Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, April 19, 2007

6:00 p.m. Hearing


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


18:04:51 >>GWEN MILLER: The meeting is called to order. The
18:05:36 chair will yield to Joseph Caetano.
18:05:38 >> It's my privilege to introduce Father David Dejulio
18:05:42 from Saint Marks Church in the Cross Creek in the New
18:05:44 Tampa area is going to give us our invocation, and
18:05:47 we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance.
18:05:51 >> Heavenly Father, we thank you for your presence
18:05:57 among us.
18:05:58 It gives us light, it gives us peace and harmony.
18:06:01 We ask for your continued presence in this council to

18:06:05 give them strength and courage in the decisions they
18:06:07 have to make.
18:06:08 May these decisions benefit not just one but all.
18:06:12 We ask this in your holy name.
18:06:14 Amen.
18:06:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
18:06:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
18:06:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
18:06:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
18:06:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
18:06:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
18:06:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
18:06:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
18:06:54 I'm not actually speaking first.
18:06:56 Mr. Garcia is presenting the plan amendment.
18:06:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If we can, council, if I could talk to
18:07:02 Ms. Cole for just ten seconds.
18:07:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing.
18:07:25 >> So moved.
18:07:26 (Motion carried).
18:07:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I would like to at the outset
18:07:31 provide some guidance.

18:07:32 Council, I provided you a memo stating that there have
18:07:35 been inquiries or correspondence about those who might
18:07:38 want top speak in excess of what council's usually time
18:07:41 afforded for individual public comments are.
18:07:44 And I provided you the rules, from your rules of
18:07:47 procedure.
18:07:49 Council, do you wish to at this time set forth any sort
18:07:54 of parameters at the start of the public hearing with
18:07:57 regard to how long those might want to speak either for
18:08:01 or in opposition to the item of this transmittal public
18:08:05 hearing?
18:08:06 Or does council wish to proceed and do it on a case but
18:08:09 case basis?
18:08:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I understand -- our usual rules are
18:08:14 that each side would have 30 minutes.
18:08:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, this is not a quasi-judicial
18:08:19 public hearing.
18:08:19 So the rules that normally apply to that do not.
18:08:24 You have an applicant in this case, which is the City
18:08:26 of Tampa.
18:08:28 And you also have those who might be speaking either in
18:08:33 support or in opposition to it.

18:08:35 There is no rule specifically as to the number of
18:08:38 minutes the applicant gets.
18:08:39 There is no rule other than your standing rule that
18:08:42 says somebody during a public hearing can speak for
18:08:46 three minutes unless they complete a speaker waiver
18:08:48 form, which grants them an additional minute for each
18:08:51 speaker that waives their time up to a total of ten
18:08:55 minutes.
18:08:55 I have been informed, I believe council is here,
18:08:58 Mr. Bentley, had some communication, I have been in
18:09:04 touch with his office, and I have informed him that
18:09:07 based on discussions of agenda review with the chair,
18:09:12 that if he wished to make a PowerPoint presentation,
18:09:14 the chair would be willing to afford him a total of ten
18:09:17 minutes.
18:09:18 But anything greater than that would require counsel's
18:09:21 approval.
18:09:23 So the council's rules are presently that three minutes
18:09:27 are to be afforded for each speaker unless council
18:09:30 chooses otherwise.
18:09:32 I apologize to council that I did not bring this to you
18:09:35 prior to tonight to resolve it.

18:09:38 And I had been informed that Mr. Bentley, representing,
18:09:42 I believe, two clients, is here with a PowerPoint
18:09:45 presentation,
18:09:46 And if council wishes to entertain a request for an
18:09:49 extension of time, it may choose to do sew so at the
18:09:52 outset.
18:09:53 So in fairness in other people are similarly situated
18:09:56 they are granted the same opportunities.
18:10:01 Ultimately, council, this is a legislative matter,
18:10:04 different standards than a quasi-judicial proceeding,
18:10:06 which is a transmittal public hearing, so it is
18:10:09 council's discretion as to how much time they wish to
18:10:12 afford.
18:10:12 Obviously, there may be those people who wish to have
18:10:14 things brought into the record that they feel necessary
18:10:16 to present their case.
18:10:18 And it would be my recommendation that they at least be
18:10:21 afforded the opportunity to enter things into the
18:10:23 record.
18:10:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby, the bottom line is we
18:10:27 are doing transmittal -- plan amendment transmittals,
18:10:31 okay, and over my last four, over their last 100 years,

18:10:35 you know, we have done many plan amendment
18:10:39 transmittals.
18:10:40 And it seems to me my recollection is we just go by the
18:10:43 three-minute rule, you know, and I haven't seen us
18:10:47 stray from that.
18:10:48 I don't know why this would be so different.
18:10:51 So that would be my leaning but I'm all ears for
18:10:54 anybody else.
18:10:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree with council member
18:10:57 Dingfelder.
18:10:58 And thank you for the compliment.
18:10:59 I thought I was 100 years old.
18:11:04 [ Laughter ]
18:11:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else?
18:11:07 Okay.
18:11:08 So we are saying, what three minutes?
18:11:12 >> Three minutes unless they have a speaker waiver
18:11:13 form.
18:11:14 >>GWEN MILLER: What about presenting?
18:11:15 That's everybody?
18:11:20 We need a motion.
18:11:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move we stick to our rules.

18:11:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Separate why your city staff?
18:11:34 Or does that include three minutes?
18:11:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Usually our staff has latitude,
18:11:40 typically they get.
18:11:41 But three minutes for the general public per person,
18:11:44 and a speaker waiver form.
18:11:49 Unless he has speaker waiver forms.
18:11:53 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bentley?
18:11:55 >>MARK BENTLEY: May a dress?
18:11:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Sure.
18:11:57 >>MARK BENTLEY: I represent two very significant
18:12:00 property owners, both have vacant properties, 25 acres,
18:12:03 probably 7% of the vacant land that's going to be
18:12:07 affected by the plan amendment if it's approved.
18:12:09 I just want to bring to council's attention, this is my
18:12:12 opportunity to make my case, even though Mr. Dingfelder
18:12:14 said it's a transmittal hearing, the growth management
18:12:17 office said I could make my record at this time.
18:12:21 Also, under the statute, section 163.184, even though
18:12:26 the city is the applicant, my clients as affected
18:12:31 property owners have the same status of the city.
18:12:33 So I don't want to belabor this but this is the

18:12:35 opportunity to make the record and by law the same
18:12:38 status as the city.
18:12:40 What I was looking for was ten minutes for each client,
18:12:42 and I'll be as brief as possible.
18:12:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: An item of fairness, if the city
18:12:47 takes 20 minutes and petitioner is allowed ten minutes
18:12:50 for each client.
18:12:54 That's just a motion.
18:12:55 >> Second.
18:12:55 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
18:12:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If the city -- I don't know, Mr.
18:13:01 Garcia, who is representing city in this case?
18:13:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Catherine Coyle.
18:13:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Cathy, how long do you think it's
18:13:08 going to take?
18:13:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
18:13:10 I wouldn't expect maybe more than five to seven minutes
18:13:12 to say what I need to say.
18:13:13 >>GWEN MILLER: So we'll say your ten, 20.
18:13:19 He has two clients.
18:13:21 You have got one.
18:13:22 Five minutes.

18:13:22 But he wants equal time.
18:13:24 And five minutes representing in all fairness to the
18:13:26 legal system.
18:13:28 I don't want an objection later on in life saying, you
18:13:30 know, I didn't get the time to put in my two cents
18:13:33 worth or whatever it is.
18:13:34 >>MARK BENTLEY: The problem is there's another ten
18:13:38 people out there who might want the same amount of
18:13:40 time.
18:13:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The citizens who are here, they are
18:13:52 probably going to want the same amount of time.
18:13:54 So in the future, this is why it's important having
18:13:57 workshops so we can deal with the process and not deal
18:14:01 with these at the last minute.
18:14:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't think it's fair for a hired
18:14:06 attorney to have more standing than individual
18:14:08 citizens.
18:14:08 I think we need to look at a question of fairness.
18:14:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Scott, the bottom line is we do
18:14:17 have a process.
18:14:18 And that process is typically three minutes for
18:14:21 everybody, whether or not it's an attorney, an

18:14:23 individual, whoever, three minutes unless you bring
18:14:27 speaker waiver forms, and then you can add to those
18:14:29 three minutes accordingly.
18:14:31 And as far as making the record, Mr. Bentley, I think
18:14:34 that clearly, you know that we accept documents.
18:14:37 We'll read documents.
18:14:39 That's an additional way to make your record.
18:14:41 I'm sure you brought documents to submit to us to help
18:14:45 make your record over and above the three or six
18:14:48 minutes that you might get.
18:14:49 >>MARK BENTLEY: That's correct.
18:14:51 A problem I have here is that you're treating me as if
18:14:54 I was a proponent or objector to what's being
18:14:57 promulgated when here again I have the same status as
18:15:01 the city under the law.
18:15:02 Hopefully, I will won't even use the ten for each but I
18:15:06 have a PowerPoint.
18:15:07 I made the request through the legal department and
18:15:10 through Mr. Shelby without any feedback so I made the
18:15:13 effort.
18:15:14 We have all the equipment set up.
18:15:16 Here again I think in all fairness to the citizens, I

18:15:18 think Mr. Wells is probably the spokesperson for most
18:15:21 of these people in attendance tonight.
18:15:23 But we would really appreciate it.
18:15:26 If I am going to get documents in the record but they
18:15:28 are pretty much irrelevant if they weren't explained.
18:15:31 I can be very brief.
18:15:32 So thank you very much.
18:15:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll withdraw my motion.
18:15:38 I can count.
18:15:40 >>GWEN MILLER: So where are we?
18:15:44 >> Linda made a motion.
18:15:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That we stick to our regular rules
18:15:48 which is three minutes per person with speaker waiver
18:15:50 forms up to ten minutes.
18:15:51 >> Second.
18:15:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
18:15:53 Question on that motion?
18:15:54 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
18:15:56 Opposed, Nay.
18:16:05 (Motion carried).
18:16:09 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
18:16:11 I will be brief in my comments, as we'll believe the

18:16:16 present of the presentation will be handled by Cathy
18:16:18 Coyle of the city.
18:16:20 For the benefit of those of you who are new to the
18:16:23 council a brief chronology of where this has gone.
18:16:26 I have not had the opportunity of representing Planning
18:16:28 Commission to talk to this body regarding the plan
18:16:31 amendment, 629, which is part of the August cycle of
18:16:36 plan amendments.
18:16:36 It was submitted as part of the August cycle but can
18:16:41 run independently but can run independent lent because
18:16:46 of its unique status. This was brought at the message
18:16:49 of City Council as a result of the joint land use study
18:16:53 which took close to a year to conduct.
18:16:55 Recommendations that were submitted by motion of Tampa
18:16:58 City Council to consistent sip with the comprehensive
18:17:00 plan.
18:17:01 The Planning Commission staff reviewed it and held a
18:17:05 public hearing on September 11th at 2006 of which
18:17:07 there was significant citizen attendance that evening,
18:17:11 and citizens at that point in time voiced many concerns
18:17:15 regarding issues as it related to the recommendations
18:17:18 that were made as part of the joint land use study.

18:17:20 That was taken into account.
18:17:22 There was a split vote by Planning Commission but did
18:17:24 it pass by a slight majority and was brought forward to
18:17:28 you in addition to the letter of concerns at which you
18:17:31 all have a record of.
18:17:33 At that point in time when we had the initial public
18:17:35 hearing for the initial transmittal hearing in front of
18:17:38 this body, it was recommended upon direction by this
18:17:41 body that that be continued to give the general public
18:17:46 an opportunity to have an extended public participation
18:17:49 process to voice their concerns in more detail, and
18:17:52 have additional workshops with city staff.
18:17:56 That was done.
18:17:57 And here we are, eight months later, with a lot of
18:18:01 revisions, and what I'm sure the community has felt as
18:18:05 a really positive move forward as far as community
18:18:09 representation, with public participation with the
18:18:13 city.
18:18:15 That will conclude my statements, because what was
18:18:17 initially recommended as a result of the joint land use
18:18:20 study was much lengthier and involved a land use change
18:18:24 and involved a different kind of map.

