 resolution.
10:49:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
10:49:15 >> Move the resolution.
10:49:16 (Motion Carried).
10:49:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Subsequently you are going to

10:49:23 develop the form that people fill out?
10:49:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that will come to council not for
10:49:27 decision but for direction on October 12th.
10:49:29 Council will finalize it by motion on October
10:49:32 19th.
10:49:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I would like to ask and you
10:49:41 all don't want to disqualify somebody.
10:49:43 But I want to know what their intentions are.
10:49:47 I would like it on the form, do you intend to run for
10:49:51 office or not?
10:49:53 We'll put it on the form.
10:49:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then we go through each one and ask
10:50:02 them.
10:50:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.
10:50:05 But what I will do, I will seek input from everybody.
10:50:08 And that being the suggest, I will place it on the
10:50:11 form.
10:50:11 If council wishes to have it removed, they can do so
10:50:14 by majority vote and take it off.
10:50:16 And I'll bring it back on the 19th.
10:50:20 >>KEVIN WHITE: I thought we just moved the resolution
10:50:22 to accept the draft as is.

10:50:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The guidelines.
10:50:29 It will come back to you.
10:50:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The application, you are going to put
10:50:37 on is it your intention to run again?
10:50:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
10:50:41 And if council wishes by majority vote to remove that,
10:50:44 I will do so.
10:50:45 Unless council wants to make it a motion to either put
10:50:48 it in or not put it in.
10:50:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: If they want to run for office after
10:50:55 their term here, so-called -- then it's up to the
10:51:03 voters to say whether they want to be here in City
10:51:08 Council or not.
10:51:09 It's not up to council to decide is it your
10:51:11 intention --
10:51:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: we can ask the question verbally
10:51:15 but it will take longer.
10:51:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: All they have to say is yes or no.
10:51:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I am going to make a request
10:51:21 of you.
10:51:21 If you have individual concerns, and obviously you
10:51:24 have already verbally raised an issue -- and I'll take

10:51:27 that into consideration -- what I will do is I will
10:51:31 prepare a draft.
10:51:32 You have the opportunity to receive it well in advance
10:51:35 of the 12th.
10:51:35 And council can direct on the 19th to make
10:51:38 whatever changes it wishes.
10:51:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If this issue keeps come back and
10:51:45 forth, it can be resolved today.
10:51:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll make a motion we don't put it on
10:51:50 the application.
10:51:51 >>KEVIN WHITE: Second.
10:51:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would prefer that you not take up
10:51:57 the matter today for several reasons.
10:52:02 And one of them is, you're just setting forth the
10:52:05 procedures, and not getting into the nitty and the
10:52:11 gritty as to whether or not there will be a
10:52:13 determination.
10:52:16 It's just a one question on the application itself.
10:52:21 >> I would be afraid to see the answer to that
10:52:24 question.
10:52:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Not afraid.
10:52:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's not binding.

10:52:32 (all speaking at once)
10:52:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Point of order, council members, if I
10:52:38 may raise it.
10:52:39 It was not my intention today to talk about the
10:52:41 details of the application.
10:52:44 And here's what I will do.
10:52:45 Rather than make it a discussion today, rather than
10:52:51 make it a discussion today --
10:52:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Come back to us.
10:52:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If council member Saul-Sena wishes me
10:52:58 to proceed, and not have it in, nothing precludes her
10:53:03 from making that motion on the 12th, to put it in,
10:53:05 and if a majority -- then it will be there.
10:53:10 Likewise I could put it in and if somebody makes a
10:53:13 motion to have it removed.
10:53:14 Frankly, council, this is not an argument for today,
10:53:17 with all due candor, I have not worked it through yet.
10:53:20 So I would appreciate the opportunity to come back to
10:53:22 you with a draft rather than have you make your
10:53:25 decision on the same day, you will have a full week to
10:53:27 be able to make the final version.
10:53:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you withdraw your motion?

10:53:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
10:53:35 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion is withdrawn.
10:53:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, council.
10:53:40 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item number 9.
10:53:45 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:53:55 You asked me to come back with whether we could amend
10:53:57 our ordinances to allow transit shelters and
10:54:03 advertisements on transit shelters.
10:54:06 It was Hartline to made this request.
10:54:09 As you know, we have a theme in the city that
10:54:14 prohibits off-site signs and has advertising on them
10:54:17 which are not on-site.
10:54:19 We had the opportunity to research how other
10:54:22 jurisdictions dealt with this as well as case law in
10:54:25 Florida statute.
10:54:26 Florida statute does allow for this type of transit
10:54:28 shelter advertising.
10:54:31 Many other jurisdictions also allow for off-site on
10:54:37 shelters even though that jurisdiction also prohibits
10:54:39 off-site advertising.
10:54:42 Therefore, I would recommend, if council does want to
10:54:45 go ahead and implement this to direct legal to draft

10:54:47 an ordinance on amending chapter 22 which is the
10:54:51 ordinance which talks about what you can do to allow
10:54:59 to us draft ordinance in light of the case law, in
10:55:02 light of the other jurisdictions, and the Florida
10:55:06 statute, and bring that back to you, and FHP council
10:55:14 is so inclined.
10:55:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just observationally.
10:55:19 We have an exception for bus benches.
10:55:23 Bus benches are typically in the right-of-way.
10:55:25 They have advertising on them pursuant to our code.
10:55:28 There's a specific exemption, I think, for bus
10:55:31 benches.
10:55:31 So there's some precedent there.
10:55:36 I think we have had a presentation from Hartline
10:55:38 urging us to have some very, very limited advertising
10:55:41 on the bus shelters.
10:55:44 And I think that's their intent.
10:55:47 I don't know if the mayor has spoken to this but I
10:55:52 assume if she was supposed opposed to it we probably
10:55:54 would have heard by now through the administrative
10:55:56 process.
10:55:58 So I think in light of that, as council's member on

10:56:02 Hartline, I would go ahead and make that motion that
10:56:04 you suggested.
10:56:07 >>JULIA COLE: And what I would be recommending is we
10:56:09 amend chapter 22 which does have the provision for
10:56:13 bugs shelters as well.
10:56:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:56:16 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:56:18 Opposed, Nay.
10:56:24 The signs on the buses.
10:56:27 See what can be done.
10:56:30 >>JULIA COLE: I'm going to bring back an ordinance to
10:56:34 you.
10:56:35 >> I just want to tell you.
10:56:39 >>JULIA COLE: I would request 30 days.
10:56:43 And they have a very good regulation.
10:56:48 But I can do it in less time.
10:56:50 30 days.
10:56:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: If it's going to be in 30 days I can
10:56:55 certainly hold my comments because I'll still be here
10:56:57 and I just want to explain why and what.
10:57:02 >>JULIA COLE: No more than 30 days.
10:57:05 I'll try to bring it back a little quicker.

10:57:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 10.
10:57:14 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:57:16 This is a follow-up on Bacon Lake.
10:57:19 We have prepared a draft report.
10:57:21 It has my signature on it but actually Jorge Martin
10:57:24 prepared it.
10:57:25 I don't think he provided it to you because I wanted
10:57:27 to have an opportunity to revise it so you do not have
10:57:29 that before you.
10:57:30 But the important part of that report that you should
10:57:32 know is that when Mr. Martin went off of the premises
10:57:36 he had to provide identification and sign-in at the
10:57:41 school in order to have access to the area.
10:57:43 There is significant barriers.
10:57:49 Barriers to get into the pond.
10:57:52 And these important.
10:57:53 I did have an opportunity to talk with Pete Johnson,
10:57:55 also.
10:57:56 And he understands the reason I spoke about the code
10:58:00 enforcement issue, everyone though he is focusing on
10:58:03 the safety issues.
10:58:04 It has been brought up and I thought it was important

10:58:06 not to leave code enforcement hanging out there.
10:58:09 He understands that.
10:58:10 But we also understand and agree that the important
10:58:13 concern is that we do the appropriate things to try to
10:58:17 prevent any kind of liability for the city, and of
10:58:19 course any kind of harm to neighborhood children or
10:58:23 others.
10:58:23 So we will continue to look at that.
10:58:25 Unfortunately, this is a fairly complicated real
10:58:27 estate issue.
10:58:29 The people who dedicated the area, which is now
10:58:32 retention pond, apparently in the subdivision plat or
10:58:37 they deeded out the property and didn't deed this out,
10:58:40 so their heirs now own it so we need to have a -- the
10:58:48 property that may be inside the fence in order to
10:58:50 determine who else may own fee simple inside that
10:58:53 fence, if we are going to try to prohibit access,
10:58:57 because we only have a nonexclusive easement which
10:59:01 doesn't give us the right to prevent access.
10:59:03 And I will speak to the administration, see whether
10:59:07 they want to spare the expense and time to see if we
10:59:09 can acquire the fee, who we have to acquire it from in

10:59:12 order to obtain rights to exclusion.
10:59:15 As now the right to exclusion is one of the
10:59:16 significant property rights and he would don't have
10:59:18 that by simply having a nonexclusive easement.
10:59:21 But the point is, this is on our radar screen.
10:59:24 And we will be seeing what additional factors, such as
10:59:28 posting and other things can be done to make sure no
10:59:30 one gets hurt out there.
10:59:32 It is important to remember, though, that there was
10:59:34 only one gate that was literally unpadlocked when Mr.
10:59:38 Martin was in the area, and that was from a house out
10:59:41 to the area, so you would have had to trespass.
10:59:45 So the neighbors so many to be fairly responsible in
10:59:47 keeping people out of there.
10:59:49 And we will look at what we can or should do to
10:59:52 enhance that.
11:00:00 >>DAVID SMITH: I'm actually number 11 as well.
11:00:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Continue.
11:00:04 >>DAVID SMITH: This is the issue with regard to Lowry
11:00:06 Park.
11:00:06 And Lowry Park does have insurance, according to Mr.
11:00:11 Mark butler who is the chief financial officer for the

11:00:14 Lowry Park Zoo.
11:00:15 They have a million dollar basic liability insurance
11:00:18 policy, as well as a $10 million umbrella policy.
11:00:22 And that covers all liability for the zoo.
11:00:25 I think the second part of the question is whether the
11:00:27 city has any liability.
11:00:30 Those of you who practice tort law you know liability
11:00:34 follows your duties.
11:00:35 We own the land, but unlike some other public-private
11:00:40 partnerships, we don't have -- I don't think we have
11:00:43 participation on the board, I management control,
11:00:47 something we have operating control, we have very
11:00:50 little ability to effect the operation of the zoo
11:00:53 itself.
11:00:53 And as a consequence of that, we have limited duties.
11:00:57 So I won't tell you that a creative lawyer couldn't
11:01:00 come up with an argument to visit liability upon the
11:01:02 city.
11:01:04 But it would seem to me that with the zoo itself and
11:01:07 with the insurance policies in place, that would be
11:01:10 the first recourse.
11:01:11 Our liability is what you would typically call

11:01:14 premises liability, and premises liability to look at
11:01:17 a lot of the case law tends to flow with the amount of
11:01:19 control you have over the premises.
11:01:21 And we just don't have control over the premises.
11:01:26 If you have any questions I would be happy to try to
11:01:28 elaborate.
11:01:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm very comfortable with the
11:01:31 response.
11:01:31 However, I do believe the city does have a seat on the
11:01:35 board.
11:01:36 And I'm appointed to that board.
11:01:38 I don't know if that's just honorary seat, or if it's
11:01:42 more than that, that maybe you would want to follow up
11:01:45 and make sure that's not going to change.
11:01:51 >>> I will check that.
11:01:52 Again it comes back to control issue.
11:01:53 Typically, I know some of the other not for profits
11:01:56 much more intimately such as Museum of Art, that have
11:02:00 a much more interactive process.
11:02:03 Ours is fairly limited, and of course board
11:02:06 liabilities have coverage.
11:02:09 I will look at that again.

11:02:10 But I don't think our ability to effect policy is that
11:02:13 substantial.
11:02:15 Thank you.
11:02:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:02:16 Is there anyone in the public that would like to
11:02:18 request reconsideration?
11:02:19 Would anyone like to request reconsideration?
11:02:22 Okay.
11:02:23 We'll go to our audience portion.
11:02:25 Anyone in the audience that would like to speak to any
11:02:27 item on the agenda that is not set for public hearing.
11:02:31 >>STEVE MICHELINI: You might remember a couple weeks
11:02:33 ago I brought the issue forward regarding legitimate
11:02:38 restaurants that were being closed down, and because
11:02:41 they also had an alcoholic beverage license.
11:02:44 And specifically, what we were requesting was some
11:02:48 relief or some inspection, and what I had proposed
11:02:52 that we get together with the licensing bureau and the
11:02:58 police department, to exam how you could issue a
11:03:02 license that would allow the service of food as the
11:03:06 principal function for establishments after 3 a.m., or
11:03:10 after whatever their closing time has been established

11:03:13 at.
11:03:13 Currently under 320, in your code, you're eliminating
11:03:18 hotels, motels, et cetera, which also can sell other
11:03:24 things.
11:03:24 I mean, they can service food.
11:03:28 You are also exempting retail shops, convenience
11:03:31 stores, and a variety of other things, and it seems
11:03:36 there could be some provision that if you applied as a
11:03:40 restaurant that wanted to stay open for 24 hours, that
11:03:43 the licensing bureau could do an inspection, determine
11:03:46 the principal use was in fact a restaurant and not a
11:03:50 nightclub, and then allow them on an annual basis to
11:03:54 renew that license, it would require essentially an
11:03:57 inspection by the police department and the business
11:04:00 tax division to ensure that those individuals or those
11:04:05 establishments that you clearly want to regulate would
11:04:08 be regulated.
11:04:10 You could also include in that an appeal process if
11:04:13 they were denied a license they could appeal to City
11:04:15 Council or some other mechanism that says in fact this
11:04:22 is why I should be grant add license to operate after
11:04:24 hours.

11:04:25 What you are in effect doing is creating policy
11:04:27 because of a few establishments that have abused the
11:04:29 rights to stay open and serve food.
11:04:32 There are very legitimate small restaurants.
11:04:35 Some of them are established restaurants in the
11:04:37 community.
11:04:40 La TERA-CETA is one of them.
11:04:46 They have an alcoholic beverage in the daytime and
11:04:48 they cannot stay open and serve as late night
11:04:50 employers, employees, that come in there, truck
11:04:53 drivers, people that work swing shifts, including
11:04:58 hospitals and a variety of other people.
11:04:59 It's clearly indicated that la Teracitas is not a
11:05:05 anytime club, not a strip club, not one of those that
11:05:07 the city is concerned about.
11:05:08 But when you start making policies in Ybor City for a
11:05:12 code that's city-wide, I think you ought to look at
11:05:15 some relief being provided to other restaurants that
11:05:17 you want to encourage to stay open.
11:05:19 You cannot become a 24-hour city for the arts
11:05:23 community or for anyone else, for visitors, without
11:05:26 some provision of that.

11:05:29 If the airport has been exempted from this, they don't
11:05:32 come under the rules but everyone else outside of the
11:05:34 city, that area, hotels and motels, and the retail
11:05:38 establishments, including convenience stores, are not
11:05:41 affected.
11:05:41 And it seems like it's a hardship to apply that to the
11:05:44 other outside restaurants.
11:05:46 I respectfully request a motion from council to allow
11:05:51 me to work with the legal department and the police
11:05:53 department and business tax division to come back to
11:05:56 you with some provisions that would give some relief
11:06:00 to legitimate restaurants to allow them to serve after
11:06:03 hours.
11:06:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Michelini, those were the two
11:06:07 issues that we discussed earlier, and I think you
11:06:11 heard them, and it's a legitimate, compelling argument
11:06:15 from your side.
11:06:16 But then we can flip back and forth about the issue of
11:06:19 enforcement.
11:06:23 Every establishment is not going to intend to falsify
11:06:26 when they sell liquor not.
11:06:28 But I'm concerned about the overtaxing of the police

11:06:31 department.
11:06:31 They have to check.
11:06:32 They have to make sure that we are enforcing the
11:06:34 ordinance that we have there.
11:06:36 I personally don't have a problem if the rest of the
11:06:39 council wants to allow you the opportunity, just the
11:06:43 opportunity, to talk to those different departments.
11:06:45 But I will tell you, if the police department comes
11:06:48 back and still has an issue about enforcement, I
11:06:50 personally can't support it. But maybe whatever you
11:06:53 all work out together will sway some of the other
11:06:55 council members.
11:06:59 That's about as far as I am willing to go.
11:07:00 You come back with something that they are saying we
11:07:02 can live with that and we'll try it, it will be like a
11:07:05 conditional or something for a year, then maybe.
11:07:07 But right now --
11:07:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you going to make a motion?
11:07:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: No.
11:07:13 Somebody else make the motion.
11:07:14 I'll support it and see where they go after the
11:07:16 discussion.

11:07:17 >>KEVIN WHITE: I'll be happy to make the motion to at
11:07:20 least explore the idea with the administration.
11:07:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
11:07:33 I think there is another side to the story that we
11:07:35 haven't heard from the small restaurants.
11:07:38 I agree with Ms. Ferlita that TPD trumps, and if they
11:07:45 say we have enforcement problems and at 3:00 there is
11:07:48 a lot of bad things going on and they need to be out
11:07:50 there where those bad things are happening, I'll be
11:07:53 hard pressed to support that.
11:07:54 But if you want to go and see whose minds you can
11:07:57 change, Mr. Michelini, have at it.
11:08:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:08:02 (Motion carried)
11:08:04 Thank you.
11:08:04 Next.
11:08:07 >>STEVE MICHELINI: That's a motion to try to direct --
11:08:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: You try to work with them.
11:08:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Don't need a motion for anything,
11:08:15 actually just say go ahead and --
11:08:19 >> Open to the possibility of them coming back,
11:08:20 because their dialogue with you, and if they have a

11:08:22 change of heart in terms of whether or not this is
11:08:24 doable, then I think that this council will consider
11:08:28 supporting it.
11:08:30 >> And how could that come back to the council?
11:08:35 I get that back before the council.
11:08:41 >>KEVIN WHITE: Let's do a report in 30 days added to
11:08:43 the motion.
11:08:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Come back and report on this in 30
11:08:50 days.
11:08:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: With the direction that we have given
11:08:52 to Mr. mini, the opportunity to get together with the
11:08:55 licensing department, with TPD, with code, whatever
11:08:58 departments are appropriate, land development.
11:09:02 All of them.
11:09:03 We are telling them to talk to you.
11:09:05 So somebody from staff will come back and tell us what
11:09:09 the decision was after that conversation.
11:09:14 >>STEVE MICHELINI: And come back to council in 30
11:09:16 days.
11:09:16 Rose Ross yes.
11:09:18 (Motion carried)
11:09:28 Thank you.

11:09:28 Next.
11:09:38 >> Moses Knott, Jr., I resign at 2902 East Ellicott
11:09:41 street.
11:09:43 And I thank God for his grace and his mercy.
11:09:50 I'm very disturbed.
11:09:51 If it wasn't for God's grace and mercy, I wouldn't be
11:09:54 sitting here now.
11:09:55 But you all blowed my mind this morning.
11:09:57 I was upset.
11:09:58 And about what kind of people you all want to come up
11:10:02 there.
11:10:04 Ain't going to come up there.
11:10:05 Now why?
11:10:06 Because ain't got no money.
11:10:09 People all over town are talking about how much -- and
11:10:13 also talking about their deal.
11:10:15 I told them, say politician pay $100.
11:10:28 But give all the money back, $100.
11:10:33 Now you politicians, I know you all get money.
11:10:37 Now this morning you all want to know what kind of
11:10:45 people are coming.
11:10:47 Mr. Charlie Miranda said all of you need to go to

11:10:54 jail.
11:10:59 You all use the law 150% and you use it on neighbors.
11:11:05 >>KEVIN WHITE: What item are you talking about on the
11:11:07 agenda, Mr. Knott?
11:11:21 >>> I said you all don't have no respect for no
11:11:26 neighbor, no kind of way.
11:11:27 And now you all take the lawyers hear.
11:11:34 I sit here for years and years, the last 15 years,
11:11:38 don't own land no more, now don't own business no
11:11:42 more.
11:11:43 You can't do this.
11:11:45 I mean, you know, I want to tell you, you know,
11:11:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that would like to
11:11:57 speak?
11:11:57 Okay.
11:11:58 We have ordinance number 13 for first reading.
11:12:02 Mr. Harrison, would you read that, please?
11:12:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
11:12:05 Move an ordinance authorizing installation of
11:12:07 maintenance of encroachment and proposed awning canopy
11:12:10 by CDP holding LLC over a portion of the public
11:12:13 right-of-way known as East 7th Avenue and 13th

11:12:16 street as more particularly described herein, subject
11:12:19 to certain terms, covenants, conditions and agreements
11:12:21 as more particularly described herein, providing an
11:12:24 effective date, as more particularly described herein.
11:12:27 I have a motion and second.
11:12:28 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:12:30 (Motion carried)
11:12:33 Committee reports, rose Ferlita, public safety.
11:12:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think we have removed item 15.
11:12:38 I would like to move resolution 14 and resolution 16.
11:12:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:12:42 (Motion carried).
11:12:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Parks, recreation, Mary Alvarez.
11:12:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move items 17 to 20.
11:12:52 >> Second.
11:12:52 (Motion carried).
11:12:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Public works.
11:12:54 Vice chair Ms. Rose Ferlita.
11:12:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: Oh, Mr. Dingfelder is here.
11:13:01 I would like to move items 21 through 29.
11:13:04 >> Second.
11:13:05 (Motion carried).

11:13:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Kevin White.
11:13:15 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move 30 through 32.
11:13:23 >> Second.
11:13:23 (Motion carried).
11:13:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On the housing persons people with
11:13:30 aides -- with aids, a federal grant opportunity,
11:13:35 HOPWA, on these ten or so items we are passing,
11:13:39 3.5 million, and which is a lot of money.
11:13:42 And I'm wondering, I know this is a staff -- I know
11:13:48 they do a lot of review of these agencies and make
11:13:50 sure they are good agencies.
11:13:53 But I wonder why it's not like the CDBG process where,
11:13:58 you know, I guess I wanted the question, and maybe
11:14:03 council knows the answer, you know, is there a
11:14:05 committee of citizens, or folks with aids, or an aids
11:14:09 activist group that gets involved in the selection?
11:14:13 Does anybody know the answer to that?
11:14:15 >> I don't know the answer.
11:14:16 And I actually have always been curious about what the
11:14:20 process is.
11:14:20 So perhaps it would be appropriate under -- at a
11:14:23 future council meeting, a very short report from staff

11:14:25 on what the process is with the distribution of these
11:14:27 funds.
11:14:28 Because there are significant dollars involved.
11:14:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A lot of money.
11:14:32 Obviously we don't want to hold up this money.
11:14:34 And staff has selected good agencies to continue to
11:14:38 work with on a very difficult mission.
11:14:40 So Linda, that's a God idea.
11:14:42 Go ahead and carry on and deal with it later.
11:14:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you coming to speak on that?
11:14:57 >>> I put on my coat to come down.
11:14:59 I heard questions about HOPWA.
11:15:02 I represent the housing community development and
11:15:04 reviewed all of these documents.
11:15:08 I missed the rest of your question.
11:15:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We need a speaker in the stairwell
11:15:16 or the elevator.
11:15:17 The question was, we have an exhaustive process in
11:15:21 CDBG.
11:15:23 In the same way we are sort of a pass-through of
11:15:25 federal funds through the local smaller agencies.
11:15:27 And I'm wondering, do we have any similar process for

11:15:30 this HOPWA funds, or is it just an administrative
11:15:39 decision and then it comes to us?
11:15:40 >> It is effectively an administrative process.
11:15:43 Those individuals seeking to get HOPWA funds have to
11:15:48 go through a rigorous program.
11:15:49 In the CDBGs you are familiar with that program.
11:15:52 We administer for the city jurisdiction.
11:15:55 The HOPWA, we are the designated metropolitan
11:16:01 administrator for a four-county region.
11:16:04 So folks in the different counties, we give funds to
11:16:08 agencies in Pasco County.
11:16:09 But specifically to your question, it is an
11:16:12 administrative process.
11:16:18 Regulated at the staff level.
11:16:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe we can have more dialogue
11:16:22 with staff at some point.
11:16:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita, did you have a question?
11:16:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think Mr. Harrison did.
11:16:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I was going to ask to hold item
11:16:32 number 38.
11:16:33 Mr. Dingfelder, we do see those HOPWA grants come
11:16:38 through the CDBG process.

