Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 6, 2016
9:00 a.m.

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.

[Sounding gavel]
09:04:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Tampa City Council everybody is now called
into order.
The chair yields to Mr. Maniscalco.
09:04:59 >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is my pleasure this morning to welcome state
representative-elect Sean Shaw of the Florida State House of
Representatives 61st district.
Go ahead with the prayer.
If we could all rise.
09:05:22 >> Let us bow our heads.
God of all creation, we thank you for this day and thank you
for the people with whom we have been in contact, our
family, friends, strangers.
We thank you for the ability to use our minds to be discern

your will and work to create a strong and healthy community.
We thank you for our community and all who serve it.
For those who teach and those who protect, for those who
clean and for those who work in parts and those who work in
roads, for those who plan and make the plan happen, those
who counsel, for those who govern and those who elect.
For all who live to the best example of what it means to be
a citizen, we thank you for our community.
We pray for all of our community.
Who are hungry, unemployed or uninsured.
We pray for those in our community who are mentally or
physically ill.
For these and all our larger community, Lord, hear our
prayer.
As this meeting begins this morning I pray for each person
here.
Give each person clarity of mind, creativity, compassion,
due diligence, integrity, and a sense of humor.
Give them listening ears and thoughtful words.
Give them presence of mind and an open heart.
Lastly, we pray for our fellow Floridians in the path of
hurricane Matthew.
Please protect them from harm and watch them during this
time.
And all God's people said, amen.

[ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:07:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Roll call.
09:07:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
09:07:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Present.
09:07:13 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
09:07:15 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
09:07:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
Okay.
Our first order of business today, we don't have an
addendum, I don't think.
We do?
Okay.
I could get approval of the addendum and the agenda?
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
A second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Item 1 we are going to have delay for a few minutes because
Mrs. Montelione's item.
She's the one that's going to make the presentation.
Before we go to item number 2, I would like to welcome miss
Jessica Eiley who brought her fourth grade class from Roland
park.
If you could, come up here and bring your children up here
and we'll let them say their names while they come on up.

Come in front of the microphone and tell us who you are, say
your name, your class, and then we'll ask each one of them
to state their names.
09:08:22 >> I'm miss Eiley, from land park elementary.
We have been learning about the state government, the local
government, and how they are all structured and everybody's
job, and how we all as citizens work together to help our
community.
So we are very excited to be here.
09:08:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So each one of the children, if you could,
come up to the podium and just say your name.
09:08:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you for bringing the class here.
Children, thank you for being here.
And it's sort of like a classroom.
We are going to talk a little bit and you guys get to
listen.
And if you have any questions, make sure you ask all the
really tough questions of Mrs. Montelione.
She's the one that's in charge of all the tough questions.
And welcome to council.
Mrs. Montelione, would you like to take item number 1 since
you did arrive while we were waiting?
09:09:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
I'm having a little back problems lately so bear with me.

I'm moving a little slow here today.
It is my distinct pleasure to introduce Mark and Matt
Fetterman, who as you can see are both brothers, they served
in the Merchant's Marine Academy on Long Island where I
happen to be from.
They also graduated from some very prestigious universities.
After serving in Afghanistan, when they came back, they
realized there was a need to be filled amongst veterans in
our community.
The concept that they came up with to help our veterans and
our first responders really touched my heart.
I went to see one of their programs at USF -- Go Bulls!
-- and, you know, in every other chair, there was a box of
tissue, because after listening to the story of these brave
men and women who serve us, either locally here at home or
across the world, you really get a sense of what sacrifice
is and experiences that our men and women in uniform go
through.
So one of those people was a -- or is a chief in our fire
rescue service, and one is with the Tampa police department.
And I'll tell you, their stories were heart wrenching that
they carry with them on a daily basis.
So I felt that you would want to hear what they do, the work
that they do, and do all that we can as a council and as a
community to support them.

Tampa City Council presents this commendation to the Home
Front Foundation.
We commend the exemplary efforts of Mark and Matt Fetterman
through the Home Front organization, providing brave
servicemen and women with the tools to tell their story.
Through story telling the veterans an first responders have
been able to break down communications barriers and have
been able to ignite a dialogue between the families,
friends, community, and to relay the depth of their
experiences.
Too often we only see the uniform, and not the struggle and
sacrifice of those who wear it.
Having our heroes share their stories not only acts as a way
for them to reconnect with their loved ones but also teaches
those around them about the whole of military life, police
work, or being a firefighter paramedic.
We are called to give back to those who have given so much.
Therefore, Tampa City Council proudly acknowledges and
applauds this most noble endeavor.
Gentlemen?
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
Hang onto this.
And you two can decide hoe says something first.
09:13:38 >> First of all thank you very much for having us.

Thanks for joining us today.
Mark and I are both Navy veterans.
We graduated from the Navy academy and we realized there was
a need for veteran service members to reconnect and
reintegrate into their communities.
In 2009, a good friend of mine was shot and killed in
Afghanistan.
Shortly after, in 2010 while I was in Afghanistan myself,
mark in another location at the same time, another one of
our friends was killed.
He had stepped on an IED.
And what we realized when we came home is we were
disconnected, and we needed to reconnect with those that we
cared about and we loved.
And we realize the way to reconnect was through story
telling.
The best way I can tell you.
09:14:35 >> The home front foundation, to give you a little of my
story.
I remember it was really hot summer day in Afghanistan but
it was one of the best days in Afghanistan because we were
going home.
Our whole team made it.
We grab whatever personal belongings we have, and we are
loading onto that T-17 and we are flying out.

We are done.
We made it.
Our team was successful.
We load that plane two by two.
In an orderly fashion.
You take the seat in front of you.
Everybody is really happy.
We land in Kuwait and that's where thing changed for us.
After one year of wearing the uniform I was told, hey,
soldier, take that uniform off, you need to fly back to the
states in civilian clothes.
You are flying out of Kuwait International airport.
I have been wearing this uniform proudly for the last year.
I have to take it off.
I take that flight back and flying into San Diego
International, and I'm sitting next to everybody else who is
just flying from Washington, D.C. on a weekend trip.
They don't know where I have just been.
They don't know what I just saw.
They don't know what I just lost.
Thank God I had a window seat.
The flight attendant says you can reach for your cell phones
and call anybody if you like.
I don't have anybody to call.
I don't even have a phone.

We unload from that plane and you all know the chaos even if
you have been away for one week.
It was one year.
Finally we unload from be the plane and I go to the baggage
carrousel and I am lost and I am all alone.
I'm alone and all of a sudden I hear an alarm.
I think it might be incoming.
The baggage is coming out.
Everybody starts rushing up towards that baggage carrousel
again.
I don't.
I stay back.
I put my back against the wall and I just start seeing
everybody's bags go by until I finally see my one pack, it's
dirty, ripped and torn T-bag.
That's mine.
I have to wait until that carrousel is completely empty so I
can grab it.
When I got home, I felt lost and I felt alone.
And I am not the only one.
Veterans and service members, our police, our fire, they go
through this all the time.
The best thing we can do if we want to support those who
serve is sometimes just listen.
Let them tell their story.

Let them make some sense of what they have gone through and
what they have lost and what they sacrificed.
That's what we do as the home front foundation.
We teach them how to tell their story.
We want to reconnect those people with the ones they love.
Thank you for your time.
09:17:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
09:17:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Gentlemen, before you step away, I am going
to call you the Fettermans.
Mark and Matthew, thank you for doing this.
Let me ask what year you graduated from merchant marine
academy.
09:17:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
05.
09:17:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Did you ever go for senator Nelson or anyone
else?
09:18:05 >> We got our nomination out of Massachusetts.
09:18:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Anyone that does not know about the merchant
marine academy, it's a great place to learn.
It also has an option, as you know, to go into the military
track or go into seam seamanship.
Thank you for taking the military track.
I assume since you were going to San Diego you are a seal?
09:18:28 >> No, sir.
09:18:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And you?

09:18:33 >> Same.
09:18:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You guys don't get too separated, do you?
09:18:37 >> Really our major separation was our first year in
Afghanistan, actually.
09:18:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thanks again for what you have done for us
in Afghanistan and thank you very much for creating this
foundation.
We know -- and Chief Hamlin will tell you this because we
were at a luncheon last week at the Franciscan center
concerning first responders and how sister Annie is actually
really helping folks that are first responders to do exactly
what you are talking about, tell the story, have a retreat,
be able to actually bring down and take off that big weight
that's on their shoulders.
So thanks very much for what you do for us.
[ Applause ]
All right.
Our second item, Mr. Miranda will do the honors.
Mayor's Hispanic heritage committee.
09:19:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
It's my pleasure to introduce the good
folks from the mayor's Hispanic heritage committee and I
have a little thing to say here, and I am sorry that I will
not be able to attend this, the first year that I won't be
able to be there.
But these great people that work for the city put this fine

operation at the Tampa Theatre, and that's the only building
that's older than me.
They do a great job.
Please speak about your committee.
09:20:12 >> My name is.
Michelle Gomez.
I am the committee chair for the mayor's Hispanic heritage
committee, I along with my very hard working committee would
like to invite City Council, city staff, the public, to come
join us for our 28th annual Hispanic celebration at the
Tampa Theatre at 11 a.m., October 18th.
Our keynote speaker will be Susan Valdez.
She is a district one member of Hillsborough County school
board.
Ted Webb will be emceeing again this year as usual.
We will have a lot of entertainment.
This year it's going to be a dance montage.
Dance studios in the area will be dancing.
We are going to have flamenco dancing, just representing
different dances, representing the culture, different dances
that represent our culture.
And it's free to the public so we would love for everybody
to come join us.
We have the first 200 people will get free sampling of
Hispanic food.

So we would love for everybody to come join us.
09:21:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you very much.
09:21:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Again I appreciate everything you all
have done in the past and continue to do in the future but
just to get Ted Webb started so he has something in my
absence to speak of, he's the only one that I know of that
has a face for radio. He can make the crowd look lively.
In fact he went to Jefferson just like most of us did.
And he made an F once.
Do you know why?
Because they didn't give out Gs.
(Laughter)
Ted and I used to have something to speak on.
So go get them.
I'm sorry I won't be there but take care.
Have a nice time.
09:22:07 >> Thank you.
09:22:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you very much.
We appreciate what you do.
[ Applause ]
Next up is public comment.
Anyone that would like to speak on the agenda, anything
that's on the agenda except for those that are held for
public hearing may come forward at this time to speak.
Is there anyone that would like to make any kind of public

comment at this time?
Except for those items that are on the public agenda --
excuse me, I mean on the -- yeah.
Go ahead, sir.
09:22:42 >> For the record, on the record, private citizen Johnny
Bernard, without prejudice, all sovereign immunity rights,
rights reserved.
271985.
I am king.
I am here to talk about mostly about -- anyway, I talk about
erica.
We have two governments right now.
The U.S. election, electing the United States corporate body
for your present, but you have your American king,
president, president of the people, supposed to protect the
people in case the second government, United States
corporate body steps over the people and endangers those
people.
Now, I understand that most of this stuff has been like off
the record, not spoken of, because not too many of our
people within our government body has really taken the time
to sit down and study our laws and study any laws of the
nation.
We have gotten the corporate body together.
There's nothing really wrong with the corporate body, just

need to get to the work with the people at the same time.
Now, I read over the United States treaties as far as it has
government one as far as America goes.
I disagree with some of the treaties, because I don't agree
with the corporate body.
I believe within some of the treaties that you guys have
that you should be merging with the government.
And we have a process of government, all structures of
government.
I am just going to throw that out there because you in your
offices, you know what to do with that.
Now, as far as the United Nations as far as the true
commission goes.
I have been looking at that it's people sitting in front of
it sitting in front of it, a crossover from the federal
courthouse.
Put in a International tribunal, states that you should give
your sovereigns some type of government to help with the
process of America going forward with true sovereignty.
(Bell sounds)
And that's all I have for right now.
Thank you.
09:25:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Next, please.
Ed Tillou, Sulphur Springs.

Let's see if the individual your is working.
Okay, good.
Well, anyway, Derek Chamblee came and spoke about this a few
times and left these brochures which are called for right
now.
So anyway, this construction work, this is what you always
get around election time.
I noticed that many things have changed, like about 3 or 4
years ago the congestion came into Tampa, and the streets
became choked with cars.
But this is something that goes back a long time, like maybe
30 years.
This is how things are done in Florida.
People up north will hear about it.
Because what happens is the incumbents have created jobs.
They have created four or five Jobst.
They want everyone to know it.
So they close streets.
They cordon off buildings.
Things like that.
Things that you never see in other places where people are
too busy to worry about stuff like this.
And it's the incumbents.
So there might be a need for another projects, which have
been circumvented by at-large and it might be time for it

again because we get rid of incumbent, we get rid of all
this work with national negative impact on the community.
Okay.
With respect to a handout I put around, the ice on green
land is melting from the bottom.
There are whole big underground lakes under the ice.
So, anyway, that's very important because then that gives a
place where dry ice could be stored, carbon dioxide is dry
ice.
I went into this a little bit.
My grandmother's neighborhood, Williamsburg, and by using
the Wikipedia, I found my grandmother's great uncle's
armory.
So I have been corresponding with the governor of New York
about the possibilities of the sons of union veterans of the
civil war, we could use it as a camp.
And in return help with recruiting the National Guard units,
because the National Guard units might become very
important.
If we have a second civil war about this denial of global
warming change.
Okay, here were some things about the cigar industry.
(Bell sounds)
And it's like you should throw out all of the protections
that the public now has against cigarettes with cigars.

Well, I know a lot of people here, that's a perfect example
of original sin.
Their parents worked at something that harmed people.
And they say, well, that's what I have to do for my family.
Maybe, yeah, sometimes, but half as much as they say.
But I found that my great, great grandmother, Maria Luisa
Hanna was her name originally, but anyway she sold cigars.
(Bell sounds).
09:29:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak
at this time?
Anything that is not set for public hearing, those items
that are set for public hearing are 72 through 95.
Anything that is concerning that or any other item?
I see no one.
I would like to know if there's a request by the public for
reconsideration of any legislative matters at this time.
I also see no one.
Next up is item number 3.
It is an ordinance for first reading consideration.
Mr. Maniscalco, will you kindly take number 3?
09:29:42 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance of the city of
Tampa, Florida making revisions to the city Tampa of code of
ordinances chapter 13 offenses, 14-150 .1.3 possession,

consumption on property operated by the Parks and Recreation
Department, temporary alcoholic beverage public area
facility or property operated or supervised by the Parks and
Recreation Department repealing all ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflicts therewith, providing an effective
date.
09:30:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Second by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor? Any opposed?
09:30:25 >> The motion carried with Reddick and Montelione absent at
vote.
Second reading and adoption will be on October 20th,
2016 at 9:30 a.m.
09:30:36 >> next is committee reports.
09:30:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move items 4 through 10.
09:30:49 >> Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Next up is our parks, recreation, cultural committee.
09:31:00 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I move items 11 through 20.
09:31:04 >> I have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco, a second from Mr.
Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Next up is our Public Works Committee, Mr. Reddick is not

here at this time.
Mr. Maniscalco is our vice chair.
Can you take that committee?
09:31:18 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I move items 21 through 32.
09:31:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Maniscalco, a second
by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Finance Committee is next up.
Mr. Cohen is our chair.
09:31:33 >>HARRY COHEN:
[Off microphone.]
09:31:37 >> I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, a second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
We have our Building, Zoning and Preservation Committee,
Mrs. Montelione is our chair but she is not present.
Mrs. Capin, could you please take that for us?
09:31:52 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, I will.
Move items 46 through 51.
09:31:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
And Mrs. Capin, transportation committee chair.
09:32:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I will move item 62 through 69.
09:32:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mrs. Capin.

A second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Next up we have item number 70 and 71.
Both of these are being set for public hearing.
If I could --
09:32:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move the items set for public hearing as
stated on the agenda.
09:32:34 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Second.
09:32:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda, second from Mrs.
Capin.
All in favor of that motion for item 70 and 71?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
09:32:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to open public hearings 72 through
79.
09:32:48 >> Second.
09:32:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay.
Anyone that is going to speak on items 72 through 79, please
stand and be sworn in at this time.

Oh, nonquasi--
Never mind.
But you can be sworn in, too.
Mrs. Foxx-Knowles, we don't need to swear them in.
Thank you, Mrs. Capin.
Item number 72.
09:33:19 >>SAL TERRITO:
Legal department.
One is a cigarette tax bond.
Another is the funding.
And usually with conduit bonds, we issue the bonds and the
money will be loaned to them.
They will be solely responsible for the payment back, and we
will get a fee for doing this.
If there's any questions or people in the audience.
I would request you take each one separately, please.
Separate resolutions.
09:33:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Are there any questions from council?
Any questions or any comments from the public at this time
on item number 72?
09:34:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move resolutions 71 and 72.
09:34:09 >> We have to do it separately.
09:34:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
72, first one, City of Tampa.
09:34:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You don't need to read it.
If I can get a motion to close.
A motion from Mr. Miranda.

Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Mr. Miranda, if you could take up the first one.
09:34:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
The first one totally bonds equal to $71
million.
09:34:43 >> Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Do you want to take the second one, too?
09:34:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move the same resolution, 2016-88,
number 2 for the record, totaling 116 million-dollar.
09:35:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
2016-B.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
All right.
Thank you so much.
Item number 73.
09:35:10 >> Good morning, council members.
Melissa Dickens, Planning Commission staff.
This is the second reading for the ordinance this morning
for the capital improvement section update.
A presentation was given at a previous meeting.
If you have any questions I'm available.

09:35:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on item
number 73 at this time?
73.
Come forward.
Let's see, the class is going through.
Let's see if there's anyone else.
Okay, terrific.
I think we might have one individual that wants to speak.
This is on item number 73.
Please keep your comments to item number 73.
09:36:01 >> Ed Tillou:
Okay, yeah.
My name is Ed, Ed Tillou, Sulphur Springs.
In this regard, this combination on TBX.
Now, in other words, this is being presented like the TBX is
cracked.
And I went to county commission yesterday, and I saw about
two or three things, and I didn't get to one thing I wanted
to speak about was the public transportation commission on
this matter Uber and Lyft.
And what I wanted to say was that is, to a certain extent,
the only way that people who serve time in prison can find
work and not go back to prison.
But the county commission was pretty much insulated from
that.

Those people have come here and spoken about that here.
So I really should have done that.
Maybe I'll do it at the next meeting.
But the thing is, they need to put something on Uber an Lyft
saying these people have not been properly vetted, maybe
their insurance is -- so people get informed consent.
And I think there's a parallel to that here that there
should be some stipulation that this does not constitute
approval of the TBX, because that's been hashed around and
said and things.
And this is a time, you know.
A placard, a disclaimer or something like that.
And the county and Uber and Lyft, they can be sued, like if
they approve that and somebody gets robbed or murdered while
using Uber and Lyft, and the county commission would be on
the hook.
I don't think you would be on the hook with this, but maybe
it shouldn't be built.
09:37:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone else that would like to comment on item
number 73?
I see no one.
09:38:03 >> Motion to close.
09:38:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Cohen, I have a
second from Mr. Miranda.

All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
All right.
Item number 73, Mr. Cohen, will you kindly take that?
09:38:18 >> Move an ordinance for second reading and adoption, an
ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive plan, capital
improvements section by updating schedule of projects for
fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2021 and incorporating
by reference into the capital improvement section the
Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization's MPO
transaction improvement program, Hillsborough County area
regional transit development, capital projects, and the
Hillsborough County public schools facilities 5 year work
program providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict
providing for severability, providing an effective date.
09:38:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
09:39:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Please record your vote.
09:39:02 >>THE CLERK:
I see it was a unanimous vote.
09:39:13 >> Why don't we go Do a public vote since the public can't
see it.
09:39:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Yes.
09:39:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes.
09:39:20 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
09:39:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
09:39:22 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.

