Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
June 25, 2009
9:00 a.m. session

09:13:55 (City Council was called to order by Chairman Thomas
09:13:55 Scott)
09:14:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We will call the Tampa City Council
09:14:38 meeting to order at this time.
09:14:39 We'll have roll call.
09:14:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.

09:14:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:14:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:14:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
09:14:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: here.
09:14:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:14:54 First on our agenda is a presentation to the Middleton
09:14:56 high school for their 75th anniversary.
09:15:04 We are going to do that now.
09:15:10 I'm going to ask Fred Hearn to come forward, who is an
09:15:10 alumnae, a strong advocate for Middleton. I've known
09:15:27 Fred about 30 years.
09:15:27 He's been advocating for Middleton, very strong
09:15:30 supporter.
09:15:31 So on behalf of the Tampa City Council we would like
09:15:33 to present you, Fred, and to Middleton high school,
09:15:37 recognition of the 75th anniversary.
09:15:41 Middleton high school was named on March 17, 1935 in
09:15:46 honor of George S. mill Middleton, a civic leader,
09:15:50 came to Tampa from South Carolina in the late 1800s,
09:15:54 participated in several organizations.
09:15:56 He was a champion of several causes to improve
09:15:58 opportunity for children, although he and his wife

09:16:01 Margaret had no children.
09:16:04 At the center of East Tampa African-American community
09:16:07 for 36 years and during the times separate and unequal
09:16:11 education for black students, Middleton high school
09:16:17 came as a light to those who attended, hand-me-downs,
09:16:24 from other white schools, including many books with
09:16:27 missing pages.
09:16:28 In spite of these hardships and obstacles, Middleton
09:16:32 high school produced both creative and knowledgeable
09:16:35 students who went on to excel at universities
09:16:39 throughout the nation.
09:16:40 For 36 years of providing education from 1935, 1971,
09:16:45 Tampa City Council does hereby congratulate the home
09:16:48 of the tigers, Middleton high school, on its 75th
09:16:52 anniversary, signed by all seven members of the board
09:16:58 of City Council today.
09:16:59 And I want to say how proud we are to be partners and
09:17:02 to extend this anniversary celebration.
09:17:12 [ Applause ]
09:17:15 >>> Well, thank you, Chairman Scott and to the City
09:17:17 Council, and the entire City of Tampa family, a family
09:17:21 that I was pleased to be a part of for many years.

09:17:24 I would just like for our alumnae association
09:17:27 president Simmons to stand and the rest of the
09:17:32 Middleton tigers who are here today.
09:17:34 [ Applause ]
09:17:35 And we thank you for this award.
09:17:38 We are starting our all-class reunion today and run
09:17:43 through Sunday, and council member Miller, who is a
09:17:47 faithful and loyal tiger also is going to be part of
09:17:50 those activities.
09:17:51 So thank you very much.
09:17:52 [ Applause ]
09:18:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It's a greats honor to introduce a
09:18:12 friend of mine from the great city of Pittsburgh and
09:18:14 he's here to review the council procedures and then
09:18:17 they are going to go and review the county procedures.
09:18:19 His name is Michael Kresse. He's from Pittsburgh, and
09:18:23 he will be an incoming freshman at Notre Dame.
09:18:28 Michael.
09:18:30 [ Applause ]
09:18:30 He wants to be either a lawyer or politician and I
09:18:32 told him to be a lawyer, he would get paid.
09:18:37 [ Laughter ]

09:18:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Miranda.
09:18:40 Thank you very much.
09:18:42 At this time we will review our agenda for the
09:18:45 morning.
09:18:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Good morning members of City Council.
09:18:48 Before you have the addendum of the agenda.
09:18:51 I am going to address them in numerical order.
09:18:55 Chairman Scott has requested that items number 29 oh,
09:19:00 30, and 57 be removed from the agenda, for discussion
09:19:11 in staff reports.
09:19:14 Councilwoman Mary Mulhern requested item 64 be removed
09:19:18 for discussion under staff reports.
09:19:22 Chairman Scott has requested that item 65 be removed
09:19:25 for discussion under staff reports.
09:19:29 Then we go to items 76 and 77 at the time of the
09:19:33 public hearing when it is scheduled, we will ask that
09:19:36 be removed from the agenda, those tells.
09:19:40 The first one item 76 has been granted, a motion for
09:19:45 reconsideration, and the other one item 77 has to be
09:19:49 removed from the agenda because the plan has been
09:19:51 withdrawn.
09:19:53 Item number 80 is a request from attorney Rebecca Kert

09:20:07 that that be continued under staff reports July 30,
09:20:11 2009.
09:20:11 Item 86 is an item regarding amending council's rules
09:20:14 of procedures.
09:20:15 I have prepared a substitute that addresses, I
09:20:17 believe, council's concerns and I ask that council
09:20:19 take up that substitute when that item is discussed.
09:20:24 Finally at then of the agenda, due to the late
09:20:28 submission of these items, items 101 and 103 are
09:20:33 actually committee report items, and there's a
09:20:36 suggestion made those items 101 and 103 be taken up
09:20:40 when the Finance Committee reports are taken up.
09:20:44 And item 102 be removed when the building zoning
09:20:48 preservation committee items are taken up.
09:20:50 And I believe those are all the changes to the agenda.
09:20:54 And I am not aware --
09:20:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 101 should have been pulled as well.
09:21:01 My memo says 101 be pulled.
09:21:05 And let me just say at this point, the ones that I
09:21:08 received my answer, I still want to talk about 101, to
09:21:11 get a little more clarification, place all the ones
09:21:14 back on the original agenda, except for 101, and 57.

09:21:25 And then 29 is pretty much a another highlight.
09:21:28 And I think it's very good that he would just need to
09:21:30 highlight 29.
09:21:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I understand you correctly,
09:21:33 Mr. Chairman, you don't want to have staff reports for
09:21:37 29, 57, just have them highlighted.
09:21:40 And the only one you wish to have staff here for at
09:21:42 your request is item 101.
09:21:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's correct.
09:21:46 Anyone else?
09:21:47 Oh councilman Dingfelder.
09:21:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to pull and have
09:21:55 discussed item 13.
09:21:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other items?
09:22:08 For -- motion for changes to the agenda?
09:22:13 (Motion carried)
09:22:14 At this time we will take public comment.
09:22:17 Council has set aside 30 minutes to hear from the
09:22:20 public.
09:22:21 We will give preference to those items on the agenda
09:22:23 first.
09:22:25 If there's an item on the agenda that you wish to come

09:22:27 and speak to, you have preference first to come and
09:22:29 address council again followed by anyone else who
09:22:31 wants to address council.
09:22:33 With time permitting.
09:22:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you don't get all 30 minutes.
09:22:38 >>> Spencer Kass.
09:22:42 I want to first of all confirm 71 will be opened for
09:22:45 public comment when we get to it?
09:22:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 7 is 1 is set for public hearing,
09:23:03 yes.
09:23:04 >>> Talking about the increases, I have to tell you, I
09:23:08 received a lot of calls from a lot of people who are
09:23:11 struggling to make ends meet, who are having a very
09:23:13 hard time, who are asking if there is a disconnect
09:23:17 between the city and the residents who are suffering.
09:23:20 The newspaper recently published a report on how far
09:23:23 behind you are falling on collections on their water
09:23:28 bills.
09:23:29 And the city comes down here and talks about wanting
09:23:31 to increase rates.
09:23:35 Water, sewer, all of those things.
09:23:36 I'm sure we will eventually hear from solid waste at

09:23:39 some point.
09:23:40 People are suffering.
09:23:41 People are having a very hard time.
09:23:43 There was no discussion whatsoever about these
09:23:46 departments having these large budget shortfalls and I
09:23:52 don't recall the administration coming down here and
09:23:54 saying, we are having a really hard time, we are going
09:23:56 to give out raises, and by the way, we are going to
09:23:58 have to raise everybody's rates.
09:24:01 I heard the suggestion last week that we break things
09:24:04 out on the bills.
09:24:04 I have no problem with that.
09:24:05 I would like to see salaries and pension costs when I
09:24:08 get my bill from now on.
09:24:10 I think that there needs to be a focus, instead of
09:24:14 raising rates, on getting businesses open in this
09:24:16 city, getting people to work.
09:24:19 The unemployment rate down here is skyrocketing.
09:24:21 I have friends and neighbors who are suffering.
09:24:23 I have friends who lost jobs.
09:24:24 I have neighbors who lost jobs.
09:24:26 There does not seem to be any focus.

09:24:28 There haven't been any hearings about how can we get
09:24:32 businesses open in this city, haven't been workshops
09:24:35 on how can we help these people?
09:24:36 I have people now calling me up literally, I had one
09:24:39 woman calling me crying saying, I'm barely getting by
09:24:42 and they are talking about raising our bills, what
09:24:44 should I do?
09:24:44 I said, well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to
09:24:47 it.
09:24:47 But I want to put council on notice that there are
09:24:49 people who are suffering.
09:24:50 And I have nothing against anyone earning a good
09:24:59 salary in the city, but when the economy is doing
09:25:02 well, I have no problem, but when the economy is doing
09:25:05 poorly, they are going to have to at that time on the
09:25:07 chin just like everybody else.
09:25:08 And people who are really suffering in this city.
09:25:12 And I hope that you look at your collection reports
09:25:15 and everything else before you decide on any type of
09:25:19 fee increase.
09:25:20 Thank you.
09:25:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.

09:25:24 Anyone wishing to address council on any item on the
09:25:27 agenda?
09:25:28 Then we move to --
09:25:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Come on, sir.
09:25:33 Come on.
09:25:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there anyone else here that has
09:25:37 wants to speak to an item on the agenda?
09:25:38 Come line up on the wall.
09:25:40 If you have an item you want to speak to on the agenda
09:25:43 come line up on the wall, okay?
09:25:45 If you want to address council and there's no item on
09:25:47 the agenda, line up on the wall so we can get a
09:25:50 feeling for who wants to address council.
09:25:52 Sir, come on to the mike.
09:25:54 Okay.
09:26:02 >>> I'm representing a group of rescue and education.
09:26:08 A volunteer nonprofit organization of 13 members and
09:26:12 45 volunteers dedicating and socializing abandoned,
09:26:17 neglected, abused, orphaned, surrendered Dachshund and
09:26:22 mixes by providing medical treatment as needed.
09:26:27 You can hardly watch the news without seeing reports
09:26:30 on neglect and abuse case was animals in deplorable

09:26:35 conditions there. Were two of these stories last
09:26:37 night on the news.
09:26:38 The cameras rolled as the local animal services saved
09:26:43 the animals and worked to save their lives.
09:26:45 It's not when your local rescue organizations get
09:26:49 involved to care for these animals to provide for
09:26:52 rehabilitation needs in a safe home environment and
09:26:54 ultimately find permanent homes.
09:26:56 In our community alone over 30,000 animals enter
09:27:00 Hillsborough County animal services each year.
09:27:02 Last year over 21,000 were euthanized.
09:27:04 This is just one county.
09:27:06 And this was a good year.
09:27:09 There is a formal relationship between our animal
09:27:12 services and rescue groups such as ours, for the
09:27:16 common good of the community.
09:27:17 Through our joint efforts we save taxpayer dollars,
09:27:19 significant money and reducing the costs of housing
09:27:22 and care of these animals.
09:27:23 Animal services now refers animal rescue groups before
09:27:26 taking these animals in.
09:27:28 So taxpayers don't have to burden the cost of

09:27:31 sheltering these animals.
09:27:33 We take profitability out of puppy mills by providing
09:27:36 an alternate source of wonderful household pets.
09:27:39 Because all of our animals are spayed and nut erred,
09:27:44 we will we break the cycle of accidental breeding and
09:27:48 we participate in many community events, walk in the
09:27:53 park where hundreds of rescue groups come together and
09:27:55 educate the community on spay and neutering and
09:27:59 preventing puppy mills amongst other topics.
09:28:02 This is exactly how the citizens and government and
09:28:05 community work to make Tampa a better place to live.
09:28:08 You may wonder why I am here.
09:28:11 Since our city ordinance has only two.
09:28:13 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Goers for those that provide
09:28:16 shelter for animals, as breeders and commercial
09:28:19 kennels, those that operate for a profit, because we
09:28:22 are clearly not breeders, the only ethical
09:28:25 categorization for identifying rescue groups is
09:28:28 kennels.
09:28:29 There's no definition of an animal rescue.
09:28:31 Animal rescues are not new but we are certainly
09:28:34 growing in numbers and recognition, as more

09:28:37 communities work towards socially responsible and
09:28:39 community active behaviors. For residents such as
09:28:42 myself, citizens of Tampa and of Hillsborough County,
09:28:47 conflicting government rules leave us in a difficult
09:28:50 situation where on the one hand we are fully
09:28:52 supported, a warred for excellence and community
09:28:55 service and work closely with our government.
09:28:57 And, on the other hand, the we face persecution for
09:29:03 the same honorable work.
09:29:04 Recently both Hillsborough County board of
09:29:06 commissioners and Hillsborough County animal services
09:29:08 have adopted the following language that I am
09:29:11 proposing the City of Tampa also adopt.
09:29:12 The definition of an animal rescue group has been
09:29:14 added to code which states an animal rescue adoption
09:29:17 organization shall mean a not-for-profit organization
09:29:20 or individual that engages in placing homeless animals
09:29:24 into the homes to live through the remainder of their
09:29:27 lives in a humane and safe manner as companion
09:29:30 animals.
09:29:32 (Bell sounds)
09:29:33 And to obtain animals --

09:29:38 Sir, your time is up.
09:29:39 That's the buzzer.
09:29:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: How much more does he have?
09:29:42 >>> This is just the reading.
09:29:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Todd.
09:29:53 Mr. Lazar has been in contact with my office quite a
09:29:57 bit as a resident of South Tampa and asked to come
09:30:00 down here and talk to the entire board with his
09:30:03 request.
09:30:04 Todd, without going into it further, I think it's an
09:30:08 important request, because as animal rescuers I think
09:30:12 you fall through the cracks.
09:30:13 I would like to make a motion, it's a little out of
09:30:15 order, but if you will indulge me, to go ahead and
09:30:19 refer this to legal, get back to us in 60 days, and be
09:30:23 in touch with Mr. LAZAR and his group to see if we
09:30:26 could tweak up our ordinance.
09:30:29 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.
09:30:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Why don't we hold that motion to get
09:30:34 through public comments and then take it up first
09:30:35 thing.
09:30:36 If you don't mind.

09:30:37 Just to follow our city attorney protocol.
09:30:42 Thank you.
09:30:42 We'll take that up as the first item when we are
09:30:44 through with public comment.
09:30:45 Next speaker, please.
09:30:49 >>> Good morning.
09:30:53 This item is not on the agenda but I believe it will
09:31:00 be in the future.
09:31:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: State your name and address.
09:31:04 >>> Chris Castillo, north 56th street, suite 208,
09:31:11 Tampa, it's regarding purchasing departments
09:31:16 recommendation of the unarmed security contract.
09:31:19 It just went out for bid back in March.
09:31:23 And one of the investigations, we protested the bid
09:31:28 and now the protest has been overturned, not in our
09:31:30 favor.
09:31:31 But I'm a management team member and private
09:31:38 investigator.
09:31:40 Although my company has a particular stake in this
09:31:43 vote, I come as a concerned citizen.
09:31:46 Keeping up with the news I have been closely watching
09:31:49 your proposal on local vendor preference.

09:31:51 I also noted what the personnel department's
09:31:54 definition of a local business is, and how it is
09:31:57 different from yours.
09:32:00 Gregory Hart mentioned a few meetings ago that Office
09:32:03 Depot and Home Depot are what he considers local
09:32:07 business.
09:32:10 Inspired by this and recent events I performed a small
09:32:13 study of my own, using the purchasing department Web
09:32:16 site I was able to access all the contracts that have
09:32:18 been awarded in 2009.
09:32:20 I divide them up into where the awardee vendor was
09:32:24 headquartered.
09:32:25 The categories were Hillsborough County, the State of
09:32:27 Florida not including Hillsborough County, the United
09:32:29 States not including Florida, and the rest of the
09:32:32 world, obviously not including the United States.
09:32:35 I simply added the amounts of the contracts in each
09:32:37 category.
09:32:38 The results showed that for 2009 purchasing has
09:32:42 awarded 70 contracts totaling almost $12 million.
09:32:45 Of this amount, only 10% was spent with vendors
09:32:49 headquartered inside Hillsborough County.

09:32:51 Another 10% spent with vendors headquartered in the
09:32:54 rest of Florida leaving 80% spent with vendors
09:32:57 headquartered outside of Florida and throughout the
09:32:59 rest of the world and the United States.
09:33:03 You may remember back in late February, Carlos JIMENEZ
09:33:10 with Tampa Bay business association quoted a survey
09:33:12 performed where money spent with local vendors kept 45
09:33:14 cents on the dollar in the local economy and spent --
09:33:18 money spent with outside vendors only 13 cents on the
09:33:21 dollar inside the local economy.
09:33:23 This study was done in Austin, Texas, and many similar
09:33:27 studies had studies had similar results.
09:33:32 But this study had the most conservative results.
09:33:34 A study done in Andersonville, Illinois, showed
09:33:37 spending with local vendors kept as much as 68 cents
09:33:40 other local dollar in the local economy.
09:33:42 I applied the results of the Austin study to the
09:33:44 totals of Tampa's contracts for 2009.
09:33:47 Of the $12 million the city was awarding in contracts
09:33:49 this year only 1.9 million has remained in the local
09:33:53 economy and the potential $5.3 million that the city
09:33:57 has spent the full 12 million with local vendors.

09:34:02 A San Francisco study showed in the Austin study that
09:34:06 outside vendors, it ships jobs right out of town.
09:34:11 This is extremely important as the bay area's
09:34:14 unemployment rate has jumped from 5.8% this time last
09:34:18 year to a whopping 10.6% today.
09:34:20 That's 140,000 people.
09:34:22 (Bell sounds).
09:34:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
09:34:26 Councilman Dingfelder, thank you.
09:34:29 And he wanted to mention the local preference workshop
09:34:31 is scheduled for August 6th at 6 p.m. which I will
09:34:36 raise a question later on under new business.
09:34:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: August 6th at 6 p.m. is when we
09:34:42 are going to be addressing local preference.
09:34:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
09:34:49 >>> Michael Hadley, signal one investigation and
09:34:55 security, my address, because I'm a private
09:34:57 investigator, I have to give my P.O. box 11323, Tampa,
09:35:05 Florida 33680.
09:35:07 Honorable chairman, distinguished council members, we
09:35:11 are here echoing your concerns.
09:35:16 We don't feel this particular process has been fair or

09:35:23 show any type of parity.
09:35:29 When we came into this process we asked not to be
09:35:32 considered as a minority company, we asked not to be
09:35:36 receiving any type of preference, any type of goals.
09:35:44 Business has the flexibility to grow, they must
09:35:47 compete head to head with the big companies.
09:35:54 We did that.
09:36:00 We won.
09:36:01 With the purchase, it changes.
09:36:03 It changes from experience.
09:36:07 It changes from the size of projects.
09:36:17 We put together a team of professionals, and we were
09:36:20 awarded the Super Bowl contract, the largest sporting
09:36:24 event, more security than the airport.
09:36:34 We were part of that team.
09:36:35 But it was minimized.
09:36:36 Our profile, the people that import signal one
09:36:43 security, law enforcement, and military.
09:36:51 We are not -- the definition is to a constant framing.
09:36:58 Our level of security has taken a whole different
09:37:01 movement with what's going on in our country.
09:37:04 Security is the fastest growing industry in our

09:37:07 country.
09:37:12 But not developing the same type of professional
09:37:17 people.
09:37:18 We don't have another arena to come here.
09:37:22 Because we looked at the previous council meetings, a
09:37:33 fair resolution to provide this service.
09:37:35 Although it's not on the agenda, but we ask you don't
09:37:40 award diamond the contract for security service.
09:37:46 And we have provided you information over the last
09:37:50 couple of months.
09:37:51 We tried to speak with many of you.
09:37:52 And I want to thank you councilperson Mulhern and
09:38:02 councilman Caetano, for sharing our concerns.
09:38:13 We are saying the same thing you are saying about
09:38:15 small business.
09:38:18 So we ask that you not award the contract.
09:38:24 (Bell sounds)
09:38:26 >>> My name is Eric Hoornstra, employed with sable
09:38:38 investigations and also employed at WalMart at the
09:38:40 same time.
09:38:43 But I would like to say that I totally agree with what
09:38:46 you are saying about the small businesses and the

09:38:49 outsourcing to other places in the city and that's all
09:38:56 I have to say about it.
09:38:59 I was a sergeant in the military.
09:39:05 Did nine years in the Florida National Guard.
09:39:08 Six years in the Florida National Guard and three
09:39:09 years active duty.
09:39:12 I have never addressed the City Council.
09:39:14 Forgive me, I'm a little nervous.
09:39:16 But basically, I think everybody at sable one are
09:39:22 great guys, and I would take them in a foxhole anytime
09:39:30 rather than going with somebody else, because I trust
09:39:34 his instincts on people.
09:39:36 Thank you.
09:39:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
09:39:39 Anyone else wish to address council?
09:39:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A question to Mr. Shelby on this
09:39:44 issue.
09:39:46 They said they appealed the purchasing thing which I
09:39:49 guess sounds like an administrative appeal internal to
09:39:53 staff.
09:39:54 Do they have another right of appeal?
09:39:56 Does their next right of appeal come to council?

09:40:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, I know the issue of the
09:40:02 contract does.
09:40:03 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: City attorney.
09:40:07 The contract that the purchasing department would be
09:40:11 recommending for approval would come to council.
09:40:15 The appeal of the bid protest would go from the
09:40:20 internal administrative appeal under city code, that
09:40:27 determination would then get a polled to circuit court
09:40:29 if they were to choose to appeal that further.
09:40:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
09:40:33 So if and when the administration decides to bring
09:40:36 that contract to council, they can come speak at the
09:40:41 three minutes before council on that issue to urge us
09:40:46 not to award that contract, but it's not a formal
09:40:49 appeal.
09:40:49 Their right of appeal, they probably have a time
09:40:52 window, is to go to circuit court.
09:40:54 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes.
09:40:56 And I am not familiar with this protest.
09:40:58 I don't know if it's been heard yet or not.
09:41:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I would suggest, because we have
09:41:03 a tough agenda, let's take this up at the end if you

09:41:06 want to pursue that, let's take it up if you want to
09:41:09 pursue it further.
09:41:09 It is on the agenda, I understand, it will come back
09:41:12 to us on the 16th.
09:41:13 But let's deal with that because we have a tough
09:41:15 agenda.
09:41:16 And let's stay the course.
09:41:17 And then we can tab this up at the end of the agenda
09:41:19 and be prepared, Mr. Fletcher, to respond to any
09:41:23 questions at that time.
09:41:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
09:41:25 I just wanted to make sure they knew where they could
09:41:27 go from here.
09:41:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:41:30 Yes, sir.
09:41:32 >>> Regional Howard.
09:41:33 And I am a Hillsborough County resident.
09:41:37 I am not speaking on something on your agenda so I am
09:41:40 trying to find out when and what time can I speak to
09:41:42 you all, because --
09:41:44 You have three minutes now.
09:41:48 >>> Tampa housing, they denied me housing.

09:41:50 I stayed on the housing waiting list for seven years,
09:41:53 me and my daughter waiting for a house.
09:41:55 They denied me, Tampa housing, because they said that
09:41:58 I was arrested for a misdemeanor marijuana charge but
09:42:03 the judge throwed it out, find me not guilty.
09:42:06 I need to know who I need to talk to get my housing
09:42:09 because I'm entitled to housing just like anybody else
09:42:12 as long as I'm committing no crimes or anything.
09:42:14 And I need to find out where I need to go to get a
09:42:19 solution to my problem, because I haven't done
09:42:21 anything.
09:42:21 And I want to know who I have to talk to.
09:42:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's not quite accurate.
09:42:31 Let me ask if the city attorney meet with him and
09:42:34 maybe give him direction because we are not Tampa
09:42:39 housing.
09:42:41 He can direct you where to go.
09:42:42 Thank you, sir.
09:42:44 Councilman Dingfelder, do you want to restate your
09:42:46 motion?
09:42:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:42:48 In regard to the animal rescue activities within a

09:42:53 home, I would request our land use staff and our legal
09:42:57 department work together on that issue, come ba back
09:43:00 to us in 60 days with a recommendation.
09:43:03 >> Second.
09:43:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
09:43:07 Opposes?
09:43:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They can contact my office with Mr.
09:43:12 LAZAR's contact information.
09:43:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone who wishes to ask council
09:43:17 reconsideration on a legislative matter? Anyone who
09:43:19 wishes to request a legislative matter? Hearing none
09:43:23 we will move then to our presentation of ordinance
09:43:36 number 2.
09:43:37 >> I move an ordinance of the City of Tampa amending
09:43:41 City of Tampa code chapter 2, article VII, civil
09:43:45 emergencies, said amendment being necessary to provide
09:43:47 for additional definitions, to revise the provisions
09:43:50 related to the declaration of local emergencies within
09:43:52 the City of Tampa, authorizing the mayor to impose
09:43:54 certain restrictions by executive order during the
09:43:56 existence of a local emergency, requiring the city to
09:43:59 establish and maintain an emergency operation center,

09:44:02 and requiring all city departments to maintain a
09:44:04 continuity of operations plan, providing an effective
09:44:08 date.
09:44:08 I'll just tag onto that to remind everybody it is
09:44:12 hurricane season and make sure you have a family
09:44:14 hurricane plan and contact the city or the county if
09:44:16 you have any questions.
09:44:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second by councilman Miranda.
09:44:21 All in favor?
09:44:23 Opposes?
09:44:23 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being
09:44:24 absent.
09:44:25 Second reading and adoption will be on July 16th
09:44:28 at 9:30.
09:44:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item number 3.
09:44:30 Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:44:34 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented
09:44:37 for first reading consideration, an ordinance of the
09:44:39 city of Tampa, Florida amending ordinance number
09:44:43 2008-53 by correcting a scrivener's error in section
09:44:48 27-523, expiration, suspension, and revocation of
09:44:51 approvals for alcoholic beverage sales, posting of

09:44:54 notice for discontinuance of sales, evidence of
09:44:57 resumption of sales, providing for repeal of all
09:44:59 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
09:45:02 providing an effective date.
09:45:05 >>
09:45:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Caetano.
09:45:08 All in favor?
09:45:10 Opposed same sign?
09:45:11 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being
09:45:13 absent and Dingfelder being absent.
09:45:15 Second reading and adoption will be on July 16th
09:45:17 at 9:30 a.m.
09:45:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 4.
09:45:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance authorizing the I
09:45:26 am stallings and maintenance of proposed encroachment
09:45:29 subsurface footers and aerial building over a portion
09:45:33 of the public right-of-way known as south 12th Street
09:45:35 in the city of Tampa, Florida as more particularly
09:45:39 described herein subject to certain terms, covenants,
09:45:41 conditions and agreements as more particularly
09:45:43 described herein providing an effective date.
09:45:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.

09:45:48 All in favor signify by saying Aye of the opposes?
09:45:51 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and
09:45:54 Saul-Sena being absent.
09:45:56 Second.
09:45:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 5.
09:46:00 >>GWEN MILLER: An ordinance authorizing encroachment
09:46:04 portion of an existing building and eve overhang over
09:46:07 a portion of alley lying in Morrison grove subdivision
09:46:11 in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, as more
09:46:14 particularly described herein, subject to certain
09:46:16 terms, covenants, conditions and agreements as more
09:46:18 particularly described herein providing an effective
09:46:20 date.
09:46:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:46:23 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:46:25 Opposes?
09:46:25 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and
09:46:27 Dingfelder being absent.
09:46:28 Second reading and adoption July 16th at 9:30.
09:46:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We move now to our committee reports.
09:46:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder is gone.
09:46:38 He wanted to hold 13.

09:46:39 Do we still want to hold it?
09:46:42 Move item 6 through 12, holding 13.
09:46:45 And 14 through 17.
09:46:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:46:50 (Motion carried)
09:46:54 Parks and rec.
09:46:55 Councilwoman Saul-Sena is not here.
09:46:57 So Councilwoman Mary Mulhern.
09:47:00 >>MARY MULHERN: I move items number 18 through 22.
09:47:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:47:09 (Motion carried)
09:47:15 Public works.
09:47:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move 23 through 3 with exception of
09:47:21 29 and 30 for discussion.
09:47:26 He.
09:47:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Just 29.
09:47:30 And just 29 -- 29 just to highlight it.
09:47:34 Moved and seconded.
09:47:36 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:47:38 Opposes?
09:47:38 (Motion carried)
09:47:40 Finance Committee, Councilwoman Mulhern.

09:47:42 >>MARY MULHERN: I move items number 34 through 45.
09:47:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 101 has been pulled.
09:47:56 >>MARY MULHERN: And 103.
09:48:00 Just 103.
09:48:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
09:48:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second on 103.
09:48:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and second.
09:48:09 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:48:11 Opposes?
09:48:13 So moved.
09:48:16 Building and zoning.
09:48:17 Councilman Caetano.
09:48:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I want to move 46 to 59 and we
09:48:23 have pulled 57.
09:48:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And would you like to move 102, added
09:48:33 at the end?
09:48:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Adding 102 to that.
09:48:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and second.
09:48:39 (Motion carried).
09:48:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Transportation.
09:48:45 Councilwoman Miller.
09:48:46 >>GWEN MILLER: I move items 60 through 63 and holding

09:48:51 64 and 65 and 66.
09:48:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 63 --
09:49:00 >>GWEN MILLER: 64 and 65.
09:49:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 65 is the only one that's pulled, is
09:49:04 that right?
09:49:05 >>MARY MULHERN: No, I pulled 64.
09:49:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 65 was yours.
09:49:10 Do you want that back in?
09:49:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes. 65, yes.
09:49:14 >>CHAIRMAN: I move to hold 64 and -- move 65 and 66.
09:49:22 (Motion carried).
09:49:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public hearings.
09:49:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move items set for public hearing
09:49:30 67 through 70.
09:49:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
09:49:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:49:37 Opposes?
09:49:38 We'll take up those pulled items at this time.
09:49:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The ones highlighted?
09:49:48 >> Yes.
09:49:52 Councilman Dingfelder isn't here so we'll move to the
09:49:54 next one.

09:49:57 29, the question I raise is because this is reclaimed
09:50:00 water line going to the airport, Aviation Authority.
09:50:04 My question was to staff and they did answer in the
09:50:06 affirmative it will be available to international mall
09:50:09 and surrounding area, neighbors and that sort of
09:50:12 thing, and good news is, to the international mall and
09:50:17 the airport and to surrounding neighbors, but we will
09:50:23 be reimbursed $950,000 for those lines and extension.
09:50:27 And as I understand it, the work on that will begin
09:50:31 within a week.
09:50:33 So that's kind of a good news item.
09:50:36 So I would move approval.
09:50:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
09:50:44 >>CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
09:50:46 Opposed say Nay?
09:50:47 (Motion carried).
09:50:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:50:51 My next item is item 57.
09:50:54 Ms. Miller, do you want to -- this is a good news item
09:50:59 as well.
09:50:59 I wanted to highlight it.
09:51:01 The people in Central Park and surrounding areas can

09:51:05 know they are not forgotten, we are still working
09:51:08 hard, staff is working hard, Housing Authority working
09:51:10 hard on this project, so give us just a highlight.
09:51:15 >>CINDY MILLER: Director of growth management
09:51:19 development services.
09:51:20 This consortium agreement will authorize the city to
09:51:26 enter an agreement with the Housing Authority to take
09:51:28 the lead on a grant application for competitive grant
09:51:32 for the federal government, but it's neighborhood
09:51:35 stabilization program phase two.
09:51:37 As you already know we have the city neighborhood
09:51:39 stabilization program plan one the second phase, is
09:51:44 competitive, will be competing with cities and
09:51:46 organizations around the country, and it is basically
09:51:50 for the infrastructure for Central Park Village is
09:51:54 basically $28 million, approximately, the additional
09:51:57 $10 million, the city will manage along with the
09:52:02 Housing Authority, and that will be for acquisition
09:52:05 and rehabilitation of housing that is abandoned or
09:52:10 foreclosed as well as potentially some demolition, but
09:52:13 we believe will be mostly rehabilitation.
09:52:15 The neighborhoods that we are applying for are

09:52:17 basically census tracts from Adamo to the south, to
09:52:23 the city boundary on the east, to Martin Luther King
09:52:28 on the north, and I believe it is Florida on the west.
09:52:35 What's sort of exciting about this is it encompasses
09:52:38 three CRAs, includes Ybor City, includes East Tampa,
09:52:41 as well as Central Park Village.
09:52:44 So we are very excited about that.
09:52:46 And when you consider that we have already briefed
09:52:48 council on $1 million that we are utilizing in home
09:52:52 and SHIP funds as well as tiff funds in East Tampa.
09:52:56 This kind of pairing and leveraging would be really
09:53:01 outstanding for all of the neighborhoods that we would
09:53:03 now be able to pursue a much more aggressive approach.
09:53:06 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:53:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you again.
09:53:08 I think it's a great project.
09:53:09 And the partnership by the Housing Authority and by
09:53:13 the city is great.
09:53:15 And my understand being them taking the lead, that
09:53:18 also speeds the process as I understand.
09:53:21 So we are really glad to hear, this is a good news
09:53:24 item.

09:53:24 So let's hope for the best.
09:53:26 Councilman Dingfelder.
09:53:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Ms. Miller.
09:53:33 The federal program as I recall, you came to us last
09:53:36 fall when that first came out, and I guess that would
09:53:40 have been the first phase.
09:53:44 It would be good to get an update, I guess, on where
09:53:47 we are, what kind of progress we are making.
09:53:51 I know the federal government passed it sort of as an
09:53:53 emergency program to jump in quick and help folks get
09:53:58 back into these homes, and they could use some of them
09:54:02 to help our neighborhoods.
09:54:03 So do we have progress to report, perhaps, in a couple
09:54:09 of months?
09:54:11 >>CINDY MILLER: You will see some of the first
09:54:12 transactions for that program during your July
09:54:14 meeting.
09:54:15 So I'll be glad to give a full report at a workshop
09:54:18 perhaps at your August workshop.
09:54:19 But you will start seeing transactions when you
09:54:21 return.
09:54:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT:

09:54:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't you work with
09:54:27 Mr. Chairman and figure out what you want to do.
09:54:28 Thank you.
09:54:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:54:31 I would like to move that item number 57.
09:54:33 >> Second.
09:54:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:54:37 All in favor?
09:54:38 Opposed?
09:54:40 >> Councilman Dingfelder, your item number 13 that you
09:54:44 pulled.
09:54:58 He you.
09:54:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know if any staff has been
09:55:04 able to get over here.
09:55:09 Our TPD radio folks, it's $1.6 million.
09:55:12 We had a lot of discussion about radio system, and I
09:55:14 just wanted to get some clarifications on it.
09:55:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then we will move to the next item.
09:55:21 Maybe they will be here by that time.
09:55:23 That will be item 64.
09:55:25 Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:55:27 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.

09:55:28 I just wanted to pull this to for discussion, because
09:55:36 I was on the streetcar board, no longer am.
09:55:39 Linda Saul-Sena, who is not here, is our city
09:55:42 representative, one of our city representatives on the
09:55:44 board.
09:55:49 Now.
09:55:50 We had major discussion about what to do with the
09:55:52 endowment fund last year.
09:55:55 An it was decided in, I think, October or November,
09:55:59 the board decided to take everything out of equities
09:56:06 because it was heavily invested in equities which had
09:56:08 been a really great thing a couple years ago but the
09:56:11 street car, when the market was great, had really
09:56:14 improved the endowment.
09:56:16 But like everybody else with the housing crash and
09:56:25 economy Gulf of Mexico south, this was losing money
09:56:27 because of that.
09:56:28 So the board, after much discussion, decided to put
09:56:34 basically everything into cash.
09:56:36 And then there was later discussion about asking --
09:56:40 putting it into municipal bonds, or treasury bonds,
09:56:47 because that was a safer investment.

09:56:51 So we did the right thing at the time.
09:56:55 And I think it made a lot of sense to ask the city, an
09:57:00 and Bonnie Wise, to help us keep this fund safe.
09:57:05 But now I do have some concern about the fact that
09:57:10 it's down to around a million dollars now.
09:57:13 And as the market is coming back, it may be wise for
09:57:20 the board to do more with that money.
09:57:24 And with the city as custodian, they are limited from
09:57:28 investing.
09:57:29 So it's kind of -- it's a difficult place to be in.
09:57:34 I think the money is very safe with the city.
09:57:36 But it's also going to make it difficult for the
09:57:39 streetcar board to invest when it looks like a good
09:57:44 time to do that.
09:57:46 So I just wanted to highlight that.
09:57:48 And I also wanted to point out that the street car is
09:57:56 an odd animal, as a public utility or public transit
09:58:02 organization.
09:58:06 It has the city kind of backup and it has Hartline as
09:58:12 the administrator.
09:58:15 Then it has this board which is the Board of Directors
09:58:18 is really the only advocate that is charged solely

09:58:22 with advocating for the streetcar and for that
09:58:26 endowment fund.
09:58:27 So I have a little bit of trepidation about giving the
09:58:30 money to the city, because the city is not necessarily
09:58:35 putting that streetcar as it's first -- as its first
09:58:42 priority, but I'm sure we can you can fill me in a
09:58:48 little bit.
09:58:49 >>> Lee Huffstutler, the city's chief accountant here
09:58:55 to answer any questions you might have related to this
09:58:57 transfer.
09:58:58 >> I guess my question for you is just what happens
09:59:02 when the board decides they would like to do more with
09:59:06 the fund and they would like to maybe invest, and have
09:59:13 Raymond James come back and start investing in stock?
09:59:17 Can they just vote to do that?
09:59:20 Is there difficulty in accessing the money again?
09:59:25 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
09:59:25 They can ask for all the money back at any time they
09:59:27 want.
09:59:28 If they decide they want to take it back and use it
09:59:30 for investing in something other than the city invest,
09:59:32 since we are limited, I think they can do that at any

09:59:35 time.
09:59:36 Just have to give notice, ask for the money back and
09:59:38 they'll get it.
09:59:42 >> So a matter of weeks?
09:59:43 >>> I think there's a 30 day provision because you
09:59:45 have to liquidate the assets.
09:59:48 It shouldn't take that long because of the form that
09:59:49 they are in so that's not a problem for them to do
09:59:51 that.
09:59:52 >>MARY MULHERN: Thanks.
09:59:55 I appreciate it.
09:59:57 >>> I would ditto what Sal says.
10:00:01 It's liquid.
10:00:01 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll move that item, number 64.
10:00:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
10:00:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
10:00:08 All in favor say Aye.
10:00:10 Okay.
10:00:10 I think we have one last item, 101.
10:00:22 He is someone here to address item 101?
10:00:26 >> They may be waiting for staff reports.
10:00:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What about 13?

10:00:30 Did anyone come in to address item 13?
10:00:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I noticed two individuals from the
10:00:40 office out talking to aides, but I know Ms. Long is in
10:00:44 the audience.
10:00:45 I think they were reappointed today back to their
10:00:47 respective committees.
10:00:50 They have done an outstanding job and we are certainly
10:00:52 appreciative for the time and effort they do in public
10:00:55 service.
10:00:55 And all of us congratulate both of them.
10:00:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
10:01:03 We move to our 9:30 items, continued public hearings,
10:01:06 second reading, proposed ordinance.
10:01:20 Continued public hearing.
10:01:21 >>ERNEST MUELLER: This is a second reading of a
10:01:24 proposed amendment that would make some changes to
10:01:27 chapter 23.5, if civil citation ordinance.
10:01:31 I know there's been a request by members of the public
10:01:34 to have this continued 90 days.
10:01:37 I would just like to get an idea if City Council is
10:01:41 going to wants to honor that continuance or if you
10:01:43 want to proceed with the second reading.

