TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, June 23, 2016.
5:30 p.m. Session

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


[Banging Gavel]
05:34:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Tampa City Council is now called to order.
Roll call please.
[Roll Call]
05:34:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
05:34:10 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
05:34:13 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
05:34:14 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
05:34:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
05:34:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, we're starting with item number one.
If I could have the staff come on up.
Mr. Garcia that's right.
We need to open items one and two.

Got a motion from Mr. Miranda, second from Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
05:34:46 >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of Council.
Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.
I would be presenting to you this evening one text
endment that will require as your only action this
evening to consider transmittal of this for state and
regional review.
This was not an adoption hearing.
The adoption hearing has yet to be set before this body.
I will ask that the Council consider making a motion at
the conclusion of your motion, or your action on this
transmittal to set a hearing date.
I've already checked with your counsel and I have
requested a date of August 25th at 5:30 for that if it
would be your pleasure.
And you may take into consideration an action at the
conclusion of your action this evening on this particular
item.
This is Tampa comprehensive plan future land use text
endment 1602.
How do I zoom out?
Okay.
So let me give you general context.

This text amendment consists an objective and series of
policy that is were developed approximately a decade ago.
Text amendment is a part of the February 2016 cycle.
This site that we're talking about is located in the
South Tampa planning district.
This is again policy language that's specific to
Rattlesnake Point.
General location as you can see is evidenced by the star
on the map here.
This is located just south of the intersection of
Westshore and Gandy Boulevard.
The purpose and intent of the text amendment is to remove
the current prohibition on residential development while
heavy industrial uses are still present.
Also the removal of the requirement for a transition plan
to be developed prior to any residential development
being permitted.
To give you some history on wrath the snake point.
This is Rattlesnake Point on the left in 1941 and
rattlesnake in 2015.
Can you see there was quite a bit of dredging that
occurred within the 1940 and 2015 to create what's
currently identified as Rattlesnake Point.
Rattlesnake Point was primarily all designated heavy
industrial.

Going to go ahead and show you a future land use map as
it exists today.
So all this land here that is CMU-35, was designated
CMU-35 around that 2007-2008 timeframe as a result of the
agreement that was put together in the form of that
objective policies that are before you this evening.
So do you have a land use designation on the tip of this
point of CMU 35.
However, those policies prohibit CMU 35 uses that are
specific to the category itself as a lot of these uses
still are exhibiting heavy industrial or light industrial
uses.
The black color directly to the right of the CMU 35 is
heavy industrial and that basically was the character of
the entire point prior to the designation in 2007, 2008.
05:38:27 >>HARRY COHEN:
I just want to clarify what you just said.
So it's CMU 35 but certain of the uses that are permitted
under that zoning classification are prohibited because
of what's next to it?
05:38:40 >> Well, that's not exactly what I said.
05:38:42 >>HARRY COHEN:
Then clarify the difference between what
you said and way just said.
05:38:46 >> There's a series -- there's one objective.
My pleasure.
There's one objective in a series of policy that is

basically stipulate that certain conditions must be met
before the lands that have been designated CMU 35 can
actually request CMU 35 uses, specifically residential
uses because as you all know, in heavy industrial
residential is prohibited.
There's still existing heavy industrial uses on some of
these sites, warehousing, ship building, things of that
nature.
So the policies, if you read the policies, it says until
all these heavy industrial uses are gone or unless, until
there's a development of a transition plan.
These lands that are designated CMU-35 will not be able
to specifically go to those specific uses until all these
other things have occurred.
That's outlined within those object -- within those
policies under that objective.
So that's the long and short of it.
Is that clear for you, sir?
05:39:45 >>HARRY COHEN:
A little bit.
But I guess -- I'm not really understanding who is
supposed to enforce all this.
I guess it's us.
05:39:56 >> It refuses to a transition plan which was supposed to
be developed by the city which to this date has not been
developed.

It refuses to that in one of the policies.
But if you'll read -- there's a hot of things that have
occurred in the decade.
I'll probably get to that.
05:40:13 >>HARRY COHEN:
I'll go ahead and reserve any more
questions till you're finished.
05:40:16 >> I also wanted to give you a little bit of history of
this area.
This was known as the Gandy gateway corridor a couple
decades ago.
Most of the land uses that you see there with the
exception of what's south of, of this particular street,
okay, everything south of here used to be heavy
industrial.
This is where the west being house site used to be.
Now it's the Westshore golf and country club.
This was changed around 2002, 2001 so this was changed to
CMU 35 and subsequently another companion amendment aloud
CMU 35 from heavy industrial to occur over here also
because all this land fronts Westshore Boulevard.
That's its primary access point.
All the land to the north over here, only thing that had
been done over this, there's one small piece, one small
tiny piece over here that was changed to urban to
coincide with all this property which already had land

use designation of urban mixed use.
Pretty much all the activity that has occurred as far as
future land use changes on this particular parcel.
There has not been any future land use change on this
site west of Westshore since the Rattlesnake Point
endment was done.
There have been no other map amendments to the west of
Westshore.
This is just an existing land use map to show you what
the existing uses are.
There's a lot of light industrial and heavy industrial
uses on Rattlesnake Point.
As far as the agency review, the City of Tampa did have
numerous objections to the proposed text language because
I'm sure as you see you have representation here from the
City of Tampa and they will be making their case to you
this evening regarding those objections.
Regarding impacts to properties that are not part of this
application, the creation of potentially dangerous
conditions, the removal of the requirement for the
transition plan and changes to transportation mitigation
procedures.
As far as the planning issues, the particular site in
question is one singular property that's being requested
by one property owner this evening as the applicant.

There were numerous applicants when this was initiated a
decade ago.
You have one applicant making that request tonight to
make these changes.
Because there has been change of ownership since that
time, two properties on Rattlesnake Point that were not,
so those people that are the owners of some of these
properties today were not part of the original applicants
when this was changed in 2007, 2008.
So, the access, you have access limited to one way on and
off the peninsula.
The property in question this evening is at the terminus
of the street on Rattlesnake Point.
Residential uses are discouraged, located within
proximity to heavy industrial use also there is a
significant heavy industrial use, Chemical Formulators
directly east of the site.
Directly adjacent to the site.
Not 600 feet away.
Not 1,000 feet away.
Directly adjacent to the site.
The only way anyone can get from this parcel that's at
the tip to get across to Westshore, they have to cross
this particular site.
Which could create an issue should there be any kind of

event on that site in the future.
That's something to take into consideration.
So, there is a lack of required transition study that has
been done.
You have a letter from the Planning Commission before you
in your packet that talks about entertaining the notion
of reconsidering the objective and policies that are in
there, because of some of the circumstances I've told you
about this evening and do you have different property
ownership on the site an conditions have changed in the
last decade.
So that is one of the, one of the comments that the
Planning Commissioners had that they would like to you
take into intersection, that the City of Tampa staff
potentially take into consideration possibly modifying
what you have as far as the existing objective and
policies to potentially facilitate an individual
application through the plan policy which currently
doesn't exist.
The issue that they had that evening as I said before was
that you had only one property owner coming in and making
a request that's going to impact all of Rattlesnake Point
and there was one other applicant and not an applicant
but one other property owner that was one of the original
property owners, Old Dutch that was there.

I'm sure their representative is here to speak.
There's one applicant and there's one other original
applicant that's not part of this application that's in
support of what the applicant is asking this evening.
So, but the other two, one is under different property
ownership and they are maintaining a heavy industrial
slash light industrial use on there.
I think they're doing some ship building on their site.
But that has been acquired by a different property owner
and they are continuing to operate industrial uses on
that site.
The other planning use, final bullet point on my slide
here is that residential uses may negatively affect
established industrial uses which kind of dovetails into
what I told you do have, new property owners on the site
that are perfectly content in operating on the point as
an industrial use.
Planning Commission, their review found the proposed
request inconsistent with the following comprehensive
plan of future land use objectives and policies, that it
conflicts with the area context, policies 13.1.3, 1832
and 18.1.5, also to preserve industrial areas, policies
19.92, 19.93 and 19.10.4.
Also as it deals with residential development and
redevelopment, policies 18.4.4 and 26.2.4.

And also related uses, policy 41.6.1.
So, our recommendation was the Planning Commission find
the proposed request inconsistent with the goals.
It was -- the Planning Commission did concur with staff's
recommendation.
It was not a unanimous vote.
But it was on the majority side of finding with staff's
recommendation of inconsistency.
That concludes my presentation.
If you have any questions, if I haven't explained
anything a little bit more into detail, I'll be more than
happy to do that.
05:46:58 >> What was the vote?
05:46:58 >> I think it was 6-4, 6-3.
Because we didn't have a full board that night.
I think it was 6-3.
The resolution is in your packet.
05:47:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions of Mr. Garcia at this time?
Mr. Garcia, I have one quick question.
You had put on here and probably about four slides back,
about dangerous conditions.
I don't want to paraphrase what you had in the, in your
report, but you said it was dangerous conditions.
It's dangerous because it's already industrial use or
light industrial use to that effect, meaning chemical

moving, correct?
05:47:36 >> That's correct.
05:47:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Are there any other times that we zone
things that are near or close to or in proximate use of
dangerous uses?
05:47:48 >> That's a very general and vague question.
05:47:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's why they pay me the big bucks up
here.
You understand what I'm saying, there are times that we
do zone things that are still near, not only industrial
but actually potentially adverse conditions.
05:48:02 >> That's correct.
You're supposed to mitigate for those impacts.
05:48:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I'll give you an example one that can be a
potential dangerous situation.
We zone now, we have been zoning probably over the last
few months properties that are, are right next to
MacDill air force base.
Now MacDill Air Force Base, can you look at as a shield
or a sword.
A lot of times is it more dangerous to be next to an air
force base or is it less dangerous during a war on
terror?
Could be either one.
My point is, is that there are conditions that happen all

the time in which we are near or next to or adjacent to
dangerous conditions.
Same thing with some of the industrial uses, whether they
were in Drew Park or in Davis Island or other placings,
there are places that are approximately close or closer
to some dangerous conditions.
And we still zone, we still allow people to use it if
they want to use it in a certain way.
So my question is, you know, we don't get this from
Planning Commission very often about dangerous
conditions.
So, I kind of -- I'm asking you because that's kind of a
vague -- throwing it back at you.
It's vague to say it's dangerous conditions.
Aren't we always involved with exposure to all kinds of
different conditions regardless of where you live?
05:49:19 >> The circumstances here were in a couple things, couple
of things to take into consideration.
Number one you're at a dead end, so we're talking about,
should something occur, and I understand what you're
talking about because yes, I'm familiar with heavy
industrial uses and of course I'm familiar with
MacDill, which is a completely different animal in my,
you know, in my view of that as a lot of the residential
there pre-dated MacDill Air Force Base.

That being the case.
The other thing that I would say is that we're talking
about not proximate.
We're talking about immediately adjacent.
Like if St. Joseph's Hospital --
05:50:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That was the wrong thing to say here.
05:50:04 >> Wrong hospital.
That's like saying Tampa General Hospital was the
location of a site that could create all these dangerous
impacts and everyone that lived on Davis Island would
have to pass that particular structure to get off the
bridge.
05:50:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Like the hospital and the people that live
on MacDill Air Force Base, which are next to noxious
fumes, dangerous conditions there.
And I don't mean from the enemy.
I'm just talking about from gasoline, there could be an
explosion there.
Could be a lot of things.
My point is -- this is the first time I've ever seen you
put dangerous on your report.
That's all I was asking.
I've never seen it.
I may be wrong, I've just never seen it before.
05:50:48 >> Well that condition does exist.

05:50:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It's the only time it's ever existed is
what you're saying?
05:50:54 >> Yes.
05:50:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
But I've never seen it.
So you're saying this has been done before?
05:50:59 >> What's been done before?
05:51:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You've been a planner how many years?
Has it ever been done before, doing a text amendment,
changing the policy in the Planning Commission
recommendation, would be dangerous.
Again, I've never seen that before.
That's what I'm asking you.
You're not answering me.
05:51:19 >> No, no.
Your task this evening, if this were to be adopted, which
is not being adopted this evening.
You're transmitting.
But at the end of the day when this gets adopted, the
scenario would be this, again the City of Tampa is going
to go into much more detail on this than I am.
The issue here is that you'll create a situation where
you could have many people living on a corner that they
will potentially not be able to leave should there be a,
an event on this site immediately adjacent to them, that

would impede them being able to get off of Rattlesnake
Point.
That is an issue of public safety.
05:52:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And again -- I'm going to finish with
this, Mr. Garcia, because I don't want to belabor it any
more.
This is the first time you've ever brought this up in
terms of danger.
The second part is that there are several other places in
which, you know, there's dangerous conditions all over
the city, but this is the one time that we have had
something that has brought you here to say dangerous.
That's all I'm saying.
I've never seen it in my five years.
You make recommendations but you never say this is
dangerous, don't do this, it's dangerous.
That's all I have.
Any other questions of Mr. Garcia?
05:52:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'll comment later.
05:52:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
City?
Thank you.
05:52:57 >> Good afternoon, Council.
Bob McDonaugh, economic development, City of Tampa.
Just to boil this down to a single issue.
And Mr. Garcia talked about it and that is the changing

of a policy.
And the policy right now, policy 20.8.1 protect any
future residential commercial uses from the hazardous or
noxious heavy industrial uses along Tyson Avenue, the
only exit from the peninsula comprising Rattlesnake Point
waterfront area by not allowing any residential uses
until the hazardous or toxic heavy industrial uses are
permanently relocated from the Rattlesnake Point
waterfront area.
And as Mr. Garcia was talking about, we were talking
about immediately adjacent and we're talking about
materials like sulfuric acid, talking about materials
like bleach.
And one point of ingress and egress, and immediately
adjacent.
So that's the question is, whether or not Council is
willing to change a policy that is currently in effect
for this particular piece of property and to allow people
to change that, to put people immediately adjacent to
hazardous materials.
s.
05:54:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda?
05:54:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm just going to make a statement.
Not a reflection on this.
I've been hearing this, like you said, Mr. Chairman, let

me say this.
Five and a half decades ago, bait a little house on
chestnut street.
2700 block.
Pretty close to an empty cigar factory called Santaella
cigar factory on Chestnut and Armenia.
It was us, not us, not you, but this city put in a
company there, let them stay there quite a while called
southern mill creek company.
And they do all kinds, all kinds of chemicals.
In fact, one night we had an alarm, people knocking on
the door because some chlorine had come out of the
building and we had to, so the city let them in, the
residents were already there.
It wasn't the other way around.
Listen, if somebody wants to live next to a dump and
moving a house, they bought a lot, they live next to a
dump, they've seen it, I guess they do.
Let me go further.
70, 75 years ago, sometimes it pays to get old, Ashley
Street, what was it?
It wasn't Ashley.
What was the Hillsborough River?
Commercial industrial.
They did all kinds of things on that river, against all

kinds of laws that we have today.
And look at it now.
Let's go back a little, not too far more in history.
Let's go to Channelside.
What was in Channelside?
It would've stayed in the same cue as we're talking about
now, there would be no residential Channelside.
It was a dump.
Docks, chemicals, all kinds of things.
Let's go to Harbor Island, or Staten Island.
If I say Staten Island, half the population wasn't even
alive, don't know what I'm talking about.
Let's go back to Harbor Island.
Well, you look older than what you are.
[ Laughter ]
05:56:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And what I'm saying is, look at Harbor
Island, how it's flourished.
In fact, the most complaint I used to get when I first
got elected was from the good folks in Davis Islands and
rightly so.
When the wind would blow from east to west and they were
doing the phosphate changing with the trains, and
phosphate can catch fire, I guess.
And trains never had a wreck.
You know that.