09:39:25 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
09:39:26 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously with Maniscalco
being absent at vote.
09:39:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Next up is item number 74.
09:39:35 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
Item 74 is a second reading in regards to plan amendment
16-02, Rattlesnake Point, and Planning Commission staff is
here if you have any questions.
09:39:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner?
09:40:06 >>GINA GRIMES:
Hill, Ward, Henderson, East Kennedy
Boulevard.
We represent the owner of the parcel, one of which is the
subject of this comp plan amendment and I'm here if you have
any questions.
09:40:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you very much.
Is there anyone in the public to be speak on item 74?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close by Mr. Miranda, a second from Mrs.
Capin.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mrs. Capin, will you kindly take the substitute ordinance
number 74?
09:40:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.

Substitute ordinance for second reading and adoption, an
ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan pertaining
to the objective and policies for redevelopment of the
Rattlesnake Point waterfront area providing for repeal of
all ordinances in conflict providing for severability,
providing an effective date.
09:40:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Capin, a second from
Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
Let's hope it shows up.
09:41:05 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
09:41:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 75.
09:41:17 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
This is in regards to plan amendment 16-03-A, a privately
initiated amendment.
This is second reading and Planning Commission staff is
present if you have any questions.
09:41:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Reddick.
09:41:35 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Question.
Explain to me and the audience, what is the purpose of an
overlay district?
09:41:45 >>DAVID HAY:
That would be zoning overlay in that
particular area, the details contained within the Land
Development Code.

We could see if someone staff is present to discuss the
overlay.
09:42:07 >> LaChone Dock, City of Tampa planning and development.
So Councilman Reddick, are you asking if this is a
request --
09:42:20 >>FRANK REDDICK:
No, no, I just want to know what is the
purpose?
We talk about overlay district all the time, and I just want
to know what is the purpose of the overlay district for our
community?
09:42:30 >> Generally, they set the design standards for that certain
area, for the boundaries.
Certain design standards are set in place.
So when you are at the point of permitting you follow those
specific design standards for that area.
09:42:43 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So in this particular item, 75, doctor the
petitioner meet the design standard for that particular
neighborhood?
09:42:57 >>DAVID HAY:
At this stage the plan amendment does not come
into play.
That comes in at the next phase which is the zoning phase.
So at the rezoning stage they would have to show detailed
height, setbacks, and at a comp plan stage we only look at
overall density, and the land use categories, give a general
idea of the development patterns to expect in the future in

that area.
09:43:28 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So once we get to the zoning stage, and it
is determined that the height pertaining to the proposal
from the petitioner does not meet the requirement in that
particular area, what happens to the project?
09:43:48 >>DAVID HAY:
Again, that's a zoning matter.
So the land use would remain the same.
The zoning would need to be reviewed with whatever the
applicant provides the PD or Euclidean-type zoning district,
but that is reviewed at that zoning -- if it's over the
height, would be a recommendation from the staff.
09:44:13 >>LaCHONE DOCK:
City of Tampa planning and development.
What would happen is that the future land use amendment
request for this would set the underlying land use on the
property, when it comes time for development, then the
applicant would submit to rezone the property.
If he rezoned to the a PD which is likely, be a planned
development, is controlled it W by the site plan.
At that time determines the site plan, the building height,
the area that he's going to build out, and the layout of the
site.
09:44:46 >>FRANK REDDICK:
So right now, because it's a plan
endment that we are dealing with, and not a zoning issue,
a previous discussion that the gentleman, the petitioner
stated to us about the height, the proposed development,

this would be taken up during the zoning phase of it?
09:45:09 >>LaCHONE DOCK:
Correct.
The specifics of the height would be stated at that time.
This is too early at this stage to fix that.
09:45:17 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, last question.
The plan amendment doesn't necessity that this person can
put up an eight-story, is that correct?
09:45:36 >>LaCHONE DOCK:
The land use that he's requesting, this
land use amendment, has that cap of the 8 to 10 stories.
For the UME 60.
Urban mixed use 60.
But it doesn't mean that he's developing to that.
09:45:51 >>DAVID HAY:
Right.
David Hay, Planning Commission staff.
The Heights that are contained in the land use within the
comp plan are general guidelines, and they are only used as
a reference to give people ideas, if they are reading the
comp plan, to understand what development types that they
should expect in the future.
So there's no regulatory aspect to the height described
within the comp plan.
09:46:20 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All of this is done through the zoning
process?
09:46:24 >>DAVID HAY:
Right.
It officially goes to the zoning process.

09:46:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions before I go to petitioner?
Petitioner?
09:46:30 >> Adam Hart on behalf of petitioner, 2313 Palacio Avenue.
I'm here to answer any questions if you have any.
09:46:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Are there any questions of the council or
the petitioner?
09:46:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have one question for him.
I received several calls from individuals who attempted to
have some dialogue with you and they informed me that you
have not returned their calls.
One in particular is Leon crew.
Now, they are trying to give you an opportunity to express
what you plan to do.
And it's sad when one person calls and says you have not
returned their calls, cannot even get a meeting with you of
what you plan to do.
I would suggest to you, so this won't be a detriment to not
only to you and the community, that you reach out to Mr.
Crew.
I think it's beneficial the that you have that conversation
so the public doesn't feel you are trying to hide something.
09:48:03 >> Willing absolutely.
Looked his number up and called him.
09:48:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
He wants to talk to you.
Thank you.

09:48:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other comments or questions by
petitioner? Is there anyone in the public that would like
to speak at this time on item number 75?
75?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close from Mr. Cohen, a second from Mr.
Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Because of the nature of the last vote, I will go to Mrs.
Capin again if we could, or Mr. Cohen on this item number
75.
09:48:45 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay.
Thank you.
Item PA-16-03-A, an ordinance being presented for second
reading and adoption, an ordinance amending the Tampa
Comprehensive Plan, future land use map, for the property
generally located at 1120 North Boulevard and 1002 West
Cypress street and 902, 906, 912 and 914 north Edison Avenue
from residential 35-R-35 to urban mixed use 60, UMU 60,
providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
providing for severability, providing an effective date.
09:49:29 >> Second.
09:49:30 >> Motion by Mrs. Capin.
A second from Mr. Cohen.

Please record your vote.
09:49:34 >>THE CLERK:
[Off microphone.]
09:49:44 >> If we can do voice roll call.
09:49:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
09:49:55 >>FRANK REDDICK:
No.
09:49:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
09:49:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
09:49:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
09:50:00 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Yes.
09:50:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
09:50:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 76.
Staff.
09:50:11 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
The next item, item 76, is second reading for the
city-initiated comprehensive plan amendment 1603-B, and I'm
here if you have any questions.
09:50:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is there anyone from staff that would like
to speak at this time?
Anyone on the council that would like any questions answered
at this time on this item?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 76?
76?
I see no one.

I have a motion to close from Mr. Cohen, a second from Mr.
Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Opposed?
Mr. Cohen, could you kindly take the substitute ordinance on
number 76?
09:50:59 >>HARRY COHEN:
Move a substitute ordinance being presented
for second reading and adoption, an ordinance amending the
Tampa Comprehensive Plan, future land use map for the
property located at 909, 911, 913, 1006 and 1008 West
Cypress street, 1002, 1007, 1010 West Lemon Street, 910,
1001 and 1010 west Cass Street and 707, 711, 3903, 905 and
907 north Delaware Avenue from residential 20 R-20
residential 35 R-35 and general mixed use GMU 24 to
neighborhood mixed use 35, NMU 35, urban mixed use 60, UMU
60 and community mixed use 35, CMU 35, providing for repeal
of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
providing an effective date.
09:51:53 >> Second.
09:51:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
I believe we are going to have to do a roll call vote.
Is that correct?
Beings I don't see anything on there.
Is it ready to go?

Please record your vote.
Let's see what happens now.
09:52:14 >> It's working.
09:52:24 >> Let's see if it comes up.
09:52:26 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick voting no.
09:52:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 77.
09:52:39 >>DAVID HAY:
Planning Commission staff.
This is your last comp plan-related amendment.
Second reading for plan amendment 16-05, a privately
initiated amendment, and Planning Commission staff is
present if you have any questions.
09:53:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions by council?
Petitioner?
09:53:03 >> Second reading, it was received by the council with great
support.
We appreciate your continuing consideration.
Thank you.
09:53:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 77?
77?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda, second from Mr.
Maniscalco.

All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Reddick, will you kindly take item number 77?
09:53:35 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Move an ordinance for second reading and
adoption, an ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive
Plan, future land use map for property generally located at
8426 North Florida Avenue from residential 20 R-20 to
community commercial 35, CC 35, providing for repeal of all
ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
providing an effective date.
09:53:56 >> Second.
09:53:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Reddick, a second
from Mr. Maniscalco.
Please record your vote.
09:54:03 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I got the wrong one.
There we go.
09:54:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It seems to be working.
09:54:17 >> There it is.
09:54:23 >> Mine says select again.
09:54:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Go ahead.
09:54:32 >> Motion carried with Capin voting no.
09:54:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
We will have a session on council how to vote later on.
(Laughter)
All right.

Item number 78 and 79.
You voted wrong?
Could we reset that?
09:54:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Sorry.
09:54:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We don't have to reopen to vote.
Mr. Reddick.
Does he have to read this?
No.
We can go with the same motion and revote.
Correct?
That will be fine.
We have a motion from Mr. Reddick.
We have a second, I believe, from Mr. Maniscalco.
Roll call vote, please.
09:55:12 >> Are we doing roll call?
09:55:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have to do roll call now.
09:55:20 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Oh, yes.
09:55:25 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
09:55:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes.
09:55:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes.
09:55:29 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Yes.
09:55:30 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes.
09:55:31 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
09:55:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Preoccupied with our relatives.
09:55:38 >> I'm sorry to hear that.

Item number 78 and 79 are already continued public hearings.
But those folks that are going to speak on items number 78
through 93, if you could stand and be sworn in at this time.
09:55:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
78.
09:56:09 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
City Council, the applicant has filed to amend this
petition.
Originally he asked for a small venue.
They are now asking it to be a restaurant, which is a more
restrictive classification.
They will be doing the annual reporting at this point.
It is for beer, wine, liquor on premises consumption only.
Before they asked for package sales.
They have removed that request.
The hours of operation indicate chapter 14 compliance.
With that, it does need to go back too first reading.
I did receive a letter from the Civic Association,
indicating he's removing his objection.
I can go back over the case if anybody has any questions.
I can just entertain those.
09:57:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions by council on this particular
item?
So now reading will be first reading?
09:57:14 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
It will be a first reading.
I believe the legal department has given the revised

ordinance to the clerk.
09:57:21 >> There will be a revised orthopedics.
It should be in your file but I'll make sure it's there.
Kristin Mora, legal department.
The revised ordinance will be as Mrs. Moreda stated, it will
be for consumption on premises only.
No package sales.
09:57:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Does the title change?
09:58:02 >> Could we continue this to the back of the agenda so I can
go upstairs and make sure we have the ordinance?
09:58:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We are here to make sure it goes through.
Okay.
So we will hold this item until after you come back.
Thank you so much.
Let us go on now to item number 79.
09:58:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.
Item number 79 is a second reading that has been requested
for continuance by the applicant due to some issues on their
end.
It was certified.
It is ready for second reading.
09:58:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Petitioner?
09:58:45 >> Good morning.
I am here if you have any questions.
Thank you.

09:58:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions from council by petitioner or staff?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item 79?
79?
I see no one.
Yes, sir?
09:59:24 >> I'm Ed, Ed Tillou from Sulphur Springs.
Okay.
I felt a responsibility to speak to this.
I was an aviator, like I did at county commission yesterday.
Not this parcel.
It was about MacDill.
But this tendency of the real estate machine to be moving in
on airports more and more.
Now, West Cypress, on the south side, has high-rises.
But I don't know what the implications of conversion from
airport compatibility to, say, an air conditioned
self-storage unit would be, because some of these
self-storage units that are air conditioned, they can go
several stories.
Now, three or four stories probably wouldn't be too bad.
But, you know, these place as round airports that they are
building like 15 and 20-story buildings.
And that's kind of International, where it's called

International Mall is an example.
It's like beginning so quickly, 9/11, because 9/11, aircraft
care years like about 7 or 8,000 gallons of fuel.
So I suppose one of those go into International Mall.
There's even more fuel down by MacDill, those tanker
planes.
They carry that much more.
And if that field is scrubbed because of building a hotel, I
understand in the path of the aircraft, they don't want --
Pentagon wouldn't want an aircraft with tens of thousands of
gallons of jet fuel crashing into a hotel.
So I assume it's 3 or 4 stories, but maybe they are allowed
unlimited.
Airport compatibility might say, well, no more than three
stories high, whereas this other thing, if it's air
conditioned self-storage, maybe it could be 20 or 30 stories
high.
I mean, I don't know if that's been investigated.
I think you should ask it, too, because if anybody has
learned about trusting their bureaucracy too much, Mr.
Krisman over in Pinellas County with respect to all of the
sewage going into the bay.
Now he trusted the people that worked for him.
But apparently he never got a copy of the report that they
were supposed to give him.

So you have got to judge your trust on this issue, because,
you know, incumbent, you know, one of these huge jets with
all of its fuel crashed into something that was too high,
you know.
10:02:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Anyone else in the public that would like to speak on item
number 79?
79?
Petitioner, do you want any rebuttal?
Okay.
I have a motion to close by Mr. Cohen, a second from Mr.
Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda.
10:02:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Airplanes don't carry gallons, they
carry weight.
FROM THE FLOOR: About well, but --
10:02:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Tillou, you have already had your time.
Will you kindly take number 79?
10:02:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes, sir.
Ordinance being presented for second reading and adoption,
an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
4907, 4909 West Cypress street in the city of Tampa, Florida
and more particularly described --

10:03:16 >> You are taking number 79?
Go ahead, Mr. Reddick.
Continue, sir.
10:03:22 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Start all over?
(Laughter)
Move an ordinance being presented for second reading and
adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 4907 and 4909 West Cypress street in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1
from zoning district classifications M-AP-1, airport
compatibility, to PD, planned development, air conditioned
self-storage, providing an effective date.
10:03:52 >> Second.
10:03:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Reddick, a second
from Mr. Cohen.
Please record your vote.
10:03:59 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Montelione being absent at
vote.
10:04:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 80.
Miranda move to open.
80 through 93.
10:04:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
I have a second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?

Any opposed?
Before we go forward, if there's anyone that's going to
speak on item 80 through 93, please stand and be sworn in,
80 through 93. (Oath administered by Clerk)
10:04:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Staff.
10:04:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land development.
Items number 80 through 87 have been certified and are ready
for second reading.
And then I will get the other items.
10:05:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Number 80.
Petitioner.
Anyone here on number 80?
Do you see anyone representing petitioner?
10:05:26 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.
This is the case on Obispo.
I do not see the applicant present.
10:05:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
If there's anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item 80, please come forward at this time.
Whoever has a cell phone ringing at this time, if you could
please silence it.
We have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
We have a second from Mrs. Montelione, I believe.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.

Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take item number 80?
10:06:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
File REZ 16-12.
Ordinance presented for second reading and adoption, an
ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4104
west Obispo street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
classifications RS-60 residential single-family to PD
planned development, residential, single-family detached,
providing an effective date.
10:06:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a second by Mr. Maniscalco.
Please record your vote.
10:06:29 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Cohen being absent at
vote.
10:06:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 81.
Anything to report, staff?
If not, petitioner, please come forward.
10:06:49 >> Singer & O'Donniley, south Oregon Avenue, here on behalf
of petitioner.
Just as a matter of procedural posture we will be appearing
before the ARC shortly.
This may come before the body again.
Happy to answer any questions.
10:07:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.

Any questions from council at this time?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 81?
81 at this time?
Please come forward.
I think there's someone coming up.
10:07:27 >> Bobby Wilson, West Tampa, member of the West Tampa CRA
committee.
As stated by the city at the earlier first reading the
rezoning is inconsistent with the land development, historic
preservation, and the West Tampa overlay urban design.
In addition, the inconsistencies in the proposed design,
with the zoning request, also inconsistent with other
institutions in Tampa related to fencing and signage.
At the synagogue on Bayshore at 2713 Bayshore, there is
no -- I think this works -- there is no fencing a long
Bayshore.
Also, at the synagogue at 3303 West Swann Avenue, there's no
fencing either.
As you can see there's no fencing along Lincoln Avenue or
DeLeon street.
Also, there's no fencing at the Holocaust museum which is an
urban setting.
I'm quite sure that the JCC will have adequate safety
protocols with cameras, security checkpoints, and additional

designs when there are special events, that are trained to
identify and mitigate potential threats.
In regards to the signage, the questions I had, are two
signs really necessary for Howard street, which is a one-way
street?
Most likely not.
In closing, I ask you guys to reconsider and deny the
rezoning request.
It is inconsistent with land development.
It's inconsistent with urban design.
It is inconsistent with preservation factors.
It's also inconsistent for safety concerns.
10:09:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Mrs. Capin?
10:09:32 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay, yes.
Obviously, I agree with the comments of fencing.
And I mentioned that back when the JCC came up about the
parking lot.
And I misspoke about it being rezoned for alcoholic
beverage.
What they came up for was to fence in the parking lot.
And it was stated that they would have events in the parking
lot.
So that's what -- we are going piecemeal, fencing
replacing -- it does not need a fence on Howard Avenue.

It does not need a fence on Howard Avenue.
It's the most unwelcoming thing that we could approve.
This is voted as a community place.
And yes, we are going to have the arts center from the city
park there, but let's invite the community in.
The community is not going to come in.
So, again, I stand by my vote.
It's a no.
And we should not be fencing this property in.
Thank you.
10:10:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Reddick.
10:10:51 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If the gentle come back up again.
I am going to ask you a question.
I'm thankful that you brought those pictures here today.
Because there was testimony at the first hearing that the
location had a fence around it.
10:11:19 >> There is a partial fence there, but there's --
10:11:25 >>FRANK REDDICK:
There was discussion about a fence around
this facility.
And I'm thankful that you did that.
And that's the reason why I did not support it.
I don't think a fence should go around there, and I told
this board the underlying reason for it.
But I am glad you pointed that out, and -- and seeing those

pictures means more than the testimony that I heard on the
first hearing.
Thank you.
10:12:00 >> Anyone else?
Mr. Miranda.
10:12:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
First of all, this has been something
that was vacant and not used properly.
And I thank the good people who put investments and made
this armory a place for worship, a place for recreation for
all, a place for meeting for all.
Certainly had a fence around the perimeters of the north
side, the west side, and the south side.
But I don't recall fencing on one side other than where the
building is to the north.
The armory itself, the front side was never fenced.
And although I am in disagreement with the professional who
talked about why the fence was there, I just feel that my
vote for no remains the same, only because of the fence in
front of it.
It takes away all that you want to get, not only for
yourself, for this city and for this country.
The freedom to walk, the freedom to express, the freedom to
enjoy.
And that's why I voted no.
Thank you, chairman.

10:13:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Anyone else before I go to Mrs. Capin?
Mr. Cohen.
10:13:11 >>HARRY COHEN:
It's an unfortunate thing in the world today
that a lot of institutions like Jewish community centers and
synagogues are targets for violent attacks.
The fact of the matter is, I stand by what I said about my
congregation.
I'm a member of both those congregations.
And in both cases, the fence that exists, particularly at
that Shalom, there is absolutely no access to the building
outside the fenced area.
There is literally a wall.
So I am not going to get into semantics about one fence or
the other.
But the fact of the matter is these are heavily secured
facilities for a God reason.
I am sorry that people feel it's unwelcoming but the fact of
the matter is that the security considerations that they
have are significant, and they are doing their best to try
to meet them.
And that's why I voted for it.
And that's why when I went to services a couple of days ago,
I had to walk through a fenced area in order to get inside
the building.
So, you know, you can argue about it.