10:01:45 Because if you proceed with the second reading, I will
10:01:47 be offering a substitute ordinance that would be
10:01:53 removing, well, two sections in discussions with the
10:01:58 public we deem would not be appropriate so that would
10:02:01 be removing two code sections.
10:02:02 But before I offer that I would like to see what
10:02:04 council's intentions are with regard to the
10:02:06 continuance.
10:02:06 >>MARY MULHERN: Thanks, Ernie.
10:02:13 I think we would like to at least hear from someone
10:02:15 from T.H.A.N. about what they would like us to do.
10:02:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is a public hearing.
10:02:18 Anyone wishing to address council on item 71.
10:02:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, which section is
10:02:24 legal thinking about removing?
10:02:26 So that way the public doesn't necessarily need to
10:02:31 waste their time arguing about.
10:02:36 >>ERNEST MUELLER: 22-67 and 27.246.1.
10:02:42 22-67 is permit revocation.
10:02:45 And 27-246.1 deals with interim parking and special
10:02:50 event parking.
10:02:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Were those issues that T.H.A.N. had

10:02:56 concerns with or just other issues?
10:02:58 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Well, we discuss it, and during that
10:03:02 discussion we decided we would look further into that
10:03:04 after I talked to staff.
10:03:06 Certainly the permit revocation we would pull out and
10:03:12 then the interim parking one I'm not comfortable going
10:03:15 forward with right now, I would like to pull that out
10:03:17 at this time, bring it forward later.
10:03:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:03:22 >>> Wolford Johnson, Longfellow Avenue, and president
10:03:26 of T.H.A.N.
10:03:28 First I guess I want to thank Mr. Mueller for coming
10:03:32 to our last T.H.A.N. meeting, and reviewing some of
10:03:35 the amendments and so forth being proposed under
10:03:39 chapter 23.
10:03:44 A few comments regarding that.
10:03:46 One, I believe that most members of T.H.A.N. feel that
10:03:48 code enforcement is not truly effective at this time.
10:03:53 It has been stated many times that code enforcement
10:03:55 nodes more teeth, and the time frame between the time
10:04:01 citation is given, and the actual compliance needs to
10:04:04 be shortened.

10:04:05 The proposed amendments to chapter 23-5 put more teeth
10:04:11 into the code violation, particularly the civil
10:04:15 citation process.
10:04:16 However, there are concerns among our members
10:04:19 regarding how the code will be implemented and
10:04:22 enforced.
10:04:23 Apparently several departments will now be empowered
10:04:29 to issue citations and impose fines.
10:04:32 My concern is how this will be implemented within the
10:04:34 various departments.
10:04:36 We are used to dealing with code enforcement
10:04:39 departments, so we don't have -- we know those people
10:04:43 are very conscientious, they do their best operating
10:04:46 under our process that we have.
10:04:48 They do their best to be fair and to implement on a
10:04:51 fair basis.
10:04:56 T.H.A.N., we do not have a meeting in July.
10:05:00 However, we are planning a T.H.A.N. workshop on July
10:05:05 18th, chapter 27 and its implementation is on the
10:05:10 agenda at that workshop.
10:05:12 The recommendations for that workshop will be brought
10:05:15 to our membership at our scheduled August 8th

10:05:19 meeting.
10:05:23 We hope and expect our concerns regarding chapter 27
10:05:26 will be addressed, and in addition we hope to bring
10:05:29 forth recommendations that will shorten the time frame
10:05:31 between the citation and compliance.
10:05:35 And in view of these days, what we are asking is that
10:05:37 you would delay your vote on this issue, really for a
10:05:42 period of 90 days, so it's beyond our August 8th
10:05:45 meeting, when we would be in a position to come back
10:05:48 to you with more information, more details, work with
10:05:52 the city, and try to develop something that will make
10:05:55 it more effective and move the process along further.
10:06:00 Our concern is with the process, as far as the time
10:06:03 frames and so forth, is our greatest concern.
10:06:07 Thank you.
10:06:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree with the 90 day extension
10:06:14 and I certainly agree with all that's been said.
10:06:16 However, there is there's underlying things that most
10:06:22 of us don't see and some of us may not even understand
10:06:24 what's going on in today's society.
10:06:28 Lately I have had some free time, because I am just
10:06:31 doing one job, and what I do is I go visit homes, and

10:06:38 I don't break into them.
10:06:40 Let me say that.
10:06:42 [ Laughter ]
10:06:43 There's hundreds, hundreds of homes.
10:06:47 In the last week I have gone to ten homes of which
10:06:50 five of them have an apartment inside the home.
10:06:59 Whoever buys that house -- and maybe this is a legal
10:07:03 question -- are they the sacrificial lamb that code
10:07:08 enforcement is going to say you did something wrong?
10:07:10 Because I have seen it, and I have been in them.
10:07:14 I've seen a garage door look just like a garage door
10:07:18 from the inside.
10:07:19 When I'm inside the home, it's a bedroom.
10:07:24 Attached to it is a bathroom.
10:07:27 Beyond that there is a 20 by 26 or so living room,
10:07:32 kitchen, and toilet.
10:07:35 So that's going on in many parts of the city.
10:07:39 Not in all.
10:07:40 But I certainly don't want to penalize individuals who
10:07:45 buy something, and now we are coming after them
10:07:50 because someone else did something wrong.
10:07:54 So I get this at the office.

10:07:57 I have been into these homes.
10:07:59 I have checked them out.
10:08:00 And, yes, some of them, a lady bought a house in
10:08:03 November, and she put up some illegal windows, and she
10:08:10 said, this was there.
10:08:12 She bought the house in November of '08.
10:08:15 So I think that one is settled: But if I find 40 to
10:08:22 50% -- I'm not saying they are all that way.
10:08:25 But all of a sudden you see a garage closed, you don't
10:08:27 know why.
10:08:29 But when you go in the house, you find out that there
10:08:34 is a fake wall, there's a door where it's covered up
10:08:39 with drywall on one side.
10:08:41 On the other side you open it up, it's still a door.
10:08:45 And these things are happening.
10:08:47 In certain parts of the city, not all.
10:08:50 I don't want to see somebody who buys a house in good
10:08:53 faith and doesn't know about this to be penalized and
10:08:58 then have to go back and have all these fines against
10:09:02 them and all these -- society come after them and
10:09:09 everyone else.
10:09:10 They did nothing wrong.

10:09:11 And that's what I want to bring up.
10:09:12 How do we solve these things?
10:09:14 >>CHAIRMAN: Did they get permits to do them?
10:09:19 >>> I would imagine there's no permits.
10:09:21 I don't No. but whoever did the crime is not going to
10:09:24 pull the time because they are not there.
10:09:25 They lost the house.
10:09:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
10:09:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am not going to expect somebody
10:09:31 to tear down half a house.
10:09:33 So that's what's going on.
10:09:35 I just want to bring it to this council's attention.
10:09:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:09:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mr. Miranda brings up a
10:09:44 good point, because we are all sympathetic to innocent
10:09:47 purchasers, on the one hand.
10:09:49 But on the other hand, and I'm sure our good folks
10:09:52 from T.H.A.N. would agree with me, that our various
10:09:55 codes are there to protect the neighbors and the
10:09:59 neighborhoods.
10:09:59 So you don't get a multifamily situation in a
10:10:03 single-family neighborhood.

10:10:05 Because otherwise you might as well throw the whole
10:10:08 zoning code out the window.
10:10:13 The flip side is that purchasers and the lenders who
10:10:16 might lend them money but especially the purchasers,
10:10:19 they have to do their due diligence.
10:10:21 Now, they are plunking down, you know, tens of
10:10:23 thousands of dollars to buy these homes.
10:10:25 They have to check with the city. Is that a vendor
10:10:29 code enforcement action?
10:10:30 Are there liens on that house?
10:10:32 Is there an illegal use on that house?
10:10:35 That's the kind of due diligence one would expect a
10:10:37 purchaser needs to do.
10:10:38 And if they are not doing it, then they are listening
10:10:42 to us, they need to do it.
10:10:43 Because at the end of the day, it can't be the city's
10:10:45 responsibility to just kind of waive that out of
10:10:49 sympathy after it's done and just let that
10:10:52 single-family house become a multi-family house or
10:10:55 whatever the code violation might be.
10:10:57 So I just throw that in.
10:10:59 I don't know if we are talking about anything in

10:11:01 specific or just generalities.
10:11:03 I'm also knots sure if those issues are being raised
10:11:07 under this code change that you were talking about.
10:11:14 >>ERNEST MUELLER: In a situation that councilman
10:11:17 Miranda is speaking with, I think that would be
10:11:19 addressed as a permitting issue which is not going to
10:11:22 specifically be under the civil citation process.
10:11:25 That would be more of a Code Enforcement Board process
10:11:28 where it would go through the longer, giving more
10:11:30 time, giving people the opportunity to get permits in,
10:11:33 whatever else they are need.
10:11:35 That's what the code board is a better enforcement
10:11:39 process for.
10:11:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Mulhern.
10:11:42 Then.
10:11:44 >>MARY MULHERN: I didn't think that was addressed in
10:11:46 this part of the code because I spent a long time with
10:11:49 Ernie and some of the T.H.A.N. members going over it
10:11:51 and the changes here are very detailed and very -- you
10:11:56 have to have the code and a lot of backup with you to
10:12:01 actually understand what's going on with this, and
10:12:03 they are putting a lot of time into this.

10:12:05 So I think we should continue it, but I think, you
10:12:07 know, Mr. Miranda brings up a really difficult problem
10:12:12 right now, also because people are getting foreclosed,
10:12:17 people don't have jobs, people can't pay the rent,
10:12:19 they can't pay the mortgage.
10:12:20 So it is a very difficult issue, and we addressed this
10:12:30 at one point for a certain neighborhood a year or two
10:12:32 ago where we allowed them to have rental units and
10:12:37 accessory structures, and we were kind of working on
10:12:40 something with that.
10:12:41 But I think it's well worth having a workshop to
10:12:46 discuss that.
10:12:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public comment.
10:12:53 >>> Sue Long, east broad street.
10:12:55 I have worked with Mr. Mueller.
10:12:57 I have spoken with T.H.A.N.
10:12:59 I have spoken to my neighbors.
10:13:01 And Councilwoman Mulhern.
10:13:06 I'm very interested in having this go through.
10:13:08 We have spent two, three years trying to get this
10:13:10 going.
10:13:11 I was one of the original people on the citizens

10:13:15 advisory council code when this first came up.
10:13:17 And it has been hashed and rehashed.
10:13:20 It is not perfect.
10:13:22 I don't think it's ever going to be perfect.
10:13:26 I don't know that we have codes in the city that's
10:13:29 perfect.
10:13:30 The issues brought up are existed long before this.
10:13:34 This isn't going to affect this pro or con, totally
10:13:37 irrelevant to this particular thing.
10:13:41 The concern that was originally brought up to me was
10:13:43 the fact that you could ticket somebody without
10:13:45 notice, which is not true.
10:13:47 And we have been through this.
10:13:48 And I have cornered Mr. Mueller numerous times on this
10:13:52 issue, and he finally sat down and pointed out the
10:13:55 exact section where it says you cannot, which is what
10:13:58 I wanted to know.
10:13:59 I wanted to know because code enforcement officer was
10:14:02 driving down my street and they were mad at me one
10:14:04 day, they couldn't ticket me for something and give me
10:14:07 24 hours to fix something, and that is not the case in
10:14:10 this particular thing.

10:14:11 We do need more teeth in the code.
10:14:14 There are people that go to code board, that their
10:14:18 citations are two, three years old, and they are
10:14:20 finally getting to code board.
10:14:22 And even if they are found guilty there, and we put a
10:14:25 lien on them, there's no way to correct it.
10:14:29 If they truly want to avoid it they keep on going and
10:14:31 nothing ever changes.
10:14:32 And that needs to be changed.
10:14:33 The only way I see it changing at this point in time
10:14:36 is with these tickets.
10:14:37 I have some concerns about other departments other
10:14:41 than code enforcement issuing tickets.
10:14:45 But if that's the way it needs to be, that's the way
10:14:48 it needs to be.
10:14:49 And I would like to have this passed as soon as
10:14:50 possible.
10:14:51 Thank you.
10:14:57 >>> Spencer Kass representing Virginia Park
10:15:00 neighborhood association.
10:15:03 I reviewed this statute.
10:15:04 I respect staff, Councilwoman Mulhern reviewed this

10:15:09 statute with me.
10:15:10 This statute is a major problem.
10:15:11 Look at the areas where you have your most open code
10:15:14 citations.
10:15:16 The poorest areas of the city. The violations are
10:15:22 symptoms of these people having problems.
10:15:24 It's very easy to go in and just site people.
10:15:28 It's something else to help them get into compliance.
10:15:30 The city does have a small program that provides a
10:15:33 small amount of help, if you are elderly and you are
10:15:36 truly destitute, but that's clearly not sufficient.
10:15:39 When mayor Freedman was the mayor she had a program
10:15:42 that didn't,
10:15:47 Clearly, we can't go back to ^ that.
10:15:49 There were problems with that system.
10:15:51 But there needs to be an overall change and approach
10:15:54 in how we handle these code cases.
10:15:56 People clearly need to have their hand held.
10:15:58 You have something like a 30% compliance rate in the
10:16:00 city.
10:16:01 That's horrendous.
10:16:02 I agree that these do not work but you need to

10:16:07 understand what the result of this section of the
10:16:08 statute is.
10:16:10 Once you get up to the point where a person gets a
10:16:12 ticket, legally, the city can hand them a ticket every
10:16:15 24 hours thereafter.
10:16:17 They have no right to come to you and there's nothing
10:16:19 you can do because now it's in the court system.
10:16:21 So maybe they go to their council member, they say, I
10:16:24 need help with this, this is wrong, I am being
10:16:26 bothered.
10:16:28 Each person can make their own determination as to
10:16:30 when they want to give out a ticket, is it
10:16:32 appropriate, how many tickets?
10:16:34 They can say it's not our intention to give out
10:16:36 tickets every 24 hours.
10:16:38 That's what they are going to say.
10:16:39 It may not be their intention.
10:16:41 Put in the statute.
10:16:42 If that's not what they are going to do it, put it in
10:16:45 the statute.
10:16:46 When push comes to shove what you end up with is bill
10:16:49 collectors going after these people.

10:16:51 So now you have bill collectors going after poor
10:16:54 people, who don't have money to begin with.
10:16:56 To me, this makes entire draft makes absolutely sense.
10:17:01 I support T.H.A.N.
10:17:01 I support the request for a continuation.
10:17:03 But overall I think the city needs to look at all the
10:17:06 chapters that are now code and take a whole new
10:17:08 approach.
10:17:09 Thank you.
10:17:11 >>> Good morning.
10:17:16 Rick Barcena, 3916 North Ridge Avenue in Tampa.
10:17:21 I sit on the code board.
10:17:23 And I see a lot of things that happen, some things
10:17:27 that you don't see.
10:17:28 For example, what Mrs. Mulhern said and what Mr.
10:17:32 Miranda said.
10:17:32 What we don't see is what happens when something goes
10:17:34 to foreclosure, or bankruptcy, and the new person
10:17:40 inherits the problem.
10:17:43 Just yesterday was they were cited previously for a
10:17:48 tree case.
10:17:51 The previous owners, before they were foreclosed took

10:17:58 the trees out.
10:17:59 They took the trees out.
10:18:00 The person that assumed the property now has to deal
10:18:04 with code enforcement because the trees were taken
10:18:08 out.
10:18:11 And I'm just telling you, that's not right and that's
10:18:14 not fair.
10:18:16 Some of the things that are not really addressed, you
10:18:20 really have to see one that Ms. Long was talking about
10:18:24 that some people are there for two or three years.
10:18:27 Well, now what?
10:18:28 I'm a citizen.
10:18:29 We cannot determine what someone's financial
10:18:32 capabilities are.
10:18:35 When they come up for fine reduction and you see tears
10:18:38 in their eyes and they are in a wheelchair and they
10:18:41 have got some type of ailment or something that they
10:18:44 don't have the ability to take care of, and they have
10:18:48 to wait on someone else or diversion programs, yet
10:18:53 it's going to go two or three years.
10:18:55 But I need to caution you, when you set a standard,
10:18:58 you should be setting the standard for everyone, and

10:19:04 that everyone is able to deal with this in a fair and
10:19:07 reasonable manner.
10:19:08 I sit on the board.
10:19:11 I really enjoy it.
10:19:12 I'm very compassionate.
10:19:13 I try to be fair and understanding.
10:19:15 I try to be a good steward to the community and all
10:19:18 that I ask for this board to do is to do the same, is
10:19:21 to have a broad perspective, maybe part of a workshop
10:19:27 would to be sit in one of the code enforcement
10:19:30 hearings, so that you can really see what really goes
10:19:32 on, you know, firsthand, have a workshop during the
10:19:38 code enforcement and then talk to the people that are
10:19:40 in code enforcement.
10:19:41 But sending citations, every 24 hours, that's not the
10:19:48 answer.
10:19:49 And the code may not be necessarily the right one.
10:19:51 And it may need to be worked.
10:19:54 And that's what we have -- why we have workshops.
10:19:57 I want to thank you for your time.
10:19:59 Have a good day.
10:20:03 >>STEVE MICHELINI: There are a couple of issues that I

10:20:06 think are problematic with this particular code from
10:20:10 the very beginning.
10:20:12 You are empowering individuals in the city who are not
10:20:17 police officers to issue citations and tickets.
10:20:22 It's more power than the sheriff's office has, more
10:20:25 power than TPD has, and there is no discretion, as
10:20:30 Spencer pointed out to you, when they issue that
10:20:32 ticket, that's a fine.
10:20:33 And you removed the city process, the appeal process,
10:20:38 and the entire ability of an individual to contest
10:20:41 this from anything involving the city, and you have
10:20:44 placed it over in the courts.
10:20:47 I urge you -- and I have spoken to many of you council
10:20:49 members -- to sit in not altogether but individually
10:20:53 sit in on a code enforcement hearing and watch and see
10:20:57 what happens.
10:20:57 And it's not the fault of the board.
10:21:01 But if an inspector is given complete latitude to say,
10:21:04 well, I think that you are in violation and therefore
10:21:06 I am going to issue one, and don't think it doesn't
10:21:09 happen.
10:21:09 It happens all the time.

10:21:10 And inspectors think that you are in violation.
10:21:13 And when someone calls me and I said, okay, what are
10:21:16 they guilty of?
10:21:17 Well, we are not quite sure but we think they are
10:21:19 guilty of something.
10:21:22 And they issue a citation.
10:21:24 Then they drag you down to the code enforcement
10:21:25 hearing.
10:21:26 And then you get up in front of the board and say,
10:21:28 okay, what is the violation?
10:21:29 And they'll recite the violation, the name and the
10:21:32 code section, and say, okay, how does that apply?
10:21:35 Well, it doesn't really apply in this case but it
10:21:37 applies somewhat here, somewhat here, so you have to
10:21:40 contest it.
10:21:42 And not everyone has the ability to do that.
10:21:44 As recently as a month ago there was a woman that got
10:21:47 up here at this podium, this very podium, and she was
10:21:51 in deep trouble and didn't even know why she was in
10:21:54 trouble.
10:21:55 One of the council members saw what happened, sitting
10:21:58 in the back of the room.

10:22:00 And I got up, and I assisted her in getting out of her
10:22:04 problem, but it wasn't her fault.
10:22:06 But when that process doesn't have overview, doesn't
10:22:09 have someone like an ombudsman looking over this
10:22:13 process, and you have removed the abilities to appeal
10:22:17 from a city jurisdictional point of view, you don't
10:22:19 have somebody that that's watching over this, and you
10:22:21 have the ability to come to a board, and you have an
10:22:25 instant citation, you have taken the burden off of
10:22:28 that individual, and you have placed it in the
10:22:31 inspection officer who doesn't have the training, you
10:22:33 have given them more power than TPD has, more power
10:22:36 than the sheriff's office has, more power than the
10:22:39 Florida Department of Law Enforcement or anyone else.
10:22:41 It's a wrong direction to go in.
10:22:45 These people are poor.
10:22:46 They are uninformed.
10:22:48 And they don't understand the process.
10:22:52 And there's no relief provided in this.
10:22:54 It's an instant fine for people who can least afford
10:22:57 it.
10:22:58 And without someone being there to assist them, they

10:23:00 just go down the tubes.
10:23:02 And I urge you not to pass this.
10:23:05 Certainly in favor of the continuance.
10:23:07 But this whole process needs to be looked at and
10:23:10 reviewed for what it is.
10:23:11 It's an instant citation that comes back and never
10:23:15 stops.
10:23:15 Thank you.
10:23:25 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: If I may, one point of
10:23:27 clarification, and I need to just be very clear.
10:23:30 This is not an instant citation, an instant fine.
10:23:34 It is not.
10:23:35 It's a notice.
10:23:37 And there is a period to cure.
10:23:39 And if the cure period expires, there's a
10:23:46 reinspection, and there's not a cure, then there's a
10:23:49 fine.
10:23:50 It's up to 21 days the way this is written.
10:23:54 I have no issue with the debate, and the discussion of
10:23:57 whether or not this is an appropriate methodology.
10:23:59 But I think you need to fully understand what the
10:24:02 methodology is.

10:24:04 And it has been said various times through the entire
10:24:07 debate that it's an instant fine and that's simply not
10:24:10 accurate and I just wanted to clarify that.
10:24:12 Thank you.
10:24:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There are a number of issues that are
10:24:15 raised here, and we are not going to be able to solve
10:24:17 it all today.
10:24:20 I am concerned because we have to find a compromise
10:24:24 and a balance on this whole issue.
10:24:26 On one hand, Mr. Miranda is absolutely right, that
10:24:31 issue has to be addressed.
10:24:32 And I think the gentleman from the code board pointed
10:24:36 out as well some of these people buy these homes, and
10:24:40 some people have already done their due diligence and
10:24:43 they don't know it's not out there until the code
10:24:47 board comes back for some reason or whatever, decode
10:24:49 code enforcement.
10:24:50 So sometimes that happens, and councilman Miranda is
10:24:54 slowly right.
10:24:54 And those persons should knots be held liable for what
10:24:57 somebody else did a year before they bought the house
10:25:00 or the home or six months or whatever.

10:25:03 Okay?
10:25:03 On the other hand, you have also in terms of the
10:25:09 neighborhood -- and I agree a lot of these code
10:25:11 enforcement issues are hit a lot of poor people,
10:25:15 people who cannot afford, that's true.
10:25:17 But, at the same time, I do know that there are people
10:25:20 who are living in neighborhoods that are calling
10:25:22 because houses have been abandoned, nobody is not
10:25:26 trying to do anything about it, and they are
10:25:28 constantly calling us with regards to -- and that's in
10:25:33 poor neighborhoods as well, okay?
10:25:34 And so there has to be -- how to address those kind of
10:25:39 concerns and issues.
10:25:40 We have overgrown lots, or abandoned houses, that have
10:25:44 not met requirements.
10:25:45 Plus the fact, the other issue for me is -- and this
10:25:49 happens regular for us -- our church-owned property,
10:25:52 we keep our property clean.
10:25:54 Somebody drives down the street and just dumps
10:25:58 garbage.
10:25:59 We get fined.
10:26:00 We go by and clean almost every 30, 60 days we'll

10:26:04 clean up somebody else's garbage.
10:26:07 You are keeping your property clean and somebody comes
10:26:10 down and dumps garbage, old couches, old beds, that's
10:26:15 unfair to the owners, and we find ourselves constantly
10:26:17 spending money over and over again cleaning up the
10:26:20 same property from the same stuff that curse about
10:26:22 every 30 to 60 days.
10:26:24 But some kind of way we have to find a balance.
10:26:26 What that balance is, I'm not sure.
10:26:28 But we have got to find a balance how to address these
10:26:30 issues and these concerns.
10:26:33 Councilman Miranda.
10:26:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to commend the Code
10:26:39 Enforcement Board but at the same time it's a very
10:26:41 difficult position that they are in.
10:26:42 And I understand that.
10:26:44 Parking.
10:26:48 They called last week and said, you know, such and
10:26:51 such in your district has a parking violation and we
10:26:53 are thinking of citing.
10:26:54 That's fine.
10:26:55 They say, what should I do?

10:26:57 I'm not your boss.
10:26:59 You do whatever you have to do.
10:27:00 However, I ended the sentence by saying, you better go
10:27:04 find another 40 of them that I am going to have
10:27:07 pictures of by the time you get back to show them to
10:27:10 you.
10:27:10 There's one sign that is humorous, no parking on city
10:27:17 right-of-way, and on the same sign attached to the, it
10:27:20 says parking for such and such only.
10:27:24 So these are the things that are out there.
10:27:29 Would I rather back out on Henderson Boulevard or a
10:27:32 street named St. Louis?
10:27:33 I would take my chance was St. Louis.
10:27:37 There's many, many who are in health care and in
10:27:42 desperate need of help from medical doctors.
10:27:46 Because of the great number of those citizens who are
10:27:50 sick, they have to park in the right-of-way.
10:27:56 I hope that it doesn't get to that point, where we
10:27:59 start issuing tickets.
10:28:01 And I don't think the code enforcement office has a
10:28:03 right to issue tickets on no parking.
10:28:05 I think that's a police responsibility.

10:28:10 But what I'm saying is that we start log at something
10:28:13 that's wrong.
10:28:14 I can go out right now and find a thousand things
10:28:16 that's wrong.
10:28:18 How do I solve them?
10:28:19 I don't know.
10:28:21 I'll be very sincere.
10:28:23 And that's what code enforcement is facing.
10:28:28 And if you go to Mr. Scott's area, and the area that I
10:28:31 represent, it will be by far greater than 80 to 90%,
10:28:40 and some in Mr. Caetano's area, where all the
10:28:43 enforcement activities are at.
10:28:47 Drew Park in my estimation gets more citations than
10:28:52 most of any area in the whole city.
10:28:56 And yet Drew Park, when you look at Drew Park as a
10:28:59 whole, is the only commercial area, industrial area,
10:29:04 that we have next to an airport.
10:29:09 So if a homeowner lives next to a commercial property,
10:29:16 here's a classic example.
10:29:18 A commercial property is entitled to build an 8-foot
10:29:21 wall because it's between commercial and residential
10:29:26 and it's not built, it's illegal for them to build it.

10:29:29 However, if it's not there and the resident build the
10:29:32 8-foot wall, guess what.
10:29:35 It violated the code.
10:29:37 So what protection are he would doing for that
10:29:39 resident?
10:29:39 It's a very complex issue.
10:29:46 This is something going on not today, not six months
10:29:49 ago but for years.
10:29:50 Is the city cleaner?
10:29:51 I believe it is.
10:29:52 Is it getting better?
10:29:53 I believe it is.
10:29:54 But, at the same time, there's a lot of individuals
10:29:58 who have received an undue burden on them because of
10:30:04 the timing, because they are buying somebody else's
10:30:09 property.
10:30:10 A lot of people move into this city don't even know we
10:30:13 have code enforcement.
10:30:14 And how do you get to them?
10:30:15 I don't have an answer for that.
10:30:17 I know it's up to them to do their due diligence.
10:30:20 I understand that.

10:30:21 But there's a compassionate side to things, and I have
10:30:25 said it before.
10:30:26 We should set up a trust fund, if there's any money
10:30:29 around, for them to fix what has to be fixed, with a
10:30:36 revolving trust where they pay it back.
10:30:40 And these fines, they mean something, but if you don't
10:30:42 pay them, you can take them to your grave, and at the
10:30:45 end you are probably going to be 250 or $500 and
10:30:50 that's it.
10:30:50 So you can add up all these $250 a day fines and so-so
10:30:54 forth and so on.
10:30:55 If somebody is not here and went up to the -- how are
10:31:02 you going to collect it? By that time the house is
10:31:05 worth less than your liens and you are going to end up
10:31:07 with that property yourself as a government.
10:31:08 So it's very hard.
10:31:09 It's not very simple.
10:31:11 In my opinion, it seems simple, but it's very
10:31:14 difficult.
10:31:15 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:31:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Caetano, councilman
10:31:19 Mulhern, then we will move.

10:31:20 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: A few weeks ago I went to code
10:31:23 enforcement.
10:31:25 To be honest with you, I thought I was watching
10:31:27 "Saturday Night Live."
10:31:28 It was humorous.
10:31:34 Mr. Michelini stepped up to the plate.
10:31:36 Some woman had a tree cut down.
10:31:39 She got a fine.
10:31:40 And the guy did not get a permit.
10:31:42 So they cited her.
10:31:44 And I don't think it was fair.
10:31:46 He stepped up to the plate, not knowing who this woman
10:31:50 was and defended her.
10:31:51 And I think something needs to be looked in at the
10:31:56 uniforms that they wear.
10:31:57 It's very intimidating when they go into a poor
10:32:00 section, where some people may not have the best
10:32:02 education in the world, and they get intimidated by
10:32:05 that person, with all the brass that they are wearing
10:32:08 and everything else.
10:32:09 I asked Mr. Slater, when did this take effect?
10:32:11 He said about four years ago.

10:32:14 And I think it's very intimidating.
10:32:16 And I really don't approve of the uniforms that they
10:32:19 are wearing.
10:32:21 I think the intimidation, people are scared.
10:32:24 There was a woman there with her mother, I believe it
10:32:28 was.
10:32:28 She was in a wheelchair.
10:32:30 They had something like $900 a month income for the
10:32:35 whole house.
10:32:38 She could not satisfy her lien.
10:32:41 That was being put on her home.
10:32:43 So I could not support this either.
10:32:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
10:32:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
10:32:54 I would like to just move that he would continue this
10:32:57 particular -- these code changes, if we have agreement
10:33:04 maybe between Mr. Johnson, if he's still here.
10:33:11 Let me finish.
10:33:12 They have been working on this for a really long time
10:33:17 as Susan Long said, and Ernie has been working on this
10:33:22 for a long time.
10:33:23 I feel if they both think 90 days would give them an

10:33:27 opportunities to at least give us some
10:33:31 recommendations, and some very pointed -- some points
10:33:37 about what either you don't want in this, and maybe
10:33:44 Ernie address those beforehand so that we know if you
10:33:47 have reached some kind of agreement on this.
10:33:49 I think that this, you know, this is a citizen-driven
10:33:54 code change.
10:33:58 And to just keep debating this, we can debate code
10:34:01 enforcement forever.
10:34:03 So I think there are some legitimate questions.
10:34:05 I agree that it's questionable who should be giving
10:34:09 out citations, because we are not even talking about
10:34:12 code enforcement, much less police.
10:34:14 We are talking about the water department, or other
10:34:18 transportation.
10:34:19 So I think that -- I have big problems with that.
10:34:22 And we need to -- we need to know what, you know,
10:34:26 what's in here and what's problematic.
10:34:28 But I do think since they have gone to all this work,
10:34:34 we do need to just move on with it.
10:34:36 And I think it's 90 days you feel like you can get
10:34:41 somewhere with it, closer to agreement.

10:34:48 I'm asking you, yeah.
10:34:49 And then I would like to hear from Mr. Johnson.
10:34:55 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Certainly I'm always open to discuss
10:34:57 it more to see if -- I think a lot of what's going on
10:35:02 in this ordinance is a whole lot of misunderstanding,
10:35:05 and certainly I will try again to clarify with regard
10:35:08 to, you know, what this is actually doing.
10:35:15 And Mr. Fletcher wants to speak.
10:35:20 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Let me kind of explain the context
10:35:22 in which this was developed.
10:35:23 Some was indicated from community concerns, and I
10:35:27 think the phrase was to put more teeth in code
10:35:29 enforcement.
10:35:31 Some of what's in here has also come from what we have
10:35:33 heard from council's desire for increased enforcement
10:35:37 in two areas in particular, which is historic
10:35:40 buildings, and in right-of-way, when we went through
10:35:43 that long discussion on the franchise agreement, there
10:35:46 was a lot of pictures and information presented about
10:35:49 abandoned things in the right-of-way, abandoned poles,
10:35:53 different things on that line.
10:35:54 This is the mechanism that we have identified to

10:35:58 improve enforcement in those right-of-way areas.
10:36:01 So we have a clear articulated place in the code as to
10:36:04 how that would take place.
10:36:06 So I just want council to be aware of those two things
10:36:11 as well as this debate we are hearing today, maybe you
10:36:14 would like us to break this out, but all that right
10:36:17 now is in this one code provision that we are bringing
10:36:20 forward to you as well.
10:36:24 And I have no problem working with T.H.A.N. to try to
10:36:26 address their concerns, and we are happy to do that,
10:36:31 and potentially we can do that within 930 days.
10:36:33 But I will caution you as I think you heard today, you
10:36:36 are hearing from T.H.A.N. members both a desire for
10:36:40 not to go forward with this, and a desire to go
10:36:42 forward with this.
10:36:43 So there is debate within the community as to the
10:36:45 appropriateness of this methodology.
10:36:48 Mu muscle that's why I asked Mr. Johnson to speak,
10:36:50 because I think -- he's the president of that, and
10:36:53 that's all we can do is have them discuss it and come
10:36:55 back to us with a decision.
10:36:57 So I agree, we can't keep -- and we need for us to

10:37:03 make these policy decisions, it needs to be really
10:37:05 clear to us what the problems with it are, and what,
10:37:10 you know -- and legal needs to answer these.
10:37:13 And I'm not saying you don't have the answers, and I'm
10:37:17 sure they are there, but we don't have time to do that
10:37:19 today.
10:37:20 So I think continuing it 90 days would help.
10:37:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second that motion.
10:37:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Can we just hear from Mr. Johnson?
10:37:28 >>> Ed Johnson: Yes, thank you.
10:37:33 We have planned our workshop in mid July, on a
10:37:36 Saturday, and we asked for a show of hands at our
10:37:39 T.H.A.N. meeting how many people could be there and it
10:37:41 was a large number, these types subjects are important
10:37:46 enough that we take a stat Saturday in a month that we
10:37:49 normally don't schedule a meeting and try to come up
10:37:51 with something.
10:37:52 So we'll do our darnest to try to come up with some
10:37:55 recommendations and so forth that will be satisfying,
10:37:59 satisfactory to everyone.
10:37:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Thanks.
10:38:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.

10:38:03 >>GWEN MILLER: We need some kind of mechanism in
10:38:07 place.
10:38:07 We can't just say don't do anything.
10:38:14 Code enforcement need to do something until we can get
10:38:17 something in place that help people that need help.
10:38:20 We know a lot of people can't afford to pay.
10:38:23 You are going to continue to 930 days.
10:38:24 Let's come up with a mechanism that will help those
10:38:26 people.
10:38:27 But to say code not to write citations, I think they
10:38:34 should because I have seen people illegally dumping.
10:38:38 But those dumping on clean lots, we need to give those
10:38:41 people AP opportunity to let them know that we didn't
10:38:43 do this and something should be done to help those
10:38:46 people out, to continue this just cleaning your lots
10:38:49 and cleaning your lots, I don't think it's fair for
10:38:52 that person.
10:38:53 So we need to come up with something that's going to
10:38:55 help the poor people.
10:38:56 I know there are a lot of people who can't afford it.
10:38:59 And at this time the economy is getting worse.
10:39:02 But let's still try to do something to help them and

10:39:05 let's try to make it clear to people who are dumping
10:39:07 that you are going to get a citation.
10:39:09 Because if you don't, they are going to continue to
10:39:11 dump.
10:39:13 Continue over and over dumping until they say, I can't
10:39:17 pay it, I am not going to do it, and it's not fair to
10:39:19 the other people so he would need to do something to
10:39:21 those people.
10:39:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:39:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:39:27 As a legislative body, everything we do is basically a
10:39:30 balancing act.
10:39:31 And in this case, I don't know who said it, but, you
10:39:35 know, you have 99% of our citizens who abide by the
10:39:39 laws of the code and do a good job and everything
10:39:41 else, and you have one percent who don't so what about
10:39:44 the one percent?
10:39:45 That's what this program is about.
10:39:47 Correct me if I am wrong, but we already implemented
10:39:49 the civil citation program.
10:39:53 That seems to be within the last, I don't know, six
10:39:56 months to a year or so that we did it.

10:39:58 So that's already in place.
10:40:01 This is only an issue about tweaking it up and
10:40:04 addressing some of those things that obviously code
10:40:06 and legal have found need tweaking and aren't working,
10:40:09 and also, I don't know if Debby is here on this issue.
10:40:13 Are you here on this issue?
10:40:15 Debby has decades of experience with the city on these
10:40:21 issues, and Debby, if you could for one second, you
10:40:23 know, you and I haven't talked about it, but I would
10:40:30 assume you are here to tell us why this is important,
10:40:32 especially on cleaning up our right-of-way, getting
10:40:35 things out of the right-of-way that are there and have
10:40:37 been there, and might he's pose a safety hazard,
10:40:41 et cetera.
10:40:41 >>> Debby Harrington, City of Tampa, traffic
10:40:45 engineering.
10:40:46 There's a lot of issues that are occurring on the
10:40:48 right-of-way.
10:40:48 People are doing things every day without permit,
10:40:51 without maintenance of traffic.
10:40:55 They stop, start doing work, they do have poem that go
10:40:58 out, try to tell them to move on, you need to get

10:41:01 permits, but then the people are like, you know, what
10:41:04 are you going to do about it?
10:41:05 Well, there's nothing we can do.
10:41:07 Try to call the police department.
10:41:10 So we do not have any teeth behind what we are doing.
10:41:14 We are trying to keep the rights-of-way safe.
10:41:17 Having stuff on the right-of-way causes sight
10:41:19 obstruction, it could cause an accident.
10:41:21 So we have wanted to put our codes in here so that we
10:41:26 can keep the right-of-way safe for everybody.
10:41:29 People, pedestrians, people put stuff on the sidewalk.
10:41:31 You have got somebody in a wheelchair trying to go
10:41:33 down the sidewalk.
10:41:35 Now they are blocked.
10:41:36 They have to try to negotiate the curb to get around.
10:41:39 So that's why we want something to help us out, so
10:41:43 when contractors are doing the wrong thing -- and
10:41:47 again we would warn them.
10:41:52 In fact the ones we are looking at to be able to do
10:41:54 this are going to be just two to four supervisors
10:41:57 which will be in the office.
10:41:58 So the inspectors and the technicians would still take

10:42:01 the primary responsibility to talk to the people and
10:42:05 Troy to get them to do the right thing, to get this
10:42:08 stuff off the right-of-way.
10:42:10 If they just thumb their nose at them, that's when
10:42:13 they will call the supervisor and say, you know, we
10:42:15 couldn't do anything, they are not listening to us,
10:42:17 and then we would go in to discuss.
10:42:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are talking typically about
10:42:23 people putting permanent things on the right-of-way,
10:42:25 putting structures and things.
10:42:27 >>> And doing work out in the right-of-way.
10:42:30 All of a sudden they are out in the street causing
10:42:32 people to have to cross over a double yellow.
10:42:34 There's no flagmen.
10:42:37 So a combination of that.
10:42:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me suggest, council, we move the
10:42:41 motion to continue the item, then we can further
10:42:44 deliberate and discuss this issue.
10:42:46 Our time is getting away from us.
10:42:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to move to amend the
10:42:50 motion just as a little compromise, maybe 60 days
10:42:53 instead of 90 days.

10:42:54 It sounds like Mr. Johnson and his group are going to
10:42:58 meet in July.
10:42:59 60 days I think will be adequate.
10:43:01 We need to get moving an get this thing in place.
10:43:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The main motion that's on the floor
10:43:07 that's been seconded for 930 days, your motion is -- I
10:43:11 don't know if she wants to --
10:43:14 >> The motion to amend to 60.
10:43:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Unless there's a second to Mr.
10:43:20 Dingfelder's motion to amend --
10:43:22 >>GWEN MILLER: I would second Mr. Dingfelder's
10:43:26 amendment because I feel something needs to be done.
10:43:28 We are dragging this.
10:43:29 We have been dragging this a long time.
10:43:30 And we need some teeth in this ordinance so we can
10:43:32 start putting things in place.
10:43:35 So I would second the motion.
10:43:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda.
10:43:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am not going to support the
10:43:39 motion.
10:43:40 I'll tell you why.
10:43:41 I need 90 days.

10:43:42 Because we have not -- we are putting it all into one
10:43:46 soup.
10:43:47 Transportation is one area.
10:43:54 Buildings that are dilapidated is another.
10:43:56 There's so many things that come into play that we
10:44:00 should talk to them about this thing when it comes up
10:44:03 and 930 days hopefully, each category.
10:44:06 I'm glad you came today in transportation.
10:44:08 Yesterday I was in West Tampa, which I drive through
10:44:11 every day because I live there.
10:44:13 And I'm driving by and I see a sign that says no
10:44:17 parking here to corner.
10:44:19 It was six foot from the corner.
10:44:21 Who is going to park there?
10:44:22 And I told myself, what benefit did that sign have?
10:44:28 And I'm not trying to hit you over the head or
10:44:31 anything like that.
10:44:32 But I saw that sign.
10:44:33 And every corner that sign is.
10:44:36 No parking here to corner.
10:44:39 There's not a car made, not even the smart car that
10:44:42 can fit where I saw.