18:18:26 Those things are not part of this recommendation.
18:18:28 This is significantly been toned down, and is something
18:18:32 that is -- that the committee has accepted with a
18:18:36 pretty good comfort level and I'm sure that they will
18:18:39 relate that to you this evening.
18:18:40 The only other piece of distance I have -- and this is
18:18:42 for the general public's information -- is I do have as
18:18:45 part of the comprehensive plan process, just very
18:18:49 quickly, this is a transmittal hearing, as Mr.
18:18:51 Dingfelder has stated.
18:18:52 This will go up to DCA to the state for review.
18:18:55 They will get it and they'll have 60 days upon their
18:18:58 receipt to review it, send comments back to the city,
18:19:00 and to the Planning Commission.
18:19:02 Upon that time, that we receive it, we the city
18:19:05 receives it, we'll have 60 days to review it and the
18:19:08 city will have 60 days to adopt, not adopt, or adopt
18:19:11 the changes, whatever changes were sent down by DCA.
18:19:15 So that's about another four, four and a half month
18:19:17 process we are going to have to go through before this
18:19:19 finally comes to you for adoption.
18:19:21 At that point in time this will go back up for final

18:19:24 adoption and concurrence review by the Department of
18:19:26 Community Affairs at which point in time they will
18:19:28 produce in the paper a notice of intent.
18:19:31 That leads up to what I am trying to show you now which
18:19:33 is this form which is basically for any members of the
18:19:36 public that would like a copy of the notice of intent,
18:19:38 which will be published in the paper anyway.
18:19:41 They can receive a copy of the notice of intent that
18:19:44 will be published in the paper.
18:19:45 So if anyone would like to have their name and address
18:19:48 placed on this form, I will have the form available for
18:19:52 anyone to -- at the culmination of this meeting.
18:19:55 They can meet with me and I will have their name put
18:19:58 upon this form.
18:19:58 And this is something that will be sent at the end of
18:20:03 this process to DCA, which is required by state law.
18:20:07 Thank you.
18:20:08 That concludes my presentation.
18:20:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
18:20:46 It's been a fairly long road.
18:20:48 We are finally here tonight for this public hearing for
18:20:50 transmittal.

18:20:52 What you have before you is a memo that details the
18:20:55 chronology of the issues, starting with July 2006, the
18:21:02 recommendations from the study were presented to City
18:21:03 Council, and trimmed, went to the Planning Commission
18:21:08 for the hearing which Mr. Garcia went over that
18:21:10 occurred September 2006.
18:21:13 On page 2, in October, we held a public information
18:21:18 workshop at the Ballast Point elementary.
18:21:24 Approximately 250 to 275 people attended, and we went
18:21:27 through a variation of options and potential changes
18:21:31 that would be made to the language.
18:21:34 November 2006, that was the hearing that was continued
18:21:37 to January.
18:21:38 It was again rescheduled for March, which unfortunately
18:21:42 there was a misnotice for that one.
18:21:44 And we are here tonight.
18:21:47 The rescheduled transmittal public hearing as I said is
18:21:50 tonight.
18:21:50 What you see before you on page 4 and 5 is the actual
18:21:54 proposed language, changes to the comprehensive plan,
18:21:58 future land use element.
18:21:59 When we initially started out from the joint land use

18:22:03 study recommendations it was basically a wholesale
18:22:05 change to the map, the future land use map, calling out
18:22:10 a new land use category, which is military installation
18:22:15 airport, and then future changes to the zoning code and
18:22:18 zoning map, and basically a whole list of regulations
18:22:21 and policies that went along with that.
18:22:23 We heard from the public.
18:22:26 There was significant issues with that proposal, and we
18:22:30 have since met with many of them, numerous people and
18:22:34 groups, and it has changed essentially from no change
18:22:39 to a map whatsoever, the land use map or zoning map.
18:22:41 There were no zoning code changes proposed.
18:22:44 This is simply a modification, revision to the text
18:22:47 that already exists, with a few additional lines being
18:22:51 added referencing the state statute change.
18:22:55 And the recognition of MacDill Air Force Base as a
18:22:59 sitting member on the Planning Commission, non-voting.
18:23:04 Of those changes that you have before you starting on
18:23:06 page 4 -- and you can see the key at the top.
18:23:10 The black print, no underline, is the original
18:23:13 language, and this is current language in the
18:23:16 comprehensive plan today.

18:23:17 The black underlined language is proposed language that
18:23:21 hasn't changed.
18:23:23 The purple underline yellow highlight is language
18:23:27 changes for April.
18:23:30 It was sent out.
18:23:32 And the green changes that you see were changes as of
18:23:35 today.
18:23:39 What you see that below in the red text are the staff
18:23:43 commentary on what and why things happened.
18:23:47 The change that you have on MacDill Air Force Base
18:23:51 first and foremost is the reference to both sections
18:23:54 within chapter 163.
18:23:56 This is actually pointed out by some outside attorneys
18:24:03 that we should reference both, and as well we did send
18:24:06 for initial review to the state, and they did send back
18:24:08 some initial comments, so we clarified that. The green
18:24:11 language where it says the policies below are intended
18:24:13 to, the green says preserve the quality of life.
18:24:18 That was a change that Mr. Wells' group, Ballast Point
18:24:22 homeowners requested, ensure future land development
18:24:26 compatibility around the base and so on.
18:24:28 That's where you see the initial reference to figure 1,

18:24:30 the MacDill Air Force Base flight map.
18:24:33 And that's what you will see on the Elmo.
18:24:38 What this is is the flight path that we received, and
18:24:44 there's actually a couple of different variations of
18:24:46 this, and I'll go through and explain why.
18:24:51 The way the military sets it out, there is a clear
18:24:54 zone, and APZ 1 and APZ 2, stands for touch scone zone.
18:25:05 Measuring -- and this is debatable item -- out from the
18:25:08 center line approximate thousand feet in depth, that is
18:25:10 the initial -- basically highest risk area for
18:25:15 accidents based on their statistics, in the study that
18:25:17 was done. The APZ 1 goes out another 5,000 feet and
18:25:21 the APZ 2 goes out 7,000 feet.
18:25:26 The information that arose in the public workshop was
18:25:29 many of the con text that you had that they don't care
18:25:34 for the reference accident potential.
18:25:36 Still within the comprehensive plan today that
18:25:38 language.
18:25:39 However, they did want it altered so it didn't give
18:25:41 such a scary vibe essentially to the language to
18:25:47 understand.
18:25:47 To the map that's being produced today shows

18:25:49 essentially the entire area.
18:25:51 It is the flight path come off MacDill Air Force
18:25:54 Base.
18:25:55 And the full dimension of all three zones together.
18:26:01 What you see at the bottom of page 4 is option 1.
18:26:05 This gets into the meat of the density intensity issue
18:26:10 that came out of the joint land use study
18:26:12 recommendations.
18:26:14 What you have before you today is a production from ten
18:26:20 units per acre max to six units per acre.
18:26:23 That was the recommendation made by the policy
18:26:25 committee in the study and that was the recommendation
18:26:27 from the administration as the applicant that we have
18:26:29 stayed consistent on.
18:26:32 The MacDill Avenue itself, any commercial parcels
18:26:36 along that corridor would be limited to a .5 floor area
18:26:40 ratio.
18:26:41 Just to explain what floor area ratio is, the to build
18:26:46 an area, .5 translates to 50% of your land area that
18:26:50 you can put in the building.
18:26:54 Option 2 on page 5 is the item that is up for debate.
18:27:02 This is the option that Mr. Wells put forward.

18:27:08 This is limiting the density to six units per acre in
18:27:11 the flight path.
18:27:13 And those lands lying west of Himes Avenue could be
18:27:17 considered for up to ten through a PD rezoning, a site
18:27:21 plan district rezoning.
18:27:25 >> Can you point on the map where you're talking about?
18:27:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
18:27:34 Himes Avenue is here.
18:27:40 Essentially this point.
18:27:41 This large parcel, before the last parcel,
18:27:46 approximately 25.5 to 26 acres.
18:27:50 It's within the APZ 1, the current APZ-1, not clear
18:27:54 zone.
18:27:55 >> Is there any reason that we would arbitrarily choose
18:27:58 Himes Avenue West?
18:28:00 That seems like it's the closest area to the runway.
18:28:03 >>> This is his request.
18:28:06 Our option is option 1.
18:28:08 We do not believe that you should go above six units
18:28:10 per acre based on the analysis that we did over the
18:28:13 entire area.
18:28:15 This is what the single-family residential is built out

18:28:17 of today.
18:28:18 The whole goal --
18:28:20 >> So there's no good planning rationale to take that
18:28:24 area as -- depict that as an arbitrary line and go west
18:28:29 of it, from the planning --
18:28:32 >>> No, not in my opinion. The parcel itself has a
18:28:35 heavy industrial land use and heavy industrial zoning.
18:28:37 It has in a residential entitlements or ability today.
18:28:40 It's prohibited from building residential.
18:28:48 The next policy, A-3.1.1, this is the one that I
18:28:53 mentioned where it speaks to placing a number of
18:28:59 MacDill Air Force Base -- a representative from the
18:29:01 base on the Planning Commission as a nonvoting member.
18:29:04 This is actually mandated by the state statute.
18:29:07 Policy A-3.1.2, this is current language in the
18:29:11 comprehensive plan.
18:29:12 It speaks to prohibiting future noise sensitive
18:29:16 developments within the noise contour.
18:29:18 The language that Mr. Wells proposed in green to be
18:29:21 removed, which is -- which may pose health hazards.
18:29:28 We have no issue with striking that.
18:29:30 Policy A-3.1.3, and this really gets into the heart of

18:29:35 how we dealt with nonconforming properties, lots of
18:29:40 record, uses of intensity, the development that is
18:29:42 exist today.
18:29:42 I want to put this into a framework for you.
18:29:45 When we began this study, what we had, the full scale,
18:29:49 the full scope of what we had to look at, was on this
18:29:54 end the military recommendation, through their
18:29:57 compatibility use and study, the H-use, which you
18:30:00 probably will hear throughout the testimony tonight,
18:30:02 which is zoning from 1998, these are typical land use
18:30:06 recommendations made for any of these studies.
18:30:10 But what it recommends ask by the clear zone for the
18:30:13 Air Force should really be clear.
18:30:15 That's the intent of that word.
18:30:16 No development, no unit whatsoever.
18:30:20 The APZ 1 they recommend for zero residential and very,
18:30:24 very, very limited commercial uses, industrial uses.
18:30:28 The APZ 2, which would be the farthest out, they
18:30:33 recommend for one to two units per acre, and then some
18:30:36 very small scale commercial and industrial uses, and
18:30:40 some neighborhood scale uses.
18:30:42 The goal of that is to limit congregation of people.

18:30:46 No schools, no churches.
18:30:48 And limit density.
18:30:50 Now this is their view and their study.
18:30:52 When we came into our joint land use study, we had that
18:30:56 on one end, and the other end of the spectrum is the
18:30:59 current comprehensive plan limit of ten units per acre.
18:31:03 Now keep in mind, the ten units per acre was put into
18:31:08 effect in the early 1990s.
18:31:09 The land use designations are a full realm of land use
18:31:14 category any where from R-6 all the way up to CMU-35.
18:31:20 They are a higher densities.
18:31:22 There are some high-rise as long the waterfront.
18:31:24 There are apartment complexes here, duplexes,
18:31:27 multi-family older town home developments.
18:31:31 So when the ten units per acre was put into place, it
18:31:35 especially triggered a fair amount of nonconformity.
18:31:38 There were a lot of parcels out here that are
18:31:40 considered nonconform, if they were to redevelop.
18:31:43 If for some reason we got that big storm one day, and
18:31:46 it knocked down some of these uses, by the way the
18:31:49 comprehensive plan was written today that the ten units
18:31:51 per acre cap, they wouldn't be able to rebuild what

18:31:54 they have.
18:31:55 Many parcels in this area.
18:31:57 What we did through this is a compromise, and in
18:31:59 looking at how to capture the current development
18:32:02 pattern and the intensity of development within the
18:32:05 flight path, we built in two provisions that capture
18:32:09 what people have, so that if something does happen to
18:32:12 them, they can rebuild the intensity that they have,
18:32:15 but no more.
18:32:16 It's capturing basically a snapshot in time.
18:32:20 Policy A-3.1.3 states any lot of record within the
18:32:26 MacDill Air Force Base flight path in existence as
18:32:31 of January 1, 2008 and we pushed it out for the next
18:32:34 year so there is time for people to get their deed work
18:32:36 and plat work in, shall be considered conforming.
18:32:40 Meaning that if you have got a 50-foot lot, you have
18:32:43 got a buildable lot.
18:32:45 Even though the density is six units per acre, we are
18:32:47 not going to take your house away from you or take your
18:32:50 lot away from you.
18:32:51 If something happened you could rebuild it.
18:32:53 Especially those that are on condos and townhouses

18:32:56 which are much higher density.
18:32:58 The second policy that deals with these nonconforming
18:33:03 issues A .3.1.4 specifically says any use and intensity
18:33:08 of land within this flight path that was legally
18:33:10 constructed prayer to January 1, 2008, shall be
18:33:14 considered conform as well.
18:33:17 This one tried to capture some commercial properties
18:33:21 that are either over the floor area ratio, mixed uses
18:33:24 that are over the floor area ratio, densities and uses
18:33:27 that even are over the outside of the use table or
18:33:31 outside of the density that's allowed.
18:33:34 This is a special provision.
18:33:36 It is different than the rest of the city.
18:33:40 Nonconformities in the rest of the city, the basic
18:33:42 intent of our nonconforming section and the zoning code
18:33:45 is to cease operation of nonconformities, period.
18:33:49 This is a special area because it has a cap on top of
18:33:53 it of ten units per acre, which came subsequent to the
18:33:57 development.
18:33:58 And looking through this study, to try to capture
18:34:01 what's out there today, it only seemed reasonable to be
18:34:04 able to redevelop what's there.