There are 100% fencing around the structure, but the fact of
the matter is, these buildings are routinely fenced for
security purposes, and security purposes only.
10:14:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Capin was first on the second round,
sir.
But is there anyone else that would like to speak now before
I go to second round?
Okay.
I'm getting Mrs. Capin first because she was up first and
Mr. Miranda.
Go ahead.
10:14:59 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
The entrance to this facility is where?
Where is the entrance to this facility, the design?
The entrance to this facility is where?
Is anybody there to know what the entrance is?
10:15:18 >> Singer & O'Donniley.
We have an entrance here and here as well.
10:15:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
You have an entrance on Howard Avenue?
10:15:36 >> This is the ceremonial entrance.
10:15:39 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
There's not a walkway there.
There is a walkway.
You are leaving the existing walkway that was there.
There was a walkway.
Is that Howard Avenue there?
The print is so small.

It's to the right.
10:15:53 >> Howard Avenue here, yes.
10:15:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
So leaving the walkway that was there.
10:15:59 >> There is a gate.
10:16:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
It shows there, there is a walkway there,
has been there forever.
10:16:06 >> There is a gate here which provides access.
10:16:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
What are they going to do with the walkway?
They are going to take it out?
Also, the main entrance is where?
10:16:25 >> This is the front facade here.
10:16:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
That's the front facade which is not Howard
Avenue.
It is not Howard Avenue.
And that is my pint.
That is totally fenced in.
And to get into that entrance, you have to go to the
fenced-in parking.
Therefore, that door, that entrance on Howard Avenue is open
to the public.
I would find hard to believe when the main entrance is in a
fenced-in parking lot.
Where is the walkway that has been there?
Is it there still, Abbye?
Thank you, if you have it.

I'm sorry, Mrs. Feeley.
10:17:17 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.
This is the third rezoning on this property.
If I may, there is a walkway still shown.
This area here is not going to be -- there is a grass area
shown as a lawn area, I don't know.
10:17:45 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Okay, I need to know, they are undoing the
historic factor of this building.
That walkway is -- was very important to this building.
And I didn't see it last time and I wondered about it.
And it is not the main entrance.
It is -- there's a gate there, but there's no walkway.
You know --
10:18:13 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
There is a small sidewalk that will come
down onto Gray Street, but I think that's why you also had a
finding from the ARC that the requested fence and that
ceremonial entry was inconsistent with secretary of interior
standards for the preservation of the entry.
There were some preliminary discussions about using
something more low level that could also stop vehicles from
parking there, or entering into that lawn area, but the
applicant chose to continue to seek the fencing.
And fencing we had originally done through the last rezoning
terminated at the building here and terminated up on the
gated parking area to the north.

There was security in this area here, but this remained
open.
So this last, third request that's before you is for the
fencing here.
10:19:14 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I agree, it is inconsistent.
It's major inconsistent.
And what we are getting there is a lawn.
A 3-foot wrought iron fence is not going to stop anybody.
And particularly a car.
Do you think a car cannot drive right through that fence?
I mean, seriously, people.
It's wrought iron?
10:19:53 >> It's aluminum.
10:19:55 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Worse.
Even easier.
Okay.
There has to be another way of protecting the people.
There has to be.
This is not the one.
This is not the one.
And I agree that it is inconsistent.
Thank you.
10:20:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Miranda.
10:20:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I would have supported this petition otherwise, but I

don't tell the petitioner how to design, build, construct a
building.
I never have and never will.
I did offer a suggestion that right adjacent to the
sidewalk, made a beautiful building with all the great needs
and all the desires of all of us to make this thing go.
But more like a prison F.this fence would have been put
eight, ten feet to the west, it would have given a different
appearance to the building.
But they put their heels in the ground and they said, no,
that's not what we need.
You know, I understand protection.
I understand what all of us have been through, especially
the Jewish faith, horrific crimes.
But you can't protect everybody.
The future is not going to be by walls.
How are you going to protect about drones?
There will be more drones flying pretty soon than there are
cars in the street.
There's tens of thousands of drones that have been permitted
by this government, not us, the country, the federal
government.
And if you are going to stop them, what are you going to
build?
Every building?

You can't do that.
It's time to understand that -- I am not against a building.
I have always supported the building.
I have always supported everything this petitioner has done
other than the fence on the front.
And at one time, the front used to be just about 50-50 with
the main entrance of the building.
Yes, we do the building to the north but we also use the
building to the east.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman.
10:21:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, Mr. Reddick.
10:21:59 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
10:22:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Excuse me, you want to go again after Mr.
Reddick?
Before you go, Mr. Reddick, is there anyone else that's
going to speak at this time who has not spoken so that we
can go forward?
Mr. Reddick, I apologize.
10:22:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
It will be my last comment.
Let me just say I am not here this morning trying to
convince anyone on this council to change their position.
But I'm going to ask the gentleman if he will be willing to
put those pictures in the record.
I don't know if you have your own personal copy, or
additional copies.

So I would suggest that you put those pictures in the record
so we can see what we heard in the first reading.
And I think that's important.
So it's up to you.
10:22:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If you can please give it to our attorney,
please.
10:22:55 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Thank you.
And let me just say that I agree with colleague Mr. Miranda.
I have no objection to this and think it will be a very,
very valuable to this community.
But there's no need to make this community look like they
are in holy hell because they have a fence out there to
protect, and as it was stated, it looks more like a crime
scene than a community center.
Let me just say -- and Abbye, speaking about the Jewish
community and the threats on their lives.
But I need to remind people of history.
People have antagonized black churches for years.
Just recall what happened in Charleston, see what happened
in Alabama, see what happened in Atlanta, Georgia, see what
happened in Georgia.
I can go on and on.
Black churches have been bombed for years.
But in the black community, we don't believe in putting up a
fence.

It's up to God to protect us.
And that's who we serve.
So I sympathize with what's said here today.
And I am not here to convince any votes, but I want history
and I want the truth to be stated.
And be displayed in the record.
And that's the reason why I am saying what I am saying
today.
Thank you.
10:24:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Capin, I am going to let you go first.
And Mrs. Montelione, we will let you go afterwards.
Is that okay? I asked earlier.
10:25:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That's okay.
I was thinking about --
10:25:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
10:25:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I agree whenever my colleagues, that I was
the one that asked if this fence placed four foot from the
sidewalk, just four foot, would it not serve the same
purpose?
And you can look up the record.
That's what I asked.
And probably would have passed.
But they would have to leave the sidewalk as far as I'm
concerned.

Also, the director, one of the statements were, if one life
is lost, he was saying, it's on your shoulders.
Those kinds of threats are not welcome.
Nobody is responsible for anybody else's action.
I'm done.
Thank you.
10:26:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, Mrs. Montelione.
10:26:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
You know, personal safety is sometimes a perception to a
potential threat.
And we utilize a lot of different mechanisms to make
ourselves feel safe.
A lot of the communities, at least the ones in my district,
are gated.
Sometimes they don't have a guard at the gate.
Sometimes then don't have the little up and down arms or
actual physical gates.
But it's the feeling of that safety, because you are passing
through that entryway.
And, you know, I don't want to get into religion versus
religion or, you know, who is welcoming, who is not, but I
can tell you many of the mosques that I have been to, there
are some that are almost storefronts, or there's one on
Busch Boulevard that, you know, used to be some other
professional office.

I think it was an accountant.
And now there's a mosque that occupies that building.
And I can tell you they were recently the victims of arson.
During Friday's services.
And there's another one that also does not have any
protection, was also if victim of arson.
I can also tell you there's other mosques that have not only
fences but have walls.
So, you know, having some kind of feeling of comfort -- and
it's unfortunate that we live no world with so much hatred
and so much misunderstanding that increasingly security
measures are not only impossible but they are preferable.
Many of the people who get on airplanes are not a threat to
anyone, but we all go through those security measures.
Whether you are a threat or not.
So sometimes individuals have to give up a little bit of
their safety so that others can be comfortable knowing that
they are being protected.
And in some ways, that is why I supported this petitioner's
application.
And I'll continue to support it, because I think people
should be able to go to their place of worship and feel
comfortable, they should be able to attend events there
whether it's a wedding or it's a tea party, they should be
able to feel comfortable and safe when they are there.

And whether it's a perceived or a real comfort protection.
You know, if somebody wants to blow up a building, it's not
going to matter whether that fence is wrought iron or
aluminum or concrete.
They are going to blow up that building.
So it is in some ways, yes, it's a deterrent, yes, it slows
people down, yes, all of the security -- the security expert
that was here during the testimony, this is when we first
heard this application, all of those measures matter
anti-and count.
But it's really the personal safety the public feels when
they are there.
And it's an inconvenience just like it is that you have to
take your shoes off, your belt off, your keys out of you're
pocket and everything else when you go through the airport.
It's an inconvenience.
To some of us.
But, you know, someone who is usually a defender of historic
preservation in this case, I think it's a small price to pay
for folks to feel safe when they are at this community
center.
Whether they are Jewish or secular Christian or anyone else,
because it is open to anybody.
It's not just a Jewish facility.
And I'll continue to support it.

10:30:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak
at this time?
We have already had some public comment.
Is there anyone else on item number 81?
Please come forward.
I see no one.
10:30:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
10:30:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion to close -- excuse me, sir?
I apologize.
Do you want any rebuttal, sir?
10:30:53 >> No, we'll waive our rebuttal.
10:30:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
We have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda, a second from
Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Cohen, will you kindly take item number 82.
10:31:10 >> I move an ordinance being presented for second reading
and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 522 North Howard Avenue in the city of Tampa,
Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from
zoning district classification PD planned development,
daycare, preschool, recreational facility, commercial,
private, and place of assembly, to PD, planned development,

daycare, preschool, recreational facility, commercial,
private, place of assembly, and public cultural facility,
providing an effective date.
10:31:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, a second from
Mrs. Montelione.
Please record your vote.
10:31:50 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Miranda, Reddick, Capin
voting no.
10:32:05 >> Thank you.
Item number 82.
Staff.
Okay, petitioner.
10:32:15 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
My address is suite 3700 Bank of America
Plaza.
On behalf of ABC Capital.
And we are requesting second reading this morning.
10:32:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions by council?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 82?
82 at this time?
10:32:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
10:32:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?

Yes, sir.
10:32:51 >>HARRY COHEN:
I'm abstaining because my father is a
petitioner.
I'm filing a form.
10:33:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
[Off microphone.] Mrs. Montelione, will you
kindly take number 82?
10:33:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Certainly, sir.
Let me turn the page.
I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and
adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
vicinity of 5011, 5013, 5015, 5017, 5019 and 5021 South
MacDill Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
classification CG commercial general to PD planned
development residential single-family attached, providing an
effective date.
10:33:37 >> Second.
10:33:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, a second
from Mr. Miranda.
Please record your votes.
10:33:42 >>THE CLERK:
[Off microphone.] motion carried with Cohen
abstaining and Maniscalco --
10:34:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
83.
Staff, petitioner?
Do a pony and dance while somebody -- okay?

10:34:22 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
I have enjoyed the company this morning.
However, this is my item.
(Laughter).
10:34:39 >> State your name.
10:34:43 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
Rezoning petition requesting Euclidean
rezoning on 4503 northwest A street.
10:34:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
number 83?
83 at this time?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
I have a second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take item number 83?
10:35:10 >> Move file REZ 16-55, an ordinance presented for second
reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 4503 west North "A" street in the city
of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section
1 from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
single-family to RM-18 residential multifamily providing an
effective date.
10:35:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Second by Mr. Cohen.
Please record your vote.

10:35:35 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick and Maniscalco
being absent at vote.
10:35:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 84.
10:35:53 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
I'm also representing petitioner in this
one.
10:36:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We still need to know who you are.
10:36:06 >>STEVE MICHELINI:
Steve Michelini.
10:36:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions by council of the petitioner?
Is there anyone in the automobiles that would like to speak
on number 84, 84 at this time?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Mrs. Capin, will you kindly take item number 84?
10:36:28 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
An ordinance rezoning property in the
general vicinity of 3911 West Cleveland Street in the city
of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section
1 from zoning district classifications RS-60 residential
single-family to RS-50, residential single-family, providing
an effective date.

10:36:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Second.
10:36:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mrs. Capin, a second from Mr.
Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:36:53 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick and Maniscalco
being absent at vote.
10:37:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Number 85.
Is petitioner here on item number 85?
8440 North Florida Avenue.
Yes, ma'am, please come forward.
10:37:19 >> Diana casenna, for change from RS 20 to commercial CI.
I have worked very hard to get it into compliance and to be
able to have enough distance without having any issues with
the city or with the state or with anyone.
So I ask for your approval.
10:37:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, ma'am.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
number 85, 85, REZ 16-57?
I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
A second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Cohen, will you kindly take number 85.
10:38:09 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move an ordinance being presented for

second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 8440 North Florida Avenue in the
city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50
residential single-family and CI commercial intensive to CI
commercial intensive, providing an effective date.
10:38:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen, a second from
Mr. Miranda.
Please record your vote.
10:38:38 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Reddick and Maniscalco
absent.
10:39:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Number 86.
10:39:07 >>DAVID MECHANIK:
305 South Boulevard.
I'm here on behalf of the applicant.
We request your support of the ordinance for second reading
and would be happy to answer any questions.
10:39:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
number 86, REZ 16-59?
10:39:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
10:39:28 >> Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Okay, 86.

Mr. Maniscalco, will you please take that?
10:39:42 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 800 south Harbor Island Boulevard
in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
described in section 1 from zoning district classifications
PD planned development, bank, to PD planned development,
bank and office, business professional, providing an
effective date.
10:40:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
Do I have a second?
I have a second from Mrs. Capin.
Please record your vote.
10:40:09 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
10:40:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 87.
10:40:24 >> Michael Horner, North Dale Mabry highway, the
representing the applicant.
This is for second reading.
Happy to answer any questions.
10:40:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is any questions from council?
Is there anyone in the public to speak on number 87, REZ
16-52?
I see no one.
Motion to close by Mr. Miranda, second by Mr. Maniscalco.

All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mrs. Montelione, will you kindly take number 87?
10:40:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property
in the general vicinity of 808, 810, A/B, and 812 North
Howard Avenue, 801 and 811 North Armenia Avenue, 2310 west
state street and 2315 West Lemon Street in the city of
Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1
from zoning district classifications CI commercial intensive
to PD planned development, residential, multifamily,
providing an effective date.
10:41:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
Please record your vote.
10:41:38 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
10:41:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Item number 88.
88.
10:41:44 >>Michael Horner:
14502 north Dale Mabry Highway
representing applicant.
This is the developer agreement.
Be happy to answer any questions.
10:41:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Is there anyone in the public that would
like to speak on item number 88 with, I is E-2016-8-chapter
27?
I see no one.

Do I have a motion to close?
I have a motion from Mr. Miranda, a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
And this is a resolution.
If we could have Mrs. Montelione just move that resolution.
10:42:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Move the resolution, sir.
10:42:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a motion from Mrs. Montelione, a
second from Mr. Maniscalco
Voice vote.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Item number 89.
10:42:44 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.
Item number 89 on your agenda this morning is REZ 16-60,
1300 south Dale Mabry.
This is the proposed new Starbuck's.
At the last hearing on September 22nd, it was presented to
you that night, there was one issue related to solid waste,
and the maneuvering of the truck.
We had proposed two notes that evening, and subsequent to
that evening, the applicant had a meeting with solid waste.
Solid waste did not agree with those notes, and they
proposed a note of their own.

I have that note to be added to the plan.
So what I would ask for you to do this morning is if it's
the pleasure of council to approve that, put it back on
first reading, with a motion including the note that I am
about to read to you so that the site plan could be revised
one more time with that note related to the solid waste.
The applicant has gone ahead, made that modification and
provided that plan.
But given the motion on the table was something different
than that from 9-22 I would need you to go back on first
reading this morning, make that motion.
The note would be that solid waste collection shall be
assigned to the service attendant route with the use of a
compacter, and this will ensure that it will go on a prime
route and will not be -- that being said, that would be the
modification for this morning.
It would go back on first reading with the addition of that
notation.
If you would so kindly.
And the applicant is here as well.
10:44:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner?
10:44:28 >>GINA GRIMES:
Hill, Ward, Henderson, 101 East Kennedy
Boulevard.
And ordinarily, no situation like this, we wouldn't make any

kind of presentation.
However, this morning I see one of our adjacent property
owners and neighbor who spoke in opposition at the very
first hearing is here.
So I just, if you don't mind, would like to just highlight
some of the changes that we made in the site plan to
potentially address some of the comments.
I want to remind council, I know you were not here at the
last hearing, but I want to remind council members that we
did revise the plan.
Actually, this is now referred to as option 3, and actually
option 4 with the additional language that we have added.
And we do have extensive buffering along the rear of the
site.
In fact what I have shown here in green is the green space
area.
The neighbor who is here this morning owns right here.
But we have -- keep in mind we have met code in all
respects.
We meet the special use standards with the 50-foot setbacks
for the queue Lane.
The queue Lane is now 60 feet away.
We saved that grand tree.
And we have also agreed to hide the dumpster to add
extensive bamboo to screen from some of the neighbors.

So not only have we met code but we have exceeded the code.
Our queue space is the two queue line is more than twice
what the city code requires.
We have that much queuing on-site.
The window, or the box where you odd, is 130 feet away, and
the pickup window is 230 feet away from the rear property
line.
That exceeds code.
Code only requires 50-foot.
130 and 230.
Again, the existing conditions out there are not the best,
and we think this proposal will be a substantial
improvement.
This is the back of the site.
This is this area right back here.
Right now, what you have is this wall along the Palma Ceia
court subdivision.
That's right now where employees from Lykes park adjacent to
the wall.
This is immediately adjacent to Mr. Sheridan's property.
Here is more examples of the working -- parking.
Employees arrive at approximately 5 a.m.
This is actually the cars that park there.
It shows that it will be -- currently it's directly adjacent
to Mr. Sheridan's property.

In the future, the parking will be substantially further
away from where it is right now.
Also, as far as the trash pickup, the trash pickup right now
occurs with it.
Solid waste trucks come in the back of this site and access
the dumpsters, which are unbuffered at this stage.
Again, in the future, they will be buffered.
Here is a picture of a second dumpster.
No buffering at all.
They come along the back of the site along Palma Ceia court
and pick up the dumpsters.
In the future they will come in off of Dale Mabry, come here
further away from the site back out and then back out Dale
Mabry.
So you won't have been that traffic along that back wall
coming to the rear of this site.
The other issue dealing with the hours of operation, I will
just address this very quickly, as you know, we went back to
Starbuck's several times.
In fact they made the comment that every time we came back,
the plan plans worked as far as they were concerned but we
think we are now at a point where we have a really good plan
in the fact that it meets all the code requirements and
exceeds them, and also that none of the staff is objecting,
not even the Planning Commission is objecting now.

However, on the operating hours, we went back to Starbuck's
again to ask them whether or not they would agree to further
restrictions, and they will not.
Hours of operation is not a code requirement.
We think we have adequate buffering.
And if we have to propose hours of operation we are going to
lose Starbuck's at this location.
I also want to point out the property right now is currently
zoned CG.
Thereof could be CG uses on that site right now including 24
hour restaurant like a Waffle House or IHOP.
You could also have a small hotel or motel there.
You could have a vet office.
You can have a small kennel.
You can have a pharmacy.
You can have a gas station just by right.
So we think that this site plan, this PD, with all of these
conditions and all of the conditional buffering, provides
the neighbor, actually, more certainty and more protection
than what would exist if we left the current zoning intact.
And then the other thing I want to mention, too -- and the
Sheridans have a beautiful home, but I do want to point out
that they are located immediately adjacent to CG property,
and 300 feet from Dale Mabry highway.
They bought their home in 1989, and actually in 1989, there

was a checker's drive-through that existed almost in the
exact location of the subject site.
This area was actually taken in 1994.
And I am starting to sound like Mr. Miranda when I say I
remember when there was a checker's drive through, but I do
remember when there was a checker's drive-thru.
This is Palma Ceia court, the checker's drive-thru
previously existed.
So my point now, this is the Sheridan's home and Palma Ceia
court is a beautiful subdivision, beautiful homes, but it is
immediately adjacent to CG property at 300 feet from Dale
Mabry highway.
We are doing the best we can with be this plan to whichever
buffer it, protect them from any potential impact from this
development, and we think that this third option that we
have definitely provided that, even more so than what the
current zoning would provide.
So with that, I will let petitioner speak and reserve time
for rebuttal.
10:51:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
At this time is public comment.
Is there anybody in the public that wants to speak on this
item at this time?
Sir.
10:51:12 >> Good morning.