10:44:43 And I'm telling myself, why do we put these signs up?
10:44:46 So then I went into a couple of buildings, and I went
10:44:49 and talked to them.
10:44:50 And they said, I'm so glad you asked that, because
10:44:53 when we cross check east and west traffic, we can't
10:44:57 see where we are going, because right behind that six
10:45:00 foot there's a car, and I have to come out into the
10:45:03 middle of the intersection to look to see if I can
10:45:06 cross.
10:45:06 And it's very dangerous.
10:45:08 So this is another problem, it's the same thing.
10:45:12 We put up signs.
10:45:14 And I look at them and I say, I can't believe we did
10:45:16 this.
10:45:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, Mr. Miranda, there's a motion on
10:45:18 the floor.
10:45:20 We have to vote on the amendment to the motion, that
10:45:22 is for 60 days.
10:45:24 I am not going to support the motion.
10:45:25 Let me tell you why.
10:45:27 Whatever time we need to get this right, let's get it
10:45:30 right.

10:45:30 Coming back and forth don't make sense.
10:45:32 So if we need 90 days to get it right let's get it
10:45:35 right.
10:45:35 So I am not going to support the amendment.
10:45:38 It's moved and seconded.
10:45:39 All in favor say Aye.
10:45:45 This is the amended motion.
10:45:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, this is a
10:45:50 motion to amend the main motion.
10:45:52 If you support the 60 days you vote yes.
10:45:54 If you don't you vote no.
10:45:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of the amended motion
10:46:00 made by councilman John Dingfelder for 60 days.
10:46:05 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
10:46:14 There was two.
10:46:15 Those opposed, Nay.
10:46:19 >>THE CLERK: Motion failed with Caetano, Scott,
10:46:25 Miranda and Mulhern voting no.
10:46:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Now back to the motion for 90-day
10:46:32 continuance.
10:46:32 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
10:46:36 Okay.

10:46:36 So 90 days.
10:46:40 >>THE CLERK: I just need to check.
10:46:43 90 days would probably bring it out to either
10:46:46 September 17th, or October 1st.
10:46:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anybody oppose the motion?
10:46:54 >>THE CLERK: John Dingfelder voting no.
10:46:58 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can I ask Chief Castor a
10:47:00 question?
10:47:01 >> Hold it.
10:47:02 Did you finish?
10:47:03 >>THE CLERK: 90 days would fall between September
10:47:07 17th and October 1st.
10:47:09 Do you want it to come back on October 1st?
10:47:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, that's fine.
10:47:21 Council, I want to take one item and get Chief Castor
10:47:25 out of here.
10:47:26 I'm sure she's here on item 13?
10:47:29 Item 13.
10:47:29 Then I'll take up the rest of these.
10:47:31 Then we'll go to staff reports.
10:47:33 Second reading, not controversial.
10:47:35 We should be able to do that in five minutes and then

10:47:37 we'll go to the staff reports.
10:47:38 We'll take up item 13.
10:47:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The chief and I had a chance to
10:47:47 chat a second ago but I think it's healthy for her to
10:47:50 quickly explain what this item is about.
10:47:52 >>> Jane castor, Tampa Police Department.
10:47:54 As you are aware, we came last year for the contract
10:47:59 to upgrade the Tampa Police Department's radio system
10:48:01 to integrate with Hillsborough County, and that has
10:48:06 been completed, that project, all of our officers are
10:48:09 on 800 megahertz.
10:48:11 Now we have moved to the next phase of this project
10:48:13 which is the upgrade of Hillsborough counties system
10:48:17 from analog to digital.
10:48:19 They have two areas, the east side and the west side.
10:48:23 The Tampa Police Department works off of their west
10:48:25 side.
10:48:28 And this particular motion is for funding for that
10:48:30 west side, to bring it up to digital.
10:48:33 And then we will be able to communicate digitally.
10:48:38 The ultimate goal of our plan, which we should reach
10:48:40 within a year, is for Hillsborough County, Pinellas

10:48:44 County, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and Tampa to all
10:48:47 be interoperable on an 800 megahertz digital system.
10:48:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, chief.
10:48:54 Mr. Chairman, as you said, perhaps this is now more of
10:48:57 a highlight issue.
10:48:58 But I think it's fantastic that our public safety
10:49:03 groups, sheriff and the TPD are working closely
10:49:06 together.
10:49:07 It's always wonderful when the city and county can
10:49:09 work closely together and to the benefit of the
10:49:12 public.
10:49:15 He.
10:49:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Move item 13.
10:49:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
10:49:21 All in favor?
10:49:22 Opposes?
10:49:23 Council, let's continue with the second reading.
10:49:31 No, sir, your time is up.
10:49:32 This is not public comment time, okay?
10:49:35 Public hearings for second reading.
10:49:37 Those that are going to be addressing City Council
10:49:40 need to be sworn, if you are going to be addressing

10:49:42 City Council.
10:49:43 Please stand and be sworn at this time.
10:49:50 (Oath administered by Clerk)
10:49:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 72.
10:49:55 This is item 72.
10:49:56 Anyone wishing to address council on item 72?
10:49:58 >>CHAIRMAN: Move to close.
10:50:02 >> Second.
10:50:02 (Motion carried).
10:50:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder, do you wants to
10:50:06 read item 72?
10:50:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance for
10:50:10 second reading, an ordinance authorizing the
10:50:12 installation and maintenance of an encroachment
10:50:14 proposed canopy by MW Hyde Park LLC over a portion of
10:50:18 the public rights-of-way known as Swann Avenue as more
10:50:21 particularly described herein subject to certain
10:50:23 terms, covenants, conditions and agreements as more
10:50:25 particularly described herein providing an effective
10:50:26 date.
10:50:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
10:50:29 Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.

10:50:31 Record your vote, please.
10:50:41 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano, Miranda, and
10:50:48 Saul-Sena absent at vote.
10:50:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 73.
10:50:51 This is a public --
10:50:52 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination.
10:50:54 Just to let council know item 73 and 74, the plans
10:50:58 have been verified by the zoning administrator.
10:51:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 73.
10:51:04 This is a public hearing.
10:51:05 Anyone wishing to address council on item 73?
10:51:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
10:51:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
10:51:11 (Motion carried).
10:51:13 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented
10:51:14 for second reading and adoption, an ordinance
10:51:16 approving a special use permit S-1 on a Pell from a
10:51:19 decision of the zoning administrator, approving a
10:51:22 congregate living facility, 35 beds, in an RS-50
10:51:27 residential single-family zoning district in the city
10:51:29 of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly described
10:51:30 in section 1 hereof approving waivers as set forth

10:51:33 herein providing an effective date.
10:51:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
10:51:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Record your vote, please.
10:51:47 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano, Saul-Sena
10:51:49 and Miranda absent at vote.
10:51:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 74.
10:51:52 Anyone wishing to address council on item 74.
10:51:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
10:51:57 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
10:51:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller, item 74.
10:52:04 >> I move to adopt the following ordinance, on second
10:52:09 reading, an ordinance approving a special use permit
10:52:11 S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales large venue and
10:52:15 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol
10:52:17 regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor
10:52:20 4(COP-R) for consumption on the premises only in
10:52:22 connection with a restaurant business establishment at
10:52:26 or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
10:52:28 located at 18001 highwoods reserve parkway, Tampa,
10:52:32 Florida as more particularly described in section 2
10:52:35 hereof approving waivers as set forth herein, waiving
10:52:38 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain

10:52:41 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
10:52:43 conflict, providing an effective date.
10:52:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by councilman
10:52:48 Dingfelder.
10:52:48 Record your vote, please.
10:52:59 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano, Saul-Sena
10:53:01 and Miranda being absent at vote.
10:53:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 75.
10:53:06 Anyone wishing to address council on item 75.
10:53:09 >>THE CLERK: Do you wish to open the public hearing?
10:53:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open.
10:53:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 76 and 77?
10:53:19 >> 76 and 77 have been removed.
10:53:24 All in favor?
10:53:25 Opposes?
10:53:25 Anyone wishing to address item 75?
10:53:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
10:53:29 >> Second.
10:53:30 (Motion carried).
10:53:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance upon
10:53:33 second reading.
10:53:36 An ordinance, amending the Tampa comprehensive plan,

10:53:41 future land use he will, future land use -- I'm
10:53:44 reading the wrong one.
10:53:45 Ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan,
10:53:47 future land use element, future land use map, for the
10:53:50 property located in the general vicinity of 1302 east
10:53:54 23rd Avenue on the north side of 23rd Avenue,
10:53:56 west of Avenida Republica de Cuba, sorry for my bad
10:54:04 pronunciation, from public semi-public to residential
10:54:06 20 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
10:54:09 providing for severability, providing an effective
10:54:10 date.
10:54:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
10:54:13 Record your vote, please.
10:54:14 Item 75.
10:54:20 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano, Saul-Sena
10:54:23 and Miranda being absent.
10:54:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 76 and 77 were removed from our agenda
10:54:28 from an earlier vote this morning.
10:54:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Actually, you didn't have the
10:54:39 opportunity.
10:54:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do that now?
10:54:42 >>GWEN MILLER: I move to continue item number 76 to

10:54:46 June 4th.
10:54:52 Remove 76 and 77.
10:54:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
10:54:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and second.
10:55:00 All in favor?
10:55:01 Opposes?
10:55:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We'll move to staff reports.
10:55:09 Item 78.
10:55:10 Skanska.
10:55:17 >> David Vaughan, contractor administration
10:55:22 department.
10:55:23 First a status of where we are with tax savings on the
10:55:26 Kiley portion of the project.
10:55:27 To date, through the direct purchase of materials for
10:55:30 the projects, we generated a total of 37,560.18 in tax
10:55:36 savings.
10:55:37 Of that amount, we have expended 25,000.61 for two
10:55:45 items. One is we have $2200.61 in required permit
10:55:52 fees for the project and that was paid through these
10:55:54 funds.
10:55:55 We also have paid an additional $3,000 amount to
10:55:59 repair some panels at the amphitheater, when we were

10:56:02 doing those repairs, discovered that their supports
10:56:05 had rusted through and needed to be replaced.
10:56:08 That leaves us currently with a balance of $12,560.19.
10:56:14 At this point since we are not done with the project,
10:56:19 as well as my understanding is that this represents a
10:56:21 fraction of the cost of what it would take to
10:56:25 relandscape Kiley, we would not recommend committing
10:56:28 those dollars to that at this time.
10:56:31 I would be happy to answer questions.
10:56:33 >>MARY MULHERN: Thanks for giving us that breakdown.
10:56:41 I think that park -- first I have to say that I got a
10:56:45 tour of the construction on the park on Kiley, and the
10:56:50 new art museum, and it is fantastic.
10:56:54 I'm really, really impressed.
10:56:56 And also just really happy with how you're saving the
10:57:03 bones of the of Kiley Park.
10:57:05 So I'm just really, really happy about that.
10:57:08 And I can't say any more than that.
10:57:13 But I do have to say that $12,000 could buy probably
10:57:17 quite a lot of, I don't know, could buy a little bit
10:57:21 of pavers are or could buy maybe a tree or two.
10:57:26 I would like to see that money put in an account to be

10:57:29 saved.
10:57:34 At then of the project, when you get to the end of the
10:57:35 project, who knows?
10:57:36 You may even need it for some other purpose.
10:57:41 But, you know, it's great that it's in a state where
10:57:44 it can't be restored, but still, you know, everything
10:57:49 that made it a garden, the plants and trees are all
10:57:57 gone, so I think it can't ever be the same, or close
10:58:02 to the same, or better, unless we do, you know, find
10:58:05 some way, you know, to fund purchasing the trees that
10:58:10 we took out.
10:58:13 >>> Contractually this amount remains in the contract
10:58:16 until it is either expended at Kiley for things
10:58:19 related to the project, or the close of the project,
10:58:23 if it has not been spent, it comes back to the city.
10:58:28 And I would recommend that we not spend those dollars
10:58:31 for purchasing plant material until we get to the end
10:58:34 of the project and we are sure it's really left over.
10:58:38 >>MARY MULHERN: But you will commit to doing that?
10:58:43 >>> Contractually the way it exists in the contract it
10:58:46 has to be spent on the Kiley portion of the project.
10:58:48 The close of the project contractually, it comes back

10:58:51 to the city.
10:58:53 And at that point --
10:58:54 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
10:58:55 But if the city tells them not to spend it on trees,
10:58:59 they are knots going to spend it on trees.
10:59:00 >>> But it comes back to the city and is available.
10:59:03 Again, we need to reach a point in the project where
10:59:06 it's clearly extra money, whether we spend it through
10:59:11 authorizing Skanska to buy plant material or comes
10:59:14 back to the city as part of a larger plan.
10:59:21 >> What is the estimated completion date for the
10:59:24 Kiley --
10:59:26 >>> The contractual completion date for the entire
10:59:27 project, parking and museum and Kiley and all of it,
10:59:31 is right at the end of December of this year.
10:59:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 79 is asking to continue as I
10:59:47 understand.
10:59:48 Come forward.
10:59:48 >>CINDY MILLER: Director of Growth Management,
10:59:51 Development Services.
10:59:51 I am asking that this be continued until your meeting
10:59:54 in July, your regular meeting.

10:59:56 I have met with Michelle Green and Mr. Tennison
11:00:04 regarding this.
11:00:04 It is not a pass-through fund as identified in the
11:00:04 motion. It would be something that would establish a
11:00:07 lease with FDOT and a landlord subtenant relationship.
11:00:13 There's some information that they provided that we
11:00:14 are reviewing but at this point I am not ready to come
11:00:17 forward with a recommendation to you.
11:00:19 >>GWEN MILLER: I make a motion that we continue.
11:00:24 July?
11:00:25 >>CINDY MILLER: Whichever meeting.
11:00:27 >>THE CLERK: Your July schedule you have regular
11:00:29 meetings on the 16th and the 30th.
11:00:30 >>GWEN MILLER: 16th?
11:00:36 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask if she would like to speak,
11:00:39 Mrs. Green, did you have anything to say?
11:00:53 >>> We are working with Mrs. Miller and D.O.T., and I
11:00:56 think we are headed towards resolution.
11:00:59 So I'm very encouraged.
11:01:01 And thank you for all your support and help with it.
11:01:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, thank you.
11:01:08 This will come back.

11:01:09 It's going to work out all the things, give more time
11:01:12 and try to work hard.
11:01:13 That's all staff -- because of the technical issues
11:01:18 with FDOT.
11:01:19 That's all.
11:01:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you just share with us the
11:01:22 number of people from the private sector who committed
11:01:24 to help with you the renovation of the church?
11:01:28 >> Well, Councilwoman, it is my understanding
11:01:30 generally you don't take public comment on staff time.
11:01:33 Is that accurate?
11:01:34 I stand to be corrected.
11:01:35 I'm just trying to keep us, the process moving forward
11:01:38 and keep us on point.
11:01:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just great news, and she's here.
11:01:49 .
11:01:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to answer that?
11:01:51 It's discretion of council, sir.
11:01:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:01:59 Restate the question.
11:01:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you share with us the private
11:02:01 sector support that you have engendered?

11:02:05 >>> Yes.
11:02:07 We have gotten a lot of support.
11:02:08 We have several construction companies that are
11:02:10 already donating for the project, we have Home Depot
11:02:16 who is committed to helping us with other parts.
11:02:23 I don't have the list with me, but we have five pages
11:02:26 of people that have committed and are real excited
11:02:28 about this project.
11:02:29 All we need is the move to the next level.
11:02:32 We have the dumpsters.
11:02:33 We have the -- not the windows.
11:02:35 We have the doors.
11:02:36 We have the bathrooms.
11:02:42 We are working on the air conditioned units.
11:02:45 And every one that we've accessed has been positive.
11:02:49 Just waiting for this next step to be completed.
11:02:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
11:03:01 It's been moved and seconded.
11:03:02 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:03:05 Opposes?
11:03:06 It will come back on the 16th.
11:03:11 Item 80.

11:03:12 Motion to continue.
11:03:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That was already done.
11:03:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT:
11:03:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 81.
11:03:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That was a written report that has
11:03:21 been provided to council, to be received and filed.
11:03:24 >>CHAIRMAN: Move to receive and file.
11:03:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:03:27 (Motion carried).
11:03:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
11:03:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 81.
11:03:39 Okay, 82.
11:03:48 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:03:49 Item number 82, there was a request for a report on
11:03:54 the document that was submitted on the agenda.
11:03:56 It's titled 15-car garage.
11:03:58 I believe it's the advertisement for homes on Davis
11:04:01 Islands.
11:04:03 I believe the concern was whether or not we had any
11:04:05 regulations in our zoning code that controlled the
11:04:07 number of garage bays on a home.
11:04:11 There is no express requirement or mandate that says

11:04:14 you can have -- that there's a maximum number.
11:04:18 There is a minimum threshold for homes, single-family
11:04:20 residences, of two parking spaces.
11:04:23 It doesn't require whether or not they are indoor or
11:04:26 outdoor.
11:04:26 We do also have coupled with our zoning code all the
11:04:30 other land development regulations that include
11:04:32 transportation and stormwater requirements and so on
11:04:36 and so forth, but there's nothing that sets the
11:04:39 maximum for the number of garage bays.
11:04:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:04:43 I was the one that brought this up.
11:04:44 And I heard from a house down the block that's being
11:04:48 advertised as a teardown, it says with potential of
11:04:52 nine parking spaces.
11:04:53 What's happening, particularly on Davis Island on the
11:04:56 water, and in other parts of Tampa on the water, is
11:04:59 because of the flood plane requirements instead of
11:05:03 just bringing in soil the property owner is building
11:05:07 up basically a first floor that's just parking and
11:05:09 then a second and third story beyond that.
11:05:12 And those what they are doing is using the entire

11:05:14 bottom floor for parking, which usually has been so
11:05:20 far not visible from the street.
11:05:22 But what my concern is, as this practice continues,
11:05:27 what we want to do is maintain the residential
11:05:32 character of an area and not have basically a
11:05:34 first-story spark parking structure in a residential
11:05:37 area.
11:05:41 So I think the way to address this might be to say
11:05:43 that under structured parking, in a residential area
11:05:51 for a single-family residential, should not be visible
11:05:54 from the street.
11:05:56 And so I assume that would be a change to our zoning
11:06:00 code.
11:06:00 >>CATHERINE COYLE: There is a section in the
11:06:03 supplementary regulations for design standards for
11:06:04 single family semi detached and attached, and those
11:06:09 are duplexes and townhouse style developments.
11:06:14 If you recall, probably four or five years ago, we did
11:06:17 try to put in a design standard for single-family
11:06:19 detached, but it didn't make it through the process.
11:06:22 There was significant concern from the Tampa Bay home
11:06:26 builders association, and a lot of other development

11:06:30 community issues, and people that came forward had
11:06:33 real concerns about the single-family, having that
11:06:35 type of regulation.
11:06:36 We certainly could try again, if that's your motion to
11:06:41 put it in the next --
11:06:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Five years ago I didn't hear of
11:06:47 people advertising 15 car parking under their houses.
11:06:50 I think this is a relatively new issue.
11:06:52 And I would love to hear from other council members
11:06:54 what your feelings are.
11:06:55 But I'm very concerned about it.
11:06:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
11:07:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mrs. Saul-Sena brings up a good
11:07:03 issue, probably relatively new, although as you recall
11:07:07 Mr. Niemann had all those cars in his garage all those
11:07:11 years.
11:07:11 But I think the key is, don't have too many garage
11:07:14 doors.
11:07:15 If you have two or three at the most garage doors,
11:07:18 then I think that's fine.
11:07:19 And then like Mrs. Saul-Sena said, if it's not visible
11:07:23 from the street I don't care what goes on behind those

11:07:26 walls.
11:07:28 So, anyway, Cathy, maybe could you look at it and see
11:07:31 what if anything that might be necessary to ensure.
11:07:34 I don't think it's a rampant problem, but maybe just
11:07:36 to ensure that --
11:07:40 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We have seen quite a few homes
11:07:41 especially on Davis Island and the waterfront, there's
11:07:44 been an influx of these homes where there are 6, 8,
11:07:49 12, 15 cars.
11:07:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If they have parties there's more
11:07:54 parking inside the house than on the street.
11:07:57 >>> Most of them related to height issues all have
11:08:00 interior auto courts that you come in one driveway,
11:08:03 essential court yard, that the house is built around
11:08:05 that.
11:08:06 At the front you see a home facade.
11:08:09 Or you may see a grand staircase leading up to the
11:08:11 house, and on either side there's a one-car bay on
11:08:15 either side.
11:08:15 So the main focal point is the side of the home so
11:08:20 there are different ways to design that.
11:08:22 There might be a way to limit the provisions so that

11:08:25 it doesn't tell you exactly how to design the house,
11:08:29 but basically hide or limit the exposure of the
11:08:32 garage.
11:08:35 To the front, especially when they are located under
11:08:37 the home.
11:08:40 I would hate to get to a point where it is so broad
11:08:43 that we are telling people to have one-story homes
11:08:46 that they can't have a garage bay in the front.
11:08:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't want to limit the number of
11:08:52 garage doors, I don't -- I mean, I don't see this
11:08:55 council -- my concern is limiting what happens under
11:08:59 the house.
11:09:00 It's just about that the house maintain the street
11:09:05 look of a single-family residential house by not
11:09:08 having exposed parking underneath, so that the front
11:09:11 of the house is not just up on pylons with parking.
11:09:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: So limited exposure of the
11:09:21 predominance of garage entry features and the front
11:09:24 facade of the home especially when they are located
11:09:27 under the living area.
11:09:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right.
11:09:29 It isn't even the entry features.

11:09:31 It's just exposed parking.
11:09:33 You don't want to walk by and just see cars parked.
11:09:39 I know that we work in cycles.
11:09:41 And this would be for, I assume --
11:09:45 >>> The next cut-off is July 15th.
11:09:47 >> So my motion would be to ask you to come back to
11:09:50 us, so that the single-family character of a home, the
11:09:56 single-family detached appearance is maintained by not
11:09:59 viewing the multiple parking.
11:10:06 You know, a lot of people have the little garages.
11:10:08 Maybe two.
11:10:10 Say a limitation of two cars that are exposed.
11:10:19 You're good with words.
11:10:20 You'll come up with it.
11:10:21 That would be the motion.
11:10:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:10:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
11:10:26 >>> For the July 15th cycle.
11:10:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:10:32 Opposes?
11:10:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:10:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 83.

11:10:41 Be received and filed.
11:10:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
11:10:43 >> Second.
11:10:44 (Motion carried).
11:10:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 84.
11:10:58 >> Greg Spearman, Director of Purchasing.
11:11:02 I was asked to come back and give a report to City
11:11:04 Council on the feasibility of using truck brokers for
11:11:09 the sale of surplus garbage trucks, and I would like
11:11:12 to give you the results of our findings.
11:11:14 The City of Tampa purchasing department has
11:11:16 responsibility for the disposal of tangible city
11:11:18 property by securing the highest prices paid, either
11:11:23 through bidding or through auction.
11:11:25 And it does make practical sense to dispose of
11:11:31 equipment by using the method of trading in used
11:11:34 equipment.
11:11:35 We actually conducted an online survey, research,
11:11:40 rather, to determine if there were any truck brokers,
11:11:43 truck broker agents, or truck liquidators that dispose
11:11:47 of used garbage trucks.
11:11:49 He would didn't find the results with that particular

11:11:51 search.
11:11:52 We took it a step further and we talked to several of
11:11:55 the new and used truck dealers to see if they were
11:11:59 aware of any truck brokers, or truck broker agents or
11:12:02 liquidators, and they were not.
11:12:04 What these used and new dealers told us is they
11:12:08 generally acquire these trucks from auctions or from
11:12:11 trade-ins.
11:12:13 When you look at the trucks that we actually disposed
11:12:17 of, the City of Tampa, most of these trucks are
11:12:19 usually in not very good shape because we really do
11:12:23 run them to the extent of their useful life, and in
11:12:26 many instances we do cannibalize these trucks and
11:12:30 taking parts from them to keep our existing need fleet
11:12:33 in service, in operation.
11:12:36 We do look at GovDeals to see what these trucks went
11:12:41 for at auction.
11:12:42 We looked at the nine highest prices paid or the
11:12:46 prices that were actually offered for sale for these
11:12:48 trucks, and the average about $4,620.
11:12:54 When we looked at the trucks that we actually traded
11:12:57 in on the trance transaction last fall, the container

11:13:02 systems offered $7,220.
11:13:04 So in this particular incident we feel the trade-in
11:13:08 was in the best interest of the city.
11:13:10 I would like to conclude by stating we are always
11:13:12 looking for ways to get the best value for the tax
11:13:14 dollars, whether we are buying or selling equipment
11:13:17 for the City of Tampa.
11:13:18 If you have any questions I would be happy to
11:13:20 entertain those at this time.
11:13:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions?
11:13:25 Okay.
11:13:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I didn't have my glasses when we
11:13:30 were discussing 81 and --
11:13:37 Any questions?
11:13:38 Thank you, sir.
11:13:39 Item 85.
11:13:39 >> 85, council asked me to come back and report on
11:13:46 efforts to obtain more bids in regard to the chemical
11:13:51 liquid ferric chloride.
11:13:53 This particular contract was awarded about a year ago
11:13:55 to a company by the name of CHEM of.
11:14:03 They changed their name.

11:14:04 This is a Florida based company.
11:14:06 We did check with several other surrounding
11:14:08 municipalities to see whether or not they were able to
11:14:10 get competition on liquid ferric chloride.
11:14:13 What we found out was that these surrounding
11:14:15 jurisdictions, many of them purchase water prosecute
11:14:20 the Tampa Bay water authority.
11:14:22 However, a city does use liquid ferric chloride.
11:14:26 They only had one bid as well and they were paying a
11:14:29 substantially higher price than what the City of Tampa
11:14:31 is paying.
11:14:32 They are paying $624 per ton.
11:14:35 The city of Melbourne also uses this chemical and they
11:14:37 are paying a price of $494.90 per ton.
11:14:40 And Tampa Bay water uses this chemical as well.
11:14:44 And they are paying $494 per ton.
11:14:47 The best price by far is what the City of Tampa is
11:14:50 getting out of this contract, and the reason being
11:14:54 because we use 12% of this particular chemical
11:14:58 annually as opposed to the city of cocoa and the city
11:15:00 of Melbourne.
11:15:02 The price paid by the City of Tampa contract award was

11:15:06 437.20 per ton.
11:15:08 We are paying today 375.69.
11:15:11 And that is by far lower than any other public entity
11:15:15 using this particular chemical.
11:15:16 We did find out in our research that there were three
11:15:19 new potential suppliers, one happens to be a
11:15:22 manufacturer, Thatcher chemical company out of Salt
11:15:25 Lake City, Utah.
11:15:27 They are considering adding liquid ferric chloride to
11:15:31 their chemical line of production.
11:15:32 We also found that there are two potential
11:15:35 distributors that will be coming to this area.
11:15:37 One is a company by the name of water chemicals, which
11:15:40 hopes to open the plant in Lakeland, and the other
11:15:43 company is general chemical out of New Jersey.
11:15:45 They hope to open a plant.
11:15:50 So as these suppliers become available they will be
11:15:54 invited to bid.
11:15:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Spearman.
11:16:02 I might be splitting hairs and going back to my
11:16:05 college chemistry days.
11:16:06 But the report says liquid ferric sulfate.

11:16:09 You were speaking of liquid ferric chloride.
11:16:13 >> Liquid ferric sulfate.
11:16:17 If I said that, I said I am mistaken.
11:16:19 It is liquid ferric sulfate.
11:16:22 >> I'm pleased to that there might be some more
11:16:25 competition on this, and perhaps that's for council's
11:16:31 existence just to goose you guys along and especially
11:16:34 on these -- we know that the price of chemicals, we
11:16:38 heard this last week, chemicals, and from Brad, that
11:16:43 these are the big budget items that are forcing our
11:16:45 production costs to go way up.
11:16:47 And so to the extent that we can encourage more
11:16:51 competition and more diligence, we appreciate working
11:16:54 with you.
11:16:55 Thank you.
11:16:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
11:17:01 Item 101.
11:17:08 >> Dennis: Revenue and finance department.
11:17:11 This is for the security services, existing custodial
11:17:15 services through the remainder of the fiscal year.
11:17:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to make sure that these items
11:17:20 were not new contracts.

11:17:21 These are pretty much contracts already in place.
11:17:24 So you are utilizing the positions to fund the
11:17:31 existing contracts.
11:17:32 >>> That's correct.
11:17:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: If that's the case then I move item
11:17:37 101.
11:17:37 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:17:39 All in favor say Aye.
11:17:40 Opposed, Nay?
11:17:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:17:43 I think that's all our staff reports.
11:17:44 We'll go back to item 81.
11:17:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 81 was a report on the Kress
11:17:54 building and it says that the compliance is July
11:17:59 30th, 2009.
11:18:00 I would like a written staff report at our first
11:18:02 council meeting in August telling us whether indeed
11:18:07 the violations have been complied with.
11:18:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:18:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion and second to find out whether the
11:18:20 violations have been complied with?
11:18:22 >> You are asking a question of staff?

11:18:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:18:24 I would like a staff report at the first council
11:18:26 meeting in August.
11:18:28 The code board -- to see if this project remains in
11:18:32 violation past the date set for compliance, which is
11:18:34 July 30th.
11:18:35 I'm saying at the first meeting in August I would like
11:18:37 a written report.
11:18:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
11:18:42 All in favor?
11:18:42 Opposed?
11:18:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The report was that was given to us
11:18:46 discusses the Kress building.
11:18:48 The building immediately adjacent which is under the
11:18:50 same ownership is the one that I viewed the holes in
11:18:54 the roof from, and what I would like to do is ask the
11:19:03 code enforcement to go into the building across the
11:19:05 street, look down to the immediate right, which when I
11:19:08 mentioned the Kress building I meant the three
11:19:11 buildings that are under the same ownership, but see
11:19:13 if the hole in the roof that I saw, and if they do see
11:19:16 the holes in the roof, that they would cite them for

11:19:19 code issues.
11:19:20 So that's the building immediately to the south of the
11:19:22 Kress building under the same ownership.
11:19:26 So perhaps they can provide a report on that.
11:19:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's a motion.
11:19:32 Second?
11:19:32 >> Second.
11:19:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
11:19:34 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:19:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you have a question as to when?
11:19:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The first council meeting in
11:19:40 August.
11:19:41 Correct.
11:19:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Opposes?
11:19:44 Okay.
11:19:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Under item oh 103, we had asked
11:19:48 that administration to appear to discuss the use of
11:19:54 cisterns -- 83, I'm so sorry.
11:19:57 We received a written report saying that this is
11:20:00 possible, but I know that we don't -- it does not
11:20:05 indicate in the report that we have a process for
11:20:12 giving a permit fee rebate, or a 10% reduction in

11:20:19 credit for the stormwater fees that people give us,
11:20:21 and maybe Mr. Daignault can say if we have that in
11:20:24 process now, or if we need to request that the
11:20:26 administration develop a process, so that there can be
11:20:31 credit given to people who are doing these various
11:20:33 sustainable practices.
11:20:35 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator public works and
11:20:37 utility services.
11:20:38 There's two parts to this.
11:20:39 There's our letter, our memo, and then Cindy Miller's
11:20:44 memo. I won't speak for Cindy.
11:20:46 But on the stormwater side what we are trying to
11:20:48 indicate here is if a cistern or green roof is used as
11:20:51 part of the system that currently gives us a 10%
11:20:56 retention, that would give us a 10%, that we would
11:20:59 consider that.
11:21:00 We would be able to do that if it provided that
11:21:03 retention on-site.
11:21:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have to develop a process,
11:21:08 or are you ready to go?
11:21:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA:
11:21:10 >>> Our process is okay again as long as one of those

11:21:12 is used as part of a system that would do this.
11:21:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So the permitting fee credit or
11:21:18 whatever --
11:21:19 >>> That's Cindy's part.
11:21:21 The permit fee would be Cindy's piece.
11:21:23 The stormwater fee would be our piece.
11:21:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And you all are ready to go with
11:21:29 that.
11:21:29 That's great.
11:21:29 Then the memo from Cindy says that a construction
11:21:34 project would be eligible for a permit fee rebate, and
11:21:40 I guess I'll just get with her and find out if that's
11:21:42 something that she's able to do now, if she needs to
11:21:46 develop a process.
11:21:47 Have you had any folks come in with green roofs or
11:21:49 cisterns?
11:21:53 >>> Apparently we have.
11:21:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's great.
11:21:56 Maybe we should publicize this to additional people
11:22:00 because every drop of water we save is a good thing.
11:22:02 Thank you.
11:22:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That concludes -- item 86, Mr. Shelby.

11:22:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I prepared a substitution that
11:22:23 clarifies rule 4-C, that I hope addresses the concerns
11:22:28 of council.
11:22:29 This is a resolution that addresses rule 2-C, which
11:22:33 adds the language that you receive, the chair receives
11:22:37 preferences from City Council members before making
11:22:39 the appointments to the standing committees, just a
11:22:41 clarification.
11:22:42 And rule 4-C states if a motion to approve, deny or
11:22:47 continue an ordinance or resolution fails to receive
11:22:49 at least four votes, either in support or opposition,
11:22:52 it shall automatically be brought back before the
11:22:55 council at the next regular council meeting as
11:22:56 unfinished business.
11:22:58 I believe that -- and under Roberts rules, any other
11:23:02 motion on a tie vote fails.
11:23:05 And that should address council's concerns.
11:23:08 And if council chooses to do this, the proper
11:23:10 procedure would be to have the title read on two
11:23:15 separate regular council meetings, the first being
11:23:17 today and the second would be the next regular council
11:23:20 meeting and then it would take effect.

11:23:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Under rule 4, you're saying it was
11:23:27 a 3-3 vote, and it's brought up in the next council
11:23:31 meeting, which could be two weeks from today, and if
11:23:38 it's 3-3 it goes to another meeting.
11:23:41 I'm not going to support that.
11:23:42 I think council members are smart enough, this council
11:23:44 is smart enough, that those that are coming after us
11:23:47 are smart enough, when you have a discussion that you
11:23:50 know that you have, there's only six council members,
11:23:53 you are able to count votes and you know by what they
11:23:56 say and how they are going to vote.
11:23:58 We are just duplicating what's the inevitable.
11:24:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And I understand that, sir.
11:24:04 The only thing is, the reason it does come back is
11:24:06 because there's another rule that's been existing 4-F,
11:24:10 and it says -- if council's direction is to change
11:24:13 that, I am more than willing to accommodate.
11:24:15 Again these are council's rules.
11:24:18 And the rule states that anytime there is a need for
11:24:20 reconsideration by council which must be held at the
11:24:22 next regular meeting and there is not a full council,
11:24:24 the council may consider the reconsideration to the

11:24:26 next regular meeting when there is a full council
11:24:28 present.
11:24:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's fine.
11:24:32 You don't vote twice, you only vote once.
11:24:34 You realize there's six.
11:24:35 You realize what they say.
11:24:37 And you say carry it on to the next meeting.
11:24:39 But these are the things that are -- this meeting, the
11:24:46 next meeting, the public gets confused, you have to
11:24:51 come back two weeks to hear it and to me it doesn't
11:24:53 make common sense, but who knows?
11:24:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, is there a way to word that
11:24:57 then to change, or add additional words that might
11:25:00 address your concerns?
11:25:01 >> Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding but I thought that
11:25:04 we said 3-3 it dies, unless there was a zoning issue
11:25:10 where it has to come back.
11:25:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If they are it's a budget amendment
11:25:17 council has to take action, either in support of it or
11:25:21 to deny it but it has to take action.
11:25:23 The charter requires four votes of City Council to
11:25:28 create official action.

11:25:29 That's a charter requirement.
11:25:31 So, therefore, on those items -- and we narrow it to
11:25:34 those items that are just ordinances to resolutions as
11:25:36 opposed to housekeeping matters, or new business or
11:25:39 the like, then that's why it's that way.
11:25:44 There are things on the agenda besides zoning where
11:25:46 council is being requested to take official action.
11:25:49 And it requires a decisive vote one way or the other.
11:25:52 >>GWEN MILLER:
11:25:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Now you are putting into different
11:25:59 categories which does, and the carry over, and a 3-3
11:26:09 vote goes to another meeting two weeks from now.
11:26:11 You are talking about budgets.
11:26:12 I understand.
11:26:13 That or you are talking about something that has to do
11:26:15 with something that is not relevant to budget, or
11:26:18 things of that nature, that's why you ask people in
11:26:22 zoning, do you want to hear this hearing with only
11:26:24 five members, or six members?
11:26:26 If they say yes, and it's a 3-3 vote, shame on them,
11:26:30 they lost.
11:26:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A motion to continue -- if it's a

11:26:35 motion to continue, and it pertains to an ordinance,
11:26:38 then it will continue to the next --
11:26:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's right.
11:26:42 That's what I'm saying. But when you have a hearing
11:26:45 on a zoning matter and they see that you have six
11:26:47 members and the chairperson, whoever he or she may be,
11:26:50 ask you if you want to continue this hearing, then
11:26:52 they have the right to continue that.
11:26:53 I have no quarrel with that.
11:26:55 But if they want to go on and have that hearing, and
11:26:59 they choose to have that hearing, and it's a 3-3 vote,
11:27:03 they don't come back again.
11:27:04 It's over.
11:27:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: They do.
11:27:14 They are required to -- the City Council is required
11:27:16 to take official action on their position and council
11:27:21 can either approve it or deny it.
11:27:23 Whatever it takes, it takes four votes.
11:27:24 You get three votes.
11:27:25 There is no action.
11:27:26 The council -- there is no legal action under the
11:27:30 charter by the City Council under that ordinance.

11:27:33 That's what they are asking for is for council to pass
11:27:35 an ordinance.
11:27:36 So therefore we have had situations like that when
11:27:38 there are there aren't six votes, do you continue it
11:27:42 to public hearing, you close the public hearing, you
11:27:44 vote, it comes to a 3-3, and --
11:27:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me ask one more question and
11:27:50 then I will keep quiet for the rest of the two
11:27:52 minutes.
11:27:53 (Bell sounds).
11:27:55 >> That was it.
11:27:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Time is up.
11:27:57 [ Laughter ]
11:27:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I like to see the rules of
11:28:00 procedure of council, from five or six years ago, and
11:28:05 now.
11:28:05 I want to see if there's been a growth in council's
11:28:08 rules of procedures.
11:28:09 Because every time I'm around I hear more procedures
11:28:11 and more procedures.
11:28:12 And less action.
11:28:13 So I want to see action instead of procedures.

11:28:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.
11:28:20 Councilman Dingfelder.
11:28:21 Then Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
11:28:23 >>GWEN MILLER: I want a clarification of what Mr.
11:28:25 Miranda said.
11:28:25 You said, Mr. Miranda, if we have six members here and
11:28:27 you know how the vote is going to go, you shouldn't
11:28:31 vote, then what should do you?
11:28:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Petitioner has a rate to say let's
11:28:36 not take a vote.
11:28:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No, on budget --
11:28:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Don't vote on it.
11:28:46 You know with the six of us, three speak for the item
11:28:49 and three speak against, say listen, let's table this
11:28:53 to the next council meeting.
11:28:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And we have done that.
11:28:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Why go through this process what we
11:29:00 are doing anyway?
11:29:01 We are duplicating the system that we already do.
11:29:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
11:29:07 Then Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
11:29:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Shelby, in our backup item 86

11:29:16 it appears you have drafted a very simple change to
11:29:18 rule 4-C and D.
11:29:21 There were some other rules but that's what we are
11:29:23 talking about right this second.
11:29:24 Is that what we are talking about?
11:29:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, sir.
11:29:30 >> Basically what we are doing, and I think it's
11:29:33 probably a good idea at this point.
11:29:35 I wasn't in favor of it originally but in hindsight I
11:29:37 think it's a good idea.
11:29:39 Basically I think we are conforming the rules of our
11:29:41 body to other peoples rules.
11:29:44 In other words, if you have a day to day motion, okay,
11:29:47 I move that we break for lunch at 12:05.
11:29:51 Okay, that's just a day to day motion.
11:29:53 And if it doesn't pass, under our existing rules, you
11:29:56 probably have to come back and revisit that, now,
11:29:59 because we have had these weird situations where you
11:30:01 have these insignificant motions but because we have
11:30:04 this archaic rule we had to come back and revisit it
11:30:07 because we had a deadlock.
11:30:09 In hindsight I realize that's pretty silly.