11:16:40 We see housing as part of the CDBG.
11:16:44 There has to be some sort of public input on, I would
11:16:49 guess.
11:16:54 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: You see them come through because
11:16:56 they are all HUD moneys coming through HUD.
11:16:59 When we get our CDBG award, it may be a component.
11:17:05 I have to go back to see because they are distinctly
11:17:09 separate programs and have to come back.
11:17:11 I don't think that they have.
11:17:13 You may just see them coming through together:
11:17:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Santiago, I believe that you're
11:17:21 right.
11:17:22 It looks like we are talking about the same process in
11:17:24 terms of federal dollars.
11:17:25 But the CDBG is one issue.
11:17:28 And then the HOPWA eligibility is pretty intense.
11:17:32 And these different agencies that go through that are
11:17:35 pretty well scrutinized before they -- not only
11:17:40 tricounty but you are saying four counties.
11:17:42 Those are the players in that arena that really,
11:17:44 really have to qualify.
11:17:45 And because I have been involved in the treatment of

11:17:49 aids as a consultant for one of these facilities where
11:17:52 Illinois recuse myself, I will tell you that the
11:17:54 qualification process is very intense.
11:17:57 It might not be a bad idea for the rest of my
11:17:59 colleagues to get information about why it's handled
11:18:02 at the administrative level as opposed to the dialogue
11:18:05 that we have in CDBG.
11:18:07 But these guys are scrutinized, and the federal
11:18:09 government is watching these dollars very, very
11:18:12 intently.
11:18:13 And I'm comfortable that it's put through a rigorous
11:18:22 enough level to see in going to terms to the facility,
11:18:26 checking on them.
11:18:27 The people that continue to -- the leaders in the
11:18:31 housing department that have been involved in the
11:18:33 HOPWA funds for a long time know this is something
11:18:37 that's really tough and they stand to jeopardize it
11:18:41 and they stand not to get a lot of dollars as they go
11:18:43 forward with treatment of patients.
11:18:46 Just being in that process, I have been with that
11:18:48 since 1968 or 1969.
11:18:53 Nothing wrong ever with monitoring something even

11:18:55 more.
11:18:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I have asked to hold number 37.
11:19:18 I am going to go ahead and move items 33 through 36,
11:19:21 39 through 51.
11:19:24 >> Second.
11:19:24 (Motion carried).
11:19:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 37.
11:19:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to read this into the
11:19:32 record.
11:19:33 F-2006-69, approving an agreement for grant between
11:19:37 the City of Tampa and the agency for community
11:19:40 treatment services, Inc., Florida corporation, I have
11:19:42 a business relationship with the grants recipients,
11:19:45 consultant, so I Rose Ferlita disclose on September 7,
11:19:50 06, a matter will come before my agency which is the
11:19:56 parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which
11:19:59 has retained me.
11:20:01 I would like to put that into the record.
11:20:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolution 37.
11:20:07 >> Second.
11:20:07 (Motion carried).
11:20:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 38.

11:20:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: the boys center is a sub tenant in
11:20:23 our building.
11:20:24 I don't know if this is the same entity but in an
11:20:26 abundance of caution I am going to abstain and Mr.
11:20:30 Shelby so advised me to do.
11:20:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, I have advised Mr. Harrison to
11:20:34 do so.
11:20:35 And I will prepare the appropriate document to file
11:20:37 with the clerk to that effect.
11:20:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolution 38.
11:20:44 >> Second.
11:20:44 (Motion carried).
11:20:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Mr. Harrison.
11:20:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 52 through 58.
11:20:56 >> I have a motion and second.
11:20:58 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:20:59 Opposed, Nay.
11:21:00 (Motion Carried).
11:21:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to et to set the new items 59
11:21:04 through 63.
11:21:06 >> Second.
11:21:06 (Motion carried).

11:21:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our public hearings for
11:21:12 second reading, item 64 through 68.
11:21:17 If anyone in the public is going to speak on those
11:21:20 items, would you please stand and raids your right
11:21:23 hand?
11:21:23 Item 64 through 68.
11:21:35 (Oath administered by Clerk).
11:21:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: At this time I ask that all written
11:21:37 communication relative to today's hearings which have
11:21:39 been available for public inspection in City Council's
11:21:42 office be received and filed into the record at this
11:21:44 time.
11:21:51 That being the case if any members of council, a
11:21:54 reminder, if you have any verbal communication with a
11:21:57 petitioner, his or her representative or any member of
11:22:01 the public in relation to today's hearings, please
11:22:04 disclose the entity or person with whom it occurred
11:22:08 and the substance of the verbal communication.
11:22:10 Later with regard to all the hearings today, if you
11:22:12 are under oath, please when you state your name
11:22:16 reaffirm for the for the record that you have been
11:22:18 sworn.

11:22:18 Thank you.
11:22:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to items 64 through 68.
11:22:22 >> So moved.
11:22:23 >> Second.
11:22:23 (Motion carried).
11:22:24 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants top speak
11:22:26 on item 64?
11:22:27 >> Move to close.
11:22:28 >> Second.
11:22:29 (Motion carried).
11:22:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
11:22:35 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance vacating,
11:22:37 closing, discontinuing, abandoning a certain
11:22:40 right-of-way all that portion of 54th and 55th
11:22:43 streets, lying south of Broadway Avenue, east of
11:22:46 53rd street, west of 57th street and north of
11:22:50 railroad, in Dixie farms subdivision, a subdivision in
11:22:52 the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida, the
11:22:54 same being more fully described in section 2 hereof
11:22:57 providing an effective date.
11:22:58 The only thing I would add, I'm willing to support
11:23:01 this motion vacating streets.

11:23:03 But the way I saw it, it's vacating streets that are
11:23:06 completely subsumed within the owner's property.
11:23:09 So I don't have a problem with that.
11:23:10 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:23:13 Voice roll call.
11:23:15 Dingfelder yes.
11:23:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:23:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:23:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:23:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
11:23:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
11:23:26 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 6-0 with white absent.
11:23:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:23:30 wants to speak on item 65?
11:23:33 >> Move to close.
11:23:33 >> Second.
11:23:34 (Motion carried).
11:23:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance upon
11:23:40 second reading.
11:23:41 An ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing, and
11:23:43 abandoning a certain right-of-way all that alleyway
11:23:45 south of Martin Luther King Boulevard, north of

11:23:48 Virginia Avenue, west of Nebraska Avenue, and east of
11:23:52 Taliaferro Avenue, in corrected map of re-re-revised
11:23:57 map of Bellemere, a subdivision in the City of Tampa,
11:24:02 Hillsborough County Florida the same being more fully
11:24:04 described in section 2 hereof, providing an effective
11:24:05 date.
11:24:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:24:08 Voice roll call.
11:24:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
11:24:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:24:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:24:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:24:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
11:24:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
11:24:17 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
11:24:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 7 to 0.
11:24:21 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
11:24:22 on item 66?
11:24:23 >> Move to close.
11:24:24 >> Second.
11:24:24 (Motion carried).
11:24:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to adopt the following

11:24:29 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance of the
11:24:32 city of Tampa, Florida making comprehensive revisions
11:24:34 to chapter 3, alcoholic beverages code, of the City of
11:24:37 Tampa, code of ordinances amending section 3-21
11:24:40 providing new definitions, amending section 3-30,
11:24:43 alcoholic beverage zoning classification, amending
11:24:47 section 3-80 providing for requirement for "R"
11:24:50 classification wet zonings and providing penalties for
11:24:53 violation, amending section 3-90, sale of beverages
11:24:57 after discontinuance, amending -- amending section
11:25:00 3-100 to provide for revocation and suspension for
11:25:03 cause, amending section 3-101, notice and public
11:25:08 hearing for revocation and suspension, and amending
11:25:11 section 3-102, reapplication for wet zoning, providing
11:25:14 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing
11:25:18 for severability, providing an effective date.
11:25:19 >>THE CLERK:
11:25:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
11:25:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:25:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:25:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:25:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.

11:25:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
11:25:29 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
11:25:30 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 7 to 0.
11:25:33 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
11:25:34 on item 67?
11:25:42 >> Catherine Coyle, I would like to ask before we vote
11:25:44 on this.
11:25:44 I know it's just a scrivener's error.
11:25:46 But due to the brief conversation we had earlier today
11:25:48 about really looking in depth at our parking
11:25:50 ordinances, I wondered if we could come up -- in
11:25:57 looking at this, if we just put it off for a little
11:26:00 while, there would be a way for you to look -- if this
11:26:03 addresses the urban parking requirement, if there's
11:26:05 any distinction, and, if not, could we create some
11:26:09 kind of opportunity for people in areas designated
11:26:12 urban redevelopment areas to come and ask -- work with
11:26:15 staff or council to get a variance?
11:26:17 Because I'm aware that worry expanding the
11:26:20 requirements in terms of parking in urban areas, and I
11:26:23 think when don't want to be doing that.
11:26:24 I think we want to be shrinking it and putting money

11:26:27 into transit S.that something we could just hold this
11:26:30 for a little while now and work on that?
11:26:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:26:33 There are actually two different items.
11:26:35 They are two distinct things.
11:26:37 This is really a scrivener's errors for misspellings
11:26:40 we have essentially so it doesn't really have anything
11:26:42 to do -- those parking issues, the one that was
11:26:46 adopted.
11:26:48 >> So this doesn't address that.
11:26:49 Holding this wouldn't --
11:26:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: To get a variance of parking
11:26:53 regulations they don't have to come before council,
11:26:56 it's not an appeal or anything before council.
11:26:58 I can give an administrative variance parking for
11:27:01 certain percentage and they can go to variance review
11:27:05 for parking requirements as well.
11:27:06 They don't have to come to council for parking waiver.
11:27:09 There are other staff steps built into the code.
11:27:13 The standard parking regulations that apply to the
11:27:15 whole city don't apply to downtown.
11:27:17 CBD has its own parking relations and so does Channel

11:27:21 District and Ybor.
11:27:22 They have parking restrictions altogether.
11:27:25 >> Thank you for the clarification.
11:27:26 I appreciate it.
11:27:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
11:27:29 >> So moved.
11:27:30 >> Second.
11:27:30 (Motion carried).
11:27:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following
11:27:35 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance of the
11:27:37 city of Tampa, Florida amending ordinance number
11:27:39 2006-169, correcting scrivener's errors by amending
11:27:45 section 27-180, table 8 dash 3, table of required
11:27:52 parking spaces, amending section 27-240, visibility
11:27:52 at intersections, amending section 27-242, table 10-1,
11:27:53 table of required parking spaces, amending section
11:27:53 27-245 administrative variance of required parking
11:27:57 spaces, amending section 27-246, table 10-1, table of
11:28:02 required parking spaces, amending section 27-24,
11:28:04 administrative variance of required parking spaces,
11:28:08 amending section 27-246, off-street parking spaces
11:28:12 standards, amending section 27-321, purpose, amending

11:28:18 section 27-324, general requirements, amending section
11:28:22 27-456, parking requirements, providing for repeal of
11:28:27 all ordinances in conflict, providing for
11:28:29 severability, providing an effective date.
11:28:30 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:28:33 Voice roll call.
11:28:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
11:28:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:28:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:28:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:28:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
11:28:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
11:28:43 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
11:28:43 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:28:46 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
11:28:48 on item 68?
11:28:49 >> Move to close.
11:28:50 >> Second.
11:28:51 (Motion carried).
11:28:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt the following ordinance
11:28:56 on second reading, an ordinance authorizing the
11:28:59 installation and maintenance of an encroachment canopy

11:29:03 by Zatum, LLC, over a portion of the public
11:29:07 right-of-way known as east oh oak Avenue near the
11:29:11 intersection of east oak Avenue and Jefferson street,
11:29:13 as more particularly described herein, providing an
11:29:16 effective date.
11:29:17 >> I have a motion and second.
11:29:19 Voice roll call.
11:29:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
11:29:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:29:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:29:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:29:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
11:29:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
11:29:28 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
11:29:28 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:29:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing for
11:29:35 items 69 through 77.
11:29:42 (Motion carried).
11:29:44 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
11:29:46 item 69?
11:29:47 >> Move to close.
11:29:48 >> Second.

11:29:48 (Motion carried).
11:29:49 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa
11:29:54 comprehensive plan, future land use element, by
11:29:56 establishing policies relative to the review of
11:29:59 rezoning and special use petitions by appropriate
11:30:04 military and aviation personnel and the completion of
11:30:07 a study of the lands adjacent to or closely
11:30:10 approximate to MacDill Air Force Base, providing
11:30:13 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing
11:30:16 for severability, providing an effective date.
11:30:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:30:18 Voice roll call.
11:30:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
11:30:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:30:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:30:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:30:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
11:30:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
11:30:29 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
11:30:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:30:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:30:33 wants to speak on item 70?

11:30:36 >> Move to close.
11:30:37 >> Second.
11:30:37 (Motion carried).
11:30:38 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move and ordinance amending the Tampa
11:30:47 comprehensive plan capital improvements element by
11:30:50 updating the schedule of projects for fiscal year 2006
11:30:52 through fiscal year 2011 providing for repeal of all
11:30:56 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
11:30:58 providing an effective date.
11:30:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
11:31:07 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 6 to 0, Ferlita absent.
11:31:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:31:12 wants to speak on item 71?
11:31:15 >> Move to close.
11:31:16 >> Second.
11:31:16 (Motion carried).
11:31:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance -- move to adopt the
11:31:23 following ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance
11:31:27 amending the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use
11:31:30 element, future land use map for the property located
11:31:33 in the general vicinity of memorial highway, George
11:31:36 road and independence parkway from light industrial to

11:31:39 community mixed use-35, providing for repeal of all
11:31:43 ordinances in conflicted, providing for severability,
11:31:46 providing an effective date.
11:31:46 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:31:48 Voice roll call.
11:31:58 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 6 to 0, Ferlita absent.
11:32:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:32:04 wants to speak on item 72?
11:32:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to explain why I am
11:32:10 changing my vote.
11:32:12 I actually support this, the last time I was thinking
11:32:16 of another issue. Anyway, this is something that
11:32:18 actually is a lesser use, a lesser density than other
11:32:23 proposals along Adamo drive.
11:32:25 I think the CMU 35 is appropriate, and particularly
11:32:27 with the proposed considerations that Ethel Hammer's
11:32:33 group brought up for the Adamo corridor plan.
11:32:35 I think this will be perfectly fine.
11:32:37 So I am going to change my vote and I apologize to the
11:32:41 representatives on this.
11:32:41 I got it confused with a different rezoning and I
11:32:44 apologize.

11:32:44 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
11:32:46 on item 72?
11:32:48 >> Move to close.
11:32:48 >> Second.
11:32:49 (Motion carried).
11:32:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following
11:32:54 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance amending
11:32:56 the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element,
11:32:59 future land use map for the property located in the
11:33:01 general vicinity of the southeast corner of Adamo
11:33:03 drive and 22nd street causeway from heavy
11:33:06 industrial to community mixed use-35, providing for
11:33:09 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for
11:33:11 severability, providing an effective date.
11:33:13 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:33:15 Voice roll call.
11:33:26 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 6 to 0, Ferlita absent.
11:33:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:33:31 wants to speak on item 73?
11:33:33 >> Move to close.
11:33:33 >> Second.
11:33:34 (Motion carried).

11:33:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance upon
11:33:41 second reading, an ordinance amending the Tampa
11:33:43 comprehensive plan, future land use element, fought
11:33:46 land use map for the property located in the general
11:33:48 vicinity of West Cypress street south of Tampa
11:33:51 International Airport from municipal airport
11:33:53 compatibility to recreational open space, providing
11:33:57 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing
11:34:00 for severability, providing an effective date.
11:34:01 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:34:03 Voice roll call.
11:34:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 6 to 0, Ferlita absent.
11:34:18 >>CHAIRMAN: Does anyone in the public want to speak on
11:34:20 item 74?
11:34:21 >> Move to close.
11:34:22 >> Second.
11:34:22 (Motion carried).
11:34:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move the following ordinance upon
11:34:28 second reading, an ordinance amending the Tampa
11:34:31 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future
11:34:33 land use map for the property located in the general
11:34:35 vicinity of St. Pete Times Forum Drive along the

11:34:39 Garrison Channel from the central business district to
11:34:41 major public/semi-public providing for repeal of all
11:34:45 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
11:34:47 providing an effective date.
11:34:47 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
11:34:48 Voice roll call.
11:35:00 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried 6-0, Ferlita absent.
11:35:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:35:04 wants to speak on item 75?
11:35:06 >> Move to close.
11:35:06 >> Second.
11:35:07 (Motion carried).
11:35:11 >> Move an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive
11:35:14 plan, future land use element, future land use map,
11:35:18 for property located in the general vicinity of Ashley
11:35:21 drive between Whiting Street and Washington street and
11:35:23 at the northwest corner of Ashley drive and
11:35:25 Channelside Drive from the central business district
11:35:27 to major public-semi-public, providing for repeal of
11:35:30 all ordinances in conflict, providing for
11:35:32 severability, providing an effective date.
11:35:34 >> I have a motion and second.

11:35:36 Voice roll call.
11:35:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, we are doing 72?
11:35:51 >>GWEN MILLER: No, 73.
11:35:54 We have done 73.
11:35:55 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:35:57 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants top speak
11:35:59 on item 76?
11:36:02 >> Motion to close.
11:36:03 >> Second.
11:36:03 (Motion carried).
11:36:04 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Ferlita, 76?
11:36:09 >> I am on 76 now, yes.
11:36:15 An ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan,
11:36:18 fought land use element, future land use map for the
11:36:24 property located near the southeast corner of Florida
11:36:27 Avenue and bird street along the Hillsborough River
11:36:29 from urban mixed use 60 to recreation/open space,
11:36:33 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
11:36:35 providing for severability, providing an effective
11:36:36 date.
11:36:36 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:36:39 Voice roll call.

11:36:49 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:36:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:36:52 wants to speak on item 77?
11:36:55 >> Move to close.
11:36:55 >> Second.
11:36:56 (Motion carried).
11:36:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
11:37:00 upon second reading, an ordinance amending the Tampa
11:37:04 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future
11:37:06 land use map for the property located in the general
11:37:08 vicinity of interstate 75 and south of Bruce B. Downs
11:37:11 Boulevard from suburban mixed use-60 and major public
11:37:15 semi-public to recreation/open space, providing for
11:37:19 repeal of all ordinances in conflicted, providing for
11:37:21 severability, providing an effective date.
11:37:23 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:37:25 Voice roll call.
11:37:33 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:37:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 78 is the second adoption,
11:37:42 public hearing.
11:37:42 We need to open it.
11:37:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It says that it was denied.

11:37:50 This one needs to be removed from the agenda.
11:37:52 >> So moved.
11:37:53 >> Second.
11:37:53 (Motion carried).
11:37:54 >> Motion and second to remove item 78.
11:37:56 (Motion carried)
11:37:59 Item 79, continued public hearing.
11:38:02 Do we have anyone speaking on that?
11:38:04 We just read the ordinance?
11:38:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: School capacity, 79, page 18.
11:38:33 >> And you are going to do what to it?
11:38:37 >>> Oh, yes, we would like it transmitted.
11:38:40 My mind was elsewhere.
11:38:41 >>ROSE FERLITA:
11:38:58 Randy Goers.
11:39:00 >>RANDY GOERS: The last time, we were originally
11:39:02 recommend that it not be approved at this time.
11:39:04 But I think we have a resolution to help move it
11:39:07 forward.
11:39:09 The October 19th workshop we are going to be
11:39:11 discussing school concurrency element and I think we
11:39:14 are going to have the school board here working with

11:39:17 us on that workshop.
11:39:19 And so we will have an opportunity to see how all of
11:39:24 it fits but you can transmit and see how it fits in.
11:39:27 If it comes back for adoption hearing, withdraw,
11:39:31 change it, whatever.
11:39:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:39:35 Planning Commission.
11:39:36 We have a motion to -- we get a second to transmit
11:39:40 this.
11:39:42 We have to close it first.
11:39:43 >> So moved.
11:39:44 >> Second.
11:39:44 (Motion carried)
11:39:47 Make.
11:39:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion to transmit.
11:39:50 >> So moved.
11:39:51 >> Second.
11:39:51 (Motion carried).
11:39:52 >>CHAIRMAN: Continued public hearing, number 9.
11:39:59 Okay, number 80.
11:40:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I have a request perhaps if you could
11:40:02 take number 81 and then come back to number 80 because

11:40:04 number 80 is tied to numbers 82 through 85.
11:40:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Continuance.
11:40:13 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: A public hearing, dealing with the
11:40:18 Adamo drive corridor, the designation of it.
11:40:21 And policy to be added to the land use element.
11:40:27 I do want to clarify that the statement that's on your
11:40:30 agenda that Adamo drive is between Channelside Drive
11:40:34 and 34th street a as the redevelopment corridor,
11:40:37 as part of the recommending the whole corridor was row
11:40:39 viewed as part of the plan amendment.
11:40:41 But the recommendation was that the corridor be
11:40:43 designated between Channelside and 26th street.
11:40:51 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
11:40:53 on item number 81?
11:40:54 >> Move to close.
11:40:55 >> Second.
11:40:55 (Motion carried)
11:40:59 >> Move to transmit.
11:41:01 >> Second.
11:41:01 (Motion carried)
11:41:01 >>DAVID SMITH: David Smith, city attorney.
11:41:20 I will put this aerial on the Elmo.

