Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 20, 2016
9:00 a.m. session
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime
captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete
accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
The original of this file was produced in all capital
letters and any variation thereto may be a result of third
party edits and software compatibility issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
09:05:37 [Sounding gavel]
09:05:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Tampa City Council is now called into order.
09:05:44 The chair yields to Councilman Maniscalco.
09:05:49 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: It's my privilege this morning to
09:05:52 welcome Bishop Tom Scott.
09:05:55 A gentleman that is no stranger to City Hall, who served
09:05:58 formerly as our chairman and member of City Council as well
09:06:01 as the Planning Commission.
09:06:03 Mr. Scott, if you would like to come to the podium and start
09:06:06 off with prayer, and if we could please rise.
09:06:11 Thank you.
09:06:11 >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and to this august body.
09:06:17 Thank you again for the opportunity to come before you.
09:06:19 I want to thank Councilman Guido for inviting me to come and
09:06:26 I am always willing to serve and have friends here, so I
09:06:29 appreciate the opportunity to come, and ask for God's
09:06:33 blessing upon your day.
09:06:34 Let me just say before we do the invocation that we are
09:06:38 facing a great election and encourage everyone to come out
09:06:42 and vote, cast their ballot and their voices.
09:06:48 And the Bible tells us to obey the laws of the land be under
09:06:53 God.
09:06:53 So vote.
09:06:54 I want to encourage you to vote and cast a vote.
09:06:57 Let us pray.
09:07:00 Ask God's blessing upon your day.
09:07:02 We are always reminded of what your word tells us and that
09:07:05 is to always acknowledge you and that you will give
09:07:08 direction to our path.
09:07:10 Today we thank you for the privilege so much.
09:07:14 We thank you for our great nation and great country.
09:07:17 A nation that established, a Constitution that gives us
09:07:24 equality and opportunity for all its citizens.
09:07:27 We thank you for such a great nation, a great country.
09:07:31 That we can come this morning and stand in your presence and
09:07:35 invite you into our meetings.
09:07:37 Thank you for those who serve our country today.
09:07:39 All of our elected officials, those that are in Washington,
09:07:43 those in Tallahassee, even locally.
09:07:46 We lift our mayor today, we lift up our county commission,
09:07:49 we lift up this City Council.
09:07:51 Pray today, God, that you give them wisdom as they rassle
09:07:56 with tough decisions for our community.
09:07:58 They are in place because you have permitted it and allowed
09:08:02 it.
09:08:02 So today we pray that you will be with them.
09:08:04 Give them the wisdom that they need.
09:08:07 Give them the insight that they need to make those decisions
09:08:09 for our community that it might be a better place for all of
09:08:12 its citizens.
09:08:13 Today we thank you for the men and women who serve our
09:08:15 country in uniform, those who are fighting across the water,
09:08:21 and ask that you bring them back home safely and take care
09:08:23 of their families.
09:08:25 Those in uniform locally, those who are police officers and
09:08:28 sheriff deputies, and fire rescue, who protect us every day
09:08:32 by putting their lives on the line.
09:08:34 We ask your blessing upon them and that you will protect
09:08:37 them and that they may be able to go home to their families.
09:08:40 Now we leave everything into your hands and we thank you
09:08:43 again for such a great day, a great country, and a great
09:08:46 city.
09:08:47 In your name we pray.
09:08:48 Amen.
09:08:49 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:09:11 >> Roll call.
09:09:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:09:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
09:09:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Here.
09:09:22 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
09:09:25 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Here.
09:09:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
09:09:30 And Mrs. Montelione?
09:09:37 And we are going to go to public next.
09:09:41 Item 1 is a presentation, the folks that are here to
09:09:50 represent so that we can have Mrs. Montelione present.
09:10:02 Public comment now.
09:10:03 This is public comment on any item that is on the agenda
09:10:06 that is not set for public hearing.
09:10:08 That would include those items that are set for public
09:10:11 hearing are those items numbered 47, I believe, through 58.
09:10:22 >>THE CLERK: Mr. Chair, receive the addenda to the agenda?
09:10:29 >> I need a motion to approve the addenda to the agenda.
09:10:33 Motion by Mrs. Capin.
09:10:34 Second by Mr. Miranda.
09:10:36 All in favor of that motion?
09:10:38 Any opposed?
09:10:39 Thank you.
09:10:39 Now we go to our public comments.
09:10:43 Please come forward if you have anything that is not
09:10:45 included as part of a public hearing.
09:10:48 Please state your name.
09:10:49 >> Margaret Vizzi, 213 South Sherill, here with Frankhouser
09:10:56 this morning with our concern.
09:11:01 We have to speak at this point because it's not for public
09:11:05 hearing.
09:11:07 It's under staff reports.
09:11:08 So our concern is that this issue of changing the decibel
09:11:18 from 55 whatever city-wide is a big concern.
09:11:24 That before council actually passes that, that it goes
09:11:28 through the process of a workshop so we can give further
09:11:31 input and further information, because it came up to be
09:11:39 discussed at this meeting.
09:11:41 So we don't even know what's being proposed.
09:11:45 So we hope that you would, before you make it official, you
09:11:48 would have a public -- I mean, a workshop.
09:11:54 Thank you.
09:11:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, ma'am.
09:11:56 Next, please.
09:11:57 >> Okay, I'm Ed, Ed Tillou, Sulphur Springs. This is one of
09:12:12 the meetings where the public comment is very much moved up.
09:12:23 I got burdened by that once in the past, and that's why I
09:12:29 left with my work half done.
09:12:35 I will have a handout to go around.
09:12:38 Okay, one of the things about hormones, one of these obese
09:12:45 people -- and there was research done on -- because Labrador
09:12:51 retrievers share the same thing.
09:12:54 But there's a satiation hormone that isn't produced by a lot
09:13:00 of people and these Labrador retrievers, and this goes into
09:13:06 that a little bit.
09:13:08 I wasn't able to talk about food at the CRA meeting because
09:13:12 some other things came up, and I will be talking about -- I
09:13:17 think that's a public hearing because it's item 60.
09:13:20 Okay.
09:13:26 I had a chance to put this together.
09:13:28 In that regard, this was something I handed out in the past
09:13:36 about climate change.
09:13:44 This won't go back, but anyway, this is not totally true,
09:13:49 deny science.
09:13:50 It's not set in stone yet.
09:13:52 But I'm yes, sirred with what NASA is doing, and it probably
09:13:58 will be a five to ten, maybe 15 years where I thought 30 or
09:14:02 35.
09:14:03 But in any case, what goes with it is this, that there has
09:14:11 been a world treat because it goes back to November 4.
09:14:15 So this business of ignoring putting volts on Ford with city
09:14:20 cars so that people can see how they are, how they work, and
09:14:23 the 35% of the carbon dioxide that's generated by
09:14:29 automobiles could be cut in half if everyone had a volt.
09:14:32 But nobody has a volt.
09:14:34 So the thing is, because the people who should be setting
09:14:39 the example are not doing that.
09:14:40 (Bell sounds)
09:14:41 Okay.
09:14:42 You are paying the price.
09:14:43 I mean, other people are paying the price.
09:14:46 Jacksonville paid the price.
09:14:49 But this was what's happening, and flooding.
09:14:53 This is what climate change looked like.
09:14:56 And I have to add this.
09:14:58 This is about air conditioning.
09:15:02 As a result of that treaty, people in India have air
09:15:05 conditioning, which I don't care that much, but goes up to
09:15:10 117.
09:15:10 (Bell sounds).
09:15:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:15:12 >> So these people are setting the example that you are not.
09:15:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:15:16 Next, please.
09:15:22 Mr. Frankhouser, please.
09:15:25 >> Jerry Frankhouser, Bayside west neighborhood association.
09:15:33 I'm here about noise ordinance, too.
09:15:36 The thing is, this noise ordinance should be specifically
09:15:41 for the neighborhoods that are -- that have the
09:15:45 entertainment.
09:15:48 I have a bar in my neighborhood that's over a mile from my
09:15:51 house, and so we sat down, we could hear the music at my
09:15:57 house a mile away.
09:16:02 Decibels, you can't let people have whatever they want in
09:16:06 the neighborhood and people are trying to sleep.
09:16:12 You need to make sure that they are not too loud even in the
09:16:15 neighborhood where the bars are, because they are trying to
09:16:19 be there, too.
09:16:20 Bristol Avenue is one of the places that has already had
09:16:23 problems with either cars parking or noise or things like
09:16:28 that.
09:16:29 I think you should be considerate of the neighborhoods.
09:16:33 I don't think this should be city-wide ordinance that you
09:16:36 are putting out.
09:16:38 Thank you.
09:16:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:16:40 , in ex-please.
09:16:45 Before you start, we had a conversation yesterday, but we
09:16:48 didn't get into how much time additional you were going to
09:16:51 ask for.
09:16:52 If you could at this time, go ahead and say how much you
09:16:54 think you are going to need.
09:16:56 >> Six minutes.
09:16:57 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Six minutes?
09:16:59 I will allow you six minutes.
09:17:01 If that's okay.
09:17:02 Thank you, sir.
09:17:03 >> Mr. Chair and council members, again, we are here to
09:17:05 address what now is agenda item 61.
09:17:10 It has to do with an ordinance regarding the MBE program of
09:17:14 the city.
09:17:15 We all have seen information provided to you, and you were
09:17:19 kind enough to provide it to us.
09:17:21 The Tampa organization of black affairs, there's another
09:17:24 gentleman speaking on behalf of the Saturday morning
09:17:26 breakfast group that's not connected with my time.
09:17:29 But I want to tell you that we all know that the that 280
09:17:35 million in five years in which 2% was committed tan owned
09:17:40 businesses and 2% for Hispanic businesses, not discriminate
09:17:44 of the low amount of dollars with the various minority
09:17:47 groups, about 9.1% was spent with minority, 98% with
09:17:54 nonminority companies.
09:17:55 This ordinance that council member Reddick proposed to
09:18:00 council to consider was trying to address what Mrs.
09:18:04 Montelione had maybe tried to do in another ordinance with
09:18:09 council member Scott in a previous ordinance.
09:18:12 None of those things have actually resulted in actual
09:18:15 spending significantly with the different demographics.
09:18:18 And we think this ordinance will give us this a little
09:18:22 quicker.
09:18:23 We were concerned that the city attorney wants to delay and
09:18:26 continue this item, and notice that council is going to be
09:18:33 discussing the item today but if we are going to continue to
09:18:35 talk to the world about our community, our city, where life
09:18:40 is better than everyone, that's one of the monikers of the
09:18:44 past, where there's builders building a place where everyone
09:18:47 can live, work and play, all of this means a lot to all of
09:18:50 us.
09:18:51 We respect those visions.
09:18:52 We think those things are good for our community.
09:18:54 When we use words like "everyone" we need to be including
09:18:58 everyone.
09:18:59 We need this council to stand up and show its leadership and
09:19:02 continue to do that.
09:19:03 You have done that.
09:19:04 You are doing.
09:19:05 That we don't disrespect the -- we are not going to -- this
09:19:13 is about protecting the public trust of people who have pay
09:19:16 taxes and voted and look like us as well.
09:19:19 We can't spend for the Hispanic community but we hope the
09:19:21 Hispanic community is in your hearts as well.
09:19:24 As now this is part of your job to represent all people.
09:19:26 So we would like to see no more studies. We don't need
09:19:30 another study here.
09:19:31 The information is just what it is.
09:19:33 The numbers are the facts.
09:19:35 They speak for themselves.
09:19:36 We need to take action on these things.
09:19:40 The attorney I spoke to yesterday, Mrs. Mandell, her team,
09:19:43 about the Supreme Court decisions that we are concerned
09:19:48 about.
09:19:48 You know the Supreme Court decision, 98% of the people are
09:19:53 getting paid all the time.
09:19:54 We need to have someone stand up for the 2% that's not
09:19:57 getting any money.
09:19:58 We need you to find the legal way to stand up for all of the
09:20:02 people and make sure there's true equity and fairness and
09:20:07 economic inclusion of African-Americans, Hispanic Americans
09:20:10 and others who are not being properly expected with the
09:20:13 funds the city puts back out on the streets.
09:20:15 I don't know what calculation anyone is using.
09:20:18 We never used the percentage conversation or the set-aside
09:20:23 conversation but we know you are using good will.
09:20:25 Good will so far translates like this.
09:20:27 A company gets paid.
09:20:29 They don't follow up the procedure to make sure that
09:20:32 minority business enterprise gets any money.
09:20:34 They get slapped on the wrist.
09:20:35 We end up with 2% being spent with these companies.
09:20:38 Good will does not translate to actual spending.
09:20:41 That needs to be changed with the law to get the
09:20:44 administration to only bring contracts to be this council
09:20:47 that have language in there that supports to maybe look at
09:20:51 performance management agreements with the staff in the area
09:20:55 of equity fairness and economic inclusion, and if the staff
09:20:59 is using money using P-cards or they are doing bids out on
09:21:02 the street for responses, then in all circumstances of
09:21:07 spending money, that they also be held accountable -- and
09:21:10 this would be consequence of failure to follow that
09:21:13 procedure or process on a practice.
09:21:16 Now, the way you work it out is you don't have to approve
09:21:19 the budget if it doesn't comply with the City Council's
09:21:22 wishes.
09:21:23 You don't have to approve contracts that don't come with
09:21:25 language that requires the city administration to make sure
09:21:29 that when a contractor gets paid, MBE is getting paid.
09:21:34 For example, our contractor A, I have gotten a contract.
09:21:37 This is a minority owned company I claim is working with me.
09:21:41 Now what happens is I get paid I.don't pay them.
09:21:43 In the future, the city should not pay me, and if I come
09:21:48 with an invoice from this company with my invoice and we all
09:21:51 get paid at the same time.
09:21:52 That might be something you can work out in some type of
09:21:55 scale where it requires a contractor to do that or they
09:21:59 won't get paid.
09:21:59 We have to figure out now to trigger something after the
09:22:03 fact that causes council to be concerned about what someone
09:22:06 did not do.
09:22:07 They need to be required to do it up front.
09:22:09 So the language should come out that talks about good will.
09:22:12 The language going in should state actual spending.
09:22:15 You must show actual spending, and you must come with
09:22:19 invoices that show that MBEs are involved.
09:22:22 And no company that is out there should be held to a
09:22:25 standard that is not possible.
09:22:27 If there is no MBE available, they should not be held to
09:22:31 that standard.
09:22:31 That's fair.
09:22:32 But if there's an MBE available, they should be held to that
09:22:36 standard.
09:22:36 And the office of MBE for the city should be verifying and
09:22:40 certifying all of those things.
09:22:42 So we think that's very fair.
09:22:44 (Bell sounds)
09:22:45 We appreciate all the council members that support what this
09:22:48 ordinance means.
09:22:49 Whatever language lawyers want to use to feel comfortable
09:22:52 about not getting sued by someone who was already getting
09:22:56 paid.
09:22:57 That's up to the council and the lawyers to figure out.
09:23:02 We stand up for those who are not getting paid, the ones who
09:23:05 are left out and not getting paid and not expected for the
09:23:09 taxes.
09:23:09 The votes we give to all of you that's up there.
09:23:12 We need support for this.
09:23:13 (Bell sounds)
09:23:14 Thank you very much.
09:23:15 Do you all have any questions?
09:23:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:23:18 Appreciate it.
09:23:20 Next, please.
09:23:20 >> Good morning.
09:23:30 My name is Kevin.
09:23:32 And it's more --
09:23:35 >>Are I'm sorry, could you give me your last name?
09:23:37 >> I'm sorry.
09:23:38 Kevin Dee.
09:23:39 Thank you.
09:23:40 More of a follow-on to the message we just heard.
09:23:44 But we are spending a lot of time in the community looking
09:23:46 to develop businesses, young minority businesses for this
09:23:50 community.
09:23:52 And part of what you heard before represents serious
09:23:57 challenges, and if you will, roadblocks to these businesses
09:24:01 actually gaining a Tampa foot hold and beginning to
09:24:06 contribute to this community.
09:24:07 It's clear to us that what we are not facing is something
09:24:12 that's been happening just the last three or four or five
09:24:15 years.
09:24:17 I have actually used this meeting for the last two or three
09:24:19 months online watching it on demand and I have heard some of
09:24:23 the discussion that's been going on.
09:24:25 And the data that we reviewed over the last five years
09:24:28 probably has even looked worse going back.
09:24:33 So in the effort to bring more black and minority-owned
09:24:38 businesses online here in Tampa, we are just looking for
09:24:41 fairness and an opportunity to participate no community of
09:24:45 business owners that are actively participating today and
09:24:50 have been for a very long time.
09:24:51 It's going to be very disheartening to spend a lot of time
09:24:55 with a lot of young minority businesses developing those
09:24:57 businesses in the community and not have those businesses
09:25:02 being given opportunity to exercise their intellectual
09:25:08 capability and their property and grow in prosperity with
09:25:12 other businesses in this community.
09:25:14 So just as a follow-on to what you just heard from the
09:25:18 previous speaker, there is a bumper crop of young people
09:25:23 that aspire to participate in this economy, and a lot of it
09:25:29 is volunteer time.
09:25:31 We don't get bade to do these things.
09:25:33 As we spend time developing these young businesses, we just
09:25:36 wants to make sure that this council understands that it's
09:25:39 important for them to have an opportunity to participate in
09:25:43 this economy.
09:25:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:25:46 Appreciate it.
09:25:46 >> Mr. Chairman, members of the City Council, my name is Dr.
09:25:57 Benny small with the NAACP.
09:26:03 Through the economic development program.
09:26:04 Basically, I want to say that I agree that we need fairness
09:26:09 in the use of funds with the minorities.
09:26:11 Many times when those individuals come to our office looking
09:26:14 for the opportunity to do business with the City of Tampa,
09:26:17 and I sit down and explain to them the entire process, they
09:26:20 feel that they are being left out, and as a member and as
09:26:23 the president of the NAACP, I agree with those who have
09:26:29 spoken before me and the things that they have stated.
09:26:32 And what we want to do is make sure that there is no way
09:26:35 that I can sit down with them and the fairness of the
09:26:41 program that the city has when it comes to contracts.
09:26:43 So I want to go on regard as the president of the NAACP in
09:26:47 that I support the number 61, and an opportunity to look at
09:26:54 that.
09:26:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:26:58 Next, please.
09:26:59 >> Good morning.
09:27:02 Bishop Michelle B. Patty.
09:27:05 I'm a taxpayer, also a business owner.
09:27:08 My business would not benefit from this ordinance
09:27:10 whatsoever.
09:27:11 So I am not here on behalf of me, but I am on behalf of
09:27:16 those others that are doing work and would like to do work
09:27:19 with the City of Tampa.
09:27:20 We keep saying that Tampa is the next great city.
09:27:23 This is time for us to step up to the plate.
09:27:27 I am really tired of hearing about we not getting our fair
09:27:31 share.
09:27:31 I don't know how many years we have been coming here to the
09:27:33 council asking that you all do what is correct.
09:27:37 That is to include everyone.
09:27:39 And we are talking specifically about African-Americans.
09:27:42 We complain about our youth.
09:27:44 We complain about people not having jobs.
09:27:47 Well, this is a way to create jobs.
09:27:49 This is the way to be innovative.
09:27:51 So I am asking this come up to do what you said you would do
09:27:55 when you came and lobbied us to vote and support you.
09:27:59 You said that you would be inclusive.
09:28:02 So now is the time to be inclusive and keep your campaign
09:28:05 promises that you made to the African-American community.
09:28:09 So I'm not saying beg, I'm not pleading, I'm saying do what
09:28:14 is right, do what is fair, to the African-Americans of the
09:28:18 City of Tampa.
09:28:19 We thank you all.
09:28:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
09:28:22 Next, please.
09:28:23 >> Good morning.
09:28:26 Council members, my name is Michael reed.
09:28:29 I own a company called reed plumbing and roofing.
09:28:32 I am one of your certified MBEs in the City of Tampa,
09:28:37 about 25, 30 years I have been involved with your program
09:28:40 here.
09:28:42 Let me explain my experience was your program.
09:28:45 Like amenities not working.
09:28:47 I am going to use my company as an example.
09:28:49 I'm a licensed certified in good standing with the State of
09:28:52 Florida, as a general contractor, roofing contractor,
09:28:58 plumbing contractor.
09:28:59 There is no way I should not get work from this city.
09:29:03 My company goes to Orlando, St. Petersburg, Sarasota County
09:29:08 to get work in the city.
09:29:11 Now you say who I blame for that.
09:29:13 I blame the mayor for that.
09:29:14 And I blame the mayor's policies in the way he's running
09:29:21 this city.
09:29:22 I personally think this city in West Tampa is in the west
09:29:27 shape it's ever been in terms of minority contractors --
09:29:32 black people specifically -- to the City of Tampa doing work
09:29:36 with black people.
09:29:37 I think that in order to stop that problem, we all got to
09:29:41 work together and make it happen.
09:29:44 You are going to have to get the mayor onboard.
09:29:47 I personally think the mayor don't like black people really.
09:29:50 That's my way of looking at that.
09:29:52 I have looked at it for about six months.
09:29:54 And I really studied it from the Florida minority community
09:29:59 investment coalition that speaks about Tampa, and what the
09:30:04 mayor has done, not just with our black contractors but with
09:30:11 housing and land use, how the whole thing has affected this
09:30:15 area.
09:30:15 I do a lot of traveling throughout the world.
09:30:19 And this city to me is in bad shape.