11:30:12 All right.
11:30:12 So I think what Mr. Shelby has done here is makes a
11:30:15 lot of sense.
11:30:16 He says if it's an ordinance or a resolution.
11:30:18 The important things that we do, okay, then you have
11:30:22 got to come back and break the tie, it must receive at
11:30:26 lowest four votes, automatically without a motion at
11:30:29 the next regular council meeting as unfinished
11:30:32 business.
11:30:34 An that's it.
11:30:35 That's the new rule.
11:30:36 And he's actually taken words out instead of
11:30:41 increasing the size of our rules.
11:30:43 So I think it makes sense.
11:30:45 Originally I wasn't in favor of it.
11:30:47 I do remember that day and I got a little annoyed.
11:30:51 [ Laughter ]
11:30:51 But in hindsight now that we are all couple calm I
11:30:54 think it's a good idea.
11:30:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I agree, it clarifies and
11:31:00 simplifies.
11:31:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What he's saying, though, is required

11:31:04 by law that we do that based on those two.
11:31:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right, right.
11:31:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:31:10 Then we need to do a reading today?
11:31:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just read the title and then it will
11:31:15 be brought back at the next.
11:31:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Same title.
11:31:21 I'll volunteer.
11:31:22 I would like to move a substitute resolution amending
11:31:24 the rules of procedure rule 2-C and rule 4 governing
11:31:27 meetings of the City Council of the City of Tampa
11:31:29 providing an effective date.
11:31:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
11:31:35 All opposes?
11:31:42 >>THE CLERK: Miranda, no.
11:31:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would just like to say that I
11:31:46 think it's really clear the way the council has better
11:31:48 organized our meetings so that we have two council
11:31:51 meetings a month, CRA meeting, and a workshop meeting,
11:31:54 and then we have the 1:30 meetings for request for
11:32:01 beverages, I think it's really made our meetings run
11:32:05 more clearly, people know when to show up, it's more

11:32:08 efficient, and I want to compliment council on coming
11:32:12 up with a more efficient way of running.
11:32:14 I think it's easier for the press, easier for the
11:32:16 public, and it's a timelier, more efficient way to do
11:32:20 the variety of things that we have to deal with.
11:32:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:32:25 Under new business.
11:32:28 There are a couple of items that I need.
11:32:31 Let me go first because I really need to leave.
11:32:34 But a couple of items that I noticed to bring to your
11:32:36 attention.
11:32:37 One item is the clerk the requesting that they be
11:32:39 allowed to meet with us at 11:30, after one of our
11:32:45 workshop meetings, in which room?
11:32:49 The Mascotte room, okay.
11:32:54 So that can happen.
11:32:56 What date was the clerk requesting?
11:33:09 What is our next motorcycle workshop?
11:33:12 >>THE CLERK: Next workshop is scheduled on the
11:33:14 23rd.
11:33:14 >> That's a full workshop, though.
11:33:16 >>>

11:33:20 >>> Right now you have one workshop.
11:33:22 The 23rd of July, commendation for police officer,
11:33:25 commendation for firefighter of the quarter at 9:00,
11:33:28 CRA convenes at 9:15, and council workshop.
11:33:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's a CRA meeting that we have will
11:33:37 take a couple of hours, and then take the other hour
11:33:41 and a half.
11:33:42 So that's why a full morning already for the 23rd.
11:33:47 And we have a 6:00.
11:33:48 So we can't do it that way day.
11:33:51 Work.
11:33:51 >>THE CLERK: The next workshop day is August 27th
11:33:54 and it's a similar situation.
11:33:55 We have a 9:00 commendation.
11:33:57 We go into CRA at 9:15.
11:34:00 At 10:30 a workshop on cell phone tower regulations.
11:34:06 At 11:00 a workshop, about zoning elevations.
11:34:10 And 11:30, another workshop to revisit the language on
11:34:14 transfer development rights.
11:34:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: By the time we vote on this the
11:34:19 hurricane season will be over, won't it?
11:34:21 Why don't we suggest we bring our calendars at 1:30

11:34:24 and look at having individual briefings.
11:34:26 If you do that bring your calendar at 1:30 and we can
11:34:29 look at having individual briefings, okay?
11:34:31 The second item that I have is the Tampa Heights
11:34:36 stewardship team, the request is to have a 20-minute
11:34:39 workshop on the 23rd.
11:34:41 That is not possible and is not possible the next
11:34:43 meeting.
11:34:44 So my suggestion would be that we have it in our
11:34:46 September meeting, was it September we discussed?
11:34:52 For the workshop.
11:34:54 Tampa Heights.
11:34:56 You want us to make a 20 minute presentation for the
11:34:59 neighborhood plan.
11:35:01 We just can't do it.
11:35:03 >>THE CLERK: On September 24 you do have your
11:35:05 commendation for police officer, and firefighter at
11:35:08 9:00.
11:35:09 You have a 9:00 workshop to discuss the issue of
11:35:11 reclaimed water, the City of Tampa's drinking water
11:35:15 and the possibilities of placing it on the plat.
11:35:19 You have a 9:30 workshop that was continued to discuss

11:35:22 the citation process relating to illegal political
11:35:25 signs.
11:35:26 10:00 you have a workshop to discuss the draft
11:35:28 transportation technical manual, standards which was
11:35:32 rescheduled from a provider day.
11:35:34 10:30 workshop to discuss transportation --
11:35:38 This is September?
11:35:40 >>THE CLERK: This is September.
11:35:43 And
11:35:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Oh, my goodness.
11:35:50 What about October?
11:35:52 >>THE CLERK: October --
11:35:54 >> This is crazy.
11:35:55 >>THE CLERK: You have one workshop to discuss the
11:35:57 aspects of the, and police Officer of the Month
11:36:01 commendation.
11:36:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let's add it to October.
11:36:05 So I will move that we add the Tampa Heights
11:36:07 presentation in October.
11:36:11 >> Second.
11:36:12 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion?
11:36:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.

11:36:17 Is that a council issue or CRA issue?
11:36:19 I mean --
11:36:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Tampa Heights is CRA.
11:36:23 Maybe we could do it in a CRA meeting.
11:36:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's all I was thinking.
11:36:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And we could do it sooner then.
11:36:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you want to at that time up CRA?
11:36:36 CRA is taking up half your workshop meeting.
11:36:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have a CRA at the beginning of
11:36:40 September, a regular one.
11:36:41 So I withdraw my second.
11:36:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then turn this over to CRA.
11:36:48 Have the CRA convene to do it?
11:36:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not a special CRA.
11:36:52 The August CRA.
11:36:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My only issue is that the we can't
11:36:58 vote on it today.
11:36:59 You have to have a special CRA meeting.
11:37:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can refer it to Mr. Huey.
11:37:06 >>GWEN MILLER: They are requesting council but that's
11:37:10 fine.
11:37:10 I will forward it to him.

11:37:11 The last issue I will raise is it is my understanding
11:37:13 on -- I was out last meeting that you all decided to
11:37:18 have the workshop on the vendor preference at 6:00 in
11:37:21 the evening, on the 6th?
11:37:25 I raise that as a concern, because again we made a
11:37:28 decision that we would not place all these items that
11:37:39 would burden us.
11:37:39 So you have on that morning, you have your regular
11:37:41 meeting, you have afternoon meeting, right?
11:37:45 And then you come back and then you are going to have
11:37:46 the -- I understand because it's a heavy afternoon so
11:37:50 you have a 6:00 workshop on vendor preference. I just
11:37:54 raise it as a concern issue, giving given what we have
11:37:57 said that we would not do.
11:37:59 So I'm just saying, pointing out our inconsistency,
11:38:04 those all.
11:38:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:38:06 You have already identified the challenge with our
11:38:08 calendar.
11:38:09 And we saw this as something, we had someone this
11:38:14 morning talk about how do we get the local economy
11:38:16 going?

11:38:16 This might be a way to be helpful.
11:38:20 We on council are really happy to have jobs, and if it
11:38:22 means working a little overtime I guess we figured we
11:38:26 need to do it.
11:38:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?
11:38:29 I just want to call to your attention --
11:38:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just curious.
11:38:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I and I hope you all show up.
11:38:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Absolutely.
11:38:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll digress a little bit.
11:38:39 But that was the day that I think two council members
11:38:43 weren't able to be here, were out of town, I think.
11:38:46 But did you all request that item be continued?
11:38:54 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
11:38:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't think so.
11:38:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The administration said because you
11:38:59 all weren't here.
11:39:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That kind of points to the fact
11:39:01 they took control of our meeting on that particular
11:39:04 issue, and it bothered council tremendously, and --
11:39:09 I will only say that if I'm out, and I want an item to
11:39:12 be continued, I will always puts it in writing,

11:39:15 requesting that that item be continued in my absence.
11:39:18 I think that's the appropriate thing to do for any
11:39:20 council person, if an item is on the agenda and you
11:39:25 are not here and you think it's important that you be
11:39:27 here, so I did not request that.
11:39:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We had no way of knowing because we
11:39:35 can't communicate with you directly.
11:39:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My process will always be in writing
11:39:40 to council to inform you.
11:39:41 That's my understanding of practice for 12, 13 years.
11:39:47 You will No. if I am not here and I want an item
11:39:49 continued you will get a memorandum to everybody
11:39:52 including the attorneys and the clerk saying, could
11:39:56 you please continue this item, that I won't be here?
11:40:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In the meantime I'm okay with the
11:40:01 August thing.
11:40:02 I will be here that evening.
11:40:04 Hopefully with the rest of you.
11:40:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:40:07 And the last one was the issue raised this morning by
11:40:10 sable transportation, Mr. Dingfelder, I think you were
11:40:13 inquiring about that, and I said let's hold it till

11:40:17 the end of the meeting.
11:40:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hopefully they did.
11:40:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just say it is my understanding
11:40:24 that -- and Mr. Fletcher, you may want to come speak
11:40:28 at the time -- it is my understanding that they have a
11:40:30 bid, they were ranked number one as the lowest bidder,
11:40:34 and the recommendation by the administration is
11:40:38 another firm, that item has come to us on the
11:40:41 16th, and so also we got a memo from Mr. Darrell
11:40:46 Smith.
11:40:47 Apparently, there that was not a bid protest.
11:40:51 As I understand from the memo that was a request for
11:40:54 appeal on interpretation of the administration
11:40:55 position based on the memorandum that I saw.
11:41:00 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: My understanding, and it sounds
11:41:02 like you all received documentation from the
11:41:04 administration that I haven't reviewed yet, but what I
11:41:06 have been told is that there was, whether you want to
11:41:09 call it a bid protest or appeal or request for
11:41:12 interpretation, the code provides an opportunity for
11:41:18 administrative review internally, and that went to Mr.
11:41:21 Smith.

11:41:23 He rendered a written opinion, it's my understanding,
11:41:26 and upholding the lower staff decision.
11:41:35 I don't know what the basis for that determination
11:41:37 was, but it sounds like you all have a copy of that
11:41:41 now.
11:41:41 And if they wanted to continue with a bid protest,
11:41:46 they could appeal that decision to circuit court, is
11:41:50 my belief.
11:41:51 I think that's the appropriate case law.
11:41:53 But that approval of the contract would come to you
11:41:58 all for a decision, and what I am hearing from you all
11:42:02 is anticipated coming on the 16th and you would
11:42:04 have an opportunity to either approve or deny that
11:42:08 recommended contract at that time.
11:42:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And that is my understanding.
11:42:14 Let me say to council, I raised this early on two
11:42:17 years ago, I think it was, that whatever bid protest,
11:42:21 the way the structure is now, that administration hear
11:42:25 the protest, which I always sewed aid problem with, if
11:42:28 you have a bid protest, how do you expect --
11:42:31 administration has to say, okay, this is where we are
11:42:34 going.

11:42:35 Then have administration to hear the thing, are they
11:42:38 going to overrule the mayor?
11:42:40 I don't think so.
11:42:42 It's a flawed process.
11:42:43 And I told you all that.
11:42:45 If you are going to have a bid protest, that you
11:42:47 should have a hearing officer to hear the process, oh
11:42:51 to give some legitimacy to it.
11:42:56 We have no legitimacy to the because you are asking
11:42:59 the administration to rule on an administration
11:43:02 decision.
11:43:02 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: If I may clarify the process so we
11:43:06 are clear, and it is pursuant to an ordinance adopted
11:43:09 by council so council could certainly change that.
11:43:11 But the way the code is set up, when the initial
11:43:14 determination is made by a committee or lower staff
11:43:19 level individuals, the appeal is then made to a
11:43:21 supervisor of that individual.
11:43:24 So the mayor would not be involved in any stage in
11:43:27 that process.
11:43:28 And that's why in this case my understanding is it
11:43:31 went to Mr. Smith.

11:43:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Fletcher, with all due respect,
11:43:34 the mayor don't hear those things, I don't think, but
11:43:37 her staff is hearing those, and you are not going to
11:43:41 find a staff person rule against the administration.
11:43:43 I stand to be corrected.
11:43:45 But as I recall we had a discussion.
11:43:51 Mark Huey served as one of those at one time.
11:43:53 And I'm saying that the process is a flawed process.
11:43:56 It does not give in my opinion legitimacy to a bid
11:44:05 process to be heard.
11:44:07 Understand what you are saying.
11:44:09 But again, somewhere, North Dakota administration,
11:44:11 somebody made a decision at a top level and it gets
11:44:14 pushed the pushed down to somebody who is still a part
11:44:17 of administration.
11:44:17 If I were the mayor or administration, I am not going
11:44:21 to go against it either, if you want to keep your job.
11:44:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What does the county do?
11:44:32 >> I think they have a hearing process -- hearing
11:44:35 master process.
11:44:36 Basically it's a hearing master process all the way
11:44:39 through including the zoning process.

11:44:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chairman, I am still not going
11:44:47 to agree with you on the zoning part of that.
11:44:50 But I agree with you 100% on the bid protest.
11:44:55 And any other related, you know, similar type of
11:44:59 appeal that might go through the administration.
11:45:01 Because even if we assume that a staff person could be
11:45:06 objective, the perception of the public would be that
11:45:09 they couldn't, because they all work together, and
11:45:12 they are all in the same building, all in the same
11:45:14 floor, and perception is very important in what we do.
11:45:18 So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm wholly in favor of
11:45:22 that, and give Mr. Fletcher a little bit of time so he
11:45:25 can have a decent summer with his daughter, but maybe
11:45:29 in 120 days come back to us with a draft ordinance
11:45:32 amendment to go into a new process.
11:45:35 And I commend Mr. Chairman for pointing that out.
11:45:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
11:45:40 >>MARY MULHERN: I wanted to ask our attorneys here, I
11:45:46 think you're working on an appeal process --
11:45:53 >>>
11:45:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Not for the bid.
11:45:55 For zoning administrator interpretation and the like.

11:45:57 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, maybe you could work on this one
11:46:00 at the same time.
11:46:01 It's similar.
11:46:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This one is the subject of chapter 1,
11:46:08 section 19 amendment that council had recently
11:46:10 addressed, to address issues that were previously
11:46:12 brought to your attention by legal, and what you are
11:46:15 saying now is that you wish to have that revisited to
11:46:17 address your issue of dealing with it by a hearing
11:46:22 master or hearing officer process.
11:46:23 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: If I may, for clarification, the
11:46:27 request for as to procurement and bids, because that
11:46:30 section does apply to really any administrative
11:46:33 decision, that supervisor appeal process applies to
11:46:37 any decision, unless there's another procedure called
11:46:41 out in that code which would be like the civil service
11:46:43 board or the land use decision, those types of things.
11:46:46 So what I'm hearing is you would like a hearing
11:46:49 officer process for procurement.
11:46:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Chip, why don't you, in our July
11:46:56 meeting, why don't you bring us back the laundry list
11:46:59 of what it applies to, and then we can give you

11:47:02 further direction as to which ones we would like to
11:47:06 address?
11:47:07 Because we all agree I think that bidding would be
11:47:09 appropriate.
11:47:10 But now you mention employment.
11:47:13 Let's look at the whole laundry list.
11:47:16 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: If I may clarify.
11:47:18 We have various review and appeals processes in the
11:47:21 city code.
11:47:22 What this is is the catch-all, anything that's not
11:47:25 provided for anywhere else in the code goes under this
11:47:28 section 1-19 process.
11:47:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We need a list to know what those
11:47:34 are.
11:47:36 And what I'm arguing here is not an attempt to dilute
11:47:40 the mayor's authority or power.
11:47:42 My attempt is fairness in the bid protest.
11:47:47 If the mayor wants to award a bid, that's fine.
11:47:51 But when a person says, okay, I want to issue a bid
11:47:54 protest, then there should be some legitimacy as to
11:47:57 whether they are having a fair process of what
11:48:02 happened there.

11:48:02 That's the only thing I'm saying.
11:48:04 It's an issue of fairness to those who have a
11:48:07 legitimate bid protest, that's all.
11:48:09 And some of these folks don't have a legitimate bid
11:48:11 protest.
11:48:12 But if you rank me number one and the reason why I
11:48:15 didn't get the recommendation, okay, then I need a
11:48:18 hearing as toe why it didn't go through, did I follow
11:48:22 everything in the bid, I did answer all the questions,
11:48:24 I did follow all the steps?
11:48:25 Then why wasn't I recommended as the lowest bidder?
11:48:30 That's all I'm saying.
11:48:31 It's an issue of fairness.
11:48:32 Yes, councilman.
11:48:36 >>MARY MULHERN: It sounds like the catch-all catches a
11:48:38 lot.
11:48:39 All procurement and all contracts, all bids, anything
11:48:42 that has a bid.
11:48:45 >>> It basically covers all sorts of different things.
11:48:49 And people tried to use it to appeal decisions, people
11:48:54 try to use to the appeal decisions related to
11:48:57 right-of-way, and road --

11:49:01 >>MARY MULHERN: But competitive bidding, for the
11:49:05 competitive bidding process.
11:49:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Listen, I am not trying to dilute the
11:49:10 mayor's authority and power.
11:49:11 I am only focusing in on the legitimate issues versus
11:49:15 bidding process versus all these other stuff, not
11:49:18 concerned -- do you understand what I'm saying?
11:49:21 I'm talking about a legitimate bids that goes out,
11:49:23 RFP, it goes out.
11:49:25 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Mr. Chairman, I am very enclosure
11:49:28 on your desire and the council's desire.
11:49:30 I was just answering the question.
11:49:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that the motion then?
11:49:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, that's the motion.
11:49:37 For bids and purchasing and procurement.
11:49:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:49:42 As some of you know I have been a reformer in many
11:49:46 years in 1972 with the help of many went all the way
11:49:48 to the Supreme Court because the State of Florida
11:49:51 State of Florida refused to have any other method of
11:49:54 getting on the ballot.
11:49:55 We won here locally.

11:49:57 We won in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court
11:50:00 refused to hear the case, and allowed people to get
11:50:05 registered to run for election, I should say, by the
11:50:08 petition process.
11:50:10 In 1998 or so, it was a disparity, and said if you
11:50:17 were a district council member and you were city-wide,
11:50:19 guess what, you both had to get 3700-some petitions to
11:50:23 get on the ballot.
11:50:24 I thought that was wrong.
11:50:25 We put that on the ballot because there's no way you
11:50:28 can vote here because city-wide you don't vote one and
11:50:33 a half compared to somebody's half a vote and that
11:50:35 passed.
11:50:36 The mayor still has to have the 3500 or 3600 votes
11:50:41 petitions to put them on the ballot.
11:50:44 And that was equitable.
11:50:45 Now it's 800 something which is not hard to do.
11:50:49 Let me tell you what I'm thinking about myself, for
11:50:52 elected officials only, and you say -- and I need you
11:50:56 to research this.
11:51:02 Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you voted on that.
11:51:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion and second.

11:51:07 All in favor?
11:51:08 Okay.
11:51:09 When is that coming back?
11:51:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
11:51:14 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: That was for 120 days.
11:51:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not sooner.
11:51:18 If you can do it quicker.
11:51:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would say 90 days.
11:51:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's an amended motion collect.
11:51:24 >>THE CLERK: Back on October 1st then?
11:51:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not going to start again.
11:51:30 But what I'm saying is this.
11:51:32 As an elected official, I have a contract with those
11:51:35 that elected me and the citizens of the City of Tampa
11:51:37 for four years.
11:51:38 If I choose to leave, that's fine and dandy.
11:51:42 If I leave before the 15 months, that's a cost to the
11:51:45 taxpayers.
11:51:47 It's not about you, sir.
11:51:48 It's a cost to the taxpayers to have an election.
11:51:51 Okay.
11:51:52 If I leave within 15 months, then the governing body

11:51:54 or this council appoints someone.
11:51:56 Let me say this.
11:51:59 I put the people at a disadvantage if I go out and
11:52:02 seek another office, me, Charlie Miranda, seek another
11:52:06 office, and I lose.
11:52:09 Only reflecting to elected officials.
11:52:12 I want to say that again.
11:52:13 And then two or three months later, I seek office,
11:52:18 back to my own City Council seat.
11:52:20 I think that's disrespect to the people who elected
11:52:24 me.
11:52:25 And I would like for you to research this, sir, and
11:52:28 see if it can be put on the ballot.
11:52:29 I'm not prohibiting anyone from seeking office again
11:52:33 other than you have to wait one cycle.
11:52:35 You can't run in three our four months because you
11:52:38 already spent an enormous amount of money projecting
11:52:41 yourself, and rightly so, and doing whatever you have
11:52:43 got to do to get elected.
11:52:45 So what I'm saying is you have to wait one cycle.
11:52:49 And it's not the cycle that's three or four months
11:52:52 later.

11:52:52 It's a full four year cycle before you can seek
11:52:55 election: I want to see if that's legal or not.
11:53:01 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I'll look into that.
11:53:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could do you that by charter?
11:53:06 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I believe it would be a charter
11:53:07 amendment and we would have to draft something and
11:53:10 have it presented to you all to place on the chart fer
11:53:12 you decide to go forward.
11:53:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My understanding is for us to
11:53:15 direct legal to do something requires a motion.
11:53:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let's vote.
11:53:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay, I won't be supporting it.
11:53:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I knew somebody would.
11:53:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the question, I'm just trying to
11:53:26 find out what the underlying issue is.
11:53:32 I guess what you are saying, Mr. Miranda is, if a
11:53:34 person runs for office somewhere else --
11:53:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If you are an electric official in
11:53:38 the City of Tampa you certainly have the right to run
11:53:42 for any office.
11:53:44 That you want to.
11:53:45 However, if you run, and you are not successful, then

11:53:49 you must wait a term before you can seek office again.
11:53:53 I think it's only fair for those individuals who want
11:53:55 to run for office.
11:53:57 And I go and spend 100,000, whatever I collect, and
11:54:05 you lose and say, I want to come back to City Council.
11:54:07 That's not me.
11:54:08 I'm talking about myself personally.
11:54:10 And it's up to council to decide yes or Nay.
11:54:13 But there's another way of.
11:54:14 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll second that for information for
11:54:17 research on that.
11:54:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, council?
11:54:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't really understand the
11:54:31 point.
11:54:33 I think our legal staff is very, very busy with
11:54:36 hundreds of issues, probably many that when don't even
11:54:38 know about, and we shouldn't burden them with this
11:54:41 type of issue.
11:54:42 So I won't support the motion.
11:54:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion and second.
11:54:46 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:54:48 Opposes?

11:54:48 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and
11:54:53 Dingfelder voting no.
11:54:56 >>> When is that coming back?
11:54:57 >> present for the 4th of July.
11:55:02 >>CHAIRMAN: All in favor?
11:55:05 Anyone else have new business?
11:55:07 Mr. Dingfelder?
11:55:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
11:55:10 There's a couple of pools around the city that have
11:55:17 not been able to be opened for various regions.
11:55:19 One of them is Davis Islands.
11:55:21 I would like a report from parks and rec which is on
11:55:26 July 16th on the opening of Davis Island James
11:55:32 pool.
11:55:33 >> Second.
11:55:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:55:35 All in favor?
11:55:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other thing.
11:55:38 Mrs. Saul-Sena brought up just a little earlier, and I
11:55:40 have been thinking about it for the last month or so,
11:55:42 I would like for to us award green businesses,
11:55:47 builders and citizens on a quarterly basis.

11:55:51 We have a commendation to maybe have a green
11:55:54 commendation for those unique individuals, businesses,
11:55:59 builders or citizens, who are doing really good
11:56:01 things, good projects, I went to one the other day
11:56:05 that's being built in Beach Park.
11:56:06 I think if we perhaps let Thom Snelling be the
11:56:09 administrator, to accept awarding of -- accept
11:56:15 nominations, and he can sort through that, and give us
11:56:19 recommendations or something like that on a quarterly
11:56:21 basis.
11:56:23 >> Residential or commercial?
11:56:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe different categories.
11:56:27 I'll work with Thom on that and bring it back if
11:56:30 that's okay.
11:56:31 >> Second.
11:56:32 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:56:35 Anyone else have new business?
11:56:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to receive and file all the
11:56:38 documents for the day.
11:56:39 >> Second.
11:56:40 (Motion carried).
11:56:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?

11:56:42 We stand in recess until 1:30.
11:56:45 (The meeting recessed at 11:56 a.m.)
11:57:19

DISCLAIMER:
The preceeding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, June 25, 2009
1:30 p.m. session

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

13:37:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
13:37:42 order.
13:37:43 We will have roll call.
13:37:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:37:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:37:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
13:37:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
13:37:53 Council, we'll pick up on our 1:30 items.
13:37:56 I think we did quite well this morning to dispose of
13:37:59 all our morning items.

13:38:00 In fact, went to about 11:15, 11:20 on the morning
13:38:06 items so did quite well on that.
13:38:09 We'll pick up our 1:30 items.
13:38:15 I guess we have a lot of public hearings in terms of
13:38:19 the wet zoning and all that.
13:38:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open the public --
13:38:26 hearings, from 87 through 100.
13:38:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, council, just for the
13:38:31 sake -- if council would consider 95 because those are
13:38:37 public hearings, if we could do it separately.
13:38:40 If we could swear in the witnesses up until 95.
13:38:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion up until 95.
13:38:46 87 through 95.
13:38:48 All in favor?
13:38:50 Opposes?
13:38:51 Okay.
13:38:52 Please, those who are going to address council, or
13:38:54 testify today before council, please stand at this
13:38:56 time and be sworn.
13:38:57 If you intend to speak before this council, you must
13:39:00 be sworn.
13:39:03 Oat oath

13:39:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, I believe there have
13:39:13 been items that have been available for public
13:39:16 inspection at City Council's office.
13:39:17 I ask those be received and filed.
13:39:20 >> So moved.
13:39:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
13:39:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So moved.
13:39:24 Opposes?
13:39:25 We'll take up item 87 first.
13:39:35 James Cook, Land Development Coordination.
13:39:38 I have been sworn.
13:39:39 Item number 87, file C 09-04.
13:39:44 The Elmo.
13:39:46 Petitioner is requesting to vacate a north-south alley
13:39:49 between line 28th Avenue, north of east 26th
13:39:54 Avenue, north Whittier, and north 52nd street.
13:39:59 I can point out that the petitioner owns ten lots on
13:40:04 this block, five on the other side of the alleyway.
13:40:07 The western portion of this alley was vacated in 1985
13:40:10 to accommodate a garage.
13:40:13 This is also in the East Tampa overlay district within
13:40:15 the East Tampa overlay district a total of 551 alleys

13:40:20 of which 156 have been vacate.
13:40:24 In the immediate area, as you can see, all the alleys
13:40:27 highlighted in yellow, 16 in total, have been vacated
13:40:30 in this neighborhood.
13:40:34 Here are a couple of pictures.
13:40:37 A shot at the alleyway looking north.
13:40:46 You can see it's blocked off, not accessible.
13:40:48 Here is a shot looking south, same thing, fence as
13:40:52 cross the alley.
13:40:52 And a couple pictures of the petitioner's property.
13:40:56 Picture looking east, Whittier.
13:41:03 A couple shots along 52nd street.
13:41:09 Another one.
13:41:10 One for 52nd street.
13:41:12 Staff has no objections to this vacating request.
13:41:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by council?
13:41:25 This is a public hearing.
13:41:27 Anyone wishing to address council on this vacating?
13:41:30 Anyone from the public wish to address council on this
13:41:33 vacating?
13:41:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Motion to close.
13:41:37 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner.

13:41:37 Hear from petitioner.
13:41:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, petitioner, do you want to come
13:41:41 forward?
13:41:45 Anything you want to say?
13:41:50 Not that you have to say it.
13:41:53 Anything you want to add or say?
13:41:54 You don't have to.
13:41:58 State your name for the record.
13:42:01 >> Randy H. Lister.
13:42:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
13:42:08 Miranda move to close.
13:42:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
13:42:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor say Aye.
13:42:16 Councilman Miranda?
13:42:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The reason we got early this
13:42:21 morning, did an excellent job is because of your
13:42:25 leadership.
13:42:26 I move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing,
13:42:30 a certain alleyway out of 28th Avenue, north of
13:42:34 east 26th Avenue, east of north Whitier street,
13:42:37 and west of north 52nd street in Grant Park
13:42:40 subdivision, subdivision locate in the city of Tampa,

13:42:43 Florida, Hillsborough County Florida the same being
13:42:45 more fully described in section 2 therefore providing
13:42:49 an effective date.
13:42:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
13:42:51 (Motion carried).
13:42:54 >>THE CLERK: Certificated reading and adoption will be
13:42:55 held on July 16th at 9:30 a.m.
13:42:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 88.
13:43:06 >> Ron Villa, staff, for Historic Preservation, here
13:43:10 for 88 and 89, both for ad valorem tax exemptions.
13:43:26 Item 88 is for 1806 through 1810 North Franklin Street
13:43:30 and currently owed by 1806 North Franklin Street LLC
13:43:36 in the Tampa Bay Heights historic district.
13:43:39 When constructed this building was a hotel, built in
13:43:44 1915.
13:43:46 The applicant came through for renovation for the
13:43:48 interior and exterior.
13:43:50 As you look at this photo here, this is taken sometime
13:43:53 in the 70s.
13:43:54 It shows the modification of the storefront, and the
13:43:57 balcony.
13:43:58 Upon ownership taken for this project, the balcony was

13:44:02 removed, and was going to be rehabilitated along with
13:44:05 the storefront and the windows.
13:44:09 This is showing the progress along the way, showing
13:44:11 the implementation of the storefront, but the
13:44:14 elimination of the balcony, and this is after
13:44:16 completion.
13:44:19 You see the storefront, how it was originally and the
13:44:22 re-creation of the balcony with a metal roof.
13:44:27 Two interior photos.
13:44:29 This was during renovation.
13:44:31 The centralized stair from the first floor to the
13:44:33 second floor.
13:44:37 Once you went to the second floor, the recreation of
13:44:41 the rooms.
13:44:43 It is an adaptive reuse.
13:44:45 They took a different fashion.
13:44:46 Today it is an office.
13:44:48 You look on the top here.
13:44:51 This is the recreation of the stairwell, the vertical
13:44:54 access from the first floor to the second floor.
13:44:57 And the wood floors, the casings around the windows,
13:45:03 and the baseboards.

13:45:04 This is the central corridor, on the second floor,
13:45:09 room to room, which now accesses offices to offices
13:45:13 but you see the five panel doors, the hardwood floors,
13:45:16 and the appropriate texture on the walls.
13:45:19 This ad valorem is consistent with our review, and
13:45:23 they are seeking approval today.
13:45:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
13:45:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the course of our council
13:45:33 meeting, seeing these improvements is one of the high
13:45:35 points of our meeting.
13:45:36 This is a terrific example of reinvestment, and we are
13:45:39 happy that the investor will enjoy the property tax
13:45:45 exemption that they get from this.
13:45:47 It's a great incentive to offer people who invest in
13:45:50 preservation.
13:45:51 I would like to move this resolution.
13:45:53 >> Second.
13:45:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone from the public wish to address
13:45:56 council on this item?
13:45:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
13:46:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
13:46:01 (Motion carried)

13:46:03 There's a motion.
13:46:04 Is there a second?
13:46:07 >>THE CLERK: The title of the ordinance has to be
13:46:09 read.
13:46:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
13:46:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move an ordinance
13:46:17 approving a historic preservation property tax
13:46:20 exemption application relative to the restoration,
13:46:23 renovation or rehabilitation of certain property
13:46:26 located -- property owned by 1806 North Franklin LLC
13:46:31 located at 1806-1808 North Franklin Street, Tampa,
13:46:34 Florida, in the Tampa Heights historic district based
13:46:38 upon certain findings providing for notice to the
13:46:40 property appraiser of Hillsborough County providing
13:46:42 for severability, providing for repeal of all
13:46:44 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
13:46:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
13:46:54 (Motion carried).
13:46:56 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held
13:46:58 on July 16th at 9:30.
13:47:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 89.
13:47:02 >>> This is also for the ad valorem tax exemption,

13:47:06 this structure locate at 5114 north Suwannee Avenue,
13:47:12 owned by Greg Barnhill.
13:47:15 The structure on the Elmo was construct in 1918, in a
13:47:22 bungalow style. If you look on the top photo here,
13:47:24 this is prior to rehabilitation.
13:47:26 And on the bottom it's after rehabilitation.
13:47:31 There are some items of concern here.
13:47:33 If you look here, the flooring was completely gone.
13:47:38 The roof was completely dilapidated.
13:47:41 Some of the windows were nonexistent, so the
13:47:45 recreation of the historic windows in the bottom photo
13:47:48 were implemented.
13:47:50 Moving to the side elevation, on the top is after
13:47:57 rehabilitation, and the bottom is prior to
13:47:59 rehabilitation.
13:48:03 Siding was use on the lower portion with the shingles
13:48:07 above to the delineation line.
13:48:09 The series of original windows were kept along the
13:48:12 sides with the patterns.
13:48:15 Moving into the interior, this is looking into the
13:48:20 formal dining room.
13:48:21 You see the built-ins here and there is also a

13:48:23 built-in in the back that was retained and the former
13:48:30 dining room.
13:48:31 In the interior after rehabilitation, this is looking
13:48:34 from the family room towards the formal dining room.
13:48:39 You see the built-in, the two rooms and then the
13:48:41 built-in in the back.
13:48:42 You see the recreation of the wood floors, period
13:48:46 lighting.
13:48:50 And the ribbon windows, the former dining room.
13:48:59 This is the kitchen prior to rehabilitation.
13:49:04 This is after rehabilitation with period cabinetry,
13:49:09 they kept the original windows, and the wood flooring,
13:49:13 and then the last photo I'm going to show, this is
13:49:16 cabinetry that was original to the house that was
13:49:18 retained and reused in that same fashion.
13:49:22 That this presentation.
13:49:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public hearing.
13:49:26 Anyone wishing to address council on this petition?
13:49:40 >> Susan Long, 921 E. Broad Street.
13:49:44 When Mr. Barnhill acquired this house, everybody I
13:49:47 knew said he wasted his money, it's not savable, it
13:49:50 should be leveled.

13:49:51 He's done an absolute gorgeous job.
13:49:53 I cannot believe that he took what he was starting
13:49:55 with and turned it into what he has now.
13:49:57 I really want to thank him for doing that.
13:50:00 Thank you.
13:50:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker?
13:50:03 >>> Ingrid Smith, 5605 north Suwannee Avenue, and I
13:50:09 have been sworn.
13:50:10 He did a tremendous job on this house.
13:50:15 We had a chance to walk through it.
13:50:17 It is gorgeous, restoration work, and now the rehab.
13:50:24 He won't even take me let me take the lights out of
13:50:27 there that I would greatly like to have in my house.
13:50:30 He has done a wonderful job.
13:50:32 Thank you.
13:50:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
13:50:34 Motion to close?
13:50:34 >> So moved.
13:50:35 >> Second.
13:50:36 (Motion carried).
13:50:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.
13:50:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

13:50:44 An ordinance approving a historic preservation
13:50:46 property tax exemption application related to the
13:50:49 restoration, the renovation or rehabilitation of
13:50:52 certain property owned by Greg Barnhill located at
13:50:55 5114 north Suwannee Avenue, Tampa, Florida, in the
13:50:59 Seminole Heights historic district, based upon certain
13:51:02 findings, providing for notice to the property
13:51:04 appraiser of Hillary Clinton, providing for
13:51:06 severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances
13:51:10 in conflict, providing an effective date.
13:51:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
13:51:15 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
13:51:17 Closes.
13:51:18 >> Second reading and adoption will be held on July
13:51:21 16th at 9:30 a.m.
13:51:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 90.
13:51:51 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination.
13:51:52 This is a property for petition V 09-283 for property
13:51:57 at 204 North Westshore Boulevard.
13:52:00 Petitioner is requesting a 4(COP-R).
13:52:02 This is the old steak and ale style.
13:52:05 The old 4(COP) would be for full alcohol, wine and

13:52:11 spirits in conjunction with a restaurant only.
13:52:13 The petitioner, attached to your site plan, petitioner
13:52:16 has requested to make specific hours of operation.
13:52:24 I think it's on the mock-up agenda.
13:52:26 Midnight throughout the year and then 1:00 on specific
13:52:30 dates.
13:52:33 There are some elevations attached to your plan. I am
13:52:33 not going to show them on the Elmo for you unless you
13:52:35 would like me to.
13:52:37 If you have any questions, I would be more than happy
13:52:39 to answer them for you.
13:52:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?
13:52:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What was the previous restaurant on
13:52:45 this site?
13:52:48 >>> Steak and Ale.
13:52:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Officer Miller?
13:52:53 >> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
13:52:57 department.
13:52:57 The City of Tampa police department has no objections
13:52:59 to this special use I permit.
13:53:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
13:53:07 >> Good afternoon.

13:53:11 My name is Grace Yang, Gray Robinson law firm, 201
13:53:15 North Franklin Street, suite 2200, and I have been
13:53:18 sworn.
13:53:19 I am the agent for the petitioner.
13:53:21 And with me is John Keen, the site development manager
13:53:25 for the Seasons 52 project.
13:53:28 As Mr. Cotton indicated, this is for the old Steak and
13:53:32 Ale parcel at the Westshore mall facing Westshore
13:53:35 Boulevard, and this is for the proposed Seasons 52
13:53:40 that's going to be coming to Tampa.
13:53:43 I do have an elevation showing the proposed design for
13:53:47 the building.
13:53:49 The Seasons 52 restaurant is proud to have food that
13:53:56 is based on the seasons.
13:53:58 They try to use food that is fresh and in season and
13:54:03 they have changing menu based on what the chef feels
13:54:05 is the best for availability.
13:54:08 The Seasons 52 restaurants offer a variety of beer,
13:54:12 mixed drinks, and an award winning wine list of more
13:54:15 than 120 outstanding wines with about 60 available by
13:54:19 the glass.
13:54:21 Mr. Keen has some additional pictures showing you some

13:54:23 of the other Seasons 52 restaurants in case you want
13:54:27 to get an idea of how the Seasons 52 restaurants are
13:54:30 designed.
13:54:32 We have discussed the project with the two closest
13:54:34 homeowners associations.
13:54:36 It is our understanding that they are supportive of
13:54:38 this petition with the restricted hours as noted in
13:54:42 the petition, and we would be happy to answer any
13:54:45 additional questions.
13:54:46 We respectfully request approval.
13:54:55 >>CHAIRMAN: I never heard of them.
13:54:56 >> They do have them in a number of other cities,
13:54:59 Orlando, Altamonte Springs, they have two in Atlanta,
13:55:02 one in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Ft. Lauderdale, West
13:55:07 Palm Beach.
13:55:12 >>GWEN MILLER: All around us and now they are coming to
13:55:14 us.
13:55:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
13:55:15 This is a public hearing.
13:55:16 Anyone wishing to address council on this petition?
13:55:19 This is a public hearing.
13:55:20 Anyone wishing to address council?

13:55:22 >> Move to close.
13:55:23 >> Second.
13:55:23 (Motion carried).
13:55:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
13:55:26 Council Miranda?
13:55:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I have the ordinance.
13:55:34 I'll take the clerks.
13:55:41 Mr. Chairman, I move an ordinance approving a special
13:55:43 use permit for first reading for alcohol beverage
13:55:46 sales large venue and making lawful the sale of
13:55:48 beverage containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic
13:55:51 content beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-R) for consumption
13:55:55 on premises only in connection with a restaurant
13:55:56 business established at or from that certain lot, plot
13:56:00 or tract of land located at 204 North Westshore
13:56:04 Boulevard in Tampa, Florida more particularly
13:56:05 described in sections 2 therefore approving waivers as
13:56:09 set forth herein providing for repeal of all
13:56:12 ordinances in conflict providing an effective date.
13:56:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It is my understanding that there are
13:56:18 additional conditions handed out that must be included
13:56:20 in that.

13:56:20 >> Along with the conditions that you just handed me
13:56:24 that's part of the statement that I just read.
13:56:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Clerk, you have a copy of those, okay?
13:56:29 It's moved.
13:56:30 Is there a second?
13:56:31 Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
13:56:32 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
13:56:34 Opposes?
13:56:35 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held
13:56:38 on July 16th at 9:30 a.m.
13:56:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 91.
13:56:44 Item 91.
13:57:05 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination.
13:57:07 This is for V 09-3 is the for property at 7706 and
13:57:12 7708 North Florida Avenue.
13:57:15 Petitioner Salvador Quezada.
13:57:22 The DRC found this inconsistent.
13:57:25 Due to the standard waivers that petitioner asked for,
13:57:29 for the distance separation -- excuse me, they are
13:57:31 asking for 2(APS) which is for beer and wine, package
13:57:35 sales only in conjunction with an existing grocery
13:57:39 store.