18:34:05 It becomes no more intense, and people don't then leave
18:34:11 the rights to what they have today.
18:34:13 And the final policy, which is what you may hear from
18:34:16 Mr. Dianco tonight, he had an excellent suggestion, a
18:34:23 phone call from the mayor and him, and he suggested we
18:34:26 establish some sort of committee so we can have ongoing
18:34:29 communication between the base and the area neighbors
18:34:34 and stakeholders and the city to talk about issues,
18:34:36 what's going on their side of the wall, what's going on
18:34:39 on our side of the wall.
18:34:41 So it says the city will establish a committee
18:34:43 including members of city staff and MacDill Air
18:34:46 Force Base personnel, neighborhood association
18:34:48 representatives, area safe holders if needed.
18:34:51 This committee would meet to discuss items such as
18:34:55 flight operations, flight patterns, future base
18:34:58 activities, residential and community needs and
18:35:00 desires, and any city proposed plans, improvements,
18:35:04 et cetera.
18:35:05 And that would meet on a regular basis.
18:35:08 And if this gets -- at the end finally adopted, we
18:35:12 would elect to move quiet pretty quickly on that and

18:35:15 begin those talks.
18:35:16 If I could, just to clear up the issue with the clear
18:35:20 zone.
18:35:25 The clear zone as you see in this map is a cone.
18:35:29 It begins at 1500 feet, which is drawn at 750 feet from
18:35:33 the center line, out either side of the run way, and
18:35:37 3,000 feet in depth.
18:35:39 This map really arose from a conversation we had with
18:35:42 Mr -- Julia Cole and I went to his office and he showed
18:35:48 us the code of regulations and how flight paths should
18:35:50 be drawn or should be regulated.
18:35:54 Now, Julia did her research on the exact regulations
18:35:58 and she certainly can speak to them better than I
18:36:01 because she's done the research.
18:36:02 But what it says in there is that the basic stuff had
18:36:05 the option of doing something else, essentially, based
18:36:08 on their operations.
18:36:09 And I want to show you -- and this is one of the items
18:36:11 that is in question.
18:36:15 And I will submit this for the record, just for
18:36:18 clarity.
18:36:19 If you see on the blue -- and I believe you have it

18:36:22 before you as well -- what you see in the blue is what
18:36:27 we are calling the superseded flight path.
18:36:31 This superseded flight path was transmitted to us back
18:36:35 in the early '90s when this was originally adopted in
18:36:38 the comprehensive plan, and to be quite frank, the city
18:36:42 didn't have the technology to accept a digital
18:36:45 coordination, the digital representation of that.
18:36:49 It was hand drawn onto our maps and then adopted into
18:36:52 the comprehensive plan.
18:36:53 And when it was drawn by hand, it was skewed. What we
18:36:58 found as we have gone through all of our records, and I
18:37:01 had Mr. Jimmy Cook draw this up for us, we had the
18:37:03 digital mapping now, and when we received their
18:37:07 coordinates directly from MacDill on what their
18:37:10 flight path is, it's the red.
18:37:13 MacDill stated very clearly that their clear zone
18:37:17 is 3,000 feet wide based on their studies and based on
18:37:20 their operations and flight paths.
18:37:22 I am going to submit that for the record, and I would
18:37:24 ask that you transmit the 3,000-foot map, and what we
18:37:28 can do over the next couple of months prior to it
18:37:31 coming back from the state is sit down with

18:37:33 MacDill, Mr. Bentley, and other area people, and
18:37:36 try to figure out what issues there are with the 3,000
18:37:40 versus the 1500.
18:37:42 We would ask to transmit the larger one, so if in the
18:37:45 end it needs to be reduced we can reduce it without any
18:37:48 other kind of extra hearings.
18:37:50 But, Julie, do you want to explain anything about the
18:37:53 code regulations?
18:37:54 I stated they kind of have the option.
18:38:05 >>> John McKirchy, city attorney's office.
18:38:09 Just to clarify the regulations, the smaller clear zone
18:38:13 emanates from guidelines in the federal regulations.
18:38:18 They are not binding on the local facility.
18:38:21 In this case the local facility has done their own
18:38:24 calculations based on the unique local data, and
18:38:29 investigations and studies, and determined that the
18:38:32 larger clear zone is more appropriate.
18:38:34 That's the 3,000 square feet clear zone, so their
18:38:39 position is that the guidelines are not binding.
18:38:43 That's the only thing I have other than what Ms. Coyle
18:38:47 has already spoken about.
18:38:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Just to wrap up rather quickly

18:38:52 what's on the table now is option one and option two,
18:38:55 ability to rezone to ten.
18:38:57 City administration is holding firm.
18:38:59 It needs to be six units per acre based on the
18:39:01 consistent recommendation, based on previous testimony
18:39:04 that you have heard, based on the hard work that the
18:39:06 area residents, the neighborhood groups.
18:39:10 We ask that you transmit option one.
18:39:12 I have a cleaner version of that if that is what you
18:39:14 said -- do you have any questions?
18:39:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The policies that you have read us
18:39:24 after option one, like policy 3.11, is that part of
18:39:29 option 1 or option 2, or is that separate?
18:39:33 >>> These are the standing policies.
18:39:35 Option one, option two are the only two that are really
18:39:37 up for debate.
18:39:38 >> Thanks for the clarification.
18:39:40 In the future, the green with the red in it is really
18:39:42 hard to read.
18:39:43 >>> Yes, that was my last choice.
18:39:45 I apologize.
18:39:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

18:39:49 We go to the public.
18:39:52 Would anyone in the public want to speak may come up
18:39:54 and speak now.
18:40:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, just so the opportunity is
18:40:33 clear, particularly before the public begins to speak
18:40:36 on this, should Mr. Bentley, when it's his turn to get
18:40:43 up and represent his clients, renew the objection,
18:40:47 there is a concern that without weighing the merits of
18:40:51 the case, clearly he's going to make an objection.
18:40:54 And the question that I raise for council is
18:40:57 determining, and depending on how many people do want
18:41:00 to speak, whether council would consider perhaps giving
18:41:06 latitude.
18:41:06 My understanding from talking to Mr. Bentley is he is
18:41:10 asking for ten minutes per client.
18:41:12 I don't know how many people wish to speak.
18:41:14 I don't know how many people wish to speak for a full
18:41:17 ten minutes.
18:41:18 And how many people will speak for ten minutes without
18:41:20 being redundant and duplicitous and say more than what
18:41:24 they need to say.
18:41:25 I don't know how many people are in that way.

18:41:27 But, council, we ask -- I would ask council to
18:41:32 consider, and if Ms. Cole wishes to chime in on this,
18:41:35 that for the purposes of this record, if an objection
18:41:37 is being made by Mr. Bentley on behalf of his clients,
18:41:41 saying that he would like ten minutes, if council were
18:41:44 to give him ten minutes per client, it would remove his
18:41:49 objection.
18:41:50 So, therefore, he would no longer have an objection on
18:41:54 that particular issue you.
18:41:55 Not to say that objection can't be cured later on, not
18:41:59 to say that that objection will be fatal to the passage
18:42:02 of this text amendment.
18:42:03 But I just want do raise council's concern that I
18:42:06 understand fairness, but I also understand the
18:42:10 importance of what council is attempting to do, and I
18:42:13 don't want something that can be necessarily hindered
18:42:20 for want of spending a few extra minutes of council's
18:42:23 time.
18:42:23 And I respect council's decision, but I just wish
18:42:27 council could see whether, if there are a number of
18:42:30 people similarly situated, that it would not put an
18:42:34 undue burden on council to allow it to have the full

18:42:37 opportunity that Mr. Bentley is requesting, which would
18:42:40 cause him to remove his objection on this particular
18:42:44 matter.
18:42:45 So as your attorney I'm suggesting that you may want to
18:42:48 consider doing that.
18:42:49 Ultimately it's council's decision.
18:42:51 I'm not taking one position or the other except for the
18:42:54 fact that I have been informed by Mr. Bentley that if
18:42:56 he is given ten minutes per client, it removes his
18:43:00 objection.
18:43:01 And I would assume if council chooses to do that,
18:43:04 Mr. Bentley would be willing to affirm that on the
18:43:06 record.
18:43:09 I apologize for putting council in this position,
18:43:12 especially if it made its decision, but I have a
18:43:15 concern ultimately for what it is you are attempting to
18:43:17 accomplish.
18:43:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda.
18:43:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would like you to ask the audience
18:43:22 how many people are going to testify.
18:43:23 That way we can get a reading on this and find out
18:43:26 where we are at.

18:43:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Those who intend to speak, would you
18:43:29 please raise your hand?
18:43:36 Six.
18:43:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I think we addressed our attorney's
18:43:41 request and get to the podium so we can identify and
18:43:44 maybe solve the problem.
18:43:52 >>> I think that if we are going to extend the extra
18:43:55 time to Mr. Bentley, then we would be -- my question
18:43:59 is, then we would be obligated to do that for anyone
18:44:03 else in the public who would wish to extend their time.
18:44:07 Am I right?
18:44:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In fairness, that would be my
18:44:12 recommendation, yes.
18:44:13 That does not mean people should feel obligated to fill
18:44:17 that time for anything but relevant statements.
18:44:27 >> Can I get ten minutes?
18:44:29 >> What is council's pleasure?
18:44:32 >>> Very briefly.
18:44:32 The homeowners have done --
18:44:34 >>GWEN MILLER: He has a speaker waiver form, so he
18:44:36 should have five minutes.
18:44:38 >>> Council, as I said, homeowners have done the heavy

18:44:41 lifting with the city for eight months.
18:44:44 Name is Gene Wells, Ballast Point, and I am the founder
18:44:48 of the BallastPointhomeownersalliance.org, an
18:44:51 organization of like minded property owners in Ballast
18:44:53 Point, Interbay and sun bay south, that promote sound
18:44:59 policy in the protection of property rights.
18:45:01 Council, the packet that I offer you this evening and
18:45:04 for the record, the yellow document is a very
18:45:08 historical document to give you and the new members
18:45:10 just a glimpse of what we were facing in September, the
18:45:15 objection that is homeowners have regarding section 5
18:45:18 and joint land use study.
18:45:19 But I'm happy to stand here before you tonight and tell
18:45:22 you the city has met every request of the Ballast Point
18:45:28 homeowners.
18:45:31 Ms. Coyle's addition, the quality of life, and the
18:45:34 removal of the noise hazard, Chairman Miller, after
18:45:38 this meeting, I can attach Ballast Point homeowners
18:45:42 signature page of 158 homeowners, Interbay and Gandy
18:45:47 civic association, supporting that.
18:45:48 I can attach that to option 1, and we wholly support
18:45:53 option one with one caveat.