09:30:25 Again, I blame the mayor for that.
09:30:27 I personally believe he does not like black people, just
09:30:30 like that guy that said folks don't like black people,
09:30:35 that's how I look at the mayor of Tampa.
09:30:39 Until he can straighten it out -- I can't even get a job in
09:30:43 this city.
09:30:44 And I don't understand it.
09:30:46 For whatever reason you want to say, I can't get a job.
09:30:49 This morning, here is what I did.
09:30:51 I wasn't going to certify with you again.
09:30:54 I was done with the city.
09:30:55 (Bell sounds)
09:30:57 I just took my papers over this morning to resetter if I.
09:31:00 If you talk to the MBE guy, I told him two months ago I'm
09:31:04 done with this city.
09:31:05 I can't get a job in this city.
09:31:07 I'm bonded for $3 million, okay, but I can't get a job here
09:31:11 in my own hometown.
09:31:13 Again, it ain't your fault.
09:31:15 At this time mayor's fault.
09:31:16 And until that can get addressed and you guys can get
09:31:20 together and make this work, I am going to say the mayor
09:31:23 does not like black people.
09:31:25 Thank you.
09:31:26 (Bell sounds).
09:31:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:31:29 Next, please.
09:31:30 >> Good morning.
09:31:33 I'm Jerry mealy.
09:31:37 Reverend mealy.
09:31:42 About 65% of America did not agree with the civil rights
09:31:48 movement and Martin Luther King in its heyday.
09:31:54 It's about -- a city that doesn't agree with black lives
09:32:00 matter today.
09:32:02 There's a gentleman doing business in our city today who in
09:32:08 prince Georges county, Maryland, 20 years ago, because of
09:32:12 red lining, their church went back and got the money from
09:32:17 the bank and got 96 other churches and formed collaboration
09:32:25 and work for the economic advantage of the communities that
09:32:29 they serve.
09:32:31 We are here today to say to you that black economics matter.
09:32:37 Economics in the black community matters.
09:32:41 And if you don't think it matters, then you look at the
09:32:47 numbers of the unemployed, and you look at the ramifications
09:32:53 that occur from people that are not gainfully engaged in the
09:33:00 community, because they don't have nowhere with all to do
09:33:07 so.
09:33:08 We are saying to you today, don't cover your eyes, doesn't
09:33:16 overlook the reality that there is an unfairness.
09:33:25 And when this country started, when people decided that they
09:33:31 were being taxed, and they did not get any representation,
09:33:38 they done something about it.
09:33:41 And so we are asking you to get on the right side and do
09:33:46 something about it.
09:33:48 Thank you.
09:33:48 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:33:51 Next, please.
09:33:52 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of the SoHo business
09:34:04 alliance.
09:34:04 And as you know, on item 60, brought before you a request
09:34:11 from staff to present information regarding increasing the
09:34:13 decibel level.
09:34:15 I have provided you with a request for a number of
09:34:19 considerations that we would like council to undertake.
09:34:22 And when you establish a decibel level that's a minimum, and
09:34:26 no one can meet it, something is wrong.
09:34:28 So we are asking you to look at that
09:34:32 We have already met with some of the neighbors and
09:34:34 established that no outside live music should occur during
09:34:39 the week after 10 p.m. and on the weekends after mid night.
09:34:44 We request that the complainants be required to sign the
09:34:48 complaint and affidavit that they indeed intend to file an
09:34:53 official complaint before a business is issued a citation.
09:34:57 We have asked that you use common sense, instruct the staff
09:35:00 to use common sense in the application of this ordinance.
09:35:04 Increase the number of warnings that are provided before you
09:35:07 issue a citation that jeopardizes a business.
09:35:11 And consider the atmospheric effects of sound as it relates
09:35:15 to water and the cloud cover, temperatures, a variety of
09:35:21 other things.
09:35:22 We also ask that you consider removing the penalty of the
09:35:26 Nuisance Abatement Board for a variety of reasons.
09:35:28 The Nuisance Abatement Board -- and I have articles for you
09:35:31 that I will provide later on -- that indicate that the board
09:35:35 is set up to deal with criminal activity and not civil
09:35:38 infractions.
09:35:39 And when you take a civil infraction and you escalate that
09:35:42 to a criminal activity, you have done a disservice to the
09:35:46 businesses that are involved.
09:35:47 And I am quoting from one of the articles, that the board
09:35:50 has the ability to levy fines, close businesses, issue
09:35:54 orders at locations where crimes are related to
09:35:58 prostitution, drugs, street gangs, dealing in stolen
09:36:01 property, stabbings, shootings and other crimes. This is
09:36:06 what the Nuisance Abatement Board is set up for.
09:36:09 Sound does not escalate to that level.
09:36:12 And as a substitute to that, we request that the violations
09:36:17 be sent to the Code Enforcement Board, which is a more
09:36:20 practical and reasonable direction to send it into.
09:36:24 The Nuisance Abatement Board also deals with gang
09:36:27 activities.
09:36:31 And prostitution.
09:36:32 So there are a number of things that clearly are very high
09:36:34 level of criminal activity that is not appropriate for a
09:36:38 violation of the sound code.
09:36:40 We thank you for your consideration.
09:36:42 And when the item comes up we will certainly be available
09:36:45 for discussion or answer any further questions.
09:36:47 Thank you.
09:36:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
09:36:48 Anyone else like to speak at this time on any item that's
09:36:51 not set for public hearing?
09:36:53 Yes, ma'am.
09:36:57 >>GINA GRIMES: Hill, Ward, Henderson here on behalf of the
09:36:59 Ciccio restaurant group with respect to the noise ordinance
09:37:03 and wanted to address the issues that Mr. Michelini just
09:37:07 brought up about the public Nuisance Abatement Board.
09:37:09 I don't know if you would like me to do it now or wait until
09:37:13 we consider that item.
09:37:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ: This is the time to consider it.
09:37:16 >> Just tagging onto what Mr. Michelini said the public
09:37:22 Nuisance Abatement Board is reserved for the most egregious
09:37:25 violations of the city code.
09:37:26 In fact it's rare.
09:37:27 I don't even know when the last time that the public
09:37:30 Nuisance Abatement Board sat and heard cases to actually
09:37:33 consider a violation of city code.
09:37:35 And as he said, it's reserved almost exclusively for
09:37:38 criminal activity.
09:37:39 In fact, the statutory reference for public Nuisance
09:37:43 Abatement Board authorization is local administrative action
09:37:46 to abate drug related, prostitution related or stolen
09:37:51 property-related public nuisances and criminal gang
09:37:54 activities.
09:37:55 And I hardly think that a noise code violation would rise to
09:37:58 that same level of violation.
09:38:02 And it's also only used typically if there's no other remedy
09:38:06 that will correct or address the violation.
09:38:09 And that's because the extreme remedy, the extreme
09:38:13 authorization and nuisance abatement board has to shut a
09:38:17 business down N.one of the meetings that I had with one of
09:38:19 the council members and several members of the public that
09:38:22 were interested in the noise ordinance, there is a gentleman
09:38:25 that had a restaurant in downtown Tampa, and I don't recall
09:38:28 his name.
09:38:29 I don't recall the name of the restaurant.
09:38:32 But he was speaking from the heart.
09:38:36 He had invested his life savings in the restaurant, and he
09:38:38 was in substantial amount of debt and trying to open up the
09:38:43 restaurant, but he had a resident nearby that was constantly
09:38:46 calling and reporting noise violations.
09:38:49 And he was very scared for his financial well-being that his
09:38:53 business was going to get shut down, taken to the public
09:38:57 Nuisance Abatement Board over a noise violation.
09:38:59 And I should add that every time the police came out to
09:39:02 investigate, there was never a noise violation found.
09:39:06 But the way the ordinance was drafted, those kinds of cases
09:39:08 could be presented to the public Nuisance Abatement Board.
09:39:13 I also think that -- we don't know at this stage whether
09:39:17 it's even necessary to go to this extreme type of measure to
09:39:20 enforce this ordinance.
09:39:22 My understanding, the noise ordinance hasn't been enforced
09:39:25 in years.
09:39:25 And I believe that's correct.
09:39:26 We don't know the extent of the violation.
09:39:29 We don't know if it's necessary to do something this
09:39:33 dramatic or severe so we would suggest to you like other
09:39:36 code violations, noise violations go to the Code Enforcement
09:39:38 Board and have special magistrates.
09:39:41 That system works very well.
09:39:42 I go there all the time.
09:39:44 They hold your feet to the fire.
09:39:46 You have to show progress towards correcting violations.
09:39:48 It's just simply not necessary to go to this extreme measure
09:39:52 to enforce this code provision.
09:39:55 So with that I'll be available if you have any questions.
09:39:57 (Bell sounds).
09:39:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, ma'am.
09:40:00 Anyone else in the public that would like to speak at this
09:40:02 time anything not set for public hearings item 4768?
09:40:09 Anyone to speak at this time?
09:40:10 I see no one.
09:40:11 Mr. Reddick?
09:40:13 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me just make a comment.
09:40:17 I'm pretty sure when we get to 61 you won't be here.
09:40:26 For the city attorney, the city attorney has requested a
09:40:28 continuance to December 15th.
09:40:32 I do not agree with the length of that continuance.
09:40:35 And I plan to speak on that when we come up on item 61.
09:40:40 But just let me just say this to those who spoke on item 61.
09:40:47 I met with the city attorney yesterday and I presented her a
09:40:55 municipality ordinance for the city of Denver, and the
09:41:03 Denver municipality.
09:41:05 They say addressing exactly what you are asking for today.
09:41:11 So that is under review.
09:41:12 I'm pretty sure the city attorney wants some time to review
09:41:15 that and see how we can put the language into place to make
09:41:18 this possible.
09:41:20 So when we speak on this, on item 61, I will be asking the
09:41:27 city attorney for her response to the ordinance that was
09:41:34 drafted in Denver, and draft based on the disparity study
09:41:38 that we always comment here when it comes down to these MBE
09:41:44 programs.
09:41:45 And I agree we don't need another disparity study.
09:41:48 We know the issues.
09:41:49 And so item 61, when we reach that point, just for those who
09:41:56 are not going to be here, I am waiting to hear how the city
09:42:00 attorney responds to the Denver ordinance, and how we can
09:42:05 reduce the length of this continuance to December 15.
09:42:10 I want to get this resolved in November, if we have to get
09:42:13 to that point.
09:42:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
09:42:18 I appreciate that.
09:42:19 Is there anyone else in the public to speak at this time for
09:42:21 those items that not set for public hearing?
09:42:23 Please comb forward now.
09:42:24 I see no one.
09:42:26 We are going to go back to item number 1 which is our
09:42:29 ceremonial activity.
09:42:31 And I held this one because Mrs. Montelione was going to do
09:42:34 the presentation.
09:42:35 Mrs. Montelione, you have the floor.
09:42:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I appreciate that.
09:42:40 Thank you for your gracious granting of time.
09:42:44 I'm suffering from very debilitating back issues.
09:42:49 So thank you for holding this for me.
09:42:51 I would like to introduce Mr. J.V. Gandhi if you would come
09:42:56 to the podium.
09:42:58 On the indication of the -- occasion of the 29th annual
09:43:03 India festival, I invited Mr. Gandhi here.
09:43:06 And I am sorry, you will have to introduce yourself.
09:43:10 To speak to us about the festival.
09:43:16 It's a glorious thing.
09:43:17 If you haven't attended, to go this year, and experience the
09:43:23 culture, the food, the music, the food.
09:43:31 And, you know, we have a very large population of Indian
09:43:38 Americans living in the City of Tampa, but people come from
09:43:41 all over the state.
09:43:42 I mean, I would say from all over the world to attend this
09:43:47 event.
09:43:48 And if you live here, and you haven't gone, you are really
09:43:52 missing out and doing yourself a disservice.
09:43:57 So I would love to hear more about the festival, and not
09:44:03 only the great cultural aspects, but it's an economic engine
09:44:09 for the city.
09:44:10 And I know Mrs. Capin works very hard on cultural assets,
09:44:15 and we have one of them here today.
09:44:17 So thank you very much.
09:44:18 >> Thank you, chairman, members of City Council, Mrs.
09:44:24 Montelione.
09:44:28 I am J.V. Gandhi, the chairman of the India festival.
09:44:42 We are celebrating India festival.
09:44:45 This is going to be the 29th year.
09:44:48 In the City of Tampa.
09:44:53 Before it was the IFOD there was gathering of 30,000 people.
09:44:58 And celebrating this event in the City of Tampa the last 28
09:45:02 years.
09:45:03 This is going to be 29.
09:45:05 Every single year, there is a gathering of the 15,000
09:45:10 people.
09:45:11 It's amazing the oldest, biggest, largest event in the City
09:45:15 of Tampa, compared anywhere in America.
09:45:20 >> My name is PUJA.
09:45:29 So it is 29 years.
09:45:31 Some of you guys have kids that are 29 years old, and this
09:45:36 is kind of our baby.
09:45:37 The first one was at USF.
09:45:39 We started at the Sun Dome when it was an unimaginable size
09:45:43 in 2011.
09:45:44 We completely outgrew it and moved to the fairgrounds.
09:45:47 And we break records year after year starting at 4,000, and
09:45:55 the 15,000 number that we are predicting for this year.
09:45:58 Usually, what happens is the committee comes in, every
09:46:03 chairman has an idea, and start all over again every year.
09:46:09 Mr. Gandhi's vision this year was to kind of make it a
09:46:13 recognizable grand, but marketing this trophy, Tampa
09:46:22 We were one of the first ones to do it.
09:46:25 So instead of making it just India festival, he officially
09:46:30 incorporated it for all Tampa Bay.
09:46:33 So our entire city, this event alone brings in over 180
09:46:39 vendors from around the southeast, from India, and we
09:46:47 generate about $5 million revenue for the City of Tampa just
09:46:52 in this one mega, mega event.
09:46:56 So his legacy,
09:46:58 You know, he started at the bottom, and now he's here.
09:47:04 So he did achieve his one name, one logo, one trophy.
09:47:13 He has a great team behind him including -- together they
09:47:19 have really achieved a whole lot.
09:47:24 As I said, it is $5 million of revenue generated.
09:47:30 We have usually in history, we have more than 115 sponsors.
09:47:36 This year our sponsorship team talks about how it got over
09:47:41 50 sponsors and that alone got $200,000 and talking about
09:47:49 major hospitals, Bright House, and we have gotten from 20
09:47:55 groups to 200, food, food, food, shopping, shopping,
09:47:59 shopping.
09:48:00 It brings in a lot of tourism, helps that industry, and the
09:48:06 proceeds of this event, it's a big number.
09:48:10 So we have a lot of it goes toward putting it back into the
09:48:14 education for our community in terms of teaching more about
09:48:18 culture, getting more exposure throughout the community,
09:48:24 donating to various charities, disaster relief, if there is
09:48:28 anything going on from the festival towards that, but the
09:48:33 highlight is our cultural program, with over 70 dance teams,
09:48:38 it's 1200 participants.
09:48:44 From 3 years old to the oldest participant is 68.
09:48:47 So it's a really big family event.
09:48:50 And it represents north to south to east to west, all areas
09:48:55 represented.
09:48:57 So we really try to get everybody the experience of India,
09:49:02 and our judging panel is made up of extremely, extremely
09:49:05 qualified judges, and I always say this is probably the
09:49:10 cheapest trip you can take to India.
09:49:19 It's really a great way to experience everything.
09:49:21 And we have been endorsed by the mayor, the Patel family
09:49:29 foundation, and also the governor has endorsed us, some
09:49:34 major figures in our religious community have endorsed us,
09:49:38 including -- and also the consulate general of India and
09:49:42 several of the dignitaries that have been elected.
09:49:48 So this is kind of just to formally invite all of you,
09:49:53 anybody watching, or behind us, please come out, and we will
09:49:57 be starting at 10 a.m. with a mega procession, live drums,
09:50:02 music, Mayor Bob Buckhorn will be leading the processional.
09:50:08 Kind of a big to-do to kind of launch this event before we
09:50:13 hit the big three-oh next year.
09:50:17 So join us 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. all day.
09:50:20 Come eat.
09:50:23 Come join us.
09:50:24 And namaste.
09:50:28 >> 10 a.m., 10 p.m.
09:50:37 These things are in my head now so I forget that.
09:50:41 But all day.
09:50:43 If you have any questions, we are here.
09:50:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you very much for being here.
09:50:49 I think some of us probably will be going to that event.
09:50:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I will be taking time out from the
09:50:54 campaign to attend.
09:50:55 >> Thank you very much for your time.
09:50:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We appreciate it.
09:51:01 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you for being here.
09:51:02 >> Thank you.
09:51:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Next up, any requests by the public for
09:51:05 reconsideration of legislative matters can come forward now.
09:51:09 I see no one.
09:51:11 Our next up, our committee reports, consent agenda.
09:51:14 We have item number 2, which is an ordinance that's being
09:51:18 presented for first reading.
09:51:20 Mrs. Montelione, it looks like you are stepping off.
09:51:24 Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take item number 2 for us?
09:51:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance presented for first
09:51:31 reading considers, an ordinance of the city of Tampa,
09:51:33 Florida relating to solicitation making revisions to City of
09:51:36 Tampa's code of ordinances chapter 14, offenses, amending
09:51:40 chapter 14-46, solicitation regulation, repealing all
09:51:44 ordinances or parts of ordinance in conflict, providing for
09:51:47 severability, providing an effective date.
09:51:47 >> Second.
09:51:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
09:51:50 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
09:51:52 All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
09:51:55 Any opposed?
09:51:55 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held on
09:52:02 November 3rd, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
09:52:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
09:52:06 We now are in our committee reports, Public Safety
09:52:09 Committee.
09:52:10 Our chair is Mr. Charlie Miranda.
09:52:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move items 3 through 9.
09:52:14 >> Second.
09:52:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
09:52:17 I have a second from Mr. Reddick.
09:52:19 All in favor of that motion?
09:52:22 Any opposed?
09:52:23 Our next committee is parks, recreation, cultural committee,
09:52:26 Mr. Guido Maniscalco.
09:52:30 Before you go forward, when you move item number 10 and
09:52:32 number 11, make sure that you do move it with the substitute
09:52:36 attached.
09:52:37 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I move items 10 through 14.
09:52:41 10 and 11 with attachments.
09:52:43 >> Second.
09:52:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco.
09:52:48 I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
09:52:49 All in favor of that motion?
09:52:52 Any opposed?
09:52:54 Public Works Committee is up next.
09:52:55 Mr. Frank Reddick is our chair.
09:52:57 Sir?
09:52:58 >>FRANK REDDICK: [Off microphone.]
09:53:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
09:53:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion from Mr. Reddick.
09:53:05 A second from Mr. Miranda.
09:53:06 All in favor of that motion?
09:53:07 Any opposed?
09:53:10 Finance Committee is next, Mr. Harry Cohen is our chair.
09:53:13 >>HARRY COHEN: I move items 21 through 28.
09:53:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Second.
09:53:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mr. Cohen.
09:53:21 Second from Mrs. Capin.
09:53:23 All in favor of that motion?
09:53:24 Any opposed?
09:53:25 Next up is Building, Zoning and Preservation Committee.
09:53:28 Our chair has stepped out but our vice chair is Ms. Yolie
09:53:34 Capin.
09:53:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you, chair.
09:53:36 I get to speak.
09:53:37 I move items 29 through 45.
09:53:39 >> Second.
09:53:42 >> Motion from Mrs. Capin.
09:53:43 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
09:53:47 On item number 4506, I do believe we need to have -- so
09:53:51 let's go to item number 44 if that's okay, and let's clear
09:53:55 that agenda item.
09:53:56 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Right.
09:53:59 29 through 44.
09:54:01 And then I am going to read 45.
09:54:03 >> I have a motion on the floor from Mrs. Capin.
09:54:05 A second from Mr. Maniscalco.
09:54:07 You will a in favor of that motion?
09:54:09 Any opposed?
09:54:11 And item number 45.
09:54:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I'll start right here.
09:54:19 A public -- the following announcement.
09:54:21 A public meeting to be read.
09:54:23 A public hearing will be held regarding the proposed
09:54:26 brownfield area designation for the rehabilitation and
09:54:29 redevelopment of property one parcel of property
09:54:32 approximately .095 acres in size located at the southeast
09:54:36 corner of north Meridian Avenue and East Kennedy Boulevard
09:54:40 within the City of Tampa's Channel District with a street
09:54:43 address of 227 north Meridian Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602.
09:54:49 This public hearing will be held at the SunTrust financial
09:54:52 center office building, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa,
09:54:57 Florida 33602, 23rd floor, suite 2340, on Wednesday,
09:55:03 November 9, 2016 at 5:30 until no later than 6:30 p.m.
09:55:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: All right.
09:55:12 >>THE CLERK: You need to receive it.
09:55:17 >> Move to receive and file.
09:55:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion to receive and file from Mrs. Capin,
09:55:23 second from Mr. Maniscalco.
09:55:25 All in favor?
09:55:25 Any opposed?
09:55:26 Okay.
09:55:27 Item number 46, we do need a motion.
09:55:30 >> So moved for the hearing, Mr. Chairman, on November 10,
09:55:34 2016 at 6 p.m.
09:55:35 >> Motion by Mr. Miranda.
09:55:36 I have a second by Mr. Maniscalco.
09:55:39 All in favor of that motion?
09:55:41 Any opposed?
09:55:44 Next pup prosecutor our public hearings, items set for
09:55:47 public hearing.