My name is Tom Sheridan, Palma Ceia court, South Tampa.
I am not going to go tit for tat with the attorney
representing petitioner.
You can take certain facts and look at them different ways.
But when I speak today, I just want to mention I am speaking
for the south view Civic Association, Palma Ceia homeowners
association, as well as the petitioners that have signed the
petition questioning the hours for the Starbuck's.
Now, I understand -- I didn't make the last meeting that you
had -- that they did approve plan number 3, which we are
pleased with.
And I'm happy to have see that both Starbuck's and the
council agreed with our position at that time.
However, what I am not sure about, and what I am looking
forward to confirmation, is certain verbal commitments were
made here at the first meeting back at the end of September
there, and where they were talking about adding additional
shrubbery on both sides of the wall, and bamboo on their
side, some lady palms on our side of the wall, and Mary
Samaniego, they couldn't remember if that was there or not.
But did remember the commitments being made at the time.
In addition, they also committed to using low lighting as
opposed to the high lights.
And she was not sure, but there's no record of that being
there.

So I am looking right now, if those commitments are being
met, we are happy, making the best of what we have.
We still do have a concern about the hours of the
drive-thru, not the restaurant but the drive-thru, and the
location of the dumpster site.
When I look at the plan, there really isn't much where else
they can really put that dumpster.
So I concede that point.
But I would like some confirmation on the verbal commitments
made at the meeting about the plantings on both sides, as
well as on the low lights.
Now, there are some -- if we are trying to be good
neighbors, it does matter to us in the area.
10:53:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Mr. Sheridan.
Mrs. Feeley, do you want to answer those questions quickly?
And then I will go to Mrs. Capin.
10:54:06 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I wanted to verify the lighting.
10:54:11 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.
As I said, they have revised the plans, and the we could not
certify them technically because the motion on the table did
not address the modifications, weren't certifiable, so to
speak, but let me show you the plans that I do have.
As you will see here, note number 2 says adequate lighting
shall be installed on-site and shall be directed away from
residential uses and shall be nonfill and no-glare lighting.

That note would take care of that.
10:54:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
[Off microphone.] isn't that a requirement?
10:54:52 >> Yes.
10:54:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I want to make sure that's a requirement,
something that they are giving up, a requirement.
10:55:01 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Our code on all commercial properties
require that you do not fill on any adjacent residential.
The second item is the landscaping on the backside.
Here.
10:55:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You are going to have to shrink down your
plans when you come with certified copies.
That might be a good idea.
10:55:28 >> But what happens is when I put it on its going to be
small when I show you.
For this back area here, you will see this 14, and then when
you switch, the thing, the legend, sorry, "the thing," they
are going to plant 15 -- 14, sorry, that SP number, and then
the 5 BN was the bamboo.
This landscape sheet is part of the plan that they are
proposing to bring back in between first and second reading.
And like I said, could not accept it technically given where
you are in the process.
But both those items have been submitted to on the site
plan.
Any further questions?

10:56:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions from council?
To be clear, this is back to first reading.
Terrific.
Okay.
Mrs. Grimes?
Before you go, let me ask if there's anyone else in the
public who would like to speak on this item number 89.
89.
Mrs. Grimes.
10:56:44 >>GINA GRIMES:
I have nothing further to add.
10:56:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So you are still stipulating that that is
correct?
10:56:52 >>GINA GRIMES:
Yes.
10:56:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Perfect.
Thank you.
10:56:53 >> Move to close.
10:56:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion to close about from Mr. Cohen.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco, will you kindly take number 89?
10:57:07 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
first reading and adoption.
Correct?
10:57:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Correct.

10:57:13 >> An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
1300 South Dale Mabry Highway in the city of Tampa, Florida
and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning
district classifications CG commercial general to PD planned
development, restaurant with drive-in window, providing an
effective date.
10:57:27 >> Second.
10:57:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco.
I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mrs. Feeley, you are not going to talk to me about this
particular item, are you?
Okay.
We are going to have to reopen --
10:57:44 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I just need the motion to carry that --
10:57:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, for the revision.
10:57:49 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
So moved.
10:57:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Can we go back?
Mr. Maniscalco's motion, Cohen second, to include the
revision sheet.
We took the vote.
The vote was unanimous.
I correct on the legal side?
10:58:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Yes, by unanimous consent.

10:58:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Marshall.
Number 90.
10:58:12 >> Can we go back to 78 of that we deferred?
124 if that's okay, we will.
Let's go back to number 78.
10:58:27 >> Kristin Mora, legal department.
Council, sorry about that.
We did submit a memorandum circulating this.
It made it into the clerk's office.
But you have before you now the correct ordinance on this,
and this is a first reading on the ordinance for a
restaurant consumption and sales on premises only.
10:58:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Terrific.
Thank you so much.
Any questions by council at this time on this item number 78
for the new first read?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 78, file AB 2-16-21?
Anyone?
Petitioner, could be you go ahead and if you have anything
to add?
10:59:21 >> I'm not sure Gloria finished her report.
Todd Pressman, Palm Harbor, Florida.
Mr. Hart and I worked very hard the last couple of weeks.

As Gloria has presented to you, we radically changed what
was proposed previously.
We are currently asking for restaurant versus small venue.
We have removed the off-premises which was a concern of some
of the members.
And we are going to be consistent with chapter 147 on hours
of operation which was a concern of another member.
I'll let you know that we also went back to the Davis Island
Civic Association, and they did meet the other night and
they have submitted a letter to Gloria, which I have a copy
four, that they have reversed their opposition and are now
supporting the request.
And they do cite the change of the on premises sales.
I do remind you that John has operated this site, this exact
site for four years.
All he's seeking to do is expand to the unit next door for
the same type of operation.
He has a great track record, never had a problem, never had
a complaint, the police report is outstanding and he's been
in the industry for eight years.
The kitchen will also be expanded and will take up about one
third of the new space.
So I will put in the record that -- I will also submit again
the petition of 112 signatures of very close-by individuals
as well as other folks along Davis Island who are in

support, and again in summary, we obviously worked very hard
and ask for your support.
11:01:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
One last time is there anyone else in the
public to speak on item number 78?
78 at this time?
I see no one.
I apologize.
I did not see you, ma'am.
Are you talking -- if you could come forward if you are
going to speak.
This is on item number 78 which deals with the Davis Island
location.
11:01:17 >> Correct.
Yes.
I do still --
11:01:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Ma'am, if you could state your name.
I apologize.
11:01:27 >> Sorry.
Lorraine Smith, I live at 215 Columbia drive.
80 years old today and getting a little too old to get up.
[ Applause ]
Thank you.
I live adjacent to this property that is in discussion.
And I know there's been some revision.
And if the staff could clarify what has been revised as far

as what has been drafted and what exists because I can tell
you now that that alleyway is very overburdened with
activity.
And I would like clarification of what is being proposed
right now before we go further.
Is that possible?
11:02:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Absolutely, ma'am.
We have Mrs. Moreda here who will answer that question for
you.
If you could stop her time, so that we can have Mrs. Moreda,
so if she has any questions she can ask.
Mrs. Moreda, please.
11:02:35 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
The request before you today is for a restaurant, beer,
wine, liquor, on premises consumption only.
It originally asked for small venue, and both the package
sales as well as the on-site consumption.
They have dropped that and it's really not going to be a
reporting restaurant.
Chapter 14, hours of operation.
They are still meeting the waivers cited in the original
report, including the parking waivers, the distance
separation from residential, and some other AB
establishments.
11:03:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Really the only difference now is that they

have changed it so they are not going to be able to take
alcoholic beverages off-site as a package, and also
essentially saying the same thing, only now they are going
to have some liquor sales.
11:03:31 >> They are going to have to actually report annually to the
food and alcohol.
11:03:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Ma'am, I don't know if that answers your
question.
11:03:40 >> Yes, that does help.
As far as the parking,
There's no parking really available now.
If you look at the staff report, I'm thinking this was fine
and dandy but they really missed an important part of the
activity in the alleyway, which is very overburdened right
now.
The Civic Association did not object this time around
because they were under the impression that the package
store issue had been settled.
My perspective is from a personal point of view, because I
still affected by the deliveries that come very early in
the morning.
The trash people that come and others.
And when I go out to the drivers to ask why they are
disturbing the residents at 6:30 in the morning, they'll
tell me that that allyway is too compact and too busy to

come later.
So in effect you are really abusing the residents that are
along that opposite end of the alleyway.
Now, as several people are aware of this, and over the
years, you would think, well, that's deliveries.
But there's also the access and maintenance and repair.
Because the alleyway is always so busy, there, in my mind,
being made at all hours of the night for roof or air
conditioning or other equipment.
They do not come in the daytime because they can't come and
park there.
(Bell sounds)
So they come when we are supposed to be sleeping.
So big difference there.
11:05:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Ma'am, I apologize, but if you can close out
with one last sentence, I would appreciate it.
11:05:54 >> Yes.
I think that it's important not to change the designations
that are there for different venues.
If there is space, it ought to be committed to some specific
activity, something related to the residents.
This particular restaurant still is in violation of 250
feet, so it's really not new.
11:06:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you so much, ma'am.
I appreciate it.

Happy birthday.
Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak
at this time on item 78, AB-2-16-21?
11:06:43 >> My name is Lorraine Forino.
I live -- I am here more or less to support my friend
Lorraine.
I'm a little confused.
I have heard the owner of the establishment state several
times that he is losing business because when he has to
close at 1:00, all the customers go to another place or
places that stay open till 3.
I don't know of any other place that stays open till 3.
My daughter is a college student, and she was working over
the summer at the Mexican restaurant which is just a few
doors down from the pizza place, and she said that they
close at 12:00.
The pub that used to be across the street, she said, stayed
open till 3, and a lot of people did go there, but when the
pub moved downtown, it was replaced by an Italian restaurant
which closes early.
And fountain square which is a sports bar, I think -- he
says it's open till 3, but Mrs. Smith said they close at 1.
So I am just a little confused.
I'm thinking maybe if he's allowed to stay open till 3, I
don't know of anybody else that's allowed to stay open till

3 except the 7-Eleven which stays open 24 hours.
So I think the residents that live around there have a right
to peace and quiet and privacy.
And I'm very concerned about what's happening in the city
with this commercial interests are taking precedence over
the residents.
And I know a neighbor that lives around the corner, her
mother had to go to an assistive living because she and her
husband are fixing up the mother's house so they can move
in.
They live in the area, a patio bar, and that bar was rezoned
for loud music --
11:08:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Ma'am, I hate to interrupt you, but can you
stick to this issue?
11:08:57 >> My issue is this.
City Council is favoring commercial over residence.
That whole neighborhood has been really --
11:09:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
The specifics that you have, your complaints
about this particular case.
Because this is a quasi-judicial.
It's not just before you making comments about other issues
across the city.
On this particular one, your issues.
11:09:15 >> My issue is I don't know of any place on Davis Islands
that's open till three and I think he's just wanting to stay

open till three, and businesses that I don't know of any
other businesses that stay open till 3.
I don't think that's a valid argument.
11:09:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, ma'am.
Anyone else in the public like to speak on item number 78?
78?
Mr. Pressman?
Rebuttal.
11:09:45 >> Mr. Chairman and board members -- happy birthday, Mrs.
Smith.
Come by and we'll buy you a drink.
(Laughter)
As nice as these places are, some of the facts are wrong.
The other establishments on Davis Island are open till 3
a.m.
We just checked the websites.
And all that we are seeking to do in chapter 14 are the same
hours as anyone else in the city who are willing to live by
that, we are willing to restrict ourselves by that.
We changed our application.
And with great respect to Mrs. Smith who I'm sure has a
beautiful home, her home is not located adjacent to the
site.
She's located across the alleyway and down the street.
So she's not directly impacted according to the big map,

that's where her home is at.
But you heard the issues that they brought up are general in
nature in terms of alcohol services throughout the city.
And amplified music which John does not do.
He has no access to the rear.
There's no customer access of any kind.
It's strictly rarely used for a couple of the staff members,
and his deliveries are all after 10 a.m. in the morning.
So there's no impact of that nature.
All the activity is towards the front of Davis Island
Boulevard.
So what you are doing is expanding it to an existing unit.
I don't want an impression that something is new is created.
This is an existing parking lot that the parking is
accessible to the city.
There's been no reports from the city, that parking is an
issue.
And quite frankly most of John's customers live in the area
and just walk over to the location.
So I will remind you that you have over 100 signatures in
support, the support of the Davis Island association.
John has a tremendous record of these establishments and we
appreciate your support or your consideration and your
hopeful support.
Thank you.

11:11:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Okay, any other questions by council?
Anything else?
All right.
I do hear a motion to close?
We have a motion from Mrs. Capin.
We have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Cohen, will you kindly take number 78?
First reading.
11:11:55 >>HARRY COHEN:
Thank you very much.
I move an ordinance being presented for first reading and
adoption, an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2
for alcoholic beverage sales, restaurant, consumption on
premises only and making lawful the sale of beer wine and
liquor at or from that lot, plot or tract of land located at
233 and 235 East Davis Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, as more
particularly described in section 27, that all ordinances or
parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an
effective date.
11:12:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?

11:12:36 >>THE CLERK:
The second reading and adoption will be held
October 20th, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
11:12:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 90.
Staff.
11:12:49 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Land Development Coordination.
Item number 90 on your agenda this morning is REZ
15 ---16-54 located at 5320, 5321, 5322 Interbay and 5118
south Nichol street.
I did send you a memorandum yesterday afternoon confirming
this case.
In an effort to certify the site plans, there were
modifications that were discovered that were outside of the
motion of council.
So I did provide a new revision sheet to you, and I do have
copies of that as well.
The revision sheet was the same as presented to you on the
night of September 22nd with a few exceptions, and that
related to figures on the parking table and figures on the
development summary.
So I do have copies of those.
Again, as I indicated to you on a case previous this
morning, I would request that this go back to first reading
with those modifications.
One thing you may remember is the night of that hearing,

there was a request for tree removal.
That request -- requested that evening to be taken off and
the porte-cochere area as proposed to be redesigned, some of
the figures related to the square footages were related to
that modification, and saving that tree.
And what resulted, as I put in my report that day as well,
about parking being removed when that was designed and that
improvement was made, and the site plans needing to show
that parking being removed.
So I do want to provide those.
There was another issue based that evening related to
traffic analysis, why and I do have a memorandum from
Melanie Calloway related to that and what was done in order
to make that determination as to whether or not the analysis
would be required, and it was not.
So I would like to provide those documents for the record.
I am available for any questions.
11:15:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mrs. Feeley, before we go forward, is there
a substitute motion that we are going to have to make
concerning this particular ordinance because of the changes
that you just mentioned?
11:15:12 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
I do not believe so.
I believe you would put it back on first reading.
And you would motion with the revised provision sheet.
It's actually modified revision sheet dated as of today's

date.
Would you include that.
11:15:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Just wanted clarification.
Thank you, ma'am.
Petitioner?
11:15:38 >>DAVID SMITH:
401 East Jackson Street, suite 2700.
I have a very small supplement to the record.
This is a small supplement to it which will be passed out.
We do have a copy for the attorney and one of the opponents.
We do agree with the modified revision sheet.
We apologize for any confusion and we apologize for putting
them through this process.
It was painful enough the first time.
What I would like to point out in terms of the supplement
that you are receiving, one of the things we have done,
there's been some discussion that the bar was going to have
something like 161 people.
You have attached an architectural rendering showing there
are 53 seats.
Now, I guess you could crowd 161 people in there belly to
back, but that's not what you are going to do at that sort
of facility.
So you have in the record the evidence as to exactly what
the nature of that facility is and how it will be used.
Arguments were also proffered on the fact that we had an

event sponsored by members from celebration charitable
fund-raiser.
Unfortunately that member did not sufficiently clarify the
nature of the limitation and club activities.
That member has been sanctioned by virtue of that.
I have enclosed a copy for you.
My point is the club makes an effort to retain its private
character.
It is a vibrant facility.
It is not a commercial facility.
And that is also evidence in the other links of advertised
event there.
Also in that regard, I have included for your information a
copy of the section of the bylaws which indicates that we
are a member organization.
The membership is limited in almost every instance.
There's only two instances where you have unlimited members.
That is qualified in such a way that you really have a very
narrow group of folks that qualify.
A senior member, which has to be someone that's been a
member of the club for 20 years and has to be approved by
the board to become a senior member.
A specified associate member is someone who is a spouse who
has been divorced, or widowed, who can become an associate
member.

Otherwise it's limited.
Historically the club has fluctuated between 1400 and 1500
for the last probably decade but certainly in the last six
years, under 1500.
The high was in 2008, 1560, the current 1435.
The pointer is we are a limited organization.
This is not going to be some kind of huge fiasco.
It is a modest expansion to provide a little more room for
the members and people who work there to do what they do
without bumping into each other.
I think what we would like to do -- I have no idea where we
are going to go but I would rather reserve the balance of my
time for rebuttal.
And thank you very much.
11:18:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Before we go to the public is there anyone on council that
has any questions of the petitioner or staff at this time?
Mrs. Kert, if I could ask you a quick question.
Because this is being brought down to first reading, is
there a limitation in terms of what public comment has to
speak on?
11:18:57 >>REBECCA KERT:
In substance this is basically the same as
a continued first public hearing.
All the evidence and testimony that was submitted at the
first public hearing is still part of the record.

According to your rules, when there's a continuance of the
first public meeting, you typically limit or -- you limit to
the subject of the continuance.
If it's not exactly on point but a similar situation I think
it would be appropriate if City Council -- to the changes
proposed.
11:19:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So the subject, it is only the changes to
the -- to make it a first reading again.
11:19:38 >>REBECCA KERT:
Yes.
Unless City Council wanted to make a motion to do otherwise
that is consistent with what you have typically done in
these situations.
Also, for the record, I want to remind everyone that there
will be another full public hearing which will be completely
open to all topics relevant to these two applications at the
second reading.
11:19:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Terrific.
If I can have anyone in the public that would like to speak
on item number 90, REZ 16-54, please come forward at this
time.
11:20:08 >>GORDON SCHIFF:
1211 North Westshore Boulevard, 33607, and
I spoke at the first hearing.
I rise today because we object to this process.
The process has been fundamentally unfair.
We are witnessing a total breakdown of what is supposed to

be a quasi-judicial process, a fair and impartial process.
Instead we are witnessing bias, predisposition and
prejudgment.
We are witnessing unprecedented leniency.
We are witnessing the failure to even require the timely
sharing of application materials.
We were just handed a packet of materials that go beyond
what your attorney just said you could consider today.
So this is really not a process, Mr. Chair.
We have witnessed the decision based upon --
11:21:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If I could just interrupt you for just a
second.
So you are saying that your objection, your comments now are
about the fact that they just gave us these revisions
concerning it?
11:21:20 >>GORDON SCHIFF:
Mr. Chair, that's included; it's much
broader than that.
11:21:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And I need before you go on -- I know you
are an attorney, but I want to make sure that my attorney is
not going to tell me that I am not putting the record
forward no proper way.
Mr. Shelby or Ms. Kert, could you answer that question?
He seems like he is going much broader than what we have.
Is it okay to allow that to continue?
11:21:39 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

As far as Mr. Schiff making -- I think it's appropriate for
him to make whatever procedural reference he wants to make.
11:21:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you, sir.
Go ahead.
Continue.
11:21:54 >>GORDON SCHIFF:
I will continue.
Mr. Chair, we have witnessed a decision based on
immateriality, irrelevancy and hearsay.
Now we are witnessing staff and the applicant trying to
paper the record as after the fact to address the numerous
deficiencies and shortcomings in both the application and
the reviews.
And, yes, we have witnessed a plebiscite. The problem is
City Council has already voted, and this process has been
tainted.
You are faced with needing to unring a bell.
Starting over.
We say you should.
We object.
And I appreciate your time.
11:22:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Mr. Schiff.
I appreciate that.
Mrs. Kert.
11:22:39 >>REBECCA KERT:
Legal department.