11:41:23 Hopefully right side up.
11:41:25 What I will also do is pass out for each of you three
11:41:32 iterations of a text amendment.
11:41:34 We had a brief discussion at the workshop yesterday.
11:41:36 I don't believe Mr. White was there.
11:41:39 Maybe Ms. Miller.
11:41:41 But just to refresh your recollection, this is the
11:41:44 plan amendment and the text amendment for Rattlesnake
11:41:47 Point.
11:41:48 So what I would like to do is pass out three different
11:41:51 iterations, one for the city clerk and eight copies
11:41:57 through City Council attorney and the council members.
11:41:59 This one is denominated light industrial only during
11:42:02 transition, building permit.
11:42:05 And what we have is three different versions.
11:42:07 The first one only allows for light industrial uses in
11:42:09 the interim.
11:42:11 And it allows for -- or requires --
11:42:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is this the same one yesterday, Mr.
11:42:27 Smith?
11:42:28 >>DAVID SMITH: Essentially, yes.
11:42:29 But I would like to walk you through each as I recall

11:42:34 the conversation from yesterday.
11:42:35 This is the second version, which is heavy industrial
11:42:38 during transition.
11:42:40 Building permit.
11:42:53 And I'm now passing out to you the third iteration
11:42:55 which is heavy industrial during transition,
11:42:58 certificate of occupancy.
11:43:20 Let me also pass out to each of you an aerial so you
11:43:22 don't have to watch on the monitor.
11:43:27 >> Yesterday you gave us two. Today you have three?
11:43:48 >> You only got two yesterday.
11:43:50 And I'll explain what the differences are.
11:43:52 The easiest way to look at this, I've got the three of
11:43:55 them before me.
11:43:56 I don't know if you have the latest before you.
11:43:59 But the objective is the same in all three.
11:44:03 Policy A-6, A-1 is the same in all three.
11:44:07 Policy A-6, A-2 is the same in all three.
11:44:11 And policy A-6, A-3 is the same in all three.
11:44:17 The first difference shows up in policy A-6, A-4.
11:44:22 The light industrial one ends with it simply has a
11:44:27 prohibition, it does not allow any new heavy

11:44:30 industrial uses or expansions in the currently
11:44:34 existing heavy industrial area within Rattlesnake
11:44:37 Point.
11:44:38 So no new heavy industrial uses or expansions under
11:44:41 the light industrial only.
11:44:44 If you look under the one that says heavy industrial
11:44:48 certificate of occupancy or heavy building permit,
11:44:51 they have the same provision A-6-4, which adds the
11:44:54 following: Unless allowed pursuant to land
11:44:57 development regulations and pursuant to policy A-6,
11:45:03 A-6 or approval of an enforceable agreement pursuant
11:45:07 to policy A-6, A-7, but in no event shall any new use
11:45:12 be hazardous or toxic.
11:45:14 What that means essentially in your two heavy
11:45:16 industrial uses, you will allow the addition and
11:45:18 expansion of heavy industrial uses if there are land
11:45:23 development regulations enacted under policy A-6, A-6,
11:45:28 or there is an enforceable development agreement under
11:45:32 policy A-6, A-7.
11:45:34 Now the land development regulations, and the
11:45:37 development agreement will address the same issues.
11:45:41 And if you look at A-6, A-6, you will see what those

11:45:45 issues are.
11:45:45 Criteria include requirements for site plan rezoning
11:45:47 and shall require development agreement that addresses
11:45:50 the timing of development to meet the requirement of
11:45:53 policy A-6 A-1 and as indicated yesterday, the concern
11:45:58 is policy A-6 A-1.
11:46:01 And just for those who don't have this before them,
11:46:04 A-6 A-1 says protect the future residential and
11:46:08 commercial users from the hazardous or toxic heavy
11:46:11 industrial uses along Tyson Avenue.
11:46:14 The only exit from the peninsula comprising the
11:46:19 Rattlesnake Point area by not allowing any residential
11:46:22 uses until the hazardous or toxic heavy industrial
11:46:25 uses are permanently eliminated except for federal
11:46:27 government uses.
11:46:28 He would don't believe the federal government uses
11:46:31 hazardous or toxic but we don't know exactly what they
11:46:34 do there.
11:46:35 From the Rattlesnake Point area, permanent elimination
11:46:38 shall be as determined by land development
11:46:40 regulations, and pursuant to policy A-6 A-6 or
11:46:46 approval of enforceable development agreements under

11:46:48 policy A-6 A-7 so there is to be no residential
11:46:52 development until we do either address it in your land
11:46:55 development regulations, or it's addressed in the
11:46:57 development agreement that you get to row view and
11:47:00 approve.
11:47:00 So you are not going to put the residents in these
11:47:03 areas at risk unless you're comfortable that the toxic
11:47:06 and hazardous uses are being eliminated.
11:47:10 Now going back to the differences in the three
11:47:12 versions before you, and then I will come back with a
11:47:14 quick summary.
11:47:15 Policy A-6 A-5 is the same in all three versions.
11:47:20 Policy A-6 A-6 is essentially the same, with the
11:47:24 difference that in the light industrial version, it
11:47:27 refers to co-location of light industrial uses,
11:47:30 because clearly that's all you are going to have is
11:47:32 light industrial uses.
11:47:33 In the two heavy industrial versions the word light is
11:47:37 related because you are contemplating co-location with
11:47:40 heavy industrial uses.
11:47:42 Policy A-6 A-7 is the same in the light industrial,
11:47:47 and in the heavy industrial building permit, because

11:47:50 it ties the elimination of those uses, the issuance of
11:47:55 a building permit.
11:47:56 The third version, which is heavy industrial
11:47:59 certificate of occupancy, adds the following language
11:48:02 to policy A-6 A-7 at the end of the paragraph.
11:48:07 It says, if a specific and detailed enforceable
11:48:11 transition plan is adequately provided for in a
11:48:14 development agreement sufficient to assure permanent
11:48:18 elimination of the risk of heavy industrial hazardous
11:48:22 uses prior to occupancy, then such permanent Lem
11:48:25 nation may be required prior to the issuance of
11:48:28 certificate of occupancy rather than a building
11:48:31 permit.
11:48:31 What this allows is to allow you to start
11:48:33 construction, but you cannot get your certificate of
11:48:38 occupancy if we have that problem.
11:48:39 That is essentially the differences between the three
11:48:44 versions.
11:48:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was a clear explanation.
11:48:50 It would be helpful for me to hear the rationale of
11:48:54 what the staff recommends, then petitioner, then
11:48:58 council questions.

11:49:01 >>> Perfect.
11:49:01 The staff recommendation, your planners and potential
11:49:04 zoning staff recommend the light and industrial
11:49:06 building permit.
11:49:07 They have concerns about the co-location of heavy
11:49:09 industrial uses with residential uses.
11:49:12 The solution that the heavy industrial offer is that
11:49:20 you have to do it pursuant to land development
11:49:22 regulations which can address the co-location issues
11:49:24 or development agreement that has to address the
11:49:26 co-location issues.
11:49:27 So the concept of being sought by the applicant is, we
11:49:31 understand staff's concerns, but we think they can
11:49:35 adequately address that in the land development
11:49:37 regulations which will deal with transition, and or
11:49:40 and development agreement.
11:49:41 So those are the primary differences.
11:49:43 But your professional staff is recommending light
11:49:46 industrial building permit.
11:49:48 The rationale for the heavy industrial is that there
11:49:51 are some uses out there that have been there for a
11:49:53 long time.

11:49:54 I believe it may even be heavy industrial use.
11:49:59 They don't really intend to relocate right away.
11:50:02 The primary point was to get rid of the hazardous
11:50:07 toxic uses which will noticed to be located that
11:50:09 consist of a chlorine plant and propane plant. The
11:50:13 propane plant is coming in for planned change so it
11:50:16 looks like they have already determined to relocate.
11:50:19 That determination has not been made by the chlorine
11:50:22 plant, I believe, but they are going to have to be
11:50:24 encouraged by those that will help them relocate.
11:50:27 So the argument for the heavy industrial is there will
11:50:31 be uses out there on the interim and the argument for
11:50:34 the approval is that we the city will be able to
11:50:36 address that in our land development regulations and
11:50:39 or development agreements.
11:50:40 So that appropriate bufferings, reduction of
11:50:44 emissions, containment of contaminants, or
11:50:51 particulates, all of the things with industrial uses
11:50:55 will be addressed in land development regulations or
11:50:58 in a development agreement, and both of which will
11:51:01 come in front of this council.
11:51:02 Now, the difference between the building permit and

11:51:04 the certificate of occupancy.
11:51:06 The argument for meeting the certificate of occupancy
11:51:09 is this.
11:51:12 There has to be a reason for the chlorine plant to
11:51:14 relocate.
11:51:15 I believe -- well, the attempted negotiation of the
11:51:22 chlorine plant is they need to find another site for
11:51:24 the chlorine plant.
11:51:26 They need to make that site ready for them to
11:51:28 relocate.
11:51:29 And then they need to help them relocate.
11:51:31 Those all involve dollars.
11:51:33 And they are not small amounts of dollars and they are
11:51:35 not dollars the city has.
11:51:36 So part of the argument by the property owners is this
11:51:40 is a unique opportunity to allow the private sector to
11:51:43 pay the cost to relocating this use which needs to be
11:51:46 relocated.
11:51:48 The problem we have is this may be a pretty
11:51:52 substantial cost, somewhere upwards of $15 million, to
11:51:54 find another site, make it ready for them and then
11:51:57 start transitioning them.

11:51:58 So their argument is that that could be a two or
11:52:01 three-year process.
11:52:02 But once we provided you, the city, adequate
11:52:04 assurances that is happening, by providing you a copy
11:52:07 of the binding contract, by providing you the plan in
11:52:10 which it will be transitioned, et cetera, why can't we
11:52:14 go forward with the building permit, because the
11:52:17 problem is we are going to be out of pocket $15
11:52:19 million.
11:52:20 If we have got to wait until they are completely gone
11:52:22 before we can start building and we have a two-year
11:52:25 build, we are delaying for two years.
11:52:28 So we are paying $15 million.
11:52:30 I can't testify that any of this is accurate.
11:52:33 I am giving you a summary.
11:52:35 Paying $15 million a year in -- in year one.
11:52:38 If you let us start with the building permit but not
11:52:40 do the certificate of occupancy, then we are going to
11:52:42 have to wait at least whatever that buildout period
11:52:44 southbound to start getting cash flow back and in that
11:52:47 time period it makes it economically viable.
11:52:49 So their concern is, you really want to induce us to

11:52:53 spend this money to relocate that plant, don't make it
11:52:57 impossible for us to do that.
11:52:58 Work with us.
11:52:58 Put what you need in your development agreements or
11:53:01 put what you need in your land development
11:53:03 regulations, let's make it happen.
11:53:05 That's essentially their argument.
11:53:06 The concern that staff has is that it's difficult when
11:53:12 a project has been built and people are waiting to
11:53:14 move in to tell them know.
11:53:19 What if a problem arises?
11:53:21 What if a permitting plan arises and we have allowed a
11:53:27 building permit to be issued?
11:53:28 They are saying, the developer is saying, that's our
11:53:31 risk, we are willing to waive any claim, we are
11:53:33 willing to take that risk, or at least be in the
11:53:36 position to take that risk.
11:53:39 So you shouldn't be that concerned about it.
11:53:41 The staff's concern is we have mom and pop.
11:53:44 And there's a hangup.
11:53:47 Now, I'll give you the last component of the
11:53:51 developer's argument, and that is this.

11:53:55 Nobody knows exactly how this is going to work.
11:53:58 There are some areas that I think perhaps we can
11:54:01 negotiate along those lines.
11:54:02 But what it really is, why tie your hands?
11:54:05 Why not give yourself the flexibility through a
11:54:07 development agreement and land development regulation
11:54:09 to address these issues this if you adequately address
11:54:12 them, Tau care and mitigate for the concerns.
11:54:14 So it really is, quote, in harm to the city, and if
11:54:19 that isn't what happens and we come back 15 years
11:54:22 later tanned chlorine plant has moved, it hasn't
11:54:25 caused any harm.
11:54:26 One thing you should also note as part of your
11:54:29 calculus -- I hate to be give you a primmer on
11:54:32 planning and zoning -- but we will be amending the
11:54:36 comprehensive plan.
11:54:37 So there are opportunities to start with additional
11:54:42 details and make sure the transition is clear and to
11:54:44 see how things work.
11:54:45 The last component, I know Mr. Dingfelder had a couple
11:54:48 of questions.
11:54:49 Dy include those changes with respect to strongly

11:54:53 urging.
11:54:53 I did include a -- at the end of A-6, A-2, and it's
11:55:01 confusing because it references at the very end policy
11:55:04 A-6.1.
11:55:06 That isn't these.
11:55:08 You notice these are A-6-A.
11:55:11 So A-6.1 is an existing policy.
11:55:15 And the language is literally verbatim from that
11:55:18 policy.
11:55:18 Dy even include the words nonindustrial uses within
11:55:21 the waterfront land uses.
11:55:23 That was not there previously.
11:55:25 I thought it was understood.
11:55:26 But we got it exactly the same now.
11:55:28 And I did put the words "strongly encourage" but it is
11:55:32 a desire, as I understand it.
11:55:33 Of course you haven't acted yet but you encourage
11:55:36 access to the waterfront areas in those commercial and
11:55:38 residential areas.
11:55:42 I think that's a summary of what the issues are and
11:55:44 where we are.
11:55:44 I don't know that I have left anything subsequent to

11:55:47 that.
11:55:48 I hope not.
11:55:49 I think there are people here that may want to speak
11:55:51 to the issue, however.
11:55:54 If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer.
11:55:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
11:55:58 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
11:56:00 item 80?
11:56:01 Number 80?
11:56:16 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I don't get involved in other
11:56:22 peoples business.
11:56:23 But I was sitting home one night, come home 2:00 in
11:56:28 the morning.
11:56:29 I went to slope, got me some coffee, woke up again.
11:56:33 I hope -- I'm an old man in bad shape but I hope I
11:56:38 don't die to see you all make this chlorine company
11:56:42 move.
11:56:44 Mr. Jones sent a letter about these neighbors'
11:56:48 complaints, you know.
11:56:49 He sent a memo thing or something over there.
11:56:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Postcard.
11:56:54 >> And then the one neighbor said he was coming in.

11:56:57 But these neighbors, they want this over there.
11:56:59 And this is a big project.
11:57:01 I been watching this thing, you know.
11:57:02 I been watching this thing.
11:57:04 But the lawyer said awhile ago, the city can't afford
11:57:12 to make this chlorine company move and said it's going
11:57:15 to cost $15 million.
11:57:16 I guarantee it will be 115 million.
11:57:19 If the chlorine comes and they are going to start the
11:57:22 building and pull the zoning and everything that you
11:57:24 need, you know, a lot of people in this town own a
11:57:29 piece of property and start zoning but, Lord, they
11:57:32 have to pay.
11:57:34 Whoo, Jesus.
11:57:36 I wish I could boy some stock in that chlorine
11:57:38 company.
11:57:39 But way want to say, this is a big operation.
11:57:42 And, you know, I always look at -- always looking at
11:57:48 how you get a company to get out of there.
11:57:52 And in my heart part of town, everything go, the code
11:57:59 enforcement, put a lean.
11:58:02 They put leans on them making them get out of there.

11:58:06 But in this part of town you can't do that.
11:58:09 So like I say, to see you all make this company move
11:58:14 out of there.
11:58:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
11:58:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
11:58:21 Mr. Chiaramonte?
11:58:36 The question I had, we had some very complex issues
11:58:40 related to this, relatively large piece of land, and
11:58:43 large plan amendment.
11:58:46 Specifically, we have got to deal with the
11:58:49 relationship between the hazardous uses, the heavy
11:58:52 industrial uses, how we transition.
11:58:54 Number one,.
11:58:56 Number two, we have to deal in, my opinion, with the
11:58:58 public access to the waterfront, which we always try
11:59:01 to encourage.
11:59:02 And number 3, the traffic concerns that a project of
11:59:06 this magnitude would generate.
11:59:14 And I would just like your comments on the record
11:59:16 today before we take a very significant vote on where
11:59:19 the Planning Commission staff is on this, where the
11:59:22 Planning Commission is on this vote, and have you

11:59:24 participated in these recent negotiations in the last
11:59:27 two weeks?
11:59:30 >>> I have not personally participated in the recent
11:59:32 negotiations.
11:59:33 I can tell you that the Planning Commission
11:59:35 recommended that this be transmitted to DCA.
11:59:38 I think that the negotiations make it from a staff
11:59:41 perspective a better agreement actually than what the
11:59:45 Planning Commission would go forward with as far as
11:59:48 tightening some of the concerns that staff had
11:59:50 earlier.
11:59:55 They seem to address some of the concerns that staff
11:59:57 had earlier.
11:59:59 So that to me makes it better than even what the
12:00:02 Planning Commission recommended be transmitted
12:00:04 earlier.
12:00:05 >> How about traffic?
12:00:08 Did you all look at traffic issues?
12:00:11 Or is it just something that you think -- should be
12:00:15 deferred until zoning?
12:00:16 >> I think in terms of the traffic come after.
12:00:20 There's a lot of debate this is a real chicken and

12:00:23 egg.
12:00:24 The land use planner personally, I think designate the
12:00:28 land use first and then deal with how you provide the
12:00:30 infrastructure for the land use.
12:00:33 For example, in a rural area, you would never have, if
12:00:36 you were going to change that to urban, would you
12:00:38 never have the traffic infrastructure to serve an
12:00:42 urban density when you are annexing land or something.
12:00:45 So to me, land use planning comes first.
12:00:48 Then the infrastructure comes.
12:00:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for Mr. Smith.
12:00:57 Mr. Smith, you did a really good job, I think, of
12:01:00 summing everything up.
12:01:01 But I just need a little more reassurance from you
12:01:05 that it sounds to me that even though you said the
12:01:09 staff recommendation was for the light industrial,
12:01:12 that the third iteration, which is the heavy
12:01:15 industrial, with the C.O., as we proceed in terms of
12:01:18 zoning and development agreements, would afford
12:01:22 council and the city enough safeguards to make sure
12:01:25 that we ultimately get rid of the industrial uses
12:01:29 before we have residences there.

12:01:31 And I guess I want some guidance.
12:01:41 >> We do think there are adequate safeguards in the
12:01:44 three versions and I want to tell you we consider all
12:01:46 three versions to be legal and legally enforceable.
12:01:51 The original version they've not reviewed, now they've
12:01:54 reviewed it, I would not have recommended it.
12:01:56 There were problems with it.
12:01:57 But I do agree with ray.
12:01:59 I think we have tightened this up considerably.
12:02:02 We have avoided some of the provision that is in all
12:02:04 candor I don't think were legal or enforceable so we
12:02:07 have before you today, I think, three legally
12:02:09 enforceable options.
12:02:11 And I think that we have a mechanism to protect the
12:02:14 citizens out there under all throw provisions.
12:02:17 Obviously the light industrial building permit, the
12:02:19 easiest to implement, but you know the reasons for
12:02:23 possibly extending the effort here.
12:02:25 And when think we have added the protections that
12:02:30 should be necessary to allow the residents to move in.
12:02:35 >> Thank you for your work on that.
12:02:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other quick question, Madam

12:02:40 Chair.
12:02:47 Thank you for your participation in this, Jean, as you
12:02:53 come up.
12:02:53 And I know you have been working on this for quite
12:02:55 awhile.
12:02:56 You are our transportation expert.
12:02:58 And if I have heard any comments from the community on
12:03:01 this issue -- and we heard a lot of testimony
12:03:04 yesterday during our workshop about the south of Gandy
12:03:09 area -- I think that -- I know I need some comfort or
12:03:18 some comments, at least, from our transportation staff
12:03:21 as related to the -- to these conditions that we are
12:03:26 approving, and as related to the overall plan
12:03:29 amendment that our transportation staff has reviewed
12:03:33 this thoroughly, and specifically do you have a
12:03:37 recommendation, or does the administration have a
12:03:40 recommendation related to traffic and transportation?
12:03:44 >>> Well, at this point the recommendation relates to
12:03:46 the -- the alternative text amendments that would go
12:03:52 going as a package.
12:03:54 And we have worked with Mr. Smith on language that is
12:03:58 before you for the text amendment, which we feel given

12:04:04 because of the level you are looking for in terms of
12:04:06 opportunity to address transportation needs through
12:04:10 mitigation, through the developments as they come in.
12:04:14 And what you heard yesterday, your briefing, was what
12:04:18 some of the possible solutions are that would address
12:04:23 the transportation needs that would come from
12:04:25 redevelopment of the area.
12:04:26 So we feel the language before you is -- gives you
12:04:30 that opportunity, and is also in line with the
12:04:35 comprehensive planned policies for what you are able
12:04:38 to request as these rezonings come in for the
12:04:43 development.
12:04:43 >> And specifically, I guess policy A-6-A .8, which
12:04:51 really treats this project a little differently than
12:04:54 most projects because not withstanding the fact that
12:04:56 it's located in the transportation concurrency
12:05:01 exception area, that we are still going -- they are
12:05:04 still going to have to address it.
12:05:07 So they are not going to be able to hide behind the
12:05:10 cover of the TCEA like many projects do.
12:05:14 >> Right.
12:05:14 And we see it as strengthening an existing policy A

12:05:19 .2.3.1, I believe, if I have that correct, that's
12:05:23 currently on the books.
12:05:25 So it's reinforcement of that and it will give you
12:05:28 that tool for addressing mitigation regardless how the
12:05:32 TCEA updates, plays out to the comprehensive plan
12:05:36 update.
12:05:38 >> And is it your opinion that we would still have the
12:05:43 ability to fit the developer with the fair share --
12:05:51 >>> Proportionate fair share.
12:05:53 We haven't adopted specific ordinance for that but it
12:05:56 would be the concept of this policy that there would
12:06:00 be a proportionate fair share for his impact that we
12:06:08 would be able to impose through the rezoning as they
12:06:10 come in.
12:06:10 >> So if and when we do adopt proportionate fair
12:06:14 share, it would apply to this parcel, so all the
12:06:18 applicants in the parcel.
12:06:21 >>> Yes.
12:06:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just wish to bring to council's
12:06:25 attention it's shortly after the noon hour.
12:06:28 Pursuant to council's rules of procedure it's
12:06:30 required --

12:06:31 >>GWEN MILLER: we are going to close the public
12:06:34 hearing and then do this and then take our break.
12:06:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, are there --
12:06:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I was going to ask if anyone in the
12:06:41 audience would like to speak.
12:06:44 We are going to go to the audience, take a break.
12:06:47 We do not have time now to have anyone else to speak.
12:06:51 Does anyone else wanted to speak on item 80?
12:06:54 >> Move to close.
12:06:55 >> Second.
12:06:55 (Motion carried).
12:06:56 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
12:07:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair --
12:07:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We closed the public hearing.
12:07:04 It's too late.
12:07:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I would move the item with the
12:07:10 alternative text amendment heavy industrial transition
12:07:13 certificate of occupancy.
12:07:16 We heard David Smith say that while that may not be
12:07:19 staff's ultimate choice, it does protect the city, and
12:07:25 quite honestly gives this project a fighting chance.
12:07:28 And what we all in this room want to see happen is the

12:07:38 plant go away.
12:07:39 >> Second.
12:07:40 (Motion carried)
12:07:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: I guess the one that goes to the
12:07:46 certificate of occupancy.
12:07:50 Some of the issues.
12:07:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
12:07:54 Point of order, point of order.
12:07:57 A vote was taken by council.
12:08:03 You cast your vote?
12:08:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: I am not casting a vote.
12:08:07 We talked about his motion.
12:08:08 >>GWEN MILLER: We voted.
12:08:17 It took me off guard.
12:08:18 I thought we were taking a break.
12:08:20 But now that he has made a motion to look at the
12:08:23 one --
12:08:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Ferlita, I'm sorry to interrupt
12:08:26 you.
12:08:26 But my understanding was that a vote has been taken.
12:08:29 Do you wish to have a roll call vote or do you wish to
12:08:32 at this point in time get a report of the clerk of

12:08:36 what happened so we have an official record?
12:08:37 >>GWEN MILLER: It was 6-0.
12:08:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: I didn't cast my vote.
12:08:42 I was going to explain why I was going to cast what I
12:08:44 was going to cast.
12:08:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Point of order, too.
12:08:50 I didn't hear Mrs. Miller say any questions?
12:08:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
12:08:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And if council wishes to --
12:08:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Out of courtesy, why don't we slow
12:09:02 down a little, let Rose say what they wants.
12:09:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: I didn't say "yes" or "no."
12:09:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can rescind the prior action.
12:09:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Rescind your motion.
12:09:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
12:09:17 >> Second.
12:09:17 (Motion carried).
12:09:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: My motion was to move item number 80
12:09:25 with the alternative text amendment, heavy industrial
12:09:29 transition, certificate of occupancy.
12:09:31 >>: Second.
12:09:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's my motion.

12:09:34 If we are going to discuss that and take a longer
12:09:37 period --
12:09:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: This the only thing I want to discuss
12:09:40 Mr. Harrison is why I am not going to accept the
12:09:43 alternative.
12:09:43 I certainly want this project to move.
12:09:45 I certainly think the gentlemen involved in this have
12:09:47 worked hard to get this done and I think ultimately
12:09:49 will be a good project.
12:09:50 However, when I look at some of the issues of the
12:09:52 comprehensive plan, I just feel that putting in
12:09:57 residential in a an area where you have hazardous or
12:10:01 heavy industrial is not consistent with the
12:10:03 comprehensive plan.
12:10:04 So I feel like there is more safety afforded to that
12:10:07 particular area of our community if we were looking at
12:10:10 the same thing, but instead of a certificate of
12:10:13 occupancy looking at it as a building permit.
12:10:16 That's the reasons as Mr. Smith said there would be
12:10:20 some opportunity then at that juncture if there was a
12:10:23 problem as opposed to having people moving in and
12:10:25 something goes sower and they can't, and here we are

12:10:28 ready to move.
12:10:29 So the certificate of occupancy versus the building
12:10:32 permit is the reason I won't support Mr. Harrison's
12:10:35 motion.
12:10:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions or comments?
12:10:38 Mr. Dingfelder.
12:10:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Very quickly.
12:10:40 I'm willing to support the motion to approve this comp
12:10:43 plan amendment.
12:10:45 We are not approving a rezoning today on any of these
12:10:49 parcels.
12:10:50 I have great concern about the ability of any of these
12:10:53 projects and any of these developers to address, to
12:10:56 adequately address the traffic concerns that will come
12:11:00 from any of these proposed projects.
12:11:03 But we are not here on the rezoning today.
12:11:07 Okay.
12:11:07 Down the road, if and when I'm sitting here and these
12:11:10 rezonings come forward, to actually rezone these
12:11:14 parcels and put projects there, the folks know, and
12:11:19 they are on notice, and we have had many chats, that
12:11:21 they have got to a tres the transportation issues and

12:11:23 the traffic issues that will result from this project.
12:11:28 And if they don't address those adequately, then I
12:11:30 will not support those rezoning rezonings down the
12:11:33 road.
12:11:34 But as Mr. Harrison said I am willing to let them get
12:11:37 past this stage, get past this hurdle.
12:11:40 The neighborhood has indicated that they would like to
12:11:42 see these chemical plants out of there, and the only
12:11:45 way they are going to get out of there is if we give
12:11:47 these developers a chance to move past today.
12:11:50 So on that basis I am willing to support the motion.
12:11:52 >>DAVID SMITH: Just to clarify.
12:11:54 I know what Mr. Dingfelder meant to say was vote for
12:11:56 the transmittal.
12:11:57 You will not even vote on the plan itself until it
12:11:59 comes back and DCA has reviewed it so you are going to
12:12:03 have an additional public hearing process to go
12:12:05 through before you move the plan.
12:12:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I appreciate the clarification.
12:12:09 Just the transmittal today, it will come back for many
12:12:11 more public hearings later.
12:12:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And that's exactly what I was going to

12:12:15 say.
12:12:15 I feel confer dent in moving this right now because I
12:12:17 know it's going to go to the DCA, DCA is going to come
12:12:21 back with questions about it because I feel very
12:12:23 confident that they will.
12:12:24 And so that's the only reason I will support this at
12:12:28 this time.
12:12:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?
12:12:31 We have a motion and a second.
12:12:36 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
12:12:38 Opposed, Nay.
12:12:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nay.
12:12:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll be in recess until 1:30.
12:12:44 (city Council recess)

City of Tampa
Tampa City Council
Thursday, September 7, 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.