18:45:54 We do not waive any specific rights for the future.
18:45:57 Just because of all the legal things going on here.
18:46:00 But we wholeheartedly support option 1, council.
18:46:06 As to Mr. Bentley's proposal, which we homeowners
18:46:10 became aware of just recently, you know, we have been
18:46:14 negotiating and working together up to the very minute
18:46:16 of this meeting, and we thank Ms. Coyle, the mayor, and
18:46:21 council, we thank you, because on September 21st,
18:46:25 when you first said, hey, Ballast Point and Interbay
18:46:29 are saying they don't like this, we need to delay this.
18:46:32 You need to go to Ballast Point elementary and have a
18:46:35 community meeting, and council, they followed your
18:46:37 leadership.
18:46:39 Your history of supporting the preservation of
18:46:41 neighborhoods has been established, and you continue --
18:46:46 this is our 8th year, I believe, and you continue
18:46:48 for us homeowners, help us preserve our neighborhoods.
18:46:51 And we thank you for that.
18:46:53 Regarding Mr. Bentley's proposal, though, council, we
18:47:00 do not oppose allowing property owners who risk a
18:47:06 greater loss in development rights than me on my RS 60
18:47:11 lot, we don't oppose them the opportunity to apply for

18:47:15 a PD.
18:47:17 The members that were here in March will recall the
18:47:20 cornerstone of the homeowners campaign was, Let City
18:47:25 Council decide our land use.
18:47:27 If this major land holder is willing to compromise with
18:47:34 the city to just maybe give him a PD, I think it's a
18:47:40 very reasonable compromise, and you, council, will
18:47:43 always get to side, you will have the six dwelling
18:47:46 units per acre, can measure it by.
18:47:48 You will have the noise compatibility issue to measure
18:47:52 it by, you will have, what are there, 3,000 homeowner
18:47:59 lots in this area, that have told you, we like six
18:48:03 units per acre, that they will have to pass muster to
18:48:06 get their PD.
18:48:08 The only problem we have with it, council, if you will
18:48:11 look on the Elmo, you will see -- and this gives the
18:48:16 general vicinity.
18:48:17 We have been here eight times, council.
18:48:18 This is the general vicinity of small property owners,
18:48:22 of circle C, Mr. Harris.
18:48:25 This man talks about livable community.
18:48:27 He talks about connectivity with trails and horses.

18:48:30 You know, that's the kind of guy I want developing in
18:48:33 Ballast Point.
18:48:35 So we ask you to step -- actually, if you propose it,
18:48:40 we ask you to step out further and think of Mr. Harris,
18:48:44 think of this gentleman here whose families own the
18:48:47 corner of Mac day and MacDill for 50 years.
18:48:51 They should be afforded that opportunity, and it's not
18:48:53 an opt out as some people feel this is, council.
18:48:56 It's a safety net for these property owners, who were
18:48:59 caught by surprise by this plan amendment process, and
18:49:01 it's also a safety net for the city, for protection of
18:49:05 the legal subsistency of this plan amendment, because
18:49:09 the community came to you and said we compromise, we
18:49:12 will accept maybe a ten-unit PD.
18:49:15 However, the official position of
18:49:17 BallastPointhomeownersalliance.org, our position on
18:49:25 option 2 is, we defer to you, council, that if you
18:49:30 decide to accept -- this is a very reasonable
18:49:34 compromise -- we ask you to think of all the small
18:49:36 Bataglinis here who want a good quality development,
18:49:44 the properties at the corners at Interbay and
18:49:48 MacDill Avenue who came and testified before you

18:49:50 their concern of what, that they were saving for their
18:49:54 retirement.
18:49:55 They are not trying to make a profit here.
18:49:57 Or Mrs. Reyes who has two lots that maybe one day she
18:50:01 would like to put a PD in and split, and then that fine
18:50:05 gentle who came here in the duplex who talks about
18:50:07 affordable housing in our neighborhood.
18:50:09 Those people, if, council, you decide this Todd
18:50:12 Pressman allow this maybe ten unit planned development,
18:50:15 they deserve it as well.
18:50:16 (Bell sounds).
18:50:18 Count, I thank you.
18:50:18 I thank the city.
18:50:20 I believe you will find some homeowners agree with what
18:50:23 we are saying and there may even be less speakers.
18:50:25 Mr. Bentley, I would like the opportunity to comment on
18:50:28 whatever he presents to you.
18:50:30 Thank you very much.
18:50:30 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
18:50:31 Next speaker.
18:50:42 >>> My name is Al Steenson, president of the Gandy
18:50:46 civic association.

18:50:47 My main purpose here this evening to make Todd Pressman
18:50:50 make sure that there are two documents that have been
18:50:53 sent to council and to the city are put in the record.
18:50:57 Each of you, are hand delivered this document which
18:51:01 states the Gandy civic association is in complete
18:51:03 support of the BallastPointhomeownersalliance.org.
18:51:11 This letter dated April 6th, and you all should
18:51:14 have a copy of it.
18:51:15 If you don't, I'll be more than happy to provide it.
18:51:17 And I would like that put into the record.
18:51:20 The other is an e-mail I sent this morning to the mayor
18:51:24 and to Cathy Coyle, and this was triggered by an e-mail
18:51:30 I received last night at 5:15 p.m., and at this point
18:51:35 there's a big academic -- a bit academic because the
18:51:39 language that was asked for has already been put in
18:51:41 there.
18:51:42 But it was triggered by the simple reason that I
18:51:46 received it at 5:15 last night for a hearing that's
18:51:49 taking place at 6:00 tonight.
18:51:50 That's kind of like playing poker and you have to wait.
18:51:56 This is dated April 12th.
18:51:57 We received it on the 18th.

18:51:59 That's contained of like playing hold em poker.
18:52:03 You have to wait five days to see what the card is.
18:52:05 So with that, I would like to put this e-mail and this
18:52:12 letter into the record, and to very briefly say, we are
18:52:16 in complete support of the Ballast Point alliance
18:52:20 homeowners alliance.org in regard to this plan
18:52:23 amendment.
18:52:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A quick question.
18:52:40 To my knowledge, three recognized neighborhood
18:52:44 associations down there.
18:52:47 There's Gandy, yours, sun bay south.
18:52:52 There's Interbay, which is new and we welcome there
18:52:55 them.
18:52:56 And there's the Ballast Point neighborhood association.
18:52:58 Okay.
18:53:01 Have you spoken with the Ballast Point neighborhood
18:53:05 association?
18:53:05 Because I heard you reference the other organizations,
18:53:08 not recognized by the City of Tampa as an official
18:53:11 neighborhood association.
18:53:14 >> I didn't mention it.
18:53:15 I said the ballast -- we were presented -- we read the

18:53:19 language.
18:53:19 We got a presentation from Mr. Wells at our meeting in
18:53:25 March.
18:53:27 And at that point, a motion was made and passed
18:53:30 unanimously by the members present, that we support
18:53:34 their initiatives, support the Ballast Point alliance.
18:53:37 >> I guess my question is, the Ballast Point
18:53:40 neighborhood association --
18:53:42 >>> Has had no contact with us.
18:53:43 >> Okay, which is the recognized organization of
18:53:45 Ballast Point under the city organizational plan?
18:53:49 >>> Yes, sir.
18:53:49 >> I was just wondering, have you spoken with them?
18:53:53 >>> We have had some communications, but very, very
18:53:55 few.
18:53:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
18:54:00 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Just to clarify what you just asked.
18:54:02 And I forgot to put this in.
18:54:04 I did receive an e-mail from Charles Eldridge, the
18:54:07 director of Ballast Point neighborhood association, it
18:54:09 says: Good plan should be adopted, exclamation points.
18:54:15 >> Good plan, it should be adopted?

18:54:17 >>> Good plans should be adopted.
18:54:18 >> The next speaker.
18:54:19 Anyone else like to speak?
18:54:27 >>> Hello.
18:54:29 Mr. Miranda, remember me?
18:54:34 >> Had an operation at Kennedy two blocks south that
18:54:36 developed that real nice operation there, right?
18:54:38 >>> Right.
18:54:39 But I don't work there anymore.
18:54:41 >> Well, I worked there for four years but ways in
18:54:46 compile.
18:54:46 >>> Oh Bonnie Higgins, west Pearl Avenue, Ballast
18:54:49 Point.
18:54:50 I'm not on the board of the neighborhood association
18:54:52 anymore so I don't know if they had talked to the
18:54:55 alliance or anyone else.
18:54:57 But I'm speaking here personally.
18:54:59 The only question that I have with respect to the land
18:55:02 use plan is we have a real need for community center in
18:55:07 Ballast Point.
18:55:08 We lost our community center several years ago when
18:55:11 Mayor Greco turned it into a fitness center, and it was

18:55:14 a very small, inadequate center at that.
18:55:17 Right now for a community activities we have to go to
18:55:20 Kate Jackson, or to the brand new wonderful community
18:55:23 center at Port Tampa, and I understand they are even
18:55:27 lobbying for a second community center to be
18:55:30 refurbished there.
18:55:32 And both of those community centers are at least four
18:55:35 miles away from Ballast Point.
18:55:38 At one point, I had talked to Tony Rodriguez who is the
18:55:42 representative of MacDill, and we told the APZ zone
18:55:48 that goes over Gadsen Park would preclude the building
18:55:51 of a community center at Gadsen park.
18:55:55 I would like to know if this planned use plan, this
18:55:57 amendment, would change that, or if that's still the
18:56:01 same, if there is just no chance ever for community
18:56:04 center to be built at Gadsen park which is central
18:56:10 between Kate Jackson and Port Tampa.
18:56:13 The only question I have, I could go here or there on
18:56:16 the plan otherwise.
18:56:17 Thank you.
18:56:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:56:19 Next speaker.

18:56:22 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:56:25 I neglected at the end of Cathy Coyle's presentation, I
18:56:29 had given all the council members a copy, the letter
18:56:31 from Robert Thomas, a colonel with the United States
18:56:34 Air Force on behalf of MacDill Air Force Base, a
18:56:38 letter from and I wanted to make that part of the
18:56:41 record.
18:56:42 I have given that to you.
18:56:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you going to speak now?
18:56:57 >>> (off microphone)
18:57:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I just want to welcome colonel
18:57:07 Robert Thomas.
18:57:08 I know he's going to be a general.
18:57:09 Because everybody who comes to MacDill as a colonel
18:57:12 leaves as a general.
18:57:13 So congratulations, general.
18:57:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We have a speaker waiver form.
18:57:24 There are a total of one, two, three, four, five, six
18:57:27 names on the list.
18:57:28 And if you are present could you just please
18:57:30 acknowledge that you are here?
18:57:31 Susan Fortner: Michael P.

18:57:39 Michael, starts with an L.
18:57:42 I can't make it out.
18:57:45 >> He's not here yet.
18:57:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
18:57:48 We'll take that name off the list.
18:57:50 Linda Borgman is here.
18:57:54 Joe lynch.
18:57:56 William lynch.
18:57:58 Five additional minutes for a total of eight, please.
18:58:06 >>> Thank you for the opportunity to come to speak,
18:58:08 Madam Chairman, past and new City Council members,
18:58:11 congratulations.
18:58:12 This is my only sixth minute in a year and a half to
18:58:18 speak on this subject.
18:58:19 I find this entire process kind of unfair.
18:58:22 There's a lot of information this N this joint land use
18:58:26 study that's never been presented.
18:58:28 I gave you copies of everything here.
18:58:30 I hope you take a look at it.
18:58:33 I spent over 4 to 500 spending this general land use
18:58:38 subject, and it's like a can of worms.
18:58:43 I opened up the can.

18:58:45 Found a lot of dirt in there, too, okay?
18:58:47 And there's been a lot of facts and things that just
18:58:50 have never been presented.
18:58:51 A lot of them having to do with the simple noise
18:58:53 problem that we have with the base.
18:58:57 The current mission, the KC 135s are not compatible
18:59:01 with our residential living.
18:59:03 65-decibels is the maximum allowed decibels over
18:59:07 residential property.
18:59:09 Both the FAA and HUD, 65 maximum allowable noise.
18:59:18 The main purpose of the joint use land study is not --
18:59:23 zoned some land to try to make things compatible but
18:59:26 the main purpose of adjoining land use study is protect
18:59:28 the health, safety and welfare of the surround willing
18:59:30 communities, and implement the findings of the joint
18:59:33 land use study. The noise control in '72 the Congress
18:59:38 dollars it's the policy of the United States promote
18:59:41 environment from noise that jeopardizes health or
18:59:45 welfare.
18:59:56 Both the department of defense, compatible use zone,
19:00:00 and the federal aviation authority FAA, noise
19:00:04 compatible, identify residential uses as incom patible

19:00:09 in the 65 noise contours.
19:00:12 Now you have all seen the zoning -- not going to show
19:00:15 you any noise contour maps because they don't want to
19:00:17 you see that.
19:00:18 That shows that the base is not compatible.
19:00:28 It's not compatible.
19:00:30 By the ways presenting a very limited in scope noise
19:00:33 contour maps, they failed in many areas of this joint
19:00:39 land use study.
19:00:41 If you look, refer back to the zoning department's map,
19:00:53 the base only shows the aircraft as it takes off and
19:01:00 dog legs to the right.
19:01:01 Okay.
19:01:03 I live down here in this area and I know where the
19:01:06 planes fly.
19:01:07 And they also fly in the northern flight path.
19:01:11 But the base has failed to disclose these noise contour
19:01:14 maps.
19:01:14 That's a violation I consider as fraud.
19:01:19 I talked to Tony Rodriguez of the base and I asked him,
19:01:23 what does this noise contour reflect?
19:01:25 He said, it reflects the KC 130 refueling back in 1998.