Never in the history of the United States of American has
been train wreck.
There's been derailment of trains.
Harbor Island would turn white and yellow and all kinds
of colors.
People would get kind of upset.
What Harbor Island came along, look what it's done to the
whole place.
Harbor Island, Davis Island, I'm not saying that this is
right or wrong.
I'm just saying that we're going in the wrong direction
here because history tells me that we have done it the
other way around.
We have had a complete neighborhood in West Tampa and put
a chemical plant or chemical storage facility in one of
the centers of West Tampa.
And that happened 50 some years ago.
And don't take my word for it.
Have it verified.
What was there is Santaella cigar factory.
05:58:07 >> Mr. Miranda, those are great examples.
Harbor Island didn't get developed residential until
after they used to clean up where the county used to work
for mosquitoes.
05:58:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Let's go back because my memory hasn't

finished.
05:58:20 >> Channel District didn't get cleaned up.
05:58:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
What's on the other side, east side of
the Channel District?
05:58:27 >> There is Amerada Hess has a gasoline terminal.
Cargo has a grain facility.
05:58:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
And that's not dangerous to nobody on
the west side?
05:58:38 >> I don't see any houses there, sir.
05:58:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You don't see no houses in
Channelside, no high-rise buildings, nothing like that?
05:58:46 >> There are, probably twelve to 1400 feet away, that's
accurate, yes, sir.
05:58:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That's all I'm saying.
I'm trying to use logic here and understand what we're
doing.
Then I tell myself, if I would've used the same thought,
that would've never been developed, because they're all
industrial.
05:59:03 >> None of those got developed until after those noxious
uses left.
05:59:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Not rightly so.
It was piece by piece and it's still going on piece by
piece.
We haven't seen the transformation of the Channelside

district finish at all.
That's my opinion, sir.
05:59:23 >> I agree.
05:59:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
May be wrong.
It hasn't even started to show what it's going to be.
05:59:28 >> Nitrate and soda and others are.
05:59:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Nitrate soda is okay, you can't smoke
very well.
It really blows up on you.
That's all, Mr. Chairman.
05:59:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions for the city for
Mr. McDonaugh?
Thank you.
Petitioner?
05:59:44 >> Good evening, Councilmembers, Gina Grimes with the law
firm of Hill Ward Henderson, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard.
And tonight I'm here representing Viper Ventures, LLC.
They are the applicant on this comp plan amendment.
I'm going to put up on the Elmo for you a map that I have
highlighted my clients own the 31 acres that are shown
with the two red stars.
These two pieces.
What I've shown here on this map is the outlined in
orange is the CMU 35 property.
And in green is the location of Chemical Formulators.

I'll address them in just one minute.
As you've heard from the staff back in 2006, my client
viper ventures as well as three other property owners
comprising two thirds of the entire Rattlesnake Point,
they filed a comp plan text amendment and comp plan map
endment.
And as you've heard, there was an adoption of some new
text in the comprehensive plan addressing Rattlesnake
Point.
And you heard Mr. McDonaugh read to you one of the
policies in the comprehensive plan that currently exists.
He read one of the policies but what he didn't read and
what is really the most important issue driving all this
is the objective.
Remember, in the hierarchy of the plan, you have goals,
objectives and policies.
So policies are supposed to implement the objectives.
Objectives are supposed to carry out the overall goals.
The objective on Rattlesnake Point, important, encourage
the transition of the Rattlesnake Point waterfront area
from its current mix of heavy and light industrial uses
to a mix of residential, commercial, retail uses and a
waterfront community in a manner that protects the
health, safety and welfare.
That's what we're proposing.

It's almost identical to the language that's in the comp
plan right now.
So, the idea, the policy, the objective, I'm sorry, that
was adopted back in '06, was to encourage the transition
away from heavy industrial to residential and commercial
mixed use.
So let's not forget that because that's what should be
guiding all this discussion.
This area on Rattlesnake Point is really what ends up
being a remnant industrial area.
I think even back in 2006, everybody agreed that this
should transition away from this industrial, the
industrial uses.
So we have proposed two comp -- two amendments to the
comp plan.
And they are proposed to remove two restrictions that are
in there.
The first as you've heard is to remove the restriction
that prohibits residential uses until all the toxic or
hazardous heavy industrial uses are permanently
relocated.
We're proposing that be removed.
And in fact, Chemical Formulators is the only one left.
Of the, what the comp plan says hazardous or toxic heavy
industrial uses.

That's the only one left.
The LP farm down further to the east has already been
closed and abandoned.
No longer in use.
The second requirement that we're seeking to remove from
the comp plan is the requirement for the city to do a
transition plan.
Also want to clarify that we have also retained several
of the policies that are in the plan pretty much intact.
But what's important to note is that we're not proposing
that any of the existing industrial uses be made
nonconforming.
We're not suggesting that they be amortized out.
What we're saying is they can continue to exist in their
current forms, and some of them, the ones outside of the
CMU 35 area can even expand if they like.
06:04:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Hang on a second.
06:04:05 >>HARRY COHEN:
Could I ask you a question?
According to this, based on what you were just reading
from and everything following it, all of this is supposed
to be considered during a PD zoning process.
06:04:15 >> Corrects.
06:04:16 >>HARRY COHEN:
So why are we considering it here?
06:04:19 >> Why is this level of detail in the comprehensive plan?
06:04:22 >>HARRY COHEN:
No, no, in other words, if there's an

issue with it being close to a hazardous use, wouldn't
that be considered in the PD process?
06:04:32 >> Yes.
06:04:33 >>HARRY COHEN:
Wouldn't that be the place?
And it would be appropriate to set conditions if the two
are were going to coexist together in some way?
06:04:41 >> Yes, in our proposed policy 20.8.5, what we say is PD
zoning conditions must address mitigation of impacts and
the consideration of public access to the water,
important, the next point is what you're making, also
consideration of where proposed PD rezonings abut heavy
industrial uses that are hazardous, demonstrate through
design and accepted practices that the occupants of the
new use shall not be unduly at risk from such hazards.
So those are issues --
06:05:12 >>HARRY COHEN:
So in other words, if we want to go up a
setback from the use, the place to do that would be in
the PD.
06:05:18 >> Yes.
And the plan calls for that, requires that.
Both the existing language and the proposed language.
06:05:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Hold on a second.
06:05:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Speaking about things that we usually
deal with in the PD process, ingress and egress is one of
those.

And I don't know how we can, you know, overcome the fact
that there's one way in, one way out.
06:05:43 >> I think it depends on what the proper protocol is.
Given the nature of the use, which would we come to
rezone to a PD, we don't even know if that use will still
be in existence.
But we'd have to examine the nature of the use and
potential risk that it imposes to determine whether or
not the fact that there's one road in, one road out makes
a difference.
But it definitely would have to be addressed and
considered and evaluated at the time of the rezoning.
So again, back, the points I wanted to make.
We're not asking that you eliminate or make nonconforming
any of the existing heavy industrial or light industrial
uses.
And again I just went through with you what we're
proposing that the comp plan, the language that it retain
to make sure that all of these different issues that were
supposed to be addressed in the transition plan are
addressed at the time of the PD zoning.
And I don't want to underestimate the importance of the
fact that we also have to address public access to the
water front.
That's a really important component to this area.

As you heard the city and planning commission objected on
way see is three general areas.
The safety issue, the transition plan and the impact that
this proposed change has on the industrial uses.
Well, taking the last one first, and with all due respect
to Tony because he didn't draft the report.
He's just here tonight providing the report.
The plan commission report is completely backwards from
the objective that I read to you of encouraging the
transition away from heavy industrial and to residential.
The Planning Commission's report is replete with
different reasons why we need to protect the industrial.
And we can't allow the residential.
It says that the proposed language threatens the
long-term viability of industrial uses.
Well, it's supposed to because we're supposed to
transition away from it.
That it's opposite of the industrial context that's found
on the peninsula.
Again, that's what's supposed to occur, encouraging the
transition.
And threatening established industrial uses by allowing
residential within close proximity.
That's we're supposed to be transitioning to residential.
And the last one which I really can't explain, they were

concerned the proximity of the residential to heavy
industrial would impose potential negative impact to
industrial uses such as increased insurance premium.
I don't even know why that would be a consideration.
Especially given that objective.
On the safety issue, they're very concerned about the
risk of exposure of persons to the hazardous uses that
already exist.
Well, under the current entitlement, you can have four
million square feet of office users out there on the
point, four million square feet of retail users in the
CMU-35 area plus right now four million square feet of
industrial.
All we are saying is allow us to have the max build out
would be 2,000 dwelling units, in place of the four
million square feet of industrial.
To me that's a decrease in the exposure of persons,
individuals to this alleged hazardous toxic use.
So actually, you're decreasing the exposure of the risk.
And don't also forget that this user, Chemical
Formulators, transports its product by rail, by truck
through some of the most densely populated areas of the
city.
As far as the transition plan is concerned, the city
claims that in previous correspondence that we all, all

the property owners need to get together and agree upon a
transition plan.
Well, the plan, our current plan simply doesn't say that.
It uses the language in the current plan that says the
city will provide an opportunity for all property owners
within the Rattlesnake Point waterfront area to
participate in the development of the transition plan.
It was never done.
Back in 2006, in reviewing the transcript and report that
went to DCA, the city said it would be done in the plan
update because of the timing of the plan update and when
they thought this area would transition.
It was never included in that.
That's fine.
We're not advocating that we need to have a transition
plan.
The areas transitioned on its own.
The liquid propane facility is gone.
The uses out on the point including this piece owned by
Orion is mostly used for open storage.
These are a lot of warehouses in here.
My client is the one that probably has some of the uses
that are more intense.
But they of course would be gone if we were able to have
this comp plan amendment approved and they could

redevelop it with mixed uses.
So we think the area is transitioned on its own.
We don't need a plan.
We think the CMU-35 with all of the policies that you
have in the plan and the code provisions provides
adequate direction as to how this should, how this should
be developed.
And again, in the comp plan you have the different
requirements as to what must be addressed when this area
does -- when anybody applies for a rezoning in the
CMU-35.
So, the last reason I think, we think this comp plan
should be adopted is because the inequity of this
specific comp plan provision in this situation.
It has the affect of allowing one property owner,
Chemical Formulators, to control and limit the
redevelopment of the entire 90 acres almost of this
point.
That should be in City Council's hands, not one property
owner.
This residential industrial restriction doesn't exist
anywhere else.
I'd like to call upon Cindy Tarapani, our planner who is
going -- I'll show you some other locations in the city
where a similar situation exists with heavy industrial

uses adjacent to residential.
She's also, we have included in your materials a, her
reports, two reports regarding the consistency of our
proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan and the
compatibility standards that are already in place that we
would have to meet whenever we sought to redevelop this
site.
So Cindy, with that, I'd like to turn it over to you.
06:12:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Excuse me, question from Ms. Montelione.
06:12:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Grimes, you mentioned about the transitioning.
And I know when we spoke about this, and again when I
spoke with staff about this, is it Bertram or Bert tran?
06:12:25 >> B-E-R-T-R-A-M.
06:12:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Bertram, boatbuilders, yacht builders,
whatever.
Did they recently move in the area?
Are they expanding their operations?
06:12:38 >> It is my understanding they just may have closed on
that property today.
It was previously owned by Rivera.
It was these three right in here.
It is my understanding that they have just today closed
on the property.
That's what my clients believe.

06:12:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So --
06:12:58 >> Right now it's warehousing.
06:13:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
If -- I'm going to consider them
manufacturing, because they're building boats.
If a major manufacturer is locating there, I'm not sure
that that supports the transitioning to residential that
you mentioned.
06:13:14 >> It's a marine waterfront related use.
As are some of these uses along in here, as are, as is
the Orion piece, where they have the outdoor storage for
the bridge building.
Cindy?
06:13:35 >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of City
Council.
My name is Cindy Tarapani, vice-president of planning
with Florida Design Consultants.
Represent Viper Ventures this evening.
I've been a planner for 35 years.
Previously been qualified as an expert witness.
Also worked for the City of Tampa many years ago.
Won't tell how long ago but it was quite long time ago
and I enjoyed my time here.
I live in Pinellas County, I'm quite familiar with the
site and with Tampa and Hillsborough County.
First thing I'd like to do is respond to some of the

questions and comments that were regarding other areas
that might have this same situation that was referenced
by Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cohen.
And there are several that we have identified.
We have found six different areas and they are in your
booklet at tab 6.
These same photographs I'm going to show you.
The first one is our site.
And you can see new port residential to the north.
Westshore yacht club to the southwest.
The Westshore yacht club has a driveway on Tyson Avenue,
same driveway that serves our site and the rest of the
property.
The next one is Port Tampa city.
In this case, I think it was Mr. Suarez who, Mr. Chairman
who identified are there other places where there is
residential immediately adjacent.
Yes, there are.
And this is one of them.
Port Tampa city, there are, can you see the residential
that's outlined in red.
There is industrial plan category immediately west and
industrial uses in close proximity.
Also talked about today, you have heavily populated
residential area of Davis Island and immediately to the

east, you have hookers point area with industrial users
and fairly intense outdoor storage and tanks in that
area.
Through a shipping channel, which also presents its own
dangerous conditions.
Another area Harbor Island.
I actually was at the city when Harbor Island was an
island and renovated over time.
Of course it has now pretty much completely built out.
Another area where you have residential in close
production interest to industrial plan category and heavy
industrial users along a shipping channel.
Channelside area was also discussed this evening.
Clearly that area is in transition and changes are
happening in Channelside even as we speak.
This is another area where industrial use is immediately
adjacent on three sides to residential use.
If you look, the area between the Crosstown expressway
that curved edge up right in here.
This is all -- excuse me, change to residential urban
mixed use plan category and approved for residential use,
directly adjacent to industrial users.
Palmetto beach area, another area where in close
proximity, across the street to actual industrial heavy
users.