09:55:48 These are non-quasi-judicial proceedings so we do not have
09:55:52 to have people sworn in.
09:55:54 Number 47.
09:55:55 Is there anyone from staff?
09:55:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open.
09:55:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Excuse me.
09:55:59 I have a motion to open from Mr. Miranda.
09:56:01 Do I have a second?
09:56:02 A second from Mr. Cohen.
09:56:04 All in favor of that motion?
09:56:05 Any opposed?
09:56:07 Thank you.
09:56:08 Item number 47.
09:56:08 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Assistant city attorney.
09:56:17 We are here for second reading on the whistleblower
09:56:19 ordinance and a page 2 was brought Ford because there was a
09:56:25 typographical error, a missing comma on page 2.
09:56:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council on item number
09:56:30 47?
09:56:30 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
09:56:33 item number 47?
09:56:34 >> Move to close.
09:56:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion to close from Mr. Cohen.
09:56:40 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
09:56:42 All in favor of that motion?
09:56:44 Any opposed?
09:56:45 Mr. Reddick, will you kindly take item number 47?
09:56:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance being presented for
09:56:55 second reading and adoption, an ordinance for the city of
09:56:57 Tampa, Florida adopting and enacting a new division of
09:57:00 article 8 of chapter 2 of the City of Tampa code of
09:57:03 ordinances to be herein after referenced and known as
09:57:07 division 9, whistleblower procedures, establishing criteria
09:57:11 and procedures for reporting of fraud and whistle blowing by
09:57:14 employees, identifying procedures for responding to and
09:57:17 investigating employee complaints, reserving section 2-664
09:57:23 through 2-674 of division 8 of article 8 of chapter 2,
09:57:28 providing for severability, providing for repeal of all
09:57:32 ordinances in conflict herewith, providing an effective
09:57:35 date.
09:57:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion from Mr. Reddick.
09:57:38 I have a second from Mrs. Montelione.
09:57:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: And the substitute page 2.
09:57:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion.
09:57:46 Please record your vote.
09:57:53 Let's hope it works.
09:57:55 (cell phone ringing)
09:57:56 >> Motion carried with Miranda being absent at vote.
09:58:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
09:58:01 Item number 48.
09:58:03 Anyone from staff on item number 48?
09:58:05 >>KRISTIN MORA: Legal department.
09:58:14 This item is adding for our ordinances that are allowed to
09:58:20 have temporary alcoholic beverage special use permits for
09:58:24 events and things like that.
09:58:27 I'm here if you have any questions.
09:58:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council?
09:58:32 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
09:58:34 item number 48?
09:58:35 48?
09:58:37 If so, please come forward.
09:58:40 I see no one.
09:58:43 I have a motion to close by Mr. Maniscalco, a second from
09:58:46 Mr. Cohen.
09:58:46 All in favor of that motion?
09:58:48 Any opposed?
09:58:50 Mrs. Capin, will you kindly take number 48?
09:58:54 >> An ordinance for second reading and adoption, an making
09:58:58 revisions to the City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 14
09:59:03 offenses amending section 14-150.1.3 possession, consumption
09:59:08 on property operated or supervised by the Parks and
09:59:10 Recreation Department, temporary alcoholic beverage special
09:59:14 use permits granted for the public area, facility, or
09:59:18 property operated or supervised by the Parks and Recreation
09:59:20 Department, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances
09:59:24 in conflict therewith, providing for severability, providing
09:59:28 an effective date.
09:59:28 >> Second.
09:59:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mrs. Capin, a second from
09:59:32 Mr. Cohen.
09:59:32 Please record your vote.
09:59:45 Want to try again?
09:59:47 Did everyone vote?
09:59:50 Okay.
09:59:50 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda being absent.
09:59:54 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We are now going to items 49 through 52.
09:59:59 These items are quasi-judicial proceedings.
10:00:01 So if you are going to speak on items 49 through -- it goes
10:00:10 on through 54 -- I'm sorry, 53.
10:00:16 Can I get a motion to open these hearings?
10:00:19 I have a motion from Mr. Cohen.
10:00:20 A second from Mr. Maniscalco.
10:00:22 All in favor of that motion?
10:00:23 Any opposed?
10:00:26 Clerk, please swear in anyone that's going to speak on those
10:00:29 items.
10:00:29 (Oath administered by Clerk)
10:00:41 Item 49.
10:00:42 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
10:00:43 The site plan has been certified and given to the city
10:00:47 clerk's office.
10:00:49 I'm here if you have any questions.
10:00:50 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:00:51 Petitioner.
10:00:52 >> You have a petition with many in support.
10:01:04 We have drastically changed this application to address all
10:01:07 the concerns council members raised, which is why we had a
10:01:12 unanimous vote when we were here two weeks ago.
10:01:14 We appreciate your continued support.
10:01:15 John is here.
10:01:18 He will be the operator.
10:01:20 He's been in the business for more than six years and has an
10:01:24 exemplary record of operations.
10:01:27 I'm sorry, Todd Pressman, East Lake Road, Palm Harbor,
10:01:31 Florida.
10:01:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:01:33 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
10:01:36 this item 49, AB 2-16-21?
10:01:39 Please come forward.
10:01:42 I saw your hand go up so you can come forward and speak.
10:01:46 Do you have trouble standing?
10:01:48 Do you need a microphone in order to do it?
10:01:50 >> No.
10:01:51 I want to comment on AB 2-16-21.
10:01:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ: That's correct.
10:01:56 That's what we are speaking of now.
10:01:57 >> okay.
10:02:02 My name is Lorraine Smith.
10:02:04 I live at 215 Columbia drive in Tampa.
10:02:09 The property is kitty corner to the parcel that we are
10:02:13 talking about.
10:02:14 The restaurant.
10:02:15 And in my mind, this is a case of asking for a change to
10:02:19 take away from the public benefit and give one individual
10:02:23 license to the detriment of others.
10:02:28 And I would encourage you to vote no on AB 2-16-21.
10:02:32 The petitioner has not shown a need or a reason other than
10:02:37 self-enrichment for the changes.
10:02:44 I watched the alleyway evolve over 30 years since I have
10:02:48 owned the property there that is homesteaded at 215 Columbia
10:02:52 Drive.
10:02:53 And I have a documented 14-year history of problems with the
10:02:59 alley.
10:03:06 I documented this because of personal incidences living so
10:03:09 close to the business district and because I was working on
10:03:14 the neighborhood watch at the time.
10:03:17 Now, 30 years is a long time and it qualifies me to discuss
10:03:21 this without hesitation.
10:03:26 There has to be more on the petitioner's part than what's
10:03:29 been given.
10:03:30 He's asking -- no longer asking for a package store on the
10:03:34 premises.
10:03:35 He's asking us to change the code so that he can expand his
10:03:40 space to not necessarily a public necessity.
10:03:45 We already have ample liquor, wine and beer as has been
10:03:49 discussed.
10:03:50 His request is incompatible to the surrounding area, and he
10:03:54 has not demonstrated any reasonable plan for the special use
10:04:01 permit.
10:04:03 The business district is two blocks long, not big enough to
10:04:07 hold -- big enough to hold the promise of a thriving center
10:04:13 for the residents in a relaxed area to raise family and be
10:04:19 nearby activities in the city.
10:04:21 And we do support USF and Tampa General with amenities,
10:04:25 parking being one of them.
10:04:29 The AB 2-16-21 petition is not a good use of this location.
10:04:35 (Bell sounds)
10:04:36 The alley has had safety issues since 2003 when signage was
10:04:40 put up.
10:04:41 Do not block the alleyway, and 10 miles per hour speed limit
10:04:46 to keep the alleyway open.
10:04:48 The scale of development has already been reached.
10:04:51 The top scale of development has already been reached.
10:04:54 The traffic flow, the parking, the trash pickup and the
10:04:58 delayed deliveries and maintenance on these buildings causes
10:05:02 a lot of problems.
10:05:04 (Bell sounds).
10:05:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I will give you one more 10 seconds, ma'am.
10:05:10 >> Okay.
10:05:11 I have tried to work with the drivers that come with the
10:05:13 delivery trucks, and that doesn't always work because it's
10:05:17 not always the same driver.
10:05:23 Motors are left on while deliveries are make, the exhaust
10:05:27 and pollution goes into the air and is very unwelcoming and
10:05:31 not necessary.
10:05:33 I even had --
10:05:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm sorry.
10:05:35 I wanted you to close up on that thought that I just asked
10:05:39 you to continue going.
10:05:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
10:05:43 >> I will close with saying the staff report says --
10:05:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Ma'am, I apologize, but, you know, I am not
10:05:49 going to give you any more time, because I wanted you to
10:05:51 close up, give you one sentence.
10:05:53 That would be great.
10:05:54 >> Okay.
10:05:55 My sentence is such that if you read the staff report, you
10:05:58 see that there are transportation problems, residential
10:06:03 problems and other problems with be the parking in
10:06:06 particular.
10:06:07 So I would encourage you not to allow the changes being
10:06:12 requested.
10:06:13 It's not in anyone's benefit really.
10:06:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, ma'am.
10:06:17 I appreciate that H.is there anyone else in the public that
10:06:19 would like to speak at this time on item number 49, AB
10:06:23 2-16-21?
10:06:26 Mr. Pressman?
10:06:27 >> I'll keep it very short.
10:06:31 We are not aware of any citations or any documents,
10:06:34 documentation of any kind of issues that the nice lady was
10:06:38 speaking about.
10:06:39 I remind you that this is a business that has been
10:06:42 operating, and John is just expanding it to one more unit.
10:06:49 But this strip center, as I'm sure you are all aware,
10:06:53 particularly Mr. Cohen, this business center and most of the
10:06:56 center has been there for many decades, and the conditions
10:06:58 there have been the same for many decades and will continue
10:07:07 to be.
10:07:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:07:10 I have a motion to close by Mr. Maniscalco, second by Mr.
10:07:13 Cohen.
10:07:13 All in favor of that motion?
10:07:14 Any opposed?
10:07:15 Mr. Cohen, will you kindly take number 49?
10:07:18 >>HARRY COHEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
10:07:20 I move an ordinance being presented for second reading and
10:07:23 adoption, an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2
10:07:26 for alcoholic beverage sales, restaurant, consumption on
10:07:29 premises only, and making lawful the sale of beer, wine and
10:07:33 liquor at or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
10:07:36 located at 233 and 235 East Davis Boulevard, Tampa, Florida
10:07:41 as more particularly described in section 2, that all
10:07:44 ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed,
10:07:47 providing an effective date.
10:07:47 >> I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
10:07:50 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
10:07:52 Please record your vote.
10:07:53 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Reddick and Montelione
10:08:12 being absent at vote.
10:08:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:08:18 Item number 50.
10:08:18 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
10:08:25 The site plan has been certified and provided to the city
10:08:28 clerk's office.
10:08:29 And staff is available.
10:08:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:08:34 Petitioner?
10:08:39 >>GINA GRIMES: Law firm of Hill, Ward, Henderson
10:08:42 representing the developer in this case, Starbuck's on Dale
10:08:49 Mabry.
10:08:51 As you know, we have been here several times, more than the
10:08:54 average rezoning and we are struggling with trying to get
10:09:00 these very different interested parties, the staff, Planning
10:09:02 Commission, City Council, Starbuck's, the tenant, and then
10:09:07 our neighbors, the Sheridans who are here again this
10:09:11 morning.
10:09:12 The last option which you can see on the Elmo establishes
10:09:15 that we have met all of the code criteria and ended up with
10:09:20 a site plan where we preserved the grand tree.
10:09:23 Not only do we meet the setback requirements for the
10:09:26 drive-through window Lane, at 50 feet, actually the
10:09:32 drive-through Lane is at 60 feet so we exceed code in that
10:09:35 respect.
10:09:36 The pickup window is not 50 feet away, instead it's 130 feet
10:09:41 what away -- or the order board, I should say, and then the
10:09:47 pickup window, which is required to be at least 50 feet
10:09:48 away, is 230 feet away from the residentially zoned
10:09:51 property.
10:09:52 So as you can see, we have met and exceeded, in fact, all
10:09:55 the code requirements.
10:09:57 There's another on the site plan.
10:09:59 We have also agreed to another condition where the dumpster,
10:10:04 we will plant additional bamboo along the rear of that
10:10:07 dumpster to shield it from the residential property.
10:10:10 The Sheridans, who I mentioned are against, attending the
10:10:17 hearing this morning, they have requested additional
10:10:19 landscaping to be placed on their side of the property line,
10:10:22 and my client has agreed to do that.
10:10:25 I believe they met with Mrs. Feeley.
10:10:27 She advised them because it's an off-site condition it can't
10:10:30 be placed on the site plan.
10:10:32 So we have agreed in a letter that's been presented to the
10:10:35 Sheridans to do that additional planting on their side of
10:10:39 the fence.
10:10:40 It will be lady palms.
10:10:43 So you are going to have lady palms on their side.
10:10:45 You are going to have several protected trees along the rear
10:10:48 property line.
10:10:49 You are going to have bamboo here.
10:10:52 They have the grand tree that also provides mitigation.
10:10:55 And then in addition to that, they requested one additional
10:10:58 item, and that is for bamboo to be placed along the part
10:11:03 that faces in the rear.
10:11:05 We are willing to agree do that.
10:11:06 And that's included in this letter as well that I will put
10:11:09 into the record.
10:11:10 However, at this stage, given that it's second reading, we
10:11:13 are not able to put that additional condition on the site
10:11:15 plan.
10:11:16 But we hope you will see that we met the code, we have
10:11:20 exceeded the code, we have even gone off-site to provide
10:11:23 additional mitigation, and we request second reading and
10:11:26 final approval this morning.
10:11:27 Thank you.
10:11:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:11:29 Any questions from council are? Is there anyone in the
10:11:31 public that would like to speak on this item, item 50, REZ
10:11:35 16-360.
10:11:37 Come forward, please.
10:11:39 I saw you walk in, Mr. Sheridan.
10:11:43 >> I just want to say --
10:11:48 >> State your name again.
10:11:49 >> Tom Sheridan.
10:11:52 I just want to say that we have spoken with Miller, the
10:12:02 developer, and we are happy from the standpoint, as well as
10:12:09 all the various petitioners, and as far as what's in the
10:12:12 letter, we have no problems.
10:12:13 And I think that the attorney just stated a copy of the
10:12:17 letter for the record.
10:12:20 End of story.
10:12:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: And you do understand that could not be part
10:12:23 of the site plan.
10:12:24 >> Oh, I understand.
10:12:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I just want to make sure that we are all in
10:12:29 agreement.
10:12:30 Thank you, sir.
10:12:31 Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak
10:12:33 on this item, 50, REZ 16-360?
10:12:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
10:12:38 >> Second.
10:12:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
10:12:41 Second from Mr. Cohen.
10:12:43 All in favor?
10:12:44 Any opposed?
10:12:45 Mr. Maniscalco, will you take item 50.
10:12:48 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I have an ordinance presented for
10:12:50 second reading and adoption, an ordinance rezoning property
10:12:53 in the general vicinity of 1300 South Dale Mabry Highway in
10:12:57 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
10:12:59 in section 1 from zoning district classifications CG
10:13:03 commercial general to PD planned development, restaurant,
10:13:06 with drive-in window, providing an effective date.
10:13:08 >> Second.
10:13:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion from Mr. Maniscalco.
10:13:12 A second from Mr. Cohen.
10:13:14 Please record your vote.
10:13:14 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Montelione being absent at
10:13:26 vote.
10:13:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:13:28 Item number 51.
10:13:29 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
10:13:33 The site plan has been revised as directed by City Council.
10:13:37 And given to the city clerk's office.
10:13:39 We are here if you have any questions.
10:13:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:13:42 Petitioner?
10:13:48 >>DAVID SMITH: 401 east Jackson suite 2700, here on behalf
10:13:51 of petition area long with Grace Yang from our office.
10:13:54 Grace is going to ask for you to receive and file an updated
10:13:59 project narrative, and updated summary of the waiver
10:14:04 justifications.
10:14:06 They were filed with the site plan.
10:14:07 But for some reason they were not included in your package.
10:14:10 Just want to make sure they are in the record.
10:14:13 There's like a couple of sentences changed in the project
10:14:16 narrative.
10:14:16 And the waivers justification deletes one of the waivers
10:14:20 because we don't need it.
10:14:22 And that was delivered yesterday afternoon to opposing
10:14:25 council.
10:14:28 I did it in the red line version so you know what the
10:14:31 changes are.
10:14:33 I am just trying to accommodate both sides.
10:14:35 We have changed the plan so you know.
10:14:37 There's a couple of revisions.
10:14:38 There was an error with respect to the square footage which
10:14:41 required a recalculation.
10:14:42 We also had to eliminate some parking spaces due to the
10:14:45 planned improvements.
10:14:45 So there's a reduction in some of the parking on-site.
10:14:50 The parking spaces in lot D are 61, not 75.
10:14:57 The spaces in lot C are 98, not 100.
10:15:02 But we still don't need a parking waiver.
10:15:04 We are still overparked.
10:15:05 Not by a large margin but we are overparked.
10:15:08 The site plan reflects the notations requested by staff.
10:15:12 And we would request your approval after second reading.
10:15:18 We would like to reserve the balance of our time for
10:15:21 rebuttal if necessary.
10:15:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council at this time?
10:15:24 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak at
10:15:26 this time, item 51, REZ 16-54?
10:15:30 Please come forward.
10:15:33 I see no one.
10:15:36 Do I get a motion to close?
10:15:39 Petitioner, do you have anything to go on the record for
10:15:41 anything else?
10:15:43 >>DAVID SMITH: No, sir.
10:15:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion to close by Mr. Cohen.
10:15:46 I have a second from Mrs. Capin.
10:15:53 All in favor?
10:15:56 Any opposed?
10:15:58 Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take item 51?
10:16:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It's highly unusual that I see a court
10:16:06 reporter reporting on this item.
10:16:08 The petitioner makes a statement, and there's no statement
10:16:10 from the audience, or the attorney for the other side.
10:16:14 That's the only statement I will make.
10:16:16 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:16:17 Item 51.
10:16:18 File REZ 16-54.
10:16:24 An ordinance presented for second reading and adoption, an
10:16:26 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5320,
10:16:30 5321, 5322 Interbay Boulevard and 5118 south Nichol street
10:16:36 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
10:16:38 described in section 1 from zoning district classifications
10:16:40 RS-60 residential single-family and RS 150 residential
10:16:44 single-family to PD planned development, recreation
10:16:47 facility, private, providing an effective date, along with
10:16:51 the waivers of justification for the revised, and I assume
10:16:56 that our legal department has read this and has no comment
10:17:00 on it.
10:17:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
10:17:04 We have a second from Mr. Cohen.
10:17:06 Please record your vote.
10:17:07 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Montelione being absent.
10:17:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:17:20 Item 52.
10:17:22 >>GLORIA MOREDA: Land development.
10:17:25 The site plan has been revised as council has directed, and
10:17:29 given to the city clerk's office.
10:17:32 I'm here if you have of any questions.
10:17:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Petitioner?
10:17:36 >> Grace Yang, Gray Robinson, 401 East Jackson Street, suite
10:17:45 2700 Tampa 363-3602.
10:17:47 I have been sworn.
10:17:48 I'm here to request your final approval on second reading
10:17:52 for the Tampa yacht and country club.
10:17:54 I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
10:17:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:17:57 Any questions from council at this time?
10:18:00 Okay.
10:18:00 Thank you.
10:18:01 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
10:18:04 this item, 52, AB 2-16-18?
10:18:08 If so please come forward now.
10:18:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
10:18:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion to close from Mr. Miranda.
10:18:13 A second from Mrs. Montelione.
10:18:15 All in favor of that motion?
10:18:17 Any opposed?
10:18:19 Mr. Reddick, will you kindly take the substitute ordinance
10:18:22 on item number 52, sir?
10:18:25 >>FRANK REDDICK: I move a substitute ordinance as presented
10:18:27 for second reading and adoption, an ordinance approving a
10:18:30 special use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, large
10:18:33 venue, consumption on premises only and making lawful the
10:18:36 sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer wine
10:18:39 and liquor, on that certain lot, plot or tract of land
10:18:42 located at 5320, 5321, 5322 Interbay Boulevard, Tampa,
10:18:48 Florida and 5118 south Nichols street, Tampa, Florida as
10:18:52 more particularly described in section 2, that all
10:18:54 ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed,
10:18:57 providing an effective date.
10:18:57 >> Second.
10:19:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mr. Reddick.
10:19:01 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
10:19:04 Please record your vote.
10:19:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
10:19:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:19:17 Seeing that it is approximately 10:20, and we cannot open up
10:19:21 our 10:30 public hearings, I would like to go to item number
10:19:25 59 if we can have a member from the legal department, if
10:19:28 they are here.
10:19:30 Mrs. Kert?
10:19:38 We are going to need someone from the legal department
10:19:41 concerning the ethics.
10:19:44 >> Marcy Hamilton, assistant city attorney, here regarding
10:19:50 item 59 regarding the lobbying amendment.
10:19:54 I presented you with two draft ordinances.
10:19:58 One, the original was for a motion to be comparable to the
10:20:04 Hillsborough County ordinance that was drafted this year
10:20:06 with some revisions made by council member Montelione.
10:20:09 And the second one was a recommendation from the ethics
10:20:15 commission.
10:20:17 I have received no comments since the last meeting.
10:20:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, terrific.