13:38:30 [Sounding gavel]
13:38:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:38:31 order.
13:38:32 Roll call.
13:38:33 [Roll Call]
13:38:38 >>GWEN MILLER: We are now on item number 82, a
13:38:41 continued public hearing.

13:38:42 So we are going to go to number 82.
13:38:49 Does anyone want to speak on will 2?
13:38:51 >> Yes.
13:38:52 I want to clarify plan amendment 82.
13:38:57 Agenda item 82, plan amendment 06-05.
13:39:01 Rose Petrucha.
13:39:04 It was to change the future land use map heavy
13:39:06 industrial to a classification known as community
13:39:08 mixed use 35 industrial.
13:39:10 The text amendment that you were discussing earlier,
13:39:17 there will not be a new classification, just a request
13:39:19 to go to community mixed use 35.
13:39:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
13:39:25 wants to speak on item 82?
13:39:30 >> Move to close.
13:39:31 >> Second.
13:39:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
13:39:35 (Motion carried).
13:39:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move for transmittal.
13:39:38 >> Second.
13:39:39 (Motion carried).
13:39:41 >> Item 83.

13:39:42 Anyone want to speak on 83?
13:39:45 Would anyone in the public wants to speak on 83?
13:39:47 >> Move to close.
13:39:48 >> Second.
13:39:48 (Motion carried).
13:39:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to transmit.
13:39:56 >> Second.
13:39:56 (Motion carried).
13:39:57 >>GWEN MILLER: 84.
13:39:58 Anyone to speak on item 84?
13:40:00 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
13:40:04 >> Second.
13:40:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion?
13:40:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the plan amendment
13:40:10 language, does that carry through with each of the
13:40:12 items or is these just map amendments?
13:40:14 >> Items 82 through 85 are future land use map
13:40:18 amendments.
13:40:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the motion that Mr. Harrison
13:40:21 made earlier only applied to -- or was it 81?
13:40:30 Or 81?
13:40:30 >> 80.

13:40:36 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
13:40:39 These map amendments, however, are all within the
13:40:41 Rattlesnake Point area so they will be subject to the
13:40:44 text amendment.
13:40:45 But that was a stand alone vote and these are just
13:40:49 amendments.
13:40:50 >> To sort of run with it.
13:40:52 >> Yes, sir.
13:40:52 >> Mr. Smith, are these pretty much the same ones we
13:40:59 passed on number 80?
13:41:00 >> The text amendment will apply to all of these 2
13:41:03 through 85.
13:41:08 So now what you are doing is literally transmitting
13:41:10 the map amendment itself.
13:41:12 Each land use map that will go with those policies.
13:41:15 The text amendments.
13:41:17 >> We have a motion and second to close.
13:41:18 (Motion carried).
13:41:23 >> Move the transmittal.
13:41:24 >> Second.
13:41:24 (Motion carried)
13:41:25 >> Does anyone in the public wants to speak on 85?

13:41:31 >> Move to close.
13:41:32 >> Second.
13:41:32 (Motion carried).
13:41:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move transmittal.
13:41:37 >> Second.
13:41:37 (Motion carried).
13:41:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 86.
13:41:46 >> Madam Chair, you can choose to take items 86 and 87
13:41:49 together.
13:41:50 I believe that might expedite things.
13:41:52 And also these are quasi-judicial.
13:41:54 I would ask the opportunity for the witness to be
13:41:56 sworn now that we are in the afternoon session.
13:41:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone that's going to speak on 85, 86,
13:42:04 87, please stand and raise your right hand.
13:42:09 86 and 87.
13:42:13 86 and 87.
13:42:16 (Oath administered by Clerk).
13:42:17 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open.
13:42:21 >> Move to open 86 and 87.
13:42:25 >> Second.
13:42:25 (Motion carried).

13:42:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And when you state your name, please
13:42:29 reaffirm for the record that you have been sworn.
13:42:31 There's a little sign to remind you.
13:42:33 Thank you.
13:42:33 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
13:42:36 Item number 86 and 87 are ordinances rescinding
13:42:41 previous ordinance which you approved for the J.J.
13:42:45 Newberry and the -- and the Woolworth facade.
13:42:52 As you may recall, council approved a mediated
13:42:54 settlement agreement pursuant to 71 -- 70.51 Florida
13:42:58 statutes, under which you found an alternative method
13:43:08 to incorporate and repair the facades which are going
13:43:11 to be part of the Kress square development.
13:43:15 Part of that process and part of that mediated
13:43:18 settlement agreement, you are in the position where
13:43:22 you need to make the determination whether or not you
13:43:24 want us to rescind the previous ordinances under which
13:43:27 you designated those facades.
13:43:29 You are required to hold a public hearing on that, and
13:43:32 just go ahead and recommend to you that you hold a
13:43:34 public hearing on each one of these ordinances to make
13:43:37 the ultimate determination as to whether or not you

13:43:39 would like to rescind those ordinances.
13:43:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
13:43:43 wants to speak on item 86?
13:43:45 If you want to speak, please come up and speak.
13:43:47 Anyone that's going to speak on 86 or 87, please come
13:43:50 up.
13:43:54 >> And line up.
13:43:56 >>> I'm Anna Thomas, president of Tampa Preservation.
13:44:00 And I need to be sworn in.
13:44:04 (Oath administered by Clerk).
13:44:05 >> Good afternoon again.
13:44:11 I'm here on behalf of Tampa Preservation.
13:44:13 And our board and membership.
13:44:16 Tampa Preservation is a 30-year-old private,
13:44:18 non-profit organization that has made significant
13:44:22 contributions over many years to the redevelopment of
13:44:25 Tampa's historic neighborhood.
13:44:26 And to the education of literally thousands of
13:44:30 Hillsborough County schools, children, and adults with
13:44:32 regard to architectural legacy.
13:44:36 We are a volunteer organization that works to preserve
13:44:39 Tampa's architectural heritage.

13:44:42 I would like to make it very clear at the outset that
13:44:45 Tampa Preservation is strongly in support of Mayor
13:44:47 Iorio's vision for redeveloping and reenergizing the
13:44:52 economic growth within downtown Tampa.
13:44:57 We do believe that it's possible to have new
13:44:59 construction blend in with our preservation or
13:45:02 historic fabric.
13:45:04 County be done.
13:45:04 And that's what we try to work towards in partnership
13:45:07 with the city.
13:45:08 We were part of the process that resulted in the
13:45:11 Woolworth and Newberry facades being designated as
13:45:15 local landmarks.
13:45:16 We were part of the mediation process between the city
13:45:19 and the developer when the landmark status was
13:45:22 challenged.
13:45:22 We believe that the city, and you all, have made
13:45:26 significant concessions to help the developer execute
13:45:29 their building plans by first allowing the majority of
13:45:33 these structures to be torn down if the facades were
13:45:39 maintained, restored according to preservation
13:45:41 standards.

13:45:42 We also, through the assistance of our legal counsel,
13:45:47 Beth Johnson, submitted another recommendation that
13:45:49 would allow the developer to bypass the A.R.C. process
13:45:53 and that seemed to be cumbersome to them and allow the
13:45:59 oversight to be sure that the facades were being
13:46:02 accurately maintained and integrated with the new
13:46:04 building design.
13:46:05 The city and the preservation community as far as we
13:46:09 are concerned have done everything possible to mote
13:46:11 the needs of this developer, while upholding our
13:46:15 collective responsibility for protecting our
13:46:17 preservation.
13:46:20 These buildings are now for sale as we know, and their
13:46:23 use is undetermined.
13:46:24 The future of these buildings is very uncertain.
13:46:31 A city's past history is an abstract thing that people
13:46:34 have a hard time getting their hands around at times.
13:46:37 And it is this kind of visual link, this visual
13:46:40 evidence to the past, that can help turn that abstract
13:46:43 into more of a reality for those of us in this time.
13:46:47 So we ask -- we strongly believe that this designation
13:46:51 is necessary to put these on an ongoing basis, we ask

13:46:59 that you reconsider and not rescind the declaration of
13:47:01 local landmark status.
13:47:02 We ask you to please keep that intact respectfully.
13:47:06 Thank you.
13:47:10 >> I would like to ask Mr. Smith a question.
13:47:14 Mr. Smith, it's my understanding that these agreements
13:47:16 that he would passed last time go with the sale of the
13:47:20 buildings, is that correct?
13:47:22 >>DAVID SMITH: They will run with the land, yes,
13:47:24 ma'am. The land will be bound by those requirements.
13:47:26 >> Thank you very much.
13:47:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As a follow-up to that, Mr. Smith,
13:47:31 if we rescind the protection, the recension goes with
13:47:37 this, too?
13:47:39 >>> Yes, ma'am.
13:47:39 >> What was the city staff recommendation on this?
13:47:44 >>> Actually, Julia has more of that information.
13:47:46 >>JULIA COLE: Part of the legal process to effectuate
13:47:49 the media settlement agreement.
13:47:51 We made the determination and voted to approve the
13:47:53 mediated settlement agreement.
13:47:54 As part of that, in order to report under the mediated

13:47:57 settlement agreement, it would necessity the recension
13:48:02 of the designation.
13:48:05 >> But the HPC recommended the buildings being
13:48:08 protected and designated?
13:48:10 >>> This did not go back through the HDC process.
13:48:17 >> What was their original recommendation?
13:48:19 >>> Their original recommendation was to recommend
13:48:22 that these be approved, the designation.
13:48:27 >> Would anyone else like to speak?
13:48:30 If you are going to speak, would you please come up
13:48:32 and line up if you are going to speak?
13:48:44 >>> Becky Karp.
13:48:44 I live at 5139 south Nichols street and I have been
13:48:49 sworn.
13:48:50 To sort of follow up on the comments that have been
13:48:52 made.
13:48:56 The fact that the protection would run with the
13:48:59 development is fine.
13:49:02 But I would urge to you keep the designation in place.
13:49:05 There were criteria met to determine the eligibility
13:49:09 and the requirements to meet those standards to be
13:49:13 designated.

13:49:15 What's changed?
13:49:17 I don't know -- I don't know how you can go back and
13:49:20 ask that just because the developer doesn't want it.
13:49:23 Excuse me, out of breath.
13:49:26 The criteria has changed, and they don't now meet that
13:49:32 standard.
13:49:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
13:49:42 >> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
13:49:45 I would like to put something on the Elmo that
13:49:48 reflects the really great work the preservation, Inc.,
13:49:53 has done in the past several years regarding
13:49:56 relationships with the city, including development of
13:50:00 a code provision for Ybor City, assisting in the
13:50:03 creation of all Tampa beautiful historic districts,
13:50:06 assisting in the creation of the HPC, and the historic
13:50:09 resources element of the comp plan.
13:50:12 The list goes on and on.
13:50:13 And the things that they have done for the City of
13:50:15 Tampa are just too numerous to count.
13:50:22 I hope you consider those in the first hearing,
13:50:25 particularly now with the Kress square.
13:50:35 A very difficult hearing on August 3rd.

13:50:37 The preservation is afforded a very effective and
13:50:40 worthwhile compromise.
13:50:42 And the compromise as you know to keep the designation
13:50:46 intact but to allow the HPC administrator to review
13:50:49 the facade preservation in lieu of the A.R.C. in
13:50:52 recognition of the greater need for downtown
13:50:54 development, and in recognition that the ordinance is
13:50:57 being studied.
13:51:01 At a very difficult hearing it that the difficulties
13:51:05 with the A.R.C. would not have offered a compromise,
13:51:08 but by law the compromise that was offered could not
13:51:10 be used by TPI in any hearing judicial or
13:51:14 administrative, and that's clear under 7.51.
13:51:19 I drafted would I thought could be legislation and
13:51:23 the -- that is held against the organization.
13:51:29 To correct the record on August 3rd.
13:51:32 I did not say that I would avoid recusal issues, and
13:51:35 in fact the situation where e-mails that I sent to the
13:51:38 city on that topic when I answered.
13:51:41 And second, there were draft provisions that focus
13:51:44 more strenuously on preservation and others and shall
13:51:51 not have been revisited.

13:51:52 Third, I cherish our civil rights through preservation
13:51:55 history as much as anyone.
13:51:56 And I too believe our civil rights history is sacred,
13:51:59 which is why I spoke so passionately for true
13:52:02 preservation.
13:52:03 And then I think finally that when citizens question
13:52:07 the wisdom of government decisions, it is not only our
13:52:10 first amendment right but our obligation to do so.
13:52:15 David Smith said to me after August 3rd that
13:52:17 sometimes -- that we like the best and I know that
13:52:21 expresses my feelings, for the hard working attorneys
13:52:24 in the city attorney's office.
13:52:26 I think I can safely predict that no attorney in this
13:52:28 room has devoted more pro bono hours to preservation
13:52:33 in the last three years than I have, and the price has
13:52:36 been at a great personal and financial sacrifice.
13:52:41 And I'm starting to agree with my husband that working
13:52:43 for nonprofit causes in the City of Tampa may be just
13:52:46 a little too difficult.
13:52:47 But I am here today because I believe that there is a
13:52:49 better way.
13:52:51 I still believe that preserving a facade designation

13:52:54 especially in light of the potential sale is the best
13:52:58 decision for Tampa.
13:53:00 It's a very reasonable compromise that we propose,
13:53:04 after months of hours for a very worthwhile
13:53:07 preservation group in the City of Tampa that has done
13:53:11 so much.
13:53:11 Thank you.
13:53:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For the record, were you sworn in?
13:53:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I was not.
13:53:18 Sorry.
13:53:19 I swear that everything I said was the truth, the
13:53:21 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
13:53:24 >> That will do.
13:53:25 Thank you.
13:53:27 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Holland and Knight.
13:53:35 Real quickly.
13:53:37 I have been sworn.
13:53:38 Thank you.
13:53:41 The compromise that was reached contains the specific
13:53:44 protections for the facade that we are going to carry
13:53:47 on, on the property no matter what happens, and
13:53:50 anything different from that would have to come back

13:53:52 before council, the decision that you made at the time
13:53:58 you accepted that mediated settlement and continue the
13:54:00 process through the designation.
13:54:02 We are here if you have any other questions.
13:54:04 Thank you.
13:54:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
13:54:07 We need to close the public hearing.
13:54:09 >> So moved.
13:54:10 >> Second.
13:54:10 (Motion carried).
13:54:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: Number 86.
13:54:18 Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
13:54:20 rescinding ordinance 2006-67 which designated the
13:54:26 facade of the property known as the J.J. Newberry
13:54:29 building located at 815 North Franklin Street Tampa,
13:54:31 Florida as an addition to the North Franklin Street
13:54:35 downtown local landmark multiple properties group as a
13:54:38 local landmark, providing an effective date.
13:54:40 >> Motion and second.
13:54:42 Question on the motion?
13:54:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to encourage my fellow
13:54:45 council members not to accept this motion before us.

13:54:48 We have heard from the Historic Preservation
13:54:50 Commission, who originally voted to designate this,
13:54:54 that the truest way to protect what we all agree are
13:54:57 historic structures, is to protect them by designated
13:55:02 them as historic structures.
13:55:03 We have heard from a number of representatives for
13:55:07 Tampa Preservation, which is our local nonprofit
13:55:09 historic preservation advocacy group, that these
13:55:12 structures representing the history they stand for in
13:55:16 our community is exactly the kind of responsible,
13:55:20 public stewardship that we as council members need
13:55:22 to -- need to act upon.
13:55:26 We know that the property owner here is going to --
13:55:29 the property is going to change hands, in the interim
13:55:32 under their watch, the buildings have not been
13:55:35 protected particularly with numerous code enforcement
13:55:38 issues, and they haven't really cared for them in the
13:55:41 way that one would hope.
13:55:43 I really encourage you, in your role as a council
13:55:48 member, to not support the ordinance in front of us,
13:55:50 but rather to support the existing protections
13:55:54 afforded by our historic preservation ordinance.

13:55:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I just want you to know I heard
13:56:03 all your comments.
13:56:04 I was in the back but I was listening.
13:56:07 As well as the other comments from staff and the other
13:56:11 parties.
13:56:12 I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena.
13:56:14 I think we are heading in the wrong direction on this.
13:56:16 I think we have -- we have a process.
13:56:19 We have an ordinance.
13:56:20 It's been working for years.
13:56:22 It needs a little bit of tweaking.
13:56:25 The process needs a little tweaking and we are going
13:56:27 to work on that but I don't think we throw the baby
13:56:30 out with the bath water.
13:56:31 I think it's the wrong move.
13:56:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, it's your opinion I have
13:56:35 no conflict of interest and therefore I am required to
13:56:37 vote on this, is that correct?
13:56:40 >>> Yes, sir.
13:56:42 >> Motion on the floor.
13:56:43 >>THE CLERK: Dingfelder and Saul-Sena, no.
13:56:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you read number 87, please?

13:56:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance of the city of
13:56:57 Tampa, Florida rescinding ordinance number 2006-68
13:57:00 which designated the property at F.W. Woolworth
13:57:05 building located at 801 North Franklin Street, Tampa,
13:57:08 Florida as an addition to the North Franklin Street
13:57:12 downtown local landmark multiple properties group as a
13:57:15 local landmark, providing an effective date.
13:57:18 >> Second.
13:57:18 >>THE CLERK: Dingfelder, Saul-Sena, no.
13:57:23 >> Item number 88 needs to be continued to October 5.
13:57:32 >> So moved.
13:57:32 >> Second.
13:57:33 (Motion carried).
13:57:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For clarification purposes, that was
13:57:36 not a continued public hearing.
13:57:39 It's just being rescheduled.
13:57:43 Is that correct, madam clerk?
13:57:44 Thank you.
13:57:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 9 we need to open.
13:57:48 >> So moved.
13:57:48 >> Second.
13:57:48 (Motion carried).

13:57:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The following items are also
13:57:55 quasi-judicial proceedings.
13:57:57 89, 90, 91, 92.
13:57:59 I would ask Q people be sworn.
13:58:07 >>GWEN MILLER: If you are going to speak on 89, 90, 91
13:58:09 or 92, please stand and raise your right hand.
13:58:11 (Oath administered by Clerk).
13:58:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Staff, items 89 -- anyone in the like
13:58:24 to speak on 89?
13:58:26 >> Move to close.
13:58:26 >> Second.
13:58:27 (Motion carried).
13:58:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Move the resolution.
13:58:32 >> Move the resolution.
13:58:33 >> Second.
13:58:33 (Motion carried).
13:58:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 90 is a continued public hearing.
13:58:45 >> Barbara lynch, Land Development Coordination.
13:58:52 I have been sworn.
13:59:03 The petitioner is requesting to vacate a ditch
13:59:06 right-of-way lying north of lemon street, south of
13:59:09 state street, east of Wharton street, west of Occident

13:59:14 street.
13:59:15 Petitioner property is highlighted in red and it's
13:59:19 highlighted in yellow. And it's in the general
13:59:22 vicinity of Westshore and 275, which is north of 275.
13:59:31 I have pictures.
13:59:33 Would you like to see them again?
13:59:36 >> Yes.
13:59:44 >>> This picture is a shot of the drainage ditch area
13:59:46 looking north from lemon street.
13:59:55 This is a photo of the ditch area will go south from
13:59:57 the east-west drainage ditch that runs north of this
14:00:00 property.
14:00:07 This is a photo of the petitioners property.
14:00:21 This is a photo of the drainage ditch south.
14:00:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A procedural question.
14:00:31 Probably more to legal.
14:00:35 I just wanted to interrupt for one second.
14:00:37 Sort of a point of order.
14:00:39 Is there a rezoning that goes with this?
14:00:41 >>> Yes, I forgot to mention that.
14:00:43 It's item 91.
14:00:45 Z 06-89.

14:00:46 >> Shouldn't we address the rezoning first before we
14:00:48 go to a vacate?
14:00:50 I'm not saying -- which one should we vote on.
14:00:53 We can always vote on them together.
14:00:54 You tell us, counsel, which one to vote on first.
14:00:59 I just feel like we need to know it in the context of
14:01:02 the rezoning.
14:01:03 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:01:06 Generally speaking, we give you these at night
14:01:09 together.
14:01:09 We are vacating quickly to show you where it is and
14:01:11 then go into the zoning.
14:01:13 That's usually how we do it.
14:01:14 If you want me to go through the zoning first it's up
14:01:16 to you.
14:01:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to make it clear that
14:01:19 we are doing it hand in hand.
14:01:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, it would be my
14:01:22 recommendation that perhaps what you do, because
14:01:23 that's consistent with the way council usually
14:01:26 approaches this, and perhaps one might be able to
14:01:28 argue that the rezoning may go to the public purpose

14:01:32 for the purposes vacated, perhaps council may want to
14:01:36 go to the continued public hearing, address that
14:01:39 first, and hear it in the context, and then when it
14:01:43 comes time to vote obviously you do have to move to
14:01:45 vacate land in order for it to be rezoned.
14:01:48 So it would be 90 and 91 in terms of vote.
14:01:51 But council can choose to hear it however it wishes.
14:01:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Continue that first and then go to 90.
14:02:01 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Okay, thank you.
14:02:03 >>> This is a photo of the drainage ditch.
14:02:14 Petitioner has agreed to the conditions as requested
14:02:16 by stormwater.
14:02:17 Therefore staff has no objection to this vacating.
14:02:20 >>: You want to go to 91?
14:02:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You have no objections based upon
14:02:27 if they meet the conditions of -- that staff is
14:02:30 recommending.
14:02:31 >>> Yes.
14:02:32 What's happened is there is a pipe in the ditch
14:02:34 currently.
14:02:35 We are going to take a temporary easement over that.
14:02:37 And the petitioner has agreed to relocate the pipe and

14:02:41 has already submitted a new easement location by
14:02:45 stormwater.
14:02:46 >> So as long as those conditions are met, then you
14:02:48 have no objections.
14:02:49 >>> Yes.
14:02:51 And we have the draft ordinance and it is a part of
14:02:53 the ordinance.
14:02:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:03:06 You did receive a report back in August 17th when
14:03:10 this originally came before you.
14:03:11 There were numerous objections listed on the staff
14:03:14 report.
14:03:14 I did go back.
14:03:15 We did receive a row advised site plan that you have
14:03:17 before you dated August 28, 2006, that was submitted
14:03:21 for staff review.
14:03:22 The revised report, I received the comments back from
14:03:25 staff yesterday.
14:03:26 All of the objections have been cleared with the
14:03:28 exception of -- you will notice there was a landscape
14:03:32 specialist comment on page 2 of the staff report, with
14:03:35 approximately three bullet points of comments.