The last one, this is the university south Florida area
along McKinley.
You can see the residential outline in red.
Again, immediately adjacent to industrial users.
Those are in your books should you care to refer to them.
There's also in your book the comp plan, not showing the
comp plan categories to document what I just presented to
you.
In 2006, the Council set long-term plan and long-term
goal for Rattlesnake Point by designating it commercial
mixed use this designation left the IH plan category in
effect for the industrial users east of our site.
What I wanted to talk about today was that the existing
policies in your goals, objectives and policies in your
comp plan that support this change to the text amendment
which would allow our client to develop a true mixed use
project including commercial, residential and office
uses.
One of the major most critical issues facing the city is
having enough land to provide housing for the estimated
54,000 people that will be here, estimated to be here by
2025.
Less than 10 years away.
And almost 25,000 new homes are estimated to be needed.
And by 2035, an additional 101,000 people and 45,000 new

homes.
This is not my numbers.
These are taken right out of your comp plan, the Planning
Commission's estimate.
With approval of this text amendment the applicant can
include residential in his project as he wants to do to
provide some of this needed housing.
This is consistent with goal one, objective -- excuse me,
goal 14, objective 14.1, policies 14.1 and 14.14.
This is also in your book if you'd like to take a look at
that.
The second main reason this application is consistent
with the comp plan, it is the city's goal to continue to
provide urban services in an efficient manner.
All utilities are currently in place at this site and
allowing a new use, redevelopment of the site would be an
efficient use because you will not have to extend those
services.
It does not encourage urban sprawl.
This is consistent with goal 10, objectives 10.1,
policies 101-1 and 10-1-2.
Also goal 20 and its related objectives and policies.
The third major reason.
06:19:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You might have to go to miner in ending
your presentation.

06:19:29 >> Sorry.
I thought as the applicant we had a total.
06:19:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
What happened, your lawyer talked more
than you did.
That's the only problem you had.
06:19:36 >> I'll have to talk to her about that.
06:19:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You will have to.
But off the microphone.
Thanks for the presentation.
I appreciate it.
Are there any questions from Council of the petitioner or
of the city concerning this particular -- Mr. Reddick?
06:19:51 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
I don't know who can answer this question from the
petitioner.
But let me just present you a hypothetical.
If there's residential properties at this location that
you're requesting, and from what I'm hearing tonight,
there's one way in and one way out.
And with this chemical plant sitting there, if there's an
explosion or some type of events to take place at that
plant, that is a danger to all of the residential
properties that is surrounding this particular place.
Who would be held liable for that, those people who would
be affected?

06:20:39 >> I'm certainly not an attorney but I think that whoever
had created the problem and created the release of the
materials would be the one that would be held liable.
The chemical company or heavy industrial user.
06:20:53 >> What guarantee would we have that the owners, the
holders of that chemical plant would be liable?
Because I'm pretty sure there would be plenty lawsuits
coming from.
06:21:04 >> Yes, sir, I don't pretend to be an attorney.
06:21:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
You got an attorney out there take talk.
06:21:10 >> Gina Grimes.
You have that same problem right now, don't? Just one
road in and one road out.
And they're allowed to develop 4 million square feet of
office.
4 million square feet of retail.
And 4 million square feet of industrial.
06:21:27 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Could the city be held liable in any
way?
06:21:30 >> I can't say whether or not you would be sued.
Whether or not you would be held liable would be, depend
on the circumstances of whatever release occurred and
whether there was any negligence on the part of the
operator when it did occur.
Keep in mind too that this particular facility processes

chlorine and bleach.
I know it was mentioned that there was sulfuric acid
there.
It's my client's understanding there is no such chemical
out on the point.
It is just those two ingredients that go into Chemical
Formulator's product.
And not only that, as far as liability, wouldn't you, if
your question is what it is, you think about the
liability when that product is put in railcars and
travels through the most densely populated area of South
Tampa and into downtown and through Ybor City.
It's the same liability issue.
Keep in mind, we're in urban area.
We have -- we don't have areas where all of these uses
can be spread out.
It's developed over time and it's developed with all of
these uses in close proximity to one another.
That's really in part inherent in any kind of true urban
area.
06:22:45 >>FRANK REDDICK:
But my focus is primarily on the
existing site.
Not when they put it on the rail and take it out.
06:22:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could interrupt you, Ms. Grimes, I'm
going to try and answer based on the liability issue.

And I will answer this as an insurance professional.
What typically happens is this.
You are liable, and chemical manufacturers are heavily
regulated.
And they are liable for any actions they tax both for the
chemical that they produce on-site and off site.
So regardless of the actions that are taken by us
tonight, they are the first, essentially the first stop
for any liability issues concerning the manufacture of
the product itself.
That's why when I asked some questions of the Planning
Commission about this being a dangerous decision, I
wanted to make sure that we understood that the
manufacturer of that product will continue to go on
regardless of what we do here tonight and it is already
created a dangerous condition by virtue of the type of
chemical they have.
That's all I wanted to say.
I don't know if that answered the question at all.
06:23:52 >>HARRY COHEN:
Can I?
06:23:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Go ahead.
06:23:55 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just to follow up, I want to ask
Councilman Reddick's question a little bit differently.
If the city were to make a mistake in the way that it
allowed the use to be developed here, wouldn't that

mistake be made as part of the PD process rather than at
this point in the process?
In other words, if there were some sort of an accident,
if we were going to be blamed for anything, wouldn't it
be the way that we evaluated the risks on the plan for
the PD?
Isn't that the place that we would, that we would, you
know, decide how much room there would have to be between
the use and the building, or the details about this?
06:24:46 >> Yes.
Because the proposed comp plan language requires you to
evaluate again through what it says is design and
accepted practices to ensure that the occupants of the
new use shall not be unduly at risk from such hazards,
whichever they are, whatever exists at the time.
Keep in mind too --
06:25:06 >>HARRY COHEN:
But we would evaluate that question as
part of the PD applicant.
06:25:10 >> That's what it says.
PD rezoning conditions must address this.
Keep in mind too, Mr. Reddick, hopefully this helps
answer your question.
This is 30 acres right here.
We're all assume, they're assuming that this use,
Chemical Formulators immediately abuts the residential

that we're asking to be able to develop.
In all likelihood residential is going to be developed as
close to the water as possible because that's what people
want, when they're on the water, the residences want to
view it.
Other users don't necessarily have to be waterfront.
So it could be acreage and acres away from this use.
You still have the tissue as you mentioned, one road in
and one road out.
But as I mentioned also, that you have very same issue
right now.
And we don't know that the protocol would be for
everybody to get in their cars and try to drive off the
point.
The protocol in all likelihood, and we will have to
address this at the time of rezoning, would be to stay
indoors and not to leave.
And not to go outside and expose yourself to the gas.
06:26:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Ms. Montelione?
06:26:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So, not to belabor a point, but you
are the applicant's attorney, so we have city attorney
sitting in the back, Ms. Kert.
Just so that we have equal representation on the same
question.
06:26:37 >> I haven't worked in the city attorney's office for a

long time.
[ Laughter ]
06:26:41 >> One thing I remember was when it comes to any kind of
negligence that planning level decision, the Council is
immune, government is immune to liability on planning
level decisions.
06:26:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I think Mr. Cohen brings up a very
good point in that at this level of the comprehensive
plan amendment, we are, you know, it's something that may
happen in the future or it may not happen in the future.
So at this level, or approval to make the comp plan
change, or request of comp plan change, it's not that
we're allowing -- we're not approving the residential to
go in tomorrow.
06:27:21 >> Correct.
06:27:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So, you know, I think Mr. Cohen made a
good point.
06:27:29 >> [simultaneously talkers [.
06:27:34 >>REBECCA KERT:
If this is approved, you are opening up
the door for the opportunity for the PD.
That being said, I'm not even sure that's being said yet.
First of all, I think as you all have recognized, we can
and do get sued all the time over everything.
[ Laughter ]
06:27:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I think we are all aware of that.

06:27:55 >>REBECCA KERT:
Under no circumstances do I want anyone
to believe that I do not think we could be brought into
any subsequent litigation from some future disaster that
may or may not happen.
That being said I think we certainly would have some
defenses based upon the type of decision that this is at
this point, that we would not be liable.
But I cannot predict what a court would do in the future.
I do not think we would be liable from that decision.
06:28:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you very much, Ms. Kert.
06:28:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions or comments for the
petitioner or for the city at this time?
Okay.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number one?
Item number one.
Now, are you a member of the public or are you a member
of the legal team?
I think we have to make a distinction on that,
Mr. Mechanik.
06:28:47 >> We got a mic.
I'm Dave mechanic, 305 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida.
I'm here on behalf of Old Dutch Foods, which is another
property owner on Rattlesnake Point.
So I'm not speaking on behalf of the applicant.

I'm speaking on behalf of another property owner.
06:29:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you for clarifying that.
06:29:10 >> And I think Ms. Grimes did a pretty thorough job
addressing the issues, but a couple things I'd like to
maybe just emphasize.
Right now under the current comp plan policies, even with
the prohibition of residential uses, she already made the
point we could build office or retail.
The point being though is that when you consider the fact
you could build an office building and you could have as
many or more people located in that office building as
you could a residential building, so whatever hazard that
is being addressed or being concerned about would apply
equally to an office building or in all likelihood what
you would like to see or you might see is a restaurant.
An open air restaurant on the waterfront.
So, that's a perfectly legitimate use that could be
allowed today under the comprehensive plan.
So if we are concerned about impacts to people, then
those people deserve the same protection.
Yet the plan does not prohibit those uses.
So I'd like to just, you know, emphasize that particular
point.
Again, we will address through PD zoning, we will address
whatever mitigation measures are appropriate.

I would like to answer Ms. Montelione's question about
the Bertram yacht purchase.
I mean first of all, the property owner when they are
left with few choices on what they may be doing with
their property, they certainly might very well lease or
sell to a yacht builder in this particular case.
Which I don't believe is the hazardous or toxic use.
But also it does not represent a significant investment
in an industrial use, because the boat building
facilities were already on that particular property.
So they very well could be there on an interim basis for
some number of years and still be desirous of converting
to a residential or mixed use at some point in the
future.
So I don't know that that really indicates a trend away
from a residential or mixed use.
06:31:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I think Mr. McDonaugh would disagree
with you.
I can see him sitting on the edge of his chair?
06:31:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Since this is public comment, we'll let
him sit on ten of his chair a while.
Are you done?
06:31:43 >> I am.
Thank you very much.
06:31:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is there anyone else in the public that

would like to speak on item number one?
I see no one.
06:31:51 >> Move to close.
06:31:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You have a motion to close from had
Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from 0 -- do you want to hear from.
06:32:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
McDonaugh, yes, I do.
06:32:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. McDonaugh, would you like to speak?
06:32:05 >>MR. McDONAUGH:
Just a clarification.
I met with the Bertram yacht.
They're owned by an Italian conglomerate.
I don't think they would necessarily think this was a
minor investment.
They're working with the state of Florida and hope over
the period of time to employ up to 400 people at that
site an they're investing millions of dollars.
To brush it off is maybe a slight investment, transitory
thing, I'm not sure it would be actually accurate.
06:32:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, we had a discussion about, you
know, the trend, in the area and I shared with you some
of the things that I knew about internal discussions at
CSX, about this rail line and the spur that's located
there.
So, you know, not being a student right now in today's
market of industrial property trends, and not having one

in the audience that can speak to this, what are you,
when you say they're working with the state of Florida,
I'm assuming it's a QTI deal, something of that nature.
So, you know, what are you seeing on the industrial
marketplace?
06:33:19 >>MR. McDONAUGH:
We are seeing a paucity of waterfront
land.
06:33:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Paucity?
06:33:26 >>MR. McDONAUGH:
There's not a whole lot for sale.
They could locate at the port property but the port does
not sell, they only lease.
And to engage with a lease with the port authority, you
often have to guarantee a certain amount of waterborne
commerce, a certain amount of tonnage and dockage and
wharfage fees paid to the port.
06:33:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
The port has a lot of property.
06:33:47 >>MR. McDONAUGH:
They do.
But they will not sell it.
They will aim it specifically towards -- I was the head
of real estate for the port for six years, so I have
somewhat of a background.
They will lease the land and it will be based on the
ount of tonnage and drayage that comes across the
wharves.
So a boatbuilder would not be able to buy.

These people were interested in buying.
This was also a Marine radar company that was looking at
this same property.
There are not a whole lot of opportunities like this for
marine.
And again, people have their druthers about whether they
would rather see a residential development or a
manufacturer.
Again, my interest is the fact that they are investing a
serious amount of money in the property, as well as the
hope that they will employ several hundred of our people
in our community at relatively well paying jobs.
06:34:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
But by making this decision tonight
about the comprehensive plan change, it doesn't, it
doesn't eliminate the opportunity if they see a better
one in the industrial market, because it's, like you
said, there's a paucity of industrial property available.
If somebody made the right offer, then they might see,
that we might see this property change hands for an
industrial use rather than a residential use.
06:35:15 >>MR. McDONAUGH:
Again, that's a possibility.
06:35:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Making this change in the plan doesn't
eliminate -- [simultaneous speaking]
06:35:26 >>MR. McDONAUGH:
There always is that possibility, yes.
06:35:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
All right.

Thank you.
06:35:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
We had a motion to close and a second.
Petitioner, did you want to say something?
06:35:36 >> Yes.
06:35:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You sure?
Okay.
I'm just asking.
06:35:39 >> The only thing, it's not something I wanted to say.
Al Steenson, the president of Gandy Sun Bay South called
me right before the hearing.
He, as you all know, he's having hip problems and he was
not able to attend.
But this is what he wanted me to say and quote him.
He said that it's not 1950 any more.
That Chemical Formulators is in the wrong place.
And that it's unconscionable, his words, that they've
been able to hold hostage redevelopment of the whole
point.
He says it's never going to be the Gandy gateway corridor
as you mentioned it was once called, into the city until
Chemical Formulators leaves.
He also said that this property on the point, all this
property on the point is too valuable to just allow it to
sit in its current state and with its current uses.