19:01:33 Now, there's a lot of requirements to all this study.
19:01:38 What are the requirement for joint land use study?
19:01:41 I would consider this current study only about 50%
19:01:44 complete.
19:01:45 There are a lot of issues, a lot of subjects missing
19:01:48 from this joints land use study.
19:01:52 Referring back to the map here on the noise contours,
19:01:56 when you do a joint land use study, you are supposed to
19:01:59 list all your aircraft, all your flights, in every
19:02:05 direction.
19:02:05 Helicopters, day, night flights.
19:02:08 The base only submitted their current mission of 1998.
19:02:13 I consider this study fraudulent.
19:02:19 Here's another -- all the maps that shows in these
19:02:23 studies, you'll never see a noise contour going north.
19:02:28 It's fraud against these people in this area an it's
19:02:32 fraud against the city and it's basically fraud against
19:02:35 this entire process.
19:02:36 Okay.
19:02:38 Now, when we get to the actual noise contours, 65
19:02:44 decibels not being compatible, every single person
19:02:48 living within these noise contours are living in a

19:02:52 state of violation.
19:02:53 The base has been violating our rights for all these
19:02:56 years.
19:02:56 The base has to, by D.O.D., submit to the newspaper on
19:03:02 an annual basis full disclosure of their noise contour
19:03:05 maps.
19:03:06 If the base, in a public document such as a J loose
19:03:10 or -- JLUS fails to produce full information, they lose
19:03:16 their ability to plan statute of limitations.
19:03:20 So basically everybody living down in this area it's
19:03:24 now considered a taking of property again, and could
19:03:28 claim damages.
19:03:28 Okay.
19:03:29 You won't hear this from the zoning department.
19:03:33 >> There's another map that shows -- and as you see,
19:03:38 down here past the 65 decibels, as you starts moving a
19:03:42 little closer to the base, this additional line here is
19:03:46 in the 70-decibel range.
19:03:48 70 decibels according to the World Health Organization
19:03:53 would cause permanent hearing damage.
19:03:58 Any excessive noise levels of 65 decibels and above
19:04:02 also causes other health related problems.

19:04:04 I don't have time to list them all.
19:04:06 I am going to show you another list here.
19:04:09 It shows the noise levels, of 50 decibels considered
19:04:18 mild annoyance.
19:04:19 If you get up to 55, EPA says you need protection for
19:04:24 human health.
19:04:24 And you get up to 60 and 65.
19:04:27 65 again, it is incompatible with housing.
19:04:34 How this mission was ever approved and put on this
19:04:37 base, I'm not sure, but they are running in violation
19:04:41 of FAA and HUD laws.
19:04:45 We are tired.
19:04:46 When you get up into the 70 range like I said, it's
19:04:49 considered permanent hearing damage.
19:04:51 Now, you look at this noise contour, 70 decibels, you
19:04:57 have many, many, many square blocks in here of
19:05:00 residential living.
19:05:02 You have children playing outside.
19:05:03 You have pets.
19:05:04 You have elderly people.
19:05:07 Fragile ears.
19:05:08 Even have a daycare center down there on MacDill.

19:05:11 This is a violation not only of our rights, it's a
19:05:15 violation of moral values.
19:05:19 It's just incomprehensible.
19:05:21 And I have many, many graphs to show you what is
19:05:26 compatible, what isn't compatible.
19:05:28 I don't know if you can zoom in on this or not.
19:05:31 But this says residential here, 60, 70, no.
19:05:35 70, 75, no.
19:05:37 The entire area down here, they are all in complete
19:05:42 violation of the law.
19:05:43 How this can happen, probably because we never were
19:05:47 given any disclosure.
19:05:49 We never saw any disclosures in the newspaper.
19:05:54 And in this study here, they are also trying to hide
19:05:58 these facts.
19:05:58 That's why I consider this study fraudulent.
19:06:01 I do not know how the city could continue to a bait any
19:06:09 property or continue zoning any property using
19:06:12 fraudulent, misleading language that's in violation of
19:06:20 our rights.
19:06:21 It's incomprehensible.
19:06:27 I am proposing right now, I have four things I would

19:06:30 like to propose.
19:06:33 But the City of Tampa -- and it's only departments --
19:06:40 (Bell sounds).
19:06:43 >> I would like to give him two more minutes.
19:06:45 >>> And I'm available for questions.
19:06:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions?
19:06:52 >>> The mayor's office said, well, they are a federal
19:06:56 agency.
19:06:57 I talked to a lieutenant Bilarue.
19:07:00 >>GWEN MILLER: You have to wrap it up, sir.
19:07:04 >> I would like to know what your four suggestions are.
19:07:06 >>> My four suggestions are on the last page of -- of
19:07:09 today's document.
19:07:13 I want the City of Tampa to immediately give us relief
19:07:20 down here in these areas.
19:07:21 I want the City of Tampa to set up noise decibel meter
19:07:24 readers.
19:07:24 You can use this as a tool first of all to see if there
19:07:27 are violations going on, what the violations are, and
19:07:30 it gives us a tool and a measuring stick to correct
19:07:32 them.
19:07:34 Now, if the current mission of the KC 135s not

19:07:39 compatible part of the thing that the bay should have
19:07:41 submitted in this joint land use study was the noise
19:07:43 and mitigation and abatement plan, and they failed to
19:07:46 even submit that.
19:07:46 That means maybe they could start farther back on the
19:07:49 runway if they have to go into a northern position.
19:07:51 The base never followed through and completed any of
19:07:54 this information.
19:07:55 That's why --
19:07:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We don't want an explanation.
19:08:00 Just give us the four.
19:08:01 >>> Okay.
19:08:01 So it's the noise decibel -- I would like to get some
19:08:06 funding to install -- and there are four of these down
19:08:11 here so we can start on a live feed, so residents can
19:08:14 see what the decibel these are, and I want the city to
19:08:22 convene a public hearing in 45 days for MacDill Air
19:08:25 Force Base to explain why they are continuing to
19:08:27 violate our property owners Constitutional rights of
19:08:29 these violations.
19:08:31 And, also, explain their actions in the adjoining land
19:08:35 use study failing to comply.

19:08:37 The city needs to request for MacDill to comply
19:08:42 with FAA HUD noise threshold to 65 decibels or less.
19:08:46 And you come up with their plan.
19:08:48 We need to enforce it.
19:08:50 We need to measure it.
19:08:51 And, you know, there's health and safety involved here.
19:08:56 And number 4, the city to set up the immediate
19:08:59 stakeholders committee with representation from the
19:09:02 base, the city and the residents, in full sunshine laws
19:09:07 and give all residents the opportunities to voice their
19:09:09 concerns and ask questions.
19:09:10 And I don't trust the zoning department --
19:09:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We heard the four and that's enough.
19:09:17 Your time is up.
19:09:18 We gave you some extra time.
19:09:20 And we listened to the four.
19:09:23 That's enough.
19:09:23 >>> And I'm available for questions.
19:09:24 >>GWEN MILLER: any questions?
19:09:25 No questions.
19:09:26 Would anyone else like to speak?
19:09:52 >> A speaker's waiver form from Mr. Freedman.

19:09:55 Brenda Hillberry, are you present?
19:09:58 I hear you.
19:09:59 And Jean Stormyer.
19:10:03 Two additional minutes, please.
19:10:06 >>> Philip Freedman, 6818 south Englewood Avenue.
19:10:09 I was before you the last time this came around.
19:10:11 I appreciate your time again tonight.
19:10:13 Mr. Wade makes some good points and I don't want to
19:10:17 belabor any of those points but when I was before you
19:10:19 before, I suggested to you the JLUS study was flat.
19:10:23 I'm here representing Interbay association.
19:10:26 Last fall the neighborhood association wrote council
19:10:28 and the mayor's office and objected to this plan and
19:10:31 laid out a lot of specifics why we objected to that.
19:10:35 Those specifics are still valid.
19:10:36 However, we withdraw our objection tonight, and we do
19:10:39 put our support behind the Ballast Point homeowners
19:10:42 alliance and Mr. Wells actually presented those today.
19:10:44 We are comfortable with option one, and should the
19:10:47 council look to do option 2, I strongly implore them to
19:10:51 not limit to the areas just west or east of Himes
19:10:54 Avenue but look at all the areas where PDs could be

19:10:57 viable in there.
19:11:00 When Ms. Coyle started her presentation tonight, she
19:11:03 mentioned that the APZ 1 and APZ 2 were areas that
19:11:07 really shouldn't have much residential, if any,
19:11:09 residential at all.
19:11:10 And that just goes to show the example of why the JLUS
19:11:15 study and any plan amendments that City Council
19:11:17 undertakes upon that study, it's just not proper for
19:11:21 South Tampa.
19:11:23 There are lots of residential in APZ 1.
19:11:25 There's lots of residential in APZ 2.
19:11:28 Luckily -- it was unclear and row mains unclear today.
19:11:33 I would like council to consider those things and if
19:11:36 they are going to make plan amendments we would like
19:11:38 council to do those on their own and not notary public
19:11:40 conjunction with the JLUS study.
19:11:42 If it is council's intent to move forward with the plan
19:11:44 amendment today based on the JLUS study understand that
19:11:48 we believe the study was done improperly, it is flawed,
19:11:51 although we are comfortable with the language as
19:11:53 proposed today.
19:11:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

19:11:56 Would anyone else like to speak?
19:12:07 >>> My name is Dennis Lafferty.
19:12:09 I represent the Joseph Lafferty revocable living trust
19:12:14 property located at 5819 South MacDill Avenue.
19:12:20 Here in Tampa.
19:12:21 It's not our intent -- my family made up, if you will
19:12:26 remember from the last March 1st meeting, has been
19:12:30 in the Interbay area for a very long time.
19:12:34 My father was born there, grew up there.
19:12:38 We have been there before 1900.
19:12:41 And we owned perhaps hundreds of acres, in that area.
19:12:51 Down to .87% of an acre, and that's my dad's final
19:12:56 estate.
19:13:00 I'm not here to oppose or to stand in the way of the
19:13:03 JLUS study, or the adoption of such.
19:13:08 But I would like to say that I hope to represent some
19:13:13 of the long-term residents of that area.
19:13:17 My dad was on that property since 1946, before there
19:13:21 was a MacDill air base.
19:13:25 We have grown up around a lot of the major citizens of
19:13:29 this community.
19:13:32 And for the sake of my family, seven brothers and

19:13:37 sisters, and the estate that hangs in the balance,
19:13:43 there have been a number of governmental changes that
19:13:51 limit the property, and erode the property value that's
19:13:57 sitting there now.
19:13:58 And I've got to stand here and say, you know, I can't
19:14:03 let this particular amendment stand in the way of my
19:14:10 father's last estate, and be further eroded, I know we
19:14:15 can go from ten to eight to six, but as far as the
19:14:20 density goes.
19:14:21 But, you know, this has gotten to a point where we have
19:14:24 got to stand up and say, wow, wait a minute.
19:14:27 You know, we are not flip flopping property here, we
19:14:30 have been here for 61 years.
19:14:32 On that single piece of property.
19:14:36 And probably the longest owned piece of property where
19:14:40 somebody has been the single resident in that area.
19:14:45 My concern is that unless we can work out some kind of
19:14:49 compromise, you know, I have to stand opposed to this
19:14:53 amendment, unless some compromise can be worked out
19:14:58 with our particular property at 5819 South MacDill.
19:15:02 I know that many people want exceptions, and that's not
19:15:07 extraordinary.