14:03:39 There is a revised -- she did present this to me this
14:03:42 morning.
14:03:43 There is one minor technical -- technical objection,
14:03:48 that they are requesting for a waiver on the site plan
14:03:50 which they did provide.
14:03:51 Therefore all the staff objections have been removed
14:03:53 based on the last staff report.
14:03:58 There are elevations attached to the site plan and I'm
14:04:00 here for any questions if you have any.
14:04:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
14:04:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's a little confusing since you
14:04:08 are saying what is before us isn't necessarily where
14:04:10 things stand now.
14:04:11 What's the story on the grand tree?
14:04:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Parks has removed all of their
14:04:16 objections.
14:04:21 They worked all of that out, I believe.
14:04:23 >> On page 3 under .1 despite the fact that one grand
14:04:27 tree will be removed, that still means that in the
14:04:31 total feel that some of the grand trees have been
14:04:36 saved, or -- it's hard for me to know what the staff
14:04:42 finding is, if you say that the information before us

14:04:44 has been revised.
14:04:45 So he would don't have the revisions.
14:04:50 >>> Well, do you.
14:04:50 They are still removing the grand tree.
14:04:52 However they worked it with parks where that satisfied
14:04:54 the requirements, based on what they were doing.
14:04:56 The preservation on the rest of the site.
14:04:58 The staff report that I did pass out to you is the
14:05:01 revised port as of today.
14:05:08 You.
14:05:09 >> I'll let the petitioner --
14:05:10 >> This is very confusing.
14:05:13 >> This obviously wasn't my case.
14:05:14 I picked it up last week.
14:05:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
14:05:18 >> Stormwater department.
14:05:24 I have not been sworn.
14:05:25 (Oath administered by Clerk).
14:05:34 >> We have worked with the petitioner for the past
14:05:36 three years on several site plan issues and resolved
14:05:38 most of those.
14:05:39 Today we wanted to inform council of the existing

14:05:44 conditions here, the flooding conditions on the major
14:05:46 conveyance that happens to cross the site.
14:05:50 There is a culvert that carries that ditch across out
14:05:58 to the street.
14:05:59 If I may, I will show you on the Elmo, the drainage
14:06:05 basin that drains through that culvert, approximately
14:06:08 1100 acres of land that surround Cypress Street and
14:06:12 the Internet state all the way from MacDill Avenue
14:06:14 all the way out to the bay.
14:06:16 And what we have there is the last two remaining
14:06:21 restrictions on at Westshore Boulevard.
14:06:25 We experience flooding frequently at Westshore
14:06:28 Boulevard due to these restrictions.
14:06:31 And we wanted to point that out so all the information
14:06:34 is there.
14:06:34 Obviously as these properties develop more people will
14:06:37 be exposed to the existing problems in terms of what
14:06:40 can be done today, or that's something I will leave to
14:06:44 the legal department but I wanted you to have that
14:06:48 information today.
14:06:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Given what is currently wrong and
14:06:55 going to be developed and treated and filled with

14:06:57 impervious surface, what is the net effect on our --
14:07:03 on the 100 acres?
14:07:06 >> The actual development of the development will be
14:07:07 mitigated by on-site stormwater retention requirements
14:07:10 so that is not an issue today.
14:07:12 What we are looking at is the existing culvert that is
14:07:15 undersized for our purposes, and something we
14:07:18 recognized for many years as being a deficiency, on
14:07:22 our larger list of projects to be completed.
14:07:26 Outside the five year window.
14:07:27 >> But can we get some help from the petitioner, and
14:07:30 investing and improving it?
14:07:32 It sounds like we are setting everybody who works here
14:07:34 up to terrible conditions.
14:07:37 >>> Again I'll leave that to comment.
14:07:41 >> But you are saying what we have now is completely
14:07:43 inadequate and we are going to add all this to it.
14:07:46 >>> Well, no, the impervious area is being mitigated
14:07:49 for by their on-site retention plan.
14:07:51 What we are saying is more people will be brought down
14:07:53 by the development of the land.
14:07:55 >> We are going to experience this condition.

14:07:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you point to me on the
14:08:00 overhead, can you point where the project is, where
14:08:03 the two culverts are that you are talking about, and I
14:08:09 think you are alluding to the fact that perhaps you
14:08:11 asked the developers to explore and resizing that
14:08:14 culvert?
14:08:15 >> We did explore that option, and --
14:08:18 >> And the developer has declined.
14:08:20 And I imagine will speak for themselves.
14:08:22 But they respectfully declined to do that?
14:08:26 >>> I'll show you here.
14:08:29 The ditch itself runs more or less along the street.
14:08:32 And essentially during the entire boundaries through
14:08:36 it.
14:08:37 What you find when you get to Westshore Boulevard, an
14:08:44 old box culvert there.
14:08:52 The project has made improvements for various reasons.
14:08:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is the project on this map?
14:09:00 >>> It straddles out.
14:09:02 The project is here on either side of the building.
14:09:08 It's city rite right-of-way.
14:09:10 It's not on the property.

14:09:12 The project actually straddles the city right, on
14:09:16 either side of the right-of-way.
14:09:17 >> Where is the part that they are asking us to
14:09:18 vacate?
14:09:19 They are asking to us vacate public property.
14:09:21 Where is that?
14:09:23 >>> Yes, these to the west.
14:09:24 Let's see if I can -- there's actually a smaller --
14:09:31 this is actually a smaller ditch that runs.
14:09:36 It's called a dish right-of-way.
14:09:40 And the project itself is this parcel here.
14:09:43 So the part we are talking about is here.
14:09:45 But the vacating that they are asking for is a smaller
14:09:48 ditch that we are going to relocate to the west
14:09:51 property boundary.
14:09:57 The vacating portion.
14:09:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On page 3 of our staff report it
14:10:09 says, the last three bullets have not been addressed
14:10:12 since the last set of comments.
14:10:14 And it's really hard to tell which those bullets were.
14:10:18 And I wondered if the staff person can look at our
14:10:20 staff report.

14:10:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:10:24 That is -- if you read in order, Land Development
14:10:27 Coordination, special objection on page 2.
14:10:32 It goes through to the last paragraph.
14:10:34 The last two bullets have not been addressed since the
14:10:37 last comments which are the three bullets in the
14:10:39 landscape specialists.
14:10:41 >> Do we have somebody here that can speak to this,
14:10:43 like Mary or some other landscape person?
14:10:48 >>> That's why I mentioned you have the new memo that
14:10:50 came in.
14:10:50 After I revised the report she came back with a memo,
14:10:54 and only has the one remaining technical objection.
14:10:57 And it's really because of the waiver of the green
14:11:02 space.
14:11:03 But they are providing the in lieu fee and is noted on
14:11:06 the site plan so it's not a very strong objection on
14:11:08 her part.
14:11:09 >> What was the total square footage size of this
14:11:12 development?
14:11:13 I couldn't find it in the report.
14:11:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I apologize, there are a lot of

14:11:19 missing pieces in this report.
14:11:20 I wish I had more information.
14:11:22 1,806,000 square feet.
14:11:25 >> 180,000 square feet.
14:11:26 How many folks are going to work here?
14:11:29 >>> That I can't answer.
14:11:31 >> I'm just thinking that this is a new big-deal
14:11:35 project, 180,000 square feet. This is a big-deal
14:11:38 project.
14:11:39 We are going to be subjecting all these people to what
14:11:41 is obviously a miserable condition on the street.
14:11:46 It seems like we should -- the responsible thing to do
14:11:49 is up front see what we can do to make the site
14:11:53 improvements in the area necessary for drainage that
14:11:57 would address the issues that were raised.
14:12:03 >> We let the petitioner talk?
14:12:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sure, but I wanted to raise these.
14:12:08 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
14:12:10 I think the petitioner, and then I would like the
14:12:15 opportunity spoke speak to legally what we can and
14:12:18 can't do as part of the rezoning.
14:12:20 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner.

14:12:23 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 south Boulevard here on behalf
14:12:27 of the applicant, ACP Westshore holdings.
14:12:30 I have been sworn.
14:12:32 I have a number of folks with me this afternoon, John
14:12:36 ward with ACP Westshore holdings, Mr. Howard Bruining,
14:12:40 architect with R.R. Simmons, Frank kitchener with
14:12:46 Simmons, Marsha sten mark, Wilson Miller, and Rachel
14:12:52 Rogers, landscape architect, and Randy Coen, Cohen and
14:12:56 company.
14:12:57 We will answer all of these questions, and Mr. Harwell
14:13:01 can speak.
14:13:02 I feel like I want to get some of the concerns at
14:13:05 least briefly addressed.
14:13:12 My Clint owns the building right next to the building
14:13:15 we are proposing to build on.
14:13:19 And there have been no flooding concerns reported in
14:13:21 this area.
14:13:24 What Mr. Seacrest is referring to is the fact that
14:13:26 there is a culvert that has some constraints due to
14:13:29 existing conditions but the streets are not flooded.
14:13:32 And we'll speak to that in more detail.
14:13:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Which street is not flooding?

14:13:38 >> The streets, Occident street, lemon street, which
14:13:41 is a brand new street just recently constructed by the
14:13:44 city and the D.O.T.
14:13:46 These are the streets that will access the property.
14:13:52 Of course, this site is just to the west of Westshore
14:13:54 Boulevard.
14:13:55 It's at the north east and northwest corner of lemon
14:14:00 and Occident street.
14:14:01 You may be more familiar with it.
14:14:04 It's immediately south of the Quon hotel.
14:14:11 We have not received any reports of flooding in the
14:14:13 immediate area.
14:14:24 The part about the four grand trees, there were four
14:14:28 grand trees on the property.
14:14:29 We worked very hard with Mr. Riley and the Parks
14:14:31 Department staff to position our garage to avoid
14:14:35 impact of three of the four grand trees.
14:14:37 One grand tree is smack in the middle of the site of
14:14:40 that we couldn't possibly avoid and be able to build a
14:14:43 structure on it.
14:14:44 We also had the large ditch which we had to avoid.
14:14:48 And so we moved the building in several locations in

14:14:53 order to write three of the four grand trees.
14:14:55 Again we will speak to that in more detail.
14:14:58 At this point, I would like to introduce Mr. Howard
14:15:01 Bruining, who will walk you through the site plan,
14:15:05 show you the elevations of the building, and explain
14:15:08 some of these sites constraints to knew more detail.
14:15:11 Thank you.
14:15:13 >> Howard Bruining, architect with R.R. Simmons,
14:15:27 design and construction.
14:15:28 I have been sworn.
14:15:34 River edge drive.
14:15:36 Quickly, what I would like to do is just give you some
14:15:39 background parameters of why this project looks the
14:15:42 way it is, maybe apart from some of the detail we
14:15:45 talked about a second ago.
14:15:46 This is 180,000 square feet commercial office space.
14:15:52 It's the orange square on our board to my left.
14:15:57 What I would like to also remind everyone that this
14:15:59 project on land that already has a TV, that that --
14:16:08 that PD was set in place some years back approximately
14:16:11 ten years ago.
14:16:12 The land is presently titled, I believe, for almost

14:16:15 240,000 square feet.
14:16:17 So we are actually downzoning in this PD request.
14:16:21 One of the reasons we are here is that the land to the
14:16:24 west that is the subject matter of the what you saw a
14:16:32 second ago is not part of the original PD.
14:16:34 The original PD on this property accounted for its
14:16:37 parking needs in a different way.
14:16:38 So this is -- we are here today to discuss this
14:16:42 realignment of those needs.
14:16:45 The western boundary, that is the piece west of
14:16:49 Occident street, is designated for a parking garage.
14:16:52 We have a two-phase program for that parking garage.
14:16:55 The intent is that 594 spaces would be designed in the
14:17:00 first phase of that parking garage.
14:17:03 The applicant would like to reserve the right to build
14:17:06 an additional area in that parking garage at some
14:17:08 future time.
14:17:09 So we designated that as a phase 2 which might provide
14:17:13 the opportunity to have 975 spaces in that parking
14:17:16 garage, depending on what market conditions would
14:17:19 require over the long-term.
14:17:21 The intent here is that we meet the basic parking

14:17:24 needs for the 180,000 square feet of office.
14:17:28 We do meet code.
14:17:30 And that depending on how market conditions are for
14:17:32 this type of project, some tenants require more
14:17:36 parking than others.
14:17:37 So the intent would be to have that parking available
14:17:41 to them if they so desired to build that at some
14:17:43 future time.
14:17:44 The parking garage is approximately 7 stories tall.
14:17:48 It's two wide. The important facts that Mr. Mechanik
14:17:54 referred to a minute ago, we worked with staff,
14:17:58 particularly Parks Department, and the stormwater to
14:18:03 try to resolve the need and the challenges.
14:18:07 And the grand tree situation is such that there are
14:18:11 five grand trees on the grand parcel on the west side
14:18:16 of Occident.
14:18:20 Those are mostly on the corners.
14:18:25 Mr. Dave Riley of parks worked with us quite a bit.
14:18:28 That one is a single grand tree at 45 inches.
14:18:35 And our stipulations on the plans.
14:18:39 Then there are four other trees, two of which are on
14:18:42 the western boundary, and somewhat adjacent to the

14:18:45 parking garage.
14:18:46 Those are double trunk trees, technically grand trees
14:18:51 under the city's ordinance. The other one is on the
14:18:55 northern side of the ditch, which is what they
14:18:58 generally in this location -- it's completely
14:19:00 unaffected by this development.
14:19:01 Then last but not least is the one that Mr. Mechanik
14:19:04 referred to which is located central to the parking
14:19:07 garage.
14:19:12 We engaged a certified arborist to review the tree.
14:19:16 That gentleman's name is Jerry Havich, recognized by
14:19:21 the Parks Department as being a certified arborist and
14:19:24 they accepted his opinion.
14:19:26 He suggested that this tree is generally stressed.
14:19:29 We have SOP photos of that tree, a double trunk tree.
14:19:32 Again not one of those Bayshore trees that's been
14:19:35 there for 100 years, but a grand tree.
14:19:37 He felt that that was a reasonable loss, if you will,
14:19:43 to need to build the parking deck, parking decks
14:19:47 generally, with things in the middle, and our design
14:19:56 approach was simply put the design in place where it
14:19:59 affected the least number of trees.

14:20:01 So our waiver request, for the preservation of the
14:20:08 other four trees.
14:20:09 I'm sorry no one is here from parks today, to can try
14:20:12 to clarify some of the conversation of a few minutes
14:20:14 ago, parks has been out to the site with me personally
14:20:20 three times, Mrs. Rachel Robbins in the room today,
14:20:24 landscape architect, worked extensively with the parks
14:20:28 group to make sure we were getting adequate efforts to
14:20:31 preserve the other trees that do fall under the
14:20:33 landscape ordinance on the site.
14:20:35 If you have seen some aerial photographs of this site,
14:20:44 deceiving is not the right word, but the reality is
14:20:46 that there are a number of exotic trees and
14:20:48 nonprotected trees on the site which the applicant has
14:20:52 agreed to remove them in their entirety.
14:20:54 There's probably 30 or 40 fairly good size trees in
14:20:57 the 4 to 6-inch caliper, Mulberry, Australian pines.
14:21:03 Those will be removed.
14:21:05 We also have agreed to grand trees and other protected
14:21:10 trees to do that carefully under supervision of an
14:21:13 arborist.
14:21:16 One of the requests, waivers we have on the

14:21:19 application, again was connected to the grand tree
14:21:22 issue, is that in the geometry that you try to abide
14:21:28 by particularly in the way the city requires parking
14:21:30 garages to be laid out, there are some limits on how
14:21:34 small we can make the garage.
14:21:36 So what we have tried to do is move the garage as
14:21:39 close to Occident street as possible, which would
14:21:43 provide additional room for the root structures of the
14:21:48 grand trees on the west side of the property.
14:21:49 We have worked both with stormwater and the Parks
14:21:51 Department to protect those roots, and we have some
14:21:59 language in the notes on this application which
14:22:01 provides some strict construction controls, we aren't
14:22:05 allowed to dig within certain diameters of those grand
14:22:09 trees.
14:22:10 Parks has agreed from a botanical point of view that's
14:22:13 satisfactory.
14:22:14 The stormwater has agreed that vacation of the
14:22:17 easement that was brought up a few moments ago, that
14:22:21 we have a technological routing of the new piping that
14:22:26 is being vacated, and that relocated to the west, that
14:22:30 that -- we have some hypothetical situation section

14:22:34 that storm Watt water has reviewed, agreed to, so we
14:22:37 believe we have a compliance to their normal
14:22:39 standards, that we can accommodate both the grand tree
14:22:43 preservation effort, and stormwater's needs.
14:22:47 By the way, that's related to some of the conversation
14:22:51 about flooding a minute ago.
14:22:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask you about stormwater
14:22:56 since you brought it up?
14:22:59 Madam Chairman, please?
14:23:01 Thank you.
14:23:01 Working with our stormwater department, I imagine you
14:23:04 have your engineers, we have our engineers.
14:23:08 How large a pipe are you proposing in lieu of -- I
14:23:10 assume it's an open ditch right now.
14:23:15 It's not an open ditch. Anyway, how large a pipe are
14:23:18 you putting a cross the property before it leaves the
14:23:20 property?
14:23:23 >>> The subject matter of the vacating petition is, if
14:23:25 I may, an 18-inch diameter, existing pipe, running
14:23:32 north-south.
14:23:34 It's a drop-in that picks the stormwater off of lemon
14:23:39 street.

14:23:41 It just transfers that water up to the east-west
14:23:44 ditch, which Mr. Seacrest was speaking about.
14:23:51 >> What do you suggest?
14:23:52 >>> Our replacement would be an in-kind replacement
14:23:55 according to the city's normal standards, which it
14:23:57 would be either an 18 or 20-inch pipe.
14:24:02 >> So you're just 18 to 18 or 18 to 20?
14:24:07 >>> Yes.
14:24:07 >> And have you done hydrologic studies of the entire
14:24:12 area, the entire 1100-acre basin?
14:24:15 >>> in a, our engineers have not done that.
14:24:17 >> Because there was testimony from Mr. Mechanik who
14:24:19 indicated there was no flooding problem, that you or
14:24:22 your engineer were here willing to testify to that?
14:24:26 >>> To the best of our knowledge and the best of my
14:24:28 personal research there is not.
14:24:31 >> But you haven't done an engineering study, correct?
14:24:35 >>> No, sir, we have not.
14:24:36 We have access to engineering studies, though.
14:24:38 >> Well, are you putting them in the record today?
14:24:41 >>> What I would like to do is have the engineer
14:24:44 actually speak more specifically to those.

14:24:47 >> Because we have to be very cautious.
14:24:48 Obviously, we have to base our decision on competent,
14:24:52 substantial evidence.
14:24:53 And I know Mr. Mechanik was just giving us a little
14:24:56 intro, but I wanted to make sure it didn't get miss
14:24:59 con Stroud as to testimony.
14:25:00 So if you and your engineer want top say that there's
14:25:04 no flooding and you have testimony to that effect,
14:25:06 then we need to hear it.
14:25:07 Otherwise, we need to hear from Mr. Seacrest who seems
14:25:11 to indicate he has some concerns about flooding in
14:25:12 that 1100-acre basin.
14:25:15 >> If I may, I would like to touch on two or three
14:25:19 other architectural issues in the area, especially,
14:25:22 and then I would just defer to the engineers to speak
14:25:27 more about the background of the thinking that goes
14:25:30 with that.
14:25:33 >> I don't know who the right person to address this.
14:25:36 But if you were to address, just to reassure, that on
14:25:40 the western side where you have the proposed drainage
14:25:42 easement and tough the grand trees, that the trees
14:25:44 aren't going to be flooded.

14:25:48 What about your drainage easement precludes the trees
14:25:51 from getting flooded?
14:25:52 I just came from Westshore and Kennedy, and there's
14:25:54 this like monsoon.
14:25:56 I wish somebody could be there with a cell phone and
14:25:58 send us a picture of what it looks like right now.
14:26:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I am going to make a request of you.
14:26:07 This is the time when the petitioners are out to make
14:26:09 his presentation in its entirety, and 30 minutes for
14:26:13 that.
14:26:14 And I would request council at this time if you would,
14:26:16 please, to mark down your questions and save them to
14:26:19 after the presentation.
14:26:20 Thank you.
14:26:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, just a question.
14:26:25 Mr. Chairman?
14:26:26 Since he referenced that have we stopped each time,
14:26:30 Sandy?
14:26:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If we could have that answer for the
14:26:34 record that's being transcribed.
14:26:36 >> Thank you.
14:26:37 Cape.

14:26:40 >>> Some additional background, I think I have
14:26:41 addressed a number of considerations on the garage
14:26:44 parcel which is the west side.
14:26:46 And again taking up the grand tree motion.
14:26:51 We have gone through the issues that in our best
14:26:54 belief that parks are satisfied that we make the best
14:26:57 possible presentation, and design decisions based on
14:27:00 their interest on that part of the property.
14:27:03 One other key thing in the note that I would call
14:27:08 attention to -- I don't recall exactly which note --
14:27:10 but the petitioner has agreed to exceed the landscape
14:27:15 ordinance minimum requirement with parks, if you will,
14:27:20 a good faith effort, typically the landscape
14:27:23 ordinance, trees are removed from a given site, an
14:27:28 equivalency is developed, one inch equals one inch,
14:27:31 et cetera.
14:27:33 There is a formula where the trees that are installed
14:27:37 as replacement trees for those taken away by this
14:27:40 project would be increased by a factor of two.
14:27:43 Not every tree is that way, but the intent is the
14:27:47 petitioner is that in their best interest, this
14:27:49 project would look much better with a healthy and

14:27:52 robust landscape on it.
14:27:54 Because we spent a few minutes talking about the
14:27:57 garage parcel of the east side, which is where the
14:28:01 office building is virtually BARON, there are no trees
14:28:05 on that side.
14:28:06 Their intents is to balance that out, use the new
14:28:08 product to sort of enhance that.
14:28:16 There are some other features of. This we also worked
14:28:19 with the parks trails, and agreed to an expanded
14:28:24 sidewalk system on the west side, the typical city
14:28:30 requirement is only five feet.
14:28:31 We agreed to provide ten feet of sidewalk.
14:28:33 And due to some geometry questions that occur at the
14:28:37 intersection of new lemon and Occident that
14:28:42 three-street intersection, it was within our favor to
14:28:45 actually carry that sidewalk onto the property.
14:28:48 So we feel like we have provided an opportunity to
14:28:50 create a park-like setting even though it's on the
14:28:56 public property.
14:28:57 And then on the private property, parks thought that
14:29:00 was a reasonable thing to do, because we are also
14:29:03 avoiding the root system of the grand tree.

14:29:05 There are some provisions in the city landscape code
14:29:08 so that you can do some non-concrete types of
14:29:11 sidewalks that are suitable for bicycles and other
14:29:13 types of pedestrian uses.
14:29:15 So we swung that sidewalk in that doubles as a
14:29:20 function to people who live and work in this office
14:29:23 building, if you had to crosswalk there, traffic has
14:29:27 reviewed this, and satisfied the arrangement at the
14:29:31 intersection is suitable for their needs.
14:29:33 Everyone though it's not part of this particular
14:29:36 rezoning, the applicant would like at some future
14:29:41 time, for sky bridge and the various procedures that
14:29:45 go with that.
14:29:46 So there's a potential that would come about as part
14:29:50 of the project at a future time.
14:29:52 I would like to speak a little bit about the
14:29:54 organization of the office building site very quickly.
14:29:57 I believe Mr. Mechanik indicated it was adjacent to
14:30:02 the building that has an Amscot sign on it, North
14:30:07 Westshore, the white building that has the ribbon
14:30:10 window design to it.
14:30:34 There is a curb cut.

14:30:38 Under a D.O.T. agreement.
14:30:43 This is a one-way street, the off-ramp, 275 to
14:30:50 Westshore Boulevard.
14:30:51 Technically, this street is largely controlled by
14:30:55 FDOT.
14:30:56 We approached them about relocating that curb cut.
14:30:59 And administratively, we felt leaving that in place.
14:31:10 One of the issues that came to us was the fact that in
14:31:12 order to move service vehicles, moving vans, trucks,
14:31:18 be situated, at a drop-off area in front of the
14:31:21 building, which necessities our need to get a waiver
14:31:25 for the typical 8-foot landscape buffer in the front,
14:31:29 we believe that the green space in front of this
14:31:31 building is a more than adequate to provide a nice
14:31:36 screen appearance.
14:31:38 We have agreed to provide other landscape in the
14:31:41 public right-of-way to mitigate that situation.
14:31:43 And we have agreed to -- as Ms. Coyle said a minute
14:31:48 ago, we agreed to compensate the in-kind value for the
14:31:54 loss of vehicular use space green space.
14:31:57 As you see in this plan, our parking lot is virtually
14:32:00 nonexistent.