I am looking over the information that was provided, and it
is a little bit beyond the scope of the changes, rebuttal
from the testimony of the first reading so I think it's
appropriate to allow comments on that.
11:22:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the
public that would like to speak on number 90, REZ 16-54?
Yes, ma'am.
11:23:06 >> My name is Ethel Hammer, address is 19025 Inter Lane,
Odessa.
I am here to talk about one issue, and that is the trees.
I would like to address council to address the trees which
are on the Rankin property immediately adjacent to the south
boundary of the Yacht Club property, and that is within the
20 feet of that your ordinance requires be shown on the site
plan, the PD site plan when it is submitted.
Those trees were not submitted, so we didn't talk about
those at the first reading because we didn't have accurate
information I have since gone out and looked at the trees
themselves and I would like to show you the trees that we
are talking about.
That's the property boundary, and that tree is two feet away
from the property boundary.
This tree, which is most likely another grand tree, is on
the property boundary as you can see.
This tree is 5 feet away.

And this tree is approximately 5 to 6 feet away.
I am going to enter these into the record.
So there are four very large oak that are of major concern
to the Rankin family.
All of which are either grand trees or very close to being
grand trees.
One of the points that I want to make is that I think there
is a conflict between the future viability of those trees
and a note that is on the site plan that draws a line to the
property boundary and says approximate potential location of
proposed fence or wall.
There is no way that you can construct a fence and not have
an impact to those very large substantial oak trees.
On the FDOT site plan there is a general note 4 that as it
read on the site plan that was submitted into the record,
September 22nd -- (bell sounds) -- it says that all trees
shown on the plan.
Well, the trees on the Rankin property were not shown on the
plan.
Erroneously.
They should have been shown on the plan within 20 feet.
So I am going to ask a revision that says all trees shown on
the plan and all trees within 20 feet of the southern
property boundary as your code requires.
(Bell sounds)

If I could have one more sentence.
11:26:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If you can close in 10 second that would be
great.
11:26:17 >> And to provide the 10-foot protective radius for trees
less opinion 36 inches and the 20-foot protective radius for
trees greater than 36 inches.
We would definitely request that you provide the protection
for those trees that going to be impacted by this project.
Thank you.
11:26:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, ma'am.
Is there anyone else in the public that would like to be
speak at this time on item number 90, REZ 16-54?
Is there anyone that would like to speak at this time?
That has not spoken?
Petitioner, rebuttal.
11:26:55 >>DAVID SMITH:
With all the civility I can muster we don't
agree with anything you heard about the due process
consideration.
Your staff does not act in any manner of favoritism towards
anybody.
I can tell you we were put through the ringer just like
everybody else is put there through the ringer.
What you have is a first reading for a reason.
The fact about the trees not being shown off-site is
correct.

It was missed and it was part of the revised -- modified
revised sheet.
Bear in mind also, we have a 75-foot setback against all
property lines.
We are doing nothing within 75 feet.
The reason you show the trees within 20 feet of the property
line is to make sure you are not doing it on the property
that's going to disturb those trees.
The existing chain link fence there, by the way, the reason
the fence that we mate put there says potential is because
we are looking at the issue as to whether it would provide
an effective acoustic barrier for our neighbor who wants to
have his peace and quiet, a reasonable request, and
potential because we also realize we can't build a wall if
it violates code.
So if it's going to be a problem with the trees, it isn't
going to go up.
It doesn't say it's mandatory.
It says potential.
As you know, when you do things on-site, you have to do it
in a manner consistent with the revisions of the code.
And that's why you have provisions that read that way.
If we can't do it, we won't do it.
There has been a lot of -- not the right word -- argument
made about the process here, and Rebecca Kert got the same

e-mail objecting to a variety of things, they don't like the
way the parking has been calculated.
The problem is it's pursuant to code.
So change the code.
But it was pursuant to code.
And that's what your staff did.
You know, these concerns of we didn't get anymore new
information.
Because there wasn't any filed.
So there was a variety of issues.
By the way, under the Caroline case, he's really an adjacent
property owner.
The due process rights appropriate to an adjacent property
owner are sufficiently proscribed.
They are not a party.
The property is the property owner and agency.
The Caroline case is clear.
So I think you bent over backwards for an opportunity to be
heard and in addition this property owner and council will
have an opportunity to address all of the issues that show
up in the revision sheet at the full and complete second
hearing.
The process isn't even complete for their argument to be
made.
So we disagree with that analysis.

And we hope you understand exactly why we had to do what we
did with regard to the clarification.
But it was principally because we had to recalculate the
square footage and the attendant parking that goes with
that.
We are still overparked.
Not by a large margin.
But I'm sure we will be hearing about this at the second
hearing as well.
Because that is the appropriate venue to address every other
issue that someone feels hasn't been adequately addressed.
If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them.
11:30:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Any other questions by council at this time?
Thank you.
We have asked for the public to weigh in and they have.
We have asked for our petitioner to do his rebuttal.
If I could get a motion to close.
I have a motion to close from Mr. Cohen.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Reddick, will you kindly take this item on a first
reading, please?
11:30:33 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Yes, sir.

Move ordinance being presented for first reading and
adoption, an ordinance -- first reading consideration, an
ordinance approving a special use permit for -- what are we
doing?
11:30:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
90.
I apologize.
11:30:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Move an ordinance presented for first reading consideration,
an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
53 -- 5320, 5321, 5322 Interbay Boulevard and 5118 south
Nichol street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning district
classifications RS-60 residential single-family and RS 150
residential, single-family, to PD, planned development,
recreational facility private, providing an effective date,
including the revision sheet presented to us.
11:31:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Thank you.
11:31:39 >>THE CLERK:
Mr. Chair, second reading and adoption will be
held on October 20th, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
11:31:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have item number 91 which follows item
number 90.
Mrs. Moreda, if you could tell us what we are doing now on

item number 91.
11:31:56 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
You are also putting it back to first
reading.
I have a list of the modifications.
Tough the comments needed to be reflected on the site plan
as well indicating the changes related to the parking and
the square footage of the building area.
Floor area.
There is before this meeting a discussion as to the
modification of parcel 1, legal description.
We do want that clearly identified on the site plan as to
the area.
As council recalls there was an rear around the riding
stable and then an area around the tennis court with a
connection between the two areas.
I think there was discussion with the applicant and the
party of concern, and they, I think, would like to express
concern about how that's going to be illustrated on the site
plan.
That does need to be tightened up so that can also be part
of the motion.
11:33:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner?
Grace Yang, Gray Robinson law firm.
401 East Jackson Street, suite 2700, Tampa, Florida 33602.

I have been sworn.
We have received, Ms. Moreda and staff's request for certain
modifications on the alcohol site plan which we plan to make
before the second reading on October 20th.
We did have some discussion concerning parcel 1, which is
the equestrian area and the tennis area.
You may recall from the September 22nd meeting that we had
some discussion about shrinking the alcohol area in that
parcel and agreeing to certain restrictions as far as hours
in that area.
We have had an opportunity for further discussion with
attorney Elise Batsel and representing Lykes brothers and
agreement on how we are going to show an 8-foot wide walkway
and designate that area that connects between the equestrian
area and the tennis court area.
I am available and happy to answer any further questions.
11:34:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions from council at this time?
Thank you so much.
At this time, I would like to ask anyone in the public that
would like to speak on item number 91, AB 2-16-18, please
come forward.
11:34:39 >> For the record, Gordon Schiff, 1211 north westshore
Boulevard, Suite 315.
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask to just incorporate my same

comments that I made on the prior matter.
They were heard together last time, for some reason council
divided them separately this time.
But I would ask if you like I will repeat my statement or we
can just incorporate my statement into the record.
But I will also state for the record we haven't received
anything that was just discussed so apparently there are
documents again being discussed and we are not involved, and
it seems at a minimum professional courtesy but I would
suggest a due process violation, and I would also suggest
Mr. Chair, just to let you know, I represent multiple
clients, and I represented on the record at the last
hearing.
Thank you.
11:35:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Mrs. Montelione.
11:35:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Schiff, is what we were just handed as a revision that
you are saying you didn't receive?
11:35:43 >>GORDON SCHIFF:
Thank you, Councilman.
I have not seen that revision.
The revisions that you were handed in the prior hearing that
was given at 9:38 this morning.
I was told there was -- I'm saying --
11:35:56 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Just applying --

11:35:59 >>GORDON SCHIFF:
We are not being included in anything.
11:36:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
And the reason I ask that is because
from my understanding, all of these points were discussed
during the previous hearing, and this is just a reflection
of what was discussed from the previous hearing.
So things that were negotiated or offered by Mrs. Yang as
far as I distinctly remember the path and taking upsetter
areas, so of course the numbers are going to have to be
recalculated when you are reducing area, or in this case
it's reducing area, like the building floor area went from
65,093 to 46,186 so roughly 20,000 square feet was taken off
of that calculation.
To me it's not -- it's just my opinion.
To me -- and I am not supposed to offer opinion.
I see Mrs. Kert making a face.
In my estimation, this is just reflecting what took place in
the last hearing.
11:37:12 >>GORDON SCHIFF:
I appreciate your comments.
For the record, what's in your hand, I haven't even seen.
It hasn't Ben provided to me even as I stand here now.
11:37:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Would you like to --
11:37:25 >>GORDON SCHIFF:
I stand by our position as I stated.
And I certainly don't need to restate it.
I just ask that my comments be incorporated.
11:37:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I'm not sure.

It may be need to be restated because I'm not sure if we can
take from the previous hearing and put it into this one.
11:37:38 >> If the attorney requires me to restate it I will be glad
to.
11:37:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Please go ahead, Mr. Schiff.
11:37:45 >> You want me to restate it?
11:37:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes, sir.
Because off much broader objection than just the specific,
and so we want to make sure that you are in the record.
11:37:54 >>GORDON SCHIFF:
Yes, I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
For the record we object to this process.
This process has been fundamentally unfair.
We are witnessing a total breakdown of what is supposed to
be a quasi-judicial process and fair and impartial process.
Instead we are witnessing bias, predisposition, prejudgment.
We are witnessing unprecedented leniency.
We are witnessing the failure to even require the timely
sharing of application materials.
We are witnessed a decision based upon immateriality,
irrelevancy and hearsay.
Now we are witnessing staff and the applicant trying to
paper the record after the fact, to address numerous
deficiencies and shortcomings of the application and the
reviews, and yes, we have witnessed a plebiscite, Mr. Chair.
The problem is that City Council has already voted and this

process is tainted.
We are faced with needing to unring a bell, starting over,
and you should.
We object and we appreciate your time, Mr. Chair.
11:38:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, Mr. Schiff.
I appreciate it.
Before you go forward, this is still under public comment.
So you have rebuttal.
Anyone else?
Yes, sir, go ahead.
11:39:05 >> My name is John Mueller, 5420 Lykes Lane, just south of
the Tampa Yacht Club on the water side.
I haven't seen the revisions that council has just been
handed but I think they may deal with the west side of the
property as opposed to the east side of the property.
The east side of the property is what I am concerned about.
I would ask that you limit the hours of the sale of alcohol
outside, on the east side, that's the water side of the
property on weeknights and weekends.
We live south of the club.
We are privileged to hear them when they have amplified
sound and parties.
Some of them we have been privileged to participate in.
Some we haven't been.
But nevertheless, we get to hear the sound.

The sale of alcohol outside is related to the noise.
Whether it was the original proposal for 161-seat outdoor
bar or whether it's a 53-seat pavilion outside bar.
It's outside.
It's on the water.
The noise carries over the Watt water.
We are opposed to the late night sales of alcohol.
The Lykes brothers deal relates to the west side of the
property, not the east side, which is on the water.
And so please think of yourselves.
Would you want people outside drinking and partying until
all hours of the night next to you?
Thank you so much.
11:40:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Anyone else in the public like to speak on item 91,
AB-16-18?
I see no one.
Mr. Smith, you have rebuttal.
11:40:47 >>DAVID SMITH:
Yes, sir, a couple points.
Mr. Mueller is a neighbor and club member.
My comments were already addressed the first time.
Be that as it may, the bell has to be rung twice.
So you have an opportunity to vote no at your second
hearing.
That has happened before.

So the process that is being accorded to the adjacent
property owners and any other interested parties is still
ongoing.
So I think it's an incorrect representation, and I want to
indicate that we disagree with the position asserted that
your staff has in any way been incorrect in the way they
proceeded and acted on immaterial facts and hearsay.
As you know, this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, but it is
before a legislative body.
The case law is pretty clear in terms of your ability to
weigh the evidence and give the nature of the evidence the
weight you believe is appropriate.
So I don't think we have a denial of due process.
It's obviously to me, I am going to elaborate between that
and the second reading and will do so.
But I want to state on the record we object to that
characterization with respect to this hearing as well and
we'll provide further information in that regard.
Thank you for your time.
11:42:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Do you want to continue your rebuttal?
11:42:03 >> Grace Yang:
I will keep it very short.
I just want to remind council that at our September 22nd
evening hearing, we went into a greater discussion
concerning hours of sales and restricted hours.

I did indicate and state on the record that we were agreeing
to impose certain conditions on the hours of sale on parcel
1, which is the equestrian and tennis area, as well as on
parcel 2, which is where the main clubhouse resides.
I won't go into all that detail again about Gasparilla and
New Year's Eve unless council wishes.
Thank you.
11:42:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any question, Mr. Miranda?
11:42:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I am just going to make a statement,
Mr. Chairman, and on either side, not favoring for or
against either side.
But if you look at today's agenda alone, item number 78 was
a second reading and it went back to first reading, and
there was a small venue change to a restaurant.
Item number -- the one on Dale Mabry, 89, was on second
reading and went back to first reading.
That was a land zoning.
It had to do with a coffee business, I guess you can get
coffee as well as alcohol.
No, you can.
And that's where I am at, Mr. Chairman.
It's happened before.
I have seen many changes between first and second reading
where the public is given the opportunity for those two

weeks to debate the issue.
And in most instances, first reading has little value on
second reading.
There have been items that have been passed.
The history of -- not this council but councils of the past,
that passed on first reading and failed on the second
reading.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:44:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Anyone else have a question or comment from council?
Okay.
Can I get --
11:44:09 >> Move to close.
11:44:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion to close from Mr. Cohen,
second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take item number 91 on first
reading and include the revision sheet?
11:44:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
File number AB 2-16-18, ordinance
presented for first reading consideration, along with the
revision sheets and any other modifications that are
required under AB-2-16-18 that came in, today, October 6,
2016, move an ordinance for first reading approving a
special use S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, large venue

consumption on premises only and making lawful the sale of
beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer wine and
liquor on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at
5320, 5321, 5322 Interbay Boulevard, Tampa, Florida and 5118
south Nichols street Tampa, Florida as more particularly
described in section 2, that all ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an effective
date.
11:45:14 >> Second.
11:45:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
11:45:21 >>THE CLERK:
Mr. Chair, second reading and adoption will be
on October 20th, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.
11:45:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 92.
Do we have staff or petitioner here?
11:45:41 >>ABBYE FEELEY:
Item number 92 is a special use for a
commercial off-street parking lot.
The plan has been certified and staff is available for any
questions.
11:45:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner?
11:45:53 >> Cordill engineering.

I'm representing the owners located on Florida Avenue.
This property is directly west of and adjacent to that
property.
And the owners have decided to buy this property adjacent to
relieve any on street parking that may occur because of
business circumstances.
So actually, they are doing a neighborhood a favor by taking
traffic and parking off a congested street and placing it
into this lot.
11:46:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Any questions from council on this particular item?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item N number 92?
92?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close from Mrs. Montelione, a second from
Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Mrs. Montelione, will you kindly take item number 92?
11:47:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move an ordinance presented for second
reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a special use
permit S-2 approving parking off-street commercial in SH-RS
Seminole Heights, single-family detached residential zoning
district in the general vicinity of 100 west Fern Street in

the city of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly
described in section 1 hereof providing an effective date.
11:47:22 >> Second.
11:47:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mrs. Montelione.
I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
Please record your vote.
11:47:37 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
11:47:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Item number 93.
11:47:40 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
The site plan has been certified by the zoning administrator
and given to the clerk's office.
11:47:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Petitioner?
11:47:52 >> 1726 East 7th Avenue here on behalf of the applicant
petitioner.
We are just asking for approval for a special use permit,
approving a public service facility in an RS-50 residential
district in the general vicinity of 2081 north Himes Avenue
in the City of Tampa.
If there are any questions we are here to answer them.
11:48:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council on this item?
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
item number 93, SU-II-16-13?
I see no one.

I have a motion to close from Mr. Cohen, a second from Mrs.
Montelione.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Mr. Maniscalco, will you kindly take item 93.
11:48:45 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I have an ordinance being presented for
second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a
special use permit S-2 approving a public service facility
in an RS-50 residential single-family zoning district in the
general vicinity of 2081 north Himes Avenue in the city of
Tampa, Florida and as more particularly described in section
1 hereof providing an effective date.
11:49:07 >> Second.
11:49:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion by Mr. Maniscalco, a second
from Mrs. Montelione.
Please record your vote.
11:49:21 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
11:49:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
We are now at our 10:30 hearings.
If I could ask for a motion to open items 94, 95.
I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Anyone that wishes to speak to us on these items, 94, 95,

please be sworn in.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
Staff.
11:49:59 >>BARBARA LYNCH:
Brand development coordination.
VAC 16-19 is a request to vacate an alley located just north
of dewpoint and I have a map for the overhead.
The property is in red and alley to be closed shown in
yellow.
It runs on 7th Avenue to Henderson.
And the alley was partially vacated in 1924.
The north 60 feet.
This is the remainder of the alley.
And the other thing about be this petition is this is also
to vacate the brick streets ordinance, the protected bricks
right-of-way, and if you want to vacate it, he also has to
request that that protection be vacated as well.
I have pictures.
And this is the alley looking north from Henderson.
And it is brick all the way through up to 7th.
And this is a little closer shot.
It was hard to get brick that day because it was shaded.
Then this is the alley from the north end, the vacated
portion, and this is fenced as well.
This is 7th Avenue.
And this is a picture of the property. This is Franklin and

the alley behind it, this building here.
And then some abutting properties.
This is looking west on Florida Avenue.
And this is again Florida, west of Florida, and this is on
the north side.
Staff has no objection to this request.
They do ask to reserve an easement for Verizon and then
transportation did make a request that the bricks be
palletized, cleaned and removed and returned to the city
within a year.
11:51:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
11:51:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I was going to say, that has always been
the standard in the city of Winter Haven.
The bricks.
11:52:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Can we get them back?
11:52:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
11:52:11 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
My name is John Grandoff, address suite
3700 Bank of America Plaza.
This morning I have the pleasure of representing this
morning Maureen Ayral.
If I can borrow Barbara's photographs for a moment.
The ordinance is applicable particularly the easement
reserved for frontier communication, formerly Verizon.
What's interesting about this project is Maureen has done a
remarkable job of improving and repurposing this historic

building.
Right now, there's a dance studio.
Adam is working on the buildout along with Maureen, has a
proposed tenant, food arcade that will be located on the
ground floor, and we will be coming to you in a few weeks
probably with a wet zoning application for this property.
What's unique about the project is Maureen has decided to
incorporate the alley as part of the arcade features so you
could go outside, enjoy a couple of coffee, a donut, read
the paper in the open air.
We ask that the bricks remain to lend to the ambience of the
alley.
Unfortunately the ordinance requires removal of the bricks,
typically someone is going to build on the right-of-way.
I ask that you instruct the city attorney to delete that
language, that we may keep the bricks, and repurpose them
and keep them as part of the ambience of the project.
And if you would kindly approve the ordinance in that
fashion I'll appreciate it.
11:53:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Any questions from council at this time?
Is there anyone -- I'm sorry, Mrs. Capin.
11:54:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
11:54:03 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
Let me add one thing.
I'm sorry.