We have got to start somewhere because he believes that
this truly could be a wonderful gateway into our city.
06:36:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions or comments by
Council?
06:36:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
If you believe that they don't make
any land, let me tell you, they're making less waterfront
now.
[ Laughter ]
06:36:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
If you believe what I just said, then
you believe, look at this and then you look on the other
side, the Causeway Boulevard, what that used to be, Crab
Hut and the dump that was there, look at it now.
There's only one way in and one way out of that one.
I'm not on either side.
But I love this debate.
You know why?
That means that we're growing.
We're discussing something.
Nobody wanted to come here, nobody wanted to buy, saw
nothing, none of us would be here.
Just think of that.
But properties in the City of Tampa have become and is
changing very geographically very quick.
The city's line -- more than likely I don't really know
but I don't think this was part of the city back in the

'40s.
The line of the city, anything west of Dale Mabry, you
could do anything you want.
Look what we have on Spruce between Lois and Dale Mabry.
Not that we wanted to put it there.
That was on the outside part of the city.
So what went there?
Central maintenance, sanitation department, now called
solid waste.
There was a jail there.
We're trying to clean up all that, move to it somewhere
else.
Because it's no longer the periphery of the city.
It's in the center of the city now.
So all the things that are happening is changing because
people want to live here, raise their kids here and the
kids want to live here.
So, most of our growth comes from within.
Even though 800 people a day move into Florida, it's
going to happen.
And the numbers are represented on my estimate of water
supply sitting on Tampa Bay Water are low.
We're presenting much more than that.
Because it's going to happen.
And it's going to happen in Hillsborough County and the

heart of Hillsborough County, the other cities could get
upset with me, is called Tampa.
That's all, Mr. Chairman.
06:38:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
All right.
We still had Mr. Miranda, you had the motion to close the
public hearing.
I belief Mr. Maniscalco was the seconds.
Okay.
You still good with that?
06:39:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mir yes, sir.
06:39:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
All in favor, please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
What is the pleasure of Council?
Who wants to take this one?
06:39:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I move to transmit.
06:39:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mr. Miranda, avenue second
from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Shelby?
06:39:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Just a reminder.
That the request was to set the public hearing.

Mr. Garcia --
06:39:41 >> Steve mentioned August 25th.
Think we could change that date?
Mr. Mechanik is not available on that date.
May not be either.
It could be a little later.
Come back with a resolution setting that.
06:39:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Why don't we take this offline, make a
decision, come back to us.
That would be great.
I appreciate it so we can get going with the meeting.
Thank you.
Okay.
We were going to item number 2.
Our friends of the police department had asked that we
move up item number 9 to be done now because they do need
to go back out onto the street.
Mr. Schmid if you could come on up here.
Just get your stuff.
Mr. Schmid if you could come up here.
06:40:29 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mr. Chair?
06:40:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes, sir.
06:40:30 >>HARRY COHEN:
I believe we have some people that wanted
to speak on public comment related to the noise ordinance
issue that are here.

So perhaps we can accommodate them while we take up this
item.
06:40:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If it's okay with Council, I will allow
that to happen after the presentation.
06:40:48 >>HARRY COHEN:
That would be great.
06:40:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I don't know if we need to make a motion
to that effect.
We will do that at that time.
06:40:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
That would be fine.
I would ask Council not take any action until they hear
from the public.
06:41:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Mr. Schmid.
06:41:03 >>Michael Schmid:
Good evening.
I'm here to present a, some proposed language for the
noise ordinance to give a little bit --
06:41:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Your name for the record again.
06:41:13 >>Michael Schmid:
Mike Schmidt, assistant city attorney.
Little bit of history.
I'll try to go through it quickly.
Obviously there's a long history with the noise
ordinance, but to sort of give a little recap for City
Council and the public, 1999 we saw a revision to our
noise ordinance that was then again revised in 2003.
Then again in 2006.

And then some additions and revisions in 2013.
In 2013, the last time we revised our noise ordinance,
City Council asked for us to come back in a yearly review
to provide some statistics.
That brought us to January 2014, when the police
department and city attorney office came before you to
provide some statistics.
There was a motion and a request to present any
recommended changes.
This was then in January set for hearing for recommended
changes in 2014.
In between that time period that we were last in front of
you and those recommended changes that we were going to
bring forward, there was a lawsuit placed on the City of
Tampa.
So therefore, our recommended changes were, we actually
recommended that we hold off on the recommendations until
the lawsuit was resolved.
The lawsuit has since resolved.
And we are now in front of you, finally, coming forward
with our recommended changes.
So, that's the reason there's been I guess a delay since
we have actually been before you to present the
recommendations.
So what we have done, we have presented some

recommendations tonight with proposed languages for the
changes in the ordinance.
In addition, TPD has gathered some statistics that we
would like to present to you and in addition, I know
there is some public comment that probably like to be
proposed tonight.
We'd like you to hear from that.
What ultimately we're asking is that legal be requested
to come back for a first draft.
I think in the memo I said July 14th.
I've since found out that somebody that we were going to
want to be present at first reading.
Isn't available on that date.
So we're actually asking for August 4th.
Ultimately what I'm asking for is that your direct legal
to come back with an ordinance for August 4th and tonight
we have the proposed language.
I would like to quickly go through the proposed language
and then I'll turn it off to TPD to discuss some
statistics for you.
The proposed language changes, presently article III,
noise contains two sections.
It's 14151 and 152.
What we are proposing is to expand article III noise to
break out what was currently in 151 and 152 into more

smaller delineated sections.
So, for example, 14-151 is going to be broken out into
numerous different sections so that it's easier for
officers and the public to digest.
One of the problems with 14-151 is that it was
approximately 7 pages long and going to the right section
that you needed depending on the circumstance was at
times difficult for an officer or the public.
So we believe that clarity would help by just simply
breaking these out into smaller sections with titles that
will allow people to go directly to the section that they
are concerned about.
So, beginning with our new revisions, 14-151 would simply
be a purpose statement.
There's currently is again 14.
151 is 7 pages.
14-151 now is proposed with just simply be a purpose
statement.
14-152 would be definitions.
Currently many of these definitions are not in there.
These definitions are being proposed in order to help
provide everybody with understanding of certain terms
that have been used and have been questioned throughout
the years.
So this is meant to bring clarity for everybody.

14-153 is the unreasonably excessive noise from a
property prohibited.
It's only central business district Ybor City historic
district and Channel District.
That currently is 14-151 B 1.
But as you can already see, it's got 14-151 B 1, then a B
2.
It gets to be quite cumbersome.
That's why we're break it out into its own separate
section.
It is now just 14-153.
That provision is substantially the same.
The timing, times of day are the same.
The decibel levels are the same.
We just simply moved into it section 14-153.
14-154 unusual excessive noise from a property prohibited
all other areas.
Previously people have to go to 14.
151 B 2 to try to figure this out.
And we believe by separate being this out into clearly
titled section, people will nowhere to go.
It does still allow for a plainly audible standard in
other sections of the Tampa, it also allows for loud and
raucous standard.
So, there are some changes in 14-154.

Mostly what I just described.
Also in 14-154, we're changing the timing.
Currently plainly audible is not defined for a time limit
when an officer can use it.
As it's proposed, it would be only between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
An officer could then enforce using a plainly audible
standard.
If he can hear the noise a hundred feet or more.
There's still a required warning period to be given
first.
But we are adding other time, another option for
enforcement, which would be unreasonably loud and raucous
standards.
They're clearly laid out in 154 for what they would be
and they would need to be complaint based.
14-155 is unreasonably excessive noise from a vehicle
prohibited.
The major change there that it was previously 14-152.
It would be moved to 14-155 with the addition that the
term in the past was motor vehicle.
The term now is going to be vehicle.
The word motor would be stricken from that and vehicles
defined.
It would be a broader interpretation of vehicle.

14-156 is placing loud speakers on public streets or
sidewalks.
That previously was contained in 14-151-I, so we're just
moving it to 14-156.
14-157 as proposed would be unreasonably excessive noise
declared a public nuisance.
Those are, that is in order to make it clear that noise
violations are in fact a public nuisance which gives
citizens or the city a right to bring suit to enforce the
ordinance.
14-158 is now exemptions.
Exemptions were under 14-151-H and now they're just moved
to a clearly delineated section.
They're also being narrowed to comply with case law.
14-159 is the enforcement.
Enforcement previously was under 14-151-J.
It is now being delineated in its own section.
So everybody knows where enforcement is located.
Enforcement is as suggested being slightly changed.
Enforcement currently as it stands, enforcement can be
done with a noise meter or as you know, in 2013, we
started the audible standard.
Those two things are still there.
But if you use a noise meter, currently, it would be
punished as a crime.

And if you used a plainly audible standard it would be a
civil citation.
City attorney's office is recommending that enforcement
be uniform, no matter how an officer chooses to enforce
it, that it's the same enforcement tool.
So, for example, whether it's enforced by a meter or
whether it's enforced under a plainly audible or loud
raucous standard, we are recommending that it starts out
as a civil violation.
So that would change actually to take criminal out of the
meters until it meets certain requirements and as
explained in 14-159 enforcement, there is a number of
violations within a specified time that then could become
enforceable as a criminal violation.
14-160, 161 and 162 were previously 14-151 D, E and F.
So those are just simply moved and delineated.
14-163 was moved from 14-151 C.
And there has been minor changes between the language of
14-151 in these places.
But for the most part --
06:50:48 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm sorry, Mr. Schmid.
I'm trying to flip through the pages as you're mentioning
these provisions.
So you went from 14-159, the enforcement civil citation
and then we always, there's always the -- I shouldn't say

the opportunity.
There's always the ability to take it beyond civil
citation as we have in all of our codes, for enforcement.
So then you went to 14, back to 151?
General purpose?
06:51:26 >>Michael Schmid:
I think I was just explaining that
14-159 is presently six and 14-151 J.
06:51:36 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
All the numbers you're throwing around
is getting confusing.
06:51:41 >>Michael Schmid:
Prior to, you know, any future action
on this I will make sure I submit something that explains
where each thing was taken from.
06:51:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
Because that's getting into the, I guess housekeeping
type issue.
I think I'm more interested in the meat of the issue
rather than the housekeeping.
06:52:04 >>Michael Schmid:
So the meat of the issue is primarily
what the ordinance is doing is cleaning it up.
It is one of our largest recommendations because we think
that will make it more usable and enforceable.
But in addition we are making sure there's more than one
avenue for noise violations.
Meaning we are adding 14-157 to specifically to declare
that it is in fact a public nuisance.

That would, if it's not currently allowed, it's making
clear that it would be currently allowed for somebody to
go seek a civil action, such as an injunction if
somebody's noise is reaching a level of public nuisance
and they want to go seek an injunction, whether that be a
citizen or a, somebody with the city attorney's office if
the city attorney's office wanted to go seek an
injunction.
06:53:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So if I may, I'm looking at the
underlying copy here.
So, we have got just the sections outlined because
they've been rearranged.
We have got the hours under 14-153 B.
Which is 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. for 85-decibels and
3:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for 65-decibels.
In the central business CBD Ybor and Channel District.
So that's a change in the hours.
06:53:41 >>Michael Schmid:
That did not change.
I'm sorry.
06:53:45 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm looking at the underlying copy
going how come the hours changed?
06:53:50 >>Michael Schmid:
This is going to be a strike through.
What we would do, because this is only the proposed
language.
What we actually would do is strike through 14-151

completely.
And actually repeal it and ask to replace it with this
entire new noise ordinance.
And the reason we're doing that, there would be so many
strike-throughs, it would be almost impossible to do it
any other way.
06:54:16 >>HARRY COHEN:
May I?
Just to be clear, you're going to come back with an
ordinance for first reading on July 14th.
06:54:24 >>Michael Schmid:
August 4th now.
06:54:27 >>HARRY COHEN:
We're going to do it on August the 4th.
So that will give us plenty of time to look at it.
Will also give the public, people that are interested in
this mattered, you're going to hear from public comment
about something I know are, some time too review it.
I just have one sort of overall question for you.
Did I step out of the room for a moment so I might be
asking something you already covered.
We have been engaged in litigation on this issue avenue
time we have attempted to do something about it.
I believe that this original motion started with
Mr. Reddick like two years ago.
And it just keeps getting continued because of various
different lawsuits.
I know you can't guarantee that we won't be sued because

you've heard our previous discussion before this, we get
sued about everything.
But is it is your belief at this point that this is as
tight as you can make it to give us the best possible
chance of surviving a challenge to the constitutionality
of these provisions?
06:55:31 >>Michael Schmid:
Short answer, yes.
06:55:33 >>HARRY COHEN:
Okay.
If between now and august 4th there are provisions you
think might be problematic, it might be a good idea to
meet with us individually and make a decision between now
and then whether or not we want to keep or remove those
things.
We don't want this thing to get gummed up again and
suspended over, you know, maybe something that's a
discretionary part of a it.
06:56:00 >>Michael Schmid:
We have spent now years in drafting and
tweaking this and making numerous versions and with those
things in mind, and we hopefully have made this as tight
as we can.
06:56:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Anybody else?
06:56:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes, Mr. Laguardia, may I say
something?
What a great attorney.
He said currently yes.

Which means it hasn't been tested but we're going to try
it.
It looks good, I agree with you.
I like that.
Man's full of energy, I like that.
06:56:36 >>Michael Schmid:
One other thing.
And I will -- on August 4th, I think I can come back and
explain a little bit more the meat of the ordinance at
that time and allow public to digest this some more.
I have been meeting with numerous different boards and
citizens and I'll continue to do that.
I'm available.
So anybody who basically invites me between now and
August 4th, I'm going to try to reach out to all the
different associations and make sure that they want us
throughout to talk to them, we're out there and we're
available for questions and comments and we're going to
continue listening and if there are changes either needed
between now and August 4th, we can make a substitution.
06:57:20 >>HARRY COHEN:
And particularly some of the people that
are here tonight, please reach out to and talk to them
about it.
At the end of public comment, I think would be
appropriate to entertain a motion to actually set first
reading for August 4th.