14:32:01 We just have driveways and service drives.
14:32:03 So, therefore, it was difficult to plant trees in the
14:32:07 middle but we agreed to a figure of something on the
14:32:10 order of $27,000 that would be applied to the city
14:32:13 landscape and needs on that basis.
14:32:16 And in summary, that is the architectural content of
14:32:19 the budget.
14:32:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a couple of questions that
14:32:24 were left over.
14:32:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have elevations?
14:32:28 >>> Yes, ma'am.
14:32:38 I hope your package has elevations in it.
14:32:42 These are conceptual elevations.
14:32:43 As you know, the building that is quite close to this
14:32:46 building is approximately 50 feet away on the -- on
14:32:53 the east side of it.
14:32:54 We tried to maintain a lot of the character of that
14:32:57 building so that we don't have two miss matched
14:33:02 buildings sitting beside by side.
14:33:04 The intent of the S to create sort of the quality and
14:33:08 general character of the recently constructed
14:33:11 buildings in the Westshore area.

14:33:14 Some of the buildings have been the International
14:33:16 Plaza area, or seem to be similar character and are
14:33:22 competitors to this building, if you will.
14:33:25 These would be concrete and glass buildings.
14:33:29 We have been discussing potential hurricane resistant
14:33:34 construction, in deference to some of the comments
14:33:36 about flooding, the developer is quite interested in
14:33:39 making these buildings as hurricane proof as possible
14:33:42 and relocating some of the utilities up inside the
14:33:46 buildings to take care of storm surge issues, which
14:33:48 would affect everybody, irrespective of what the storm
14:33:50 drainage system is doing to that area.
14:33:53 The parking garage has not been developed.
14:33:56 We do have some elevations.
14:33:58 But we feel strongly that the preservation of the
14:34:02 grand trees and other tree cover on the west parcel
14:34:05 will go a long way to screen the garage without too
14:34:11 much architectural embellishment.
14:34:14 Frankly to make that garage disappear in the
14:34:17 background.
14:34:18 Our company has been successful in building garages
14:34:21 inside of oak groves.

14:34:22 We have done so at Brandon, hospital.
14:34:29 We have a hospital down in Bradenton where we
14:34:31 literally built a garage of this size just a few feet
14:34:35 away from existing grand trees, or grand trees of that
14:34:39 size.
14:34:43 >> Do you have somebody that's going to speak
14:34:45 specifically to stormwater issues?
14:34:46 >>> Yes, sir.
14:34:47 >> You might want to bring him in.
14:34:48 >>DAVID MECHANIK: At this time I would like to ask Mr.
14:34:51 Lee Harwell, professional engineer from Wilson Miller,
14:34:55 to come in and address this.
14:34:56 And I would like to state for the record that the
14:34:58 zoning code, the city Land Development Code, does not
14:35:02 require that an applicant for rezoning petition you a
14:35:06 full study of the drainage basin for the area, but Mr.
14:35:11 Harwell has done some research about flooding in the
14:35:14 area and complaints about flooding, and we did have --
14:35:18 and what I offered was anecdotal evidence based on my
14:35:23 clients having owned the building right next door, and
14:35:26 the fact that they have not experienced flooding in
14:35:29 the immediate area.

14:35:32 >> I just wanted to make sure the record was clear
14:35:35 since we wanted to have a good record.
14:35:42 >>> Good afternoon.
14:35:43 Lee Harwell, 2205 north 20th street, Tampa,
14:35:47 Florida 33605.
14:35:48 And I have been sworn.
14:35:51 Site engineer for the project.
14:35:53 And regarding stormwater issue, I just wanted to give
14:35:57 council some facts that you can consider in making
14:36:00 your decision.
14:36:03 I think Steve Seacrest ended up, our project is not
14:36:08 causing any flooding pre-development or
14:36:11 post-development, and certainly post-development, we
14:36:14 are not going to make any matters worse.
14:36:18 In 1988 there was a drainage study.
14:36:21 Of course 18 years.
14:36:25 That drainage study suggests there is some flooding at
14:36:27 cypress, memorial 'n and Occident street areas.
14:36:34 The stormwater planning department, they have
14:36:36 indicated to me that the only document in 1991 and a
14:36:41 subsequent one in 1994.
14:36:44 I guess that's good news that there hasn't been

14:36:46 documented complaint in 16 years.
14:36:58 I took a look at the FEMA 100 year flood plan.
14:37:01 And it seems the parcel on the west side of Occident
14:37:05 is in a 100 year flood zone according to FEMA. The
14:37:08 office parcel on the east side is not. The difference
14:37:14 in elevation of properties is about two feet.
14:37:18 Base flood elevation is elevation 10.
14:37:20 And we did a very specific site survey out there, and
14:37:24 if we did vice-president a 100 year storm event, the
14:37:30 elevation was up to ten, half of our property would be
14:37:33 inundated by water.
14:37:36 There's hundreds of properties in the City of Tampa,
14:37:41 Hillsborough County, that floods.
14:37:43 People develop on them all the time.
14:37:45 And that's why we have regulations, design
14:37:49 documentation that tells us how we handle development
14:37:52 in flood zone properties.
14:37:54 Speaking a little bit about stormwater management
14:37:56 design, we are well aware we are governed by both
14:38:01 SWFWMD and City of Tampa regulations.
14:38:06 Water management district interest is -- City of
14:38:13 Tampa, likes to take it up a notch and require not

14:38:17 only -- you actually make it better.
14:38:21 And that's what engineers consider the criteria.
14:38:26 I can assure you that our project is being designed to
14:38:28 comply with SWFWMD and City of Tampa regulation.
14:38:35 Another piece of information I would like to offer is
14:38:38 that the I-275 widening project that the D.O.T. is
14:38:41 doing, they are actually proposing to take away 100
14:38:44 acres of the 1100 acres that contributes to the
14:38:49 drainage ditch.
14:38:50 So it will help to alleviate some flooding conditions
14:38:58 in the area.
14:38:59 I also wanted to mention a 1988 study that the
14:39:03 recommendation of every study to make improvements to
14:39:05 the drainage system.
14:39:06 And the recommendation to that study is two phase.
14:39:10 Phase one, which is really upstream of Westshore.
14:39:15 Phase two is in our immediate area, which is
14:39:18 Westshore, and phase 3 is from Occident street heading
14:39:24 west all the way to Tampa Bay.
14:39:26 I'm not sure if the improvements have been done, and
14:39:32 Steve mentioned that the phase 2 has not been done.
14:39:35 And I am not certain that the phase 3 has been done.

14:39:42 But the recommendation of the study is you do phase
14:39:44 two, you are going to have a bigger problem at
14:39:49 Occident and Westshore.
14:39:52 I hope you will consider these facts in making your
14:39:54 decision.
14:39:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder.
14:39:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You mentioned the 1988 study.
14:40:05 That's the most recent study those been done in the
14:40:08 base thane you are aware of?
14:40:09 >>> Yes, sir.
14:40:10 >> What were the issues?
14:40:11 What were the conclusions of that study for the basin?
14:40:14 >>> The conclusions, there's a whole bunch of
14:40:17 different conclusions but basically the lower the
14:40:19 elevation during storm event, so that you won't have
14:40:24 flooded property.
14:40:26 But does Vermont a basic conclusion there's a flooding
14:40:28 problem in that basin?
14:40:30 >>> I would say that was a conclusion.
14:40:35 Based on the drainage studies that they are concerned
14:40:37 about flooding in certain areas.
14:40:39 >> And that's the only true engineering studies that

14:40:43 exists for that basin S.that your knowledge?
14:40:46 >>> Yes, sir.
14:40:48 City of Tampa stormwater department.
14:40:55 >> In terms of reports or what have you.
14:40:57 In your day to day base, you base your opinions on
14:41:01 engineering studies, is that right?
14:41:02 >>>
14:41:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Real quick question, quick answer.
14:41:13 Are you sure that all the part on the west that you're
14:41:15 using for stormwater is not going to negatively impact
14:41:17 the grand trees that are there?
14:41:19 I mean, the cypress trees they can be wet all year
14:41:23 long.
14:41:24 I want to make sure -- because of the storm drainage
14:41:30 and the trees.
14:41:31 >>> Certainly.
14:41:33 Regulations with stormwater management, and we are
14:41:35 certainly -- two and a half acres area, two and a half
14:41:43 acres for stormwater.
14:41:47 Basically the existing conditions.
14:41:48 I'm not saying we are going to make it better upon
14:41:51 site.

14:41:51 But the site is in a 100 year FEMA flood zone.
14:41:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: There are any other questions for
14:41:59 the speaker?
14:42:00 Thank you.
14:42:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you can hold that question.
14:42:12 Unless you want to take it now.
14:42:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: State your name for the record.
14:42:33 >>> Rachel ROM Rogers.
14:42:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Have you looked at the storm
14:42:39 drainage and looked at the grand trees on the west
14:42:41 side and built the storm drainage positively or
14:42:46 negatively, or will it be okay in terms of grand
14:42:48 trees?
14:42:50 >>> I do believe that we'll be fine, the way the
14:42:52 stormwater extended line.
14:42:55 >> Have you looked at it?
14:42:56 >>> Yes, we have looked at it in great length.
14:43:00 We have been out to the site many times, and set many
14:43:05 meetings with the Parks Department, and we have had
14:43:07 many conference calls saying, yes, I do not believe it
14:43:17 will negatively effect those trees.
14:43:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Did you have anything else to add to

14:43:22 this presentation?
14:43:25 >>> I expect to sum up.
14:43:28 I think the point I would like to wrap up in terms of
14:43:30 the stormwater issues, we believe we answered all of
14:43:34 the staff -- first of all, the final reports came in,
14:43:38 and there are no other -- no staff objections other
14:43:42 than the technical objection about the fact that we
14:43:45 are paying a fee in lieu -- in compensation for green
14:43:49 space.
14:43:50 I would like to point out that my client donated
14:43:52 right-of-way for the lemon street project that was
14:43:57 constructed with no compensation to my client.
14:44:01 Had he not done that right-of-way I don't think we
14:44:04 would be asking for that today, about a 30-foot
14:44:07 donation.
14:44:07 I would like the council to take them into account.
14:44:11 Regarding the stormwater, we have discussed the issue
14:44:14 about widening, enlarging this culvert at length with
14:44:18 the city legal department, and I believe they concur
14:44:21 with us.
14:44:22 We are not causing the need or the concern regarding
14:44:26 the widening the culvert.

14:44:27 We are, as Mr. Seacrest said, mitigating our
14:44:30 stormwater impact on-site per the code requirement.
14:44:34 We are not required under the code to Don anything
14:44:37 further.
14:44:39 You certainly do have flooding concerns all over the
14:44:42 City of Tampa.
14:44:43 And I've never seen the fighting in general terms
14:44:47 being a basis for a zoning decision when an applicant
14:44:53 has by the staff has -- the improvements that are
14:45:02 being requested by the staff is very significant, and
14:45:06 expensive, and is not something that my client is
14:45:09 prepared to agree to do. And again we are not
14:45:12 responsible for that.
14:45:14 And I believe Ms. Coles will be prepared to confirm
14:45:20 what we are offering.
14:45:21 Thank you.
14:45:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Are there any further questions for
14:45:24 any council members oh for Mr. Mechanik?
14:45:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to hear from Ms. Cole but
14:45:31 before you close I want to ask a question.
14:45:33 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
14:45:35 We did have extensive discussions with the applicant

14:45:39 about this issue.
14:45:40 Our staff had stormwater staff that this applicant
14:45:48 construct a culvert to alleviate an existing flooding
14:45:52 problem.
14:45:53 We looked at the code, and how that all works.
14:46:00 There is nothing within the code -- the code does
14:46:02 require any applicant that comes in to rezone the
14:46:06 property and even if they want to develop, it's clear,
14:46:09 the record is clear that it's being taken care of.
14:46:13 The question becomes one of simply because an
14:46:16 applicant comes in to request a rezoning in an area
14:46:22 with stormwater problems whether or not you can make
14:46:25 an applicant to fix an existing stormwater problem.
14:46:28 The technical manuals clearly indicate that you are
14:46:34 only required to contain stormwater and I think it's
14:46:37 very difficult given the finding, the standard between
14:46:41 what they are requesting and the requirement that they
14:46:43 put in place on improvements, and therefore if you
14:46:52 were to move forward with that part of the -- I think
14:46:56 that would relieve the problem so I am not making that
14:47:03 recommendation to you.
14:47:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think I understand what you are

14:47:10 saying but also as elected officials we are asked to
14:47:13 look at the big picture.
14:47:14 Staff and clerk has brought this to us bundled as a
14:47:17 vacating of public right-of-way, vacating of a
14:47:20 stormwater system, that runs across their project.
14:47:25 And hand in hand with the proposed PD and with the
14:47:32 request from staff that perhaps this developer improve
14:47:39 the culvert.
14:47:40 So perhaps what you're saying is you can look at it in
14:47:45 isolation, and, you know, perhaps we shouldn't be able
14:47:47 to do this.
14:47:48 But are we being asked to look at it in isolation?
14:47:52 Are we being asked to look at it together?
14:47:54 Because to me the presentation has been made together.
14:47:57 This petitioner, this applicant, has asked us, they
14:47:59 have asked us, nobody went and walked into -- they
14:48:03 have asked us to vacate city land, to vacate public
14:48:07 property, and according to this case that you guys
14:48:10 gave us, called Laramie versus city of Miami Beach,
14:48:15 says the city has in a right, for the trust that it
14:48:21 hold in public for a purely private interest.
14:48:26 From what I hear today is a purely private interest.

14:48:29 It's the interest of this developer wants to build a
14:48:31 building.
14:48:31 I don't have a problem with them wanting to build a
14:48:33 building.
14:48:34 That's wonderful.
14:48:35 Okay?
14:48:35 Build an office building.
14:48:37 We'll have greater tax roll.
14:48:39 That's wonderful.
14:48:39 But, at the same time, they came in asking to vacate
14:48:44 quite a bit of land that they don't own, and give it
14:48:47 to them.
14:48:50 Tap out oft of the public trust and give to the them.
14:48:52 Now can I look at that? Those issues in isolation?
14:48:55 And now we look at funding.
14:48:58 >> When I was speaking, I was speaking in the context
14:49:01 of rezoning.
14:49:02 And you may want to hear from Mr. Seacrest.
14:49:06 And I don't think there is an objection to the
14:49:08 vacation.
14:49:09 You may want to ask him how the vacation of this
14:49:11 particular drainage easement plays into the request

14:49:14 that they have as part of the rezoning to do this
14:49:18 improvement.
14:49:19 And that would be a valid question for Mr. Seacrest.
14:49:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not just an engineering question.
14:49:26 I'm talking about public land, that they asked to
14:49:29 vacate public land so they can build their garage and
14:49:32 build their building, et cetera, et cetera.
14:49:34 I am not asking the engineering question.
14:49:36 I have already heard the answer to the engineering
14:49:38 question.
14:49:38 What I am saying is from a policy perspective, I think
14:49:42 it's appropriate since these two issues came to us
14:49:45 bundled that we are allowed to look at it bundled
14:49:47 back, and throw it back at the developer and say, you
14:49:50 want us to vacate this land because it's good for your
14:49:52 project but you don't want to help this 1100-acre
14:49:55 basin, because that's good for the public.
14:49:58 I have a little problem with that.
14:50:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I can address that, Mr. Dingfelder.
14:50:04 It would be my advice that even though they both
14:50:06 appear on the agenda at the same time, and council did
14:50:12 attach them both up at the same time, they are

14:50:14 related, except they have different criteria.
14:50:19 And as Mr. Mechanik rightly said, that under the
14:50:23 rezoning, under chapter 27, there may be no
14:50:27 requirement.
14:50:29 So my point is that do not, please, look at them
14:50:34 bundled.
14:50:34 The facts are bundled, in the fact that they overlap,
14:50:38 rather than have a -- in order to save the process,
14:50:43 the facts are all given at the same time.
14:50:45 The criteria by which you wave the -- waive the zoning
14:50:51 is one set of criteria and the criteria but which you
14:50:54 choose to vacate public land, public right-of-way, is
14:50:58 another criteria.
14:50:59 I know there's two separate items on the agenda.
14:51:02 So ultimately you have to take them up separately, and
14:51:09 frankly my advice would be to not mix the two but do
14:51:15 those separately.
14:51:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
14:51:21 Have been has questions.
14:51:22 Ms. Saul-Sena, do you have a question along this line?
14:51:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:51:26 Way was going to suggest is that we plan a one-week

14:51:30 continuance, have somebody from stormwater go out
14:51:33 there today, and take a picture of what this ditch
14:51:36 looks like and come back, and I want our staff to give
14:51:39 a big explanation of the whole water situation.
14:51:42 I think that's really key to all of this.
14:51:45 And, also, our staff report number 5 says something
14:51:48 that's completely unclear.
14:51:50 They are talking about preserving that for resources.
14:51:55 And say there are still large amounts of green space
14:51:57 across the site.
14:51:59 I feel like the question of open space and drainage is
14:52:05 really key to the rezoning of the street vacation, and
14:52:07 that -- nothing personal but sorts of a confusing
14:52:12 staff report.
14:52:12 And I think that we would all benefit from additional
14:52:15 information and a clearer explanation of exactly what
14:52:19 our stormwater issues are, what our waivers of public
14:52:22 open space issues are, and will help council make a
14:52:31 clear decision.
14:52:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, this ditch has been there long,
14:52:37 long, long, long time.
14:52:38 And even if we do vacate and give it to them, it

14:52:41 becomes their property, it becomes their headache, the
14:52:45 way I see it.
14:52:51 It does.
14:52:52 They are the ones that are going to have to take care
14:52:54 of this, because it's there's then.
14:52:58 So I don't see a problem with that.
14:52:59 I really don't.
14:53:02 And I'm ready to vote for this either way, you know.
14:53:05 I don't think we need another week.
14:53:07 >> We are not ready to vote, that's for sure.
14:53:12 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Just for the record I would like to
14:53:14 try to answer that because I think things are getting
14:53:16 a little confused about the vacating petition.
14:53:18 We are not vacating the drainage right-of-way.
14:53:23 To gain land.
14:53:27 We are simply moving a pipe over about 20 feet to the
14:53:29 west in order to put the building there.
14:53:31 We are actually going to wind up giving the city more
14:53:34 land as an easement and right-of-way than it currently
14:53:38 has.
14:53:38 It will be a wider easement area than the current --
14:53:42 than the city currently possesses in terms of the

14:53:45 ten-foot easement and we are giving the city, at one
14:53:48 point, a minimum of 15 feet and it actually enlarges
14:53:52 at the southern corner of the property at the request
14:53:54 of the staff.
14:53:55 This is a very common process to facilitate a
14:54:00 particular development where you allow a vacation with
14:54:03 the relocation of a -- with a new easement to
14:54:07 accommodate the location of a particular building.
14:54:12 We're not gaining any land as a result of this
14:54:14 vacating.
14:54:19 We are locating the pipe at our expense.
14:54:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: There are any further questions of
14:54:22 the applicant?
14:54:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A qualification of that issue,
14:54:25 Mr. Mechanik.
14:54:26 So, in other words, the vacating is not that important
14:54:28 an issue for your client.
14:54:30 And you just go forward with the PD without the
14:54:33 vacating?
14:54:34 >>: I wouldn't say it's unimportant.
14:54:35 Currently the building --
14:54:39 >> My point, David, and you know what I'm saying, you

14:54:42 want to build the building across what is currently
14:54:44 public land.
14:54:45 >>> Right.
14:54:45 >> And I appreciate the clarification.
14:54:47 You're saying, all you are doing is shifting from one
14:54:51 side to the other.
14:54:52 But the bottom line is, you're asking the public, who
14:54:55 is represented by the seven of us, for something
14:55:01 that's very important to your project.
14:55:04 >>> Except that what I am also saying is that the
14:55:06 public is gaining more right at the end of the day,
14:55:09 not to mention a brand new drainage pipe that we will
14:55:12 be installing at our expense.
14:55:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: There you go.
14:55:17 >>> And we are doing this also to protect.
14:55:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we have any other questions of
14:55:22 the petitioner? Not a soliloquy about the pros and
14:55:26 cons.
14:55:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I have a question of the staff.
14:55:30 Maybe the city pays -- it's going to cost $20,000, and
14:55:36 going to cost $40,000.
14:55:37 If the city agreed to pay the bigger price to help our

14:55:42 whole problem to help install that at your expense.
14:55:44 And is that something --
14:55:47 >>JULIA COLE: Legal.
14:55:49 I think we are sort of mixing apples and oranges
14:55:52 because we are speaking about two different areas.
14:55:53 One we are speaking on the west side of the property
14:55:56 and the other one is on the east side of the property.
14:55:59 The other thing I was going to suggest is --
14:56:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Asking about this pipe.
14:56:04 >>JULIA COLE: And I asked Steve to address that issue.
14:56:14 >>> Steve Seacrest, stormwater department.
14:56:15 To clarify, there's really two separate parts we are
14:56:18 talking about.
14:56:31 The hatched area is the accident of Occident street
14:56:33 where a very large culvert needs to cross.
14:56:37 It's about triple the side where it needs to be and
14:56:43 everything that was referred to earlier.
14:56:46 The upextreme has been made by developers, the
14:56:48 improvements made by D.O.T.
14:56:52 We have one here, one at Westshore.
14:56:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: how much is this one estimated to
14:56:55 cost?

14:56:57 >>> We estimate it at approximately $250,000 to
14:56:59 replace it.
14:57:02 We talked more to the developer about possibly leading
14:57:05 the existing culvert in place.
14:57:10 And it's adding to the.
14:57:11 You may save some money by doing that.
14:57:14 >> So sort of double it up?
14:57:16 >> Triple it.
14:57:17 You may save some money but I can't say exactly how
14:57:19 much.
14:57:20 Probably in the range of $250,000 according to our
14:57:24 estimate.
14:57:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Harrison, thank you.
14:57:29 I have a couple comments and questions, Julia, of you.
14:57:33 I don't know what the cost to install a bigger pipe.
14:57:40 If the developer is obligated to put in there.
14:57:44 Throws something that can be looked at, but not at the
14:57:46 cost of an additional expense from the petitioner.
14:57:49 As a side-bar conversation.
14:57:51 Because we have gotten all kind of different
14:57:53 suggestions of how we are going to improve the
14:57:55 stormwater issue.

14:57:59 >>> I'm not sure Steve totally answered the question
14:58:01 because I think what he was showing you was the
14:58:03 request where they would like to see the improvement
14:58:05 but what he didn't show you is the other issue which
14:58:07 is where they are going to move the existing
14:58:09 stormwater pipe.
14:58:10 And that's important because I think what your
14:58:12 question is maybe there's a way to meet in the middle
14:58:14 on the moving of the stormwater pipe.
14:58:16 But the moving of the stormwater pipe has really
14:58:18 nothing to do with this is wherever they are proposing
14:58:38 to move the stormwater pipe.
14:58:39 And the oversizing --
14:58:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's not necessarily going to
14:58:43 improve anything.
14:58:44 >>> Right.
14:58:44 That's point I was trying to make.
14:58:49 >> You just answered it.
14:58:50 And I'm not interested in pursuing it any further.
14:58:52 I have some other comments.
14:58:55 >>> The other thing I wanted to say, what I hear the
14:58:57 conversation is really toward the vacation petition.

14:59:00 I think -- and way see that's going on and I reiterate
14:59:04 again for purposes of the record, I do have concerns
14:59:07 about time.
14:59:08 The rezoning.
14:59:09 But I understand that there's a question about whether
14:59:11 or not you can tie this request, to view the
14:59:14 improvements to the vacation.
14:59:15 I think you may want to hear from Rolando Santiago.
14:59:18 He deals with the vacation, what the standard is, to
14:59:22 reviewing and make a decision.
14:59:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Harrison, I have a couple more
14:59:27 questions but I would like to reserve that until after
14:59:30 he finishes.
14:59:33 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
14:59:34 I have been asked to kind of give you a quick
14:59:37 remainder on what the standard of review is on the
14:59:39 vacating, on the right-of-way.
14:59:41 Rights-of-way and other trusts for the public. The
14:59:44 standard of review held by the courts is that the
14:59:46 reason for the vacating will also serve a public
14:59:48 interest.
14:59:49 For example, that has been done before.