I discussed this with Mrs. Hardy and if we could mark up an
ordinance and return for first reading at an appropriate
time.
It's not time sensitive of that we have to have it this
morning.
11:54:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I want to ask about --
11:54:26 >> The bricks could still be a city asset, and --
11:54:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Just by looking at it, nothing can be built
there.
11:54:38 >>BARBARA LYNCH:
Exactly.
And you can't build on that area anyway.
11:54:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Thank you.
11:54:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions from council at this
time?
11:54:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Everybody is there anyone in the public that
would like to speak at this time on item number 94,
VAC-16-19?
I see no one.
I have a motion to close from Mr. Maniscalco.
Do I have a second?
Second from Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Okay.
Mr. Cohen, I believe you are up.

Number 94.
11:55:20 >>HARRY COHEN:
So because of Mr. Grandoff's request, do
have we have to go back to first reading or is it not
necessary?
11:55:29 >>BARBARA LYNCH:
I think that you can go ahead.
11:55:37 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just do it now.
So I present an ordinance for first reading consideration,
an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing, and
abandoning alleyway lying south of 7th Avenue and north
of Henderson Avenue east of Franklin Street and west of
Florida Avenue in Livonia -Dodds Cline subdivision, a
subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County
Florida the same being more fully described in section 1
hereof subject to certain easement reservations, covenants,a
conditions and restrictions more particularly set forth
herein, although it will continue as a city asset, providing
an effective date.
11:56:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a second by Mr. Maniscalco.
11:56:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:

11:56:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'm not opposed to that at all.
However, I would like to see some understanding in a written
form, if there's an accident, that somebody causes or say is
caused by the bricks, that the city is immune that they take
total responsibility.
11:56:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I assume that based on vacation itself, it

would be under your control anyway.
But I don't know the legality.
11:56:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I think what needs to be done,
Mr. Chairman -- and I had chance to discuss this with Mrs.
Hardy -- single-family read the title as presented, they'll
come back with a new ordinance, with a new title, when you
will have to go back to first reading.
The other option would be to continue.
But this way it's fine, too.
But the direction would be to read the title, and then
direct staff to come back with the changes as discussed.
11:57:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That doesn't answer what Mr. Miranda was
saying.
Mr. Miranda, if you could continue, sir.
11:57:25 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
But first reading is just for this so we can get to second
reading with all the items.
We have first readings, to me it seems like a waste of time.
That's what first readings are for, so you can bring these,
the second reading so the public can have full disclosure
and understanding.
And I'm not attorney, don't want to be one.
But understand that the public then has a chance to speak on
the second reading of the document that is complete.
I'm not opposed to the bricks remaining there.

I don't want to give up the rights of the bricks.
Something may happen in the future.
But at the same time I don't want the city to be held
responsible for any losses that may come out of the bricks.
11:58:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And I think there is a distinction that we
never really talked about specifically.
And I think that because of the way that the liability would
go would be that the folks that are getting the vacation
from us would be responsible for anything that happened on
that particular location regardless of what material.
11:58:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
My recommendation would be, Mrs. Hardy,
unless you disagree, my recommendation would be to continue
to come back with a corrected ordinance that addresses all
the discussions that came up today as a result.
11:58:41 >>HARRY COHEN:
I am going to withdraw my motion for first
reading consideration.
11:58:45 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
The title says the bricks to be removed.
We'll clean it up.
11:58:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
You will clean up the bricks then?
(Laughter).
11:58:57 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
We'll have it in the ordinance also to
satisfy Mr. Miranda's concern.
11:59:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Terrific.
So we have a withdrawal of the motion and the second, I
assume.

The removal of the second.
And we will go forth.
Do we have to vote on that removal?
11:59:15 >> [Off microphone.]
11:59:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It's withdrawn.
Thank you, sir.
We have a motion to continue.
You know what?
She brought up something that we did not discuss, which is
to open the hearing again.
Can I have a motion to open the hearing?
11:59:34 >> So moved.
11:59:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mrs. Montelione.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Now --
11:59:44 >> Motion to continue.
11:59:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion to continue a second.
11:59:47 >>HARRY COHEN:
October 20th?
Is that enough time or do you need more than two weeks?
11:59:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Grandoff?
12:00:00 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
Yes, that's enough time.
The 20th is good.

12:00:04 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
October 20th at 10:30.
.
We have a motion by Mrs. Capin, a second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Thank you.
12:00:17 >>JOHN GRANDOFF:
Thank you for your time this morning.
12:00:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We are coming up on our 12:00 --
12:00:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move for 30 minutes.
12:00:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I was just going to ask if anybody wanted to
break for lunch but we have a motion to continue for 30
minutes, a second by Mr. Cohen.
Okay.
12:00:33 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I need to go.
12:00:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a motion on the floor to continue --
to extend our meeting time until 12:30.
A second from Mr. Cohen, I believe.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Yes, sir?
12:01:00 >> [Off microphone.]
12:01:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Reddick, I was about to say what is the
pleasure of council.
Mr. Miranda brought up the motion.
I thought it was an obligation of me to allow his motion to
go forward.

Again, we are still at the pleasure of council.
So if we are going to lose a member, we have already
extended the time.
If there is not a motion to not continue at this point and
ask to come back at 1:30, it's at the pleasure of council.
12:01:36 >> [Off microphone.]
12:01:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
30 minutes, and we sit here past that
time.
I would rather say if we are not going to do it, we have to
come back.
But if you think we can do it in 30 minutes.
12:01:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I am not going to be held to that standard,
Mr. Reddick, but thank you for saying so.
We are still losing a member in 30 minutes.
Again, let's go.
Item number 95.
12:02:08 >> Kristin Mora, legal department. This is a review
petition for the Variance Review Board that denied a
variance application.
The procedure before you is 27-61 of the code.
It provides that the City Council will consider this item
de novo.
You do not have to give deference to the VRB's decision in
this matter.
I'm available if you have any questions.

Otherwise I will have staff come up and give you a brief
presentation.
And then you will hear from the applicant.
And I also will distributer the standards of 27-08 of our
code for a variance.
12:02:54 >> Joel Sousa, land development.
The item is 16-72, the staff report in this case, given the
Variance Review Board for review.
I also have a denial letter in the back.
And the applicant name is Tampa Honda.
Property address is 11204 North Florida Avenue.
The agent is Mark Brenchly.
The applicant is seeking relief from sections 27-289 in
order to increase the height of a free-standing sign from 10
feet to 30 feet, to increase the square footage from 50 feet
to 100 feet and reduce the setbacks from 25 to 15 feet.
This is to replace an existing free standing commercial
sign.
The sign was originally developed in 1974 and was zoned CI
commercial intensive.
Current owner purchased the property in about 2014.
I'll show you some photographs.
This is the sign as it exists today.
Petitioner wishes to replace this sign with a like sign.
Petitioner is here.

This is the area along north Florida Boulevard between Busch
and Fowler.
This is the front.
And this is the sign in question.
This is the aerial.
This is the Tampa Honda.
And this is North Florida Avenue.
Fowler up to the north.
Busch to the south.
Just wants to switch Lite like for like.
At this time the sign does not work.
12:05:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions by council at this time?
Petitioner?
12:05:18 >> Thank you, Councilman Miranda for continuing this for 30
minutes so we could enjoy a prelunch experience.
I'm Mark Brenchly of 3790 beacon ridge way, Clermont,
Florida.
I represent the owners of the property.
Tampa Bay automotive LLC, Tampa Honda.
One of the owners is here to begin the discussion which is
to explain our reason for the petition.
12:05:56 >> Again, we appreciate you guys extending this pre-lunch.
I'm here on behalf of Tampa Honda.
I'm a business owner. We purchased the business in 2014.
12:06:07 >> Please state your name for the record.

12:06:09 >> My name is Mike Segal.
Thank you.
We purchased the business in 2014.
It is as mark said the business has been established since
1974.
We have made significant business improvements to the
interior of the building.
We are starting to work on some of the exterior that needs
to be up to date one of which is the sign.
The lighting in the sign is no longer working.
We have worked with Honda the manufacturer to try to replace
the sign.
They have given us approval to replace it with the new
generation sign, which does look almost identical.
To the current existing sign.
As you see, this is the proposed sign.
It is identical in nature to the existing sign that we have.
By size and by visible outlook.
It does have LED lighting inside, which is probably the only
real difference between the sign that we are requesting and
the sign that's existing, and hopefully the LED lights work
inside the new sign as opposed to the current existing sign.
So really we are not asking for anything different than what
we have other than your support and our endeavor to make
improvements to the sign that we have.

12:07:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council at this time
concerning this application?
Okay.
Is there anyone -- and petitioner, is that all of your
presentation?
Do you have something else to add?
12:07:39 >> Yes, I do.
The issue of the deficiency in the sign, why not just repair
the problem?
And I first refer you to the sign code which says that a
permanent sign shall not be structurally altered to prolong
the life of the sign.
Reasonable repair and maintenance of nonconforming signs is
permitted.
However reasonable repair and maintenance means the work
necessary to put the sign in a good state of repair, does
not include replacement of material in sign structure.
Reasonable repair does not include -- I wish to emphasize,
that was 27-239-15, nonconforming signs, section 4,
subsection C, that any modification that enhances the
visibility of the sign's copy at the time the copy is
available and subsection D, any modification that adds
artificial lighting or changes to the existing lighting such
that the illumination is improved.
So the sign cabinet has a crack in the top which has allowed

water to enter inside the structure.
It is compromised in the structural element and especially
deteriorated the line, which the sign is not illuminated.
To replace this with did new LED requirements from the Honda
branding and corporate office, it increases the lighting
because LED in essence is brighter.
Has the same message but it's brighter than traditional
fluorescent or incandescent lighting.
So any LED replacement which is much more economical, much
longer lasting, and is a better light.
That's why they cannot just change the guts to make this
conforming and make it functional again.
A new branding from Honda which requires this new branded
sign, that's why we are here.
It's going to be identical to the existing sign, and the
lighting will be upgraded and so forth.
On a 4 to 2 vote, the variance board said they could not
find a hardship in this case.
We presented at the hearing before the Variance Review Board
that this sign had the greatest setback than other signs
along the way, has a 15-foot setback.
At the time it was installed in 2001, only a side setback
was required but they moved it back to the 15-foot setback
for better viewing.
Obviously it's less subject to vandalism along the sidewalk.

And it meets the intent of the new sign code that was
adopted in 2008 which allowed what they call a canyon
effect, the 5-foot setback, the maximum point of the sign as
Joel mentioned was 10 feet.
For every foot you go back into the property, you can
increase the height of the sign one foot.
And a 15-foot setback, a sign that is typical, a sign can be
20 feet.
But we don't want to have a lower sign because of the signs
that are next to it are blocking the view.
And I wish to present to you -- I will show this to city
attorney and council.
Thank you.
I'm passing out a matrix showing these locations that you
can see quickly --
12:12:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
May I make a statement?
Stop the time, please P.I don't really care what somebody
else's sign S.they are not the ones here, sir.
You are with your client.
So whatever you go to tell me about Ferman, brown, Farke,
Elvis, they are not the ones petitioning for a sign
replacement.
You are.
It's your responsibility and it was your client's
responsibility to maintain the time working.

If you did not take care of their own business by making
sure that that sign and the operation of their property was
unkempt for many years, it is not my responsibility, it is
yours.
12:12:53 >> And can I speak on that?
Like I said, that's what they are doing now that they own
it.
12:12:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And hang on a second.
Take your time, come up to the podium and speak.
You can speak.
I'm just saying come up to the podium and speak.
Don't speak from the seat.
12:13:09 >> My name is Mike Segal.
In regard to that comment we just purchased the business two
years ago and the sign was not making tattle.
We have made other significant capital intensive
requirements into the business.
We are getting to the sign now.
So there was nothing that we could have done other than make
that part of the buy-sell agreement where they had to
replace or change the sign before we went through the actual
sales.
So I just want to comment on that.
12:13:36 >> When the ordinance was changed in 2008, 85 to 90% of all
the signs in the city were knot nonconforming.

I went from 2004 to 2012, and I was on the sign committee
that was part of committed to revise the sign code.
So to show you in the neighborhood, now showing you what has
specifically prompted them to say nonconforming signs
recently in terms of the retention, and the enhancement of
the sign.
Again, this is the same -- basically the same.
This is the Tampa Anthony McFarland a sign, 15-foot
setback, and the existing sign is proposed.
It's highlighted in yellow on the matrix.
This is the property next door to the north.
This sign is 200 square foot, set right on the property
line.
It is supposed to have a 5-foot setback but it does not.
It's like it almost goes over the sidewalk.
So numerous signs on Florida Avenue, cannot see this
dealership until they get to the dealership.
There is not time for them to make any decisions and so
forth.
So the current location, current height, is a great
opportunity for this dealership potential.
The second one on your left, the Jim Brown sign, these were
where the signs were installed, changed, which they have
done, Daniels Chevrolet to Jim Brown Chevrolet, bus the
business signs as you look up and down the street which

overshadow, again, the Honda sign.
From across the street, you can see the Honda sign on the
left, the Ferman sign on the right.
I am just showing you what is going on in the neighborhood.
And than the signs in this area.
Lincoln, just a little south.
This sign was installed in 1989.
35-foot.
146 square feet.
Made changes recently changing the name and so forth.
This is a new Honda dealership at 2522 North Dale Mabry.
This is the subject of the design exception that was
approved -- approved in 2014.
The city staff went to the design exception process, which
is a review, and the reason this was available on this site
and no other locations because this is in the Westshore
overlay district.
When you have the issues, of the standard and overlay area,
the issues with design exceptions one or two.
This is a design exception one.
Whereas the Land Development Coordination, and approved the
identical sign in 2014, in spite of the fact that the
ordinance, the current ordinance does not allow a sign this
high, this size at this location.
But I'm just showing the reasonable use that the city staff

recognized in this case at this location, they were able to
bring down a very tall sign.
But nonetheless, the sign exceeds the ordinance.
Exact same sign that we are proposing today.
The last is 3900 West Kennedy Boulevard.
You see there are signs here.
The city staff, allowed it to go from 36 to have 32.
It exceeds also the square feet allowable area.
And also the second one, the same design exception approval
exceeds the height, exceeds the square feet, and doesn't
comply to the second that I mentioned.
This is to show that the city staff has tried to allow
reasonable use of existing signs, bringing them down
following the intent of the code which is lower signs, lower
square feet.
This particular sign was already smaller than it was
committed to be in 2001 when installed, 300 square feet to
100 square feet was proposed.
The applicant wishes to replace all of the deficiencies in
this sign, because the sign is essential to their business.
It allows the city to show that they are requiring
compliance to the sign code whether special exceptions or
variances that meet the finding of fact, and we can show
these from the other signs as well as the precedent from
more recently reviews when it comes to dealing with the

sticky I shall of nonconforming signs it has general
purpose.
I believe that this ought to be revised to allow people to
change their lighting system to more efficient lighting.
Currently your code does not permit that.
Any questions?
12:20:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council at this time
concerning this review?
Before I -- I am going to ask you a couple questions.
First, you gave us a matrix.
What I notice is that there were a lot of locations you
mentioned, very few that were approved by the people that
are sitting here right now.
Excuse me, sir, I'm still speaking.
Okay.
Most of them are on there.
You are asking for -- and I just want to make sure I get
this right.
You want a free-standing sign that goes from 10 foot to 30
foot -- you are asking for relief from, 50-foot square
footage to 100 square foot, correct?
And the setback reducing from 25-foot to 15-foot.
Is that correct?
12:20:58 >> Well, the setback is incorrect.
There is no 25-foot setback required for a sign.

12:21:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I am going by what the staff report says in
the review.
12:21:07 >> Do you wish to clarify that?
12:21:13 >> That is an error.
There is not a 25-foot setback required for a sign.
12:21:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
So the first two points that I made, though,
are correct, right?
That's what you are asking for now?
12:21:22 >> A sign at the 5-foot setback can only be 10 feet high.
A sign at the 15-foot setback which this is can be 20-foot
high by code.
12:21:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Got it.
And the reason I was asking based on the matrix that you
gave us, there is one sign that you showed us that came
after we have been on board here that was much larger than
square footage than what you are asking for here.
Most of them, are maybe a little higher but the square
footage is smaller than what you are asking.
So if you are going to use a comparison based on other
locations, I think it's fair to say that you might want to
consider a different size in terms of square footage, and
maybe think about what that height is.
That's just a suggestion.
I have no other questions.
I have made a suggestion, sir, I didn't ask you a question.

Any other questions from council at this time concerning it?
Okay, we have no other things.
Sir, you have rebuttal.
Go ahead.
12:22:20 >> You clarified in your comments saying a sign smaller than
the ones that I mentioned?
12:22:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I'm looking at your matrix, sir.
I'm talking about from 2011 on when most of us were elected
to this body.
My point is that you are showing us a matrix that shows that
most of the ones that came after 2011 have smaller square
footage faces, okay?
Some of them have higher Heights than what you are
requesting.
Maybe it was agreed to by us.
Maybe it was agreed to by staff.
I'm making a statement based on what the time frame is for
this council and not for every sign that you have put
forward to us because some of those were not agreed to by
us, those were already free-standing signs.
And I think you admitted that based on your presentation.
12:23:06 >> Yes, that is correct, but the last three on the chart are
those that have occurred within the last two years.
And those would be in the purview --
12:23:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I think I mentioned those exceptions.

This is part of your rebuttal.
Please start the time. This is part of his rebuttal.
Please start the time.
12:23:27 >> This is the PD.
Approved in 2013.
And you see on this highlighted, this is an existing 35-foot
sign, 182 square feet listed on your matrix.
Here is a photograph of that sign.
Approved in 2013.
In fact, the PD plan, which basically relegitimizes and
approves all the site development that has come on the site,
acknowledges that this is an existing free-standing sign,
1282 square feet.
The council at that time allowed the sign to remain as it
was.
So acknowledging the reasonable use of this size.
We are asking for a much smaller sign, and has the same
precedence.
12:24:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Anything else, sir, on your rebuttal?
12:24:28 >> No that is it.
12:24:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
95, 2016-8 chapter 27?
I see no one.
Can I get a motion to close?

Motion to close by Mr. Maniscalco.
Do I get a second?
Second from Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
What is the pleasure of council?
Yes, ma'am.
12:24:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you, sir.
I would move to overturn the decision of the Variance Review
Board and I'll give you my reasons why.
This sign is 15 feet from the property line, so it is set
back.
And then, you know, as you go back as was stated, you can
increase the height.
So the difference between the sign ordinance if it were
closer to the street doesn't as much apply here because it
does have the setback.
It's also a hardship because the current owner of the
dealership did not create this problem.
The sign was already there.
When they purchased it two years ago.
And within financial investment having to bring the place
back up to standards.
I can see that the sign would the last thing that they
would, you know, be looking at to tackle as a problem and

address the others.
Now, as far as not interfering or injuring health safety
welfare, I don't think that applies.
The variance is in harmony with and serve it is general
intent and purpose of -- well, this area, I mean, it's my
district, and this area has become a commercial, almost car
dealership from one end to the other and within certain
boundaries, and it is very difficult to stand out amongst
all of the lots.
Replacing with LED lights is good for the environment.
They are having to be replaced less often and use
electricity so I think it's a bonus because car dealerships
use a lot of electricity and if we can save a little bit
here and there, I think it all adds up.
So for those reasons, I would state that the variance is in
keeping -- granting the variance would be in keeping with
our code and not doing so would put them at a disadvantage
as another hardship in comparison to the others along that
roadway, or that structure of roadway.
12:27:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, a
second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Opposed?
12:27:30 >> Miranda and Suarez voting, no Capin being absent.
12:27:37 >> You didn't say whether it carries or not.