19:15:08 But I feel our situation is.
19:15:12 You know, and that we have been there longer than
19:15:15 MacDill air base has been there, when my dad bought
19:15:20 that property, MacDill was a dirt road, Interbay.
19:15:26 So I made part of the record my concerns, and my
19:15:31 concerns from my family, and representing my father who
19:15:35 is terminally ill and can't be here.
19:15:37 And I appreciate the opportunity.
19:15:40 (Bell sounds).
19:15:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:15:42 Anyone else speaking?
19:15:51 >>> Steven Diacco, Bayshore Boulevard.
19:15:55 I want to take just a brief opportunity for especially
19:15:58 the new council members.
19:16:00 Congratulations.
19:16:01 Welcome back to the old.
19:16:04 A lot of time and effort has been put into this.
19:16:07 We have had extensive meetings, our community, with the
19:16:13 mayor, the staff, Cathy and I are on first-name basis
19:16:17 through this process.
19:16:18 And I'm very proud of what the city has done in
19:16:21 listening to our needs and our wants.

19:16:23 The fact that there are still objections and concerns
19:16:26 shows the reason why we should have a working
19:16:29 committee.
19:16:29 Because this is just one aspect of our relationship
19:16:31 with MacDill.
19:16:32 I want to take the opportunity to thank our military
19:16:35 and how proud I am to be neighbors to the base.
19:16:37 And for their service.
19:16:39 And we want them to be our neighbors.
19:16:42 We want to continue that relationship.
19:16:44 We're not going anywhere. They're not going anywhere.
19:16:47 We want to make sure that we continue to hear each
19:16:50 other, and react to each other's needs and wants for
19:16:53 this process.
19:16:54 We own a couple of acres there.
19:17:02 From ten to six, we see the reasoning behind it, we
19:17:05 support the reasoning behind it, we want to make sure
19:17:07 that MacDill stays part of our community with tens
19:17:10 of thousands of employees in our community, and
19:17:12 supporting our tax base.
19:17:14 So we do endorse this.
19:17:16 We do support it.

19:17:17 I am anxious that the working committee gets going as
19:17:20 soon as feasible.
19:17:21 And I do ask that this cloud be lifted from our
19:17:24 community.
19:17:25 And I asked the city what the status will be after
19:17:30 tonight on at least the moratorium that has been in
19:17:32 place during this process, which has really been
19:17:35 extended, and thankfully so, to make it right.
19:17:38 But now that we have a tentative understanding between
19:17:41 our community and the base, can the moratorium be
19:17:45 lifted at least based on what we have agreed to, and if
19:17:47 there's visions of the next four to six months, then I
19:17:51 just believe those would be changed we would make.
19:17:53 But I'd like that the scarlet letter, this cloud be
19:17:58 lifted.
19:17:58 By the way, I pulled my house off the market.
19:18:01 We are staying. We are really pleased with where we
19:18:04 are.
19:18:04 Do you know what the status will be?
19:18:06 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:18:11 The abatement ordinance is in place until, I think,
19:18:14 August 6th, and what the -- there was an exception

19:18:18 put in the abatement ordinance, if you want it rezoned
19:18:21 for residential, six units or acre, you can actually go
19:18:25 forward now on the zoning if you want to do something
19:18:27 more than that.
19:18:28 And I'm presuming that everything will be coming back
19:18:31 to council for the adoption hearing before that time.
19:18:35 And as soon as we get past that we can recommend the
19:18:38 removal of the abatement, if we get past the August
19:18:42 5th we'll have to take another look at that.
19:18:46 >> So August 4th is what we are sticking with for
19:18:48 now?
19:18:50 >> Sticking with, but as I said if you want to come
19:18:52 forward with rezoning that's six units to the acre or
19:18:55 less, you can come in today.
19:18:57 >> It's just the abatement to get lifted but I have no
19:19:01 zoning request and no need.
19:19:02 That's just an issue that we would like to get cleaned
19:19:05 up.
19:19:05 And I guess wait till August.
19:19:11 >>> Certainly you have the right, council would have
19:19:13 the right to lift the abatement ant any point in time.
19:19:16 We can ask legal to move forward with that.

19:19:19 But given how far we are in the process and given the
19:19:21 purpose behind the abatement, I would recommend that we
19:19:23 go ahead.
19:19:27 >>> Thank you, council.
19:19:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone else going to speak?
19:19:30 All right, Mr. Bentley.
19:19:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought he changed his mind.
19:19:37 >>MARK BENTLEY: My name is Mark Bentley.
19:19:39 Irene state my request for ten minutes per client.
19:19:42 Is that acceptable?
19:19:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
19:19:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to move, modify that,
19:19:52 five minutes per client, total of ten minutes.
19:19:55 If you run out of time, ask us for more.
19:19:58 So that will be my motion.
19:20:00 Ten minutes.
19:20:05 >>MARK BENTLEY: I'll do what I can.
19:20:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion, Mr. Shelby?
19:20:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a vote on the motion.
19:20:13 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
19:20:14 (Motion carried).
19:20:16 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you.

19:20:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Five minutes per client, total of ten,
19:20:22 so you wish to address both clients at the same time
19:20:24 for a total of ten minutes?
19:20:26 >>MARK BENTLEY: Yes, sir.
19:20:26 >>GWEN MILLER: If you need more we'll give you more.
19:20:31 >>MARK BENTLEY: Before you --
19:20:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I know attorneys, like preachers, can
19:20:41 talk a long tame.
19:20:47 >>MARK BENTLEY: Before you start the meter I'm supposed
19:20:49 to tell them we have a PowerPoint.
19:20:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's in front of us.
19:20:54 There it is.
19:20:58 >>> It's not on the screen.
19:21:04 >> On every screen except for the speaker's.
19:21:06 >>> I'll work off this.
19:21:09 >> They are coming to help you out.
19:21:13 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you much.
19:21:14 I represent spray MISER incorporated and Florida rock
19:21:18 and tank lines, on 25 vacant acres outside the Air
19:21:22 Force Base, partially located on the proposed clear
19:21:25 zone if you adopt a map as suggested by the MacDill
19:21:27 Air Force Base.

19:21:29 Florida rock is located 3,000 feet from the end of the
19:21:32 clear zone, roughly a half mile away outside the base.
19:21:35 It's probably the only vacant property not owned by the
19:21:37 U.S. government or the City of Tampa.
19:21:40 Collectively both properties constitute 70% of the
19:21:43 vacant land and the total amendment area, the flight
19:21:46 path, under private ownership.
19:21:49 So that being said, what I would like to do is, in
19:21:53 light of the fact I don't have the time that I have
19:21:55 anticipated, I was going to talk about noise, density
19:21:59 and the flight path. The noise issue, I think you got
19:22:01 a good flavor from one of the people here.
19:22:06 Way want to do here, if you look at the policy, just
19:22:09 touching on noise, they reference noise contour areas
19:22:14 adjacent to MacDill Air Force Base.
19:22:15 So my question to council is what are those?
19:22:17 Where do you find them, okay?
19:22:20 I'm going to make some suggestive language and I'll
19:22:22 submit that into the record.
19:22:23 The noise contours were established based on data
19:22:26 collected one week in May 1977 by MacDill through
19:22:29 computer modeling.

19:22:30 Okay?
19:22:31 About ten years after the fact.
19:22:33 There's a lot of different variables that go into the
19:22:35 noise modeling, the mission, types of engines, when
19:22:38 they fly, things like that so it's pretty unfair to
19:22:41 mitigate based on these contours.
19:22:44 Number one, they are dated.
19:22:45 Number two you R, you can't find them.
19:22:47 If a developer comes in within the flight path and
19:22:49 wants to do something noise sensitive like a hospital
19:22:51 or school that he perform his own studies, et cetera.
19:22:57 So enough to the noise.
19:22:59 I have to stick to these slides here.
19:23:03 Density.
19:23:06 The suggestion of six units per ache area cross the
19:23:08 board.
19:23:08 This language is two days old.
19:23:11 That's when they have the time to do the PD.
19:23:14 I think Cathy showed you a map showing you roughly five
19:23:16 or six vacant property owners going from ten to six,
19:23:19 and in the 90s they took you to ten.
19:23:22 Now they want to reduce it to 40% to six for my client.

19:23:26 So fundamentally that's unfair.
19:23:28 Especially look at policy A-3.1 oh .4 which Cathy
19:23:32 talked about.
19:23:32 What that policy says, if you're a legal nonconforming
19:23:35 use, okay, as of January 2008, we are going to treat
19:23:38 you as conforming, in perpetuity.
19:23:40 So what that means, for example, if you have a comp
19:23:43 plan designation of ten units per acre but you have
19:23:46 apartment complex of 25 you can rebuild forever.
19:23:48 Okay.
19:23:49 You are not affected by the six.
19:23:50 All right?
19:23:51 So the property owners affected by this proposal here
19:23:55 of the vacant land owners who never acted upon the
19:23:58 development rights and went forward and developed.
19:24:02 So here's a problem.
19:24:04 The perceived language.
19:24:05 The conforming people, they objected.
19:24:07 The city's initial -- was to treat as nonconform.
19:24:11 There was a ground swell of opposition.
19:24:12 City said let's be reasonable as conforming uses
19:24:15 forever.

19:24:16 Okay?
19:24:16 And there's a lot of multifamily down there especially
19:24:20 in the APZ 1 that's going to be able to be rebuilt.
19:24:24 Think about that.
19:24:25 If the issue is safety in crashes, if you endorse this
19:24:28 policy tonight, in perpetuity, these nonconforming high
19:24:32 density developments can be out there.
19:24:33 The only one subject to change are the vacant property
19:24:36 owners like my client, who is limited to six units per
19:24:39 acre.
19:24:41 So here again, the effects on vacant property, I told
19:24:45 you in 1998, city unilaterally went to ten acres across
19:24:50 the board, now they want to reduce my client's
19:24:52 development rights 40%, the owners of vacant property
19:24:55 we think are going to be unconstitutional impacted from
19:24:58 achieving a reasonable investment backup expectations
19:25:01 and going to impose an unnecessary inordinate burden on
19:25:04 property owners, at the expense of the public.
19:25:06 We think it's a good situation to have MacDill down
19:25:08 there.
19:25:09 But my client shouldn't relinquish his development
19:25:12 rights for the greater good of the City of Tampa, and

19:25:14 or MacDill Air Force Base.
19:25:16 Okay.
19:25:17 They did that in '98 when they went down to ten.
19:25:20 Now they want to take another 40%. This is your
19:25:22 property or your parents' property and this has hand to
19:25:24 you.
19:25:25 You might hire a guy to be up here talking about this.
19:25:27 This is very significant.
19:25:30 Look how they came up with the JLUS study.
19:25:34 We are two miles away from Ballast Point, okay?
19:25:37 And then when you calculate the density for six units
19:25:40 per acre, I highlighted here and you can't see it.
19:25:43 They look at net density.
19:25:44 They can take a peace of property and what's on it, the
19:25:47 gross density?
19:25:48 They use roads, schools, utility lines, to come up with
19:25:51 the six units per acre, okay?
19:25:53 Even in the document here, you can't see it because of
19:25:56 the closed captioning.
19:25:57 It says really the net density is 7.3 and 8.7.
19:26:01 Okay?
19:26:02 But they want to do the 6.

19:26:05 Why would they develop the City of Tampa?
19:26:06 When I walk in the building department they don't look
19:26:08 at the gross density and give me the advantage of
19:26:11 bringing the property that aren't in control at the
19:26:13 schools.
19:26:13 They look at your piece of property and say, hey,
19:26:15 that's your net density.
19:26:16 So I'm telling you right there.
19:26:17 Now you can see it.
19:26:18 It says actually the study says 7.3 to 8.7, not 6.
19:26:24 Take a look at this.
19:26:26 This is government-owned property right outside the
19:26:28 base.
19:26:28 Most of the clear magazine zone. The green is Florida
19:26:31 rock.
19:26:32 This thing about the flight path, we are going to talk
19:26:34 about in a second.
19:26:34 There's a caveat.
19:26:35 It says that you can change the flight path from
19:26:38 department of defense standards if you have trouble
19:26:40 acquiring property in the clear zone.
19:26:42 City of Tampa and/or U.S. government owns everything in

19:26:45 the clear zone except that little white piece there.
19:26:48 Okay?
19:26:49 And we'll talk about it in a second.
19:26:52 But the point here, even at 130 acres that could never
19:26:55 be developed.
19:26:55 That was included in the studies to calculate density
19:26:58 as well.
19:26:59 Throw in another 130 acres.
19:27:00 The total JLUS area flight path study is 1032 acres,
19:27:06 that is over 10% that they use to calculate density.
19:27:11 JLUS field survey.
19:27:15 People actually went out on these multifamily
19:27:17 developments and found out the net density.
19:27:19 Take a look at this.
19:27:20 Okay?
19:27:21 In the APZ 1 where Florida rock is located,
19:27:24 multifamily, the density was 27.17.
19:27:27 Here again that one policy I mentioned, that's staying
19:27:31 forever.
19:27:31 But my guy is going to six.
19:27:33 All right?
19:27:34 That's the facts right there.