15:00:05 Whether or not it is no longer serving a public
15:00:07 interest by keeping it.
15:00:08 That is all.
15:00:09 Thank you.
15:00:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's two to the public first.
15:00:12 Petitioner has finished.
15:00:13 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
15:00:16 on item 90 or 91?
15:00:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Santiago, what you said sounds
15:00:23 like it's totally reverse of my thinking.
15:00:26 But if we are talking about the standard of review in
15:00:30 terms of alley vacation, you're right.
15:00:32 Because a property owner will come, abutting property,
15:00:38 if it's not for public purpose then that's a decision
15:00:41 we have to weigh.
15:00:42 This to me is specific and different because they are
15:00:45 asking for the vacation of that site.
15:00:48 They are giving more than they are taking and
15:00:51 typically if somebody comes in and says we want top
15:00:53 vacate this alley, it is.
15:00:55 I have done that myself and I ask for vacation that
15:00:57 was approved.

15:00:58 But I gave in a property back much less more property
15:01:02 than I was asking the city to vacate.
15:01:04 So that's a little bit different.
15:01:07 Not to do with your comments, but just as I was
15:01:11 listening to the remainder, Ms. Cole has said clearly
15:01:17 what we can and can't demand of the petitioner and I
15:01:19 think you're absolutely right, Julia in, terms of what
15:01:22 we want to make him do to take care of the stormwater
15:01:24 problems that he has not caused or exacerbated.
15:01:27 In testimony he's shown that they are going to
15:01:29 mitigate that stormwater impact that has been caused
15:01:31 by his project on-site.
15:01:34 Another version of why I am in full support of this,
15:01:38 and I don't think we need to wait for a week, is the
15:01:40 fact that what better testimony or obvious witness
15:01:44 does this gentleman have than being the owner of the
15:01:46 building next to him?
15:01:48 If anybody has a little bit of a brain and is in the
15:01:51 business of renting to tenants, why would they do
15:01:55 something immediately next to their building that is
15:01:58 going to exacerbate the flooding and have tenants
15:02:01 either very upset, or leaving?

15:02:04 So to me this is just -- I have heard enough testimony
15:02:10 and I am ready to support it.
15:02:11 I just want to put that on record.
15:02:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Petitioner, anything else to add?
15:02:15 You're done?
15:02:17 Okay.
15:02:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question of Mr. Seacrest.
15:02:28 I think there's confusion about the flooding.
15:02:32 It's approximately 1100.
15:02:34 I'll put the map up here again.
15:02:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It stretches from MacDill.
15:02:40 >> MacDill on the east boundary all to T way to
15:02:43 old Tampa Bay on the west boundary and straddles
15:02:47 Cypress Street, lemon street, the interstate, drains
15:02:50 to that.
15:02:51 >> And the project, just give us a quick point, out by
15:02:54 lemon street.
15:02:55 >> The project is on either side of Occident street
15:02:59 which I'll point to here.
15:03:02 >> If you constrain, or have issues there, this water
15:03:08 is flowing to the west -- you might not see it right
15:03:11 there in the immediate area, right?

15:03:15 You might see it backing up a few blocks away or
15:03:18 quarter mile away, correct?
15:03:20 >>> That's correct.
15:03:21 Where we do have reports of flooding is at Westshore
15:03:23 Boulevard where there's another construction.
15:03:25 And by virtue of the fact that that constriction is
15:03:28 upstream of this one, you see the flooding.
15:03:33 The flooding isn't immediately adjacent to the
15:03:35 property.
15:03:35 It's very close to the property at Westshore.
15:03:37 And I have been told as recently as Monday that the
15:03:42 offramp was closed.
15:03:44 >> So I don't want us -- I'm not doubting that this
15:03:48 gentleman, these petitioners haven't seen it but just
15:03:51 you don't see it right there.
15:03:54 Mr. Seacrest, our engineering indicates he might see
15:03:57 it elsewhere in the system.
15:03:59 >> As the next constraint at Westshore Boulevard, yes.
15:04:03 >> And I like Ms. Saul-Sena's idea about a little more
15:04:07 discussion between the city and the petitioner because
15:04:08 maybe it's not an all-or-nothing thing.
15:04:11 Mr. Seacrest has indicated the magnitude of this

15:04:14 culvert, you know, I don't know if it's been looked at
15:04:20 as all or nothing.
15:04:21 Maybe the developer will keep the -- in the system
15:04:26 might want to participate in improving that issue.
15:04:31 So I do like the fact that coming back in a week and
15:04:34 seeing where the discussions mate lead.
15:04:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We need a motion to close.
15:04:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion is we continue for one
15:04:44 week.
15:04:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
15:04:46 >> Motion and second to continue.
15:04:50 >>> I think you might want to ask the petitioner if
15:04:51 they want to have a continuance because they have a
15:04:53 right to have an up or down vote today on this.
15:05:00 >>> With all respect to the maker of the motion and
15:05:02 the seconder, we have spent weeks and weeks and weeks
15:05:05 and have lots of conversations with the city staff.
15:05:08 If it were simply a question of enlarging the 18-inch
15:05:12 pipe, we would have done that in a heartbeat.
15:05:15 We are talking about an expense of something like
15:05:19 $250,000 on the low side.
15:05:21 Our estimates are 500,000 on the high side.

15:05:25 Who is right, who is wrong, I don't know, but we are
15:05:27 not talking about a 20 or $10,000 expense.
15:05:31 But we have spent a great deal of time with the staff,
15:05:34 and we believe we have looked at all of the options
15:05:37 and we believe that it's appropriate to vote this up.
15:05:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Want to withdraw your motion?
15:05:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Which draw the motion.
15:05:48 >> Motion to close.
15:05:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did the seconder of the motion
15:05:52 withdraw?
15:05:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: She withdraw drew her motion.
15:05:57 Why does it matter if he withdraws the second?
15:06:00 There's no motion to second any more.
15:06:04 >>> I will accept that but I will double check.
15:06:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second to
15:06:07 close.
15:06:07 (Motion carried)
15:06:09 What's the pleasure of council?
15:06:11 Do we have an ordinance?
15:06:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to send to legal.
15:06:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Procedurally do we need to go 90 and
15:06:19 then 91?

15:06:20 Or do we need to take -- does it mat er?
15:06:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would recommend you begin the
15:06:25 vacate process first.
15:06:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Take 90 first.
15:06:28 And we don't have an ordinance on either 90 or 91.
15:06:37 >>> On the vacation there was no ordinance.
15:06:38 We just concluded that.
15:06:40 So ask to prepare an ordinance.
15:06:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: we have a motion to prepare an
15:06:47 ordinance to vacate on number 90.
15:06:50 All in favor?
15:06:53 >>THE CLERK: Dingfelder, no.
15:06:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: How about on 91?
15:06:58 We have in a ordinance on 91 either?
15:07:02 We do.
15:07:03 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
15:07:10 the general vicinity of the northeast and northwest
15:07:12 corner of Occident street and lemon street in the city
15:07:15 of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in
15:07:17 section 1 from zoning district classifications PD
15:07:19 planned development, office, MAP 1, municipal airport
15:07:25 and MAP 3, municipal airport to planned development

15:07:28 office, providing an effective date.
15:07:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
15:07:31 Discussion on the motion?
15:07:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to compliment the petitioner
15:07:34 on asking a number of my questions.
15:07:40 I hope would they're would be away to address some of
15:07:42 these flooding issues.
15:07:43 It sounds like it's a big ticket item.
15:07:45 I'm glad that you have looked at the drainage on the
15:07:47 west not impacting grand trees and I hope it all goes
15:07:51 as planned.
15:07:51 Thank you.
15:07:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second to approve the
15:07:56 ordinance.
15:07:58 All in favor?
15:07:58 Opposed?
15:07:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Dingfelder, no.
15:08:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion carries.
15:08:02 Thank you, all.
15:08:04 All right.
15:08:04 Item number 92.
15:08:05 >> Move to open.

15:08:06 >> Second.
15:08:06 (Motion carried)
15:08:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there were several people
15:08:17 who did not get sworn so I would ask to save time to
15:08:20 have them all sworn at the same time.
15:08:21 I don't know that everybody has.
15:08:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that
15:08:41 is going to speak on item 92?
15:08:43 Please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn.
15:08:48 (Oath administered by Clerk)
15:08:55 >> Barbara: Land development, here for the appeal to
15:09:08 June 13, 2006.
15:09:13 May 11, 2006.
15:09:19 Setbacks.
15:09:28 Petitioner has noticed appropriately.
15:09:30 And
15:09:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. LePore, and I apologize to Ms. Le
15:09:44 important, but this is -- LePore, but this is under
15:09:47 the revised standard of review.
15:09:50 It is a certiorari standard, council.
15:09:52 In other words, you will be acting as an appeal --
15:09:58 excuse me, an appellate judge.

15:10:01 You will be looking -- I'm sorry, to address, or
15:10:03 whether to see whether the board's decision was
15:10:07 supported by competent substantial evidence; 2,
15:10:11 whether due process was accorded, and, 3, whether the
15:10:14 essential requirements of law have been observed.
15:10:16 And, council, I'm trying to think of analogy of this.
15:10:21 But the ultimate facts of this case have been provided
15:10:23 to you by the record.
15:10:25 A recitation of the fact of an argument of the facts
15:10:29 inappropriate under this standard of review.
15:10:31 I would ask that perhaps if perhaps the case begin
15:10:38 with the petitioner for those who are making the
15:10:41 appeal, and then have the staff, if they wish to,
15:10:45 reflect that presentation, and then have a closing by
15:10:48 the appellant.
15:10:51 But in the sense of having to recite the facts, I
15:10:54 would believe that it would be inappropriate to do
15:10:57 that in the posture which is coming before you.
15:11:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
15:11:01 Thank you, Mr. Shelby, for your clarification.
15:11:03 Appellant, why don't you tell us what the DRVD wrong?
15:11:09 >>GINA GRIMES: Hill ward Henderson, 101 East Kennedy.

15:11:13 I have been sworn.
15:11:14 I'm here this morning representing Joe Stupanik this
15:11:19 afternoon, actually, and Scott Smith, they were
15:11:23 formerly with a land development company known as
15:11:26 keystone land development group, no affiliation with
15:11:29 keystone homes prevalent in South Tampa.
15:11:34 I did not represent these gentlemen in front of the
15:11:36 variance review board, nor did I file the appeal
15:11:39 review.
15:11:40 And I wanted to just put that on the record, which may
15:11:42 explain some of the issues.
15:11:52 The review board, five fat set back, from 20 feet to
15:11:58 15 feet for the garage, which extended five feet into
15:12:01 the front yard setback.
15:12:03 And put up here on the board a general location map
15:12:10 which shows the location of the property on the north
15:12:14 side of Thornton between MacDill and Bayshore.
15:12:18 And before I get into some of the details of the
15:12:19 presentation -- and I know you have been here all day,
15:12:22 and I will try to go as quickly as I can but I do have
15:12:25 to get certain items on the record.
15:12:27 Way wanted to do was submit to you a copy of the

15:12:30 record.
15:12:31 What I have done is I have taken the records, filed
15:12:34 with the city clerk's office and compiled it just
15:12:36 notary public a different organizational format.
15:12:38 So hopefully help you follow along with our
15:12:41 presentation.
15:12:41 And I have a copy for Ms. Wysong and the city clerk as
15:12:47 well as council members and Mr. Shelby.
15:12:54 The board voted on this variance 5-2 to deny it.
15:12:57 The no votes were Weiss and Catalano.
15:13:06 There was appeals from the Variance Review Board and
15:13:12 included a copy of the standard, helping you
15:13:17 understand what your role is in this process.
15:13:23 You have to determine whether the decision was
15:13:25 supported by competent and substantial evidence,
15:13:27 whether due process was afforded and whether they
15:13:29 followed the essential requirements of law.
15:13:31 In order to make that determination, we will have to
15:13:34 go through some of the evidence that was presented to
15:13:36 the board.
15:13:36 And I will site you to pages in the transcript where
15:13:40 this evidence was in fact presented.

15:13:42 Mr. Shelby is correct, no new evidence is to be
15:13:45 presented at the hearing today.
15:13:46 The evidence that the board heard in support of the
15:13:48 petition were not just the application, which included
15:13:52 the hardship criteria and the hardship responses, they
15:13:55 also had the testimony of the applicant.
15:13:57 They had documentary evidence in the form of the city
15:14:00 staff reports, all of which were in support of the
15:14:02 application, or no objection, I should say, to be more
15:14:06 precise.
15:14:08 We also had letters of support from 12 of the
15:14:10 surrounding property owners in the area.
15:14:13 We submitted photographs.
15:14:14 And also as I will get into more detail later we had
15:14:17 the testimony of Roger Kirk, transportation engineer,
15:14:20 who addressed the issue of transportation safety and
15:14:23 the hardship.
15:14:25 We want to point out, and this is very important
15:14:27 because of the review criteria, standard of review,
15:14:30 there is absolutely no evidence submitted in
15:14:32 opposition to the variance request.
15:14:35 And just quickly, I would like to, if you will bear

15:14:38 with me, I will walk you through the presentation made
15:14:42 by Mr. Stupanik and Mr. Smith to the VRB because it
15:14:46 will explain to you the circumstances which created
15:14:49 the need for the variance.
15:14:50 And under tab 4 you have the actual transcript of the
15:14:53 VRB hearing, and starting on page 3, Mr. Stupanik
15:14:58 testified that it was -- the reason that the setback
15:15:01 variance was needed was a mistake, right up front, he
15:15:05 acknowledges some mistakes made by him.
15:15:07 He laid out the footers wrong on the first home, the
15:15:10 second home simply duplicated it thinking he was okay.
15:15:14 He had all the inspections and they were to the point
15:15:16 of given the CO on the first structure when this
15:15:19 discrepancy was discovered.
15:15:21 He made the mistake setting it five feet too close to
15:15:24 the road.
15:15:25 Again basically testified under oath that was an
15:15:27 honest mistake.
15:15:28 He mentions the property owners 12 six and pictures.
15:15:34 Mr. Smith also testified that it was not a situation
15:15:37 where they were trying to get an extra five feet, so
15:15:41 that they would have more room in the back.

15:15:43 >> Were they just desperate to build a porch, Gina?
15:15:47 >> I wish it was a porch.
15:15:49 A recent code amendment might have resolved the issue.
15:15:51 This was actually a garage.
15:15:54 Unfortunately it wasn't a porch.
15:15:58 The point that Mr. Smith made was that the property
15:16:00 was 50 by 150 feet deep so could you tell it had
15:16:05 sufficient depth, had large backyard so there was no
15:16:08 reason to push it to the front, with some ulterior
15:16:14 motive like getting an extra five feet.
15:16:18 They mistakingly placed the footer in the wrong place
15:16:20 and continued to build from that point forward.
15:16:22 We are at page 5 of the transcript now.
15:16:25 Mr. Smith mentions that he contacted homeowners
15:16:29 situation and at this point had no opposition.
15:16:32 Again it was caught at the final survey stake by the
15:16:35 bank again, the footers were poured, the house was
15:16:39 completely constructed, CO issued and it wasn't until
15:16:41 then that this five foot discrepancy was discovered.
15:16:46 The other point that's very important that Mr. Smith
15:16:49 made was that the home, actually both homes, are
15:16:52 actually 30 feet from the edge of pavement of the

15:16:54 roadway.
15:16:55 And on this portion, while the houses are 15-foot back
15:16:59 there's a 5-foot sidewalk.
15:17:02 And then there's another 11 feet to the edge of
15:17:05 pavement.
15:17:05 The right-of-way -- within that right-of-way, that 11
15:17:08 feet of right-of-way is an actual ditch.
15:17:09 So the houses are actually located visually 30 feet
15:17:13 from the edge of the pavement.
15:17:16 They are 30 feet back from the edge of pavement on
15:17:19 Thornton Avenue.
15:17:25 Mr. Stupanik on page 6 of the transcripts indicates
15:17:31 these are the first two homes these gentlemen have
15:17:33 ever developed in Florida.
15:17:35 They are rebuilders from Pennsylvania.
15:17:38 This is their first project in Tampa, or Florida.
15:17:41 Mr. Stupanik is a licensed Florida building
15:17:44 contractor.
15:17:45 And again he admitted that he made a mistake by
15:17:49 failing to obtain a survey, and have a surveyor stake
15:17:53 the foundation.
15:17:54 On page 8 of the transcript he mentions, in response

15:17:57 to a question from, that didn't find -- when they went
15:18:05 out to lay the foundation, he and his mates simply
15:18:12 measured from the sidewalk when they were setting the
15:18:14 foundation rather than doing what should have been.
15:18:16 Org done which was obtain a survey and have the
15:18:20 foundation surveyed.
15:18:21 He said, I staked it from the front edge of the
15:18:25 sidewalk, which was where the mistake was made, rather
15:18:28 than measuring from the back edge of the sidewalk to
15:18:30 the evenly of the sidewalk closest to the home and the
15:18:32 lot.
15:18:33 He measured from the other side of the sidewalk, five
15:18:35 feet.
15:18:36 There was 15 feet back.
15:18:38 That's the 20 feet.
15:18:40 And unfortunately, it was repeated on the second
15:18:43 house.
15:18:44 Once again they made the point that they didn't have
15:18:47 any opposition with any of the inspections.
15:18:49 It was never caught until the time of the CO.
15:18:56 Towards the end of their presentation on page 10, they
15:18:59 again admit, and not pointing finger at the city, not

15:19:02 pointing finger at the--- and Mr. Stupanik accepted
15:19:09 full responsibility for it, and assured the board that
15:19:11 they would have a surveyor come out in the future.
15:19:17 He says on page 11 of the transcript, all the way down
15:19:20 the line, we laid it out, obviously at that point we
15:19:22 continued assuming nothing was wrong.
15:19:24 We had inspection after inspection along the
15:19:26 inspections and surveys done for flood elevation, and
15:19:30 no one spotted it including myself.
15:19:35 In conclusion he states, we made a mistake, a rookie
15:19:38 mistake, not exactly -- not knowing exactly where to
15:19:42 measure from.
15:19:42 Obviously we won't be making it again, that's for
15:19:44 sure.
15:19:53 Moving forward at the hearing that evening, you also
15:19:55 had testimony from Roger Kirk.
15:19:59 He came forward and testified that there would be no
15:20:01 major consequence to public safety as far as
15:20:04 transportation.
15:20:05 He made the statement, moving the home would be
15:20:08 unconscionable.
15:20:10 He said there's no site plan issues.

15:20:13 I think if a car was sitting in the driveway in front
15:20:15 of the garage it wouldn't be blocking the sidewalk.
15:20:18 They are not going to have cars sticking out in the
15:20:20 street? No.
15:20:21 Encroaching the sidewalk?
15:20:22 No.
15:20:22 Or encroaching over the property line either.
15:20:25 So all the testimony heard, all the testimony that was
15:20:27 presented was in support of the application.
15:20:34 Along with the testimony and evidence that was
15:20:36 presented at the hearing, you also have the evidence
15:20:38 of the hardship criteria.
15:20:40 And the hardship criteria were addressed first, and in
15:20:45 the application itself.
15:20:46 Under tab 5, sub-tab 5-A, I have a copy for you.
15:20:54 The petitioner's statement of hardship.
15:20:57 And a lot of times when you review the applications
15:21:00 everybody wants to know what the hardship is as if
15:21:02 it's one thing.
15:21:03 Actually hardship criteria, actually there are five
15:21:07 separate hardship criteria and you have to go through
15:21:09 the hardship criteria one by one to make the

15:21:12 determination whether in fact the hardship exists.
15:21:15 And I am going to try to do this as quickly as
15:21:17 possible but I do need to get what I have to on the
15:21:19 record.
15:21:20 One of the first hardship criteria is that the alleged
15:21:24 hardship, the question that is stated on the
15:21:29 application is why is your property different from
15:21:32 your neighbor's?
15:21:33 The board members throughout the presentation
15:21:35 recognized and acknowledged the fact that this was a
15:21:38 unique situation, they didn't recall ever seeing a
15:21:40 situation where there was a discrepancy like this on
15:21:45 such a large amount, five feet.
15:21:47 They had seen case where is there was maybe a couple
15:21:50 inches or even a foot but this was unique and unusual
15:21:53 in that it was such a great amount as far as the
15:21:56 mistakes that were made.
15:21:57 And in the application, you do see where the applicant
15:22:03 put forward their evidence as to why they thought the
15:22:06 hardship criterion was met.
15:22:08 We made an honor mistake due to inexperience, is a
15:22:13 feet from the property line, no one figured it out

15:22:16 until completion.
15:22:19 The second hardship criteria requires that failure to
15:22:23 grant the variance includes more than mere
15:22:26 inconvenience and inability to obtain a higher
15:22:28 financial return.
15:22:29 And the summary question is what would the use of the
15:22:32 property be without the variance?
15:22:34 The response was, they lose the buyers and their life
15:22:37 savings, actually had to close on one of the homes and
15:22:40 were unable to close to a buyer.
15:22:43 It was not due to us needing more space.
15:22:45 It justified happened, nor from profit.
15:22:47 Variance is not being requested to obtain a higher
15:22:50 financial return but rather to prevent a financial
15:22:53 loss, a huge financial loss.
15:22:55 The third variance criteria is if it's not allowed, if
15:22:59 the variance is F allowed will not substantially
15:23:02 interfere with or injury the rights of others.
15:23:05 We had the letters of support from 12 property owners
15:23:07 in the area.
15:23:08 The fourth variance criteria is, is it consistent with
15:23:11 the comprehensive plan?

15:23:13 The response was yes, and as you all know, building
15:23:17 in-fill development on lots where there is existing
15:23:20 infrastructure is certainly consistent the
15:23:22 comprehensive plan, and in addition, it makes
15:23:27 efficient use of existing infrastructure and perhaps
15:23:32 the most important hardship criteria is allowing the
15:23:35 variance will result in substantial justice being done
15:23:39 and that's what the petitioners are asking for you
15:23:41 today, is to do what's right, do what's equitable in
15:23:46 this situation.
15:23:47 If you believe that there are mistakes were
15:23:50 unintentional, this will two owners get through the
15:23:55 biggest mistake of their lives.
15:23:56 We believe in building quality homes.
15:23:59 And the testimony that was prevent presented was the
15:24:02 variance was in fact unintentional.
15:24:04 And they reference that it will never happen again.
15:24:08 And we believe that equity and justice will be served
15:24:11 by this variance being requested.
15:24:15 With these response as long with the testimony that
15:24:17 you heard at the hearing we think the petitioners,
15:24:20 both petitioners established that all of the hardship

15:24:22 criteria.
15:24:25 I would like to go back to the three standards of
15:24:27 review that you have to evaluate on this case.
15:24:34 And I wanted to begin also by saying in identifying
15:24:38 where we think the VRB erred, we have the utmost
15:24:46 respect for the VRB members.
15:24:48 You can tell they spent a lot of time looking at these
15:24:50 cases.
15:24:52 They have looked at the site plans, looked at the
15:24:54 pictures, some of them have even gone out to the site.
15:24:56 I know it takes a huge time commitment, sacrifice to
15:24:59 serve on this board.
15:25:00 So in identifying the errors we think they committed
15:25:03 in making this decision, I don't mean to slight them
15:25:06 in any way.
15:25:07 The first criteria, the board's decision to deny the
15:25:12 variance was submitted by competent substantial
15:25:13 evidence.
15:25:14 I want to make the point again the only evidence
15:25:16 submitted was in support as the petition.
15:25:19 There was no opposition in opposition. The second
15:25:21 criteria whether due process was afforded.