Can you repeat whether it carried or not?
If you said it, I didn't hear that part.
12:27:47 >>THE CLERK:
It carried with Miranda and Cohen voting no
and Capin being absent at vote.
12:27:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Because of the late time frame, we have three minutes left.
I would suggest that we do break for lunch at this point.
1:45 should be agreeable to most of our members.
Is that correct?
12:28:07 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Sure.
12:28:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We are in recess until 1:45.
(City Council meeting in recess until 1:45 p.m.)
- - -

(Tampa City Council reconvenes.)
01:45:35 >> Council is now called back into order.
Roll call, please.
01:49:15 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
01:49:18 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
01:49:20 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
01:49:21 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
01:49:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
First item up on our agenda under staff reports is item
number 96.
This is obviously pulled because of the amount of the

contract.
Does anyone have any questions of staff?
Staff, come on up.
Explain exactly what we have on item number 96.
01:49:39 >> Contract administration here to answer any questions you
have on item 96.
01:49:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any questions from council members on this
particular item?
01:49:52 >> Move the resolution.
01:49:54 >> Second.
01:49:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mr. Reddick.
I have a second from Mr. Miranda.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Thank you.
All right.
I had asked our clerk to look at number 97.
And I believe it's number 100 together.
And that is Marcella.
We need to have you come on up, talk about our ethics thing.
You know what?
Before we go forward, I just realized, this was one of
Montelione's items.
Let's wait on that, because I know that she's probably going
to have some issues or some questions to ask you about both

of those, okay?
I apologize.
Item number 98.
Mr. Rainsberger.
And I know he's here.
Just saw him walk in.
01:50:48 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
Legal department.
Yesterday via e-mail, I provided council members with the
statistics that you had previously requested.
I'm here to answer any questions if I can concerning those
numbers.
01:50:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Any questions from council?
Any members have questions about that particular report?
The number of citations that have been issued, number of
arrests and so on?
Mr. Reddick, yes, sir.
01:51:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Even though you issued a memo to council,
I think for the public, you should give us an overview of
what you sent to us.
01:51:26 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
This was the adult-only marijuana civil
citation program that we began six months ago at the end of
March.
The total number of citations issued has been through that
six-month period, 409.

A total of 198 of those were paid within the 30 days.
And that's significant, as you recall, because if you failed
to pay within that 30 days under the ordinance, you would no
longer qualify for this program, this alternative to arrest
program.
So I was personally a little bit disappointed that only
about 48% of the people who received those citations chose
to go that route, but that's what the numbers are.
We have a total of 3 during that period of time who had had
a previous citation, so less than one percent were within
that six-month period.
The racial distribution is there as you see, black to white
is about 60% versus 40%.
59 versus 39 actually.
Ethnicity numbers 148 non-Hispanic versus 27 Hispanic.
We also took a look at assault, misdemeanor arrests during
that same period of time.
Which there were 529.
You will recall that the citation program was applicable to
certain people who met certain criteria, and among other
criteria was that no other charges, no other criminal
charges arose out of the same incident.
So there were a total of 529 misdemeanor marijuana arrests
during that same period of time.
You see the racial distribution there, which is extremely

close, within one percent of the distribution for the
citation.
We also took a look at the reason why people were arrested
as opposed to receiving a citation, and you see the
distribution numbers there.
During the same period of time, in 2015, there were 921
adult marijuana arrests.
And when you add citations to marijuana arrests for this
same period 2016, you get 938.
So 938 versus 921, less than 2% increase, which was
significant tore me, tending to show, in my opinion, that
the use of marijuana did not dramatically increase, at least
in public, as a result of council's decision to adopt this
alternative program.
No questions on any of that?
01:54:50 >>HARRY COHEN:
One question.
The racial and ethnic ratios similar in 2015 to 2016?
Was there any marked difference there?
01:55:08 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
I did not compare the racial --
01:55:11 >>HARRY COHEN:
The number of incidents is almost identical.
I'm just wondering if there was any change in the makeup of
who received sanction of some kind.
01:55:25 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
I was not asked for that analysis.
I can and send that on to council.
01:55:31 >>HARRY COHEN:
Yes, I think that would be interesting to

know.
I expect it to be similar.
I would expect it not to be different.
01:55:41 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
I will take care of that.
01:55:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions?
Any other information that you have?
May I ask a question?
I just did a quick math in terms of number of citations for
that time period, the March 31st to September 30th, and
it looks like 59% African-American and 39% white which adds
up to about 98% of arrests are the other distribution that
you have listed there.
You have a location map as to where these citations were
issued.
And this is what I am getting at.
You know, were they all no parking lot, you know, after a
concert, let's say, and you might get certain disparity
versus if you are someplace else?
How is it populated city-wide?
More along those lines.
Because, you know, just by looking at the numbers, you don't
know if it's based on certain places, certain times of day,
you know, where someone is at, at any one time, if someone
is just on the street?
Is it somebody that's in a club or just leaving a club or

something like that?
So it might help us to know that.
I don't expect you to have it in front of you now because I
don't think we asked for it.
But I do think it might be important for us to have that
kind of demographic information to know where people are at
and when they get cited.
01:57:12 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
I suspect we could do an analysis based
on geography, but it won't tell you -- it will show you an
address.
It may not tell you whether they were in the street, no car.
I would say a report sort of analysis, and it's doable but
you see the numbers.
01:57:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Even a general location.
Let's say, for example, if they are over that time period
that you have listed, you know, we had the same number of
citations in relation to arrests that we didn't get before.
But was it because there are several different concerts at
any one time?
Maybe that's what happened.
The only reason I mention in concerts, typically there's
going to be some idea that people are going to feel free to
light up in Ray certain place, or think that they are safe
to light up in a certain place, and maybe we need to look at
how we report and inform people that you know what?

Most of our citations are in this certain place, you might
want to think about not showing up here, you know, thinking
that you are only going to get a citation or arrest.
I think that there's an aspect of what people do in terms of
their own habits, and they repeat the same habits over and
over again, you know.
So we may want to look at that demographically.
So we might want to have that brought back to us at some
point.
01:58:42 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
We start with an address location map
that I think is extractible from the data relatively simply.
We'll start with that as a step one.
We'll also do the 2015 race analysis on the arrests and see
what those numbers look like.
01:59:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Terrific.
01:59:04 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
And then we can also do, I think
relatively simple, a day of time analysis, which may be
helpful.
And then we'll take that and present that to you.
And if you think you need additional analysis again, there's
some of this that's going to take narrative of the police
report reading one at a time.
There's nearly a thousand of them.
That's fairly substantial.
01:59:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Believe me, I can imagine the amount of

information you have already and trying to discern that
based on what you have gotten.
It may be helpful for us to look at how we enforce and
whether or not there need to be tweaks to the ordinance in
order to make sure we are doing the right thing.
Any other questions or comments of staff at this point?
Okay.
Thank you so much.
We really appreciate you coming here.
01:59:58 >>KIRBY RAINSBERGER:
My pleasure.
01:59:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And made it just before the rain.
That's good.
Mrs. Montelione, I had waited to look at number 97 and 100
until you got here.
02:00:09 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
Wonderful.
02:00:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If you could come up and we'll do those two
items now.
02:00:14 >> Marcella Hamilton, assistant city attorney.
I also have Justin Vaske here, the ordinance, if you have
any questions about that.
You asked to bring the backup by council member Montelione,
a lobbying ordinance and asked them to present it to the
ethics commission.
You have been provided with a memo from the chair of the

ethics commission regarding some of the provisions total
second draft which includes the ethics commission.
02:00:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So if I may, we can move the
whistleblower ordinance, because from the memo from chairman
Morgan, they have reviewed it.
You know, I trust their opinion and their guidance.
And so from what I can see, they thought it was an
improvement over what we have now.
So I would move the ordinance.
02:01:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That is item number 100?
02:01:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No, 97, the ordinance.
I have it backwards in my book.
I'm sorry.
So 100.
I would move item 100, the whistleblower ordinance.
02:01:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay.
Do you have that available?
I do.
I got it.
There's nothing to read here.
It's just make changes as requested and present an ordinance
for first reading consideration.
02:02:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you have that?
Mrs. Montelione.
02:02:24 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move an ordinance of the city of

Tampa, Florida amending City of Tampa code of ordinances
chapter 2, article 7?
8?
9?
02:02:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do we have clean copies that Mrs. Montelione
can read?
02:02:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Do you have copies for council?
02:02:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Lots of print.
02:02:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you so much.
I had it backwards in my book.
And I move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
adopting and enacting a new division of article 8 of chapter
2 of the City of Tampa code of ordinances to be herein after
referenced and known as "division 9, whistleblower
procedures" establishing criteria and procedures for
reporting of fraud and whistle blowing by employees,
identifying procedures for responding to and investigating
employee complaints, reserving sections 2-664 through 2-674
of division 8 of article 8 of chapter 2, providing for
severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
conflict here with, providing an effective date.
02:03:45 >> Second.
02:03:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione, I have
a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.

Any opposed?
02:03:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
They are new glasses.
02:03:58 >>THE CLERK:
Second reading and adoption will be heard on
October 20th, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
02:04:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
And we continue on number 9.
Do you have any questions, Mrs. Montelione, on 97 or anyone
else?
02:04:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That is the lobbying ordinance, and we
all received a memorandum from, again, chairman Morgan from
the ethics commission.
There were some points of the ordinance that they were in
agreement with, but asked in some cases for language to be
tweaked, if you will.
So the definition of lobbyist, which is the first bullet
point on the memo -- this is a policy decision, so, you
know, we all would have to see how we feel about it.
But the way I looked at it and reviewed it with staff and
the legal department, I didn't see that the language was
lessen forceful, I thought more targeted so it was more
defined.
So the current ordinance to me was vague, whereas the
proposed language is clearer.
But that would be, you know, up to everyone to --

02:05:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
What's the specific changes, differences
that you are referring to based on what the ordinance says
and what you are stating?
02:05:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
If you refer to the chart that came with
the memorandum, it says currently in the ordinance that its
consideration of any type.
And what we are proposing in the new ordinance is we are
saying who contracts for on behalf of the principal and
principal responsibility.
So it further defines who the lobbyists are.
Like I said, it's a matter of opinion.
I don't think that the change weakens it.
I think the change just clarifies it.
But it's hard to interpret something, you know, the way that
he discussed it with legal, and working through this
language, is that it's hard to define who is a lobbyist.
So I use the example the other day with Mr. Shelby that if I
were a member of staff, an employee who goes tore buy a car
on a car lot -- we had car lots earlier -- and the
salesperson is telling me that car says you know, the
dealership might want to get the business of the City of
Tampa, and the employee says that's up to fleet management,
just tell them to call them.
Is that going to make that salesperson at the dealership a
lobbyist?

Because they don't have decision making.
And he was just inquiring.
It would be whoever the decision maker is, the one who
actually contacts the City of Tampa, that would be the
lobbyist.
So if it's the language in the proposed ordinance I think
further defines that instead of just being so broad, you
know, saying -- because the current one says, including but
not limited to someone who receives salary, payment,
retainer, consideration of any type, so, you know, I mean,
the sales guy on the sales floor receives payment, he
receives commission, but it's not related to the actual
procurement opportunity with the city.
So that's kind of how that was.
Then the second point in the memo talked about the
definition of lobbying.
And I don't have any problem with the suggestion that Tampa
ethics commission made.
They do like the new language.
They would just like to incorporate some of -- or retain
some of the original language.
So the ordinance that's proposed does not define what a
meeting in the future would be, and the language they would
like incorporated is, quote, if any such meeting occur was
respect to an item not currently pending before a city

official, and an item there subsequently comes before a city
official within 12 months of such meeting, that meeting
shall also constitute lobbying and shall be subject to
prompt disclosure and other restrictions hereunder.
The first is timely filing of this disclosure, the meeting
shall have been deemed to occur upon the date of filing the
application or request for subsequent approval.
So, in other words, say somebody lobbies or talks to us
about a land use -- well, that would be lobbying.
A contract.
Say somebody comes to us and talks to us about a contract,
and we don't know anything about it because often we don't
know about the contract being presented before us until they
actually arrive, because it's negotiated by the
administration, but when it coms gets to us, you realize,
hey, this person talked to me eight, nine months ago about
this issue, I didn't know it was coming up, but they would
have, and then activated a meeting when we, or whoever is
sitting here, when council hears that contract, then you
have to disclose that you had a conversation about it eight
months ago.
I mean, it's not in the proposed ordinance, but the ethics
commission would like it to be in the proposed ordinance.
02:10:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
If I may, that provision now, I remember a
specific time when that was added.

02:10:41 >> It's in the current but it's not in the proposed.
It's added in the second proposed from the provisions that
the ethics commission requested.
02:10:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Frankly what it is, it's an improvement
over the county ordinance, because it's a very subjective
term and that would be a hard thing to be able to prove.
So the city had addressed this several years ago and said 12
months is what they defined.
So if a lobbyist knows it's going to be forthcoming they
should disclose it then, and if not, then it does come up on
the agenda or it is filed as pending then they do have an
obligation to file.
02:11:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other questions?
02:11:27 >>HARRY COHEN:
No, I think it answered -- I have a lot of
questions, and I guess the thing is, there's two separate
versions here, and it sounds like -- I mean, if we are going
to go forward today on a first reading we have to take all
of one or all of the other.
And not be able to pick and choose between which versions of
one and which versions of two we might like.
02:11:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, correct me if I am wrong, she took
the suggestions.
Ethics commission and incorporated it.
02:12:00 >>HARRY COHEN:
I understand.
So there's version one which is the original one.

Version two incorporates what the ethics commission wants.
But there's no version that allows us to cherry pick what
they have asked for and decide.
You know, it would be easy just to go forward carte blanche
with version two, but the problem is, we really don't want
to --
02:12:26 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, I was hoping we would get the
surges earlier than we did.
But because of the timing of their meeting --
02:12:37 >> We have until the next meeting, you know.
Because we might be able to hash it out and get a first
reading done if we have a chance to do that.
02:12:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yeah, no, I'm fine with that, if you
indulge me, though, I would like to go through the other
points just so I can put them on the record and we can talk
about them in another setting.
So that's the second bullet point.
The third one, I think what the third bullet point is that
we recently started a process with a hearing officer, I
don't remember exactly when, for individuals who have
disputes with purchasing contracts.
So if a decision is made, and then somebody appeals, they
are not going to appeal directly to us.
The appeal is going to go to the hearing officer.
So the third point is that the ethics commission didn't

understand why there was something about, you know, an
appeal other than to council, because normally, or it used
to be all appeals came before council, but they don't now.
So they might essentially end up at council if they don't
like the hearing master or they might end up in court.
So there was a section added to include the appeal to a body
other than council.
So that was that one.
And I think the language might need instead of a comma like
an "and" or an "or" put in there.
The penalties would reflect the annual expenditure
reporting.
I think that may have been an oversight, that the annual
expenditure reporting wasn't put in the language, that the
ethics commission received.
They did point out that although we expanded the language to
define relative to include the domestic partner language
from the ordinance that was passed both by the city and the
county, we left out grandparent, grandchildren, and engaged
couples in the new version.
So I think that was also just an oversight.
And the last one was just they wanted more time for the
ordinance to be put into effect.
That's kind of walking through -- I mean, basically, I agree
with all of their statements.

We just need a clarification on that hearing master and
appeals process language, and whether or not everyone agrees
about the 12-month constituting, you know, a time period,
and the first one, which is, you know, everybody is going to
maybe feel a little differently about whether you want to
retain the current language, you know, consideration of any
type by anybody, or tighten up the language to be a little
more specific.
02:15:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Cohen.
02:15:42 >>HARRY COHEN:
So what I am hearing from you, if we were to
continue this for two weeks, is that we would come back with
version 2 of the ordinance, but council members would have
an opportunity if they wanted to pluck particular provisions
out of that or change something to do so at that time.
That way they have clarification.
02:16:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Uh-huh.
02:16:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you have something to say, Mrs. Hamilton?
02:16:09 >> Cop I clarify then for the lobbyist, the old definition
tore new definition?
Because that's been taken out of the second version.
02:16:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Well, it's got to be something that
individual members of council have to agree on.
I don't want to say whether I want in the or out.
Mr. Cohen is asking --
02:16:28 >> Okay.

Because they felt that the old definition was more
self-explanatory, for people to understand what personnel
are incorporated.
02:16:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
They believe that the clarification was
easier in the old definition.
02:16:46 >> Correct.
And we do have a definition of principal in our ethics code.
02:16:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I got you.
02:16:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That's the one point write disagreed
with some of the things they said.
Pretty much I agreed on everything else.
02:17:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
If you would like to be make a motion for
them to come back in two weeks, and I think in that two-week
period, please, anyone that has comments or questions, make
sure you make it known to Mrs. Hamilton, and when she comes
forward we will have a final draft that we can approve and
move forward.
Okay?
02:17:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Okay.
So we'll continue this then to the 20th of October.
Under staff reports.
02:17:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a motion from Mrs. Montelione, a
second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?

Thank you, Mrs. Hamilton.
We appreciate it.
Up next number 99.
We are getting there.
Mr. Baird.
02:17:41 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Good afternoon, council, Brad Baird, public
works administrator.
If I could get them in the back to pull up the presentation.
I know you have been waiting all day for this presentation.
(Laughter)
There we go.
So this is, I guess, the first of stormwater updates
specifically related to a motion.
Can I get it to come up on the screen in front of me?
02:18:39 >> We have it up here.
02:18:40 >> I will make do.
So this is a motion essentially to lay out how we prioritize
our projects for capital improvement plans, and how we will
manage those projects, manage the program as well as the
money.
So there were four questions set forth there.
I won't read those, but that's sectionally what the motion
was frigg to accomplish.
First I would like to quickly give a background.
We did develop a detailed capital improvement plan, and it

was done by prioritizing all the known flooding problems
that we have throughout the city.
That plan, that detailed plan was summarized no spreadsheet
and shown or included as appendix C of the initial
stormwater resolution number 2016-567 which was adopted by
City Council on July 14.
So
Before I answer the questions, those four questions, I would
like to go through how does the prioritize projects?
First of all the stormwater departments uses what is called
the Columbus prioritization model.
And it's a model that was modified for City of Tampa, and
its used to even the playing field, if you will, from
higher-cost projects, lower-cost projects, and the different
criteria or the different impacts that that flooding has.
And that is done using the following criteria.
And there's eight criteria listed there.
Health, safety, of property damage, frequency of occurrence,
of course, existence or condition of the system, number of
people affected, the economic development impact.
The leverage of funding.
Then finally the water quality benefits, in our case Tampa
Bay, Hillsborough River and other bodies of water.
We take those criteria.
And then they are prioritized using weight factors.

And then from there, they are plugged into a formula.
And we do that for every project.
And then we track all flooding complaints, and then we'll
update that list on a regular basis, based on the criteria,
based on the formula.
So I would like to go through criteria by criteria, if you
will bear with me.
And hit the highlights.
So the first one, health, safety and flood depth.
Obviously, if there are documented deaths, serious injury,
you are going to get more points.
Flooding, high risk are the same.
You will get a couple points less.
Moderate risk, flood depth of one to two feet.
If six points, low risk, 4 points.
Then it's just nuisance flooding that we get a lot of
complaints on, only 2.
The next one is potential property damage.
We haven't had the to one complete structural loss in a long
time, which is good.
But we have had the second one, structural damage.
We continue to have that.
If you remember last August, we had some in the North Tampa
area.
We had some in South Tampa as well.