19:27:35 The field study.
19:27:37 Look what would happen in APZ 2, where really Ballast
19:27:40 Point is located, multifamily, over 15.
19:27:43 That stays forever regardless what you do here.
19:27:46 They can rebuild.
19:27:47 Unless they have vacant property.
19:27:49 Then they are down to six.
19:27:51 And there's only a handful of us.
19:27:53 We don't think that's fair.
19:27:56 Here's the DOD guidelines.
19:28:05 This is the basis for the joint land use study.
19:28:08 Here is the department of defense.
19:28:09 How you do these studies, itself says it is not easily
19:28:13 possible to state one property is safe and another is
19:28:16 not.
19:28:17 That's the guidelines that regulate the Air Force how
19:28:19 they do their study which is the linchpin for the JLUS
19:28:22 study in 2006.
19:28:32 Further study by the Air Force, they found there are
19:28:36 106 mishaps over the flight area which is within ten
19:28:39 nautical miles of this airport.
19:28:40 And only 5 are flying and two occurred on Air Force

19:28:44 infield that might have some control.
19:28:46 The rest 99 or more hitting animals on the runway so
19:28:49 chances are very remote.
19:28:50 There's a lot of changes in technology, enhanced
19:28:53 safeties and things like that, that really improved
19:28:55 this.
19:28:55 And I'll show you here.
19:28:58 Here's a chart.
19:29:00 One year there were roughly 2300 mishaps.
19:29:02 You get to 1997, they are almost completely gone.
19:29:05 The JLUS study with these crash statistics, they got
19:29:08 that from somewhere else than the Air Force, okay?
19:29:11 And that was from 1997.
19:29:13 So here's what I am going to suggest.
19:29:20 We think our clients are entitled to fair and equal
19:29:23 treatment, just like these people who squawked about
19:29:25 being legally nonconforming.
19:29:27 They changed it.
19:29:28 Now they are out there forever.
19:29:30 If you are allowing all these multifamily projects
19:29:32 that would otherwise be nonconforming to continue to
19:29:35 exist at higher densities, we want to receive the same

19:29:39 treatment.
19:29:40 Number two, six units per acre will not include safety
19:29:44 around the base.
19:29:45 You are going to have a couple little small
19:29:47 developments at six units per acre.
19:29:48 Otherwise all this high density stiff is still going
19:29:52 to be out there.
19:29:52 Number three, we demonstrated six, arbitrary number
19:29:56 arrived at by the city, and that net densities for
19:29:58 multifamily greatly exceed the six.
19:30:01 I have to back up a second.
19:30:02 Both my clients at this point in time, land use plan
19:30:08 amendments to CMU 35 with the intent of developing a
19:30:11 mixed use project.
19:30:12 Okay?
19:30:13 Those are in the pipeline right now, which would allow
19:30:15 diversity of uses, retail office, and multifamily or
19:30:19 single family.
19:30:21 Next point.
19:30:21 We are suggesting actually 15 units per acre through
19:30:24 the PD zoning process, which is what the field survey
19:30:27 density for APZ 2 Ballast Point, says they are already

19:30:32 developed at.
19:30:32 We think that's fundamentally fair.
19:30:34 So here again, we think it's inappropriate to reduce
19:30:40 our client's density 40%.
19:30:43 I think I have shown you some of the data.
19:30:45 It's a little suspect. In reality these high density
19:30:49 projects get to stay out there forever and fix or six
19:30:53 property owners are being singled out.
19:30:55 The next issue I want to talk about is the scope of
19:30:58 the flight path.
19:30:58 Here's what Cathy talked about.
19:31:01 Here's the Tampa comprehensive plan.
19:31:04 This was adopted in 1998 by City Council known as
19:31:07 exhibit 11, the transportation element.
19:31:10 You see the flight path, the cone shape?
19:31:15 That was provided by MacDill Air Force Base,.
19:31:19 You can see it's 6.6, where it says clear zones here.
19:31:22 And it's exactly what we are talking about.
19:31:24 It complies with DOD standards.
19:31:26 At the end of the run way it's 1500 feet and flares
19:31:30 out to 15,000.
19:31:31 That's on the books now. The Air Force wants to

19:31:33 change it, okay?
19:31:34 But that's in your law right now.
19:31:36 Here's a title how to do these things.
19:31:40 I highlighted at the end of the run way, which this is
19:31:44 1500 feet and it flares out to 3,000.
19:31:46 (Bell sounds).
19:31:47 I'm getting there pretty quick.
19:31:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Keep going.
19:31:49 >>> The more recent study, 2005. The department
19:31:53 standards, you have to understand, they apply not just
19:31:55 to the Air Force but Marines, Navy, et cetera.
19:31:58 That's how do you these AG studies. Here's 2005,
19:32:02 joint land use study in Norfolk, Virginia.
19:32:05 Look on the left, City Council.
19:32:06 See where it says -- that's the end of the runway.
19:32:10 See how it flares out like a cone?
19:32:11 This is how you are supposed to do it according to
19:32:13 department of defense.
19:32:16 Here's from the naval facility.
19:32:20 You can see 1500 feet there at the clear zone, 3,000
19:32:23 feet out.
19:32:26 That's a document that came out.

19:32:27 Here's another one.
19:32:29 The hatch mark.
19:32:30 See the cone?
19:32:31 Okay?
19:32:33 Here's my two clients.
19:32:34 The one to the left is Spring Miser.
19:32:38 They are just skirting the enclosure zone based on the
19:32:40 city's proposed map until tonight.
19:32:42 Then you can see Florida just outside the clear zone.
19:32:45 What you see here is what was proposed by MacDill.
19:32:50 You can see what's happening to my client.
19:32:56 Now about a third of the property is in the clear
19:32:59 zone.
19:33:00 Here's an aerial you can see with clear zone.
19:33:02 As promulgated by MacDill.
19:33:04 And as proposed by the city before tonight.
19:33:06 And as consistent with the DOD.
19:33:08 The cone shape, my client would be out of it.
19:33:10 We wouldn't be everything this discussion.
19:33:16 Here's what the department of defense says.
19:33:18 It says if you are in the clear zone, acquire property
19:33:22 in fee simple and kept it free of obstruction.

19:33:25 They encouraged acquisition of the property.
19:33:27 That's how onerous it is if you are in the clear zone.
19:33:31 Here is out of the JLUS, here again it says the clear
19:33:35 zone.
19:33:36 This is an area of the policy of acquisition to
19:33:38 purchase or easements to eliminate any development
19:33:40 activity.
19:33:41 What I am suggesting to City Council, if that map ends
19:33:43 up our client's property, then our client are really
19:33:46 considering some legal action in terms of an inverse
19:33:48 case, and unfortunately you all are doing the Air
19:33:50 Force -- they are out of it.
19:33:53 You are the one imposing the regulation that we are in
19:33:55 the clear zone.
19:34:01 So what I suggest about flight path -- I'm closing,
19:34:05 Chairman Miller -- is, number one, MacDill has not
19:34:08 proven a need in any document study to place our
19:34:11 client's property in the clear zone.
19:34:13 Number two, MacDill has no accident history to
19:34:16 support modifying the flight path.
19:34:19 It's already in the books in the transportation
19:34:20 element.

19:34:21 Okay?
19:34:23 The DOD regulation says that you can adjust the clear
19:34:27 zone and make it not a cone but expand as suggested by
19:34:30 MacDill Air Force Base, only if you can't acquire
19:34:34 property in the clear zone.
19:34:35 They own all the property in the clear zone.
19:34:37 So there's no basis for them to change the map.
19:34:40 The next point.
19:34:42 Our client will be looking to the city for
19:34:44 compensation, as I mentioned, in the event that ...
19:34:52 imposed on the property.
19:34:53 And we don't mind doing this, to have the opportunity
19:34:56 to sit down with all the principals involved and maybe
19:34:58 hash this out.
19:34:59 And we would suggest that you maintain status quo.
19:35:03 You have got a map, exhibit 11 in transportation
19:35:06 element which is the law at this point in time which
19:35:08 MacDill has never objected to over the course of
19:35:10 this entire process.
19:35:11 That map has been sitting there.
19:35:12 Okay?
19:35:13 They just showed up tonight, objecting to the

19:35:16 modification to the map, which I explained to the
19:35:18 legal department.
19:35:18 So we would suggest that you ship up to Tallahassee as
19:35:22 part of the transmittal of the plan amendment, the map
19:35:26 as originally suggested by staff.
19:35:29 Not as proposed by MacDill actually imposing the
19:35:32 clear zone on my client's property.
19:35:33 I appreciate your time and consideration.
19:35:35 I know it's been kind of a rush here and I wish I had
19:35:37 more time, obviously.
19:35:38 And if you have any questions I'll attempt to answer
19:35:41 them.
19:35:41 Thanks a lot.
19:35:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
19:35:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question for Ms. Coyle specifically
19:35:46 about Mr. Bentley's presentation.
19:35:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Is this somebody's watch?
19:35:58 If it had a diamond it could have been mine.
19:36:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Bentley seemed to have
19:36:10 insinuated or more than insinuated that his clients'
19:36:14 rights have been taken away.
19:36:17 But I'm a little confused about that, because I

19:36:19 thought earlier in the presentation you said that both
19:36:22 of his clients' parcels are -- their land use
19:36:27 designation, it's industrial or heavy industrial, and
19:36:31 their zoning today is heavy industrial, or industrial.
19:36:34 Can you clarify that, please?
19:36:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
19:36:55 It's blurred.
19:36:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I have a pen.
19:36:57 Mark Bentley.
19:36:58 >>GWEN MILLER: You're getting everything.
19:37:00 >>> This is the Spring Miser parcel here.
19:37:05 And the Florida rock parcel sits outside the clear
19:37:08 zone. The property does have an industrial heavy land
19:37:10 use and zoning today, has no residential.
19:37:16 As he stated they do have an application in to the
19:37:20 Planning Commission.
19:37:21 >> When did that come in?
19:37:23 >> Within a month or two.
19:37:24 >> So we have been deeply in this process, and then he
19:37:27 submitted land use application?
19:37:29 >>> Well keep in mind he wasn't allowed to submit
19:37:31 until the abatement was revised a few months back,

19:37:34 where you can submit if you are applying for six units
19:37:38 per acre.
19:37:39 So there's a presupposition.
19:37:45 This is the Spring Miser parcel.
19:37:48 This is the issue, the clear zone, the box versus the
19:37:52 cone.
19:37:52 And it's this piece right here that would or would not
19:37:56 be depending on the way the map is drawn.
19:38:01 Also for CMU 35.
19:38:03 >> Ms. Coyle?
19:38:11 Without getting into the whole sort of threatened
19:38:14 lawsuit type of thing, although there was somewhat of
19:38:17 a threat there, today they have had -- today they have
19:38:25 heavy industrial.
19:38:26 They have always had heavy industrial as a land use
19:38:28 category, and the zoning category.
19:38:31 But he said they had a right to ten units per acre
19:38:34 before.
19:38:35 And now they have a right to six units.
19:38:37 Now we are cutting that down by 40% to six units per
19:38:41 acre.
19:38:41 Do you have any comments for us in that regard?

19:38:44 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:38:48 You always have to look at the comprehensive plan
19:38:50 based upon the data, analysis, and rezoning on a
19:38:53 variety of issues, including compatibility with the
19:38:56 surrounding area.
19:39:00 There's no right on the part of the property owners in
19:39:03 the comprehensive plan amendment, or their rezoning,
19:39:07 rezoning application be approved.
19:39:09 So at least to that issue that would be certainly part
19:39:13 of the analysis in any kind of legal action that may
19:39:16 go forward.
19:39:17 >> But just to tighten that up a little bit.
19:39:20 He insinuated they had a rate to ten units per acre
19:39:24 before, and we are cutting that to six units per acre
19:39:27 but that seems inconsistent with the fact now it's
19:39:29 heavy industrial.
19:39:30 If you are heavy industrial you don't have a rate to
19:39:32 any units per acre, is that correct?
19:39:34 >>> You wouldn't have the right.
19:39:35 As it stands today the developer property at 6, 10,
19:39:39 20, 30 units, if you are zoned and planned heavy
19:39:43 industrial.