But we'll do that after we hear from the public.
06:57:35 >>Michael Schmid:
Thank you.
I will then ask TPD.
06:57:38 >>HARRY COHEN:
We are going to have public comment just
on this issue, item number 9.
Anybody from the public that would like to address
Council now would be your opportunity to do that.
Three minutes per speaker.
06:57:50 >> My name is clay Dan, 3708 east mouse bay.
I've been coming up 14 years with this noise.
The noise is bad.
It's bad in East Tampa.
I asked ya'll three or four years ago, would you come
over to East Tampa and join us so you can see what it's
like to live over there through this noise.
I'm not here to criticize no one because Democrats
simply, ya'll are Democrats, they're mostly sympathetic.
They really care about the minimum wage and other thing.
But I'm really concerned about ya'll.
Ya'll need to come over to East Tampa and see how we're
suffering from this noise.
This goes on all night.
All you heard, boom boom, your windows rattling.
It's out of control.
It's environmental problem.

It's not good for your health.
Mr. Reddick can't do it by himself.
He needs ya'll to he had him.
When you go back to ya'll district, they may not know the
noise.
Your family is sleeping.
My family and other people is not sleeping.
That's the problem.
For ya'll to understand the problem, you need to come off
to East Tampa and see and hear the problem.
If downtown come off to hear it or see it, you don't know
what it's like to go through in life with this problem.
I am tired of coming up here.
I'm 65 years old.
I've been fighting this for 14 years and I've asked ya'll
please do something with this noise.
Get with the Mayor and demand that the police start
writing warning tickets and doing something about this
noise.
It rattles my windows.
The neighbors are complaining, senior sit yens.
My whole house is like sitting there and they're dropping
bombs.
They go down the district three, they have no respect for
the police department.

We cannot let the hoodlums take over the city.
There has been studies done by the justice department
saying when they stop these cars they found drugs and
guns.
And I know every district is different.
But I live in a high crime area.
And I'm asking ya'll again to please come over there
because ya'll getting paid by all the taxpayers in the
City of Tampa.
Just don't come election time.
Come and just check it out.
And see what's going on.
It's a problem over there.
That noise is out of control.
I can't sleep at night.
If you can't sleep at night, that's a problem.
But see, I don't believe ya'll understand that because
ya'll sleep at night.
Sleep with earplugs on.
My house is just rattling.
The neighbors are complaining.
I've called the police.
All I'm asking ya'll to get with the Mayor and ask the
Mayor, and go it with the chief to start cracking down on
this noise.

It's out of control.
07:00:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm going to answer something,
Mr. Chairman.
I hardly ever do this.
But Cuban people make a lot of noise too.
I'm going to tell you just like it is.
If you don't think I get complaints from all over the
city, you're wrong.
But our hands were kind of tied because this thing was in
litigation for some period of time.
I'm not forming excuses for nobody, including myself.
That's all, Mr. Chairman.
07:00:56 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you.
I was going to add to that but I guess it's too late.
So go ahead.
07:01:01 >> Hi there.
Cathy Framcor, 305 South Westland Avenue.
Like to give you an example why we're here to support the
new proposed noise ordinance.
With the little video.
I don't know if I can put it on here.
07:01:20 >>HARRY COHEN:
If you lift it up just a little bit and
play it, we can hear it.
07:01:44 >>HARRY COHEN:
I think it's upside down actually.
07:01:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
Cathy, it's upside down but we can hear it

well.
There you go.
07:02:03 >> So, that was MacDinton's on a Wednesday night after
1:00 a.m.
I mean, it sounds like they're having fun and I'm not
opposed to people having a good time.
The problem is where it's happening.
This is not a closed environment.
It's not a building located in the strip mall or on the
highway.
It's an open venue that butts up to residential
neighborhoods just feet away.
It's disrupting the quality of life for the neighbors.
So I actually sent this video to the owner of the bar.
And his response was, the only reason why it was so loud
was because all the other bars were dead that night.
And it just happened to be that the sounds, his sounds
even louder.
I'm asking him, does that make it okay?
Or is he just saying all the other nights, everyone else
is just as loud?
Were they come Pete for patrons by playing the loudest on
the street?
I'm not saying that this is every bar because some do
actually try and work with the neighbors.

For instance, World of Beer, they used to play, used to
have a loud rock band that they played.
They ended up changing their business model.
Now they just have an acoustic player.
They moved their speakers.
So some do try.
And in fact, even drink.
I'll throw it out there for drinks.
They've been trying.
They've got their building and so they've done stuff to
help with the noise and my complaints to drink have been
less.
But you still got places that just don't care about what
surrounds them.
They continue to push the envelope.
And why, it's because the punishment is a joke at this
current state.
That's why it's a given that you guys all know that
there's a noise issue along Howard.
That's why we need you to push this envelope through,
this new noise ordinance into effect.
So thank you.
07:04:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Next please?
07:04:09 >> Good evening.

Sandra Guggino, 3107 West Horatio Street, Tampa, 33609.
I'll be brief.
I sent an email earlier in the week just highlighting one
establishment within my neighborhood over the past three
or four years.
There have been 160 noise complaints, three citations.
Now we're trying to deal directly with the establishment
to get some relief.
Nothing is working.
To echo what the first gentleman said, I've got people in
my neighborhood that are sleeping in their living room
and then they move to their bedroom when the bar closes
at 3:00 a.m.
Sleep with earplugs in.
We're losing good neighbors.
And I know all of you know it because I've gotten to know
all of you quite well over this incident.
And I do remember when Guido was candidate, Maniscalco,
he spent a Monday night in the neighborhood and it was
greatly appreciated because he got a bird's-eye view of
it.
I'm here to basically ask you to please advance this.
Michael spent some time with a number of us on June the
13th.
We fully support what he's trying to do for Tuesday and

we urge you to do the same.
Thank you.
07:05:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Anyone else in the public would like to
speak on item number 9 before we move forward?
Sir?
07:05:36 >> Good evening.
My name is Ryan Frecky.
I live 215 South Westland Avenue, unit number two, which
is right at the corner of Westland and Platt Street.
Kitty-corner from the drink.
I support any changes to help the police officers and our
citizens to enforce noise violations.
Routinely Wednesday through Sunday nights, I will be
woken up anywhere from 12:30 to 1:00 and then again at
3:00 and then ongoing.
Oftentimes the restaurants or the bars, they will behave
for certain period of time.
But then they lapse.
So anything that helps the police to put some teeth into
these noise ordinances would be extremely helpful.
I moved into this property back in 2005.
I bought it in 2003 when it was under construction.
So I've lived in this neighborhood before many of these
establishments existed and they were not as loud as they
are today.

So I appreciate any and all help.
I hope that this is a more solid ordinance that would
help us enforce it on a more regular basis.
Thank you.
07:06:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Anyone else in the public would like to
speak on item number nine?
07:06:53 >>HARRY COHEN:
Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to
set first reading of the noise ordinance on August 4th.
07:06:59 >> Seconds.
07:07:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
At 10:30 a.m. under staff reports.
07:07:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mr. Cohen, second from
Mr. Miranda.
Any discussion on that motion?
Yes, sir?
07:07:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Would you want that to show up for staff
reports or for the first reading?
07:07:19 >>HARRY COHEN:
I do.
Because I think we're going to want to have a chance to
discuss it before we pass it.
That's why I said that.
07:07:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Thank you.
07:07:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You've got that, clerk?
The motion?
07:07:29 >>THE CLERK:
Yes, thank you.
07:07:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
All in favor of that motion, please

indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Thank you all for attending.
Okay, we're going to go to item number two.
Mr. Snelling, I apologize for making you wait.
07:07:49 >>THOM SNELLING:
Thom Snelling, planning and development
director.
With me tonight is Qiana Daughtry.
Vanessa is in Europe.
We decided to let her have a vacation.
Qiana is going to do the PowerPoint.
Fairly brief one.
The bottom line purpose of this hearing is to open the
public hearing and to really commence the 30 day review
period.
Tomorrow after we have officially opened it by
requirement, the draft document will be posted online.
We'll make it available a couple different locations,
physical paper copies and things like that.
Over the next 30 days we're going to various different
neighborhoods, meetings coordinating that with Maria
Holmes, neighborhood liaison.
She has a very long title but that's who she is.
So we will be reaching out and going into the

neighborhoods with this information as well.
But again stressing tonight that the purpose of this is
to really commence that 30 day period so we can start to
do a lot of those things.
Could we have the PowerPoint?
07:09:01 >> I'm Qiana Daughtry.
I'm the community development coordinator for the housing
community development division of the City of Tampa.
So we are here tonight to open the public hearing as your
motion of course.
And going to the next slide, or do I have to click it?
I click it.
Fun.
07:09:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Don't say that we don't train you here at
the City of Tampa.
07:09:29 >> So the purpose of this hearing is actually to go over
the 2017 HUD program funding awards for both the federal
programs and we're going to mention the ship program in
this presentation.
We'll cover the community development block grant, the
emergency solutions grant, the home investment
partnership grant, the housing opportunities for persons
with aids and the state housing initiative partnership.
We'll talk also about the anticipated levels of funding.
We'll additionally explain the one year action plan

process, the calendar of events.
The request for proposal process and provide any
organization or member of the public the opportunity to
speak regarding the action plan.
The plan itself provides summary of the activities and
the actions that we're planning to take and take on for
this coming year.
And they have already been identified through our five
year action plan, consolidated plan, excuse me.
The HUD grant funding levels are listed above.
Please note that these are the anticipated grant funding
levels.
We have not received yet our agreement from HUD but we
will after this plan is deemed approved.
We went over previously in the first public hearing the
fact that we had an increase in some of the programs and
decrease only in one.
The SHIP allocation again is going, is just mentioned
briefly, just the fact that we will receive 2.2.
And a side note to that is that we did receive the email
today stating that the ELAPP was approved.
So funding cap which we have presented in the past are
still the same.
CDBG has a requirement that for public services, we set
aside 15%, so in this case it's $411,000.

HOME has a CHDO set aside of 157,000.
ESG has a requirement we set aside 60-40 split.
60% goes in program which was originally designed to
implement for shelters only.
That would be operations, outreach and any other services
to engage the homeless population.
The second -- I'm sorry.
07:12:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Ms. Rizzo, there was a lot of angst
over what happened at Hillsborough County with different
agencies losing funding.
Was the spring, alpha house and the Salvation Army.
And there's, from what I know, it eliminated their
abilities to serve especially those with immediate
shelter needs.
The spring obviously service domestic violence victims.
That's a big, big, big concern.
So, we tried to pick up the slack from the county.
07:12:59 >> Yes, we are.
Just a correction to that.
Is that it's the transitional housing that was lost.
Not their shelter operations.
So for each agency, yes, the city, the county and the
Tampa Hillsborough homeless initiative have met with
those agencies.
So we have been included in that evident to repair the

damage that was done there.
As the City of Tampa, we have gone in and offered the
opportunity for those families to actually participate in
our home tenant based rental assistance program to assist
them in transitioning for a period of year.
So we sent staff out to each facility and they're able to
explain the programs and then we have already actually
done the intake appointments for Alpha House.
The spring is scheduled to be next.
We were waiting for the county to go and offer its
services and explain its programs.
And that way the residents are able to make and informed
decision as to which program they would choose to
participate?
07:13:50 >> What I can do as an aside, Qiana has quickly outlined
what we are doing.
We have a program in place and I can put something
together and distribute it all to Councilmembers just so
you know --
07:14:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That would be very helpful.
Because it's a tremendous concern of mine and I kind of
went into a tailspin when I heard about that.
07:14:11 >> They put it together so they can make them whole.
Rather than just giving a 30 day window when funding
expiration, we have developed something that will support

them for the next 6 months in order they can transition
with their populations and help them find other
locations, some with the city, some with the county,
tenant based rental assistance and other programs.
I'll put that together and get it to Council.
07:14:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Because I spoke to some county
commissioners and let's just say they didn't share as
much concern as I expressed.
07:14:44 >> Okay.
So returning to the funding caps, I was explaining, so
60% is traditional management of the grant.
Rapid rehouse is the other 40%, which is used to rapidly
rehouse anyone who is homeless.
Under that effort you could also possibly use it for
prevention, which is not used since our allocation is so
small.
Additionally the HOPWA program is required to be across
four counties.
City has the privilege of administering that.
The funding breakdown.
We do use for the HOPWA program in particular, we use the
HIV/AIDS surveillance reports to determine the percent
for county in terms of the funding level.
Here we have the calendar of events for this year's
process in terms of the RFP process.

So we have released the RFP -- RFA excuse me back in
April.
We held the workshop April 28th and May 3rd.
April 29th we held the first public hearing for the
action plan.
May 20th was submission deadline for applications.
During the month of may we did the review of the
applications and of course we are here tonight doing the
second public hearing.
August the 4th, we will actually upload the full action
plan for Council to actually approve the final document
after we have received any comments during this 30 day
period.
And then it's the plan August 15th through HUD.
And October 1st, we expect that the agreements go into
effect and everybody begins carrying out their work.
The next item to discuss is the fact that this is a draft
document and it's based on the RFP responses or RFA
responses.
So we also have in the next couple of slides those who
will be funded as well as the types of program use
funding, what levels.
It is again a 30 day comment period.
Starting today, closing July 28th.
And we are expecting hopefully public comments that we

will be able to incorporate into the draft.
The program uses are listed here, so these are in
particular just other types of delivery that we budget
out using the grant funds.
And it's the higher level view basically.
When you go to the next slide here, you see who we have
actually funded.
And this is again based on the RFP review process, which
is that the City of Tampa releases the RFP.
We coordinate the workshop so nonprofits are invited to
attend and understand what it is we're asking them to
respond to.
As a result of that, we also assembled the review panels,
which these are all public meetings.
The non-profits are invited to these review meetings so
that they can hear and take notes on what the panel has
to say regarding their application.
And then we're now at the point where we have a draft of
the action plan in terms of the awards and, that are
being offered.
The next slide is in particular in regard to housing
programs.
And again, a hire level view of what it is that we plan
to fund.
ESG, these are the agencies that we do plan to fund,

alpha house and the spring.
This would be again specifically for their shelter
operations and not their transitional.
07:18:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Mr. Snelling said he's going to sends
the information because I'm concerned about Salvation
Army.
I guess I'll find that out.
07:18:19 >> Yes.
They are part of the other plan, yes, for their
transitional.
07:18:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Excellent.
Thank you.
07:18:26 >> The last entity there is Tampa Housing Authority for a
rapid rehab.
Across the four counties, these are the agencies that
will be funding for the HOPWA program.
And the last slide is just the fact that we do hope to
have public involvement.
I know that we have one provider who is actually here
tonight looking to make a public comment.
We do have surveys that are available.
The draft action plan will be posted on our web site and
I'm sure Tom and Vanessa will likely meet with those who
have a question for them.
Additionally, the survey can be obtained also from the

web site and everything is due to Vanessa by the 28th as
long as you open the comment area.
07:19:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So one year as I was reading through
the action plan when it was publish it, I found that some
of the survey respondents were not from the City of
Tampa.
And it was, you know, a telephone, I think -- someone had
called in or -- and there wasn't a way or even online
there wasn't a way for us at that time, you know what I'm
talking about, to restrict, you know, that this is only
the City of Tampa.
You got comments on Hillsborough County, go comment over
there.
07:19:46 >>THOM SNELLING:
That was during the consolidated plan.
As part of that, we had consultant come in and she
distributed that, she broadcast it widely and a lot of
people, because the county is doing theirs at the same
time.
So I think there may have been some confusion.
So they responded to ours as well as the county.
The way we're using surveys this year, we're doing more
hands-on when we go to neighborhood meetings, for handing
them out and collecting them right then and there.
So unless some rogue person from the county decides to go
to a meeting.