10:20:21 Any questions from council?
10:20:22 Mrs. Montelione?
10:20:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You know, there were issues that I was
10:20:30 hoping other council members would weigh in on.
10:20:37 And I would at this point -- Mrs. Hamilton, go ahead with
10:20:43 the draft as we discussed since there doesn't seem to be any
10:20:48 objection from any of the -- any of my colleagues.
10:20:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is there any objection from you on any of
10:20:56 the changes?
10:20:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No.
10:20:58 I outlined what I felt at the last meeting where the
10:21:04 language from the ethics commission was acceptable in
10:21:14 part -- you know, some of the things they were adding in
10:21:16 which was maybe oversight issues as far as adding in, you
10:21:20 know, friends, children, engaged couples and that sort of
10:21:26 thing.
10:21:26 Adding in the inclusion of hearing masters, the word "or."
10:21:33 It was just kind of technical language to clarify.
10:21:40 There was one that really would have, you know, been a
10:21:45 discussion between all of us, but barring any objection, I,
10:21:52 you know, would go with the commission suggested and retain
10:21:56 current language where it talks about the 12th month, if
10:22:02 any such meeting occurs with an item not currently pending
10:22:06 before city officials. So future meetings, that language.
10:22:12 So, I mean, Mrs. Hamilton and I have discussed with Mr.
10:22:16 Shelby what I felt about the suggestion, the ethics
10:22:23 commission.
10:22:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
10:22:26 Mr. Shelby.
10:22:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm just curious if I can just to clarify
10:22:30 in my mind.
10:22:31 Then what you are asking for is really in effect something
10:22:33 that doesn't presently exist in front of you because what
10:22:36 you are asking for is to incorporate some of the suggestions
10:22:38 from the ethics commission.
10:22:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, Mrs. Hamilton has presented two,
10:22:44 one that did not include their suggestions, and one that did
10:22:47 include their suggestions as well.
10:22:52 So the only one that I had issue with, and not for anything
10:22:57 else, but they didn't foresee a reason to include another
10:23:07 four besides council in the appeal decision.
10:23:09 So that is just adding the word "or."
10:23:12 But other than that, the second version that she presented
10:23:18 should be fine.
10:23:21 Right, Mrs. Hamilton?
10:23:22 I think is that the -- in order to have the hearing
10:23:26 masterpiece included?
10:23:29 >> And where did you wish to have that included?
10:23:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, that's their comment, if you go
10:23:35 back to their letter, that refers to the second bullet
10:23:44 point?
10:23:49 It's actually the third bullet point, definition of affected
10:23:52 personnel.
10:24:02 Because the way it was written, the only change I would see
10:24:06 is to add the word "or."
10:24:10 So that it would include the hearing master process.
10:24:16 They were not understanding why we needed to include another
10:24:18 board, because we recently changed the process and now use a
10:24:27 hearing master.
10:24:32 So, but everything else, we are in agreement with.
10:24:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
10:24:40 Mrs. Montelione, would you like to make a motion to have the
10:24:42 ordinance brought back to us for a public hearing?
10:24:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Is that -- could we do a first reading
10:24:56 with that being changed, that one word being added before
10:25:01 second reading?
10:25:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Are you talking about doing the first
10:25:05 reading now?
10:25:06 What are you suggesting?
10:25:13 >> I don't have it presently with me but I think you could
10:25:17 do first reading.
10:25:20 Bring it back this afternoon.
10:25:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Could you speak up?
10:25:23 >> I could bring it back this afternoon.
10:25:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can that change be part of the motion and
10:25:28 bring in a substitute with the change at second reading?
10:25:31 Is that a possibility?
10:25:32 >>SAL TERRITO: Elementary legal department.
10:25:38 That could be done.
10:25:40 You are simply adding a word.
10:25:42 Everybody knows.
10:25:44 That's not a substantial change.
10:25:45 So yes, I think you can do it now on first reading and when
10:25:48 you get it on second reading it will be the correct one.
10:25:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Wonderful.
10:25:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you have the correct title, is the
10:25:54 question.
10:25:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I think so.
10:25:56 I don't think the titles have changed.
10:25:59 The titles are the same.
10:26:00 >> Hamilton: Actually, we did not change the definition in
10:26:08 the ethics commission version.
10:26:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: My suggestion is you make a motion to come
10:26:12 back for first reading so that we can clean it up.
10:26:15 There might be some issues.
10:26:16 If you don't mind.
10:26:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: This is the issue.
10:26:25 I wanted to get this done before I left.
10:26:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I understand.
10:26:28 We are trying to push it up as fast as you are.
10:26:32 >> You have that version.
10:26:35 You have it.
10:26:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is there a version that she can read on
10:26:38 first read now?
10:26:39 >> Yes.
10:26:40 I could bring it -- I wasn't sure which one.
10:26:44 It's the second draft.
10:26:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I want to make sure if she wants to read it
10:26:48 on first read now, if it's possible, we can go ahead and do
10:26:51 that.
10:26:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My concern is to know which version, and
10:26:55 that the clerk --
10:26:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Exactly.
10:26:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Do you want to take the next item?
10:27:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: No, because we have to go to 10:30 hearings
10:27:09 anyway.
10:27:10 We might as well take the time to do this now.
10:27:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
10:27:13 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. Territo.
10:27:15 Okay.
10:27:16 I move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida amending
10:27:18 City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 2, article 8 of the
10:27:23 City of Tampa ethics code pertaining to the regulation of
10:27:26 lobbyists, section 2-502 definitions by amending the
10:27:30 definition of lobbying by defining affected personnel by
10:27:34 amending the definition of relatives, section 2-580 lobbying
10:27:40 by requiring annual registration of lobbyists by replacing
10:27:43 disclosure of lobbying activity with requiring a record of
10:27:46 meeting contacts and meeting law by amending revisions for
10:27:50 enforcement, penalties, repealing all ordinances or parts of
10:27:53 ordinances in conflict therewith, providing for
10:27:57 severability, providing an effective date, with a change to
10:27:59 the word ordinance, hearing masters, between first and
10:28:04 second reading.
10:28:05 >> Second.
10:28:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mrs. Montelione, a second
10:28:08 by Mrs. Capin.
10:28:10 Yes, ma'am?
10:28:10 >>THE CLERK: [Off microphone.]
10:28:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I am reading the one that Mr. Territo
10:28:18 handed me which does not have --
10:28:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Are we on the correct version?
10:28:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: If I could lean over, I would.
10:28:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Are we set, clerk?
10:28:32 We have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
10:28:34 We have a second from Mrs. Capin.
10:28:37 All in favor of that motion?
10:28:38 Any opposed?
10:28:39 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held on
10:28:44 November 3rd, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
10:28:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:28:49 We have a couple of minutes left.
10:28:50 If there are any information reports from our members.
10:28:54 Mr. Miranda, do you have any information reports or new
10:28:57 business at this time?
10:29:00 >> No.
10:29:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick, do you have any?
10:29:06 I apologize, sir.
10:29:09 Mrs. Capin.
10:29:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I have one but it will take longer than two
10:29:13 minutes.
10:29:15 (Laughter).
10:29:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Cohen?
10:29:23 Mr. Maniscalco?
10:29:24 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: No, sir.
10:29:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: You should have made that longer.
10:29:28 Mrs. Montelione?
10:29:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, sir.
10:29:30 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
10:29:32 We are at 10:29.
10:29:33 Mr. Cohen, did you find that one item that you had?
10:29:36 >> [Off microphone.]
10:29:46 >>HARRY COHEN: Yes, I do have it.
10:29:48 I would like to ask the legal department to draft a revision
10:29:56 to the code, text amendment to chapter 14 related to the
10:30:04 issue of certain establishments that report food and
10:30:10 beverage, 51/49 type calculations, being able to be open in
10:30:17 the morning.
10:30:19 It's come to my attention that there is sort of an odd
10:30:25 provision in the code that anyone -- any of these
10:30:28 establishments that are currently reporting are not actually
10:30:32 allowed to be open before 11 a.m. to serve breakfast.
10:30:37 And the item was brought to me and I would like to have
10:30:41 legal come back with Ms. Moreda as well on December 1st
10:30:46 under staff reports to go over this.
10:30:50 And I think everyone will understand it when we have the
10:30:53 staff report on the 1st.
10:30:55 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Second.
10:30:56 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion from Mr. Cohen, a second
10:31:00 from Mrs. Montelione.
10:31:01 All in favor of that motion say aye.
10:31:03 Any opposed?
10:31:04 Thank you.
10:31:05 And guess what.
10:31:07 It got us to our 10:30 hearing.
10:31:09 Thank you so much, Mr. Cohen.
10:31:10 We are about to start our 10:30 hearings, items 53 through
10:31:14 58.
10:31:15 I need a motion to open those hearings.
10:31:17 I have a motion from Mr. Miranda.
10:31:19 I have a second from Mrs. Capin of the all in favor of that
10:31:21 motion?
10:31:25 Any opposed?
10:31:26 For items 5 approximate through 58, anyone that is going to
10:31:29 speak on any of those items, please stand up and be sworn
10:31:31 in.
10:31:32 (Oath administered by Clerk)
10:31:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Item number 53.
10:31:45 >> The legal department on item 53 has requested a
10:31:56 continuance to 11-3 oh to work on the language of the
10:31:59 ordinance.
10:31:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, terrific.
10:32:01 Thank you.
10:32:01 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
10:32:03 item 53 on the request for the continuance only?
10:32:09 You know what item 53 is, sir?
10:32:12 State your name and go ahead and you have to stick to what
10:32:15 this item is, sir.
10:32:16 >> Yes.
10:32:18 I am prince king, worldwide king, and also the American king
10:32:30 as president.
10:32:31 Anyhow, item 53 you talk about that alley that's in between
10:32:34 the buildings.
10:32:35 That alley has never been used so it's really a nuisance
10:32:38 wasting time and space and taxpayers money.
10:32:40 And to work on it for nothing when it's just taking up
10:32:44 space.
10:32:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
10:32:46 Appreciate it.
10:32:47 Is there anyone else that would like to speak on the
10:32:49 continuance on item number 53 at this time?
10:32:56 Do I need a motion to continue it to November 3rd, if I
10:33:00 could.
10:33:00 >> So moved.
10:33:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion -- I'm sorry?
10:33:05 November 3rd at what time, sir?
10:33:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: [Off microphone.]
10:33:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
10:33:15 A second by Mr. Cohen.
10:33:16 All in favor of that motion?
10:33:17 Any opposed?
10:33:19 Okay.
10:33:20 Item number 54.
10:33:21 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Land Development Coordination.
10:33:25 Item 54 is request to vacate an alley in Riverside Heights
10:33:30 and I have a map for the overhead.
10:33:40 The property is in red and the property in yellow, Braddock,
10:33:46 between rosedale and poplar.
10:33:49 The alley is unimproved by the west end and Grover grown as
10:33:53 you will see.
10:33:56 This is a picture of the alley.
10:33:58 From the west end and there's a fence.
10:34:07 This is east of poplar and it's overgrown.
10:34:10 This is the applicant's property at 905 Braddock.
10:34:15 Staff has no objections to this vacating and there are
10:34:18 requests for easements for wastewater.
10:34:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, staff.
10:34:26 Petitioner?
10:34:27 Is petitioner here?
10:34:29 Yes, sir.
10:34:29 >> Good morning.
10:34:36 905 west Braddock, asking to vacate the alley.
10:34:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, sir.
10:34:43 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on
10:34:45 item 54, VAC 16-21?
10:34:50 I see no one.
10:34:51 I have a motion to close by Mr. Miranda.
10:34:53 I have a second from Mr. Cohen.
10:34:54 All in favor of that motion?
10:34:57 Any opposed?
10:34:59 And I think, Mrs. Montelione, you are next.
10:35:05 Number 54.
10:35:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Item number 54.
10:35:17 I move an ordinance being presented for first reading
10:35:19 consideration, an ordinance vacating, closing,
10:35:20 discontinuing, abandoning an alleyway lying south of Adalee
10:35:27 street, north of Braddock street east of Oakdale Avenue and
10:35:31 west of poplar Avenue in suburban royal, a subdivision in
10:35:36 the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the same
10:35:39 being more fully described in section 1 hereof subject to
10:35:43 certain easement reservations, covenants, conditions and
10:35:46 restrictions more particularly set forth herein providing an
10:35:49 effective date.
10:35:50 >> Motion from Mrs. Montelione, second by Mr. Miranda. All
10:35:52 in favor?
10:35:55 >> Motion carried with Reddick and Maniscalco absent at
10:36:00 vote.
10:36:01 Second reading and adoption will be November 3rd, 2016,
10:36:08 at 9:30 a.m.
10:36:10 >>BARBARA LYNCH Item 55 is a city-wide initiated vacating
10:36:16 request for an area abutting the Heights project.
10:36:17 I have a map for the overhead.
10:36:26 This is a co-petition with Riverside Heights Holdings who is
10:36:28 developing the Heights.
10:36:32 The area to be vacated is in yellow.
10:36:35 I have a photo of the area.
10:36:38 This is Ross Avenue looking east towards Ola Avenue.
10:36:42 You can see the fence is up for the development that's going
10:36:44 on at this time.
10:36:46 And this is looking east towards Massachusetts.
10:36:50 And this is looking at the parcel.
10:36:54 Looking south.
10:36:55 Again looking south.
10:36:57 And again.
10:36:58 And the reason for this request is Ross is an uneven
10:37:04 right-of-way, varies in width from 50 to 70 feet, and in the
10:37:08 final development when it's platted it's going to be 40 so
10:37:11 this will bring this portion of Ross for the development
10:37:14 that's planned in the area at this time.
10:37:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions at this time from council?
10:37:21 Thank you, Ms. Lynch.
10:37:23 Petitioner?
10:37:28 The city is the petitioner.
10:37:29 >> Any questions by council?
10:37:32 Is there anyone in the public to speak at this time on item
10:37:34 55, VAC-16-22?
10:37:38 Please come forward and state your name.
10:37:41 Please, sir, come to this podium.
10:37:43 Thank you, sir.
10:37:44 >> Right across the street from where they took those
10:37:51 pictures and I am trying to understand exactly what it
10:37:53 means.
10:37:54 All I see are numbers, and ordinances.
10:37:56 How do I find out what does that mean?
10:37:58 Because it is right in front of my house.
10:38:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sir, if we could, we'll get our staff member
10:38:03 to answer that question.
10:38:05 Come forward, Mrs. Lynch, and do that.
10:38:08 You just want to know what's going on, is that it, sir?
10:38:11 >> Well, obviously we can't stop it but we would like to
10:38:14 know what's going on.
10:38:15 They came and blocked the streets off about three weeks ago.
10:38:19 And just started digging. And just trying to find out
10:38:22 what's going on.
10:38:26 Where do we find out the information?
10:38:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Lynch.
10:38:30 >>BARBARA LYNCH: You can talk to the city construction
10:38:34 services.
10:38:35 There are plans on file for the whole development that's
10:38:37 going to happen at that point, Tampa Heights development.
10:38:39 And currently, my understanding is -- at this juncture, that
10:38:50 right-of-way there is 50 feet, and --
10:38:54 >> I understand where the road goes.
10:38:57 What I am saying, I thought when they were taking the
10:39:00 pictures standing in front of my house, I'm curious what
10:39:03 does that mean?
10:39:04 Vacating.
10:39:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If I could, sir.
10:39:07 They are vacating a piece of land that we own as a city for
10:39:10 use in the project itself.
10:39:12 So that small strip of land will then become part of that
10:39:16 project with easements that are properly allowed for certain
10:39:21 items, whether it's electricity or sewer and other things.
10:39:25 So it is part of the project.
10:39:27 It will become part of the project.
10:39:29 Once the vacation is agreed to, if it is agreed to by
10:39:32 council.
10:39:32 >> Okay.
10:39:34 And I have to come to construction services?
10:39:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: No.
10:39:39 What she's saying is if you want to see the entire plan you
10:39:42 can.
10:39:42 >> And will I understand what I am seeing when I go there?
10:39:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I don't understand your question, sir. This
10:39:48 is a project that's been ongoing for some time.
10:39:50 >> It's been going on for 16 years: So it has been going on
10:39:54 for some time.
10:39:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is your question what is happening there?
10:39:57 >> Yes.
10:39:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I think, sir -- and if I could, and I don't
10:40:00 know what the legal department is going to say about this,
10:40:03 but the process is to vacate the land right now.
10:40:05 If you want to know more about the project, I think Mr.
10:40:08 McDonaugh, who is our economic development person, we have
10:40:12 Mrs. Lynch who can talk to you about this.
10:40:14 If you have questions about why it's being vacated, any of
10:40:18 that, now is the time to speak.
10:40:20 >> Well, this is not going to accomplish anything.
10:40:24 I am just checking to find out what's going on.
10:40:26 I am not going to win.
10:40:28 If I sit here and say I am against this, you all are going
10:40:30 to not vote for vacating?
10:40:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We don't know because we haven't voted on it
10:40:35 yet.
10:40:35 That's why the public gets to participate in this hearing.
10:40:38 >> Right.
10:40:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If you do have an issue with the vacation of
10:40:41 that particular property, now is the time to say your piece
10:40:44 concerning that.
10:40:44 If you don't have a problem, you can say that also.
10:40:48 It's up to you.
10:40:49 In terms of the plans and everything else, those plans have
10:40:52 been filed for some time and you can look at the plans.
10:40:55 You are not going to see the plans here.
10:40:56 That's what I am saying.
10:40:58 We are only talking about one small piece of it right now.
10:41:00 >> I understand it's been for a while but the plans filed
10:41:06 for the past 16 years.
10:41:08 I understand this is 98 where we stay and now this is
10:41:12 finally going to be done.
10:41:13 But it's been supposedly like I say 16 years if you look at
10:41:17 the record.
10:41:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sir, I will ask you, to clear the record --
10:41:20 sir, do you have anything to say about the vacation before
10:41:23 we go forward?
10:41:25 >> No.
10:41:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
10:41:26 Is there anyone else from the public at this time on item
10:41:28 number 55 that has any comments about this project, this
10:41:33 vacation of land?
10:41:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
10:41:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion to close by Mrs. Montelione.
10:41:40 Second by Mr. Reddick.
10:41:41 All in favor of that motion?
10:41:43 Any opposed?
10:41:44 Okay.
10:41:44 Mr. Miranda, will you kindly take the substitute ordinance
10:41:47 on item 55.
10:41:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: File VAC-16-22, substitute ordinance
10:41:54 presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance
10:41:56 vacating, closing, discontinuing, abandoning a portion of
10:41:59 Ross Avenue and alleyway lying south of Park Avenue, north
10:42:03 of Palm Avenue, east of North Boulevard, and west of Ola
10:42:07 Avenue, in W.H. Beckwith's addition to Matthews place, a
10:42:15 subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County
10:42:17 Florida the same being more fully described in section 1
10:42:20 hereby subject to certain covenants more particularly set
10:42:24 forth herein providing an effective date.
10:42:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion by Mr. Miranda.
10:42:29 Ava second from Mr. Maniscalco.
10:42:31 All in favor of that motion?
10:42:33 Any opposed?
10:42:34 Thank you.
10:42:34 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be held on
10:42:37 November 3rd, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.
10:42:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:42:43 Item number 56.
10:42:45 Staff.
10:42:45 >>KRISTIN MORA: Legal department.
10:42:55 Item number 56 is a review hearing from the Variance Review
10:42:59 Board.
10:43:00 This is a variance that was granted, and a third party
10:43:04 challenge to the approval of that variance.
10:43:07 The procedures that we have worked out for the legal
10:43:10 department for this is that open the public hearing and
10:43:17 swear in the witness.
10:43:18 Council is not constrained to only the record below.
10:43:21 On these items you may receive additional items and consider
10:43:24 them as a part of this process.
10:43:26 Your review is a de novo review so you do not have to give
10:43:30 weight to the decision of the Variance Review Board.
10:43:33 In a moment, we will have staff come up and speak to you
10:43:37 about in general what the application is, and what the
10:43:40 decisions of the Variance Review Board S.after that, of what
10:43:46 we have suggested is that the original applicant will be
10:43:52 allowed to do their presentation, and present to you what
10:43:57 their variance request is.
10:43:59 At that point the petitioner that is seeking review will
10:44:02 receive 15 minutes, and be able to address why they think
10:44:05 the variance should be denied.
10:44:08 You can then have a public comment period.
10:44:10 And we would ask you to then provide the petitioner seeking
10:44:14 review with rebuttal, and after that, the applicant to have
10:44:18 one final rebuttal on why the variance should be granted.
10:44:23 Any questions?
10:44:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: None at this time: Before we go forward, I
10:44:31 know there were several people that walked into the chamber
10:44:34 while we were doing some other items.
10:44:36 Anyone that is going to speak on items 56 through 58 who
10:44:40 want to speak, who has not been sworn in, please stand now
10:44:43 and be sworn in.
10:44:44 (Oath administered by Clerk)
10:45:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:45:02 I need a motion to file any ex parte, anything that needs to
10:45:08 be filed ex parte?
10:45:10 Okay.
10:45:10 Go ahead, counsel.
10:45:12 >> Mr. Shelby provided you the review standards for
10:45:16 variances.
10:45:17 And with that, staff will give you a presentation of the
10:45:27 recommendation from staff and the VRB.
10:45:37 >> Joel Sousa, land development.
10:45:39 This was heard on July 12th.
10:45:42 What you have in front of you is the results.