19:39:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Julia, I have a quick question for
19:39:51 Ms. Cole, to get back to Melanie's question about
19:39:54 whether the city could put a recreational facility in
19:39:57 our park, Gadsen park down there with the adoption.
19:40:01 Does this preclude that?
19:40:04 >>> None of this would change the zoning
19:40:05 classifications on property, so presuming that area
19:40:08 has the zoning which would allow that kind of use.
19:40:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
19:40:22 >> I would like to have council receive and file the
19:40:24 PowerPoint for further document into the record.
19:40:28 >> So moved.
19:40:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll just receive it with
19:40:31 everything else, right?
19:40:32 >>> Yes.
19:40:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Coyle, one other thing.
19:40:37 I know this sounds rather trivial, and has very
19:40:41 serious concerns that everybody else has brought up.
19:40:43 But policy A-3.1.5 on the bottom of page 5 of your
19:40:48 colorful document, I had mentioned at some point, and
19:40:54 I don't know if it was in front of counsel or just you
19:40:56 and I one on one, about including City Council

19:40:59 representative as a member of the committee.
19:41:04 Do you remember that comment?
19:41:06 >>> No.
19:41:07 It may not have been to me.
19:41:10 I don't know if you mentioned it to --
19:41:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does anybody on council remember
19:41:14 that?
19:41:15 Sing
19:41:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, I do.
19:41:19 >>> Council representative anyway.
19:41:22 >>> The council representative would be subject to
19:41:25 sunshine law.
19:41:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it should be.
19:41:27 The mayor is represented by city staff.
19:41:29 I think these type of important decisions should
19:41:32 continue to include a City Council representative.
19:41:34 So if and when we decide to transmit this amendment I
19:41:36 would ask that in that string of -- in that list in
19:41:41 the front that you add City Council representative.
19:41:46 That would be a motion to amend the proposed language.
19:41:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
19:41:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

19:41:52 (Motion carried).
19:41:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Were there any other questions
19:42:01 about the language?
19:42:16 >> My question was, as Mr. Bentley was showing the
19:42:18 map, that his client was being penalized, that if you
19:42:24 have no development on the property, then you can
19:42:28 develop at six per acre but the rest of the people,
19:42:34 15, RM -- do you want to address that?
19:42:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: What I stated consistently each
19:42:41 time I present the six units per acre and the density
19:42:44 that's out there today, that density is capturing the
19:42:47 single family development.
19:42:49 As I stated earlier as I talked about the high-rises
19:42:52 and the apartment complex he is those are higher
19:42:54 densities even than ten units per acre individually.
19:42:57 What we captured here was what the single-family
19:42:59 residential was.
19:43:00 And if I could clarify, the policy about making uses
19:43:04 in intensities conforming, even though they are not
19:43:06 conforming, that was not from opposition from the
19:43:12 public.
19:43:12 That quite honestly I wrote and through the policy

19:43:15 committee early on in the study because I wanted to
19:43:17 make sure that when captured what was out there and
19:43:20 didn't penalize people that were nonconform today by
19:43:25 the policy that existed now.
19:43:26 What I can say is also he showed that we captured the
19:43:29 density calculation for the whole flight path.
19:43:33 And a part of the study, we did break it down by
19:43:36 category.
19:43:39 We show by APZ 1 single family duplex multi-family and
19:43:44 then the areas for other commercial and park and
19:43:49 recreational facilities and APZ 2.
19:43:51 Now if there really isn't anything in the clear zone,
19:43:54 so there was nothing to calculate.
19:43:55 So I'm not sure where his calculation came from.
19:43:58 This is what I am pulling from the study that was
19:44:00 produced.
19:44:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Coyle, could you just explain,
19:44:06 how did you contact everybody in the area?
19:44:12 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We actually had a consultant on
19:44:14 board for the process.
19:44:15 And the requirement for notice was -- I can't speak to
19:44:20 notice requirements, what they are required by law.

19:44:22 But the study area originally went Gandy, Manhattan,
19:44:27 the water, and the base, which was about 6700 acres --
19:44:32 or 6700 parcels.
19:44:33 I think it's parcels.
19:44:36 But the notice that went out was specifically our
19:44:40 consultant placed about maybe six by six or five by
19:44:46 five ads in the South Tampa section of the Tampa
19:44:48 Tribune.
19:44:49 And then we issued notices through Shannon Edge's
19:44:51 office as well.
19:44:53 The notice, we had, I think, 22 public meetings
19:44:56 between the policy committee and the technical review
19:44:59 committee.
19:45:00 And then just the notice for these meetings alone was
19:45:04 just a scaled-down version, it was around $4,000 for
19:45:07 each individual notice.
19:45:08 And I counted it up.
19:45:09 It would have been around $88,000 to do notice
19:45:12 individually.
19:45:13 And quite honestly we didn't have the funding to do
19:45:16 so.
19:45:17 But the consultant met the requirements for notice.

19:45:20 They posted in the newspaper and went through our
19:45:23 community affairs office.
19:45:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The reason I wanted to share that
19:45:28 with you all especially new council members, this has
19:45:31 been really very thoroughly discussed.
19:45:34 We had many meetings.
19:45:35 And as you heard from several property owners talking
19:45:42 on behalf of groups, we have modified things based on
19:45:45 what we received from the property owners.
19:45:49 This is a very thought-through proposal as well.
19:45:59 >>> Mr. Bentley just came into the process maybe three
19:46:02 weeks ago?
19:46:03 >>MARK BENTLEY: No, maybe three months ago.
19:46:05 >>> I only met you three weeks ago.
19:46:07 I wasn't aware.
19:46:10 >>MARK BENTLEY: We probably met right before the first
19:46:12 hearing which had to be renoticed, whenever that was,
19:46:14 maybe a couple months ago.
19:46:16 >>> It was in March.
19:46:17 >>MARK BENTLEY: I just want to -- was going to
19:46:22 highlight some deficiencies with reference to the
19:46:25 hearing.

19:46:27 >> Sir, you want to speak?
19:46:30 >>> Jorge Ugarte, president of Interbay Neighborhood
19:46:33 Association, I reside at 1611 South Court Drive.
19:46:38 I just want to say it's been a long road, eight
19:46:40 months, seems a lot longer than that.
19:46:44 A lot of hard work on behalf of Cathy Coyle.
19:46:46 I think she's done a great job listening to our
19:46:49 concerns.
19:46:50 But to be Frank right now, we are kind of over this
19:46:53 issue.
19:46:53 I would like to be in front of you talking about
19:46:56 traffic calming, sidewalks on our streets, flooding
19:46:58 issues in south did. This has taken way too long and
19:47:01 spent a lot of government dollars to get to this
19:47:04 point.
19:47:05 We are pretty much over it.
19:47:06 We would like to hear, I think, you mentioned at the
19:47:11 last meeting you would like a representative from
19:47:12 MacDill to come up and speak on this issue.
19:47:14 Because we really haven't had someone come up and talk
19:47:17 about this issue.
19:47:18 But we would really like to move forward.

19:47:22 We are okay with option 1.
19:47:26 Option 2 looks like a opt out.
19:47:30 If we go with opt out then let's extend that imaginary
19:47:32 line from Hames all the way to MacDill because
19:47:34 that's what our association covers.
19:47:36 And we all want to be opt out.
19:47:38 So where do we draw that line?
19:47:40 Who do we opt out?
19:47:42 We just need to move on.
19:47:43 You have heard our concerns for the last eight months.
19:47:45 And this is where we are at.
19:47:47 Let's just move on.
19:47:48 And I would like to hear from someone at MacDill,
19:47:52 and what their thoughts are on our future, Gadsen
19:47:58 park.
19:47:59 We don't have one.
19:48:00 Interbay doesn't have one.
19:48:02 We have been holding our association meetings at Jan
19:48:04 Platt library which is three and a half miles away
19:48:07 from our neighborhood.
19:48:08 We just negotiate with victory Baptist on South
19:48:11 MacDill.

19:48:11 They have been gracious enough to let us use their
19:48:15 facility.
19:48:16 Hopefully, that's long-term.
19:48:18 We can't guarantee how long we can have our meetings
19:48:20 there.
19:48:20 Otherwise we have to go back to Jan Platt which a lot
19:48:24 of our neighbors are elderly.
19:48:25 They can't get to Jan Platt.
19:48:27 We would like to have a community center just to hold
19:48:29 meetings, just to talk about issues like this,
19:48:31 possibly hold the round tables, and the committees
19:48:34 that you're discussing in our neighborhoods rather
19:48:35 than maybe come down to the city.
19:48:38 And that's pretty much it.
19:48:40 I appreciate your time.
19:48:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
19:48:42 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
19:48:45 Just to clarify for the record.
19:48:46 Mr. Bentley just handed me the e-mail that he
19:48:49 initially sent to me on February 14th.
19:48:52 So it's been eight weeks that we have been -- since he
19:48:54 first contacted me.

19:48:55 I'm not sure when I supplied but that's the first time
19:48:58 he contacted me.
19:49:00 >> Would anyone else like to speak in the public?
19:49:04 You can't speak again.
19:49:05 A new person.
19:49:06 Anyone who has not spoken.
19:49:08 Would you like to speak?
19:49:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
19:49:13 >> Second.
19:49:13 (Motion carried).
19:49:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: after great discussion I would like
19:49:20 to move to transmit this amendment using option 1.
19:49:23 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
19:49:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:49:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just clarification on the motion.
19:49:32 Ms. Coyle, I think that it would be more prudent if we
19:49:37 moved this map as part of the transmittal, the flight
19:49:47 path map as opposed to either of these drawings.
19:49:54 And I don't know how to describe that any better.
19:49:59 >>> That actually is figure 1, MacDill Air Force
19:50:02 Base flight path map.
19:50:05 That's the one that's referenced.

19:50:07 >> Does all council see what I'm talking about on the
19:50:09 handout?
19:50:09 This map here, which is just read, as opposed to this
19:50:12 other map, which is red and blue.
19:50:14 I want to disregard the red and blue map and just use
19:50:18 and transmit the figure 1, MacDill Air Force Base
19:50:22 flight path map.
19:50:23 The reason I say that is because I think if we do
19:50:26 that, then we are taking care of at least one of
19:50:30 Mr. Bentley's clients objections, the spray MISER
19:50:34 objection, because they felt like all of a sudden this
19:50:37 new map was coming in and was grabbing them for the
19:50:41 first time ever, putting them in the -- what's the
19:50:44 zone called?
19:50:45 In the clear zone?
19:50:48 And I think that that's a concern.
19:50:53 And I think that using the map that we have been using
19:50:55 for many, many years, I think, is probably the safer
19:51:00 way to go.
19:51:02 Ms. Cole, do you have any problem with that?
19:51:08 >>> No, that's your option to permit.
19:51:09 >> I think that's the safer way to go to avoid that

19:51:11 type of litigation, at least.
19:51:13 So that would be part of the motion, if you want to
19:51:15 accept that as a friendly --
19:51:18 >>> Yes.
19:51:18 >> The other thing I wanted to remind council is as
19:51:22 amended on the council member which we already voted
19:51:24 on.
19:51:24 >> There was a motion on that.
19:51:26 I do have a clean version of option 1, last change at
19:51:30 City Council, I can submit this for the record.
19:51:33 You made your motion.
19:51:34 Inc. transmit to Tony Garcia the cleaner version with
19:51:37 the change of City Council to the committee.
19:51:40 >> With figure 1.
19:51:41 >>> Yes.
19:51:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to thank how hard the
19:51:44 staff and the neighbors individually, collectively,
19:51:48 the number of hours that they have worked on this, and
19:51:50 I want to second what the gentleman said about let's
19:51:53 move on to the streets, the flooding, the rec center,
19:51:56 the traffic calming, all those issues, which is a
19:51:59 real -- for the neighborhood.

19:52:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Other comments from council members?
19:52:09 We have a motion and amended motion.
19:52:14 All in favor say Aye.
19:52:16 Opposed, Nay.
19:52:17 (Motion carried).
19:52:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to receive and file the
19:52:21 documents.
19:52:24 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
19:52:24 (Motion carried).
19:52:25 Anything else to come before council?
19:52:30 We stand adjourned.
19:52:33 (City Council meeting adjourned)
19:53:08