07:20:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
We're not doing all surveys the
old-fashioned way in paper, aren't we doing online?
07:20:27 >> It is online or no.
It will be online.
07:20:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So is there a way for us to filter,
you know, the City of Tampa residents from non-City of
Tampa residents?
07:20:40 >> The front page of the survey does ask for your
information, but it is optional.
You can't require someone to put their information on it.
07:20:47 >> Typically somebody would put down where they live or
what their address with and we would certainly
double-check that.
We're not going to get like hundreds and hundreds.
07:20:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Could we ask just for the zip codes?
I know some zip codes overlap also.
3316 overlaps with Temple Terrace.
And others overlap with unincorporated Hillsborough
County.
At least if we, we would know that zip code is like town
and country, we would know that that's way far removed.
07:21:15 >> We can certainly figure out some kind of filter.
07:21:18 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I would appreciate that.
Thank you.
07:21:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions from Council?

Of staff about this information?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 2?
Please come forward.
07:21:28 >> Carol brown, I'm the executive director of Tampa light
house for the blind.
1106 West Platt.
I wanted to thank you all first for your consolidated
plan, which includes persons with disabilities,
specifically seniors and keeping them safe and
independent in their home, which we do.
I also want to thank you for the privilege of
participating in a very open and well guided process.
We are in other counties and a part of Hillsborough
County as well.
That this process was very open.
This was one of the few that we were able to sit in the
review process and we, at the light house seven as a
meeting place.
Also for the neighborhood association that Councilman
Cohen revitalize it.
Now they call themselves Spanish town creek.
6 and also Mayor's alliance for persons with
disabilities.
A couple years ago you gave us spending for one of our

bad parking lots they used to fuss at me about.
And I have one more less.
Through that process city staff was so great in helping
us each step of the way.
And I'm appreciating the recommended to do the one last
parking lot, so that -- it's a dirt lot and hasn't been
accessible to wheelchairs and walkers and seniors and
people coming in and out.
Just wanted to thank you all for your support over the
years and both our program services and keeping people
inland and back to work, but also couple years ago, the
public facilities and this year, and also for your
participation last year for our 75th anniversary.
Councilman Reddick being there.
Just wanted to commend the staff for the process and the
openness and I commend all for the support in making the
whole process so accessible.
Thank you.
07:23:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Thank you for your patience in being here tonight.
Is there anyone else in public that would like to speak
on item number 2?
Okay.
I see no one.
Thank you all very much for attending.

Mr. Snelling?
07:23:54 >>THOM SNELLING:
What we would need council to do is to
make a motion to open the 30-day review period for the
fiscal year 2017 and program year 2016 annual action plan
for the City of Tampa.
07:24:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move what Mr. Snelling just said.
07:24:10 >>THOM SNELLING:
I read it so carefully.
07:24:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Ms. Montelione,
second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Anything else, sir?
07:24:20 >>THOM SNELLING:
No.
07:24:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you very much.
07:24:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thanks to Qiana who did such a
wonderful job representing the department.
Thank you so much.
I know how hard she works and how much this means to her.
07:24:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you all very much.
Before I ask for a motion to open the hearings, I just
want to read into the record Ms. Capin, who is not here
this morning and not here now had a conflict and was
traveling so could not make it today.
Can I get a motion to open -- I have a motion from
Mr. Miranda, second from Ms. Montelione.

All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
Anyone that is going to speak about items number 3
through 8, please rise and be sworn in.
[Oath administered by Clerk]
07:25:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Staff?
07:25:17 >> Item number 7, you have a request for a continuance.
I was wanting to go ahead and ask for that.
It would be to the August agenda.
07:25:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move continuance.
07:25:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Just wanted to make sure that the
petitioner had a chance to ask for that continuance.
Petitioner?
07:25:35 >> Anne Pollack, 501 east Kennedy.
I would like a continuance please.
07:25:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Ms. Pollack.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
the continuance only on item number 7?
I see no one.
Yes, Mr. Shelby?
07:25:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Mr. Chairman, date is August 25th, 2016
at 6:00 p.m.
07:25:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.

Do I have a motion to that effect?
07:26:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Go ahead.
07:26:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
August 25th at 6:00 p.m.
07:26:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion, second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
Thank you very much.
Ms. Moreda, number three.
07:26:25 >> That is AB2-16-13, property is located at 3225 South
MacDill Avenue, suite number 117.
The property is currently zoned CI.
And is in a community mix -- community commercial land
use classification.
The site is currently approved for alcohol beverage
sales, back in 2011 for a small venue, beer, wine,
package sales, off-site consumption only.
They are now proposing to add the ability to do on-site
consumption.
They are still indicating that the primary use of the
property will be the package store retail sales, shoppers
goods.
They are indicating that the size of the AB sales area is
2,435 square feet.
Inside only.

The shopping center currently has 157 parking spaces.
The hours of operation are indicated Monday through
Saturday, 10:00 a.m. through 8:00 a.m.
Sunday, 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
They are asking for a reduction in the distance
separation required for residential from 250 feet to
247 feet.
And then they are adjacent to another AB establishment so
that is from 250 to zero.
They are an existing package store now, it's the red neck
wine company.
It was located, the shopping center here, South MacDill.
Have some photographs here of the residential that's
across the street as well as the front of the shopping
area.
The Palma Ceia shopping center there.
But they are not considered at this point a change of
use, so the parking is not being triggered for the
shopping center.
They are really simply asking to be able to do the
consumption on premise.
They are indicating though that they are not going to
have any seating area, that they would just have some
tasting abilities on the property.
The legal description of this petition was revised but

there are still some site plan provisions need to be
corrected.
If Council's inclined CEO inland to approve the petition.
MacDill, this is a transit emphasis corridor.
HART does run on MacDill Avenue, at least the weekdays
from 6:00 to, in the morning to 8:00 at night.
There is again the residential that is within 247 feet.
It is a single-family attached RM-35 district.
The Pane Rustica is what is directly adjacent to this
site.
Staff did find it inconsistent.
The police report was turned in.
I think I sent a copy to the city clerk's office, if you
all have it.
They had no objection to the request.
07:29:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
07:29:58 >>REBECCA KERT:
We did have a substitute ordinance to,
that corrected the title, the address was incorrect, so
if you do feel inclined to approve this, there is a
substitute ordinance.
07:30:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you have it available to us currently?
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Okay, petitioner?
07:30:16 >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of Council.

John Grandoff, sweet 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
I represent Wine Amour LLC, which operates the Red Neck
Wine Company.
It is immediately next door to Pane Rustica.
And they have a package approval right now.
They want to upgrade it to consumption on premises
because they can get better pricing on their wine and
they do want to serve a little bit on premises beyond
just tasting and no tables coming out, no seats, just
Merrill upgrade you wouldn't even know the change from
today to tomorrow.
And that's all we have.
We ask you approve the two waivers and also that you
allow the opportunity to revise the site plan and get it
buffed up the way it needs to be before you hold your
second reading.
I've received no calls of opposition on the application.
Request your approval this evening.
Thank you.
07:31:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
This is item number 3.
AB 2-16-13.
Is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak at
this time on this item?
I see no one.

I have a motion to close from Mr. Cohen, seconds from
Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
Ms. Montelione, will you please take item number 3?
07:31:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Certainly, sir.
I move an ordinance repealing ordinance number 2011-104
approving a special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage
sales, small venue, on premises consumption and retail
package sales off-premises consumption and making lawful
the sale of beer and wine at or from that certain lot,
plot or tract of land located at 32250 South MacDill
Avenue, suite 117, Tampa, Florida as more particularly
described in section 3, that all ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflicts are repealed providing an
effective date.
07:32:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Ms. Montelione, second from
Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
07:32:33 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent.
Second reading and adoption will be on July 14th at
9:30 a.m.

07:32:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 4.
07:32:40 >>Gloria Moreda, land development.
This is item AB 2-16-14, property is 4606 West Boy Scout
Boulevard and it is a CI zoned property, RMU-100 land use
classification.
The proposal is for a large venue, beer, wine, liquor
on-premise consumption only for a restaurant.
The restaurant is 14,517.93 square feet inside area.
3,772 square feet more or less outside area, for
approximately 18,290 square feet total area.
The site plan is indicating there are 155 off-street
parking spaces.
Their hours of operation is listed on the site plan are
7:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday.
11:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. on Sunday.
They are needing a number of waivers.
They are asking for a distance separation from
residential from 250 feet to 165 feet.
They are needing a reduction of off-street parking from
170 spaces to 155.
They are also requesting access to a local street, Trask
Street.
And they are asking for the reduction of loading and
unloading spaces from two to zero.
The property is here on Boy Scout.

It is right up the southwest corner of Trask and Boy
Scout.
There is currently under renovation.
07:34:36 >> This is the back view from the parking.
Directly on the east side of Trask.
There is a residential complex.
Currently the previous restaurant that was at this
location did not have access to Trask.
They are wanting to establish a curb cut on to Trask but
there currently is not one.
Staff is concerned about that proposed access since it is
a local street.
We are also concerned about the reduction of parking.
It's a very large restaurant that's being proposed here.
And the fact that they do not meet the distance
separation from residential.
There are a number of site plan corrections that need to
be made.
As it relates to the wet zoning and how it's depicted on
the property.
But they're not substantial changes to the site plan.
If Council is inclined to approve.
Transportation has raised the same concerns about the
access to Trask as well as parking reduction.
Again, the residential is directly across the street on

Trask.
This is a, within the Westshore business center.
And the property is in a mixed use corridor.
HART does run route 15 along Boy Scout.
Weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
And weekends from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Generally speaking.
Again, this is the site plan does indicate that the
primary use of this venue will be restaurants.
But staff is raising the concerns related to the waivers
that are being requested.
07:36:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner?
07:36:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do we have a petitioner?
That's okay.
07:36:43 >> Steven Stepp, I'm a professional engineer with Abbott
group, representing Lucky Dill Local Brewing Company.
The property is located at 4606 Boy Scout Boulevard,
directly across from international mall, diagonal to the
Tampa airport and within the Westshore overlay district.
The property was previously occupied by the Versailles
steakhouse, which closed approximately three years ago.
The restaurant had a large venue beer, wine and liquor
alcoholic beverage sales license.
Lucky Dill brewing company proposes to renovate the

building and property in order to open a quality sit-down
restaurant and it's seeking City Council's approval to
expand the alcohol beverage sales license to include the
outdoor patio area addition that is part of the
renovations.
In addition to this application, the property is
currently going through permitting for site, landscaping,
buildings renovations, so many of the site plan revisions
that are being requested by staff in their report have
already been made or we will respond to those comments
and incorporate them before the next City Council
meeting.
The renovations will include -- can I put this up here?
I've never used this before.
Do I speak into this one?
07:38:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Just keep speaking.
07:38:27 >> The renovations include extensive interior remodeling.
Building facade redesign.
Here's a elevation of our facade rework.
North elevation.
Facing Boy Scout.
Here's a rendering of our east elevation.
Facing Trask.
Back to the site plan real quick.
Addition of the outdoor patio area out on Boy Scout Road.

Addition of a walk-in cooler in the back.
Extensive landscaping improvements both on Boy Scout and
Trask.
Improved site access, addition of the entrance to Trask.
Addition of a ten foot wide sidewalk trail along Boy
Scout Boulevard.
The four waivers that are being requested are minimal and
necessary for renovation of the property, so that Lucky
Dill Local Brewing Company can open for business at this
location and contribute to the community's quality of
life.
Number one waiver.
The residential distance separation reduction.
The reduction in residential district separation from 250
down to 165 feet is due to the recently constructed
Madeira Westshore luxury apartments to the east.
That's right over here.
The property as well as other quality restaurants in the
area have alcoholic beverage licenses.
There are numerous others, as you guys know, restaurants
up and down Boy Scout Road.
The Westshore overlay is intended to be dense, vibrant,
walkable, mixed use district.
The apartments were constructed there to take advantage
of the site's close proximity to businesses and services

offered in the Westshore area.
The restaurants, the hotels, the office buildings, et
cetera.
The separation requirement isn't necessary within, within
such a mixed use environment, especially for a quality
restaurant venue like Lucky Dill.
The waivers two and three off-street parking and loading
space reductions.
Let's talk about those.
Those two waivers are interrelated issues.
Both the waiver for reduction of parking from 170 spaces
to 155 spaces and the waiver in reduction from loading
from two loading bays to zero are needed to grandfather
the existing condition.
The parking lot is existing and there's no way to add
additional parking spaces without removing more landscape
areas.
Which would have minimal impact on the parking count, but
would be adverse to the synthetics of the site.
Aesthetics of the site.
Adding loading spaces would result in further reduction
in the parking provided.
Delivery trucks can continue to parallel park and unload
along the south side of the building.
During off hours, where there isn't demand for

immediately adjacent parking spaces, the area is
convenient to the delivery entrance.
And is screened from public view by the building, which
has, and has minimal temporary impact on parking
availability.
Also the site is located within a high density walkable
district nearby apartment residents, hotel guests, office
workers can leave their car parked and conveniently walk
a short distance to the Lucky Dill for breakfast, lunch
or dinner.
There's going to be a lot of walk-up patrons we think.
And the fourth waiver is the waiver for commercial access
to a local street.
The waive for commercial access to the local street,
Trask Street will improve site access and circulation
without adversely impacting the surrounding area.
There is no interconnect from the site to the west or to
the south.
And having I think I heard you guys talk about this
earlier.
Having more than one way in and one way out is a safer
and better design.
The design that we came up with aligns with chestnut
street.
To comply with the spirit of the grid network system and

provide separation from Boy Scout Road.
While Trask is technically, they're calling it a local
street, its purpose is not to provide access to some type
of single-family neighborhood that would need protection
from cut-through traffic.
We have had that many times in projects we have done in
the city.
Instead, Trask Street is part of a grid street network
within a high density mixed use district, mixed use
corridor district that already provides access to so many
numerous non-residential uses.
Some of which are, I just drove up and down there,
extended stay America, Tampa Marriott Westshore, AAA auto
club, tower place office complex, and actually Trask is
almost like reverse frontage road to Westshore Boulevard,
which is off to the west, a main artery.
So with that --
07:44:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Excuse me.
You mentioned everything on the west side of the street.
There's kind of a big property on the east side of the
street.
07:44:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
It's called the dragons.
07:44:16 >> Jefferson high school.
Right.
Jefferson high school does exist immediately to the east.