10:45:45 The result letter from the chairman of the VRB.
10:45:47 Staff report and application.
10:45:49 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I have got a quick question and I know this
10:45:57 happened before but I want to tell you this.
10:45:59 I'm sure that this is all for the record because if we
10:46:02 cannot consider the VRB results, why are we hearing it?
10:46:09 >>KRISTIN MORA: Legal department.
10:46:18 It is de novo.
10:46:20 You can consider what the VRB decided.
10:46:24 You should make up your own decision today.
10:46:27 It's just additional information for you to consider in your
10:46:30 deliberations.
10:46:30 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Excuse me, but that's not what I heard
10:46:34 earlier.
10:46:36 Just clarify that.
10:46:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can.
10:46:39 Your code allows this to be a de novo hearing which means
10:46:42 you can consider additional evidence.
10:46:45 You can also, as part of the evidence, consider what the VRB
10:46:49 did.
10:46:49 And when you amended the code to allow that, the person who
10:46:53 is requesting a review hearing is actually going to take the
10:46:56 disk of the VRB hearing and make that as part of the record
10:46:59 so in case this ever has to be reviewed by a court, they
10:47:02 would have the information as well.
10:47:05 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay, I just wanted to make sure.
10:47:10 I thought the audience and everyone else knew why we are
10:47:13 here hearing this again.
10:47:15 Thank you.
10:47:15 >> Joel Sousa, land development.
10:47:22 Basically you have a package of information that was the
10:47:24 same during the case, the VR case 16-75 on July 12th.
10:47:29 The applicant was seeking relief from sections 27-156,
10:47:34 reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet, reduce
10:47:39 the west side yard setback from 7 feet to 3 feet 7 inches
10:47:43 and reduce the east side yard from 7 feet to 6 feet.
10:47:47 Encroachments -- this was to remodel existing two-story
10:47:53 residential detached structure.
10:47:54 The site was developed originally, and we believe in 1990,
10:48:00 and zoned RS-60.
10:48:03 Residential single-family.
10:48:03 The current owner purchased the property at the time in
10:48:07 2016.
10:48:08 These are photos of the property.
10:48:15 This intersects into MacDill Avenue to the east.
10:48:19 You have Euclid Avenue to the north.
10:48:22 You have the Crosstown roughly to the west.
10:48:26 So this is the subject property.
10:48:32 And the staff report, that is a picture of the front of the
10:48:34 house.
10:48:35 Relatively narrow lot.
10:48:39 In the back of your packet, the last two Pinellas, you will
10:48:42 see the site plan.
10:48:45 And a picture of this unit.
10:48:47 This is the lot.
10:48:48 This is the front street.
10:48:49 This is the accessory structure in the back that's under
10:48:53 question right now.
10:48:57 And that was entered into the record on July 12.
10:49:03 This is a picture of that accessory dwelling unit.
10:49:10 The VRB approved the request for section 27-280.
10:49:21 In addition, they put some conditions on the approval to
10:49:25 limit the height to 16.5 feet of the accessory structure.
10:49:30 Also, that the variance was only limited to that structure
10:49:33 indicated in the rear.
10:49:36 And the rear accessory building was never to be connected to
10:49:40 the main structure of the house.
10:49:52 That's it.
10:49:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
10:49:54 Petitioner?
10:50:01 >> To help, this should be the original applicant for this
10:50:04 variance.
10:50:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
10:50:06 >> Good morning.
10:50:11 I'm for the homeowner and the applicant is actually Dempsey
10:50:15 Bassett for fuller construction, they are a licensed
10:50:19 contractor.
10:50:20 If I may just say a couple things up front for the
10:50:24 homeowner.
10:50:25 The homeowner purchased this property, again, the rear
10:50:29 structure at issue.
10:50:31 This rear structure -- and I have got a picture right here.
10:50:40 That structure was built according to the Hillsborough
10:50:43 County records, the structure was the first structure and
10:50:48 was built in 1947.
10:50:51 It's listed as a family structure, single-family structure.
10:50:56 Again 1947.
10:50:57 In 1990, and ever since 1990, there's been bedroom,
10:51:05 bathroom, been taxed as the one side of it as 416 feet of
10:51:16 seated area.
10:51:16 Essentially, council, to get the work done originally, there
10:51:22 was some termite damage that needed to be worked on at the
10:51:26 time of purchase.
10:51:27 Again, my client purchased this, and the survey shows from
10:51:32 2013, the preexisting -- the highlighted area there is how
10:51:44 it was in 2013, really since 1990.
10:51:48 You will see that it's 3.9 feet on one side down to 10-foot
10:51:53 in the rear.
10:51:57 Council, we ask that you approve the variance.
10:51:59 I did want to say that the applicant again is Mr. Dempsey
10:52:03 here, Dempsey bashum.
10:52:09 Weighs know provided certified mailing of the actual
10:52:11 petition, which is a prerequisite under the code.
10:52:16 So on that basis alone, the petitioner, who is wanting you
10:52:22 to now change the mind stipulated by the variance board that
10:52:27 there was hardship, petitioner, Mr. Craig Moore and his
10:52:33 counsel, did not provide notice as far as I'm aware to the
10:52:37 actual applicant.
10:52:39 That's a defect, about considering all that has happened, is
10:52:45 certainly not fair to my client, the property owner.
10:52:48 Now, the hardship is evident.
10:52:50 My client purchased the entire property --
10:52:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Do you have a question, sir?
10:53:00 Okay.
10:53:00 Continue, sir.
10:53:01 I apologize.
10:53:03 If you have a question, you want to make a comment about
10:53:06 something, go ahead.
10:53:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, I don't even know.
10:53:09 You are representing you said two names.
10:53:11 >> I represent the homeowner, Barnett Harris, who has --
10:53:17 he's in the armed services.
10:53:18 >> Harris is the owner of this property?
10:53:21 >> Correct.
10:53:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And the variance board approved this?
10:53:26 >> Correct.
10:53:27 Correct.
10:53:28 So we are not petitioning.
10:53:30 We want the variance to stay.
10:53:34 And the city determined -- I am going back to the order.
10:53:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I think our legal department allowed --
10:53:41 brought them up to speak first.
10:53:43 And if you could come on over here.
10:53:45 Is that the proper order?
10:53:46 Is that something we should be doing?
10:53:48 So they are defending what was already agreed to by the
10:53:50 variance review board.
10:53:52 Is that the proper method and order?
10:53:54 I want to make sure we are going right here.
10:53:56 >>KRISTIN MORA: Yes.
10:53:59 Legal department.
10:53:59 It is proper for them to go first since they do, this is a
10:54:05 de novo review, they have a burden to show, so they should
10:54:10 present first and show you it meats the standards for
10:54:13 variance, and then address their part.
10:54:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Can I ask a question?
10:54:22 You represent the homeowner.
10:54:25 Then you cited there's a living quarters that is built.
10:54:30 >> Yes.
10:54:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Has that ever been rented?
10:54:33 >> He bought it with the intent --
10:54:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I didn't ask you that sir.
10:54:37 >> Hasn't rented it yet.
10:54:41 Not yet.
10:54:42 Not that I know of.
10:54:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Not yet.
10:54:45 Not that you know of.
10:54:46 >> He bought to the live in.
10:54:47 He just got relocated as part of the armed services up to
10:54:50 the panhandle.
10:54:51 He was --
10:54:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You are getting me confused.
10:54:54 Maybe I am confused.
10:54:56 There's a house.
10:54:56 And then there's a dwelling in the back.
10:55:00 Three carports as I see it and a living quarters.
10:55:03 Where does he live, in this house or this living quarters?
10:55:07 >> He lives in the main structure.
10:55:09 His mother was going to live in the mother-in-law suite
10:55:11 there.
10:55:13 His mother is elderly.
10:55:15 He was putting her in the back there.
10:55:18 And his father actually passed away at the time of their
10:55:21 petition --
10:55:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me be clear.
10:55:25 >> To answer the question, I'm sorry, they bought it to live
10:55:29 in as a family.
10:55:31 The back mother-in-law suite was for indeed his mother.
10:55:35 And at this time he had to relocate up to the panhandle for
10:55:38 the armed services.
10:55:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions before I let the
10:55:45 petitioner go forward?
10:55:47 And I am not saying the right thing, if you are petitioner,
10:55:52 your petition again.
10:55:53 Go ahead.
10:55:53 >>YVONNE CAPIN: You are the applicant.
10:55:55 The petitioner is the one that wanted to reverse it.
10:56:01 >> Correct.
10:56:03 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Got it.
10:56:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Go ahead, sir.
10:56:06 >> So back when the Variance Review Board was to look to see
10:56:16 if there was hardship on the part of the property owner and
10:56:18 the applicant, the applicant was actually doing work and
10:56:22 proposing to do work.
10:56:23 And what I need to say now is what my client had wanted me
10:56:26 to say today.
10:56:29 He apologizes for the angst amongst the neighborhood.
10:56:32 Apparently, there's neighbors still here today to fight.
10:56:38 His desire is to put it back to its original shape as it was
10:56:43 when he bought the property.
10:56:45 So that may alleviate all their concerns today, but due to
10:56:49 all that has changed in his life, and the fact that the
10:56:53 hardship is undisputed, and that it needs to stay, a heated
10:57:01 taxable living area that he paid for and purchased, it's
10:57:04 been that way since 1990.
10:57:06 Again that was the original structure from 1947 with all
10:57:09 those encroachments over time.
10:57:12 The setbacks apparently have either changed or maybe --
10:57:16 whatever it was, that was seven years ago.
10:57:20 We can show just by the fact -- and we are showing right
10:57:24 here that the hardship certainly exists, because otherwise
10:57:28 it would render the back rear structure, living area, as
10:57:33 basically unusable.
10:57:35 Correct?
10:57:36 >> Well, yes, even for parking cars.
10:57:38 >> And so when you looked through the one through five, the
10:57:44 applicant and the property owner with setbacks, my client is
10:57:52 the one that is going to suffer serious hardship if this is
10:57:56 all of a sudden overturned just because a neighbor doesn't
10:58:00 like him.
10:58:00 Now, again, he's moved.
10:58:02 He's moved out, he has to put it back to how it was earlier
10:58:08 this year.
10:58:10 It should take away any of the neighbors' concerns.
10:58:13 Again it was in 1990, ever since 1990, it's been a
10:58:17 one-bedroom, one-bath area, which is again taxable, and
10:58:23 South Tampa property, the value that was paid for.
10:58:27 And so there's the hardship of rendering the structure
10:58:32 unusable.
10:58:34 And then there's the hardship of what happens if the
10:58:37 variance is now all of a sudden taken aback when that's what
10:58:43 he needs to put it back to how it was.
10:58:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione has a question.
10:58:49 >>LISA MONTELIONE: When you say put it back to the way it
10:58:52 was, what does that mean?
10:58:59 You said it's been like this since 1990.
10:59:03 So putting it back to the way it was before 1990?
10:59:07 >> No, this is to the 1990, and this what you are seeing
10:59:11 right here, with the mother-in-law suite --
10:59:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So that's what it looks like today.
10:59:17 If I go there today, that's what I would see?
10:59:20 >> Actually, they worked on the top here.
10:59:22 They were going to address a second level.
10:59:26 There's a storage area up to the top.
10:59:28 And I may have a picture of how it looks today.
10:59:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So that's how it looked in 1990?
10:59:36 >> 1990.
10:59:37 And when my client bought it --
10:59:40 >>CHAIRMAN: When he bought the property.
10:59:41 What does it look like right now?
10:59:42 >> Right now, I think there's some tar mats on it to keep
10:59:51 the elements away.
10:59:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And if I look at your construction plan,
10:59:55 there's storage repair plan.
10:59:57 >> Here is how it looks now.
11:00:02 Mitt client wants to end the controversy, get it back to how
11:00:08 it was.
11:00:09 Originally there was termite damage on the roof.
11:00:11 The plans went differently.
11:00:12 And, therefore, the idea is to get it back to this point,
11:00:16 which the applicant -- excuse me, the petitioner, I'm sorry,
11:00:20 the petitioner is the neighbor that wants to create havoc
11:00:25 here.
11:00:25 The position Mr. Moore bought the property in --
11:00:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I don't think we need to go onto that.
11:00:36 In the original letter from the Variance Review Board, they
11:00:43 approved the structure height at 16.5 feet.
11:00:48 So the structure height would involve the property.
11:00:53 The picture that we are looking at rate now is how high?
11:00:59 Is that at 16.5 feet?
11:01:01 >> It's actually probably --
11:01:05 >> Identify yourself, please.
11:01:06 >> Fuller construction group, Dempsey Barb um.
11:01:10 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So you are the owner of the property?
11:01:14 >> No.
11:01:15 Applicant.
11:01:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You are the applicant.
11:01:16 Right.
11:01:22 The variance board wanted to assign a height, okay.
11:01:26 And so they picked that height because we knew it wasn't
11:01:31 going to exceed that.
11:01:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: But that doesn't answer my question.
11:01:34 My question is, the picture that I am looking at right now,
11:01:38 the way it was when he bought the property, what's behind --
11:01:45 >> The height of that building?
11:01:47 >> I can't tell you exactly what it is but I can tell you
11:01:49 that it is less than 16.6.
11:01:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE: You are in construction.
11:01:57 I'm in construction.
11:01:58 I can't put it on the record.
11:01:59 But that's how high the ceiling is height of that garage?
11:02:04 >> No, ma'am, it's the height of the building.
11:02:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, I am trying to get to the math here
11:02:08 S.that 8-foot, 12-foot, 16 feet are?
11:02:11 >> The inside?
11:02:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes.
11:02:13 >> The inside is probably 8 to 9 feet.
11:02:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Inside ceiling is 8 to 9 feet.
11:02:19 And the storage area that you say in the roof is how high?
11:02:22 >> The way it was before, maybe 4 or 5 feet.
11:02:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Okay.
11:02:30 So if it's 9 feet you said? And 4 feet?
11:02:35 So that's 13 feet.
11:02:36 And then the pitch to the roof?
11:02:38 >> Yes.
11:02:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That's probably about 16.
11:02:40 >> That's how it was today he arrived, yes.
11:02:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: That's what I was trying to get at.
11:02:46 >> Straightforward.
11:02:47 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you very much.
11:02:49 >> any other questions at this time?
11:02:51 Mr. Miranda.
11:02:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: When both of you gentlemen came up, I
11:02:54 assume you both are representing the same individual.
11:02:57 So you are not?
11:02:59 Are you with him?
11:03:01 >> Yes, sir.
11:03:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is like a movie in my mind.
11:03:07 You're the petitioner?
11:03:10 >> No, no, no.
11:03:11 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No.
11:03:12 >> My client applied for the variance.
11:03:14 >> You're covering your face.
11:03:17 I'm covering mine, too.
11:03:18 >> I'm the attorney for the owner who bought this property
11:03:23 who wants the variance, of course --
11:03:27 >> The owner.
11:03:30 >> Yes, sir.
11:03:31 And he's also the applicant who didn't get notice of the
11:03:35 actual --
11:03:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: In the original case.
11:03:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE: In the original case.
11:03:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So now this has been here -- is this
11:03:46 land zoned for multifamily, or do they have an area in that
11:03:51 district where you can have a mother-in-law suite?
11:03:55 >> Yes.
11:03:57 Right here, it's showing single-family, 1947, one-bedroom,
11:04:03 one-bath.
11:04:06 It's one side of the structure.
11:04:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm asking you legally if this area allowed
11:04:11 to have a mother-in-law suite?
11:04:13 There are areas in town --
11:04:14 >> It's much like all of Hyde Park where you have the kind
11:04:19 of structures, just like this, and they are nonconforming
11:04:23 under current zoning regulations.
11:04:25 And of course all the neighbors could, you know, want them
11:04:28 to tear them down also.
11:04:29 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Miranda, do you have anything else, sir?
11:04:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No.
11:04:35 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione, I think you have another
11:04:37 question are?
11:04:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Actually this is for our staff.
11:04:40 I am going to ask the same question only no different way.
11:04:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
11:04:44 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Is there a special use for an accessory
11:04:51 dwelling on this property?
11:04:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Come forward.
11:04:53 >> Joel Sousa, land development.
11:04:57 No, there is not.
11:04:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So the answer to the question is it's
11:05:01 zoned for multifamily.
11:05:03 The answer would be, no, it is not?
11:05:05 >> That's correct.
11:05:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE: In order to have a mother-in-law suite,
11:05:09 you would have to have, in my experience, a special use for
11:05:15 an accessory dwelling?
11:05:17 >> That is correct.
11:05:17 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So what you were reading from, sir, is
11:05:20 the property appraiser's record.
11:05:22 That does not constitute zoning.
11:05:25 That constitutes value.
11:05:29 So thank you.
11:05:30 I think that's to what you were looking for.
11:05:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I think we all figured that out, too.
11:05:37 Any other questions before we go forward?
11:05:39 Do you have anything else to add to this?
11:05:41 If you could come forward and continue.
11:05:44 Talking to you, sir.
11:05:45 >> I would just like an opportunity to rebut what I may or
11:05:48 may not hear, and I do want to reiterate that over the
11:05:51 passage of time, my client wants to make clear not only to
11:05:55 your council but to the petitioner and the neighbors that
11:06:01 they would like to move on, reduce the angst, put it back
11:06:06 the way it was.
11:06:08 And the variance would permit that.
11:06:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
11:06:12 All right.
11:06:15 Since we are in confusion land, I guess we would call our
11:06:18 petitioner up.
11:06:19 No, no, just terminology is what we are talking about.
11:06:41 The other one came with less lawyers and it was a
11:06:44 multi-million dollar case.
11:06:48 Okay.
11:06:48 We need to receive and file the original hearing from the
11:06:53 VRB?
11:06:55 I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
11:06:57 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
11:06:59 All in favor of that motion?
11:07:01 Any opposed?
11:07:16 >> Good morning.
11:07:17 My name is Matt Newton, Singer & O'Donniley, representing
11:07:25 petitioner this morning.
11:07:26 For the record I have put TV DVD as well as the lower
11:07:30 tribunal decision into the record as required by procedure.
11:07:33 So let me begin by framing this.
11:07:37 We are here today because there are violations as council
11:07:46 brought up, attempting to modify and make alterations to a
11:07:50 nonconforming residence and increasing the structure's
11:07:52 height within the setback which is resulting in increasing
11:07:55 of a nonconformity of a nonconforming structure.
11:07:58 So we have double nonconformity.
11:08:01 Nonconforming use and nonconform structure.
11:08:04 Of course, in order to grant the variation to bring it into
11:08:10 compliance, five criteria need to be satisfied.
11:08:13 A unique singular hardship which we are disputing.
11:08:17 That the hardship exists.
11:08:19 That the hardship was not self-created but the variance will
11:08:21 not substantially interfere with the welfare of others.
11:08:24 That the variance serve it is interest of the comprehensive
11:08:27 plan, and that the variance would result in substantial
11:08:30 justice being done.
11:08:32 All these five criteria, the applicant has the burden.
11:08:39 They have not met any.
11:08:40 >> Let me interrupt you for a second.
11:08:44 I apologize.
11:08:45 As you noticed the applicant said they want to go back to
11:08:48 what it was originally and I think the variance review was
11:08:50 to add onto that structure.
11:08:53 Is that going to change the way that you present this to us
11:08:56 in any way whatsoever?
11:08:57 >> No.
11:08:59 We oppose this variance from the beginning.
11:09:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
11:09:02 >> What happened at the VRB was essentially an attempt to
11:09:05 split the baby.
11:09:06 A variance is needed to restore back to where it was before.
11:09:11 And our position is that that variance should not be
11:09:14 granted.
11:09:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Very well.
11:09:17 Continue.
11:09:17 I apologize.
11:09:18 >> For orientation as staff pointed out we are here on Bahia
11:09:22 Vista. This is MacDill running north and south.
11:09:25 Euclid here.
11:09:26 Running to Bayshore.
11:09:30 As pointed out, this zoning lot has two buildings on it
11:09:34 which are both single-family structures.
11:09:38 The rear structure here, which is building 2, that you see,
11:09:45 is advertised as a mother-in-law apartment.
11:09:48 This is intended to be used as a single-family residence.
11:09:54 As council pointed out this is RS-60.
11:09:58 In RS-60 only a plows one dwelling unit per zoning lot.
11:10:02 So in a single-family residence in the rear is a
11:10:04 nonconforming use.
11:10:08 In addition to being a nonconform use, of course, here we
11:10:11 have the building set deep into the setbacks.
11:10:14 As you see, the side set back is a 7-foot setback and to the
11:10:19 west we have as low as a 3-foot, 7 setback so this is very
11:10:25 much encroaching into the neighborhood.
11:10:29 The original applicants, the application, the statement of
11:10:32 hardship was to repair termite damage.
11:10:35 As you can see on slide 10.
11:10:39 However, with that application, there was a request to add a
11:10:42 second story to the single-family dwelling.
11:10:45 Here you see a picture of how the single-family dwelling
11:10:49 appears today after a lot of that construction has been
11:10:51 substantially completed.
11:10:55 In order to do anything else on the property now that has
11:10:59 been enhanced, there is a variance requirement.
11:11:04 I will move very quickly through the criteria.
11:11:07 Again, they have to meet all five criteria.
11:11:10 They have not met one.
11:11:12 We will address the first two at once, whether it's a unique
11:11:16 singular hardship and whether the hardship was
11:11:19 self-inflicted.
11:11:20 There is a lot of discussion about regret and mistakes being
11:11:24 made.