13:57:39 The DRC had issues of parking from 30 to 17 spaces,
13:57:43 again existing condition, and attached to your staff
13:57:49 site plan if you move to approve it, if that's the
13:57:51 inclination of council, they would have to make
13:57:54 certain changes to the site plan.
13:57:58 There are some notes that need to be added.
13:58:00 There are some graphical changes that need to be made
13:58:03 in conjunction with losing some parking spaces and
13:58:05 solid waste, and for site clearance for the existing
13:58:08 parking required by transportation.
13:58:16 This is the existing location.
13:58:19 This is the grocery store.
13:58:20 Across the street is a senior center run by
13:58:24 Hillsborough County.
13:58:25 It's surrounded by -- there's a restaurant in the
13:58:29 plaza.
13:58:30 There's a used car lot.
13:58:31 Across the street is a City of Tampa park.
13:58:35 If you have any questions I will be more than happy to
13:58:37 answer them.
13:58:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?
13:58:43 Overs Miller?

13:58:45 >> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
13:58:47 department.
13:58:47 City of Tampa police department has no objections to
13:58:50 this wet zoning.
13:58:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
13:58:53 >>> My name is he had Eduardo, and I'm here
13:59:06 representing Salvador Quezada sitting next to me.
13:59:10 He's applying for wet zoning in a strip center that
13:59:14 previously had 2(APS) license before the previous
13:59:21 owner would let this wet zoning go dry.
13:59:27 He is trying to apply again to have wet zoning at that
13:59:31 particular site, 7706, 7708 North Florida Avenue.
13:59:42 He already has obtained the Department of Agriculture
13:59:44 license to operate a grocery store.
13:59:50 He also has been approved for lotto, Florida lotto
13:59:55 sales.
13:59:56 He is in the process of obtaining permit to take food
14:00:02 stamps.
14:00:03 He's also been approved by the business division, the
14:00:09 City of Tampa.
14:00:11 The strip center was built in 1957.
14:00:16 And it has a few business going there, a restaurant, a

14:00:25 beauty salon, an office building, and the grocery
14:00:32 store.
14:00:32 We understand there is some inconsistencies with storm
14:00:41 waters, and we have talked to Mr. Vince of the waste
14:00:51 department that we will be able to provide a corrected
14:00:57 site plan before the second reading, and also present
14:01:02 is here our surveyor, Mr. Johnny Fletcher, just in
14:01:07 case the City Council has some questions about the
14:01:14 site plan.
14:01:16 On behalf of Mr. Quezada we ask respectfully the City
14:01:21 Council to approve this petition for wet zoning.
14:01:25 I also have a list of 13 neighbors around the block
14:01:32 that do not oppose this petition.
14:01:37 If you have any questions, Mr. Quezada is here present
14:01:41 and Mr. Fletcher is here present on behalf of this
14:01:43 petition.
14:01:43 Thank you.
14:01:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Did you say this was zoned before for
14:01:49 2(APS)?
14:01:52 Is that what you said earlier, that this site was --
14:01:57 >>> They had a wet zoning, yes.
14:02:00 Two years ago.

14:02:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 2(APS)?
14:02:06 >>>
14:02:06 >>> Yes.
14:02:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (off microphone) looking at the map
14:02:13 that you provided us, adjacent to this request are
14:02:15 three other businesses.
14:02:17 And I was looking at the number of parking spaces
14:02:20 you're providing.
14:02:21 And I'm wondering if the parking spaces also provide
14:02:25 the parking for the adjacent businesses.
14:02:27 It appears that they do.
14:02:31 >>> Yes, what we are working on is in the next lot,
14:02:35 which is also part of the -- the other one is an empty
14:02:40 lot, which as has always been parking in that area,
14:02:47 even though there is dirt, but it's been parking for
14:02:50 so many years.
14:02:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you own that other lot?
14:02:57 >>> Yes.
14:02:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The way that our pork parking rules
14:03:01 work he is supposed to be paid but I'm just concerned
14:03:03 if there's three businesses in addition -- maybe our
14:03:07 staff can address this.

14:03:08 But counting the spaces, it says there's supposed to
14:03:13 be 30 spaces and there's 17 and it appears that's
14:03:19 being shared by three businesses in addition to this
14:03:21 new proposed business.
14:03:22 >>> That's correct.
14:03:23 That was even proposed by the transportation
14:03:26 department.
14:03:26 >> Okay, thank you.
14:03:29 Maybe staff can address this.
14:03:30 >>ERIC COTTON: Land development.
14:03:32 You are correct, they are required.
14:03:34 A strip center is supposed to have 30 spaces.
14:03:38 They are probably only going to be allowed to have 17
14:03:41 because they are going to lose three more spaces as it
14:03:43 stands right now.
14:03:46 This area here, which you have to get permitting.
14:03:50 The grocery store is already there so it's an existing
14:03:53 situation.
14:03:53 The number of --
14:03:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Grandfathered?
14:03:57 >>> Correct.
14:03:58 And coming before you with a special use to ask for

14:04:00 the parking waiver if they desire to have alcohol
14:04:04 there.
14:04:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:04:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?
14:04:08 This is a public hearing.
14:04:09 Anyone wishing to address dress council may come
14:04:12 forward.
14:04:12 Put your name and address on the record.
14:04:14 You all may be seated.
14:04:17 >>> May I turn this in?
14:04:20 >> Yes.
14:04:35 >>> Ingrid Smith, 5605 north pawnee Avenue, Seminole
14:04:40 Heights, and I have been sworn.
14:04:41 This is a small grocery convenience store on the
14:04:45 corner of Kirby and Florida, directly across from the
14:04:50 Riverside.
14:04:51 It is directly across from the senior citizens center.
14:04:57 We are not objecting to the wet zoning but we do have
14:05:01 concerns about hours and any future tenant to this
14:05:05 property.
14:05:07 Currently they close at midnight seven days a week.
14:05:10 So if the petitioner could put that as termination for

14:05:16 liquor sales.
14:05:19 First and foremost, no single sales of alcohol, no as
14:05:24 far as moo no singles or quarts.
14:05:26 No bottles of wine or single wine coolers.
14:05:29 And I understand there are some outdoor speakers.
14:05:32 So if it's included that any music that may be
14:05:40 included to cease one hour before closing and if they
14:05:44 get later hours then no later than midnight Friday,
14:05:51 Saturday.
14:05:52 And parking of course is always an issue.
14:05:55 Currently, there may be some impact to the oaks which
14:06:01 was a great redevelopment project to the Heights and
14:06:05 got rid of those blue boxes.
14:06:07 And the community center is scheduled to open this
14:06:10 summer.
14:06:11 And from what I understand, there are concerns from
14:06:15 the nearby neighbors on that side of the street at the
14:06:17 oaks regarding drive-through traffic.
14:06:20 So hopefully limiting the hours may curtail some of
14:06:23 that drive-through.
14:06:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What were the hours again you are
14:06:28 requesting?

14:06:28 >>> I stopped by the store and they said they close
14:06:31 right now seven days at midnight.
14:06:33 So if the wet zoning could either go with that or
14:06:38 maybe one hour earlier on weeknights.
14:06:41 And.
14:06:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:06:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You mentioned several other things.
14:06:46 Do you have that in writing?
14:06:47 Could you share that with council?
14:06:49 >>> Pardon?
14:06:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You made several different requests
14:06:51 including the closing.
14:06:53 Can you share that with us?
14:06:54 Maybe a staff person could have copies made for
14:06:58 council.
14:06:58 Thank you.
14:07:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:07:04 Next speaker.
14:07:06 Ms. Long?
14:07:07 >> Susan long, 920 broad street.
14:07:13 We are not opposed to the APS wet zoning.
14:07:16 However, I would characterize it more as a very small

14:07:20 grocery store than a convenience store.
14:07:22 It is meticulously kept which I find nice.
14:07:27 However, because of its location, being that close to
14:07:32 the oaks of Riverview, when problems crop up in the
14:07:38 assisted housing areas, they tend to crop up about
14:07:41 midnight.
14:07:41 So we would prefer that they be required to close at
14:07:43 midnight.
14:07:45 I'm very active in the Seminole Heights mobile crime
14:07:50 watch.
14:07:50 That's when we see problems cropping up.
14:07:52 We would like to restrict them to no singles, no
14:07:55 quarts, and no mini bottles of wine, and wine coolers.
14:07:59 That tends to be a trash issue, when they sell that.
14:08:02 They walk out with their drink and in their brown bag
14:08:06 and when they are done they throw it wherever.
14:08:08 And the oaks of Riverview is a beautiful place now,
14:08:10 and they are very concerned that it stay that way.
14:08:14 They do have music.
14:08:16 To my knowledge the music is only inside.
14:08:20 If it's restricted to inside only I don't have a
14:08:23 problem with that.

14:08:23 But those are our primary concerns.
14:08:25 The singles and the hours of operation.
14:08:27 Other than that we have no problems.
14:08:28 Thank you.
14:08:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:08:31 Next speaker.
14:08:35 >> Carlos Martin, 320 east broad street, part of The
14:08:40 Oaks of Riverview.
14:08:42 Again, no objections to the wet zoning other than the
14:08:45 singles, due to garbage and trash accumulation in the
14:08:50 community.
14:08:50 That would be my only concern with that.
14:08:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
14:08:58 Petitioner?
14:09:04 >>> Eduardo for the petitioner.
14:09:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You have a five minute rebuttal.
14:09:17 Do you want to add anything else?
14:09:18 >>> No.
14:09:20 Well, we are able to adjust --
14:09:22 Do you agree with what the residents are asking that
14:09:24 you close --
14:09:26 >>> About the closing time, garbage.

14:09:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
14:09:33 At 12 midnight.
14:09:34 And then on Friday and Saturday, that's one, is that
14:09:37 accurate?
14:09:38 >>> No, not really.
14:09:40 It will be 12 p.m. at the most.
14:09:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 12 midnight seven days a week.
14:09:45 >>> Yes, 12 midnight.
14:09:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The singles issue, can that be put in
14:09:50 there, no singles?
14:09:51 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
14:09:55 City Council has previously limited the sale of malt
14:10:00 beverages to not being able to sell singles.
14:10:02 I have expressed to City Council, although the
14:10:05 provision has not been challenged, you are potentially
14:10:07 getting an area that's preempted by state law.
14:10:10 City Council has done it before.
14:10:13 The condition would be that there be no single sales,
14:10:19 small beverages.
14:10:20 I do not have any suggested language for the wine.
14:10:22 I'm not really familiar with how they are doing it.
14:10:25 City Council hasn't done that before.

14:10:26 But whatever language that needs to be imposed, or
14:10:29 that the applicant agrees to, that City Council agrees
14:10:33 to impose be settle dad for it will be -- I'm not even
14:10:41 sure how to describe with the wine.
14:10:42 Little bottle is not something I am able to adequately
14:10:45 describe.
14:10:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
14:10:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I suggest no wine sales in
14:10:51 containers of 12-ounces or less.
14:10:53 >>REBECCA KERT: If that's agreeable to the applicant.
14:10:57 That's something that can be certified between first
14:10:59 and second reading with the caveat that I said about
14:11:01 the state.
14:11:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Did you say you are not sure if this
14:11:08 is consistent with state law?
14:11:10 What did you say?
14:11:11 >>REBECCA KERT: I'm not sure if we the city are now
14:11:13 stepping into an area that's regulated by the state,
14:11:16 because if there's any area that's specifically
14:11:18 regulated by the state, then the city is specifically
14:11:25 regulated there. I can't tell you the definitively
14:11:28 this is preempted, and City Council has decided to

14:11:32 take that chance in the past and place these
14:11:34 conditions on there. But I think it's important for
14:11:36 you all to be aware there's at least an issue out
14:11:38 there that someone could challenge that at some point.
14:11:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So res you understand what the
14:11:46 attorney just told us?
14:11:47 I'm talking to the residents.
14:11:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
14:11:56 (Speaking Spanish)
14:12:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The music inside does not go
14:12:15 outside.
14:12:15 He has no intentions of ever putting speakers outside
14:12:18 at all.
14:12:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Sir, talk to this way.
14:12:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll be talking to you in Italian
14:12:37 in a minute.
14:12:39 (Speaking Spanish)
14:12:40 All right.
14:12:48 Way said was, there was a suggestion made by Mrs.
14:12:51 Saul-Sena not to sell any single package, I guess you
14:12:55 can put them in a bag and call them package, any sales
14:12:59 of wine or alcohol, I mean beer or wine, under

14:13:03 12-ounces.
14:13:04 I'm not going to disagree with Mrs. Saul-Sena.
14:13:07 I have a philosophical difference, because we don't do
14:13:11 this to WalMart, K-Mart, Publix, Sweetbay, and I hate
14:13:16 to, just me, to say, listen, it's good enough for them
14:13:21 but it's not good enough for somebody else.
14:13:23 So I do have a philosophical difference.
14:13:26 I'm not opposed to it.
14:13:27 Philosophically I do have that.
14:13:32 (Speaking Spanish)
14:13:32 He agrees to all of the above.
14:13:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Muchas gracias.
14:13:57 Thank you.
14:13:58 [ Laughter ]
14:13:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm not able that I was able to
14:14:05 follow that but I believe her point was wine less than
14:14:08 12-ounces.
14:14:09 If you can sell anything less than 12-ounces in beer,
14:14:11 beer does come in 12-ounce bottles.
14:14:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:14:17 Motion to close.
14:14:20 Do you have a question?

14:14:21 >>ERIC COTTON: Could you put what he agreed to?
14:14:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: He agreed to, A, close at 12
14:14:33 midnight.
14:14:34 Not one minute after.
14:14:35 He agreed never to have outside music.
14:14:37 To have the inside music not penetrate the walls
14:14:39 outside, only for the customers inside.
14:14:42 And he agreed not to sell beer or wine under 12-ounce
14:14:47 bottles or whatever, however they Compaq acknowledged.
14:14:53 That's what we agree to.
14:14:54 >>> SI.
14:14:57 Thank you, council.
14:14:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.
14:15:01 >> So moved.
14:15:03 >> Second.
14:15:03 (Motion carried).
14:15:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Miranda?
14:15:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm sorry, the wrong language.
14:15:20 Let me get it straight.
14:15:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: He may not be aware that he has to
14:15:26 come back.
14:15:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:

14:15:29 (Speaking Spanish)
14:15:30 I move an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2
14:15:39 for alcoholic beverage zonings, small venue making
14:15:42 lawful the sale of beverage containing alcohol not
14:15:44 more than 1% by weight not more than 14% by weight and
14:15:47 wine regardless of alcohol content beer and wine
14:15:49 2(APS) in sealed containers for consumption on
14:15:52 premises only at or from this the certain lot, plot or
14:15:55 tract of land, 7706, 7708 North Florida Avenue Tampa,
14:16:01 Florida more particularly described in section 2
14:16:03 therefore approving waivers set forth herein providing
14:16:06 for repeal of all ordinances in conflicts, providing
14:16:08 an effective date.
14:16:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And including the other special
14:16:10 conditions, and with all the --
14:16:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: With all the conditions that were
14:16:14 expressed such as closing no later than 12 midnight,
14:16:17 no music outside, the music inside can cannot be heard
14:16:22 from outside and the sales of beer or wine cannot be
14:16:26 sold in less than 12-ounce packages.
14:16:30 Plus all the other issues that were brought up during
14:16:32 the hearing.

14:16:34 Now, we are going to vote?
14:16:37
14:16:37 Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
14:16:40 All in favor?
14:16:42 Opposes?
14:16:42 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption to be held on
14:16:45 July 16th, 9:30 a.m.
14:16:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Spanish.
14:16:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:16:59 Item 92.
14:17:18 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination, for V
14:17:21 09-317 for property at 4516 and 4520 south Dale Mabry
14:17:25 Avenue.
14:17:26 Petitioner is requesting a 4(COP), which is full
14:17:30 liquor, beer wine and spirits.
14:17:32 The proposed use is a restaurant, a 4(COP) does not
14:17:36 have any restrictions on it to make council aware.
14:17:39 This is an existing strip center, existing restaurant.
14:17:46 A strip center.
14:17:48 There is a closed shop.
14:17:50 Across the street is a public complex.
14:17:52 Behind the center itself is an auto repair

14:17:56 establishment.
14:17:57 The petitioner is asking for three waivers, the
14:17:59 distance separation from other places, from
14:18:02 residential, other place that is sell alcohol, also
14:18:04 reduce the drive aisle from 11 to 8 feet.
14:18:09 Solid waste has found an inconsistency for the
14:18:14 dumpster opening being too small.
14:18:17 They need to amend that to make sure -- that's a
14:18:20 graphical that can be done between first and second
14:18:22 reading.
14:18:26 We think a 4(COP) is too intense for that area, as an
14:18:30 existing restaurant.
14:18:31 We are recommending a 4(COP-X) or 4(COP-R) whichever
14:18:36 meets the petitioner's requirements.
14:18:38 The R requires the 49-51% separation food and alcohol.
14:18:44 The 4(COP) just restricts con consumption on premises
14:18:48 only.
14:18:49 If council has any questions I will be happy to answer
14:18:51 them.
14:18:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I do did have a chance to explain
14:18:57 to the -- have you had a chance to explain to the
14:18:59 Peter difference between the R and X?

14:19:02 >>ERIC COTTON: Yes, we discussed it.
14:19:03 The original for asking for that 4(COP), all thought
14:19:06 was an existing restaurant, they had a 4(COP) from the
14:19:09 state, the they don't have the same standards as the
14:19:13 state.
14:19:14 The state requires 4,000 square feet for an
14:19:16 establishment.
14:19:19 Ours doesn't have that requirement.
14:19:20 When they applied they applied for the 4(COP) which is
14:19:22 what they had from the state because they didn't
14:19:25 realize the requirements were different from the
14:19:26 state's requirements.
14:19:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:19:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Officer Miller.
14:19:31 >> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
14:19:33 department.
14:19:34 City of Tampa police department has no objections to
14:19:35 the special use II.
14:19:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
14:19:43 >> Dixie Liberty, 5719 Tanagerlake Road. I'm
14:19:47 representing My Daddy's Pizza and he's requesting a
14:19:52 4(COP).

14:19:59 It is approximately 4,000 square feet.
14:20:02 And the hours are Sunday through Thursday, 11 a.m. to
14:20:06 12 o'clock a.m.
14:20:06 And Friday and Saturday 11 a.m. to 2 o'clock a.m.
14:20:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anything else?
14:20:16 >>> No, sir.
14:20:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:20:19 Questions by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
14:20:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am requesting the X.
14:20:23 My question is, it sounds like you are going to
14:20:27 basically have a pizza restaurant.
14:20:29 >>> It's going to be the same.
14:20:30 It's the pizza, they have been there for a few years.
14:20:32 >> Would you consider the "R"?
14:20:35 We, council, usually encourage Rs when it would meet
14:20:41 your need as a restaurant and it's close to
14:20:43 residential uses.
14:20:44 >>> we just want to make sure it doesn't turn into a
14:20:48 bar.
14:20:49 And with the X it could turn into a bar and we prefer
14:20:52 to the be a restaurant and not --
14:20:55 >>> Yeah, it's going to be a restaurant.

14:20:56 It's been there for a few years.
14:20:58 And 4014 square feet.
14:21:09 And I also have some petitions in favor of that 240
14:21:15 and they are all within three miles of this vicinity.
14:21:18 They are in favor of it.
14:21:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you be comfortable with the
14:21:25 "R"?
14:21:26 >>> Yes, ma'am.
14:21:27 That would be great.
14:21:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Turn that in to the clerk, if you
14:21:36 don't mind, ma'am, that list.
14:21:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Can we modify that while we are
14:21:44 here the next hour or so, change that to an R?
14:21:49 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes, we can do it.
14:21:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Should we hear from the public?
14:21:55 >> Anyone from the public wish to address council on
14:21:57 item it 92?
14:21:59 Anyone from the public?
14:22:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we vote to have legal --
14:22:03 What else is she going to do?
14:22:05 She's going to try to do that and we'll hold this
14:22:07 until she comes back, okay?

14:22:09 So we'll come back to that, okay?
14:22:10 Item 93.
14:22:29 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination.
14:22:30 This is for V 09-318.
14:22:33 This is for property at 6807 east Adamo Drive.
14:22:42 There are no waivers being asked for, but they are
14:22:44 asking for 4(COP), property split between industrial
14:22:47 heavy and industrial general.
14:22:50 Petitioner is asking for 4(COP), in conjunction with a
14:22:57 restaurant site again.
14:23:03 This is a vacant building.
14:23:05 Next door to it is an establishment, this is an
14:23:11 existing building, and on the other side of it is an
14:23:14 adult use, and across the street is another industrial
14:23:19 heavy commercialized area.
14:23:21 Staff has the same axe objection as we did on the last
14:23:24 one, requesting the petitioner ask for a 4(COP-X) for
14:23:32 the same basic requirements.
14:23:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Officer Miller?
14:23:36 >> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
14:23:39 department.
14:23:40 The City of Tampa police department has no objections

14:23:42 to the special use II permit.
14:23:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner? Representing this one,
14:23:48 too?
14:23:50 >> Dixie Liberty, 5719 Tanagerlake Road, Lithia,
14:23:55 Florida.
14:23:55 I'm the representative for Paradise Restaurant and
14:23:58 Lounge.
14:23:59 It's approximately 17,000 square feet.
14:24:06 They are going to be a restaurant.
14:24:10 Requesting a 4(COP-X).
14:24:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:24:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This could be a bar, but it's not
14:24:19 near any residential.
14:24:20 >>> Right.
14:24:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My concern is this.
14:24:23 Not that you have these intentions, but we have up the
14:24:26 street and down the street, had adult uses.
14:24:33 Is this going to be an adult use?
14:24:35 >>> No, ma'am.
14:24:36 No, ma'am.
14:24:36 He has a few other restaurants all over the state.
14:24:42 And it's going to be -- they are serving food.

14:24:44 It will be a restaurant.
14:24:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But it's not going to be an adult
14:24:48 use?
14:24:48 >>> No, ma'am.
14:24:49 I am not aware of that.
14:24:50 I was told it's going to be a restaurant.
14:24:52 And I also gave you the menu when I did the paperwork,
14:24:56 I showed you the menu.
14:24:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I guess that didn't make it to us,
14:25:03 but thank you.
14:25:04 Can I ask a question of our staff?
14:25:07 >> Yes.
14:25:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't know, Mr. Cotton, if you
14:25:12 were around when we had -- I forget, the pony comes to
14:25:18 mind with issues with adult uses and bars that are not
14:25:21 supposed to be together but they are.
14:25:23 What kind of protection does council have to make sure
14:25:29 that this liquor-serving establishment doesn't become
14:25:34 an adult use?
14:25:35 What are the rules?
14:25:38 >>ERIC COTTON: Eric Cotton, land development. An
14:25:38 adult use is a special use 1. Cathy Coyle, the zoning

14:25:43 administrator, reviews those.
14:25:45 To become an adult use they have to apply.
14:25:47 >> They have to come back before council?
14:25:49 >>> An administrative review for the X-1 the adult use
14:25:54 part of it.
14:25:55 I'll defer to Cathy if she disagrees.
14:25:57 I don't see us approving an adult use into a site that
14:26:01 serves alcohol.
14:26:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
14:26:04 Thank you.
14:26:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
14:26:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I think the square footage is
14:26:12 17,000 something.
14:26:14 If you look at this room that we are in, it's about 24
14:26:17 by 100.
14:26:18 So that's about 2040 square feet.
14:26:22 You multiply this by 8 or 8 and a half and you get an
14:26:27 idea what we are talking about.
14:26:28 So this building eight times over, or this section of
14:26:33 the building, and that's the only thing that I'm
14:26:35 looking at.
14:26:36 It's an enormously big piece of property.

14:26:41 Zoning this with other than an "R" would leave some
14:26:44 doubt in my mind, not on this petitioner, but as you
14:26:47 well know, things are done for good reason, and then
14:26:51 if petitioner somehow or other wants to sell and
14:26:54 somebody else buys and it's zoned for other things
14:26:56 that this council has no control after that.
14:27:06 >>> My client and I spoke about he didn't want to do
14:27:08 the 49-51, just in case they held special events where
14:27:13 they go over their food.
14:27:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:27:20 Any other questions?
14:27:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just one more question.
14:27:26 Once Mr. Miranda brought it to our attention, I hadn't
14:27:29 looked at it carefully.
14:27:30 18,000 square feet is pretty large.
14:27:31 >>> I do have a new floor plan that I just got off the
14:27:37 Internet today.
14:27:38 Would you like to see it?
14:27:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would be great.
14:27:41 Thank you.
14:27:55 >>ERIC COTTON: Land development.
14:27:56 If council -- I understand the petitioner is concerned

14:27:58 about the 51-49%.
14:28:02 Council can make a contingent that it remains a
14:28:09 restaurant and not go to full bar.
14:28:12 But it has to be 51-49.
14:28:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's good to know.
14:28:16 Thank you.
14:28:16 This is a public hearing.
14:28:20 Anyone wishing to address council?
14:28:21 You may be seated.
14:28:24 Anyone from the public wishing to address council on
14:28:26 this petition?
14:28:31 Any other question of the petitioner?
14:28:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:28:35 For the petitioner, what you just handed us makes me
14:28:38 feel better about things, because it shows a
14:28:40 significant percentage of the footprint being used for
14:28:44 storage, and other significant area being used for
14:28:47 offices.
14:28:47 >>> Yes, ma'am.
14:28:50 >> It diminishes the amount that will probably be used
14:28:53 for the bar and the restaurant portion.
14:28:55 So a question for our staff is, is there any way that

14:29:00 we could just zone for liquor the area that is
14:29:06 indicated on the drawing that the petitioner just
14:29:08 shared with council?
14:29:11 >>> It looks to be, ballparking, maybe 10,000 --
14:29:20 We could let it continue to be a restaurant use so
14:29:22 that gives quiet quite a bit.
14:29:25 Tie it up to the zoning.
14:29:26 That's what he just said.
14:29:27 Is that right, Eric?
14:29:28 So that's irrelevant at this point in time to do it.
14:29:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Even better.
14:29:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:29:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's a step
14:29:37 in the right direction.
14:29:38 That's going to be part of the site plan, that was
14:29:41 just given to us, the reduction in square footage.
14:29:44 However, we have to define what is a restaurant.
14:29:46 Is a restaurant something you sell one bacon and egg
14:29:50 once a months and continue to sell?
14:29:52 I don't know.
14:29:52 I'm not trying to be smart or anything else.
14:29:54 But I'm thinking way ahead, five or ten years down the

14:29:56 road.
14:29:58 If we can make it -- I don't know.
14:30:02 It sounds real simple but it becomes convoluted when
14:30:06 you start to specifically address what is a
14:30:08 restaurant.
14:30:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Excuse me, ma'am, if you can be seat.
14:30:15 We are kind of talking to staff right now.
14:30:17 So we'll call you back.
14:30:19 You can take a seat on the front row there.
14:30:22 That will be fine.
14:30:22 >>ERIC COTTON: Land development.
14:30:24 Chapter 27 does define what a restaurant is.
14:30:27 I have a copy in front of me.
14:30:30 Marty has the code in front of him.
14:30:32 He can read it into the record if you like.
14:30:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: More than bacon and eggs.
14:30:41 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm looking at the site plan.
14:30:43 Do you have this site plan?
14:30:48 I have questions because it looks like there's a store
14:30:52 drawn in here, and there's offices.
14:31:00 We are not being asked for package sales, are we?
14:31:04 >>> No.

14:31:05 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm just curious what this is on the
14:31:10 site plan.
14:31:10 Because it looks like -- all the blue at the bottom of
14:31:20 the page.
14:31:23 >>> It's the first time we have seen this.
14:31:25 I would imagine it's offices for the restaurant.
14:31:36 >>> It's for a different management who is going to be
14:31:38 coming in doing managing.
14:31:40 They have their own offices.
14:31:41 >>MARY MULHERN: But it looks like counters, or store.
14:31:46 It says kitchen?
14:31:48 >>> This part here?
14:31:49 They are going to have an Internet cafe for people to
14:31:51 come in, sit down more like coffee.
14:32:00 >> With a computer.
14:32:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Do we have to wet zone the whole
14:32:03 property?
14:32:04 >>> When you get liquor in, that sometimes people
14:32:07 don't know, that you need to wet zone the whole area
14:32:10 because if you have a kitchen in the back that's where
14:32:12 most of your deliveries will be coming in at.
14:32:14 And then it gets passed through.

14:32:16 So anytime anybody is walking in or talking to
14:32:18 somebody, you have to make sure your premises wet
14:32:21 zoned.
14:32:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We asked for public comment.
14:32:41 Anyone from the public?
14:32:42 Public comment?
14:32:47 Yes, sir.
14:32:49 >>> 4706 North Thatcher Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33614.
14:32:54 Just wanted to mention as council stated earlier, you
14:32:57 know, yes, you would be wet zoning.
14:33:01 I support the petition just to make sure that the City
14:33:03 Council has a fallback position just in case, because
14:33:06 there are a lot of adult use as round there that have
14:33:09 somehow been able to, yes, get the special 1, but then
14:33:13 been able to serve full liquor.
14:33:16 So I just want to make sure that, you know, I support
14:33:18 the petition.
14:33:19 Yes, you do have to wet zone the 17,000 square feet,
14:33:23 what the petitioner is requesting, but I just want to
14:33:25 make sure that you have the ability in case the owner
14:33:27 sells it or someone makes an offer they can't refuse,
14:33:30 that you are able to, you know, take that wet zoning

14:33:33 away in case they put an adult use there.
14:33:36 Thank you.
14:33:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: If you could turn off all cell phones.
14:33:42 There's a note when you come in.
14:33:44 All cell phones must be silent, please.
14:33:46 Thank you.
14:33:49 Any other questions by council?
14:33:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is just one of those that I'm
14:33:57 trying to split hairs, and I don't have many left.
14:34:03 What do you mean I don't have any?
14:34:04 But what I'm trying to say is when you start in this
14:34:10 format, and you don't have an "R," 'n and you are
14:34:12 going to something else, at least this gentleman is
14:34:19 100 percent of what he wants to, do but if something
14:34:21 happens and somebody else moves in, they have the
14:34:23 right to do other things that the "R" would not let
14:34:25 them do.
14:34:28 Do we need -- I was under the understanding that it
14:34:34 was to sell the sale of alcohol.
14:34:37 You may store it.
14:34:38 Does that have to be also wet zoned to store it?
14:34:41 It does?

14:34:43 And then so then you are asking for the whole, again,
14:34:49 18,000 square feet.
14:34:50 Because you have a cafe, a restaurant, I don't know
14:34:54 what else you got there.
14:34:55 >>> It's going a restaurant, a bar and seating area
14:34:59 for the restaurant, you have a bar area.
14:35:02 >> I got no problem with it but when you start talking
14:35:05 about the Internet, and your cafe, and you want to
14:35:08 have a little coffee and a little cognac and a coffee
14:35:12 or whatever, iced coffee, and whatever, it just leaves
14:35:21 me in limbo.
14:35:23 That's what I'm not satisfied with.
14:35:25 And I'm very sincere with you.
14:35:27 I want to help you.
14:35:28 But the way coffee is, it's higher than a drink just
14:35:32 about.
14:35:33 You go to one of these things, I'm not going to
14:35:35 mention the second half because I don't want to get
14:35:37 sued, star something.
14:35:39 Three, four dollars for a cup of coffee, and if you
14:35:42 want a latte and so forth.
14:35:48 I'm just left in limbo here because the request moves

14:35:51 around so much.
14:35:51 It goes from one setting to another setting to another
14:35:54 setting.
14:35:55 And maybe I'm just not comfortable because we don't
14:35:58 have too many of these come up.
14:35:59 >> I guess he's just trying to -- because it is so big
14:36:02 he's just trying to get different options for people
14:36:04 to sit down into the restaurant area that would want
14:36:07 to come in and sit down and do some work.
14:36:09 >>> And I don't think there's any laws in the book
14:36:13 that he can't say in that this restaurant area is an
14:36:17 "R."
14:36:17 >>> The beverage department has their rules.
14:36:20 That's where my problem is.
14:36:21 You can't separate it, because it's still underneath
14:36:24 one address.
14:36:25 So it would have to be open to them to walk from one
14:36:29 place to another.
14:36:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
14:36:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:36:36 My usually overriding concern, in a request for liquor
14:36:42 zoning, is what will the impact be on the

14:36:43 neighborhood.
14:36:44 And in this particular location, there really isn't
14:36:47 any residential, any proximity.
14:36:50 So that's why I have less heartburn over this than
14:36:54 other requests.
14:36:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?
14:36:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
14:37:00 >> Second.
14:37:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
14:37:02 (Motion carried).
14:37:07 >>THE CLERK: Miranda, no.
14:37:08 >> There was four votes.
14:37:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We just closed.
14:37:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Oh.
14:37:14 I vote yes.
14:37:15 I'm sorry.
14:37:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if I can.
14:37:24 Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a comment.
14:37:28 The site plan, or the floor plan, excuse me, that you
14:37:33 were provided has absolutely no legal effect
14:37:34 whatsoever in this.
14:37:37 And as of now, there is no obligation with regard to

14:37:42 the use on the site plan as solely a restaurant.
14:37:46 So if council had contemplated doing that, the
14:37:50 ordinance you have in front of you does not have that
14:37:52 on the site plan.
14:37:58 >>REBECCA KERT: It was my understanding that during
14:37:59 the hearing the applicant amended her application to
14:38:01 be a 4(COP-X).
14:38:03 If that is correct I will have to also have that
14:38:06 ordinance come back to you and we should be able to do
14:38:08 that by the end of the day.
14:38:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:38:10 Ma'am, do you have anything else coming before us
14:38:12 today?
14:38:14 [ Laughter ]
14:38:18 >>> No.
14:38:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just to clarify with Mrs. Kert,
14:38:23 this cannot be an adult use, right unless the
14:38:26 petitioner comes to the city and petitions for an
14:38:27 adult use under an X-1?
14:38:30 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes, that's correct.
14:38:31 Any adult use would have to apply for an X-1 special
14:38:34 use permit.

14:38:35 >> And that would not be allowed probably where
14:38:37 there's a liquor zoning, right?
14:38:40 >>REBECCA KERT: That's a separate ordinance.
14:38:42 It's not necessarily that they cannot have one, that
14:38:45 they would not be able to sell the alcohol with it.
14:38:47 It's a very complicated issue, and what this could
14:38:53 become in the future, what you have here is a
14:38:55 4(COP-X).
14:38:56 And I also heard that you have agreed on the site plan
14:38:58 to limit to the a restaurant, not a 4(COP-R) and
14:39:04 that's what you have.
14:39:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay, thank you.
14:39:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And staff did state that it's an
14:39:11 administrative decision, in all likelihood they would
14:39:14 not approve that, coming from administration.
14:39:17 Okay.
14:39:23 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mrs. Kert, could this be a
14:39:27 lingerie shop with coffee?
14:39:28 >>> I'm not aware of anything that would prohibit that
14:39:31 but you have to understand that anytime you grant an
14:39:32 alcoholic beverage permit, it is for any allowable
14:39:36 usage in that zoning district.

14:39:40 Any commercial, industrial, wherever it is, whatever
14:39:43 is allowed in the underlining zoning is allowed with
14:39:46 the alcoholic beverage unless you limit to the a
14:39:49 specific use, which my understanding you did in this
14:39:51 case, a restaurant which is defined in chapter 27.
14:39:53 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: This is 18,000 square feet?
14:39:58 >>>
14:39:58 >>REBECCA KERT: That's a factual question.
14:40:00 I can't testify.
14:40:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: She can't speak because she we closed
14:40:04 the public hearing so she can't speak no more.
14:40:08 Ma'am, you can't speak.
14:40:10 Closed.
14:40:10 Only staff.
14:40:11 Let me say, council, Councilwoman Saul-Sena raised the
14:40:16 most valid point for me anyway and that is it cannot
14:40:19 become an adult use.
14:40:20 You know where it is, it's out in the industrial area,
14:40:22 no neighborhood around, that sort of thing, only issue
14:40:28 being adult use and staff said they would not approve
14:40:30 that if it came back for that request.
14:40:32 They would have to come back for a special use.

14:40:34 So now based on that, I will support that, you know.
14:40:40 Otherwise, I couldn't support it.
14:40:48 But either way.
14:40:52 Ms. Kert, you said you have to go change it and bring
14:40:54 it back as well?
14:40:56 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes.
14:40:57 For a 4(COP-X).
14:40:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you are going to bring both of them
14:41:00 back?
14:41:01 >>> Yes.
14:41:02 I have the other one done whenever you are done with
14:41:04 this one.
14:41:06 >>
14:41:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, we'll take that one up there
14:41:09 then.
14:41:11 Hand to the Mrs. Mulhern.
14:41:17 >>THE CLERK: You will need to close your public
14:41:19 hearing.
14:41:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
14:41:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:41:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is on item 92, right?
14:41:27 We closed on item it 2.

14:41:29 All in favor?
14:41:30 (Motion carried).
14:41:31 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance repealing
14:41:34 ordinance number 91-205 approving a special use permit
14:41:39 S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, small venue, making
14:41:42 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcoholic
14:41:45 content, beer, wine and liquor, 4(COP-R), for
14:41:48 consumption on the premises only in connection with a
14:41:50 restaurant business establishment at or from that
14:41:54 certain lot, plot, or tract of land located at 4516
14:41:58 and 4520 South Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Florida, as
14:42:02 more particularly described herein, section 3 hereof,
14:42:08 approving waivers as set forth herein, providing for
14:42:10 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
14:42:12 effective date.
14:42:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilman Miranda.
14:42:16 All in favor?
14:42:18 Opposes?
14:42:18 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held
14:42:22 on July 16th at 9:30 a.m.
14:42:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We'll come back to item 93.
14:42:27 Item 94.

14:42:31 Item 94.
14:42:49 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination.
14:42:50 This is for V 09-323 for property at 1811 north
14:42:56 15th street, a restaurant.
14:42:58 Petitioner is streetcar Charlies LLC, petitioner
14:43:03 asking for a sidewalk cafe.
14:43:06 , to be able to sell alcohol.
14:43:08 The location currently has a 4(COP-X) on it which is
14:43:11 for -- the property currently has a 4(COP) on it which
14:43:16 was granted back in 1998.
14:43:19 And they are requesting a 4(COP-X) for the sidewalk
14:43:22 cafe portion of it.
14:43:23 The existing restaurant like I said is in Ybor City.
14:43:28 I provided you the staff report because the conditions
14:43:31 in the organization original staff report, the
14:43:34 citation was different but this is a different
14:43:36 location.
14:43:40 It's another picture of the restaurant itself.
14:43:42 Again they are asking for a 4(COP).
14:43:44 There are no waivers requested.
14:43:46 No waivers requested for a sidewalk cafe.
14:43:48 If council has any questions I will be happy to answer

14:43:53 them.
14:43:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?
14:43:54 Officer Miller?
14:43:55 >> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
14:43:59 department.
14:43:59 We have in a objection to this petition.
14:44:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
14:44:05 >> William Dobson, I'm the agent for Streetcar
14:44:13 Charlies which is the restaurant that currently is in
14:44:15 operation at that location.
14:44:17 The restaurant as Eric has stated has a 4(COP) liquor
14:44:23 license.
14:44:24 What we have done is we have already received a permit
14:44:26 for the sidewalk cafe as of a few months ago.
14:44:29 And the petitioner wants to extend service of alcohol
14:44:32 to the sidewalk cafe which is the reason for the
14:44:35 request.
14:44:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Do you know what that was 50 years
14:44:42 ago?
14:44:44 >>> I do not.
14:44:45 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Neither do I.
14:44:47 That was an old service station, a one-pump station

14:44:51 and later become a Nestles cafe.
14:45:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Streetcar Charlie.
14:45:02 All right.
14:45:10 Public testimony, public comment?
14:45:12 >>> Kerry West, 1901 North 50th street, Ybor City.
14:45:20 I'm also the president of the Ybor District Coalition.
14:45:23 In regards to this, our members and our board are very
14:45:28 confident we would want to support Streetcar Charlies
14:45:32 effort.
14:45:32 Our 200-plus members that live that live in Ybor City
14:45:37 support this as a good sidewalk cafe and also good for
14:45:39 Ybor City.
14:45:39 Thank you.
14:45:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?
14:45:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say that it took
14:45:46 four years initially to get sidewalk cafes permitted
14:45:48 through the city.
14:45:49 And I'm so glad that they are.
14:45:51 I think it adds vitality and life to the city and it
14:45:54 draws people to the establishments, and it creates an
14:45:58 energy that's a great thing for the community.
14:46:00 So go Ybor.