But everything questions, on the west side of Trask
Street is all commercial.
Pretty much all commercial.
07:44:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Familiar with that I just wanted to make
sure that you understood you mentioned all the commercial
side but none of the public use, the part of the reason
is that there's going to be a lot of traffic there and a
lot of younger drives.
Not just commercial use.
So go ahead, sir.
Apologize for interrupting.
07:44:45 >> You're right.
That's pretty much it.
Lucky Dill will contribute to the local economy and its
consistent with the city's vision of a mixed use corridor
village in the Westshore business center.
And Westshore overlay district.
This is a mixed use area and we think we fit in nicely.
07:45:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions from Council besides
giving some pointers on where the Jefferson dragons are?
Mr. Cohen?
07:45:14 >>HARRY COHEN:
So, if Councilwoman Capin was here, I
would tell you the two questions that she would ask you.
The first would be whether or not -- would be why you're
asking for these specific hours and not asking they just

be to code, since this is what our code allows.
07:45:31 >> Hours of operation?
07:45:33 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
07:45:34 >> The hours of operation that are being requested are
the hours of operation that Lucky Dill has at its other
stores.
07:45:45 >>HARRY COHEN:
Let me be clear.
By making the hours of operation to code, as opposed to
delineating them specifically, it means that if the city
ever changed the code, you would be subject to whatever
the code allows.
By putting them in specifically, you're basically
exempting yourself from that.
So if it's all the same to you, we would -- I would say
that it's really better if you just ask for the sales
hours to be to code, which would allow you to be open
till 3:00 a.m.
And really wouldn't make any difference, but it would
just be a more standard way of going about it.
07:46:34 >> It's okay with me.
It's okay with you.
07:46:39 >> Good evening.
Steve Spencer, project architect.
I work with the clients a lot, that's what -- we just
like to get this through.

07:46:51 >>HARRY COHEN:
It's not what we like.
It's what you like.
But, that's just one thing that could be, at your
request, could be done between first and second reading.
The second thing is the question you are going to have an
outdoor dining space.
Do you have a residential waiver.
Are you planning on having any amplified music outside
and if you're not, perhaps if you would ask for -- well,
there is a waiver here from residential.
So if there were to be amplified music until 3:00 in the
morning, one could make the argument that, that that
might be a little bit too close for comfort.
So, one thought about how to mitigate that would be to
have, not to allow that outside.
If that would be something you are inclined to want to
ask for.
07:47:44 >> Appreciate it.
07:47:48 >>HARRY COHEN:
She will be back for second reading.
07:47:50 >> We would address that at the second reading then.
07:47:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, Ms. Kert is going to instruct
you that it's going to have to be addressed between first
and second reading.
07:48:02 >>REBECCA KERT:
Any changes to be made between first and
second reading have to be directed by City Council

tonight.
And just to call to your attention, your special
restaurants which you're allowed administratively,
allow -- I'm quoting -- if I'm saying it wrong, lawyer,
let me know -- allow outdoor amplified sound until
11:00 p.m.
Just by way of reference.
07:48:23 >>HARRY COHEN:
So what you're saying then, I just want to
be clear with you, Ms. Kert.
You're saying under this type of approval, amplified
music would have to ends at 11:00 p.m.?
07:48:34 >> No.
I'm saying if they came in for your special restaurant,
which is a administrative approval, so it's got tighter
conditions on it.
Under that one, it's that earlier hours and all --
07:48:45 >>HARRY COHEN:
This does not have that.
This does not have any of that.
07:48:49 >> But by way of reference, the special restaurants which
you allow administratively, you do allow outdoor
plified sounds until 11:00 p.m.
That was my point.
07:49:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
So perhaps it would be reasonable to ask
for that?
07:49:06 >> Yes.

07:49:06 >> Thank you.
07:49:08 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So I'm a fan of outdoor amplified
sound.
[ Laughter ]
07:49:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Because which sit at an outdoor venue
to eat or, you know, sit for happy hour or whatever, I
like to have music in the background.
So that's just my opinion.
It is not shared by everybody on Council.
But, be that as it may.
The question -- Mr. Cohen brought that up.
07:49:40 >> I don't mean to interrupt.
But we are, if that would happen, I think most the sound
would be on the deck area, outdoor deck area facing Boy
Scout.
That's probably where we would have it.
It wouldn't be facing residential.
07:49:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Right.
I was going to point that out, that from looking at the
site plan, yes, they have the residential waiver, but the
outdoor dining addition depicted here on the plan is a
parking lot away from the residential -- thank you very
much.
There it is.
It is on Boy Scout Boulevard, which the ambient sound

alone from the cars driving by on Boy Scout is going to
drown out any a much tied sound they could have that's
going to reach those high rise apartments.
And they are high rise apartments, they're not
single-family homes and their windows don't open.
So, anyway.
07:50:35 >> As always, Councilwoman Montelione, you're very though
row.
07:50:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen.
And as always, you are very good representative of
Councilmembers who have, who aren't here at the time.
So the mention was of a sidewalk trail along Boy Scout.
And looking at this and, you know, my eyes are tired
tonight, it looks to be that there's a five foot concrete
sidewalk depicted.
07:51:09 >> Correct.
We got to provide another five feet to make it ten feet
wide.
07:51:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
See I didn't see that additional five feet on the plan.
On the side of Boy Scout?
07:51:21 >> It is shown here.
It's hard to read at this scale.
We are showing the additional sidewalk with addition on
Boy Scout here.

07:51:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
That's what I was asking.
07:51:31 >> It is hard to read.
07:51:35 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
When you said that, it didn't seem to
mesh with what was on the site plan.
Ms. Kert I think did say there was some site plan
revisions that needed to be done.
Ms. Moreda said that you look so much alike.
So that was the only question I had was to clear up the
trail issue.
07:51:55 >> Thank you.
07:51:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda?
07:52:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I just want to bring up Trask.
City had objection to ingress and egress on Trask.
Why do you need it?
07:52:09 >> The reason is, there's no other access but just off of
Boy Scout.
And it's obviously a problem for access there because the
previous restaurant actually removed in several areas
along Trask the wheel stops.
Would just drive over the sidewalk and grass.
In two locations on Trask.
07:52:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Maybe that's why they closed.
07:52:31 >> Pardon me?
07:52:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Maybe that's why they closed.

07:52:35 >> Maybe.
I'm not sure.
I only ate there one time and I think there's other
reasons why they closed.
[ Laughter ]
07:52:42 >> But I think for access and just having one way in and
one way out on Boy Scout, I think that Trask is a nice
option.
I don't think it's going to be used as much obviously as
Boy Scout but it would sure help the flow.
07:52:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't know much about the loading
restaurant, but loading docks bothers me.
There were restaurants on Busch, and only had increase
and egress off of Busch.
07:53:07 >> All right.
I know a little bit about restaurants.
I mean, I'm drawing them and Lucky Dills, they've been
very popular.
07:53:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Usually when you have corporate, they
have a standardization.
Once you do one, you do them all in the same way.
07:53:24 >> I'm sorry, didn't mean to overspeak you.
This one's a little unique because it has two venues.
The owners have the local brewing company and Lucky Dill
and they're combining them in one.

I think that's why it's a little larger and little
different than typical freestanding GPC and freestanding
Lucky Dill.
I think that's the reason.
07:53:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I don't know what's going to happen in
the City of Tampa, but Trask bothers me a lot.
Something else is going to develop on Trask very, very
shortly.
Trask ends there -- it's a piece road, it doesn't go
continuous from South Tampa all the way to Busch
Boulevard.
But it goes all the way out there in sections.
This one ends on Cypress.
07:54:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions?
I have a couple things I wanted to mention.
What Mr. Miranda is saying about Trask, when he made the
comment about not knowing much about restaurants, I think
he was in the restaurant business for over 20 years, so,
that was a facetious comment on his part.
He lasted over 20 years.
So he must know something.
Anyway, the problem that we have, you know, I'm very
familiar with Trask for a lot of different reasons, in
addition, working very close there for many, many years,
Trask tends to be kind of a cut-through.

You made the comment about it being a sort of frontage
road for the Westshore area.
Tough part about that particular restaurant and where the
location is, is that you have to turn around in order to
come along.
You have to go along the Westshore Boulevard area and
then come along Boy Scout going east in order to enter
the restaurant.
As it is now.
As it's situated.
07:55:16 >> I'm sorry, can you explain that one more time?
07:55:18 >> While you're coming, while you're traveling east on
Boy Scout, you have to -- only way to enter the
restaurant is coming east on Boy Scout.
Okay.
Because you can't turn, you have to turn around, you have
to go up towards where the median is at, come back around
on Westshore anyway and come back.
There's no way to enter it that way.
That's the reason why you want it on Trask.
That's the main reason, you're trying to draw a lot of
folks from those, as you mentioned, on the west side of
Trask, you want all those customers that are there,
potential customers, that are all those buildings.
You did say it was a very walkable area.

My assumption based on what you said was that they were
going to walk there.
They don't really need that access from Trask, is that
correct?
07:56:07 >> We're expecting some of the patrons to be people that
walk from businesses, office buildings from the
residential and hence, the reason for a request for a
slight parking reduction.
But there will still be a lot of vehicles traveling to
the site.
07:56:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Right.
Because it's really not as walkable as you kind of
presented earlier I think.
07:56:30 >> Well, I think what the spirit of the Westshore overlay
district and the mixed use corridor village plan is to
try to over time, as that area redevelops, is to make it
more walkable.
Hence, also the reason why we're widening the sidewalk
out on Boy Scout road from five feet to ten feet, I think
the idea there, they'd like to see that as a ten foot
wide sidewalk all the way down.
So all those people that work along there can walk and
use all those mixture of uses up and down buy scout.
07:57:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
But you still think that Trask is
important as an entryway because you're still going to

need that entrance by virtue of all the cars that are
going to be going by there, is that correct?
07:57:20 >> Let me address that please, the owner spoke to me
about, their main reason for the Trask is for leaving.
Not arriving.
Their concern was, you have people coming in and then you
have people exiting and Boy Scout is somewhat busy.
Trask may be a way for them to exit.
It was not for entering.
Their main concern was leaving the restaurant.
To address you, sir.
07:57:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Being 0.
Sounds like the owner has not been around Trask very
often.
That's okay.
That's all I have.
Anything else?
Any other questions or comments?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 4?
AB 2-16-14.
I see no one.
I have a motion to close -- before we go forward,
Mr. Cohen?
07:58:09 >>HARRY COHEN:
Before we close, I just would like to -- I

think your point was well taken on the a much tied musk
issue.
But the issue of just being consistent -- I did hear that
perhaps the applicant was going to ask to be consistent
with chapter 14 rather than delineate the hours and I
wasn't sure if that was something that was on the agenda
between first and second reading.
07:58:33 >> That's something I would like to include.
I think there were two things.
The outdoor music till 11:00 p.m. and then the, just
follow the code the hours of operation.
Those are the two things we'd like to address between the
second reading.
Thank you for bringing that up.
07:58:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is that okay Mr. Cohen?
No other questions?
07:58:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
The petition used the word music.
Normally the sound, because I think Twiggs and the like.
07:59:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Will you stipulate sir you meant amplified
sound as opposed to a much tied music?
07:59:05 >> Yes, I stand corrected.
07:59:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
07:59:07 >> Thank you very much.
07:59:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Petitioner, anything else to add?
Okay, we have a motion to close from Ms. Montelione.

Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion to close, please indicate by
saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco, will you take item number 4, please?
07:59:23 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have an ordinance being presented for first reading
consideration.
An ordinance approving a special use permit for alcoholic
beverage sales, large venue restaurant, consumption on
premises only, and making lawful the sale of beverages
regardless of alcoholic content - beer, wine and liquor -
that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 4606
west Boy Scout Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, as more
particularly described in section 2, that all ordinances
or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed,
providing an effective date.
07:59:56 >>HARRY COHEN:
Second with the changes.
07:59:58 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
With the changes promised between
first and second reading.
08:00:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco, a
second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?

08:00:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Aye.
08:00:11 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Miranda voting no and
Capin being absent.
Second reading and adoption will be July 14th at
9:30 a.m.
08:00:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 5.
08:00:21 >> Gloria Moreda, land development.
AB 2-16-15, it concerns property at 4465 west Gandy
Boulevard, suite 600.
The property is zoned CI.
And has been the CC-35 land use classification.
This property was the subject of an alcohol petition in
2015 for a large venue beer and wine on-site consumption
and package sales for off-site consumption.
It is the same location.
It is still the microbrewery with tasting rooms and the
same request for a large venue beer, wine on-site
consumption and package sales off site.
They are adding square footage.
It's now going to be 17,875 square feet inside area.
There is 576 square feet outside area, for a total of
18,451 square feet total.
There are 586 spaces in the shopping center and they
indicate that they will be consistent with chapter 14,

hours of operation.
They are needing a distance separation from 250 feet to
103 feet to residential.
They are reducing the off-street parking from 718 spaces
to 586 spaces.
And they are indicating they have access to Oakellar
Avenue, which is a local street.
As it relates to the parking waiver, this is not really
considered an increase in intensity of use.
They're indicating their occupant load is the same and
that waiver was previously granted.
The site is off of Gandy.
Backs all the way up to Oakellar Avenue.
There are currently in the existing shopping center
already access to Oakellar.
And we are just referencing that they are maintaining
that.
Here is the front.
They're in the back building.
There are two buildings in this center.
They're in this building here.
And they are located here on the side.
81 bay brewery and company.
I think they're about to open very soon.
This is a look of their parking area.