11:11:25 However, that does not constitute a hardship.
11:11:28 Financial hardship is not a singular and unique hardship.
11:11:32 Hardships caused by the agent of the applicant are not
11:11:40 un-self-imposed, I guess that's a word, because the
11:11:44 applicant hired the agent.
11:11:45 And termite damage is not unique and singular to this
11:11:48 building.
11:11:49 These hardships have to be unique and singular, has to be
11:11:52 very rare, extraordinary circumstances, and that has not
11:11:55 been demonstrated today.
11:11:57 Or at the lower tribunal, whatever.
11:12:01 Moving forward, the applicant has the burden of proof that
11:12:05 the expansion of this building will not substantially
11:12:08 interfere with the welfare of others.
11:12:10 Today, I do have 32 letters from the neighborhood opposing
11:12:14 this expansion of the nonconforming use and structure.
11:12:17 And at the lower tribunal, four people spoke.
11:12:20 I believe we have people here speaking today.
11:12:23 As well as several letters submitted into the record below
11:12:26 as well.
11:12:28 This does interfere with the neighbors' rights.
11:12:31 Shadows cast onto another yard which interfere with the flow
11:12:34 of light.
11:12:35 The sense of privacy somebody buys when they move into a
11:12:38 neighborhood expecting that their neighbor will build to
11:12:40 code.
11:12:41 These are harms.
11:12:43 The applicant has not proven that these harms have been
11:12:47 mitigated in anyway.
11:12:50 Finally, the building's expansion, the applicant must show
11:12:54 that it meets the intent of the comprehensive plan as well
11:12:57 as the LDC.
11:12:59 Here are just a few provisions of the LDC demonstrating that
11:13:03 this is not consistent with the LDC, and in fact cannot be
11:13:07 proven to be consistent with the LDC.
11:13:09 LDC is drafted no way that nonconform uses and structures
11:13:13 will eventually be eliminated over time.
11:13:15 This is why nonconforming structures are prohibited to be
11:13:19 repaired if more than 75% of the value has been destroyed.
11:13:23 That's why the uses nonconform cannot be expanded but have
11:13:27 to remain as they are until they are eventually abandoned.
11:13:30 We have not heard any arguments today or at the lower
11:13:32 tribunal justifying that this is consistent with the intent
11:13:36 of our plans.
11:13:38 It is not.
11:13:40 Finally, applicant has the burden of proof that substantial
11:13:43 justice will be done by this expansion.
11:13:50 That burden has not been met either.
11:13:52 The variance power is reserved for extraordinary
11:13:55 circumstances to remedy when applying the code evenly would
11:13:58 be unfair.
11:13:59 Here, the applicant has not met any of the criteria that he
11:14:03 is burdened to meet.
11:14:04 And granting it would be unfair.
11:14:07 Our neighborhood relies on the city to enforce the code
11:14:14 absent a unique and singular hardship.
11:14:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Let me interrupt.
11:14:17 I believe Mrs. Capin has a question.
11:14:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN: This is going back to where it was in 1990.
11:14:23 How could it cast a shadow?
11:14:26 Where is the addition?
11:14:29 Where is the addition of whatever that apparatus on the top
11:14:32 is, are?
11:14:34 And bringing it back to 1990, I don't know where the
11:14:39 expansion is.
11:14:40 Please explain.
11:14:40 >> And if we were to have the premise that it was restored
11:14:46 to its previous, there would need to be a variance granted
11:14:50 tore allow that to happen.
11:14:52 But should that premise be granted, I suppose the shadow
11:14:55 would not be cast more than it was in 1990.
11:14:59 However, a variance at this point is needed to review that.
11:15:04 So if we shift the premise to showing a substantial hardship
11:15:08 to go from a 2-floor back to one-floor because that would be
11:15:12 necessary, the applicant has the burden of proof and you
11:15:17 need a single and unique hardship to of do that.
11:15:20 This is a tight spot for the applicant.
11:15:23 And I am not pretending it's not.
11:15:26 But they do have been the burden to show those five criteria
11:15:29 with a unique and singular hardship being the most
11:15:32 important.
11:15:33 But to answer your question, if it is lowered to the one
11:15:36 floor it was in 1990, there would be no interference with
11:15:39 light, at least not more than --
11:15:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And since 1990, how has it interfered with
11:15:48 the peace and quiet of the neighborhood?
11:15:52 I want to know how that is.
11:15:54 >> As a single floor structure?
11:15:58 >>YVONNE CAPIN: 1998, 2000 -- okay, I get it.
11:16:03 26 years.
11:16:03 >> We are not making argument that unaltered, that before
11:16:10 the second floor was added, that it interfered with the
11:16:13 neighborhood.
11:16:14 The neighborhood came in with an existing nonconforming
11:16:16 structure.
11:16:19 The construction that went forward without a variance that
11:16:22 enhanced the degree of the second single-family residence,
11:16:29 that aggravated the height of a nonconforming structure in
11:16:31 creating -- next to the neighbors. If we were to go back in
11:16:40 time and that never happened, we of course would not be
11:16:42 appealing it.
11:16:43 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So help me understand.
11:16:46 If I heard the applicant correctly, they are bringing it
11:16:48 back to where it was in 1990.
11:16:50 What is the problem?
11:16:53 >> The problem is that the variance that was granted at the
11:16:57 lower court didn't put in the protections that that would
11:17:00 create.
11:17:00 And they didn't follow the he will elements.
11:17:03 There was no presentation of evidence of a substantial
11:17:06 hardship except there was termite damage.
11:17:08 But that termite damage does not have a nexus to creating
11:17:12 the second floor.
11:17:13 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Do you know how many places in Tampa has
11:17:16 these in them?
11:17:17 We would be tearing everything down.
11:17:19 I'm serious.
11:17:19 This has come before to us.
11:17:22 Okay.
11:17:22 That's it.
11:17:23 I'm done.
11:17:23 >> David Singer on behalf of the applicant, singer
11:17:29 O'Donniley.
11:17:30 Your question is a good one.
11:17:31 And the answer to your question is if they were going to
11:17:35 restore to the original height you have to deny the
11:17:37 variance.
11:17:38 Because the variance gives them the ability to bring it to
11:17:40 16 feet.
11:17:41 So what is before you is an application to bring the height
11:17:44 to 16 feet.
11:17:46 If they want to remove that, if they would like to withdraw
11:17:50 that, that's feign.
11:17:52 But you have two options.
11:17:54 Deny the variance, or condition an approval of the variance
11:17:58 on a certain height.
11:17:59 >>YVONNE CAPIN: It was not 16 feet before?
11:18:02 >> No.
11:18:03 >>YVONNE CAPIN: What was it?
11:18:05 >> It was -- the original -- we don't have that.
11:18:10 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Do you know how hey it was?
11:18:13 Do we know how high it was before, the height?
11:18:17 >> It was one story.
11:18:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I know one story.
11:18:20 But I want to know how high the pitch of the roof.
11:18:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: State your name again, sir.
11:18:29 >> Dempsey bashum.
11:18:33 We wanted at the hearing to stipulate that we could restore
11:18:36 it to the original height, but they wanted to put in a
11:18:41 height requirement.
11:18:43 And so that's the way it was written.
11:18:46 The original height of the building is somewhere between 14
11:18:51 feet and 16 feet.
11:18:53 And I can't tell you exactly what it is.
11:18:56 And all the owner really wants is to take it back to its
11:19:00 original height.
11:19:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
11:19:03 Mrs. Montelione.
11:19:03 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Mr. Singer, would it be -- would it be
11:19:10 okay and satisfy your client to change that condition to
11:19:18 from 16.5 feet to, say, one story?
11:19:22 >> To one story?
11:19:24 I think that might be.
11:19:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Just doing the math, the peek height of
11:19:32 the pitch of that roof originally, from 1990, or 1947, when
11:19:39 it was built -- I don't know if the pitch was changed on the
11:19:41 roof or not.
11:19:42 It might have been a flat roof structure which it probably
11:19:44 was --
11:19:46 >> Right.
11:19:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It got to be at least 16 feet at the
11:19:52 pitch height of that roof.
11:19:54 So if we just say one story, that would seemingly make
11:20:02 sense.
11:20:04 >> You know, in this situation, I am not the applicant for
11:20:08 the variance.
11:20:09 So I would tell you the applicant should probably come in
11:20:11 and be very precise what it is they that they want.
11:20:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Right.
11:20:17 I'm just saying if they go back and they measure the pitch
11:20:20 height of that roof and it combs back at 16 feet, the
11:20:24 variance would grant 16.5.
11:20:27 We are talking about a half foot difference.
11:20:29 So it doesn't make sense to me to deny this -- okay, so it
11:20:37 doesn't make sense to me to reverse the decision of the
11:20:40 Variance Review Board because the hate at the end of the day
11:20:50 might be 16 feet or 16.5 feet at the pitch height of that
11:20:54 roof.
11:20:58 They have put the other conditions onto it, to remove the
11:21:02 rear accessory building only, and then not going to be
11:21:06 connected to the main structure.
11:21:07 If we were to overturn the Variance Review Board, that
11:21:13 entire structure would have to be demolished and come down
11:21:15 because it doesn't meet the setbacks.
11:21:17 >> Yes, the entire structure that was built as you see
11:21:20 without permit.
11:21:20 >>LISA MONTELIONE: The entire structure I'm saying was
11:21:24 existing from 1947, that they have been -- the photograph of
11:21:31 1990 shows was there.
11:21:32 >> I don't think our clients are interested in causing the
11:21:36 applicant any undue pain in this situation.
11:21:39 What they want is for the applicant to abide by the code.
11:21:43 And to come in with a variance they have to be meet some
11:21:46 criteria. What they did here is came in and made an
11:21:49 application and said there's termite damage.
11:21:50 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I understand that.
11:21:51 >> We need to repair and they added on.
11:21:54 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I understand that.
11:21:56 All I'm trying to get down to -- and I think Mrs. Capin was
11:22:01 trying to get there as well -- I think she and I are on the
11:22:05 same page.
11:22:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN: You caught on.
11:22:09 >> If I might interrupt to give a sense to what happened,
11:22:16 the history.
11:22:17 We have a couple of minutes left.
11:22:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Before you go forward, I think, Mrs. Capin,
11:22:21 did you have anything else to add?
11:22:22 I know you had your hand up.
11:22:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
11:22:25 I agree with the one-story.
11:22:26 That's what I was getting at with the height.
11:22:29 It wanted to know what it was originally.
11:22:31 Thank you for following up on that because that's where I
11:22:33 was going.
11:22:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:22:37 I want to clear something.
11:22:38 We are talking about the code and the law.
11:22:40 And our legal department came up and said that there was
11:22:42 no -- in this section of the City of Tampa, an allowable
11:22:50 mother-in-law suite according to the code.
11:22:53 So we are talking about enforcing the code, and yet if this
11:22:57 stays, I don't know what happened in 1947.
11:23:02 But I can almost a sure you there was no mother-in-law suite
11:23:05 there in 1947.
11:23:07 This is an RS-60.
11:23:09 That means you have one dwelling.
11:23:11 Not two.
11:23:12 One.
11:23:14 By code.
11:23:15 So all of this is against the law other than the dwelling
11:23:18 for the throw garages.
11:23:20 So I am going to say this.
11:23:23 Years ago, I said these things should not come before us,
11:23:26 they should go directly to court where they understand the
11:23:30 legalities more than I do.
11:23:31 I'm just speaking about myself.
11:23:33 Furthermore, I am going to say another statement.
11:23:36 There will be hundreds if not thousands of cases coming
11:23:38 before this council possibly in the next year, because
11:23:46 there's an infestation in this city of people taking
11:23:49 advantage of people, where they close a garage and they have
11:23:52 a nine foot by 15 feet or 16 feet and they charge you of
11:23:56 $600, like a rabbit.
11:24:01 And that's coming before us.
11:24:02 And there is no grass anymore in certain parts of the city
11:24:05 where cars are parked all over.
11:24:07 It's a motel.
11:24:08 You have got duplexes and triplexes an four-plexes at home.
11:24:13 So I'm saying get prepared. This is just the beginning.
11:24:15 Thank you.
11:24:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I am going to let the petitioner continue.
11:24:19 Do you have anything else to add at this time?
11:24:21 >> I would like you to hear from our client.
11:24:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Start the time.
11:24:25 Have him come up.
11:24:29 >> Craig Moore.
11:24:30 I have been sworn in.
11:24:31 I live next to this property.
11:24:32 I didn't ask for any of this to happen to myself, my wife,
11:24:35 my family, or the neighborhood.
11:24:37 And when this owner bought this property, he bought it with
11:24:41 that structure as it was.
11:24:43 The house and that rear detached structure, three-car
11:24:47 garage, suite, right?
11:24:50 And he told me in April he had a permit he was going to put
11:24:53 a second story on that building.
11:24:56 He already knew he was leaving before he started the
11:24:59 construction.
11:25:01 So he knew he was getting orders.
11:25:05 He was leaving.
11:25:06 So that's very frustrating for me.
11:25:09 I'm in the military as well I served in Afghanistan.
11:25:11 I fought inform this country.
11:25:13 I believe in the laws of this country.
11:25:15 He wears a military uniform.
11:25:19 I didn't wear my military uniform.
11:25:21 I'm not wearing it now.
11:25:23 And I took his word that he got a permit.
11:25:25 All right.
11:25:26 So think about all the trust issues I'm having here.
11:25:29 All right?
11:25:30 And I was like, okay, you got a permit, he's a military
11:25:35 officer like me.
11:25:36 Go, right?
11:25:37 And comes in and they start building on it in May.
11:25:41 All right.
11:25:42 And all of a sudden calls came in of that he did this
11:25:50 without permit.
11:25:50 And hey, you didn't have a permit.
11:25:52 And I was very frustrated by that.
11:25:55 All right.
11:25:58 There's a way of doing things, you know?
11:26:00 And then what I agreed to was the original structure as it
11:26:06 was.
11:26:06 But the variance in my opinion gave too much leeway.
11:26:11 And that's the reason why we are here, all right?
11:26:14 Because 10%, goes up to 18 feet.
11:26:21 He can actually go up to 18 feet, leave a flat roof on this
11:26:25 thing and leave the structure as it is.
11:26:27 And that is not what I signed up for. This is my dream
11:26:29 house.
11:26:30 I didn't buy a second story building next to me.
11:26:32 All right.
11:26:33 He put this on himself.
11:26:35 This hardship is on himself.
11:26:37 Him and his builder.
11:26:39 That's the legal thing that should be defined, those two
11:26:42 fighting it out.
11:26:43 Not me and not my neighbors.
11:26:44 Okay?
11:26:45 And that's the reason I'm here.
11:26:48 And it would be nice to be say he can put it back the way it
11:26:51 was.
11:26:52 Personally, I don't trust him.
11:26:53 I don't trust his builder E.and the variance seems very
11:26:57 vague to me.
11:26:59 They'll leave the structure, put a flat roof on there and
11:27:02 call at day.
11:27:03 And I'm not happy with that.
11:27:04 I'm sorry, I am not because I didn't buy my house with that
11:27:07 structure.
11:27:07 He didn't go through proper permitting and we all know he
11:27:10 wouldn't have gotten approved.
11:27:11 When he opened up that roof essentially opened it up to it
11:27:13 new laws, right?
11:27:16 Grandfathered in.
11:27:17 That's where we are today.
11:27:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: If I could interrupt you for a second.
11:27:22 Mrs. Capin?
11:27:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So if we stipulate one story, what's the
11:27:25 definition of one story for the city?
11:27:28 >>KRISTIN MORA: Legal department.
11:27:36 One issue we have run into with the Variance Review Board in
11:27:39 imposing conditions like one story is that there isn't a
11:27:43 definition of that which is why we encourage the Variance
11:27:46 Review Board to put a height restriction on this.
11:27:49 I think council could say one story not to exceed and I
11:27:52 think that mate help clarify it.
11:27:54 Certainly that might help alleviate some of Mr. Moore's
11:27:57 concerns but it should be a height restriction because the
11:27:59 one story is difficult to enforce.
11:28:01 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you.
11:28:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sir.
11:28:04 No, sir.
11:28:05 Stay over there.
11:28:06 Okay.
11:28:06 Are you done asking any questions?
11:28:08 Any other questions before I allow the petitioner to finish
11:28:11 his presentation to us?
11:28:13 Okay.
11:28:13 Anything else?
11:28:14 Petitioner, is there anything else us would like to add
11:28:16 about this particular --
11:28:20 >> Council, the remedies here, we think, need two things.
11:28:24 Either deny the variance and have them come back with what
11:28:27 they actually want, right?
11:28:29 We don't want to negotiate here at the dais.
11:28:33 I'm not sure that's appropriate.
11:28:34 So we can agree to negotiate, they can withdraw the variance
11:28:38 and have it denied, or you can impose some conditions if you
11:28:42 decide to move forward.
11:28:43 But the conditions are going to be very hard to deal with
11:28:45 because they don't know the height, and they are not exactly
11:28:47 sure how the construction is going to move forward.
11:28:50 And again, maybe this isn't the most appropriate place to
11:28:52 negotiate a compromise.
11:28:54 So I would suggest, deny the variance, have them come back.
11:28:59 You don't have to have them tear down the structure today.
11:29:01 They can come back and ask for what they want.
11:29:03 That's the remedy.
11:29:04 But not to approve this variance as it stands today.
11:29:08 Thank you.
11:29:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Shelby, I already know.
11:29:13 Cap
11:29:16 It's not a denial of the variance.
11:29:18 Is that what you are going to say, sir?
11:29:20 >> Can I go first?
11:29:22 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sure.
11:29:23 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because then you can answer both
11:29:24 questions because I have a question for Mr. Shelby.
11:29:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Capin has --
11:29:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Can we remand this back to the variance
11:29:36 review board?
11:29:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
11:29:38 Your code permits that.
11:29:39 That's what I was going to say is an option.
11:29:42 And it says you may either affirm the board decision, remand
11:29:46 it back to the board with direction on how the board failed
11:29:49 to comply with the standards of the codes, or may overturn
11:29:51 the decision of the board.
11:29:53 If you remand it back with direction regarding specific
11:29:55 conditions and have that be worked out by the Variance
11:29:59 Review Board or by the petitioner and the applicant in time,
11:30:03 when it's brought before the board, they can then amend
11:30:06 their variance, I suspect, with the appropriate staff level.
11:30:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Does that answer your question, too, Mrs.
11:30:14 Capin?
11:30:15 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
11:30:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Petitioner, I assume you are done.
11:30:19 Petitioner, are you Don with your presentation?
11:30:21 >> We rest our presentation.
11:30:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Terrific.
11:30:25 We are going to ask for rebuttal.
11:30:27 Okay.
11:30:28 And do me a favor.
11:30:29 Have one person come up here.
11:30:31 There's a lot of lurking going on around here.
11:30:34 We have seen that on national TV.
11:30:35 I don't need it here.
11:30:37 You have your rebuttal time.
11:30:38 >> Thank you.
11:30:40 The condition was placed by the variance board limited to
11:30:44 16.5.
11:30:45 We can stipulate that it will be returned to match the
11:30:49 previous height of what it showed in the picture.
11:30:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I want to interrupt you for one second and I
11:30:57 apologize.
11:30:57 You heard what the petitioner just said about where the
11:31:00 place is to negotiate.
11:31:02 You just heard our City Council attorney make a comment
11:31:05 about where it might be the best way to negotiate this.
11:31:09 You heard that already.
11:31:10 Do you want to continue on the current course of your
11:31:13 rebuttal or do you want to say anything else in addition to
11:31:16 that?
11:31:17 >> I do want to continue my rebuttal.
11:31:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: That's perfectly fine.
11:31:21 >> It is de novo.
11:31:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Correct.
11:31:25 >> But the burden today is on the petitioner.
11:31:29 The burden again is on the petitioner.
11:31:31 Yes, it's de novo but the burden is the petitioner which is
11:31:36 Mr. Moore who bought his property --
11:31:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I apologize, sir, I have to interrupt you
11:31:42 one more time.
11:31:43 Please, if we could, Mr. Shelby pointed out that I had not
11:31:46 asked the public to come forward on this and I apologize to
11:31:48 you, sir, and I apologize to the petitioner on that.
11:31:52 If we could hear from the public at this time before we have
11:31:55 rebuttal, that would be great.
11:31:56 Is there anyone that would like to speak at this time that
11:32:01 has been sworn in and wants to speak on this item, number
11:32:03 56?
11:32:04 Please come forward.
11:32:05 Yes, ma'am.
11:32:05 >> Good morning.
11:32:06 My name is Megan Moore.
11:32:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Ma'am, you are -- are you not part of
11:32:12 petitioner?
11:32:15 >> Is that right?
11:32:17 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Singer?
11:32:19 >> It's up to council.
11:32:20 She's one of the homeowners.
11:32:21 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Does she not own the home --
11:32:25 >> She is one of the homeowners.
11:32:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I mean, you know, you are not part of the
11:32:30 public.
11:32:30 You are part of the petition.
11:32:31 So that's a question.
11:32:33 >> Okay.
11:32:33 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is there anyone in the public that would
11:32:37 like to speak at this time on item number 56?
11:32:40 Please come forward.
11:32:40 >> My name is Kathleen Rossen, approximate 213 west Davis
11:32:55 I'm.
11:32:55 I'm catty-corner to Mr. Harris.
11:32:59 And as you know, 32 neighbors taking the time to sign the
11:33:04 petition.