15:25:24 This is an issue that was raised by the petitioners in
15:25:27 their appeal application.
15:25:31 A significant concern that they have with respect to
15:25:33 some comments, and actually factual testimony that was
15:25:36 made by Mr. Higgins, who is the chairperson of the
15:25:39 board.
15:25:40 Three different places, three different times during
15:25:42 the hearing, she made comments, in my opinion,
15:25:46 presented testimony regarding the Ballast Point
15:25:49 homeowners association of which she is a member.
15:25:51 On page 6 of the transcript, under tab 4, page 6, she
15:25:59 says, I do want to GOP because this is my neighborhood
15:26:02 and I'll disclose that I did hear from some of the
15:26:04 board members and they were very conflict board of
15:26:06 director whether to support or oppose this petition.
15:26:09 Further along on page 14, after the public hearing was
15:26:14 closed, are you an officer of the association down
15:26:17 there? Ms. Higgins: I'm a board member.
15:26:19 Board member?
15:26:20 What is the position of the board members?
15:26:22 The board was conflicted about it.
15:26:24 They didn't like it but they didn't take a position to

15:26:26 do anything about it.
15:26:27 And then again on page 20 of the transcript, she made
15:26:32 the statement that the e-mail that I got from
15:26:34 president Jerry Miller was that he spoke to the
15:26:37 gentleman, and they seemed very nice.
15:26:40 The neighbors weren't objecting so they weren't going
15:26:42 to submit an opinion, reluctantly.
15:26:46 And the reason why -- if I can I will try to sum it up
15:26:50 quickly.
15:26:51 The reason this is problematic is because this is a
15:26:54 quasi-judicial board that is supposed to be
15:26:56 independent decision makers, not appropriate to
15:26:58 present factual testimony such as that, whether it's
15:27:01 truthful testimony or not, I can't tell you.
15:27:03 But it puts the petitioners in a situation where it's
15:27:05 not a level playing field.
15:27:07 It can't rebut at that point in the hearing what one
15:27:10 of the board members was testifying to.
15:27:13 Further, the credibility of board members is always
15:27:16 going to be much greater than members of the public,
15:27:19 and it prejudices the petitioner by having a board
15:27:22 member testify against their petition.

15:27:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Ms. Grimes.
15:27:29 You have made your point very well.
15:27:30 Well done in the presentation.
15:27:32 Mr. Shelby, do you have a question?
15:27:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the sake of fairness,
15:27:37 council, we usually state what the time limits are up
15:27:39 front.
15:27:40 I don't know whether Ms. Grimes is aware of what her
15:27:42 time limits were when she began.
15:27:44 I just want to be clear on that.
15:27:47 >>GINA GRIMES: And can I close with what the request
15:27:49 would be?
15:27:50 I know the appeal process has changed and council no
15:27:55 longer has the authority to reverse.
15:27:57 It has to be remanded back to the VRB but the code
15:28:01 does provide you can give them direction.
15:28:03 And because the hardship criteria was in fact met and
15:28:05 I think substantial competent evidence that you direct
15:28:07 the VRB to grant the variance.
15:28:10 The same way a court would perhaps direct you on
15:28:13 appeal when they don't agree with one of your
15:28:15 decisions that you have to approve the rezoning,

15:28:18 something to that effect.
15:28:19 So we are requesting that you direct the VRB to bring.
15:28:26 To grant the variance.
15:28:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two things.
15:28:29 One, in regard to Mrs. rig Higgins comments, and I did
15:28:34 read the transcript, you can look at her disclosure
15:28:36 that she had some ex parte communications.
15:28:38 We all try not to have ex parte communication.
15:28:41 She had some ex parte communication with her friend
15:28:43 and her neighborhood president, and she disclosed it
15:28:46 which is probably a little bit on the healthy side.
15:28:48 I'll just mention that.
15:28:51 But my second point really relates to the merits of
15:28:55 your case.
15:28:58 Personally, I'm very sympathetic to this appeal.
15:29:02 I think it should be reversed.
15:29:06 I think in light of all of the evidence that I have
15:29:08 read and seen and heard, I think that this is why we
15:29:12 have variances boards and this is why we have City
15:29:15 Council, is I think these gentlemen made an honest
15:29:18 mistake, now they are going to be delayed months and
15:29:20 months to their closing, and they are obviously small

15:29:24 builders, and this is going to hurt them as it is.
15:29:26 So maybe that's the penalty enough.
15:29:28 But to say, no, tear it down, you say it's part of the
15:29:32 main structure of a garage?
15:29:35 Just rip it off like it's a front porch.
15:29:39 So I do believe if we had the ability to reverse
15:29:41 today, I would move to reverse it.
15:29:44 So what I would suggest is -- and I'm not sure if we
15:29:47 can just say send it back and say, you reverse.
15:29:50 Maybe we can.
15:29:52 I would be very curious.
15:29:54 Has anybody got ten survey at this point, without
15:29:58 talking about a survey?
15:29:59 >>> The survey is actually the as-built surveys, in
15:30:03 the last stage.
15:30:05 >> I would suggest is we remand to the VRB, compared
15:30:10 to the original plan that was submitted to the city.
15:30:14 If the same house was moved five feet closer to the
15:30:17 street, then there should be an extra five feet in the
15:30:20 backyard that never got built on.
15:30:32 Then they should be able to see that.
15:30:35 You can point it out to them.

15:30:36 I think based upon that, that proves it was an honest
15:30:39 mistake and that's what it was all about.
15:30:40 If you can't prove that, you can't prove it in front
15:30:42 of us today because that would be new evidence, I
15:30:45 think, okay?
15:30:45 But I think that if you can prove that to the VRB,
15:30:48 that should be the whole case.
15:30:50 If it was slid an extra five feet forward then there
15:30:54 should be an extra five feet in the back.
15:30:55 As long as that same original building plan that was
15:30:58 submitted, you know, that was 40 feet deep, favor feet
15:31:05 further forward.
15:31:07 So that would be my tendency, just prove to the them
15:31:11 on that basis, and then suggest that they reverse on
15:31:14 that basis.
15:31:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
15:31:18 Ms. Ferlita?
15:31:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, I want to tell you I hate
15:31:23 the fact when can't make a decision here and it has to
15:31:26 go back.
15:31:27 But be that what it may be at this point, what is the
15:31:32 strongest direction we can ask the VRB to take and

15:31:36 still be within the guidelines of what this council is
15:31:38 allowed to do in terms of appeal to come before us?
15:31:40 And Ms. Grimes is asking to provide that direction.
15:31:47 If that's possible then absolutely.
15:31:49 But I'm not clear about what we can do.
15:31:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you can, hold your question
15:31:53 because I believe the staff of the VRB if they wish to
15:31:55 make any comments about that, they can do so and you
15:31:57 will have three minutes for rebuttal.
15:31:59 And at that time, if you have something that you wish
15:32:01 to do, that would be the appropriate time then.
15:32:11 Anybody else, by the way, the council's rules are nub
15:32:13 else who wishes to give testimony has to be somebody
15:32:16 who gave testimony at the hearing.
15:32:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
15:32:21 Staff.
15:32:26 >>> Barbara: Land development.
15:32:28 Testimony was presented for the petitioner is correct.
15:32:32 I agree, in my opinion it was an honest mistake.
15:32:37 The square footage.
15:32:38 And they were asking for five feet reduction.
15:32:44 Thank you.

15:32:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that
15:32:47 spoke to the VRB hearing that wishes to speak here?
15:32:49 All right.
15:32:50 Ms. Grimes, you have a couple minutes to wrap it up.
15:32:54 >>GINA GRIMES: If you don't mind, I just wanted to go
15:32:57 back and address one other issue.
15:32:59 Because I think when you get to the question of this
15:33:03 in fact was an honest mistake and the variance was
15:33:05 justified there was some concern by the board about
15:33:07 the precedent that this would set.
15:33:09 And that's a legitimate question, a legitimate
15:33:13 concern.
15:33:13 I think it was the maker of the motion who expressed
15:33:16 that concern.
15:33:17 In fact, she testified that her big problem was this
15:33:19 was the quintessential self-imposed hardship.
15:33:23 What's interesting about that comment is while that
15:33:25 might be true, it was a self-imposed hardship, that
15:33:30 criteria or that issue is not a basis for denial.
15:33:33 Whether or not a situation was self-imposed or aked
15:33:37 hardship is self-imposed is not contained anywhere in
15:33:39 the variance criteria.

15:33:41 So I think it might have been a misconstruction on her
15:33:43 part, that if the variance were self-imposed and it
15:33:46 wasn't justified to be granted, and that is way
15:33:49 believe she stated was the basis for her denial of why
15:33:51 she was in objection to it.
15:33:53 I think the Variance Review Board is very experienced.
15:33:56 They know they take each case based on merits.
15:34:00 They know because they grant a variance of one case
15:34:03 doesn't mean they are obligated to grant one in
15:34:05 another case.
15:34:05 In this situation the facts are very unique.
15:34:07 Hopefully nobody else would have this kind of a
15:34:09 situation.
15:34:10 But just summing up, what you have here is a situation
15:34:14 where two very inexperienced builders made an honest
15:34:16 mistake.
15:34:17 I think the testimony bear that is out.
15:34:18 They gained nothing by doing this.
15:34:20 They have lost a substantial amount.
15:34:22 It's been a very, very expensive error timewise, and
15:34:25 financially, and, John, I agree with you 100%, in my
15:34:29 view this is exactly the kind of situation where a

15:34:31 variance was intended to address, to grant relief in a
15:34:34 situation like this where there was a mistake that was
15:34:37 made.
15:34:37 Again I request that you remand it back -- remand it
15:34:40 back to the VRB.
15:34:41 I believe that council gives council the ability to
15:34:46 grant it back to the VRB.
15:34:49 And it was to make it more like a third appeal.
15:34:52 You all know when one of your decisions goes up to the
15:34:56 circuit court on cert appeal, if the circuit court
15:34:59 doesn't agree with your decision they send you
15:35:01 instructions back to you, to either discount evidence
15:35:06 that you consider, or in some instances they direct
15:35:09 you to actually approve the rezoning.
15:35:12 I think there were instances where you were directed
15:35:13 to approve rezoning because they didn't agree with
15:35:16 your basis for denial.
15:35:18 , a simply asking for that same relief that the board
15:35:21 be directed to grant the variance based on the fact
15:35:24 hardship criteria.
15:35:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And that leads back to Ms. Ferlita's
15:35:30 questions to Mr. Shelby which is, what is the

15:35:33 strongest action that we can take?
15:35:34 Can we literally tell the VRB, reverse yourself when
15:35:40 we send it back?
15:35:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe the standard of
15:35:43 review contemplates that.
15:35:45 The exact language, if the petition is back to the
15:35:50 board or commission, then the board or commission
15:35:51 shall only consider and take action based upon the
15:35:55 direction from the City Council, indicating how the
15:35:57 board or commission failed to comply with the above
15:36:01 standards of review, which were the three things that
15:36:05 I stated and Ms. Grimes asserted.
15:36:08 I don't believe it was contemplated to just be sent
15:36:11 back just for that purpose.
15:36:13 And that's I believe based on my understanding of the
15:36:17 legislative history behind it.
15:36:19 My suggestion is, if there are issues -- and again
15:36:22 this is going to -- remained you, I believe it's
15:36:25 coming back October 12th, going to be coming back
15:36:29 to council, to talk about the -- I'm sorry.
15:36:31 I'm done.
15:36:34 To talk about the appeals process.

15:36:36 I can talk about the variance standards.
15:36:38 But council on October 12th I believe is the date
15:36:41 will have the opportunity to address this.
15:36:43 And correct it if it wishes.
15:36:44 But right now, if Ms. Grimes, or if council wishes to
15:36:50 delineate what they perceive the errors to be and give
15:36:53 them direction with regard to perhaps whether or not
15:36:59 the decision was supported by competent, substantial
15:37:02 evidence, and whether or not the essential
15:37:07 requirements of law have been observed.
15:37:12 Once the essential elements of law everybody observed,
15:37:15 the second DCA in a court case said, were the -- were
15:37:21 the correct law applied.
15:37:22 I believe Ms. Grimes made the statement they applied a
15:37:24 standard that was not in the criteria.
15:37:27 So one can find, if council wishes to do that, that
15:37:31 based on that, that perhaps the -- send it back with
15:37:35 specific direction to, A, not introduce testimony that
15:37:41 is not competent, and perhaps, B, to apply the
15:37:47 essential requirements of law to ascertain the facts
15:37:50 that have been adduced at the hearing and apply them
15:37:54 specifically to the criteria before it.

15:37:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What's coming back to us on October
15:37:59 12th?
15:38:01 Is it going to be an ordinance format where we are
15:38:04 going to now give ourselves the ability to reverse the
15:38:07 VRB?
15:38:08 Or are we just going to talk about what options we
15:38:10 have?
15:38:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Talk about what options.
15:38:14 And I would ask that you hold that discussion for
15:38:17 then, because there are certain different options that
15:38:21 council will have.
15:38:21 Obviously what you have here is a determination what a
15:38:25 judge will make and things that a hearing master ought
15:38:30 to take a look at.
15:38:31 The other thing is, council, you may wish to consider
15:38:33 part of the reason, part of the reason that you have
15:38:36 this process of certiorari process in the first place,
15:38:40 was because two fold.
15:38:41 We have to hear the whole hearing all over again.
15:38:46 You have to listen to all the facts.
15:38:47 And in fact you would be asking a variance review
15:38:52 board.

15:38:52 If you make the criteria so easy to come forward, then
15:38:55 in effect whoever wins this will be coming to request
15:38:59 another hearing.
15:39:01 And that's why this was put in, to have specific
15:39:04 criteria.
15:39:06 Perhaps what we have to do is have a good discussion
15:39:08 about it, maybe even how a hearing officer handles,
15:39:12 or, B, so succinct that council doesn't have to go
15:39:17 through this long discussion.
15:39:18 And obviously it's going to be an issue, when you send
15:39:21 something back with direction where an error was made
15:39:25 it also puts that board on notice, is that an area of
15:39:28 concern and they may want to take greater scrutiny of
15:39:32 the application of the facts of the law and due
15:39:36 process and make sure they too comply with these three
15:39:39 criteria.
15:39:40 But when they do make a decision, it is supported by
15:39:42 competent, substantial evidence, and, two, whether due
15:39:46 process was afforded and whether, three, the essential
15:39:48 requirements of the correct law was followed.
15:39:50 Again, as I talk to you,
15:39:57 A request for the two are going to be coming back.

15:40:04 Section 156 was amended, chapter 156 was amended, so
15:40:09 that these boards from now on, after October 1st,
15:40:11 will actually have to set this forth.
15:40:14 They don't change the decision-making process.
15:40:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What Ms. Grimes is suggesting that
15:40:35 we remand the suggestions to grant the variance.
15:40:39 Ms. Saul-Sena, tough floor.
15:40:41 We need to -- do we need to close the hearing?
15:40:44 >> So moved.
15:40:46 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to ask a question.
15:40:50 >> I was going to ask a question.
15:40:52 But to remand it back and the board again dense the
15:40:56 variance and it comings back up on another appeal to
15:40:58 council at that point, they would be able to reverse
15:41:01 the VRB?
15:41:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
15:41:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
15:41:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Hopefully we don't get to that point.
15:41:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would move to remand this back to
15:41:17 the variance board.
15:41:18 I think.
15:41:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, need to close the public

15:41:28 hearing.
15:41:29 >> Move to close the public hearing.
15:41:30 >> Second.
15:41:31 (Motion carried).
15:41:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?
15:41:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me look at the code for one
15:41:36 second.
15:41:36 I don't believe that the board decision was supported
15:41:39 by competent substantial evidence.
15:41:41 As Ms. Grimes pointed out.
15:41:43 I think that there was a lack of evidence.
15:41:48 Specifically I would like to see the board, as I
15:41:50 mentioned, if they are looking for some evidence to
15:41:54 support approving this variance, I think they should
15:41:57 look.
15:41:58 I would suggest strongly that they should look at the
15:42:01 original site plan as submitted to the city, and
15:42:03 compare it to the ultimate as-built survey.
15:42:09 And they will probably see hopefully, if everybody is
15:42:11 being up and up, they will probably see how this
15:42:16 entire original site plan was just slightly forward
15:42:20 and hopefully that should be enough competent,

15:42:22 substantial evidence for them to do that.
15:42:25 There's also the issue of due process.
15:42:27 Whether or not due process was accorded.
15:42:29 I think that's a close call.
15:42:31 But I am not going to necessarily go down.
15:42:34 I think -- I don't think it was her intent to violate
15:42:38 anybody's due process when she brought in that
15:42:41 additional evidence so I am not going to go there.
15:42:43 Whether the essential requirements of law everybody
15:42:45 observed, Marty, what would that be, essential
15:42:48 requirements of law?
15:42:49 And what was the decision -- was the decision based
15:42:52 upon the criteria within the report?
15:42:55 And I would say their decision was probably outside of
15:42:58 the criteria, the five criteria.
15:43:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
15:43:01 We have a motion.
15:43:02 Is there a second?
15:43:03 Motion and second.
15:43:04 Discussion.
15:43:05 Ms. Saul-Sena.
15:43:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The use of the word unique in the

15:43:08 very first criteria, I think you referred to the land,
15:43:11 not to the situation.
15:43:14 And that's a question for legal.
15:43:17 Ms. Grimes said you need to refer to the situation but
15:43:20 I thought you need to refer --
15:43:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Who is your question directed to?
15:43:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: City legal.
15:43:36 >>> Donna way song, legal department.
15:43:38 The word unique in the first hardship criteria does
15:43:43 refer to the land.
15:43:46 >> That wasn't the way that Ms. Grimes --
15:43:51 >>> Okay, I'll let it go.
15:43:53 For the future people have to show there's a unique
15:43:56 problem with the land, not that somebody made a
15:43:58 mistake.
15:43:59 >>> That's correct.
15:44:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
15:44:02 Any further discussion?
15:44:03 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
15:44:05 Opposed?
15:44:06 All right.
15:44:07 Motion carries.

15:44:09 It's remanded to the VRB.
15:44:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me toss in real quick.
15:44:13 I promised council that I was at least forming a
15:44:16 committee to look at the hardship criteria. I think
15:44:20 we are in the process of scheduling that.
15:44:23 And so we will be looking at that.
15:44:27 I'll inform the local bar that appears in front of us
15:44:30 on these issues so we can get their input as well.
15:44:34 We need to look at those, the hardship, as well as the
15:44:38 appeal process.
15:44:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Very well.
15:44:42 Thank you.
15:44:43 All right.
15:44:43 Information reports and new business by council
15:44:45 members.
15:44:45 Starting with Mr. Dingfelder.
15:44:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks.
15:44:49 I have got a commendation that I'm very pleased to
15:44:55 present the Tampa Bay aquatic junior national team won
15:45:01 the nationals, and about a month ago.
15:45:04 And we haven't had a chance to recognize them.
15:45:10 A bunch of young girl swimmers.

15:45:13 And I think that their request is that they come spend
15:45:17 five minutes with us in an evening meeting.
15:45:20 I won't burden us in September when our meeting is
15:45:23 crazy.
15:45:24 But maybe by October ill find a date that they can
15:45:27 come join us for five minutes so they don't miss
15:45:29 school.
15:45:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
15:45:33 (Motion carried).
15:45:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Secondly, madam clerk, awhile back,
15:45:42 we, in regard to file E-2006-8, there was an appeal
15:45:48 hearing scheduled for September 28th.
15:45:50 At 10 a.m
15:45:57 I received a letter to indicate that the September
15:45:59 28th does not work for a key witness in that case
15:46:07 because he has to be in court that day.
15:46:12 And I think in a related case.
15:46:22 So the letter that I received from Mr. Rouseq
15:46:26 requested council that we rescind that motion and
15:46:29 reschedule the hearing to an October date.
15:46:31 And I do believe this is a very lengthy and convoluted
15:46:37 explanation that you all don't want to hear, but I do

15:46:39 believe it's all in the up and up, and I think if we
15:46:41 could reschedule this hearing for the benefit of the
15:46:46 witnesses, it would be appropriate.
15:46:52 124 do we know what impact that will have on the other
15:46:54 witnesses or how convoluted this is?
15:46:57 Maybe you ought to refer that to Marty and let him
15:46:59 make a recommendation.
15:47:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
15:47:03 And wave time for that?
15:47:05 Yeah, we have time for that.
15:47:06 But procedurally, I think we could do that, couldn't
15:47:08 we, in terms of rescinding an original motion?
15:47:28 The letter says that Mr. Fisher has to be in court
15:47:30 that day as related to a related lawsuit between the
15:47:33 parties.
15:47:41 I think it's probably to the discretion of this board.
15:47:44 I'll give to the Marty.
15:47:45 We will look at it for a week and see what happens.
15:47:48 Then the last thing is Alan Wright at the river board
15:47:52 has asked me just to publicly announce the following:
15:47:55 The Tampa Bay water public input -- public input will
15:48:00 be received by Tampa Bay water on the proposed

15:48:02 downstream augmentation enhancement project.
15:48:05 The meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday, November
15:48:08 12th, at the new mount Ryan missionary Baptist
15:48:14 church 2511 east Columbus drive in Tampa.
15:48:18 If you have any questions, you can call Alan Wright at
15:48:21 the river board, and 272 ---Planning Commission?
15:48:28 >> 5940.
15:48:30 Alan Wright.
15:48:31 Thank you.
15:48:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Briefly, I would like to request
15:48:35 that code enforcement appear before council in two
15:48:37 weeks under unfinished business to report on illegal
15:48:41 changing sign at the Walgreen's at Platt Avenue and
15:48:44 Hyde Park Avenue.
15:48:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion.
15:48:51 And second.
15:48:51 (Motion carried).
15:48:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just point of information for this
15:48:59 council.
15:48:59 As you know, we just went through a primary election,
15:49:02 and code enforcement has been inundated with
15:49:06 violations from different candidates and of course the

15:49:10 small yard signs that are in the right-of-way need to
15:49:12 be removed.
15:49:13 And the candidate chances of losing some signs that
15:49:18 are very expensive overall collectively.
15:49:21 But this is an issue that came up this last time.
15:49:24 And I don't think it can be done or resolved for the
15:49:27 November election.
15:49:27 But the you may want to think about doing something to
15:49:33 in any case process better.
15:49:35 Case in point.
15:49:35 There was a 4 by 8 sign that I have every reason to
15:49:40 believe was not given authorization to be on private
15:49:44 property.
15:49:44 But it was put on private property right off the
15:49:48 right-of-way.
15:49:48 And it was noticed to the code enforcement inspector.
15:49:55 And it sits in the right-of-way.
15:49:57 But if it's anyplace else like on private property
15:50:02 they have to cite them and I know you have to give
15:50:04 them whatever they have to have in terms of time to
15:50:06 correct it.
15:50:06 But it's a violation.

15:50:10 We have gone through seven or eight months about sign
15:50:12 ordinances and on-site signs, and this 4 by 8 was
15:50:19 allowed to stay there because when the property owner
15:50:21 is notified they have 21 days to remedy that.
15:50:24 Of course this is two days before the election.
15:50:27 28 days is no big deal.
15:50:28 They can accomplish what they have to.
15:50:29 If you have time between November and your election,
15:50:31 you ought to look at that.
15:50:33 I mean, people are really sick and tired of the sign
15:50:37 litter that campaigns have caused.
15:50:39 And if there's some way to enforce that better, it
15:50:42 will be a -- people are aggravated.
15:50:47 And a reminder if you happen to be unfortunate enough
15:50:50 to lose, then it's your responsibility to remove your
15:50:53 signs.
15:50:53 And that's not a fun thing.
15:50:58 >> Thank you for bringing that up.
15:50:59 Thank you so much for bringing that up.
15:51:01 I had just requested that the code enforcement address
15:51:04 the sign issue in two weeks.
15:51:05 I would like to add to my motion that they report to

15:51:08 us on what they are going to do to not only pick up
15:51:11 the signs, the illegal signs, but the visual pollution
15:51:14 all over.
15:51:15 It's been the worst this season that I have ever seen.
15:51:18 And I don't want to have to live with this for the
15:51:20 next three months.
15:51:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: And they are just pulling them up with
15:51:29 no punishment to the person, to the candidate.
15:51:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There are supposed to be signs.
15:51:36 I would like to change my motion from when they come
15:51:38 in two weeks to add that code enforcement also report
15:51:42 on what they are doing in terms of enforcement for
15:51:46 campaign signs.
15:51:47 And I would like a person to appear before us, sign
15:51:51 code enforcement, to share that with us.
15:51:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
15:51:57 (Motion carried)
15:51:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nothing.
15:52:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I just wanted to congratulate our
15:52:04 two colleagues on their primary wins, and Mr. White is
15:52:09 not here to accept that, but good work, and report to
15:52:13 you all succeeding to the general election and moving

15:52:17 down the street.
15:52:19 I don't have anything at this point.
15:52:21 So at this point of our agenda it is the general
15:52:24 public comment.
15:52:27 If there is anyone in the audience who would like to
15:52:29 speak on any item.
15:53:33 (Meeting adjourned)