The residential is directly to the rear of the property.
I did indicate that this, I found this consistent.
This is a very minor change from what there previous
approval was.
The square footage that they're adding, I've been told is
for the brewery area.
The actual tasting room and the occupant level related to
the tasting on-site is not changing.
There is some minor changes to the site plan that are
needed.
But staff is finding this inconsistent.
08:03:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from Council?
Petitioner?
08:03:48 >> Good evening, Councilmembers, I trust tonight will be
an earlier hearing night for some of you compared to last
night.
My name --
08:03:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We are prepared to go 3:00 a.m. if you
are.
08:04:01 >> I do not.
[ Laughter ]
Grace Yang, Gray Robinson, 401 East Jackson Street, Suite
2700.
Tampa, 33602.
As Ms. Moreda explained, this is a petition for 813

brewing LLC doing business as 81 bay brewing company.
I came before you last September and October on the
initial request for this.
And since we had that approval granted last October at
second reading, my client did request some additional
square footage, additional square footage opens up in the
brewery space and they would like to add 2,463 square
feet to store the spent grains and the kegs for the beer
that they're doing.
The waivers, Ms. Moreda has already summarized.
We would greatly appreciate your support to allow my
client's business to expand for a little extra space in
the brewing section.
I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
08:05:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions?
Is there anyone in the public would like to speak on item
5, AB2-16-15?
I see no one.
Motion to close from Mr. Cohen.
Second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Reddick, would you kindly take number five?
08:05:23 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Move an ordinance being presented for first reading
consideration, an ordinance repealing ordinance number
2015-107, approving a special use permit S-2 for
alcoholic beverage sales, large venue, microbrewery
on-premises consumption retail package sales off-premises
consumption, and making lawful the sale of beer and wine
at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
located at 4465 west Gandy Boulevard, suite 600, Tampa,
Florida, as more particularly described in section 3,
that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
are repealed, providing an effective date.
08:06:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
08:06:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mr. Reddick, a second from
Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
08:06:10 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent.
Second reading and adoption will be July 14th at
9:30 a.m.
08:06:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item six.
08:06:22 >> Gloria Moreda, this is AB 2-16-16.
Involves property at 1609 West Swann Avenue.
The property is zoned PD.

It's part of the Old Hyde Park Village.
It's community mixed use land use classification.
The property currently does hold alcohol permit for
4(COP-X).
They are proposing to amend that to a small venue beer,
wine, liquor on-premise consumption and package sales for
off-site consumption.
The total square footage is 3,000 -- excuse me -- 2,308
square feet inside, 908 square feet outside, for a total
of 3,216 square feet in area.
The shopping center has 993 parking spaces.
They are indicating the hours of operation for the
restaurant to be Monday through Thursday, 11:00 a.m. to
12:00 a.m., Friday, Saturday, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
And then Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
They are asking for a distance separation waiver from
250 feet to zero for another AB establishment.
The, this is for the Wine Exchange.
They are not proposing to change their occupant load of
the existing restaurant.
They indicate on their site plan that they will continue
to be a restaurant use.
This is aerial of the old, old Hyde Park shopping center.
And they're located just off the Snow Avenue.
I wasn't really able to get close with the road

construction going on in the center, but I did get these
pictures [Inaudible]
But there are minor changes to the site plan that will
need to be done as well as the AB 2 sketch needs to be
revised as well to correct the total square footage as
identified.
Staff did find it inconsistent due to the fact that the
waive that they're asking.
08:08:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner?
08:08:45 >> Hi, I'm Patricia Ortiz here on behalf of the Wine
Exchange to request a change of wet zone designation from
4(COP-X) to small venue, beer, wine liquor on-site
consumption and package sales.
The intent of this request is to allow the Wine Exchange
the opportunity to offer package sales to their existing
clientele as to-go items.
The Wine Exchange has been serving food and drinks in the
village since 1991 and their successful business model is
designed around the idea of providing quality products at
fair prices and remaining relevant.
The alcohol beverage also available for sale will
generally be considered specialty items and will appeal
to a limited client base.
As you are well aware, Hyde Park Village is undergoing a

multi-million dollar renovation, which is intended to
reinvent the village as a premier mixed use development.
The request before you will allow this established
restaurant the opportunity to remain competitive in this
changing market by providing a unique and complementary
service.
The petition does require one waiver and that is a waiver
to reduce the distance of separation between
establishments serving alcohol from 250 feet to zero
feet.
The Wine Exchange is not moving.
It currently exists within 250 feet of other
establishments serving alcohol.
The waiver is necessary because of the change of wet zone
classification.
A similar waiver was granted in 2007 when the Wine
Exchange moved from its previous location on Swann Avenue
to its current location on Snow Avenue.
This current location is within the distance of
separation of other areas designated [Inaudible] as
restaurants.
And always intended to serve alcoholic beverages.
And I can show you here.
The wine change is located about here.
And Bartaco is located here, sort of in the back and

adjacent to the Wine Exchange.
Piquant is located at the intersection of Snow and Rome.
And both of these existing establishments are within that
distance of separation.
They're both within 250 feet.
The code does allow waivers to a distance of separation
between establishments serving alcohol to be granted in
cases such as this where the use does not jeopardize
public health, safety or welfare.
The use is compatible with the surrounding properties.
The use is in conformance with the comp plan and the use
has not set a precedent of more intensive uses.
The existing restaurant, like I said, located within
250 feet of other alcohol serving establishments.
However, there are no negative impacts to public health,
safety or welfare.
And there will be none with the approval of package
sales.
The requested use is compatible with the existing use and
complementary to uses in the area.
It's consistent with the community mixed use 35 land use
designation.
The Hyde Park urban village standards and the mixed use
nature of Hyde Park Village.
Package sales are compatible with the existing

restaurant.
And they will not intensify the existing use.
There will be no alterations to the exterior or interior
of the restaurant.
Currently this is what you see on the front of the
outside of the restaurant.
There will be no indication that package sales are
allowed.
The occupant load will not increase.
There will be no requirements for additional parking.
The hours of operation are not proposed to be extended.
And there will be no changes to the existing approved
lighting, utilities or drainage.
Additionally, we're not proposing to change the sound or
have live music outside.
Instead, we think that this proposal will provide a
unique and complementary service to Hyde Park Village.
I'll stand for questions.
08:13:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from Council?
All right.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 6?
AB 2-16-16?
I see no one.
Have a motion to close from Mr. Reddick, second from

Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take number 6?
08:14:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
File number AB 2-16-16.
Move an ordinance presently for first readings
consideration, an ores repealing ordinance nope 2007-221,
approving a special use S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales
small venue on-premises consumption for retail package
sales off premises consumption and making lawful sale
beer, wine liquor at or from that certain lot, plot or
tract of land located at 1609 West Snow Avenue, Tampa,
Florida, more particularly described in section 3, that
all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are
repealed, providing an effective date.
08:14:43 >> Second.
08:14:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Ms. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
Any opposed?
Thank you.
08:14:53 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Capin being absent and
Cohen being an send.

Second reading and adoption July 14, 9:00 a.m.
08:15:01 >> We have cleared the agenda of number seven.
Number eight.
08:15:06 >>REBECCA KERT:
Kristen Moore from our office is going to
be presenting this item.
I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce her to
you.
She recently joined our office.
She's practiced in the land use area for a number of
years in private practice.
Prior to that she was a planner at Hillsborough County,
so she's got a wealth of experience to bring to us.
She graduated from honors at Stetson university.
She's going to be handling development agreements,
alcoholic beverages, BRB signs and other various land use
items and we're very excited to have her with us.
08:15:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, welcome aboard.
Ms. Montelione, you have a question?
08:15:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm going to have a real problem not
calling you Kristen Tolbert.
We used to work together.
So, it's -- welcome aboard.
08:15:47 >> Thank you very much.
Much appreciated.
08:15:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Glad you're here.

08:15:52 >> Thank you.
It is a pleasure to be here.
Good evening, Council, Kristen Moore with the legal
department.
The item before you is a development agreement to
implement a rezoning density bonus with rezoning 1638,
which the Council heard on June 9th.
This is a density bonus to allow approximately 51
additional units for 175-unit residential apartment
building.
This development agreement is under your old bonus
regulations, so the amenities being provided are
structured parking with 75% of the required parking being
within the principal building.
The provision of transit stop facilities, either an
existing stop or provision of a new stop, and streetscape
improvements along Isabella avenue.
You received a new development agreement, had slight
revisions done this week, to better reflect the
obligations with respect to the maintenance of the
improvements that are going to be inning the
right-of-way.
They're going to be providing decorative benches,
decorative trash receptacles.
Removing parallel parking along Isabel, which will allow

for additional green space and providing 13 four-inch
caliper live oak trees and 20 three-inch caliper crepe
myrtles, which is above and beyond the planting
regulations.
So I am available if you have any questions on this.
08:17:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from Council?
Mr. Reddick?
08:17:24 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Just scanning through this, and it's two
things that I see where you got under city obligation,
first time you got item number 8 out of section five in
good faith.
Something we talked about today.
I'm just scanning through this real quick.
I want to make sure, because it came up today during
discussion, from people in the audience.
And that is any development agreement that we put in
place from the city standpoint, that they meet all of the
WBE, BBE and all these other obligation.
Is this in this agreement?
08:18:12 >>REBECCA KERT:
This is not that type of agreement.
This is under your zoning regulations.
It's a bonus density.
If they provide that's, they're entitled.
It's not a contract for them to do the work.
It's a chapter 163 development agreement.

But we can't apply those -- it's not that kind of
contract.
08:18:32 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Why would good faith be in here?
08:18:37 >>REBECCA KERT:
That's -- I understand.
08:18:39 >>FRANK REDDICK:
The terminology.
08:18:42 >>REBECCA KERT:
It's a legal term.
08:18:43 >>FRANK REDDICK:
A legal term?
08:18:45 >>REBECCA KERT:
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
08:18:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
When we have discussion about good
faith, everybody got a meaning for it.
Now it's a legal term.
It's a statute and all that this morning.
08:19:00 >>REBECCA KERT:
I understand your point.
But we're not in the middle of the WMBE discussion.
We're not the attorneys fighting you on that we're
friends.
[ Laughter ]
08:19:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Parity, would you like to speak on this
item?
08:19:16 >> Robert Edelle, Gardner Brewer, 400 North Ashley 67
drive.
I think she spoke to kind of the biggest issues with
respect to the maintenance obligation and our client, we
gave the city the first run at putting together the

language and we accepted everything that they asked.
We look forward to working with the staff and appreciate
all your support.
I can certainly walk through some of those provisions if
you'd like.
But to respect your time and since it's late, just let me
know.
I'll be here.
Thank you very much.
08:19:49 >> So you're saying our new attorney did a great job.
That's good to know.
All right.
Any questions from Council?
Ms. Montelione?
08:19:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
A lot of times we see the development agreements come
with a rezoning or they're scheduled around the same
time.
So just for general knowledge, Bayshore center
acquisition is purchasing the building or are they
constructing -- I'm not familiar.
I'm sorry, with the address or the project.
08:20:19 >> They have owned this property for, can't identify the
exact amount of time period.
08:20:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Ballpark.

08:20:27 >> It's been more than 6 years I believe.
And in this case, I think they're just, they're wanting
to amend what they have, there is existing plan for the
property.
08:20:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
So what is the difference between the current development
agreement and this development agreement?
Because this isn't a red line copy.
08:20:49 >>REBECCA KERT:
You heard the rezone -- the accompanying
rezoning last, at your last land use meeting and approved
it.
08:20:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
This is that one.
08:20:58 >>REBECCA KERT:
Yes.
This is that one.
This was unfortunately not able to be scheduled to go the
same night.
08:21:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm sorry.
I didn't make the connection.
And if you said that, Ms. Moore, I didn't catch that.
08:21:12 >> I wasn't there.
Rezoning was heard on June 9th.
Then the development agreement is going tonight.
They will both go together at the July 14th.
08:21:22 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.

Thank you very much.
That's all I had.
08:21:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the public would like to comment on
item number 8?
I see no one.
Have a motion to close from Mr. Maniscalco.
Have a second from Ms. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye am any opposed?
Ms. Kert, do they have to read this or do they just have
to move it.
08:21:44 >> Move the resolution.
08:21:46 >>REBECCA KERT:
Actually, you do need -- it's required to
have two public hearings and you will move it at the
second public hearing.
08:21:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Just want to make sure.
08:21:57 >>THE CLERK:
The second public hearing will be
July 14th at 9:30 a.m.
08:22:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
We did information reports earlier today.
Unless any of the Councilmember also have any other new
information report, I night a motion to receive and file.
08:22:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I just need to make.
08:22:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I'm sorry, go ahead.

08:22:11 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Just want to remind the public that if
you live in zip code 33602, 33603, and 33605, the humane
society of Tampa is sponsoring free spay, neuters and
vaccinations for all residents in those area codes.
Please call the humane society at 813-442-2279.
Humane society of Tampa Bay.
08:22:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
08:22:50 >> Free service, so everybody should take advantage of
it.
08:22:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Before we adjourn, we do need to sent the
text amendments hearings.
Mr. Hello by?
08:22:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Council, there's request of Tony Garcia of the Planning
Commission to set two items for September 22nd, 2016 at
5:01 p.m.
The first is a first public hearing on E 2016-47, also
known as PA 16-02, that's what was heard earlier.
The second one is, the second item is a presentation of
the May 2016 cycle of comprehensive plan amendments.
So if there could be a motion to set those two items.
08:23:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Can we do it all in one motion?
08:23:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I believe you can.
For the sake of argument.
08:23:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could get a motion to move the first

item Mr. Shelby mentioned.
Motion from Mr. Maniscalco.
Second from Ms. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
And another motion to deal with the second item
Mr. Shelby mentioned.
I have a motion from Ms. Montelione, second from
Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
Okay.
I need a motion to receive and file.
Motion from Mr. Maniscalco, second from Ms. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying
aye.
And if there is no other business to come before Council,
we are adjourned.


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL

DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for
complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital

letters and any variation thereto may be a result of
third party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.