11:33:06 Our neighborhood is very concerned.
11:33:07 My family and I have lived at the residence for over 50
11:33:10 years.
11:33:10 And, by the way, in 1947, it was not a grandmother -- a
11:33:16 mother-in-law house.
11:33:22 He kept his booze in that structure. (Laughter)
11:33:24 But we just want to appeal -- help from the city to make it
11:33:27 the code right.
11:33:29 And, you know, it's been a big mistake on Mr. Harris' part,
11:33:34 and he's got to own that.
11:33:35 And it's put this neighborhood through a lot.
11:33:40 Why people create a second floor and having him originally
11:33:43 say he was going to rented out the back, pave the front so
11:33:47 he can wrap the house in the back.
11:33:49 So we have all been through that.
11:33:51 And this is where we are now.
11:33:52 We thank you for your consideration and your help.
11:33:54 Thank you.
11:33:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
11:33:56 Anyone else in the public that would like to speak at this
11:33:58 time?
11:33:59 Would you do us a favor, if you are going to speak on this
11:34:01 item, if you could line up, if you are physically able to,
11:34:04 please do.
11:34:05 That will hope us know how many more people we have to
11:34:07 speak.
11:34:08 Ma'am, if you are coming up, please come on up.
11:34:10 >> My name is lind reed.
11:34:16 I have been sworn in.
11:34:17 Good morning.
11:34:18 And I have lived -- my husband and I lived at 3218 west
11:34:23 Bahia Vista for 30 years.
11:34:25 When we moved into our house it was a 2 bedroom 1 bath
11:34:29 house.
11:34:29 It's now a 3 bedroom 2 bath house with an attached screen
11:34:33 porch.
11:34:33 We have always followed the rules.
11:34:36 We have applied for permits when we needed permits.
11:34:39 We didn't like it but we did it.
11:34:41 And I think the thing that disturbs me here is that I feel
11:34:46 like this situation is asking for forgiveness of a after the
11:34:51 fact instead of following the rules to begin with.
11:34:53 So I would really ask you to consider the people in this
11:34:58 city that did try to follow the rules to help us to continue
11:35:03 to follow the rules.
11:35:04 Thank you.
11:35:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, ma'am.
11:35:06 Next, please.
11:35:07 >> Hi.
11:35:10 Debby Greenberg.
11:35:12 I have been sworn in.
11:35:13 I appreciate this.
11:35:18 We don't live in Hyde Park.
11:35:20 We live in Bayshore Beautiful.
11:35:24 I am a newby on the block five months.
11:35:27 I am really enjoying my neighbors and I want it to be just
11:35:30 what I expected it to be, and have our dream home, and I
11:35:35 really hope that you are not inviting the two floors and
11:35:41 paved front and maybe this is back to the part of the
11:35:45 original neighborhood that I agreed to and that people need
11:35:48 to follow the rules.
11:35:49 I had to pull permits to get water heaters in my house and
11:35:52 have an inspector.
11:35:54 But I did it and I had an inspector come.
11:35:57 We love our neighborhood.
11:35:58 We don't want -- that's not what I moved into.
11:36:04 And so I am asking your consideration also just to keep the
11:36:08 neighborhood.
11:36:08 We would love to have it stay as is.
11:36:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
11:36:15 Anyone else to speak on item 56?
11:36:17 Anyone else from the public?
11:36:21 Okay.
11:36:21 I don't see anyone else from the public before we go to
11:36:24 rebuttal.
11:36:25 If council has any questions or comments at this time, I am
11:36:27 going to go to someone who has not gone before.
11:36:30 Mr. Cohen.
11:36:30 >>HARRY COHEN: Yes, I think that this variance ought to
11:36:36 just be denied.
11:36:37 I really and truly do.
11:36:42 You have basically an illegal structure, and you attempt to
11:36:44 put a second story on it, without any permits, and he
11:36:49 couldn't get a permit anyway because it's not supposed to be
11:36:52 there to begin with, you basically have brought this
11:36:55 situation on yourself.
11:36:56 And I just don't see grandfathering in this type of
11:37:03 situation in this neighborhood.
11:37:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions?
11:37:07 Mrs. Capin?
11:37:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes, I understand that, too, and I
11:37:10 understand the not-permit.
11:37:12 But here is the thing.
11:37:12 If we deny it, it has to be torn down.
11:37:15 The next thing is, if we remand it back to as Mr. Singer
11:37:21 suggested, would know that not be putting it back an
11:37:27 additional expense to that owner, which is what it should
11:37:33 be, that he should spend that money to bring it back to
11:37:35 where it was.
11:37:40 I tend to not want to take Tampa structures down that have
11:37:43 been there for many, many.
11:37:45 Because how many owners have owned that house between 1947
11:37:48 and today?
11:37:49 And if we were -- when this did something where they built
11:37:56 something, and we had them tear it down, but, you know,
11:38:03 again, that would be -- Mr. Singer, you said, can I ask?
11:38:11 You said that your client did not want to cause any undue --
11:38:17 >> Pain.
11:38:18 >>YVONNE CAPIN: -- pain.
11:38:19 So the pain of putting it back to where it is will be
11:38:23 costly.
11:38:24 And as it should be.
11:38:29 But I am not here to -- I think that my dog is to take your
11:38:34 suggestion, which was a good one, to remand it back, and
11:38:41 with conditions.
11:38:42 That's write stand.
11:38:44 You know, in essence when he did that without a permit, that
11:38:49 in itself, but to have the structure torn down to the next
11:38:55 owner, I mean, is just more than -- that is very painful and
11:39:01 that's not how he bought it.
11:39:03 He bought it with that structure on there.
11:39:05 But he caused the hardship on himself by adding that
11:39:09 addition without a permit.
11:39:10 >> To answer your comment, the applicant has options when
11:39:15 you deny this variance that don't include the structure
11:39:18 being torn down.
11:39:19 If it's denied, they can reapply.
11:39:21 And during the pendency of that reapplication, you wouldn't
11:39:24 turn it down.
11:39:25 The problem with the remand is you are forcing my client to
11:39:27 go through the process with more expense as well.
11:39:31 So if it's denied, or if it's withdrawn, they could reapply,
11:39:35 and staff would say during the pendency of that
11:39:37 reapplication, you don't have to tear that building down.
11:39:41 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Thank you for that.
11:39:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:39:45 I agree with what Mr. Singer said.
11:39:48 I think that I would vote for denial, but not to take the
11:39:53 structure.
11:39:53 You cannot have an illegal structure in RS-60 home.
11:39:56 And it ain't the building, it's the dwelling of somebody
11:39:59 living there.
11:40:00 Not that I am for or against having a mother-in-law suite
11:40:03 but usually you take the family into your own house.
11:40:05 But if we are going to set the standard today and change the
11:40:09 law, that's what we are doing without taking a vote on
11:40:11 chaining the law, I think that in itself is illegal.
11:40:14 And I am going to warn myself, only myself, that I know that
11:40:18 there's hundreds of possible, thousands of structures coming
11:40:21 to this city that are not paying ad valorem tax, they are
11:40:24 not paying federal income tax on the collection of money
11:40:27 that is all illegal, it is a scam, and it's happening in
11:40:30 this city as we speak today, and peopled are being taken
11:40:35 advantage of, living like cattle.
11:40:37 And we are saying, yes, I agree with it.
11:40:39 Well, I don't.
11:40:41 I am just speaking for me, addressing Mace.
11:40:43 I will never vote for a structure to have another structure
11:40:49 no home unless it's according to the law N.some parts of the
11:40:52 city, of this city, there are mother-in-law suites, where
11:40:56 ever year, and they do check this, they make sure that
11:41:00 whoever is in there is still alive, A, and, B, whoever is
11:41:05 still there is a person that was there originally, because
11:41:08 they do take a picture of you, just like a mug shot.
11:41:11 They will match it.
11:41:13 Is this you?
11:41:14 And if it's not you, like me living there and all of a
11:41:18 sudden I got long hair, that's not going to happen.
11:41:21 So what I am saying is they do check it.
11:41:23 And when these things happen, we might be setting a
11:41:25 precedence today, and it's come very shortly because the
11:41:30 city is already starting to look at these things, because
11:41:33 the neighbors are all full up to here with what's going on
11:41:37 in this city, and the lack of enforcement.
11:41:41 They want enforce.
11:41:42 We should offer it to them.
11:41:44 That's all, Mr. Chairman.
11:41:45 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I understand we have rules.
11:41:48 But we also have variances.
11:41:50 And that's what we do.
11:41:52 When we give a variance to a rule, you know, and yes,
11:41:57 there's hundreds, and each one is individual and we will
11:42:00 deal with it as it comes up.
11:42:04 But that's what variances are for.
11:42:07 So with that, I just wanted to bring that up.
11:42:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione.
11:42:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So Mr. Singer is right.
11:42:14 I mean, if we remand this back, it's going to cost time on
11:42:22 both side.
11:42:23 The property owner is going to have to spend time, and then,
11:42:26 you know, the applicant for this review hearing is going to
11:42:31 from have to spend time. If we deny it and they reapply,
11:42:37 same thing.
11:42:38 He's going to reapply.
11:42:40 And you are going to be there to make sure that the
11:42:45 reapplication is going to be something you can live with.
11:42:49 So either way, you are going to be spending more time
11:42:53 together.
11:42:57 So, you know, the structure has been there since 1947.
11:43:02 I don't think the same setbacks that are there now.
11:43:07 Mr. Singer, your client, Mr. Moore, you purchased your home
11:43:11 whenever that structure there, so it's been there since
11:43:16 1947.
11:43:17 And so I don't think your denying it and possibly forcing if
11:43:25 they don't reapply the next owner to tear it down.
11:43:28 Because you sell it.
11:43:29 It's going to be there.
11:43:31 Somebody else is going to inherit this headache.
11:43:34 Everyone is on notice right now, what Mr. Miranda's point
11:43:40 is, this is a mother-in-law suite that is not permitted.
11:43:43 In order to get a special use permit for a mother-in-law or
11:43:48 father-in-law, or it's called an accessory dwelling, anybody
11:43:51 who is going to, you know, use it for accessory, you have to
11:43:56 come to council to get a special use permit granted.
11:43:59 So I do have a motion that I will make during new business
11:44:05 because it seems to me what I would want maybe to happen as
11:44:10 a result of what we are hearing here today.
11:44:12 But I would be more in favor of remanding it back.
11:44:17 It's going to be the same whether we deny it and make him
11:44:20 reapply or not but I would be more comfortable with
11:44:23 remanding it back so that we know there's -- there's a
11:44:31 chance that they will reapply and some somebody else come
11:44:35 buy the house and inherit the problem.
11:44:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have our legal department.
11:44:38 She wants to say something obviously.
11:44:40 >>KRISTIN MORA: Just on the issue, I want to clarify for
11:44:44 the record, if this was denied, in order to reapply, they
11:44:48 would have to first apply for the determination that the
11:44:52 variance, they are requesting substantial change from the
11:44:57 variance that they are requesting now because the code does
11:44:59 bar them for one year.
11:45:00 So if they were denied today, there would be a lot more
11:45:04 process for them to apply than a remand would be, which
11:45:08 would simply send them right back to the VRB.
11:45:10 >> (Off microphone) So that stays the way it is for a year
11:45:15 until they come back?
11:45:18 >> Eventually.
11:45:20 >>YVONNE CAPIN: All right.
11:45:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I heard what the counsel just told
11:45:24 us, they can apply within the year, if there's substantial
11:45:30 change from the application, the substantial change would
11:45:32 be, in my opinion, the reduction of that what they are
11:45:37 rebuilding illegally to come back no normal sense, so they
11:45:41 can do that?
11:45:41 >>KRISTIN MORA: Yes, that is correct.
11:45:43 VRB would just have to make a determination.
11:45:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that.
11:45:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you very much.
11:45:51 Are there any other questions by council at this time?
11:45:53 Sir, you have rebuttal.
11:45:55 You have heard quite a bit up here.
11:45:58 Please go ahead and continue your rebuttal.
11:46:00 >> Thank you, council.
11:46:03 Hearing this today, the idea that makes the most sense is to
11:46:08 remand it so that there can be clarification to the height
11:46:12 issue.
11:46:13 It does have a condition of limit as to 16.5.
11:46:19 You heard today how my client wants to go back to how it
11:46:22 was.
11:46:24 Right now, being tarped and damaged, that whole building,
11:46:28 which has been there since 1947, the original structure on
11:46:31 that property, is basically being subject to the weather
11:46:35 conditions and issues of potential mold.
11:46:40 My client can't afford to just wait and reapply, if that's
11:46:46 what they are saying.
11:46:47 However, what makes the most sense is to remand on a
11:46:51 specific issue so that my client can take a diligent effort
11:46:56 to get this property back to where it was.
11:47:00 I understand they are upset about the past but the point is
11:47:05 to move forward and to get it back to where it was.
11:47:09 I did want to make a point earlier about the rebuttal.
11:47:12 I think the burden of proof issue was mischaracterized.
11:47:15 It is de novo.
11:47:17 But the idea the burden on the petitioner, which is Mr.
11:47:22 Moore, who bought the house after the survey that I showed,
11:47:27 which also showed that the public cannot see the hate of the
11:47:33 rear structure from the street, but it does talk about
11:47:37 reviewing of board decision.
11:47:42 City Council after reviewing the decision of the board and
11:47:44 hearing evidence and testimony, they affirm the board's
11:47:47 decision may remand the matter back to the board for further
11:47:50 proceedings with direction on how the board failed to comply
11:47:53 with the standards of the code, or may overturn the
11:47:57 decision.
11:47:58 Overturning the decision would create a year-long pain
11:48:06 separate from reapplying and the costs to go back.
11:48:10 The idea is to get this back so that the neighborhood can
11:48:14 continue the way it's been since at least 1990.
11:48:19 It's been that way for that long.
11:48:21 >> That would be my say.
11:48:26 I think that it would compound the hardship to simply deny
11:48:31 the variance, and make my client wait a year.
11:48:34 It's going to have tarp over it, be subject to weather.
11:48:37 Nobody in the neighborhood is going to want to see that for
11:48:39 a full year and deal with it.
11:48:41 My client is interested in diligently having Mr. Dempsey's
11:48:47 company put it back to within the 16.5-foot limit.
11:48:53 And so that's what I would like to say.
11:48:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
11:48:58 All right.
11:48:59 We have heard from the public.
11:49:00 We have heard from the applicant and the petitioner.
11:49:03 So do I have a motion to close?
11:49:06 I have a motion to close from Mrs. Montelione.
11:49:09 I have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
11:49:12 All in favor of that motion?
11:49:14 Any opposed?
11:49:16 Mrs. Capin, I believe you wanted to present a motion.
11:49:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
11:49:20 My motion is to remand it back to the VRB with the
11:49:24 stipulation that it be brought back to exactly 1990
11:49:30 measurements.
11:49:33 That's my motion.
11:49:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
11:49:37 We have a motion from Mrs. Capin.
11:49:38 We have a second from Mr. Maniscalco.
11:49:41 Discussion?
11:49:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes, discussion, Mr. Chairman.
11:49:44 I cannot -- and I appreciate the motion by the maker, Mrs.
11:49:46 Capin.
11:49:47 I cannot legally consciously vote for something that I know
11:49:51 is illegal in the record.
11:49:53 That apartment in the back is an illegal structure on an
11:49:57 RS-60 zoning.
11:49:59 That alone disqualifies, in my opinion, everything that's
11:50:04 been said here and everything that this council has heard
11:50:07 and what the board has heard, because that is an illegal
11:50:11 part of something that's been there maybe since 1990.
11:50:14 Maybe since 1947.
11:50:16 But I am going to say it again.
11:50:17 You are going to have hundreds of these come in.
11:50:19 And if this is what we are going to do, then we might as
11:50:23 well forget about it and let it stay the way it is.
11:50:25 Because once it's illegal, it's one thing.
11:50:29 But not specifically on the RS-60 zoning that you have
11:50:36 another structure, in that zoning, that makes it a zoning
11:50:39 other than residential.
11:50:41 It makes it commercial.
11:50:43 Or it makes it multifamily.
11:50:44 It makes it something else other than the RS-60.
11:50:47 And I understand your position.
11:50:49 But it's not up to the city judgment.
11:50:52 All petitioners, all that buy houses, all that buy whatever
11:50:56 they are going to buy, for us to direct them on what to do
11:50:59 or what not to do.
11:51:00 We certainly did not tell this petitioner to buy or not to
11:51:03 buy.
11:51:03 We certainly didn't tell this petitioner, but it's up to the
11:51:08 individual in this city to do their own due diligence at
11:51:12 time of four make sure that they meet all the qualifications
11:51:16 of a zoning of the land.
11:51:18 When you do a title search, they do not look -- and if you
11:51:22 have an apparent structure that is not won the conforming
11:51:27 rules of the city.
11:51:28 They look to see if they have any liens, if they have this.
11:51:32 It's up to that individual, whoever she or he is, to make
11:51:36 sure that what you buy is what you are paying for and it
11:51:39 meets the zoning requirements of the city.
11:51:41 Not mine.
11:51:43 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:51:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Before we go forward, Mr. Cohen, still on
11:51:46 discussion.
11:51:47 >>HARRY COHEN: I agree with Councilman Miranda.
11:51:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I will state that Mr. Miranda's point is
11:51:56 well taken.
11:51:56 I think at the very beginning, before this was even put
11:51:59 before the Variance Review Board that someone should have
11:52:03 caught that the zoning was not compliant at that time.
11:52:07 Why someone from our staff, from Variance Review Board, the
11:52:12 staff of the Variance Review Board, all of them didn't catch
11:52:16 that, is shocking to me.
11:52:17 Maybe not shocking.
11:52:18 Maybe, you know, this should have been done.
11:52:20 I mean, for goodness sakes, even if we allowed it, he still
11:52:25 has a structure there that is illegal in terms of the
11:52:28 zoning.
11:52:28 I mean, Mr. Miranda's point is well taken.
11:52:31 However, I don't know that we can deal with that rate now on
11:52:34 this issue.
11:52:35 I think that the remand is important.
11:52:37 I think that we should contact code enforcement to make sure
11:52:40 that they understand that this is a nonconforming -- or they
11:52:45 already know that -- in terms of any other kind of use on
11:52:48 that, and then go forward from there.
11:52:50 So I think that the petitioner has a lot of issues that he's
11:52:55 going to have to deal with, because this should never have
11:52:57 been the way it was presented to us from the very beginning.
11:53:01 I agree with you 100%, Mr. Miranda.
11:53:03 That was not -- this is not done the right way.
11:53:06 It should have been taken care of prior to any kind -- this
11:53:14 never should have gone forward.
11:53:15 >>YVONNE CAPIN: As the maker of the motion, I will say when
11:53:18 this building was erected, in 1947, was it zoned RS-60?
11:53:26 When was it zoned R-60?
11:53:32 I no, we are fine.
11:53:33 My point is that it was not R-60.
11:53:36 I know it wasn't R-60.
11:53:38 So, you know, you have to consider -- you have to have some
11:53:43 common sense in this world.
11:53:44 And I think Mr. Singer and the rest of them made a very
11:53:48 excellent point.
11:53:49 And that's why I made the motion that I made.
11:53:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Terrific.
11:53:53 Thank you.
11:53:53 Any other discussion on that motion from Mrs. Capin?
11:53:56 All right.
11:53:56 We have a motion.
11:53:57 We have our second.
11:53:57 All in favor of that motion, please indicate by saying aye.
11:54:01 Any opposed?
11:54:01 >>THE CLERK: (Off microphone) Miranda and Cohen voting no.
11:54:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you.
11:54:14 We have item number 57 that cannot be heard.
11:54:16 We need to reschedule that hearing to December 15th at
11:54:22 2016 at 10:30 a.m.
11:54:24 Motion from Mrs. Montelione, second from Mr. Cohen.
11:54:28 All in favor of that motion?
11:54:29 Any opposed?
11:54:30 Thank you.
11:54:30 Item number 58 again is an item that cannot be heard.
11:54:33 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So moved to at 10:30 a.m.
11:54:43 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
11:54:45 All in favor?
11:54:46 Any opposed?
11:54:47 We are finally at staff reports.
11:54:48 We are at 11:55, approximately, and we have three items, at
11:54:53 least two of which are going to take some time.
11:54:55 And at this time, I think that we may want to look at
11:54:58 whether or not we are going to come back after lunch.
11:55:01 What is the pleasure of council?
11:55:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would like to come back after lunch.
11:55:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I agree.
11:55:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Before we continue to come back after lunch,
11:55:15 we do have item number 62 that we might want to look at, the
11:55:19 moratorium abatement, if we want to clear the agenda on that
11:55:22 item.
11:55:22 I think Mr. Reddick was the maker of that motion.
11:55:25 Sir, I think the legal department may be here to talk about
11:55:28 that.
11:55:32 Number 62.
11:55:33 Is there anyone here to talk about the moratorium, abatement
11:55:38 issue
11:55:43 Dispensing of marijuana?
11:55:45 There's no one here from the legal department.
11:55:47 So -- no one from the legal department is here.
11:56:00 >>SAL TERRITO: I will see if I can find Mrs. Mandell.
11:56:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Territo, it may be better for us to come
11:56:10 back then.
11:56:10 I apologize.
11:56:11 I thought we might be able to clear at least one item.
11:56:15 Since we are coming back, we are leaving a little early.
11:56:19 What time would you all like to come back at?
11:56:22 >> 1:15.