They had structural damage where homes and garages have
water coming into their house.
And then loss of use of vehicles or significant vehicle
damage.
And we had quite a bit of that, as you know, last August as
well.
Erosion of land, street damage.
The points go down for that.
Then yard flooding which, you know, occurs throughout the
improvement areas.
And then if there is no damage associated and say what I
call bird baths in the street and it doesn't damage the
property.
You get no points for that.
So frequency of occurrence is next, and that one is
self-explanatory, for the more often it happens, the more
often this location floods, the more points you get.
And then we have existence or condition of the stormwater
system.
So if there's no system there whatsoever, or if it's a
closed basin, in other words, the water has nowhere to go,
you get the top scoring, you get ten points.
Poor coverage or it's an inadequate system, 8 points.
Good coverage but conditions failing, 6.
And then the last one if the system is undersized, 5 points.

The next one is number of people affected.
And that's self-explanatory as well.
The more people that are affected, the more points you get.
Economic development affected.
If you are no CRA area, and we want to support the
administration is supporting redevelopment in that area, it
only makes sense to give the highest points to trying to
resolve the flooding to support that redevelopment as well.
Other areas that are targeted for redevelopment but they are
not CRA, 8 points.
Untargeted areas, but property values are affected
widespread, 6 points.
Limited to a few houses, 3 points.
And then if you have strong property values regardless of
the problem, zero points.
So South Tampa would be a good example of that, in parts of
South Tampa.
Leverage of funding.
Basically, the more outside funding you get, the more points
you get to move you up the scale.
If you are getting 75.
If the city is able to obtain 75% or more, that project
becomes exempt.
We are going to go ahead with it.
And the last one is water quality benefits.

So if the projects, or the solution, I should say, includes
a new stormwater pond for treatment, it gets 10 points.
If other treatment opportunities, you know, in the system, 6
points.
And then if it's the flood relief only, it's zero points.
There are weighting factors associated with each of the
criteria. For those I multiply by the scoring of each
criteria.
And we take all that information project by project and plug
it into the formula, the prioritization formula.
I am going to take you back to your algebra days for a
second.
So we have a cost estimate range.
And then you have benefit indices that range, you know, in
this case with 73 to 284.
You know, after you do those calculations that you went
through.
And then so what Columbus did originally is they could
retain the consultant, and they had a very robust, I'll say,
over a 15-month period, process to come up with this
formula.
02:27:47 >>HARRY COHEN:
This is Columbus, Ohio, correct?
So we are modeling based on what another city did.
02:27:56 >> Correct, correct.
But this one has become the gold standard throughout the

country.
02:28:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I thought the same thing.
So it's not from Columbus days.
So go ahead, sir.
02:28:10 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Okay, thank you.
So what the Columbus team did is they developed an equation
whereby you have two unknowns.
And so they took, if you go down to the calculation part,
they took the bottom end of that curve and then the top end
of that curve.
and then they have two equations and two unknowns and they
solved that, and where they came out with -- this is Tampa,
it's part of our projects -- where the first coefficient
is --
02:28:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Excuse me, sir, I am not an engineer but
if you have every one that's known, how can you have two
unknowns?
02:28:58 >>BRAD BAIRD:
No, that's just to develop the curve that
allows you -- if I can answer your question.
So you are essentially developing the continuum that
projects will be plugged into.
So again, the first equation is 73 equals an unknown, the
coefficient to be determined, because you are going to use
those coefficients later in this curve.
Plus the 7,000.

And that's times a B.
And in thousandths, obviously.
The other one you are using the end of that continuum.
So you have another equation with two unknowns, coefficients
that you need to define.
Then you plug one into the other and solve it and you get
the A --
02:29:57 >> I don't know about you but the simplicity of the noise
ordinance -- (Laughter).
02:30:06 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Let me finish.
And then you have the adjusted value for the equation that
is correct we started with, ends up being when you plug
those coefficients back in, it's AB equals 72.4 plus CE or
the cost estimate times 0.0152.
Then you solve for the adjusted value and you divide by the
benefit index.
And then you multiply that by 100.
And it comes out the lower the score, the higher up it is on
the list.
The higher the priority.
That's how it works.
02:30:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Baird, make sure I am correct when I say
this.
The first two equations are just to start to create the
bottom and the top.

Okay.
Then once you put that in as part of the indices, you get --
is that the way of doing it?
02:31:06 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Correct.
02:31:07 >> You got your degree from Florida.
I got my speaking degree from USF so I think we can agree on
this.
02:31:14 >>BRAD BAIRD:
And if I could summarize this.
Maybe I should have done this at the beginning.
Let's say the cost estimate of the project is $100,000.
And these are planned obviously early on.
And the benefit index was 50 -- no, let's say it's 150.
So you would plug in 100 times .015, solve for the adjusted
value, take that adjusted value, and then divide it by the
150.
And so you end up with a cost benefit or a bang for a buck
number.
So, you know, the higher the prioritization number is, the
more bang for the buck again.
Is that better?
02:32:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Explained it better but I'm not sure
everyone understands.
Before you go let's make sure anybody who has questions now
are on the math portion of the exam.
Does anyone have any questions about it?

Okay.
02:32:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have a statement.
All that being true, assume it's true, and you have a
problem 10, 15 miles away, where is the benefit?
02:32:38 >>BRAD BAIRD:
No, see, the benefit would be the flooding
until those two projects.
The benefit would be through those eight criteria in that
area.
02:32:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
That means you are going to fix a
project and move it to another project?
02:32:55 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Yeah, we have 150 neighborhood projects, and
then the --
02:33:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Is anything calculated for the ability
of moving and resetting it from one project to another?
Because if not, that would be flawed.
02:33:10 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Well, different contractors and some
in-house.
I'll come back and talk about what the next steps are.
But some will be handled in-house, some out-house.
So it may not be the same contractor.
When they finish one contract, if it is the same contractor,
yes, they move to the next project.
But this is just to determine the priority of the flooding
issue.
Any other questions?

I am going to turn it over to Sonya who hopefully will do it
much simpler.
Then we'll start answering the questions that are in the
motion.
Thank you.
02:33:58 >>SONYA LITTLE:
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, council
members, and proceeding to address the questions that were
asked in the motion starting out with how do they propose to
set up the structure by which they are going to manage the
stormwater projects and manage the moneys that are
associated with these projects, and what type of governance
are they going to put over the projects themselves?
Before you is a table that really lays out the flow for the
project management, and management of the stormwater project
program, both from a project management perspective and
funding management perspective is obviously a very large and
integral part of the entire construction contracting and
financing program for the city.
So what this guide does is to the far left, it provides the
major departments that will have duties associated with the
stormwater program.
So the major departments, project management team,
stormwater services, departments, planning and development,
contract administration, and revenue and finance all work
together with what's in the center design contract and

construction contract.
The financing, obviously we talked about quite a bit, will
be an integral part of it.
Revenue and finance, the city attorney and outside
consultants, and also the driving force in the annual
improvement assessment whereby all of those departments
participate in developing the roll certification document.
To the far right it's obvious everything we do under the
stormwater program as with any other program in the city has
to receive approval by City Council before moving forward.
Now, to funding, the management of the fund, we included
here both the service and the improvement assessment,
because both of those fees, those categories will be
collected and remitted to the City of Tampa by the
Hillsborough County tax collector.
When it is received from the tax collector into the city, we
segregate the funds accordingly.
So all the service assessment funds go into one coffer and
the improvement assessment funds will go into obviously
another because they have been itemized for separate
purposes.
If you take a look at the services assessment square, we'll
have both the fee and also the general fund subsidy that we
talked about will be needed to increase the level of service
for maintenance of our ponds, outfall and engineering.

And then on the improvement side we will have three primary
sources of funding.
Obviously the assessment itself, but also the general fund
will subsidize the program by funding the hardship program
that was approved as part of this program.
Expenditures will go directly to fund the project under the
programs, pay back the bond payments on an annual basis, as
well as funding the hardship programs and the general fund
subsidy.
Stormwater grants that we are able to secure, both the ones
that are in the pipeline and on an ongoing basis will go
into a separate fund, and be used for reimbursement back to
the city for the authorized project.
And then finally, obviously, the bond proceeds will go
directly to fund the stormwater project.
Now, even beyond those three funds, there are accounts that
are established so that every dollar coming into the
program, for example, for every project will have an
assigned account number so that based on the budget for that
particular project, all the fund coming in and going out can
be tracked as we do with all of our other projects within
the city.
Just a reminder that this is all part of our annual budget
process.
So on an annual basis, when the mayor presents the budget,

you receive part 1, and part 2 of the budget.
Part 1 is the operational side.
The part 2 booklet of the budget has all of the capital
improvement projects, so there will be a page for each
stormwater project for a five-year period.
In the part 2 booklet, with a description of the project,
the source of funding and the year in which that funding
comes online.
So quite a bit of detail on each individual project as a
part of the annual budget process.
So in addition to the budget process and the ongoing
briefings that we intend to have related to this program,
another reminder is that all of this is captured in our
annual financial reports, our CAPFR as presented, so in that
CAPFR we'll see what is expended under the program on an
annual basis as well.
02:40:10 >>BRAD BAIRD:
The next question on the motion was, will the
mayor's office have a representative to oversee this?
The answer is yes.
Of that would be me.
So you are stuck with me for a while.
Hopefully for a while.
But here is how we will specifically manage this program.
There are four major departments involved.
I will go left to right starting with Bob McDonaugh's group

for economic opportunity, and specifically his planning and
development division.
Jean Duncan, who is the director of transportation and
stormwater services.
Mike Chocran, contract administration.
And Sonya Little for revenue and finance.
Going back to planning and development, Bob's group will
handle Tampa program, permitting, primarily right-of-way
permitting and property acquisition.
Jean's department will handle planning, design, grant
management and mitigation credit program.
Mike will handle procurement for design and construction
contract, contract management, and inspection of all the
projects.
Sonya will obviously handle the items she just went through,
but the fund management.
The last was how do we plan on organizing just going
forward.
So what I thought I would do is provide next steps.
We are hitting the ground running on these projects.
As you know we put quite a few on hold pending approval of
this capital improvement assessment.
So the first and biggest step is we need to execute the
capital improvement program.
We have to execute -- you know, we said what we would do,

and I said this before.
Now we have to do what we said.
So the second one is a request that City Council made to
select a consultant to perform a mitigation credit analysis.
The third is to prepare for the issuance of the first bond
issue FY 17.
Specifically, here are some of the next steps that we
initiated already, or are getting ready to, to initiate.
And the first thing is we are doing work orders to
consulting engineers, for design of the neighborhood
project.
If you recall, you all approved what's called the consultant
negotiations act which allows us to issue work orders as
part of that process.
We are also going to issue work orders to impact house
construction crew for shovel ready projects, and we have a
number of those ready to go.
We are going to issue work orders to contractors, to
contractors in particular, one of which you approved earlier
today.
Dallas Warren construction development.
That was the one Mike Chocran was on.
The lower was the flooding relief, the one where we decided
not to hold the grant on that and go ahead because it was
only a $600,000 effort and we needed to get a plan for that

lower peninsula.
We are going into the lower projects, to select design-build
teams for two of the projects, the Henderson Dale Mabry
project, and the Cypress street outfall project.
And so we can get those going.
And then we are going to proceed with property purchases for
the North Tampa basin, and then finally select the
consultant to perform a feasibility study for southeast
Seminole Heights flooding relief project.
And we had done the feasibility study for cypress and Dale
Mabry, and we have done the modeling work for southeast
Seminole Heights, the work that I am talking about, the
lower peninsula, but we have not done the feasibility study
yet.
We put it on hold until this was approved.
With that, I will turn it over to questions.
02:45:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
All right.
Does anyone have any questions?
Of Mr. Baird or anyone else?
Yes, sir?
02:45:19 >> [Off microphone.]
02:45:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Besides that, are we saying that you
will never see that again?
02:45:29 >> What, the lady on the bike?
Well, unless you want different pictures on the update.

02:45:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Are we saying -- I voted against it
because 251 million doesn't solve that problem.
02:45:47 >>BRAD BAIRD:
That's one of the yellow dots that we will be
solve, yes.
02:45:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
It will never solve that problem with
251 because you never can control the amount of water that's
going to come from down, up, to down.
02:45:59 >>BRAD BAIRD:
It will solve the --
02:46:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
A minor sprinkle but not solve coming in
the east coast of Florida.
02:46:08 >> Well, it will solve more than minor.
02:46:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, minor compared to what's over
there.
I am not trying to be -- and then one other thing.
And this is not at you, sir.
Believe me, don't take it from you, but I have never seen
the City of Tampa from day one -- the first part, and leaves
you out, too.
But I have never seen one individual get ticketed for
blowing anything off the street from the part of a car to a
tire to a 2-by-4 to grass.
It might be, but I don't know of any, that it's creating a
much higher cost at the end of the plant, the Howard Curren
for electricity or chemical, and I don't know who is
responsible for issuing those things or if there's any

patrols, eyes of different departments that do it.
And I am not trying to be comical.
I just look this way.
And understand what's going on because I just don't see it
coming.
02:47:10 >>BRAD BAIRD:
We are working on this issue with code
enforcement.
It's a very difficult issue as you know.
By the time you get out there, they are gone.
02:47:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
If you run in the streets you will be
there.
02:47:24 >>BRAD BAIRD:
It's really difficult to police that.
We already --
02:47:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Again not at you or Mrs. Little.
They usually mow grass from February to November.
So they can take three months off.
02:47:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I wasn't sure if you were volunteering to be
one of the officers or if you are going to meet whenever the
administration to beef up code enforcement efforts.
02:47:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
No.
All you have to do is drive the streets.
02:47:55 >>BRAD BAIRD:
Yes, it is a problem.
I have turned in a few myself.
02:47:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Every department in the city from
contract administration, from treatment plants, nobody calls

in nobody.
I guess they are under that secret plan.
Don't see and don't tell.
02:48:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Okay, anything else are? Any other
questions?
Mr. Baird, thank you so much.
We appreciate it.
Okay.
We are on number 101.
We have cleared the agenda of number 100.
And who is here?
I see Mrs. Duncan.
Are you here to appear on this particular issue?
No?
Never mind.
02:48:40 >> I move to remove this.
02:48:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Yes, you did.
I apologize.
Okay.
Next up, information reports from our members, new business.
Mr. Miranda.
02:48:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I have two small ones here.
Very important, but for me to speak about.
I would like to make a motion to present Spencer Robert
Jenkins the completion of requirements for Eagle Scout.

He's done many things, but one of them, he built a
concession stand at Christ the king Catholic church known as
king's cafe and took over 250 man hours.
He was supported by 3672 other scouts and fathers and family
members, and he received his Eagle Scout ranking when he was
still 16 years old.
02:49:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That's very admirable.
I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
02:49:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I also move to make a presentation,
commendation to Mindy Snyder, cable TV manager, who retires
tomorrow after 31.5 years of service to the City of Tampa
and I will be presenting this to her tomorrow at the
farewell.
02:49:51 >> Second.
02:49:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor of that motion indicate by saying aye.
02:49:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Thank you, sir.
02:49:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Reddick.
02:50:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have two items I want to bring up.
But --
02:50:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you want me to come back to you, sir?

02:50:09 >>FRANK REDDICK:
No.
What happened to 101?
02:50:11 >> That's the red light ordinance.
02:50:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It was carried over from the last.
02:50:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
[Off microphone.]
02:50:28 >>FRANK REDDICK:
When was it passed?
02:50:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
It was the meeting before the last meeting.
And because the ordinance was passed, this particular item
became moot.
Because this had to do more with the extension -- excuse me,
the renewal as opposed to the extension.
02:50:49 >> It passed 4 to 3 if I recall.
02:50:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Any other new business, Mr. Reddick?
02:51:02 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Well, I don't know of any.
(Laughter).
02:51:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
That is two and a half week old business.
02:51:11 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
New business.
First item is I am going to bring up is that the Board of
County Commissioners yesterday voted on marijuana, and I
spoke with the legal department, and I am going to put a
motion in effect, and it's only for Hillsborough County
unincorporated area, I am going to ask that the legal
department draft a motion, an ordinance, and present it to
council on October 20th, to establish a moratorium, or

say abatement, similar to what we have with the county
commission.
02:51:59 >> Second.
02:52:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Reddick.
A second from Mr. Cohen.
Discussion?
02:52:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Yes, thank you.
So you are asking for a moratorium, not abeyance.
Is there a time period where this would come back for
discussion?
August 20, next year?
02:52:27 >>FRANK REDDICK:
This year.
I mean October.
02:52:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
You said August.
02:52:30 >>FRANK REDDICK:
October 20.
I don't know why I said August.
October 20th.
And legal department to look at abatement, a moratorium, and
I think everything is correct.
02:52:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
It's 180-day period.
02:52:53 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I just wanted a clarification because I
saw August.
02:53:01 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I'm glad you brought that up.
02:53:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Mr. Cohen.
02:53:07 >>HARRY COHEN:
So the reason I seconded that and support

it, if you remember the conversation that Mrs. Grimes had
with us a couple of years ago, we, depending on what be the
laws are going to be, we need some time to figure out where
we are going to put these things and how we are going to
work it and I think it's a great idea.
02:53:25 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Basically what the commission did, to make
sure it's nowhere near schools, or some of these places with
kids.
02:53:38 >> Not to mention you never know finance the legislature is
going to deal with it.
Motion on the floor from Mr. Reddick.
All in favor of that indicate by saying aye.
Any opposed?
Anything else, sir?
02:53:51 >>FRANK REDDICK:
One last item.
I am going to make a motion to request the legal department
to draft an ordinance for all City of Tampa contracts to
include language with MBE and everything with MBE, contract
with City Council, the contract should not be approved
unless there is MBE and asking them to report October
20th under staff reports.
02:54:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion by Mr. Reddick.
Second from Mr. Maniscalco.
Any questions, comments?
If not, all in favor indicate by saying aye.

Any opposed?
Okay.
Anything else, sir?
That was it.
Mr. Cohen.
02:54:39 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just one item, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask for a commendation to be presented to
Planned Parenthood celebrating their 100th birthday on
October 16th.
02:54:51 >> Second.
02:54:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion from Mr. Cohen.
Second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Anything else, sir?
02:55:04 >>HARRY COHEN:
I just wish everybody safety in the storm.
I know all of our prayers are with our fellow citizens that
will be on the east coast and evacuating, and also with the
people in Haiti and Cuba who have really been decimated by
this really, really bad storm.
02:55:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Maniscalco.
02:55:25 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask council to present a commendation to

Jeanette la Russo Fenton to be given upon her retirement,
which is obviously coinciding with our regular council
meeting on December 1st.
Of course, you know she's been with the City of Tampa 21
years.
Before that Hillsborough County.
She's very well loved and dedicated herself to be the
service here.
So that's that.
02:55:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
We have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco, a
second from Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor of that motion?
Any opposed?
Thank you.
Anything else, Mr. Maniscalco?
Mrs. Montelione?
02:56:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Along the same lines as Mr. Cohen, I
know I got two messages on with the mayor's voice on my cell
phone yesterday asking me to go to Alert Tampa and update my
information.
So I would like to remind everyone as the storm is
approaching that we do have a service called "Alert Tampa."
You can find it on our website.
It's on Twitter and on Facebook.
Just "Alert Tampa."

It provides updates to storm information, to closures, to
sandbags, and necessary information that people might need.
And please don't take this flippantly.
This is a cat 4 that they are predicting.
I have got a few relatives headed my way who are hard headed
who don't want to leave and I am trying to tell them, no,
you must leave, because we haven't been hit in a long time.
But from all intents, what it's going to like it's going to
hit this time.
02:57:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Absolutely truly.
And I will say in my profession, in the insurance business,
I have been watching the weather all week, and it is a very
bad storm, and we are hoping that it doesn't hit as badly as
it looks, because it looks awful.
Mr. Miranda?
02:57:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Well, I know you got a call from the
mayor.
02:57:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And any two more voice mails.
02:57:34 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
That means are you are not signed up for
Alert Tampa.
02:57:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I am.
Itch got a voice mail.
02:57:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
It's a robo call so don't get excited.
02:57:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Motion to receive and file.
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Maniscalco.

All in favor?
Is thereby anyone in the general public that would like to
speak at this time?
If not we are adjourned.
(City Council meeting adjourned.)



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.