14:46:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
14:46:03 (Motion carried)
14:46:07 Councilwoman Saul-Sena, do you want to read that?
14:46:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sure.
14:46:13 My pleasure.
14:46:17 Move an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2
14:46:19 for alcoholic beverage sales sidewalk cafe and making
14:46:22 lawful the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic
14:46:25 content beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-X) for consumption
14:46:28 on premises only in connection with a sidewalk cafe at
14:46:32 or from the right-of-way adjoining 1811 to 1817 north
14:46:35 15th street, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly
14:46:38 described in section 3 hereof imposing certain
14:46:41 conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
14:46:43 conflict, providing an effective date.
14:46:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.
14:46:49 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
14:46:51 Opposes?
14:46:54 Okay.
14:46:54 Item 95.
14:46:55 >>> Second reading and adoption will be held on July
14:46:59 16th at 9:30 a.m.

14:47:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:47:11 >>ERIC COTTON: Land Development Coordination.
14:47:13 This is for property at 400 North Tampa Street.
14:47:18 Petition VO 0-925.
14:47:23 Volo cafe and market, requesting a 4(COP).
14:47:31 Petitioner requesting specific waivers to other places
14:47:36 selling alcohol, residential uses and institutional
14:47:39 uses.
14:47:42 This is an existing restaurant that's catter-corner on
14:47:45 this one.
14:47:48 There's a building, I'm not sure what they call it
14:47:50 now, but an existing establishment.
14:47:55 Property zoned CBG -- CBD2.
14:48:01 Staff, land development coordination, is objecting,
14:48:03 requesting a need for a 4(COP) on that location.
14:48:06 Petitioner has agreed to a condition to be placed on
14:48:09 the plan, keeping the 4(COP) to allow them to sell
14:48:14 beer and wine, and package sales -- they have a little
14:48:15 market set up, as well as keeping the restaurant open,
14:48:21 to sell alcohol there.
14:48:23 A special use 2 for alcohol sales are limited to
14:48:26 restaurant and market.

14:48:29 I'll let petitioner address that.
14:48:31 We received a letter from them saying they are only
14:48:33 going to sell beer and wine for package sales. I
14:48:41 think that will need to be placed on the site plan if
14:48:41 it's not already there.
14:48:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions?
14:48:46 Officer Miller?
14:48:47 >> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
14:48:50 department.
14:48:51 City of Tampa police department has no objection to
14:48:53 this special use 2.
14:48:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
14:48:57 >> 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, suite 3020, Tampa,
14:49:07 representing petitioner, Volo cafe.
14:49:10 This is a 4(COP).
14:49:11 The reason we have a 4(COP) is because they wanted to
14:49:14 have the full liquor for the restaurant, but they also
14:49:18 have an interesting component to try to expand their
14:49:21 market for the sales of oils and prepared pastas and
14:49:28 other Foo foods you can take out to the residents, for
14:49:31 workers in the downtown area, and a lot of their
14:49:33 clientele have expressed an interest in also being

14:49:35 able to buy a bottle of wine when they leave or some
14:49:38 beer to go home with when they do their takeout.
14:49:41 This is not going to be a package sales store.
14:49:43 This is related strictly to a restaurant and market.
14:49:45 That's why we are glad the condition would be on.
14:49:49 We also requested to have the package sale be
14:49:53 restricted to beer and wine only, but full liquor
14:49:58 within the restaurant itself.
14:50:00 If you have any questions the representative from Volo
14:50:04 cafe is here.
14:50:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The things that you mention last
14:50:09 that you would restrict the outside sales to beer and
14:50:12 wine, do you have that in writing?
14:50:14 >>> Yes.
14:50:14 We put in a request with the application to have that
14:50:16 be conditioned.
14:50:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh.
14:50:20 Okay, good.
14:50:20 Thank you.
14:50:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
14:50:30 So the restriction is for the beer and wine only.
14:50:39 >>> Right.

14:50:41 I believe the beer and wine is already on the plan.
14:50:45 Our staff requests, because it is a 4(COP), the use
14:50:50 would strictly be a restaurant and market that would
14:50:53 stop it from becoming a bar in the future or such.
14:50:56 Thank you.
14:50:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we add that -- we are adding that
14:51:02 as bun one of the conditions.
14:51:04 >>> Correct.
14:51:05 Between first and second reading.
14:51:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:51:08 Does petitioner understand that?
14:51:09 Okay.
14:51:12 Anyone from the public wish to address council?
14:51:14 Anyone from the public wish to address council?
14:51:16 Okay.
14:51:18 >>CHAIRMAN: Move to close.
14:51:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:51:19 (Motion carried).
14:51:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.
14:51:25 >>GWEN MILLER: An ordinance approving a special use
14:51:28 permit S-2 for alcoholic beverages sales, small venue,
14:51:32 make lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol

14:51:35 regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and
14:51:36 liquor, 4(COP), for consumption on the premises and in
14:51:41 sealed containers for consumption off premises on that
14:51:45 certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 400
14:51:48 North Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida, as more
14:51:51 particularly described in section 2 hereof, approving
14:51:54 waivers as set forth herein, imposing certain
14:51:57 conditions, providing for the sale of all ordinances
14:52:00 in conflict, providing an effective date.
14:52:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:52:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
14:52:05 (Motion carried).
14:52:08 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held
14:52:11 on July 16 at 9:30.
14:52:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And that includes all the special
14:52:14 conditions outlined by staff and board.
14:52:17 Okay.
14:52:22 Item 96.
14:52:36 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:52:44 This is case V 09-20.
14:52:47 This was continued from last month.
14:52:51 If you recall, when I came to the podium at the last

14:52:54 hearing, I expressed that Mr. Aquil, he was going down
14:53:01 the option of trying to obtain a permanent structure
14:53:04 building permit to actually operate as a retail
14:53:08 operation as opposed to as an annual vendor.
14:53:11 Subsequently, as I stated at the last hearing, and
14:53:14 that's why it was continued, he did obtain his
14:53:16 permits, and he has done additional work towards that
14:53:20 permit.
14:53:25 You have the aerial photograph in front of you.
14:53:31 It's at the northwest corner of Boulevard and
14:53:38 Columbus.
14:53:43 Upon further discussions amongst staff, we have come
14:53:49 to the awareness through the construction services
14:53:52 office that a permit was issued officially, and as of
14:53:57 right now the structure itself has been final, and
14:54:01 that there are still site conditions that need to be
14:54:04 modified for full permit to obtain a certificate of
14:54:08 occupancy.
14:54:09 The additional things that need to be done include
14:54:11 conditions of the parking lot, the buffering, and a
14:54:14 restroom facility.
14:54:16 According to Mr. Barrios from construction services.

14:54:20 I did speak with Mr. Aquil about this before I came
14:54:22 out up.
14:54:24 As I described at the last hearing, he had two tracks
14:54:28 that he can choose.
14:54:29 One was to become a permanent structure, permanent
14:54:32 retail operation.
14:54:33 The second option was to try to obtain a vendor
14:54:37 permit.
14:54:37 The reason he's before you today on appeal is based on
14:54:40 the design criteria for the vendor regs regulations in
14:54:44 the code.
14:54:45 He has gone down the path of the permanent structure,
14:54:47 and he's gotten approximately halfway through with the
14:54:50 final of the structure itself, with the additional
14:54:53 conditions of the site needing to be done.
14:54:56 I spoke with him about it, and I have explained to him
14:54:59 that if we were to go down the road as council
14:55:02 reviewing this, and ultimately if you were to approve
14:55:05 the vendor permit before you on appeal, he would then
14:55:08 have to remodify the structure to become a temporary
14:55:12 structure.
14:55:13 The definition of vendor is that you are operating

14:55:16 from a temporary or mobile structure.
14:55:18 I expressed that to him.
14:55:20 He acknowledged that he's already gone to make it
14:55:23 permanent, and that costs a certain amount of funds to
14:55:27 do that, and I asked him whether or not he's wanting
14:55:32 to withdraw, where he wants to proceed from here.
14:55:35 So I'll let him acknowledge that on the record.
14:55:37 But what I do want to state very clearly to council
14:55:40 just so it's out there and on the record is that he is
14:55:42 in violation.
14:55:44 There have been several code enforcement actions,
14:55:47 citations issued.
14:55:48 A couple of the cases are still pending.
14:55:50 And that's the reason why we are here, and the reason
14:55:54 he went to the building permit as well to see which
14:55:56 one co-obtain to become legal.
14:55:58 I just wanted council to be aware that there are still
14:56:01 pending cases in the court system, based on those
14:56:05 citations.
14:56:07 And that it's been made clear in every aspect, every
14:56:11 realm that we have been in, that he is not to operate
14:56:14 until there is a final permit of some sort, a FIO or

14:56:21 approval of this permit with the modifications of the
14:56:23 structure to become temporary.
14:56:24 I wanted that to be acknowledged, and then I would
14:56:27 like to hear from Mr. Aquil if he still wants to
14:56:29 further this or if he wants to go down the permanent
14:56:32 structure route and finalize his permits.
14:56:34 If he wishes to do that, if he wishes to stay with
14:56:36 this permit, we can continue, acknowledging that if it
14:56:40 were granted would then have to modify the structure
14:56:43 back to temporary.
14:56:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I believe there is at least
14:56:50 one council member who has had verbal communications
14:56:55 with members of the public tore petition we are
14:56:56 regards to todays hearings.
14:56:58 At this time, council, just a reminder if any member
14:57:01 of this council had any verbal communication with any
14:57:03 petitioner or his or her representative or any member
14:57:05 of the public in connection with any of today's
14:57:06 hearings, just please be reminded that you should,
14:57:10 prior to action, disclose the following.
14:57:11 The person or persons, group or entity with whom the
14:57:14 verbal communication occurred, and the substance of

14:57:16 that verbal communication.
14:57:17 So with regard to this, before you proceed, I just
14:57:20 want wonder if anybody wishes to make a disclosure.
14:57:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I received some information today
14:57:26 from Mr. Risena.
14:57:31 He gave me some pictures that were taken today of this
14:57:33 structure.
14:57:33 From what he told me, that the gentleman was told to
14:57:37 fix this structure to the ground by cementing the
14:57:42 structure to the ground.
14:57:44 And if you want to put these pictures up there so the
14:57:47 staff can see them and the members of the board can
14:57:51 see it.
14:57:52 .
14:57:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: These pictures were provided to you
14:57:54 by Rick --
14:57:55 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.
14:57:56 Today.
14:57:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to let the gentleman
14:58:00 speak first?
14:58:02 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.
14:58:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before he does, as I recall this case

14:58:04 came up last time, Mr. Miranda recommended that we
14:58:07 continue it, as I recall, because it was not resolved.
14:58:10 That was the issue of going and getting a permanent
14:58:15 permit.
14:58:15 So he said, well, maybe before you do that, you may
14:58:18 want to continue until that issue has been resolved.
14:58:20 And so it's coming back based on that dialogue
14:58:26 discussion before, when we were here.
14:58:28 Now unless something has changed since then, that was
14:58:31 my understanding that he continue this petition
14:58:35 predicate on the -- moving forward getting a permanent
14:58:38 structure, and getting a permit to proceed in terms of
14:58:43 building.
14:58:43 So that was my understanding why this was continued to
14:58:46 today.
14:58:48 However, in the process, it is my understanding that
14:58:50 he's still couldn't go continuing to be cited.
14:58:54 Is that accurate?
14:58:55 So there's been no citations?
14:58:57 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Assistant city attorney.
14:59:03 To my knowledge, there has been none since this case
14:59:07 has been continued.

14:59:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So what is the issue then?
14:59:12 What's the issue today?
14:59:14 >>REBECCA KERT: Petitioner is here today for a
14:59:23 temporary vendor permit.
14:59:24 He has two options.
14:59:25 It's either-or.
14:59:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mrs. Kert, Mrs. Kert, Mrs. Kert.
14:59:30 I understand that.
14:59:32 The last time we had this hearing, he made an appeal.
14:59:39 Mrs. Dawson was with him.
14:59:44 We thought we had the issue resolved, in fact was
14:59:46 going to withdraw this.
14:59:47 Councilman Miranda said, well, maybe you should
14:59:50 continue so you can make sure that you have this other
14:59:52 issue resolved before you do that.
14:59:56 Okay?
14:59:57 So, now, has that changed?
15:00:00 Other than the fact we do know that he's applied for a
15:00:03 permanent structure permit, is that right?
15:00:06 >>REBECCA KERT: You're correct, chairman.
15:00:08 It was continued last time, so he could attempt to
15:00:13 make it permanent.

15:00:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
15:00:15 >>REBECCA KERT: I believe it was continued rather than
15:00:16 withdrawing.
15:00:17 But he still had the opportunity if he could not make
15:00:19 it permanent to proceed with appeal.
15:00:22 And where we are right now is there needs to be a
15:00:24 decision made by the applicant.
15:00:26 He started down that path.
15:00:28 Did he want to continue that down that path or
15:00:30 continue with his appeal?
15:00:31 We need to make a choice.
15:00:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then we need to hear from him if he
15:00:36 wants to continues down the path before, or-oh state
15:00:38 your full name state your name for the record.
15:00:39 >>> My name is Hakim Aquil.
15:00:43 And quite naturally what you say is where we are at
15:00:47 right now.
15:00:51 I decide so we don't have this problem coming up,
15:00:54 council has over the last 25 years, so by getting my
15:00:59 structure permanent, and I will not be able to work
15:01:04 under the type of license that they suggested I have,
15:01:07 which in my type of business would not conform to

15:01:10 that.
15:01:11 And so that's why I chose to go the construction
15:01:14 route.
15:01:14 So now from that point to now, I had applied and have
15:01:19 been granted permits to do what has to be done.
15:01:22 There's only one entity that's left.
15:01:25 And the reason that is left, because they wants me to
15:01:29 construct a wall.
15:01:30 And the wall could be first of all very expensive, and
15:01:33 very unnecessary, but of course to the suggestion.
15:01:40 Now the lady that owns the lots that I'm on, she also
15:01:43 own the property next where the wall going to be
15:01:45 placed at.
15:01:45 So she is she is she has a another business partner.
15:01:52 So as I talk to you to you today, the it's been agreed
15:01:56 on so it's just a matter of her closing that deal with
15:01:58 the second party that's involved in that land deal.
15:02:01 And then she would give me a permit saying that I
15:02:05 don't have to have a wall.
15:02:07 That would completely as far as construction services
15:02:10 goes.
15:02:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Hakim, the issue today is whether

15:02:13 you want to withdraw this petition or continue -- as I
15:02:14 understand from the attorney, you need to withdraw
15:02:14 this today or have a determination today, is that
15:02:14 accurate? The petition today is for a vendor appeal
15:02:27 petition, right?
15:02:28 So the issue is not -- I understand what you just
15:02:31 said.
15:02:31 You tell us today, I'm withdrawing my petition for a
15:02:35 vendor, or I proceed down this path.
15:02:38 >>> Okay.
15:02:40 I am officially withdrawing my application to become a
15:02:45 vendor at this time.
15:02:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:02:49 Is that sufficient, counsel?
15:02:52 Mrs. Kert?
15:02:54 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes.
15:02:54 That is sufficient.
15:02:55 And I think he's made very clear that he's working his
15:02:57 way towards making this a permanent, legal business,
15:03:03 and I just want to make perfectly clear, so that all
15:03:06 parties, all interested parties understand right now,
15:03:10 that he's not legal until he finishes his building

15:03:13 permits.
15:03:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
15:03:17 Let's go a little further so we understand that.
15:03:19 But also he's been at this site for how many years,
15:03:21 20, 25 years?
15:03:22 >>> 25 years.
15:03:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So it will be clear, the other issue
15:03:26 that's out there, that is that you all want him to
15:03:28 stop.
15:03:30 Is that what I'm hearing?
15:03:32 Stop working is what you want him to do?
15:03:34 Is did that issue come from staff?
15:03:40 I'm putting it on the record.
15:03:41 I'm just straightforward.
15:03:44 >>>
15:03:50 >> Until he gets his certificate of occupancy for the
15:03:52 permanent structure he doesn't have authority to
15:03:54 continue to operate.
15:03:56 And someone from construction services can speak to
15:03:59 their process or Rebecca can.
15:04:01 But it's my understanding if you were to continue to
15:04:03 operate until that CO is issued, he would be in the

15:04:06 same posture he is right now, and --
15:04:09 That's the problem with the system, that he's in a
15:04:11 catch-22 position.
15:04:13 Here is a guy that's been working out there for 25
15:04:15 years trying to make a decent livelihood so we say you
15:04:18 have to go to permanent structure, and tries to do
15:04:20 that and somebody says, well, now you can't work, you
15:04:22 have got to stop until you get your CO.
15:04:24 So that's the problem that he's in, in a catch-22,
15:04:28 what you are telling me, and appears to me, to me, it
15:04:31 seems that the staff could reach some kind of
15:04:35 compromise so that he can continue to provide for --
15:04:37 I'm just wondering -- provide for his family, and
15:04:41 until that permanent structure is completed.
15:04:44 I'm just one member on the board.
15:04:46 I think Mr. Miranda had his hand up.
15:04:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here again, yes, he's been there
15:04:52 for 25 years.
15:04:53 Yes, this property goes back in history where it was
15:04:56 all owned by one person, someone defaulted and
15:04:58 somebody felt they bought the whole property, only
15:05:01 bought the back half with no parking.

15:05:04 The fence is around it.
15:05:05 It's an eyesore for the community.
15:05:07 >>> The fence has been removed.
15:05:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know what a permanent
15:05:13 structure is anymore.
15:05:14 Just like I don't know whether there's any alcohol
15:05:21 zoning because it fluctuates.
15:05:23 And I'm with you because you have been there a long
15:05:26 time.
15:05:26 I'm willing to help you out.
15:05:27 But I want to know what kind, on the other side I have
15:05:31 got in my mind a permanent structure, something built
15:05:33 out of materials that would withstand a storm of at
15:05:40 least 110 miles per hour, that's got footings, that's
15:05:43 got, you know, bearing walls, has certain roofs, and
15:05:49 windows, and whatever you are going to put there.
15:05:53 >>> Can I speak now?
15:05:55 I'm agreeing with you, and that part has been done.
15:06:00 I had engineer, and I had architecture, and just done
15:06:04 like we were constructing this building here.
15:06:07 And the city has approved that.
15:06:08 So that's not an issue.

15:06:09 >> Now, for your own protection, I don't know what's
15:06:13 going to happen to you in that property sells or
15:06:17 doesn't sell.
15:06:17 I don't know -- I'm not trying to put in your mind,
15:06:20 sir, I don't know what kind of lease you have, or what
15:06:23 contained of leisure going to have, what kind of
15:06:26 improvements you are going to have on somebody else's
15:06:29 property.
15:06:29 And I don't want you to see you build this and costs
15:06:32 tens of thousands of dollars and all of a sudden they
15:06:34 say, time to move.
15:06:36 I sold the property.
15:06:38 So for your own benefit, I'm bringing these things to
15:06:41 you.
15:06:42 I know you have done this more than likely, but I want
15:06:45 to make sure for your own betterment and your family's
15:06:49 betterment that you have that protection.
15:06:51 Do you have that?
15:06:52 >>> Yes, I have.
15:06:55 Thank you.
15:06:58 I would just like to address this, that if it calls
15:07:02 for me to not operate, then I will have to make a

15:07:08 special request that I either give them another 30
15:07:11 days so I can continue, or either I have to withdraw
15:07:13 that and hopefully leave it up to it council to make a
15:07:17 decision, because I'm so close to being completed, and
15:07:20 the structure itself -- the only problem, it's too bad
15:07:24 the construction services is not here.
15:07:26 But the only problem about getting the CO is the wall
15:07:30 itself.
15:07:31 And the owner that's going to take over the property
15:07:34 any day now is going to waive that right.
15:07:36 So that's where I stand.
15:07:38 >>REBECCA KERT: City Council, if I could offer some
15:07:41 thought.
15:07:42 First of all, even if this petition was to be
15:07:45 continued for 30 days, that doesn't waive enforcement.
15:07:50 It was not enforced earlier out of consideration that
15:07:55 he was in this process.
15:07:56 But continuing it does not mean that we will not
15:07:59 enforce.
15:08:00 I want that clear.
15:08:01 That being said, it's my understanding that 30, 60
15:08:03 days is more than a reasonable amount of time for him

15:08:06 to complete what's left.
15:08:07 I believe that it's the city's position, since he's
15:08:11 operating illegally, if it continues to operate
15:08:13 illegally, at some point we need to do something.
15:08:16 But I think we could, as was already said, we would
15:08:20 not enforce giving him another 30, 60 days.
15:08:24 60 days which I hear is more than reasonable for him
15:08:27 to finish with the understanding that at that point if
15:08:29 he still has not come into compliance, we will be
15:08:32 begin enforcement.
15:08:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But what put him in this position is
15:08:37 when we changed the regulations.
15:08:39 A lot of nonconforming use, is that right?
15:08:43 >>REBECCA KERT: It's my understanding he was never a
15:08:45 legal con nonconforming use even before we changed and
15:08:48 that's what the issue is.
15:08:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
15:08:50 >>MARY MULHERN: I think you answered my question.
15:08:54 If he can have that time, 30 to 60 days --
15:09:01 >>REBECCA KERT: For the building permit.
15:09:02 We will continue to track it.
15:09:04 And if he has not come into compliance and continues

15:09:06 to operate --
15:09:08 Councilwoman Miller.
15:09:09 >>GWEN MILLER: My question to you is, he would not be
15:09:14 able to operate his business?
15:09:16 Like it is now?
15:09:18 It's almost finished.
15:09:19 Can he still operate his business while he's still
15:09:21 getting it completed?
15:09:22 >>> Through my discussion was the city attorney, I
15:09:24 believe the totality of the circumstances, what has
15:09:29 happened, the length of time he's been there and the
15:09:32 steps he's taken to come into compliance then we will
15:09:35 not bring any more enforcement action for 60 days.
15:09:37 But at Pa at that point if he has not come into
15:09:40 compliance we will begin enforcement.
15:09:42 >> If the council gives him permission to --
15:09:47 >>REBECCA KERT: That's not within the council's
15:09:48 discretion.
15:09:49 It's within the administration's discretion on how to
15:09:51 pursue enforcement.
15:09:54 >>GWEN MILLER: So council, we can't make a motion or
15:09:57 nothing to grant him to keep his business going to

15:10:00 complete his construction?
15:10:02 >>>
15:10:03 >>REBECCA KERT: No.
15:10:04 But what I am telling you, Mrs. Miller, is based upon
15:10:06 the circumstances we think it's appropriate not to
15:10:08 pursue additional enforcement action for 60 days and
15:10:11 give him an opportunity to come into compliance.
15:10:12 >>GWEN MILLER: So if he doesn't come into compliance
15:10:15 in 60 days then what?
15:10:17 >>REBECCA KERT: Then the city will review all of the
15:10:19 options for enforcement.
15:10:20 >>GWEN MILLER: You will close him down?
15:10:23 >>REBECCA KERT: We'll review what our options are, and
15:10:26 they include citation process, criminal action.
15:10:29 I mean, at some point we need to have this resolved.
15:10:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have of a question for legal.
15:10:38 Legal, if you could.
15:10:41 So the fact that he's been able to pull permits means
15:10:44 that he's met the city's requirements in terms of
15:10:47 parking, drainage, all of that?
15:10:53 >>REBECCA KERT: Those are factual questions.
15:10:55 I'm not sure Ms. Coyle has been briefed on all of

15:10:58 that.
15:11:01 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:11:03 Not speaking for construction services, but in order
15:11:05 to obtain the building permit, you do have to comply
15:11:08 with the regulations that are required, including the
15:11:10 site regulations, tree and landscape, stormwater, so
15:11:13 on.
15:11:14 As well as the building standards for the structure
15:11:17 that he was proposing.
15:11:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, may I ask?
15:11:25 Maybe I should have never load at the photograph but
15:11:26 I'm so happy that the fence is down.
15:11:28 I'm sure Mr. Hakim is also happy because he gets more
15:11:31 traffic in the neighborhood.
15:11:33 Much happier.
15:11:34 I want to make sure that what is built there is
15:11:36 allowable anywhere else in the city.
15:11:39 In other words, if you are going by a standard, that
15:11:42 that standard has got to have footers, got to have
15:11:45 either concrete walls, or 2-by-4 with certain material
15:11:51 outside, and makes it look like a business.
15:11:53 Is that what I'm hearing?

15:11:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The vendor explained to me it meets
15:12:01 the building code standards, and it was inspected in
15:12:03 the field.
15:12:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So were you telling me it could be
15:12:07 a couple of irons going up and down or something?
15:12:12 I don't know.
15:12:13 >>> I am not a contractor.
15:12:14 >> Neither am I.
15:12:15 None of us.
15:12:16 But I'm asking you, I don't know.
15:12:19 Because I may want to do the same thing he does
15:12:22 somewhere else.
15:12:22 >>> Just to take a step back, the issue of whether or
15:12:26 not the structure is permanent at this point or
15:12:29 whether or not it meets the building code requirements
15:12:31 is actually irrelevant to the annual vendor permit
15:12:34 that's before you on appeal.
15:12:37 That's a completely separate venue and separate
15:12:39 regulation.
15:12:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:12:44 Anyone -- yes?
15:12:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, if I understand

15:12:49 correctly, I heard the petitioner actually make the
15:12:51 request to have this withdrawn.
15:12:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's his request.
15:12:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that's where we stand now.
15:12:56 This is a public hearing, although if his request
15:13:00 right now is to withdraw it, there is no need for the
15:13:02 public to speak.
15:13:04 But council can act on whether to withdraw or not.
15:13:08 The other thing that conflicts that I'm not clear
15:13:10 about is I also heard discussion about a request to
15:13:13 continue for 60 days, and that's not consistent with
15:13:18 the request to withdraw.
15:13:20 So I would just like some clarification.
15:13:21 >> Way heard is the applicant is withdrawing the
15:13:29 appeal petition, and that we, based on the total of
15:13:33 the circumstances, the history on this site, what the
15:13:38 consensus that we heard from council, that in order to
15:13:41 give the petitioner the opportunity to finish his
15:13:44 construction, and achieve his certificate of
15:13:48 occupancy, we are not going to seek enforcement for a
15:13:51 period of 60 days.
15:13:53 So that would conclude this proceeding, I believe.

15:13:57 And then the question remains whether or not he's
15:14:00 capable of achieving compliance and achieving a
15:14:02 certificate of occupancy within that 60-day period.
15:14:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, that issue would then becomes
15:14:08 the issue of the administration, not an issue of this
15:14:11 board.
15:14:11 So you understand that, though?
15:14:15 >> Aquil: I understand.
15:14:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we need to make a motion?
15:14:22 >> To accept the withdrawal.
15:14:23 Then it will be withdrawn.
15:14:24 >>MARY MULHERN: I move to withdraw the --
15:14:29 Did we close the public hearing?
15:14:32 >> I believe.
15:14:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Number one, I think you should --
15:14:37 actually the it's a continued public hearing so I
15:14:41 guess you can just close that by motion.
15:14:42 The other thing is the public has -- the public cannot
15:14:52 make the petitioner not withdraw.
15:14:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Withdrew his appeal.
15:14:59 >> I'm not sure the council even has to take action to
15:15:03 close the hearing and remove it from the agenda.

15:15:05 I think since it's an appeal, the appellant has the
15:15:09 right.
15:15:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:15:11 Motion to close.
15:15:12 >> So moved.
15:15:13 >>CHAIRMAN: Second.
15:15:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A motion to remove it from the agenda.
15:15:19 Is that accurate?
15:15:21 >>MARY MULHERN: So moved.
15:15:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:15:22 (Motion carried).
15:15:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:15:25 Item 96.
15:15:27 Item 97.
15:15:29 Did the other item ever come back?
15:15:32 Let's take that up real quick.
15:15:34 That's 93.
15:15:42 Motion to close.
15:15:44 >> So moved.
15:15:48 >> Second.
15:15:48 (Motion carried).
15:15:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Ordinance approving a special use

15:15:54 permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, small venue,
15:15:57 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol
15:15:59 regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and
15:16:02 liquor, 4(COP-X), for consumption on premises or from
15:16:08 that certain lot, plot or tract of land locate at 6807
15:16:12 east Adamo Drive, Tampa, Florida, and more
15:16:15 particularly described in section 2 hereof, providing
15:16:17 for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
15:16:19 effective date.
15:16:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And all the special conditions as
15:16:22 outlined by council and staff.
15:16:24 Okay.
15:16:26 Is there a second?
15:16:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:16:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
15:16:29 >>THE CLERK: Miranda voting no and Dingfelder absent.
15:16:40 July 16th at 9:30.
15:16:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask that you swear in the
15:16:44 witnesses for the remaining hearings, please.
15:16:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Items 97, 99 -- 98, 99, 100.
15:16:54 If you are here for the remaining items, 97 through
15:16:58 100, please stand and be sworn.

15:17:00 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:17:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move that the following
15:17:17 petitions, 97 through 100.
15:17:19 >> Second.
15:17:20 (Motion carried)
15:17:25 Take up item number 97, a Pell hearing.
15:17:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:17:32 Case V 09-263 is an appeal request for 906 east
15:17:37 23rd Avenue.
15:17:39 They are requesting up to 8-bed congregate living
15:17:45 facility.
15:17:45 They were denied based on the 27-292 criteria that
15:17:49 requires a separation distance, of like uses of 1200
15:17:53 feet.
15:17:54 As you can see on the overhead that there is a fill
15:17:57 facility within 670 fate.
15:18:02 The zoning in the area is generally RS-50, RM-16 a
15:18:09 little to the south and east, and it is almost
15:18:11 adjacent to the Nebraska corridor, at 23rd.
15:18:18 The we do have site plans.
15:18:24 The structure itself does front 23rd Avenue.
15:18:27 It's an existing home, built approximately in 2001, I

15:18:31 believe.
15:18:35 The code does allow potentially up to eight beds with
15:18:37 a 1200-foot separation.
15:18:39 It was denied because of the distance separation as
15:18:41 being reduced to 670 feet.
15:18:43 If council finds based on the testimony by the
15:18:46 applicant that they are in compliance with the general
15:18:48 standards and criteria of the special use, 27-269, do
15:18:52 you have the ability to grant the waiver with the
15:18:54 distance separation.
15:18:55 I'm available for any questions.
15:18:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So that's the only issue then is the
15:19:01 distance, how many feet is it, 620 feet?
15:19:09 607.
15:19:09 Okay.
15:19:10 Petitioner.
15:19:11 >> Alicia Dooley.
15:19:22 And I would like to say that there's 37,000 residents
15:19:27 over the age of 65 are disabled, and with that
15:19:30 population, in the Tampa Bay area, we are looking for
15:19:36 populations to become even larger.
15:19:38 So I feel that there's room for additional facilities

15:19:45 within that area.
15:19:47 So I'm requesting that my special use be approved.
15:19:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by council?
15:19:58 This is a public hearing.
15:19:59 Anyone wish to address council on this petition?
15:20:01 Anyone wish to address council on this petition?
15:20:03 >>CHAIRMAN: Move to close.
15:20:06 >> Second.
15:20:07 (Motion carried).
15:20:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern?
15:20:20 >>MARY MULHERN: Just read the ordinance?
15:20:23 >> Yes.
15:20:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Chairman, I move an ordinance
15:20:25 approving a special use permit S-1 on appeal from a
15:20:29 decision of the zoning administrator approving a
15:20:31 congregate living facility up to 8 beds in an RS-50
15:20:34 residential single-family zoning district in the city
15:20:37 of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly described
15:20:41 in section 1 hereof approving waivers as set forth
15:20:44 herein providing an effective date.
15:20:49 >> So moved.
15:20:50 >>CHAIRMAN: Second.

15:20:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Miller.
15:20:53 (Motion carried).
15:20:55 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Miranda
15:20:57 and Caetano be being absent.
15:21:02 Second hearing will be July 16th at 9:30.
15:21:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 98.
15:21:09 Item 98.
15:21:14 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:21:17 This is a similar petition as far as the request, V
15:21:22 09-264.
15:21:26 This too is a congregate living facility with
15:21:28 potentially up to eight beds.
15:21:30 They also have a distance separation issue.
15:21:32 They are 720 feet away from the closest facility.
15:21:39 The structure itself was built in approximately 2008,
15:21:43 single-family residential structure.
15:21:45 As you can see from the zoning atlas, this does lie
15:21:50 adjacent to 30th street and 27th.
15:21:55 As I noted the distance separation is 720 feet.
15:22:03 They are requesting up to eight beds, 3002 east
15:22:06 27th Avenue.
15:22:07 They were denied because of that distance separation.

15:22:09 As I stated in the previous case if you find based on
15:22:11 the testimony that they comply with the general
15:22:14 standards, 27-269 you have the ability to grant that
15:22:17 waiver for the distance separation.
15:22:18 I'm available for any questions.
15:22:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?
15:22:23 Petitioner?
15:22:24 >>> My name is Cassandra Blaylock and I'm here on the
15:22:37 special use 1, asking to be granted on my appeal.
15:22:47 One day I'm going to get old, too, so I want somebody
15:22:50 to help me.
15:22:51 And I'm just open to being there for somebody in need.
15:22:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
15:22:57 Anyone from the public wishing to address council on
15:22:59 this petition?
15:23:00 Anyone from the public wishing to address council on
15:23:02 this?
15:23:03 Motion to close.
15:23:04 >>CHAIRMAN: Move to close.
15:23:05 >> Second.
15:23:05 (Motion carried).
15:23:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.

15:23:11 >>CHAIRMAN: I move an ordinance approving a special
15:23:14 use permit S-1 on appeal from the decision to the
15:23:18 zoning administrator approval proving a congregate
15:23:20 living facility up to eight beds in an RS-50
15:23:23 residential single-family zoning district in the city
15:23:25 of Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in
15:23:27 section 1 hereof approving waivers as set forth herein
15:23:31 providing an effective date.
15:23:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
15:23:36 Sec by Councilwoman Mulhern.
15:23:38 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Miranda,
15:23:42 and Caetano being absent.
15:23:44 Second reading and adoption will be held on July
15:23:46 16th at 9:30.
15:23:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 99.
15:23:52 Item 99.
15:23:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:23:56 You may recall, this case came before you last year, V
15:24:03 0-6969, annual convenience vendor, and council
15:24:07 ultimately granted the appeal based on requirements
15:24:11 under the older section of the vendor requirements,
15:24:13 requiring the property be developed, and have

15:24:16 bathrooms and so on.
15:24:17 Council subsequently amended the code.
15:24:19 Therefore that eliminated many of the waivers that you
15:24:20 had granted.
15:24:22 There was one provision that council kept, was that
15:24:25 the annual vendors were to operate from dawn to dusk.
15:24:30 The location is 2109 east Genesee.
15:24:35 You will recall it is across the street from the
15:24:37 school.
15:24:39 There is a structure to the south at 22nd and Genesee.
15:24:48 They have a mobile truck operation.
15:24:49 And they did show you in that previous hearing that
15:24:53 they have dressed up the this site as far as
15:24:55 additional landscaping around the trees, and that it
15:24:57 was a drive-up operation.
15:25:01 With different types of fish and shrimp and sausage
15:25:07 and wings, as you can see.
15:25:09 The request came back basically to amend that approval
15:25:12 under case V 09-326.
15:25:16 They are asking to operate until 3:30 in the morning,
15:25:19 3:30 a.m., from dawn until 3:30 o'clock a.m.
15:25:21 I ultimately had to deny the application again.

15:25:24 That was the only criteria that didn't meet under the
15:25:27 new code.
15:25:29 I was under the obligation to deny that based on the
15:25:31 criteria and the amendment.
15:25:34 But as I said in the previous appeal cases if you find
15:25:38 that they meet the general standards, 27-269 you do
15:25:41 have the ability to grant the waivers, allow the
15:25:43 additional time.
15:25:44 I'm available for any questions.
15:25:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner? Any questions by council?
15:25:57 Petitioner?
15:25:57 >>> Good afternoon, council members.
15:26:06 My name is James Youngblood, owner of the food truck.
15:26:11 My wife is Sherri Youngblood.
15:26:14 I hope that I can get this granted, because I think it
15:26:19 will help me. right now I can't stay open long
15:26:27 enough.
15:26:29 So I appreciate giving me that opportunity.
15:26:32 Thank you.
15:26:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask a question of
15:26:41 petitioner.
15:26:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Youngblood, come back.

15:26:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, ma'am?
15:26:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 3:00 in the morning?
15:26:52 >>> Yes, ma'am.
15:26:53 Because the site where I am, we don't have -- we keep
15:26:58 our area clean, and no noise but the drive-up.
15:27:04 And I feel that I could do a lot better.
15:27:10 Dusk to dawn just won't get it.
15:27:12 I can't really survive like that.
15:27:14 So I think I can do better, you know, during the night
15:27:19 hours.
15:27:19 >> How is it lit up around there at night?
15:27:23 >> I got lights.
15:27:24 I got lights on my truck.
15:27:26 It's lit up role good.
15:27:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: She was thinking you were going to be
15:27:32 at Genesee until 3:00 in the morning.
15:27:38 >>> Yeah, I'll be at Genesee and 21st.
15:27:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And 21st.
15:27:48 Okay.
15:27:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Public hearing.
15:27:50 Anyone wishing to address council on this petition?
15:27:52 Anyone from the public?

15:27:55 >>CHAIRMAN: Move to close.
15:27:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:27:58 (Motion carried)
15:28:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council?
15:28:08 >>GWEN MILLER: An ordinance approving a special use
15:28:11 S-1 on appeal from the city zoning administrator
15:28:13 approving an annual vendor in a CG commercial general
15:28:22 zoning district in the city of Tampa, Florida, as more
15:28:22 particularly described in section 1 hereof, approving
15:28:23 a waiver as set forth herein providing an effective
15:28:25 date.
15:28:25 >> Second.
15:28:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
15:28:33 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
15:28:38 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I abstain.
15:28:45 I did not hear.
15:28:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You can't abstain. You are in the
15:28:46 meeting. You can only abstain if you have a conflict,
15:28:48 if you have an interest in the business.
15:28:51 >> Okay. Yes.
15:28:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15:28:53 I am not going to support this petition just because I

15:28:55 think that giving somebody permission, a vendor to
15:28:59 stay to run their business till three in the morning
15:29:02 actually gives him privileges that are beyond what we
15:29:05 give most regular businesses, and therefore I am not
15:29:08 going to be able to support this petition.
15:29:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of the motion signify by
15:29:12 saying Aye.
15:29:13 Opposes?
15:29:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena, Miranda
15:29:17 voting no, and Dingfelder being absent.
15:29:21 Did you vote no?
15:29:24 >>MARY MULHERN: 3-3 vote.
15:29:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Not enough.
15:29:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This would come back regardless of
15:29:40 the rules.
15:29:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: How long do you think?
15:29:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say this, Mr. Chairman in,
15:29:48 all due respect to Mr. Youngblood and everybody else.
15:29:51 We have worked on this ordinance, and it was to a
15:29:53 certain hour, and then we say, sunset which is about
15:29:58 9:00 at night.
15:30:01 When we start making exceptions, and when we do a lot

15:30:05 of things I am going to be the first admit to that.
15:30:07 Armenia Avenue, all the way out, is saturated, Howard
15:30:12 Avenue, and different parts.
15:30:15 What we are doing, in essence, is creating another set
15:30:19 of rules after we created the rule to bypass the same
15:30:24 rules that we created.
15:30:26 So it's very difficult to -- it's very difficult for
15:30:33 these individuals to do their living.
15:30:35 They are not bothering anyone.
15:30:36 They are working hard trying to make a living just
15:30:38 like anybody else.
15:30:39 But right next to them, there's someone who is paying
15:30:42 rent, is paying taxes, is paying -- not that they are
15:30:47 not -- is paying to a greater degree than the rest of
15:30:51 them.
15:30:52 And we thought -- I forgot the hours, sometime in the
15:30:56 morning --
15:30:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Dawn to.
15:31:02 >> In Michigan that's 10:30 at night but here in
15:31:06 Tampa, Florida it's 9:00 at night, not the appropriate
15:31:09 time, to 9:30.
15:31:11 And this is what's going on.

15:31:12 You know what?
15:31:14 I don't think this is enforced.
15:31:21 When we leave City Council, on the way home, 10:00,
15:31:25 10:30, they have the shrimp van out there, selling
15:31:29 shrimp, doing all kinds of things.
15:31:30 So I'm saying, I don't know what we have done.
15:31:35 I don't have a report.
15:31:37 We don't know how many of these have been regulated.
15:31:44 This, that and the other.
15:31:46 So until we get a report back from somebody, since we
15:31:51 passed that ordinance till now, what has happened in
15:31:54 the interim, I'm not too sure if he's right or if he's
15:31:58 wrong.
15:31:59 Because if we passed an ordinance, and there are few
15:32:06 of those citations given out, what's the value of the
15:32:08 ordinance?
15:32:09 So I'm trying to be fair to the system, and to the
15:32:12 city, and to the neighborhood where these things
15:32:16 happen.
15:32:16 And again, these things do not happen in a lot of
15:32:21 areas.
15:32:23 It only happens in certain areas.

15:32:26 And I've I feel for these people.
15:32:30 They are doing the best they can under stressful
15:32:35 situations nowadays to make -- let me just put it
15:32:39 clearly -- and support their family, and the operation
15:32:42 that they have in life.
15:32:44 And I certainly don't want to say to somebody, you can
15:32:46 do it but you can't.
15:32:50 I can only tell you what I see.
15:32:53 Butt and by the preponderance of my eyes -- maybe I
15:32:58 have to go get them checked -- the enforcement is very
15:33:03 lax.
15:33:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We create a lot of ordinance that is
15:33:20 we require exceptions to the rules, and just prior to
15:33:25 that, we just granted two special use for senior
15:33:33 living, within the radius that we have to grant that
15:33:42 special condition.
15:33:42 We just did that prior to.
15:33:44 So it says to me that there are certain situations
15:33:48 that presents itself to us that we have to weigh why
15:33:54 we do it.
15:33:56 Our ordinances say that because of the situation now,
15:33:59 the downturn of the economy, given where we are, and

15:34:02 we have been trying to help small businesses to
15:34:04 function and operate.
15:34:07 And maybe 3:30 a.m. is a little late, maybe midnight
15:34:14 or 1:00 and maybe something of that nature.
15:34:17 And I'm wondering if council is more amenable to
15:34:20 something along maybe 1 a.m., you know, pretty much
15:34:26 everybody is pretty much gone in except for night
15:34:29 clubs and nude bars.
15:34:35 So I'm wondering, is council more amenable, if we
15:34:41 operate till 1 a.m. so they can at least continue
15:34:43 business and have a livelihood, and anyone else that
15:34:46 comes, they would have to go through the same process.
15:34:51 I hear us talk about small businesses.
15:34:53 I hear about trying to help people struggling, people
15:34:57 losing their homes, lose their houses, so that's why I
15:35:01 was willing to give the exception, honest people
15:35:06 trying to make a living, trying to take care of
15:35:08 themselves, and 3:30 is long.
15:35:10 So maybe a time 1 o'clock a.m.
15:35:12 So maybe council could consider that.
15:35:14 Yes?
15:35:16 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, could we waive the

15:35:17 recalls on this?
15:35:18 Was it a 3-3 vote?
15:35:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, you can waive the rules.
15:35:23 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And see if petitioner is willing
15:35:25 to go till 1:00 in the morning instead of 3:00?
15:35:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that a motion to waive the rules?
15:35:31 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.
15:35:33 >> Yes.
15:35:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
15:35:36 Opposes?
15:35:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is there a motion to reopen the
15:35:38 hearing?
15:35:41 >> So moved.
15:35:43 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.
15:35:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me ask the petitioner.
15:35:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you vote on that?
15:35:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
15:35:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm sorry.
15:35:50 All in favor of reopening?
15:35:51 Opposes?
15:35:52 Mr. Youngblood, come forward.
15:35:54 Are you amenable to 1:00?

15:35:56 >>> Yes, sir.
15:35:56 >> Come say it on the record.
15:35:58 >>> Yes, thank you.
15:36:00 1:00 is appreciated.
15:36:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is the location -- did you have to
15:36:12 notify any civic association?
15:36:15 >>> Yes, we did.
15:36:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And what kind of response did you
15:36:18 get?
15:36:19 >>> We didn't get no response back from nobody.
15:36:22 Even we sent the petition out, we put the signs out
15:36:25 and everything.
15:36:26 We didn't get nobody -- nobody went against it.
15:36:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me ask legal something.
15:36:37 I consider this a difference between dusk and one in
15:36:40 the morning a pretty significant difference.
15:36:46 In other some other privileges that council granted we
15:36:49 made them conditional, which gives them a year to see
15:36:51 how it goes and then come back, now, if there's an
15:36:54 issue?
15:36:56 >>REBECCA KERT: This is an annual vendor permit.
15:36:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Oh, annual?

15:36:59 Okay.
15:37:00 So he will be back next year anyway.
15:37:01 >>REBECCA KERT: That's my understanding of what an
15:37:04 annual vendor is, yes.
15:37:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
15:37:09 I'll share with my fellow council members, my concern
15:37:11 is to me this is a significant departure, even till
15:37:14 one in the morning from dusk is significant.
15:37:17 And we need to look at what the ramifications are
15:37:21 going to be in the future, because I would anticipate
15:37:24 that the next five vendors that come before us are
15:37:27 going to be similarly asking for that kind of --
15:37:32 >>GWEN MILLER: But they wouldn't be the same kind of
15:37:33 vendors.
15:37:34 They are mobile -- stationary.
15:37:37 They have a truck that pulls around.
15:37:40 It's not a stationary thing.
15:37:43 So they couldn't wouldn't get the same privileges as
15:37:45 he would be getting.
15:37:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Each petition is on its own merit.
15:37:53 Each is judged on its own merit.
15:37:56 Any other questions?

15:37:57 Motion to close?
15:38:01 >>REBECCA KERT: I could make the change from 3:30 to
15:38:05 1 a.m. between first and second reading in the
15:38:07 ordinance so you can read it today.
15:38:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:38:09 Is there a second?
15:38:11 >> Second.
15:38:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
15:38:14 Is there a motion to grant the waiver to 1 a.m.?
15:38:17 >>CHAIRMAN: I read the ordinance so I add to the
15:38:21 ordinance 1 a.m. instead of 3 o'clock a.m.
15:38:23 >> Second.
15:38:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
15:38:28 Opposes?
15:38:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda voting no and
15:38:32 Dingfelder being absent.
15:38:33 Second reading will be held on July 16th at 9:30.
15:38:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Youngblood, you understand?
15:38:41 Second reading is two weeks.
15:38:44 Okay?
15:38:47 July 16, right.
15:38:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 100.

15:38:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is 1100 the last one?
15:38:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, if I can, I believe the
15:39:02 parties are present.
15:39:04 This is a continued public hearing on petition,
15:39:09 Bayshore condominium, and company represented by James
15:39:15 R. DeFurio regarding a decision of the ARC, relating
15:39:19 to a certificate of appropriateness of property at
15:39:21 2101 Bayshore Boulevard.
15:39:22 Council, I would like to begin by passing out for you
15:39:30 to review and approve.
15:39:36 This council, similar to ones that you heard very
15:39:39 recently, is another third-party appeal, which is
15:39:41 presently not contemplated by council's rules.
15:39:45 So what we have similar to the previous hearing, to
15:39:50 refresh your recollection, we handed out at that time
15:39:55 this similar suggested rules.
15:39:59 Council had the ability to amend their rules by motion
15:40:03 and vote at the hearing.
15:40:05 And I would like to very quickly review these for you.
15:40:09 This is a continued public hearing so there's in a
15:40:11 need to open the public hearing.
15:40:13 Mr. Chairman, with your approval I would like to

15:40:15 announce the procedures rather than have you do that
15:40:19 if you don't mind.
15:40:20 Then what happens after that, the parties will on the
15:40:22 record reached these procedures so we can proceed,
15:40:28 then there would be a motion, approval of the
15:40:30 procedures by motion, vote of City Council.
15:40:32 I believe witnesses have been sworn in.
15:40:34 I would ask if any other witnesses were not sworn in
15:40:37 that they do so.
15:40:39 I believe the motion to receive and file any ex parte
15:40:45 written documents was previously done.
15:40:47 Is that correct, madam clerk, on the items that were
15:40:50 present for today?
15:40:51 I don't know -- I don't believe there are any items.
15:40:57 If you could say that for the record.
15:40:58 >>THE CLERK: At this time I do not believe there were
15:41:01 any items that were received.
15:41:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then I would also ask City Council at
15:41:05 this time, at that time, excuse me, number 4, to
15:41:08 disclose whether they have had any ex parte
15:41:10 communications.
15:41:11 I would then do the introduction of the case and

15:41:13 review the appeal process, and the objections would
15:41:16 then be entertained, then follow the presentation of
15:41:19 the case by Dennis Fernandez of historic preservation,
15:41:22 and assistant city attorney Rebecca Kert.
15:41:25 After that, presentation by the appellant represented
15:41:29 by James DeFurio for 15 minutes with the ability to
15:41:32 yield remaining time for rebuttal, questions by the
15:41:35 City Council of Mr. DeFurio, if any, then we would
15:41:39 open it up for public comment.
15:41:41 And that would be limited to those who testified at
15:41:43 the ARC, and limit it to three minutes per person, and
15:41:48 we'll go over that now, I suspect would be the more
15:41:53 appropriate time.
15:41:54 Those who speak at public comment are those only --
15:41:59 are limited to those who spoke at the original
15:42:01 architectural review commission hearing.
15:42:06 Council, this being a standard of review which I'll
15:42:09 discuss, we are going to ask that that be limited to
15:42:12 issues of the standard of review as will be reviewed
15:42:17 by council.
15:42:17 There will be a presentation by applicant, represented
15:42:20 by Scott McClaren, 15 minutes, a five minute

15:42:23 rebuttal by Mr. deFurio, then we'll close the public
15:42:27 hearing, discussion by the council, any procedural
15:42:27 questions, if any, motions stated and then discussion
15:42:34 on the motion and then a vote.
15:42:35 So at this point in time, council, I would ask that if
15:42:42 counsel for the appellant and the applicant would
15:42:45 please state that has been presented is acceptable for
15:42:51 to you allow the hearing to proceed as a third party
15:42:54 appeal.
15:42:55 >>> Jim DeFurio representing Bayshore Royale.
15:42:58 I have no objection to this procedure.
15:43:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
15:43:01 Mr. McLaren?
15:43:02 >>> Scott McLaren on behalf of the applicant Citivest
15:43:05 and City National Bank.
15:43:09 I just want to note, I do find it odd that the
15:43:12 appellant would have 20 total minutes and I would only
15:43:15 have 15 total minutes.
15:43:20 I think that's unusual.
15:43:21 And also with respect to the public comment.
15:43:24 My understanding is that public comment will be
15:43:26 limited to those who spoke at the ARC hearing, and

15:43:31 their comments will be limited to issues of law only.
15:43:35 Is that accurate?
15:43:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, sir.
15:43:39 When I review the standard of review, that is what is
15:43:42 relevant for this hearing, and I will remained the
15:43:44 speakers when I get to number 9 out there that again
15:43:47 under 27-373, the standard of review that the City
15:43:52 Council will consider, those are the relevant factors,
15:43:55 and anything else would not be relevant to this
15:43:57 hearing.
15:43:59 I'll do that when we get to number 9.
15:44:02 >>> I don't want to make a big deal about the 20
15:44:04 minutes, if that's what you think is fair, that's all
15:44:06 right.
15:44:07 I just notice it is kind of odd.
15:44:09 I doubt I'll take my 15 minutes anyway.
15:44:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Let me ask you this.
15:44:16 Would Mr. DeFurio have any objection to giving you an
15:44:19 extra five minutes for a total of 20 minutes?
15:44:21 Then that would resolve your objection.
15:44:23 >>> If Mr. McLaren needs 20 minutes instead of 15
15:44:26 during his time period I have no problem with that.

15:44:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So we would make that amendment then.
15:44:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Probably you only get 20 minutes
15:44:37 because it's five minute rebuttal.
15:44:39 That's the only reason.
15:44:41 Each side gets 15 minutes.
15:44:44 If petitioner gets an additional five minutes for
15:44:46 rebuttal, everywhere I been that's been the process.
15:44:49 I mean, we certainly can grant that.
15:44:51 But, still --
15:44:54 >>> It's not that big a deal, Mr. Chairman.
15:44:58 I'm fine with 157 minutes.
15:45:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You're fine with 15 minutes?
15:45:03 Okay, that will be fine then.
15:45:04 Council with, the approval of the parties we ask that
15:45:06 you approve these procedures by motion and vote.
15:45:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
15:45:12 >> Second.
15:45:13 (Motion carried).
15:45:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, would you just ensure
15:45:17 that everyone who will be speaking has in fact been
15:45:20 sworn?
15:45:21 >> Yes.

15:45:21 Anyone here who has not been sworn?
15:45:25 Have you been sworn?
15:45:27 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:45:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the clerk previously
15:45:42 informed us there are no ex parte documents to be
15:45:44 received and filed.
15:45:45 Again a reminder if any member of City Council has had
15:45:48 any ex parte communications with any member of the
15:45:49 public regarding this matter please disclose that now.
15:45:55 I see no response.
15:45:57 Council, this is an appeal that is subject to review
15:46:04 under section 27-373.
15:46:07 And I would like the to refresh your recollection,
15:46:09 although I'm sure you are familiar with, with what
15:46:11 your standard of review is.
15:46:13 At the appeal hearing before City Council, no new
15:46:16 evidence may be presented to the City Council, and the
15:46:18 City Council's action shall be based -- be solely
15:46:24 based upon the record created during the public
15:46:26 hearing before the board or commission, in this case
15:46:29 the ARC.
15:46:31 The City Council in reviewing the decision of the

15:46:33 board or commission shall determine, one, whether the
15:46:37 board's decision was supported by competent,
15:46:39 substantial evidence.
15:46:42 Two, whether due process was accorded.
15:46:45 Three, whether the essential requirements of law have
15:46:48 been observed.
15:46:52 And that is your standard for review, council.
15:46:57 With regard to the rule for speakers, again using that
15:47:03 criteria, whether the board's decision was supported
15:47:05 by competent, substantial evidence, whether due
15:47:07 process was afforded and whether the essential
15:47:09 requirements of law have been observed, only those who
15:47:13 testified in the ARC may address the City Council.
15:47:16 They are limited to three minutes per person, unless
15:47:18 the speaker waiver form is used.
15:47:22 Also, council, as a reminder, that all persons --
15:47:29 excuse me, I'm sorry.
15:47:30 I don't have it handy, excuse me.
15:47:34 All persons who provide testimony, information or
15:47:38 opinion regarding a petition in a quasi-judicial
15:47:41 matter pending before City Council must disclose any
15:47:43 direct or indirect business or personal interest

15:47:46 between themselves and the petitioner or applicant who
15:47:49 is requesting action.
15:47:50 The information shall not be used to deny the petition
15:47:52 or matter but goes to the weight of the evidence,
15:47:55 information or opinion provided.
15:47:59 And now, council, I believe we are prepared to proceed
15:48:04 absent any preliminary objections for the record.
15:48:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we move forward -- and I need
15:48:10 clarification here -- you talk about hearing ex parte
15:48:14 and I received yesterday, as I read through this these
15:48:19 documents, a memo from hill ward Henderson.
15:48:23 So do we need to disclose that on the record or what?
15:48:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to address that?
15:48:30 But my understanding that was provided to -- Mr.
15:48:33 DeFurio, did you receive a copy of that?
15:48:35 Did you want to address that?
15:48:37 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes.
15:48:38 I don't believe that was considered an ex parte
15:48:40 communication.
15:48:40 It's a legal memorandum.
15:48:41 I think it's appropriate to certainly have brought the
15:48:44 issue up.

15:48:45 But it's appropriate for you all.
15:48:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to disclose it.
15:48:50 I read through this document that was handed me.
15:48:52 Secondly, also, I'm concerned as we move forward -- we
15:48:56 can do whatever we want to do, but it was my
15:49:00 understanding that the DCA heard this case, through
15:49:04 the whole process, and that pretty much this went back
15:49:07 to the ARC, and it is within the ramifications of the
15:49:11 ruling by the ARC, against the ruling or decision made
15:49:18 by the second DCA.
15:49:19 And so, therefore, the issue before us today is
15:49:22 nothing new or relevant or within the scope of the
15:49:28 second DCA.
15:49:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that a question for --
15:49:34 Our staff, our attorney.
15:49:36 >>REBECCA KERT: I do believe that it's appropriate to
15:49:38 have all sides have their opportunity to be heard.
15:49:40 I believe Mr. Fernandez is going to give an
15:49:42 introduction.
15:49:43 Both sides have briefed the case.
15:49:45 I would like to give you the perspective from the
15:49:47 city's legal perspective.

15:49:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
15:49:50 Listen, I just believe in putting things all on the
15:49:53 record and being said up front.
15:49:54 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes, sir.
15:49:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I just want everybody to be clear.
15:49:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, one last item, that
15:50:01 under public comment if there are any speakers who are
15:50:03 speaking at the direction of one of the parties, that
15:50:05 would count against the party's time.
15:50:07 So I would just like to inquire are there any speakers
15:50:09 here who are at the direction of either of the
15:50:11 parties?
15:50:11 I see none.
15:50:13 Thank you.
15:50:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:50:15 Then we'll proceed.
15:50:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe then without objection by
15:50:19 either council, we'll move to the presentation of the
15:50:22 history of the case.
15:50:25 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation, urban
15:50:35 design manager, administrator of the architectural
15:50:37 review commission.

15:50:38 I do have some background information for you.
15:50:42 Subject property is located at 2101 Bayshore
15:50:45 Boulevard.
15:50:47 The ARC case number following through this particular
15:50:51 phase of the case is ARC 03-114-A.
15:50:57 Let me just give a brief photo orientation for the
15:51:05 record.
15:51:06 The subject property is located here at the base of
15:51:17 the green arrow.
15:51:20 On Bayshore Boulevard, just to the north of Howard
15:51:22 Avenue, just to the south of DeSoto, within the
15:51:26 boundaries of the Hyde Park historic district.
15:51:33 The subject parcel within the yellow box, Bayshore,
15:51:41 DeSoto, Howard Avenue, this structure here is the
15:51:45 Bayshore Royale.
15:51:47 There's a single-family residence.
15:51:49 And DeSoto apartment complex just to the rear.
15:51:53 There is the site as it is today.
15:51:57 It's a vacant site.
15:51:59 It does have a historic retaining wall.
15:52:02 Closer shot of that.
15:52:08 The adjacent property owner, the Bayshore

15:52:10 condominiums.
15:52:11 This is a shot in front of the Bayshore Royale.
15:52:20 This is an easement that was discussed.
15:52:22 You see that in between the two properties.
15:52:26 Single-family residence on the other side of DeSoto.
15:52:34 This is DeSoto Ave. with the subject property I just
15:52:38 showed and the property for ARC, 03-114 A here on the
15:52:44 left.
15:52:44 As you move down DeSoto, the DeSoto apartments.
15:52:49 And as the avenue transitions into single-family
15:52:52 residential.
15:52:54 On December 20, 2007, City Council granted preliminary
15:53:13 approval.
15:53:15 Within their motion the preliminary approval
15:53:17 granted -- was granted for the certificate of
15:53:19 appropriateness, limited to the purposes of scale,
15:53:22 setback, orientation, site coverage, and alignment.
15:53:26 All the remaining certificate of appropriateness
15:53:29 issues were to be decided through the ARC at the time
15:53:33 of the final certificate of appropriateness.
15:53:35 Important to note is the motion which was made by the
15:53:45 City Council, relied on the an older version of the

15:53:49 code than we now have in place, particularly, I'll put
15:53:52 that on the Elmo.
15:53:58 Motion was crafted from these four criteria, scale,
15:54:05 including height and width, setback, orientation of
15:54:08 site coverage, alignment, spacing of buildings.
15:54:16 The Hyde Park design guidelines, page 69, when it
15:54:26 deals with new construction, actually separates out
15:54:35 scale including the height and width from massing and
15:54:38 building form.
15:54:39 That's an additional criteria that's not in the code.
15:54:41 Typically, when these type of elements are being
15:54:44 determined, massing of building form is integral with
15:54:51 the height and the width.
15:54:53 So there was some discussion about the ARC staff not
15:54:58 dealing with mass, given the -- given the scope of the
15:55:01 preliminary certificate of appropriateness, it was
15:55:04 really impossible to deal with the massing without
15:55:07 affecting the scale, including the height and the
15:55:11 width of the building.
15:55:14 So the scale, setback, orientation, and the alignment,
15:55:18 was specifically addressed, but instrumental within
15:55:21 that was the inability to deal with the massing.

15:55:28 Massing is defined in the guidelines as a geometric
15:55:32 composition of the building or the overall block of
15:55:35 the building and how the building is placed on its
15:55:37 site.
15:55:38 You can see with the issues of orientation, site
15:55:42 coverage, alignment, setback and scale are
15:55:44 predetermined.
15:55:51 Separate issue of massing without affecting those.
15:55:54 On September 8th, 2008, the applicant appeared
15:55:58 before the architectural review commission for the
15:56:02 final consideration of their case.
15:56:05 The case was at the end of the discussion continued,
15:56:10 with 17 conditions.
15:56:15 The motion read -- the board voted to continue the
15:56:22 application to the November 3rd, 2008 public
15:56:24 hearing, to allow the applicant the opportunity to
15:56:27 bring more detailed body of information regarding the
15:56:29 various components of the building, which were listed
15:56:35 thereafter.
15:56:36 They include the profiles of the storefront system
15:56:38 being proposed for the property building and entrances
15:56:43 ground floor window systems, column details and

15:56:46 profiles of the specific columns being proposed for
15:56:48 the arcade section of the building, details of the
15:56:51 balustrade and banisters being proposed, profile the
15:56:54 manner in which the windows are set into the building,
15:56:57 profiles of all the proposed components which were to
15:57:02 be included in the detailing of the building, lighting
15:57:05 fixtures, lighting systems being proposed for the
15:57:07 illumination of the building, and how that
15:57:09 illumination would impact the perception of the
15:57:11 building facades, photo metrics of the garage
15:57:14 lighting, specific locations of the mechanical
15:57:17 equipment within the building, structure, and on the
15:57:19 site, in the manner which would be enclosed or
15:57:22 screened.
15:57:23 Specific materials and samples of the items being
15:57:26 proposed including the concrete oh block decorative
15:57:30 grills and components, elaborate upon the screening
15:57:34 methods, manner which the historic retaining wall was
15:57:37 to be retained, the pylons that were being proposed
15:57:40 for the walkway system from the building to the
15:57:42 adjacent streets, signage plans and samples of the
15:57:46 lettering systems, exterior paving materials, wall

15:57:50 sections were to be provided, window glazing samples
15:57:56 something, the application to be provided, and any
15:57:58 other items that the of the staff that were prudent
15:58:01 for the preservation before the board on November the
15:58:04 3rd.
15:58:05 Those are the 17 specific items that were requested by
15:58:09 architectural review commission at the September
15:58:12 8th hearing.
15:58:17 The applicant had subsequently requested some
15:58:20 additional time to assemble their information, some
15:58:24 continuances, so the final hearing actually did not
15:58:28 occur before the architectural review commission until
15:58:30 February the 4th of twine 2009.
15:58:33 And the applicant city national bank trustee presented
15:58:37 their case to the architectural review commission
15:58:40 based on these conditions of the previous hearing on
15:58:43 September 8th, 2008.
15:58:45 The applicant and agent presented a comprehensive
15:58:48 presentation that addressed all 17 conditions.
15:58:53 Within the staff report, there were additional
15:58:56 elements that were requested to clarify the notation
15:59:00 within the drawings.

15:59:00 The applicant were requested to cloud all changes to
15:59:03 the drawing since the September 8th 2008 public
15:59:06 hearing, addressed all the outstanding conditions from
15:59:08 the September 8th, 2008 public hearing, the
15:59:11 architectural sections related to the arcade in the
15:59:15 base should reflect the dimensional bases applied for
15:59:18 in the elevations, they are to provide information as
15:59:21 are related to the ability of the district to be
15:59:23 impacted by the headlights of vehicles maneuvering in
15:59:26 the garage, they are to provide historic reference for
15:59:29 the frequency of architectural grills, on the
15:59:32 elevations, provide the specific locations for
15:59:35 mechanical equipment within the building structure,
15:59:37 and on the site, and also provide information in a
15:59:40 manner in which the mechanical equipment was to be
15:59:43 enclosed, provide references for stucco columns that
15:59:46 were used throughout the building including the
15:59:48 sample, provide the low E window glazing sample and
15:59:52 identify that use on all the windows on the plans,
15:59:56 specify all paving materials and provide samples of
15:59:59 the precast concrete pavers, provide information
16:00:01 related to all exterior lighting fixtures, provide

16:00:04 historic reference with proposed materials, at the
16:00:08 podium and the base of the building and to identify
16:00:11 all those materials use, and to provide additional
16:00:13 details on the pylons and the walkway and the
16:00:16 entryway.
16:00:17 Through their presentation, the owner dealt
16:00:22 sufficiently with agreeing the concerns that the staff
16:00:23 had and the conditions from the September 8th
16:00:26 public hearing.
16:00:27 At the conclusion of that hearing, the architectural
16:00:30 review commission motioned to grant a certificate of
16:00:33 appropriateness for the drawings and documents
16:00:36 presented at the public hearing in the case ARC
16:00:40 03-114-A for property located at 2101 Bayshore
16:00:44 Boulevard as referenced in the building and components
16:00:48 materials list, with the following conditions which
16:00:50 were to be reviewed to staff or would go back to the
16:00:53 full board.
16:00:54 There was to be a review of all window and glazing
16:00:57 materials, all mechanical locations including the air
16:01:01 conditioners, coolers and generators being notated on
16:01:05 the plan, grills and light defusers and pumper hates

16:01:08 for the lights garage were to be specified and there
16:01:11 was to be a historic reference provided for the
16:01:14 frequency of the grills and the building elevations.
16:01:17 Because based on those facts, the project was
16:01:22 consistent with the Hyde Park design guidelines, of
16:01:24 the City of Tampa.
16:01:25 And the motion was approved with a 5-0 vote.
16:01:31 I believe that concludes my summary of the case as it
16:01:35 commenced from the preliminary hearing to its final
16:01:40 certificate of appropriateness.
16:01:43 Thank you.
16:01:46 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
16:01:47 I believe that both the appellant and underlying
16:01:51 property owner has provided briefs to City Council and
16:01:53 I wanted to site legal comments on the issues raised
16:01:56 in the appeal before we start.
16:01:58 There were three basic issues raised on appeal two.
16:02:00 Had to do with the application of the South Howard
16:02:03 commercial overlay district, and the third one has to
16:02:06 deal with whether or not the ARC has the authority to
16:02:09 determine massing during -- after City Council had
16:02:12 decided the preliminary certificate of

16:02:14 appropriateness.
16:02:14 As far as the Soho commercial overlay district, the
16:02:18 ARC did not and does not have the authority to
16:02:20 determine zoning compliance.
16:02:22 It's very specific in the code, but that is a power
16:02:28 delegated to the zoning administrator, that's clear in
16:02:31 her general powers, as well as stated in section
16:02:35 27-460-D, which is the commercial overlay district,
16:02:38 general standards for the, affected overlay district
16:02:43 designation, and it is the responsibility of the
16:02:46 zoning administrator to ensure that development within
16:02:48 the designated area complies with those regulations
16:02:52 for the district.
16:02:56 As well as in the actual ARC code which specifically
16:02:58 states -- which specifically states that, well, in
16:03:05 part, on the requirement for review -- for other
16:03:09 permits and approvals, the zoning administrator shall
16:03:12 be the sole administrator of this code, and it lists
16:03:15 among those the scheduled area, height, bulk and
16:03:19 placement parking regulation and any other item not
16:03:22 dealing specifically with the procedure and review
16:03:25 criteria pertaining to certificate of appropriateness.

16:03:28 So our code makes very clear in fact the ARC does not
16:03:31 have authority to determine whether or not something
16:03:32 is compliant with the South Howard commercial overlay
16:03:35 district.
16:03:36 That's something that as stated at the hearing, that
16:03:39 compliance is determined prior to it getting before
16:03:42 the ARC.
16:03:43 ARC at the hearing would have had no authority to say,
16:03:45 I disagree, I think that this is not zoning
16:03:48 compliance.
16:03:48 Because this is an appeal of something that was before
16:03:51 the ARC you are limited to the jurisdictions they had.
16:03:54 Therefore, the issue of compliance with the South
16:03:56 Howard overlay district isn't appropriately before
16:03:59 you.
16:04:00 It's an issue of process.
16:04:01 That determination is made in a separate process.
16:04:04 The third issue that was raised has to do with
16:04:07 massing.
16:04:07 I believe Mr. Fernandez explained what City Council on
16:04:12 December 2007 approved in the preliminary deal, and
16:04:17 that came out of the ordinance back in 2003 when the

16:04:21 case originally started.
16:04:22 It was contained the design guidelines for Hyde Park,
16:04:29 with a difference in massing.
16:04:31 However -- let me restate.
16:04:36 This massing in December 2007 hearing is in front of
16:04:39 you.
16:04:39 That is when you granted the preliminary certificate
16:04:41 of appropriateness.
16:04:42 That can't be changed.
16:04:43 That's not part of this hearing.
16:04:45 DRC then had the ability to alter what was already
16:04:50 approved.
16:04:51 So even if massing was something that could still be
16:04:54 considered, it could not have been used to change the
16:04:57 scale and the building alignment and the setbacks that
16:05:01 City Council approved back in December of 2007.
16:05:03 And so the ARC was advised of that.
16:05:08 In addition I think it's important to realize that
16:05:10 massing was used as the basis, one of the reasons, for
16:05:13 the original denial of the certificate of
16:05:16 appropriateness from the ARC back in 2004.
16:05:19 That case was lit Georgia gaited and.

16:05:23 -- litigated.
16:05:24 I'm available for any questions or I can be available
16:05:26 later for any questions.
16:05:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions?
16:05:29 Okay.
16:05:31 Caw thank you.
16:05:32 >> It would be appropriate for applicant petitioner.
16:05:56 >> I am going to address this central but I want to
16:05:58 get through some basic topics first.
16:06:01 At the architectural review hearing, on page 2 of the
16:06:05 transcript, staff came forward, provided this -- and
16:06:25 said the property in question is highlighted in the
16:06:27 green here.
16:06:31 Then later showed this.
16:06:43 And said that constituted the area.
16:06:47 That's not the problem.
16:06:55 It is not in the green rectangle.
16:07:04 It is a strain piece added onto it.
16:07:06 Do you see that?
16:07:07 See that?
16:07:08 >>> May I interpose an objection here?
16:07:14 I hate to interrupt, Mr. DeFurio.

16:07:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could step up to the
16:07:19 microphone, please.
16:07:20 >>> Yes.
16:07:21 Mr. Chairman, I would like to interpose an objection.
16:07:23 This issue has never been raised previously.
16:07:25 There's no evidence concerning whether or not we are
16:07:27 dealing with the right property before the ARC.
16:07:30 So I think that the argument is inappropriate at this
16:07:33 point in time, because this is an appeal from the ARC
16:07:36 meaning that you are to review what the ARC reviewed.
16:07:41 Because the ARC does not review this issue; it's
16:07:46 inappropriate for to the be brought at this time.
16:07:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I inquire of Mr. DeFurio?
16:07:51 You brought forward a whiteboard with what looked like
16:07:57 a site plan of some degree.
16:07:58 >>> Yes.
16:08:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was that presented to the ARC?
16:08:03 >>> It was.
16:08:03 It was ARC 3.
16:08:05 It what an was than AP exhibit that was in the record.
16:08:10 I am using it merely to demonstrate that a portion of
16:08:17 the property is located in the Soho overlay, which I

16:08:22 will show by my next exhibit, which is also part of
16:08:24 the appeal, and which I presented before the ARC.
16:08:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. McLaren, do you wish to address
16:08:34 that?
16:08:35 >>> The sole issue is whether or not this property is
16:08:38 within the South Howard commercial overlay district.
16:08:42 That is one issue that was raised by Mr. DeFurio
16:08:45 before the ARC.
16:08:47 But this argument that we are dealing with, we were
16:08:50 dealing with the wrong property before the ARC, has
16:08:53 never been espoused previously by anyone, and
16:08:55 therefore that argument, even though it relies upon a
16:08:59 document that is admittedly in the record, is an
16:09:02 inappropriate argument.
16:09:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Your objection is noted.
16:09:08 Mr. Chairman?
16:09:09 >>> DeFurio..
16:09:13 Also presented at the ARC hearing was this from the
16:09:16 zoning administrator.
16:09:18 Can we have that, please?
16:09:19 These are responses to questions that I pose.
16:09:25 Is parcel 2 of the subject property in the South

16:09:28 Howard commercial overlay district?
16:09:31 Yes.
16:09:34 So we know that parcel 2 of the property is in the
16:09:39 South Howard overlay.
16:09:40 The question becomes, has the South Howard overlay
16:09:45 been applied in this case?
16:09:49 Answer: No.
16:09:54 The South Howard overlay has this provision.
16:10:01 It is section G.
16:10:14 Excuse me.
16:10:15 Pardon me.
16:10:17 H-4.
16:10:21 This establishes that property in the South Howard
16:10:28 overlay has a setback of no more than 18 feet.
16:10:32 No more than.
16:10:33 That's the maximum setback.
16:10:35 Maximum.
16:10:39 This building has a setback, from this property line
16:10:49 to here, of 40 feet.
16:10:51 Why do we know that?
16:10:52 Because there's an easement of record.
16:10:53 And this notation it's at least 40 feet wide.

16:10:57 This structure is not within an 18-foot setback.
16:11:04 What is the significance of that?
16:11:05 The significance of that is that the setback and in
16:11:08 the South Howard overlay has a bearing on the height
16:11:11 of the building.
16:11:14 So let's get to the second DCA opinion.
16:11:17 This is central and it's extremely important.
16:11:28 The second DCA was essentially considering a decision
16:11:31 of the ARC as to whether or not the Historic Hyde Park
16:11:35 guidelines applied.
16:11:37 And the jurisdiction of the ARC over the height of a
16:11:41 building.
16:11:42 The second DCA ruled that the ARC didn't have that
16:11:47 authority.
16:11:48 Only the zoning administrator, in the application of
16:11:51 the RM 75 zoning designation, within which this
16:11:55 property is located.
16:12:04 And this is the question that was posed by the -- I
16:12:09 noticed in the brief filed by Citivest they make a
16:12:12 bill big deal out of this but let's look at it.
16:12:18 It says that they searched various appendices, cases,
16:12:25 et cetera, to attempt to ascertain whether the ARC

16:12:29 possesses the authority or power to require a
16:12:32 reduction in height of the proposed building.
16:12:34 That was the question.
16:12:36 The question was not the application of the South
16:12:39 Howard.
16:12:40 Why?
16:12:41 How do we know that?
16:12:42 Let's go back to the letter of the zoning
16:12:44 administrator.
16:12:47 Question two.
16:12:50 Does the architectural review commission apply the
16:12:53 South Howard overlay district as part of the review of
16:12:57 the pending petition for certificate of
16:12:59 appropriateness?
16:13:00 Answer, no.
16:13:02 The zoning administrator does.
16:13:10 Of course, the second DCA would say that there's
16:13:13 nothing in the record on appeal that would indicate
16:13:19 that the ARC possesses the authority that was given to
16:13:23 the zoning administrator.
16:13:26 Okay.
16:13:27 How else do we know that the second DCA has not

16:13:31 considered the application of the overlay?
16:13:34 Continue down here.
16:13:35 Can you show this?
16:13:38 Can the ARC, not the zoning administrator, can the
16:13:44 ARC, a design criteria of scale, height and which had
16:13:48 along with zoning structure to any particular height?
16:13:51 The answer is no.
16:13:52 Of course.
16:13:53 That was the issue.
16:13:54 They weren't talking about the jurisdiction of the
16:13:56 zoning administrator to apply the South Howard
16:13:58 overlay.
16:14:01 This is all from the case, quoted from the case.
16:14:05 The city could have solved this issue by even defining
16:14:11 and encompassing this property.
16:14:16 If the second DCA applied an overlay, the South Howard
16:14:20 overlay, why would they possibly say that?
16:14:26 Why?
16:14:26 Because the South Howard overlay, this case wasn't
16:14:31 relevant to the issue they presented.
16:14:33 The issue this appellate board was considering was the
16:14:36 jurisdiction of the ARC, not the jurisdiction of the

16:14:39 zoning administrator.
16:14:43 When you look throughout this opinion, you will never
16:14:47 see the phrase Soho overlay matching.
16:14:52 Read the opinion.
16:14:54 It never mentions the Soho overlay.
16:15:05 Secondly, nobody can make a mistake in numbers.
16:15:07 There is no doubt that the Soho overlay would require
16:15:13 a setback of no more than 18 feet.
16:15:21 To conclude that the second DCA applied the South
16:15:25 Howard overlay is to conclude that somehow they didn't
16:15:28 know 40 feet was greater than 18.
16:15:36 That opinion doesn't mention Soho.
16:15:40 That opinion doesn't address the power of the zoning
16:15:43 administrator under the Soho.
16:15:46 To apply the Soho to the property.
16:15:50 And of course it doesn't address the fact that had the
16:15:55 Soho been applied, the court obviously would have
16:15:58 mentioned this fact, that it violates the setback.
16:16:08 Why did the second DCA not consider?
16:16:11 This is why.
16:16:14 This is the law.
16:16:17 This court recognizes and approves the general rule

16:16:21 that an appellate court should confine the parties to
16:16:26 the points raised and determine in the court below and
16:16:30 briefed in this court an assignment of errors before
16:16:35 the court.
16:16:36 That there is a well recognized exception to the
16:16:38 general rule that appellant courts may raise a
16:16:43 question for the first time in appeal, for the
16:16:47 question is jurisdictional, in criminal appeals, and
16:16:51 questions of important public interest.
16:16:58 Citivest in a memorandum of law attached my brief.
16:17:00 That's exactly the exception I asked the second DCA to
16:17:05 recognize, because in the record on appeal, the Soho
16:17:10 overlay district had never been mentioned.
16:17:14 I am the first one in my appellate brief mentioning
16:17:18 the Soho overlay, the first time.
16:17:20 And in my brief, you can read this, it's attached to
16:17:23 my memorandum of law filed by Citivest, in that brief,
16:17:26 it says, I recognize the Soho wasn't mentioned till
16:17:34 now but, please, appellate court, this is a question
16:17:38 of important public interest. Had this court, the
16:17:48 Second DCA really considered the Soho overlay, they
16:17:51 would have addressed my argument.

16:17:52 They would have said, in their opinion, would they
16:17:54 not? They would have said, this is not an issue of
16:17:58 great public importance and therefore we are not going
16:18:00 to apply the Soho overlay, but they didn't do that.
16:18:12 It is clear that the second DCA didn't consider the
16:18:14 Soho overlay.
16:18:16 Never did.
16:18:16 For all the reasons that I've stated.
16:18:19 All of them.
16:18:35 It is important here that we recognize what my client
16:18:38 is asking.
16:18:38 My client is asking for the City of Tampa to apply the
16:18:41 law.
16:18:42 It hasn't been applied.
16:18:47 I believe it was unrebutted at the architectural
16:18:50 hearing, at the, it was unrebutted that this property
16:18:55 in part is located in Soho overlay.
16:18:58 And it's obvious based upon the setback requirements
16:19:01 of the Soho overlay it's never been applied, ever.
16:19:05 My client would like that applied in this case.
16:19:11 It hasn't been applied to date.
16:19:13 I have demonstrated how.

16:19:15 The second DCA has not considered the Soho overlay.
16:19:19 I would reserve the balance of my time for later, for
16:19:22 rebuttal.
16:19:26 >>THE CLERK: He has approximately 3 minutes 27
16:19:28 seconds.
16:19:33 >>> Any questions?
16:19:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Only those who testified at the ARC.
16:19:52 Again a reminder that those who speak should address
16:19:54 the relevant issues this which is the standard of
16:19:56 review, again limited to three minutes per person, and
16:19:59 once again if you have any direct or indirect business
16:20:02 or personal interest, please disclose that before you
16:20:04 begin.
16:20:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Those who wish to address council you
16:20:10 have three minutes to come forward.
16:20:13 >>MARY MULHERN: I had a question.
16:20:14 Do they have an opportunity to speak after the
16:20:19 applicant?
16:20:22 Or is this it?
16:20:24 >> No.
16:20:25 Okay.
16:20:26 You may come forward.

16:20:27 You have three minutes.
16:20:31 >>> Good afternoon.
16:20:33 I'm Charles deacon, I live at 1408 south DeSoto.
16:20:38 I'm approximately 400 feet from the project.
16:20:41 I was at the ARC hearing, and I assume it can be
16:20:48 verified.
16:20:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You are under oath?
16:20:51 >>> Yes.
16:20:52 >> And you did speak at the ARC?
16:20:54 >>> Yes.
16:20:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
16:20:57 >>> I guess the concern, or one of the concerns is the
16:21:04 massing and the consideration of massing, I'm not an
16:21:09 attorney, I'm not a lawyer, but reading the DCA
16:21:13 ruling, and judge Levens ruling, it doesn't mention
16:21:21 massing at all, that's the reason for the objection.
16:21:28 As noted by Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Mrs. Kert, the city
16:21:35 code at that time, chapter 27, did not mention massing
16:21:40 in any form, but it was in the Hyde Park design
16:21:42 guidelines.
16:21:44 So is the ARC members were told, well, one of the
16:21:48 things they could not address was massing.

16:21:51 But that's not what the legal documents said.
16:21:56 I mentioned the four items that Mr. Fernandez
16:21:59 Hernandez mentioned but it didn't mention massing.
16:22:02 An and then when Dennis said, well, massing is
16:22:06 irrelevant with these others so it can't really be
16:22:08 addressed by itself.
16:22:10 But that's not the way it's stated in the design
16:22:12 guidelines.
16:22:14 Separate and distinct issue.
16:22:15 Of course, all the 10 or 11, I forgot how many
16:22:20 guidelines, but I know at the ARC meeting at the end
16:22:26 just before they are getting ready to vote the members
16:22:28 said, well, I guess he would can't discuss massing
16:22:31 because we are told we can't discuss it, as confirmed
16:22:33 by the city legal counsel.
16:22:37 I guess if you talk to an architect they'll tell that
16:22:39 you massing is different, and building and height, I
16:22:43 think it's an issue that just for people that don't
16:22:48 understand it say, well, it's not related so we can't
16:22:53 discuss it, and I had objection to that.
16:22:57 I guess also finding out ten minutes ahead of time
16:22:59 about the hearing that the public what the public can

16:23:04 present on and what the guidelines are, this has been
16:23:06 going on for years, and that just seems a little bit
16:23:09 of short notice as to how we can prepare, what we can
16:23:11 bring, if we don't know that we can speak on specific
16:23:16 issues.
16:23:18 That concludes my presentation.
16:23:21 Are there any questions?
16:23:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
16:23:25 Anyone else from the public?
16:23:34 >>> My name is Earl -- I reside at 2109 Bayshore
16:23:39 Boulevard.
16:23:40 What I would like to do is address the negative
16:23:43 impacts that the project will have on the Bayshore
16:23:48 Royale residents.
16:23:49 Can I do that?
16:23:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Let me ask, number one, can did you
16:23:57 testify before --
16:23:58 >>> I did.
16:23:59 I was sworn in.
16:24:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And you were sworn in.
16:24:02 And you testified to the negative impact at that time?
16:24:04 >>> Yes.

16:24:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that has been included in the
16:24:08 transcript provided in the record?
16:24:10 >>> Yes.
16:24:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then my suggestion here sir are the
16:24:14 relative issues here, whether the decision that was
16:24:17 made by the ARC was supported by competent,
16:24:19 substantial evidence, whether due process was
16:24:22 afforded, and whether the essential requirements of
16:24:24 law were followed and applied, which means did they
16:24:27 apply the proper law of the case?
16:24:31 With regard to negative impacts, sir, I believe that
16:24:35 would be -- first of all, let me say that that would
16:24:39 be something that has already been received into the
16:24:45 record and is part of the case and not necessarily
16:24:47 relevant to City Council's standard of review as an
16:24:50 appellate body sitting in their role hearing this
16:24:52 appeal.
16:24:53 So it would be my recommendation, council, that this
16:24:58 gentleman be limited in his comments to those items
16:25:02 that council would have to raise in order to address
16:25:05 the --
16:25:06 Well, the only thing about it, whatever he said at the

16:25:09 ARC he is permitted to say here.
16:25:12 He can say the exact same thing he said at the ARC.
16:25:15 As long as he doesn't deviate.
16:25:17 If he talks about what he saw today is outside the
16:25:19 scope.
16:25:20 If he talks about what he saw last week that's outside
16:25:24 the scope.
16:25:24 Whatever you said to the ARC is admissible here
16:25:27 because it's already part of the record.
16:25:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, sir.
16:25:29 If I can just add to that, though.
16:25:31 In terms of, just so the record is clear, that is what
16:25:34 council has done in the past, and that is appropriate
16:25:38 to do under the way council has conducted its
16:25:41 hearings.
16:25:42 With regard to the standard of review, whether or not
16:25:45 what this gentleman says is relevant to issues is
16:25:48 something else again, and council is going to have to
16:25:52 become mindful of when it what he's what they hear in
16:25:56 the evidence at this hearing.
16:25:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And that's accurate.
16:25:59 And not only for this gentleman but attorneys too.

16:26:04 That applies to everybody.
16:26:08 >>> There exists an easement that extends from
16:26:10 Bayshore Boulevard to a point near the front door of
16:26:14 the Bayshore Royale building.
16:26:16 The easement adjoins the person western edge of the
16:26:21 three-story parking garage.
16:26:23 And the only vehicle entrances to the proposed --
16:26:28 interface it is easement.
16:26:30 Therefore, all vehicles, entering or exiting the
16:26:32 proposed building, will have to use the easement.
16:26:36 The entrance to the proposed building's parking garage
16:26:39 is only about 67 feet from the Bayshore Royale's front
16:26:45 door.
16:26:45 And as I said, interfaces the easement.
16:26:48 Consequently, the noises and commotions that will be
16:26:52 produced by garbage trucks, service trucks, vending
16:26:56 vehicles, vans and of course lots of cars, will have a
16:27:02 tremendous negative impact on the Bayshore Royale's
16:27:06 ambience and be a huge nuisance to its residents.
16:27:10 The project's three story, 30-foot tall parking garage
16:27:16 a butts the easement.
16:27:17 This configuration amounts to having a 30-foot high

16:27:20 wall ridiculously close to the Bayshore Royale's front
16:27:27 entrance.
16:27:27 I urge the members of the council to visit the
16:27:29 Bayshore Royale's front entrance and look towards the
16:27:32 easement while imagining the existence of the
16:27:36 described parking garage.
16:27:38 That experience will prompt the realization that the
16:27:43 parking garage will transform the ambience of the
16:27:45 Bayshore Ray Royale's area into the ambience of a
16:27:51 service alley.
16:27:52 The Bayshore building is a handsome building that was
16:27:54 built in 1924 located in the Hyde Park historic
16:27:57 district and in the Soho -- South Howard commercial
16:28:02 overlay district.
16:28:04 It recently underwent a renovation that cost more than
16:28:07 $1.5 million.
16:28:09 Please preserve its character.
16:28:11 More importantly, please prevent the desecration of
16:28:18 the Hyde Park historic district and the South Howard
16:28:21 overlay district by reversing the ARC decision to
16:28:25 grant a COA to the proposed project.
16:28:30 Thank you very much for listening.

16:28:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
16:28:37 Next speaker.
16:28:41 >>> I'm Lila Haggard, 1508 south DeSoto.
16:28:45 I have a vested interest because I live directly
16:28:47 across from the DeSoto apartments, catter-corner from
16:28:51 the lot in question.
16:28:52 I don't know whether I can do this or not.
16:28:55 Yes, I did speak at the last one.
16:28:57 I'm secretary of the Historic Hyde Park neighborhood
16:29:01 association.
16:29:02 I have been asked by our president Rosemary Henderson
16:29:06 to speak on her behalf since she had to leave for a
16:29:09 funeral.
16:29:11 And simply, all I want to say is that our neighborhood
16:29:15 association asks the council to give full
16:29:20 consideration to the position taken by our friends and
16:29:24 neighbors at the Bayshore Royale.
16:29:26 Thank you.
16:29:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
16:29:30 Next speaker?
16:29:31 Anyone else?
16:29:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I see no one.

16:29:33 >> There is somebody of the
16:29:39 >>> My name is Charles Murawski, 6320 -- Avenue, and I
16:29:51 have been sworn in.
16:29:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you speak at the architectural
16:29:58 review commission on the address of 2101 Bayshore
16:30:03 Boulevard?
16:30:04 >>> No.
16:30:04 >> Okay.
16:30:05 You are here to speak to another issue under public
16:30:07 comment?
16:30:08 >>> Yes, in general.
16:30:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That will come up after this.
16:30:11 >>> After this?
16:30:13 Oh, I'm sorry.
16:30:14 Thank you.
16:30:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?
16:30:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Presentation by the applicant.
16:30:30 Mr. McLaren.
16:30:31 >>> Scott McLaren.
16:30:34 I have been sworn.
16:30:37 Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza. I do have a
16:30:40 pecuniary interest in that Mr. Robinson, Citivest, are

16:30:43 paying me to be here today.
16:30:45 This is an appeal where Bayshore condominium seeks to
16:30:48 overturn a unanimous 5-0 ruling of the ARC granting a
16:30:53 final certificate of appropriateness.
16:30:54 Not only do they seek to overturn that unanimous
16:30:57 ruling and seek to overturn the recommendation of city
16:30:59 staff which was based on the application and the
16:31:02 supporting materials to approve the certificate of
16:31:06 appropriateness.
16:31:07 The evidence will rely on is that submitted below, set
16:31:11 forth by Mr. Fernandez.
16:31:16 This tribunal, City Council, should a affirm the
16:31:19 ruling of the ARC for two reasons.
16:31:22 First of all, in order to comply with the rulings of
16:31:24 the second district court of appeal, and the circuit
16:31:29 court, in and for the 13th judicial circuit, this
16:31:35 tribunal must affirm the decision of ARC.
16:31:39 And secondly, this appeal is untimely, and it must be
16:31:43 denied for that reason as well.
16:31:47 Bayshore condominium argues in their brief that speak
16:31:52 they submitted several weeks ago that they are seeking
16:31:56 to reduce the height of this project, the size of this

16:31:59 project, based upon the Bayshore overlay district.
16:32:02 That's what Mr. DeFurio just argued.
16:32:05 If you leave inside the fact there is no height
16:32:09 restriction, there is no height restriction in the
16:32:13 South Howard commercial overlay district, the fact
16:32:17 that this is a residential property in South Howard
16:32:21 commercial overlay district, it's just that, a
16:32:23 commercial overlay district.
16:32:24 And if you read the requirements of the overlay
16:32:28 district, which I'll go over in a minute, the
16:32:31 application of that overlay district to this building
16:32:33 is simply could not have been the intent.
16:32:37 It's patently absurd to suggest that that overlay
16:32:41 district could apply to this property.
16:32:42 But even leaving all of that aside, this ordinance has
16:32:48 already been considered and rejected.
16:32:50 Chairman Scott, you noted that was -- you noted that
16:32:54 you had some knowledge of that when we came in today,
16:32:56 and that's true.
16:32:57 Mr. DeFurio worded his argument very, very, very
16:33:00 carefully, and he said that the second district court
16:33:03 of appeals did not apply the commercial overlay

16:33:08 district, and he's right, the second district did not
16:33:09 apply the commercial overlay district, because the
16:33:13 second DCA ruled that it did not apply.
16:33:17 It doesn't apply.
16:33:21 Here is the brief that Mr. DeFurio submitted to the
16:33:26 second district court of appeal.
16:33:31 And as you can see, what Mr. DeFurio argued there was
16:33:34 that the circuit court departed from the essential
16:33:38 mechanics of law by failing to consider the City of
16:33:40 Tampa code provisions establishing the South Howard
16:33:44 commercial overlay district.
16:33:46 That's precisely the same argument that he is
16:33:48 presenting to this tribunal today.
16:33:51 He had eleven pages of argument in this brief that he
16:33:56 submitted to that court.
16:33:57 And the court did not have to consider the brief.
16:33:59 In fact, I argued that the court should not consider
16:34:02 the brief.
16:34:03 The court squarely rejected my argument when they
16:34:06 said, no, Citivest, we are going to take the brief and
16:34:09 we are going to read it and we are going to consider
16:34:11 it.

16:34:11 So they did.
16:34:14 And after considering the arguments of Mr. DeFurio and
16:34:18 the Bayshore Royale, this is what the court concluded
16:34:26 It's our analysis of the applicable statutes, code
16:34:29 sections and case law convinces us that the circuit
16:34:33 court correctly applied the law in this matter and did
16:34:36 not overlook any other source, any other source.
16:34:41 The overlay district, for example, that would assist
16:34:44 in its review.
16:34:45 This court has diligently come to every appendix case
16:34:50 ordinance and statute submitted on behalf of and has
16:34:54 searched many other sources in an attempt to ascertain
16:34:57 whether or not the ARC possesses the authority or
16:35:01 power to require a reduction in height as a proposed
16:35:03 building so that it will be compatible with the
16:35:06 neighborhood.
16:35:08 So to suggest that the court didn't consider it when
16:35:10 they specifically accepted his brief, and then they
16:35:14 say, okay, we have looked at every source, we have
16:35:16 looked at every ordinance, and we have even done some
16:35:20 searching on our own, and searched many other
16:35:24 resources, to suggest that the second DCA didn't look

16:35:27 at Mr. DeFurio's argument, I don't think it hold
16:35:32 water.
16:35:33 Then it goes on to say, second DCA, the city could
16:35:36 have solved this issue, could have solved this issue.
16:35:40 It doesn't say the city may have solved this issue and
16:35:43 we need to find out.
16:35:44 It says the city could have solved this issue by
16:35:47 rezoning the property, or alternatively carving the
16:35:51 land out and even defining in an overlay district.
16:35:54 It could have done that.
16:35:58 The second DCA goes on to say that it didn't do that.
16:36:01 Thus the city code explicitly contemplates the
16:36:04 creation of historic overlay districts in which
16:36:07 building height can be limited, and then it goes on to
16:36:10 say, since extensive power was not granted.
16:36:17 That's not what happened here.
16:36:18 The South Howard commercial overlay district has been
16:36:21 argued.
16:36:22 It's been rejected.
16:36:27 And the second district goes on to state that
16:36:29 unfortunately the city is has not undertaken
16:36:31 legislative action to avoid this conflict.

16:36:35 Circuit court made this observation in its order
16:36:37 denying the city's motion for clarifications.
16:36:40 The City of Tampa has created this quagmire of
16:36:43 competing and seemingly inconsistent building
16:36:45 requirements.
16:36:46 We fully concur with that opinion.
16:36:50 So this argument has already been tried and rejected.
16:36:53 So the Bayshore condominium, Bayshore Royale is trying
16:36:58 to entice this council to do is to take action, which
16:37:01 is inconsistent with the action of the second district
16:37:03 court of appeal, and quite frankly is in contempt of
16:37:07 that courts powers.
16:37:09 That's what the Bayshore Royale is asking this council
16:37:12 to do today.
16:37:16 We ask council respect the rule of law established by
16:37:19 the courts, and affirm the ARC decision.
16:37:22 Finally, the appeal is barred because it's untimely.
16:37:29 Unquestionably this is an appeal.
16:37:31 If you look at the language filed by Mr. DeFurio and
16:37:34 his clients, and its application for lease it's called
16:37:38 an appeal challenging the height, the size, and the
16:37:42 massing of this project.

16:37:45 The height and the size, those issues relating to the
16:37:48 size of this project have already been decided.
16:37:50 It was the subject of council's preliminary approval
16:37:55 back in December of 2007, approximately 18 months ago.
16:37:59 All that's before you now is architectural detail
16:38:02 issues.
16:38:02 Exactly what Mr. Fernandez talked about.
16:38:05 Trim details.
16:38:06 Window patterns.
16:38:07 Porch projections.
16:38:11 Cupolas.
16:38:13 It's one of the things before the ARC and before you.
16:38:17 All that size of this building, issues decided in
16:38:21 December of 07.
16:38:22 Now what does that mean?
16:38:23 Well, because this challenge is in the form of an
16:38:26 appeal, what action was required by Mr. DeFurio and
16:38:32 his client to challenge the size, and the structure of
16:38:36 this building, was to file an action in circuit court
16:38:45 within 30 days of the preliminary approval of the
16:38:49 certificate of appropriateness.
16:38:51 This is an appeal, the Florida rules of appellate

16:38:56 procedure would apply to an appeal from a City Council
16:38:58 ruling.
16:39:00 Mr. DeFurio in fact himself relied upon the rules of
16:39:02 appellant procedure the last time we were here when he
16:39:05 was seeking a continues answer and here's what the
16:39:11 appellate rules following "shall" shall filed within
16:39:14 positive days of rendition of the order to be
16:39:16 reviewed.
16:39:18 Appeals that fall within that 30-day strict
16:39:21 requirement are -- petition to review quasi-judicial
16:39:25 action of agencies, boards and commissions of local
16:39:31 government.
16:39:32 So within 30 days of December 20th of 2007 if the
16:39:36 Bayshore Royale wanted to challenge the size of this
16:39:39 building they had to file it 30 days of that point of
16:39:41 time.
16:39:43 They did not do it.
16:39:43 Why didn't they do it?
16:39:44 Because they knew it would have been thrown out of
16:39:50 court because of the 2nd DCA ruling.
16:39:50 So what they are doing is trying to entice you into
16:39:53 taking action which would be inconsistent with the

16:39:57 court's prior rules.
16:40:00 With regard to Mr. DeFurio's arguments, he relies on
16:40:15 the first question asked, Is parcel two of the subject
16:40:18 property in the South Howard commercial overlay
16:40:21 district?
16:40:22 Answer, yes.
16:40:23 That issue as to whether or not it's in the district
16:40:27 does not address whether or not the district applies.
16:40:30 Those are two very separate issues.
16:40:33 Mrs. Kert pointed that out, in her comments at the ARC
16:40:37 here hearing.
16:40:39 Secondly, look what it says under number 2.
16:40:41 Does the ARC apply the Soho district as part of its
16:40:46 review in the pending certificate of appropriateness?
16:40:51 Does the ARC apply it? The answer is no.
16:40:54 Well, this is an appeal from the ARC.
16:40:57 Mrs. Kert pointed out it's not within your
16:40:58 jurisdiction.
16:41:00 Our position is it's already been applied by the
16:41:02 zoning administrator, Ms. Moreda back in wear the 2004
16:41:07 when she allowed this to go before the ARC she ruled
16:41:10 it met all the requirements of the zoning including

16:41:12 any overlay districts that apply.
16:41:14 That's our position.
16:41:15 But that's not really before you today.
16:41:19 Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, members of council, we ask
16:41:22 that this council follow the rule of law announced by
16:41:26 the trial court, affirmed by the trial court, follow
16:41:29 the staff recommendation, follow the unanimous finding
16:41:32 of the ARC decision, and a firm the ruling of the ARC.
16:41:38 Thank you for your time.
16:41:43 Questions?
16:41:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions by council?
16:41:45 >>> Thank you, sir.
16:41:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Rebuttal at this time.
16:41:51 You have 8 minutes 47 seconds.
16:42:03 >>> DeFurio: Thank you.
16:42:07 My client too wants the rule of law to be followed.
16:42:09 That's why I'm here.
16:42:11 The South Howard overlay has not been applied to this
16:42:14 case, ever.
16:42:14 Why?
16:42:15 Because 40 is greater than 18, that's why.
16:42:19 It's undisputed that the South Howard overlay district

16:42:23 is applicable to this parcel.
16:42:27 It is undisputed that the zoning administrator has
16:42:29 jurisdiction over the application of that overlay.
16:42:33 It is undisputed that the zoning administrator could
16:42:36 not have applied the overlay to this property because
16:42:42 the property, the improvement that's being proposed is
16:42:44 in violation of a specific provision of the overlay.
16:42:48 The building is outside of the maximum 18-foot
16:42:53 setback.
16:42:57 I think Citivest frankly is proving my point.
16:43:01 And it works this way.
16:43:07 It's not a question of whether somebody wrote
16:43:09 something in an Amicus brief.
16:43:11 And, by the way, I'm not a litigant.
16:43:14 Bayshore Royale isn't a party in any case.
16:43:21 Bayshore Royale made a statement before the ARC
16:43:26 committee several months ago and has a right then to
16:43:29 appeal the result of that ARC committee.
16:43:31 That's why I'm here.
16:43:33 Bayshore Royale was not a plaintiff or defendant in
16:43:36 Citivest versus City of Tampa, and anybody who
16:43:41 suggests that somehow my client had some rights that

16:43:45 they had to exercise within that case is wrong.
16:43:49 Citivest under the rules of civil procedure could have
16:43:51 very easily filed a motion in that case adding my
16:43:54 client as a party.
16:43:56 They did not.
16:43:58 I suppose had they done that, then this issue might
16:44:03 have been filtered out and decided.
16:44:06 But Citivest chose not to do that.
16:44:13 It is clear from the opinion, it is limited to one
16:44:18 issue.
16:44:19 One.
16:44:20 Does the ARC have jurisdiction over height?
16:44:24 Answer, says the court, no, it doesn't.
16:44:26 Fine.
16:44:26 That has nothing to do with the overlay.
16:44:29 Nothing.
16:44:29 Not a thing.
16:44:33 There is nothing contemptuous about this.
16:44:36 If there's anything that's going on here, it's 100
16:44:43 citizens of the City of Tampa wanting the Soho overlay
16:44:45 applied, wanting the law to be applied, and it
16:44:48 obviously has not.

16:44:50 Nearly by the laws of mathematics it has not.
16:44:53 Why is the 18-foot setback important?
16:44:57 If you read my memorandum you will see it.
16:44:59 It's important because that is a variable and
16:45:01 determining height.
16:45:01 The second DCA said that if an overlay had been
16:45:04 applied, and if that overlay had certain setback
16:45:10 requirements, to those setback requirements would have
16:45:16 been a variable in calculating the height of the
16:45:18 structure.
16:45:19 The ratio is 4 to 1 for RM 75.
16:45:21 You go back 18 feet, you go 72 feet.
16:45:26 Four to one.
16:45:27 That's the ratio. If we have a maximum setback of 18
16:45:30 feet, maximum, that means this building cannot go up,
16:45:35 at least a portion of it, cannot go up any higher than
16:45:38 72 feet.
16:45:38 By the way, there's a private issue here that I am
16:45:40 just going to mention offhand, it's not really your
16:45:43 concern, but the fact is that 18-foot setback would be
16:45:46 in my client's easement.
16:45:47 So this question is whether they can build anything.

16:45:50 But I digress.
16:45:52 Finally, we have been talking about certificates of
16:46:01 appropriateness
16:46:08 This is what the ARC has to do.
16:46:13 The ARC has to approve or disapprove each application
16:46:15 of certificate of appropriateness including in its
16:46:18 decisions the reasons.
16:46:19 Using the criteria contained in chapter 27.
16:46:24 Now, chapter 727 is where the Soho overlay is located.
16:46:28 But am I arguing that ARC is to apply the Soho
16:46:34 overlay?
16:46:34 No.
16:46:34 The zoning administrator applied the Soho overlay.
16:46:37 So what does this mean?
16:46:38 This means that -- and it only makes common sense.
16:46:42 You are not going to have ARC make a determination as
16:46:47 to its application of historic standards and whatnot.
16:46:52 It's the if the zoning administrator hasn't determined
16:46:55 first how the Soho overlay would apply.
16:47:00 It's never been done.
16:47:03 That's the problem.
16:47:04 Never.

16:47:06 And everyone knows it.
16:47:07 Why?
16:47:08 Because math doesn't lie. I am going to -- the error,
16:47:09 by the way, that ARC has committed.
16:47:11 That's the essential requirement of law.
16:47:24 And frankly just simple common sense justice.
16:47:28 Here we have a building that is obviously not in
16:47:30 compliance with the Soho overlay.
16:47:32 Yet it goes through the process with regard to parking
16:47:36 lots, and exterior facets and all this kind of thing.
16:47:43 Obviously the Soho hasn't been applied.
16:47:45 And the setback requirement of the Soho is going to
16:47:47 have a direct effect on the size of that building.
16:47:57 I would ask this council to please remand this matter
16:48:01 back to ARC, with an instruction that ARC abate any
16:48:06 further proceedings in this case until such time as
16:48:10 the zoning administrator has determined the
16:48:14 application of the Soho overlay to the parcel.
16:48:17 Once the zoning administrator has done that, then
16:48:23 whatever happens happens.
16:48:26 I don't know what's going to happen.
16:48:28 But the law ought to be applied, and the Soho overlay

16:48:34 hasn't been applied.
16:48:35 So I would ask for remand to ARC with specific
16:48:38 instructions to abate anytime further ARC proceedings
16:48:41 until such time as the zoning administrator has
16:48:43 applied the Soho overlay to this parcel.
16:48:47 There any questions?
16:48:51 Thank you very much.
16:49:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions by council?
16:49:07 No questions.
16:49:08 Motion to close?
16:49:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
16:49:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
16:49:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
16:49:13 What's the pleasure of council?
16:49:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, this is a classic
16:49:30 example of what I said over a year ago.
16:49:32 These things belong in the court of law.
16:49:36 Do we know what we are doing?
16:49:37 Yes.
16:49:38 Do we know all the technicalities of the law?
16:49:40 Maybe some do, maybe some don't.
16:49:42 But this is a particular case where both sides have a

16:49:46 good argument.
16:49:46 This case has gone through the whole gamut.
16:49:49 I don't know for how many years.
16:49:50 Maybe four years.
16:49:52 Maybe five years of the
16:49:54 It's been through the review committee.
16:49:57 It's been through the -- I'm talking about the
16:50:00 process.
16:50:03 The city staffs, they have been through the Planning
16:50:05 Commission staff, it's been before council once or
16:50:07 twice, it's been through the ARC, it's been through
16:50:11 the hearing masters, I guess, the city are the one
16:50:15 that is make the decision on those items.
16:50:17 It's been through the circuit court.
16:50:19 It's been to the district court of appeals.
16:50:23 And it's still the same thing.
16:50:25 It hasn't changed.
16:50:27 So there are arguments, like I said, on both sides.
16:50:30 But I would like our attorney to give us a little
16:50:33 leeway.
16:50:34 Is there anything here that to guide this council into
16:50:41 the projection of the right thing to do?

16:50:45 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
16:50:52 I believe I heard Mr. DeFurio state that he agrees
16:50:56 that the zoning administrator wasn't the appropriate
16:50:58 entity to interpret and apply the South Howard
16:51:00 overlay.
16:51:01 From that fact, that means that the appropriate
16:51:05 process is to request that from the zoning
16:51:08 administrator and if there's any appeals from that
16:51:11 process it goes forth from there.
16:51:14 It's my recommendation to you that it's not
16:51:15 appropriate to remand it back to the ARC because the
16:51:18 ARC does not have the authority, and you are here on
16:51:21 appeal from the ARC to say zoning administrator, we
16:51:25 disagree with your theory, we want to you look at it
16:51:28 again.
16:51:29 And it was stated in the record that in 2003 the
16:51:32 zoning administrator at that time submitted a letter
16:51:35 that the application met the setback and height
16:51:38 requirements, and that this issue has been reviewed
16:51:41 again, and zoning board determined it's appropriate to
16:51:44 go forward.
16:51:45 So to remand it back to the ARC at this time would be

16:51:47 outside the jurisdiction that the ARC has.
16:51:50 They don't have the authority, unless it's on appeal
16:51:52 to them -- let me state this clearly.
16:51:54 ARC does not have the authority in the certificate of
16:51:58 appropriateness stage to question the zoning
16:52:01 administrator of zoning compliance.
16:52:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And our position today is pretty much
16:52:04 to say that due process was awarded through the ARC,
16:52:09 that they followed due process on this application,
16:52:13 and not whether the zoning, hearing master applied the
16:52:17 Soho overlay district to that.
16:52:20 >>REBECCA KERT: That's correct.
16:52:21 And whether the ARC applied the essential requirements
16:52:24 of law.
16:52:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
16:52:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That being said, Mr. Chairman, I'm
16:52:28 sure that if one side or the other wants to continue
16:52:35 after council makes a determination they can also
16:52:37 appeal it back to a higher court.
16:52:38 >>> Certainly. They have whatever appellate rights
16:52:39 provided by law.
16:52:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is for you.

16:52:47 Could council ask the zoning administrator, the
16:52:52 current zoning administrator --
16:52:55 >> No.
16:52:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anything?
16:52:58 >>REBECCA KERT: I would not recommend City Council
16:53:00 asking zoning administrator about the project while
16:53:05 the project is ongoing.
16:53:06 What you know now at this hearing, because it's
16:53:08 contained in the record, is that zoning determines
16:53:11 that it was in compliance with the zoning regulations
16:53:13 to go forward to the ARC.
16:53:15 That's part of the appellate process.
16:53:19 To spin have that side right now with additional
16:53:24 information would not be appropriate.
16:53:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
16:53:31 >>MARY MULHERN: I agree with Mr. Miranda.
16:53:32 I wish that these appeals would go to court instead of
16:53:35 coming to us.
16:53:36 Although after reading through these, I think maybe we
16:53:40 might have better judgments than some of the judges in
16:53:45 this case.
16:53:47 But we don't have the ability to, you know, do that at

16:53:52 this point.
16:53:53 So I think our hands, you know, are tied.
16:53:56 And I think they are, now, clearly there's a decent
16:54:02 argument about applying the Soho overlay to this
16:54:05 parcel.
16:54:07 But it's not being made at the right time to the right
16:54:10 body.
16:54:11 And I think -- I don't really understand why there
16:54:16 really wasn't any kind of mention of your brief, in
16:54:23 the decision, but we can't do anything about that.
16:54:27 So I think we just -- you know, however we feel, it's
16:54:32 only in this last process at the ARC that we have the
16:54:37 ability to judge whether there is competent,
16:54:41 substantial evidence and due process in the essential
16:54:44 requirements of law.
16:54:45 I haven't heard anything that tells us that the ARC,
16:54:49 in applying design guidelines, did not do that.
16:54:54 That's all they could do at that point, at the last
16:54:58 stage of this.
16:54:59 So I think I'm sorry, but we can't be the deciders of
16:55:08 this.
16:55:11 And I'm glad -- well, I'm not glad.

16:55:14 I wish I would have been here originally and maybe
16:55:16 could have made some different arguments, but we can't
16:55:19 do that at this point.
16:55:20 So I guess I'm ready to move to up hold the decision
16:55:29 of the ARC.
16:55:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I am going to second
16:55:35 that and I'll tell you why.
16:55:37 We have received a preponderance of our own attorneys
16:55:41 telling us, you can't go back to the ARC.
16:55:45 You can't go back to the zoning administrator, 2003.
16:55:49 So where are we going?
16:55:52 If those guidelines are so restricted, and that's a
16:55:56 legal matter, then we have no option other than to
16:56:00 adder who to what the courts have said.
16:56:02 And I believe that's what I heard the courts said.
16:56:05 Am I correct, counselors?
16:56:09 >> Yes.
16:56:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: These are difficult decisions.
16:56:15 Especially one of this magnitude.
16:56:17 But I have to be realistic on what I have.
16:56:21 Certainly when these things come up, we don't get a
16:56:23 chance, and the public that was there doesn't get a

16:56:27 chance to express something that wasn't on the record.
16:56:30 You can only speak in a very narrow form between the
16:56:33 lines.
16:56:33 And you can't go from right field to left field.
16:56:36 You can only go in the little line going down first.
16:56:39 And there's a difference of view and widths on this
16:56:43 thing and those what makes these things very
16:56:45 difficult, because of the guidelines, that is what you
16:56:48 hear and this is what you must stay on record, and on
16:56:52 course.
16:56:52 So I'm not being apologetic.
16:56:55 I'm just being saying this is what I have.
16:56:57 So therefore I second Mrs. Mulhern's motion.
16:57:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to speak after the
16:57:03 vote.
16:57:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you going to speak to an issue
16:57:08 outside of the discussion of this hearing?
16:57:11 I'm just curious.
16:57:16 Let me -- and I don't mean this to you specifically,
16:57:19 but I caution you that as Mr. Miranda rightly stated,
16:57:23 both sides have the ability to appeal this decision to
16:57:27 circuit court.

16:57:28 Obviously, you see the court reporter present taking
16:57:30 the official record.
16:57:32 I would just caution council with regard to what it
16:57:36 says that's outside the scope of this hearing that
16:57:39 might in some way cause additional litigation
16:57:43 somewhere down the line, not knowing what you are
16:57:45 going to say.
16:57:45 I am just asking you to please be mindful of that in
16:57:49 this situation.
16:57:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion on the floor, moved
16:57:57 and second.
16:57:58 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
16:58:00 Opposes?
16:58:03 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no,
16:58:05 Dingfelder being absent.
16:58:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
16:58:18 Anything else need to come before council?
16:58:28 >>THE CLERK: Two items.
16:58:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved to receive and file all
16:58:33 doing ultimate.
16:58:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the item here on the emergency
16:58:36 response, the clerk is recommending that we hold a

16:58:41 hearing -- I'm sorry, hold a meeting on the 30th,
16:58:44 I think it is, at 12 noon.
16:58:45 >>THE CLERK: July 30th in the Mascotte room for
16:58:51 approximately 30 minutes.
16:58:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The date again I'm sorry?
16:58:58 >>THE CLERK: July 30th in the 12 noon in the
16:59:01 Mascotte room for approximately 30 minutes.
16:59:04 >> Second.
16:59:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded of.
16:59:09 (Motion carried).
16:59:11 >>THE CLERK: The other issue is I received a
16:59:13 memorandum from Darrell Smith regarding items
16:59:15 scheduled on the July 16th agenda.
16:59:18 And he's requesting that be removed.
16:59:21 >> What item?
16:59:23 >>THE CLERK: Administration to appear and provide a
16:59:25 written report regarding itemization of all
16:59:27 departments, to outsource temporary labor contracts,
16:59:32 FY 08 and FY 09, any item Id savings of layoffs by
16:59:39 department, and indicating that at the June 4th
16:59:42 meeting, during the presentation, and through
16:59:47 coordination with council member Mulhern.

16:59:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I need a little help here from
16:59:54 council, because since I made that motion back in May,
16:59:59 then we had that discussion with Darrell Smith, does
17:00:09 everyone feel that that answered all those questions?
17:00:12 I honestly can't remember.
17:00:13 I'm not sure that -- I think what he gave us war was
17:00:19 narrower than what I was asking for but I'm not sure.
17:00:22 So I think maybe what we could do is -- I'm going to
17:00:28 have to go back and look at the agenda item, and the
17:00:31 transcript, and see if we actually got the information
17:00:34 that I was asking for.
17:00:36 So we can continue this to maybe the next council
17:00:40 meeting after July 16th.
17:00:43 And at that point, you know, after we are back from
17:00:46 break, I can, you know, look back and see -- at that
17:00:50 point we can remove it.
17:00:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I don't have a problem with
17:00:53 giving that time, but I do recall that he did make a
17:00:56 presentation based on the motion.
17:00:58 Actually, John made the motion, and he incorporated
17:01:01 that when we were discussing the memo. I brought
17:01:04 forth the item raising the issue by those contracts

17:01:06 and all.
17:01:06 That's where this is from.
17:01:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm not sure.
17:01:12 Maybe that I made a request and you already had a
17:01:15 request, so we are just duplicating but I feel we need
17:01:18 to look back.
17:01:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you won't want to go back and look
17:01:23 at it.
17:01:23 When is this?
17:01:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I think that we should continue it
17:01:26 because this is right when we get back.
17:01:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Actually it's on the agenda.
17:01:29 It's already on the agenda.
17:01:30 What he's saying is that it should have been removed
17:01:32 when he came and made the presentation and it was not
17:01:35 removed.
17:01:35 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
17:01:37 Well, I'm not sure about that.
17:01:38 So I think we can remove it on that date.
17:01:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
17:01:46 I want to leave it on the agenda.
17:01:47 >>MARY MULHERN: I want to leave it on the agenda.

17:01:51 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman --
17:01:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, I was a little distracted.
17:02:00 My understanding is if you leave it on the agenda and
17:02:01 come back with the determination that you don't want
17:02:03 to hear it, there will be a great deal, I'm sure, of
17:02:06 staff time in preparation for that presentation.
17:02:08 Otherwise, you might find yourself in a situation --
17:02:11 >>MARY MULHERN: All right, well let's continue it.
17:02:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The same thing is already on the
17:02:15 agenda.
17:02:15 It's already there.
17:02:18 >>MARY MULHERN: No, what Marty is saying --
17:02:22 >>CHAIRMAN: We can take it off.
17:02:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What I'm asking council to avoid the
17:02:26 situation where the administration does what council
17:02:28 wishes them not to do, is to come in and say that they
17:02:33 don't have sufficient -- they are removing it from the
17:02:35 agenda rather than have you do it.
17:02:37 So I'm suggesting -- her suggestion was it allow the
17:02:41 administration time to -- because I don't believe this
17:02:45 council would want them to do the work.
17:02:48 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.

17:02:50 Right.
17:02:50 That's what I was saying.
17:02:52 So we come back.
17:02:53 And then we still have two weeks.
17:02:56 I can look this up tomorrow.
17:03:03 And I can let them know if I am going to expect this,
17:03:07 or if we don't need it.
17:03:09 But at this point, I don't want --
17:03:17 Well, way originally said was to continue it for two
17:03:19 weeks later.
17:03:20 So into August.
17:03:22 That way --
17:03:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You can always remove it.
17:03:26 >>MARY MULHERN: We can still remove it if I'm
17:03:28 reassured that he answered all the questions.
17:03:31 And I can let him know that, now, tomorrow.
17:03:34 But I don't want to take it off the agenda if I feel
17:03:38 like the questions haven't been answered.
17:03:42 We'll give him an extra two weeks to come up with the
17:03:44 information.
17:03:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Listen, council, you can do whatever
17:03:47 you want to do, but my recollection is, one, is work

17:03:50 has been done, because you recall the motion was
17:03:52 placed on the floor.
17:03:54 This will bring all the information back.
17:03:55 What he's saying is he's already made that report.
17:03:58 I don't know if there's additional work to be done.
17:04:01 He's saying, if I understand the memo, that I have
17:04:03 answered the question, I have answered this.
17:04:05 I came to council.
17:04:07 You recall --
17:04:08 >>MARY MULHERN: I know he's saying.
17:04:10 I'm not sure I agree with it.
17:04:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I understand but you're missing my
17:04:14 point.
17:04:14 My point is Mr. Shelby is saying you need to address
17:04:18 the issue because they go and do the work.
17:04:23 I don't understand why they are doing anything but his
17:04:25 argument is we made that presentation already.
17:04:27 Is that not accurate?
17:04:28 Isn't that what the memo said?
17:04:30 >>MARY MULHERN: Yeah, but he needs to know -- I mean,
17:04:33 I don't want him to come back with it if that's
17:04:35 exactly what I asked for.

17:04:36 But if there was additional information --
17:04:44 >>CHAIRMAN: If you are going to check tomorrow, can't
17:04:46 you ask him what information he needs to know?
17:04:48 You don't think that was the correct information that
17:04:50 you got?
17:04:50 >>MARY MULHERN: He was the one that asked us to take
17:04:55 this off the agenda.
17:04:58 I'm being nice in saying let's, you know -- let's
17:05:02 continue it so I can check.
17:05:04 What's the big deal?
17:05:05 Let's just continue it.
17:05:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Continue to when?
17:05:10 >>MARY MULHERN: To August.
17:05:11 >>THE CLERK: You have a regular execution July
17:05:16 30th.
17:05:16 That's two weeks.
17:05:17 >>MARY MULHERN: July he 30th.
17:05:19 >> Second.
17:05:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
17:05:23 Opposes?
17:05:24 Mr. Caetano.
17:05:25 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: On June 21st, I would like --

17:05:33 I was going to read it but I gave everybody a copy.
17:05:37 I called this gentleman up.
17:05:38 And he's a small businessman.
17:05:41 And everybody else affiliated with the construction
17:05:44 industry, whatever you are doing, down to the spot
17:05:49 that sells people breakfast in the morning, their
17:05:51 lunch and their beer before they go home.
17:05:54 So it was in the Sunday paper.
17:06:01 >> Second.
17:06:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
17:06:04 (Motion carried).
17:06:05 >>CHAIRMAN: This morning we made a motion to continue
17:06:07 the code enforcement ordinance for, what, 90 days?
17:06:11 During that time, I would like for the staff to meet
17:06:13 with those people who were speaking this morning so
17:06:15 they can iron out all those problems they were talking
17:06:18 about.
17:06:18 And then somewhere they can help the poor people who
17:06:21 are having problems coming for enforcement and being
17:06:25 fine.
17:06:27 >> Second.
17:06:28 (Motion carried).

17:06:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other business need to come before
17:06:31 council?
17:06:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to receive and file.
17:06:37 >> So moved.
17:06:37 >> Second.
17:06:38 (Motion carried).
17:06:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That concludes our regular business
17:06:41 for the day.
17:06:42 We have public comment.
17:06:44 (The meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.)
17:07:51 (Public comment off camera)
17:07:55
17:08:39
DISCLAIMER:
The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.