11:56:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: 1:30.
11:56:28 >> Are we going to have a fight on this?
11:56:35 Okay.
11:56:36 Hang on a second.
11:56:37 Legal department, I think, is here to talk about item number
11:56:41 60?
11:56:44 >>SAL TERRITO: Yes.
11:56:44 I apologize.
11:56:45 I had the wrong attorney.
11:56:46 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Go ahead, ma'am.
11:56:49 >>KRISTIN MORA: Legal department.
11:56:58 I did send a memorandum.
11:56:59 You all received with a draft ordinance on this matter.
11:57:03 It was made very much to be similar to what the county did
11:57:09 with respect to 180-day moratorium.
11:57:12 This is an abatement that would have some of the same
11:57:16 effect.
11:57:17 It would stop any additional permitting of medical marijuana
11:57:20 facilities until we have had a chance to review it.
11:57:23 We did offer in this ordinance that there is a
11:57:26 Constitutional amendment coming up on November 8th that
11:57:29 may have some additional implications so we would want to
11:57:32 study that as well during the 180-day period.
11:57:35 I'm available if you have any questions.
11:57:37 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any questions from council at this time on
11:57:38 this draft ordinance?
11:57:40 >>FRANK REDDICK: Just one.
11:57:41 You use the terminology abatement instead of moratorium?
11:57:45 Is that what you just said?
11:57:47 >>KRISTIN MORA: That's correct.
11:57:48 Yes.
11:57:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: So there is no difference between
11:57:51 moratorium and abatement?
11:57:53 >>KRISTIN MORA: There are some slight differences total
11:57:55 effect of not allowing the medical marijuana to move forward
11:57:58 in that 180 days.
11:58:00 >>FRANK REDDICK: My final question.
11:58:02 Why did you decide to use abatement versus moratorium?
11:58:06 >>JULIA MANDELL: City attorney.
11:58:08 I will say that that was at my suggestion, and I have dealt
11:58:10 both moratorium abatement ordinances.
11:58:14 The law just favors moratoria. Abatement is really more, I
11:58:17 think, in line with what City Council's will is, which is we
11:58:20 are going to take a time to look at and review our
11:58:24 regulations in light of both what has been stated in the
11:58:28 Florida statutes today, as well as the upcoming
11:58:31 Constitutional amendment vote and whether or not anything
11:58:34 comes out of that.
11:58:35 Frankly, it's just a nuance that I think has some legal
11:58:39 meaning if we were to be challenged.
11:58:41 And I have traditionally recommended abatement ordinances
11:58:44 versus moratorium ordinances in the past.
11:58:47 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.
11:58:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Any other questions from council on this
11:58:51 item?
11:58:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Move the ordinance.
11:58:53 >>JULIA MANDELL: I'm sorry.
11:59:03 Given the fact that -- it is an extraordinary remedy when
11:59:04 you say we are not going to take in permit applications.
11:59:07 I would recommend, just for the purposes of notice, since
11:59:10 this has been on your agenda as a draft ordinance, that you
11:59:13 actually place it for first reading so it shows up on your
11:59:16 agenda as the reading of the ordinance at your next
11:59:20 regularly scheduled meeting.
11:59:22 I know typically we would handle this in terms of having it
11:59:31 go -- your staff reports under no public hearings but I am
11:59:35 going to make the recommendation, so there's no questions
11:59:37 down the line that we go ahead and put it on first reading
11:59:40 with your public hearing at 10:00.
11:59:42 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Would you like to make that motion for
11:59:45 November 3rd, ma'am?
11:59:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: [Off microphone.] Moved to schedule for
11:59:47 November 3rd...
11:59:55 >>JULIA MANDELL: I was requesting the non-quasi-judicial
11:59:58 public hearings.
11:59:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE: [Off microphone.]
12:00:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
12:00:03 A second from Mr. Maniscalco.
12:00:05 All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
12:00:08 Any opposed?
12:00:09 All right.
12:00:10 Thank you so much.
12:00:11 I appreciate it.
12:00:12 We have cleared at least that part of the schedule.
12:00:13 We will come back on item number 60 and 61 at 1:30 p.m.
12:00:19 We are in recess until then.
12:00:21 >> (Meeting in recess.)
12:00:26 >>
12:00:27 (Tampa City Council meeting resumes.)
01:35:25 [Sounding gavel]
01:35:27 >>MIKE SUAREZ: City Council is called back into order.
01:35:30 Roll call.
01:35:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
01:35:33 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
01:35:36 >>HARRY COHEN: Here.
01:35:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Here.
01:35:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Here.
01:35:46 Mr. Maniscalco is here.
01:35:49 Okay.
01:35:49 We are on item number 6.
01:35:51 So is staff here?
01:36:00 You are on.
01:36:01 You are number 60, Mr. Schmid.
01:36:04 >>Michael Schmid: Assistant city attorney.
01:36:11 With regards to item number 60, I'm happy to answer any
01:36:14 questions.
01:36:15 I'm not sure what City Council's pleasure is.
01:36:19 So maybe if you want to give me any direction, I'm happy to
01:36:26 see what we can do.
01:36:27 >> Mr. Reddick, since you are the maker of that motion would
01:36:31 you like to start?
01:36:32 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
01:36:39 [Off microphone.]
01:36:41 Just not sitting up here, you might want to give an overview
01:36:46 of what you are proposing here today.
01:36:47 >>Michael Schmid: Well, I'll try to give a recap.
01:36:56 Where we are at, City Council has passed an ordinance with
01:37:00 regards to noise.
01:37:04 And we had a workshop after the ordinance passed.
01:37:09 And we sort of discussed a couple of items with regards to
01:37:13 whether or not decibel levels should be explored, and also
01:37:19 we discussed whether or not a code enforcement officer or
01:37:26 police officer are better equipped, I guess, to handle our
01:37:33 violations.
01:37:34 So that was obviously discussed.
01:37:35 And then what happened is, my understanding is that the
01:37:38 workshop, there was this matter was set back on today's
01:37:43 agenda for consideration on whether or not we want to
01:37:46 discuss any consideration of changing our decibel levels,
01:37:52 whether or not there's any motions City Council wishes to
01:37:54 make.
01:37:55 Right now, there are no motions pending before you.
01:37:59 I will say that while legal has not been directed to do
01:38:04 anything at this time, we have been approached by various
01:38:08 individuals, SoHo business alliance, Mr. Michelini, and I
01:38:12 have spoken since our last meeting.
01:38:16 He has presented some ideas to myself.
01:38:20 I believe also presented some to City Council.
01:38:24 And I'm happy to address any of those matters or issues, if
01:38:30 City Council wishes to further discuss them.
01:38:32 But I am not sure exactly what my role is at this point.
01:38:42 >>FRANK REDDICK: [Off microphone.]
01:38:46 Currently it's at 55, is that correct?
01:38:49 >>Michael Schmid: The decibel levels for Tampa, other than
01:38:56 downtown, Ybor, Channelside, 55 to a certain time at night.
01:39:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: I am looking at one of the recommendations
01:39:04 of Mr. Michelini, and we have here change of decibel maximum
01:39:11 to 65 DB from midnight to 7:00 a.m. and 75 DB from 7 a.m. to
01:39:18 midnight.
01:39:20 Here is my concern about that.
01:39:25 Midnight is the time most people are trying to get some
01:39:30 rest.
01:39:33 And increases to 55, midnight to 7 a.m.
01:39:44 I just have reservations about this particular request.
01:39:52 I don't want to try to get rest from a full day's work if I
01:39:57 live in a residential community near the facility, near a
01:40:02 club establishment, and this is going on from 7 to
01:40:06 midnight -- midnight to 7 in the morning.
01:40:11 That -- that bothers me with this request because you are
01:40:19 not giving the people that live in the residential community
01:40:24 and those who work, those who are retired, to have the right
01:40:31 to enjoy their home and peaceful manner without loud noise.
01:40:37 What is your position on this request, if you have one?
01:40:40 >>Michael Schmid: I did look at this this morning.
01:40:48 I was presented -- I'm not sure when Mr. Michelini presented
01:40:51 to City Council.
01:40:52 But I did receive a copy this morning.
01:40:54 I had a chance to look through whether eight items that I
01:41:00 guess he was asking City Council to consider.
01:41:02 With regards to the first one which you mentioned, the
01:41:04 maximum increasing it to 65 DB from midnight to 7 a.m., then
01:41:10 75 from 7 a.m. to midnight, first I would presume he's
01:41:16 talking about in the rest of the City of Tampa other than
01:41:18 downtown Channelside and Ybor.
01:41:22 Second, I would have concerns.
01:41:26 I would address them as legal concerns, because my legal
01:41:29 concerns would be just that right now, as presented to you,
01:41:37 when this ordinance passed, we uploaded the 1999-2003, all
01:41:44 the past transcripts of which the decibel levels were based
01:41:48 upon.
01:41:48 And our current decibel levels are based upon public
01:41:52 consultants who have been before you, testified, and so my
01:41:57 biggest concern is if we are going to start exploring a
01:42:00 change to the decibel levels, it would be my recommendation
01:42:04 that City Council would need to get an RFP for a consultant
01:42:11 rather than just changing the decibel levels at Mr.
01:42:17 Michelini's or anybody's request.
01:42:19 We know that we have heard from the SoHo business alliance,
01:42:24 as well as a lot of property owners or business owners as
01:42:28 well, business owners specifically in the South Howard
01:42:33 Avenue, come forward to City Council and express concerns to
01:42:37 City Council about the enforcement of decibel levels.
01:42:43 One, they wanted it higher, obviously.
01:42:45 And, two, they expressed a lot of issues with their concerns
01:42:49 about the enforcement of it, and standing back from the
01:42:52 property line and trying to take a measurement.
01:42:56 They explained that there would be a lot of ambient noise.
01:42:59 There would be a lot of noise from various properties.
01:43:03 It would be hard to identify the source of the sound.
01:43:06 And they spent a significant amount of time, including an
01:43:09 expert that Mr. Bentley brought in, a significant amount of
01:43:13 time explaining to City Council why noise decibel levels
01:43:19 were hard to enforce in the South Howard area.
01:43:25 And then they said, however, even though it's hard to
01:43:30 enforce we are asking you to increase it.
01:43:32 And I don't know that there's been any record before City
01:43:36 Council that justifies a new number to increase it.
01:43:42 Certainly not 65 or 75.
01:43:45 We haven't done our own study with our own consultant.
01:43:48 And in addition, the consultant we use for plainly audible,
01:43:53 his justification for 100 feet was based on a 55-decibel
01:43:57 level.
01:43:57 55 is also consistent with where EDC level is for
01:44:03 residential at that time of night at that location.
01:44:05 So I have a lot of concerns with changing our decibel levels
01:44:09 from 55 to 65.
01:44:11 It would be different than EDC.
01:44:14 We don't have an RFP.
01:44:15 We don't have a consultant.
01:44:17 And SoHo business alliance and the business owners have
01:44:21 already explained how difficult they believe enforcing noise
01:44:27 in any decibel level is at the SoHo area.
01:44:30 >>FRANK REDDICK: And the final question, Mr. Chair.
01:44:34 And I just want to get your opinion on this.
01:44:37 And that is, what would impact if we totally eliminate
01:44:43 decibel level completely?
01:44:47 >>Michael Schmid: We actually, within our office, contacted
01:44:54 city of Miami Beach, because there is a DA Mortgage case
01:44:59 that we have provided to City Council previously and
01:45:02 discussed before in which that is what they did.
01:45:07 They in fact eliminated the decibel levels.
01:45:10 And we wanted to find out what the city of Maim beach felt
01:45:13 about that going more with what we have as allowed raucous
01:45:19 standard with a plainly audible presumption at 10:00.
01:45:22 What they felt about just using a standardized measurement
01:45:27 that wasn't actually in decibels.
01:45:33 Simone could probably tell you more about what the assistant
01:45:36 city attorney at the city of Miami Beach told her.
01:45:38 But in essence, they liked it.
01:45:43 They haven't had problems with it, is the summary of the
01:45:47 statement.
01:45:48 The assistant city attorney said they would be available for
01:45:51 follow-up conversation.
01:45:52 But so far, it seems to be working down there.
01:45:56 And based on the of DA mortgage case, we believe that would
01:46:00 be an option.
01:46:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Next.
01:46:05 Mr. Cohen.
01:46:06 >>HARRY COHEN: So following up on that, it seems to be me
01:46:11 that this is a difficult -- we have clearly been struggling
01:46:19 to find a standard that's going to work for everybody.
01:46:21 And it's clearly complicated and difficult.
01:46:26 I share Councilman Reddick's concern about people wanting to
01:46:29 sleep at night.
01:46:30 There's also the concern about having a standard that the
01:46:33 businesses can actually meet that isn't just out of the gate
01:46:38 unfair.
01:46:39 I think that he would should at least explore the issue of
01:46:47 whether or not to get rid of the decibel entirely.
01:46:49 I think that the evidence that we took in, in our last
01:46:53 couple of meetings, clearly showed us that there's a lot of
01:46:58 problems with the decibels in terms of who reads what from
01:47:04 where, who is trained to read them properly.
01:47:06 I think there were some visions of citizens running around
01:47:09 with their own decibel meters.
01:47:11 So, you know, I think that that's definitely something we
01:47:14 should consider.
01:47:16 In our meeting, you did indicate to me what you said to
01:47:19 everyone here that if we wished to raise the decibel level,
01:47:23 it's going to require a consultant of some kind.
01:47:26 Do we even have the ability to -- I mean, that's going to
01:47:31 cost money.
01:47:31 How would we go about even undertaking this study?
01:47:35 >>Michael Schmid: I think the only way that can be done is
01:47:40 if an RFP is done.
01:47:42 >> But WNBA under what budget authority?
01:47:49 >>Michael Schmid: I don't know the answer to that.
01:47:50 >>HARRY COHEN: That's part of the problem here.
01:47:53 >>Michael Schmid: I agree.
01:47:55 >>HARRY COHEN: I don't know that we have the ability to
01:47:57 order that done and do it.
01:47:58 So I think a discussion about whether the decibel levels
01:48:01 should exist at all, whether we should go to plainly audible
01:48:05 is a good idea.
01:48:06 I just wanted to also add there's a number of things that
01:48:09 have been floated around.
01:48:10 And I know that one of the things from the business owners
01:48:13 and the neighborhood have agreed on is a restriction on
01:48:16 outdoor amplified music.
01:48:18 I'm looking at Councilwoman Capin.
01:48:21 Who was pointing at herself.
01:48:23 (Laughter)
01:48:24 I know that that's part of a potential solution to the
01:48:29 problem that is discussed.
01:48:33 Then finally, there is this issue of whether or not if the
01:48:39 Nuisance Abatement Board is the appropriate place to take
01:48:41 these cases.
01:48:42 There had been some discussion that perhaps they should go
01:48:44 to the Code Enforcement Board instead.
01:48:47 So, you know, I see -- for me, at least, those are the three
01:48:52 major issues that I see us needing to address.
01:48:55 I know there are some others that we wanted to look at.
01:48:58 But those are the three that I see.
01:49:02 You know, just from our discussion, I tend to be in favor of
01:49:07 at least looking at the abolition of the decibel.
01:49:14 It may not be the right thing to do but I think we should at
01:49:16 least look at it.
01:49:17 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I tend to agree with both Councilman
01:49:20 Reddick and Councilman Cohen that plainly audible, because
01:49:24 raising it -- now here is the other thing.
01:49:27 This suggestion that was made by the group from SoHo to
01:49:36 change the maximum to 65 decibels midnight to 7 a.m., and
01:49:41 then 75, 7 a.m. to midnight.
01:49:46 It's in conflict with number 2, which is restricting sound
01:49:50 weekdays 10 p.m.
01:49:51 Of course, that's outdoors.
01:49:54 Here is the thing.
01:49:55 First of all, I would suggest that all the businesses keep
01:50:01 their sound indoors and close their doors.
01:50:05 Close the doors to your business.
01:50:09 Those doors open just to let the sound -- so close the doors
01:50:13 to your business.
01:50:14 And then the outdoor music -- no, outdoor sound weekdays
01:50:20 10 p.m. and midnight on Saturday.
01:50:23 And that we can enforce.
01:50:25 That we can put into play.
01:50:27 And I think it's a very good suggestion.
01:50:35 The other -- and, you know, when it was brought up, Miami
01:50:39 Beach, you know, going with the plainly audible and it's
01:50:43 working, you are talking Miami Beach.
01:50:45 SoHo doesn't even hold a candle, not even a flicker to what
01:50:49 goes on in Miami Beach.
01:50:52 So I'd like to hear more about Miami Beach and how -- how
01:51:01 long it's been in force and how long --
01:51:05 >> Hi.
01:51:08 Simone Savino, staff.
01:51:13 The case of DA mortgage versus Miami Beach is what we were
01:51:17 speaking on and why I then spoke with the assistant city
01:51:20 attorney with the city of Miami Beach to have an
01:51:22 understanding of how it played out.
01:51:25 In essence, what happened was, they adopted the Miami-Dade
01:51:29 county ordinance within the city.
01:51:32 It has already been working with Miami-Dade.
01:51:35 It enforces a plainly audible 100-foot rule.
01:51:39 And the case was from 2007.
01:51:42 Since then, they have not had -- I believe in five years,
01:51:47 they haven't had significant issues with the way the
01:51:50 ordinance is in place as it stands.
01:51:55 With no decibels and that's a plainly audible standard.
01:51:59 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Can I ask you, did they indicate, is it
01:52:02 more like whoever police officer or code enforcement officer
01:52:07 telling them, I can hear you, you need to lower it, and they
01:52:11 do?
01:52:11 Is that what's happening, why they don't have the issues?
01:52:15 >> They have a reasonable versus standard and they also
01:52:19 don't have foreign police officers taking the reading.
01:52:24 They have code enforcement officers that deal with the noise
01:52:27 issues.
01:52:28 And, yes, it will turn on the code enforcement officer to
01:52:32 provide that reasonable standard, if there's ever something
01:52:36 that had an issue, or they are responding to a complaint and
01:52:39 then they have to take, you know, make a decision on what's
01:52:43 happening.
01:52:43 It will be that staff code enforcement officer.
01:52:48 >>YVONNE CAPIN: So it's complaint driven?
01:52:49 >> It is complaint driven.
01:52:51 >>YVONNE CAPIN: And if they have a complaint, they are not
01:52:53 out there monitoring unless it's extremely loud?
01:52:59 >> I have to look at the code again but I'm sure that they
01:53:01 also monitor.
01:53:04 I don't want to be quoted saying that they do.
01:53:06 I would have to look at it again.
01:53:09 But I did have word from the assistant city attorney, we
01:53:13 plan to -- he would be happy to have a phone conference on a
01:53:18 smaller scale and kind of speak to current issues that they
01:53:20 have with the ordinance, or how well it has been working for
01:53:23 them.
01:53:24 So he would be available for that.
01:53:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I think that would be good.
01:53:32 That was again the outdoor amplified sound.
01:53:39 And the doors closed to their business.
01:53:41 I mean, they have to open the door to go into the business,
01:53:47 would be something keeping the noise in, inside their
01:53:50 business.
01:53:51 Anyway.
01:53:53 >> Thank you.
01:53:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
01:53:57 Although Miami Beach is a thriving city, I'm just thinking
01:54:00 of the location, on the east side of Collins Avenue.
01:54:06 You either have hotels, or water.
01:54:08 No residents, if I remember.
01:54:11 On the west side, you have hotels, and then you have smaller
01:54:16 hotels west of Collins, and then you have residents.
01:54:21 So I'm not for or against the ordinance or this one or that
01:54:27 one.
01:54:27 When you use a city -- and not talking specifically you, and
01:54:31 counselor, it behooves me to understand the parameter of
01:54:37 what I am looking at, looking at a city, but then looking at
01:54:39 the neighborhood of that city, I think, is more important
01:54:42 than anything else.
01:54:43 Certainly they may have something because no one is affected
01:54:46 by that noise.
01:54:48 Who is going to be affected on the east side?
01:54:51 No one.
01:54:51 You have hotels, cars coming in and coming out.
01:54:54 And then you have water.
01:54:55 On the west side, you have at least a half a block to a
01:54:58 block without anything, because you have smaller hotels, and
01:55:03 then you have some commercial, and some mix apartment use.
01:55:07 But that's how I remember Miami Beach: I haven't been there
01:55:10 in about 15 years.
01:55:12 I was asked to leave.
01:55:14 I didn't drink so they told me to leave.
01:55:17 (Laughter)
01:55:17 I had to.
01:55:18 >> Simone Savino: He did mention the carrying of noise and
01:55:22 the way was the consideration initially operated Miami-Dade
01:55:28 ordinance.
01:55:28 So he did mention that.
01:55:30 Exactly what the consideration was.
01:55:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Miranda thank you, chairman.
01:55:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Maniscalco.
01:55:40 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I was looking at.number 4 along with
01:55:45 point number 5 that the complaint required and identified,
01:55:49 be required to identify a hearing where the matters are
01:55:53 discussed.
01:55:54 The conditions of anonymity.
01:55:58 But knowing who the person is, especially if a chronic
01:56:01 nuisance Calder as listed in number 5, perhaps by
01:56:04 identifying that person the business owner or whatever the
01:56:07 location is can perhaps work with them directly and build
01:56:09 some kind of relationship and come to some common ground
01:56:12 instead of continually receiving complaints on and on and
01:56:15 on.
01:56:16 I think it would be a positive thing to do that.
01:56:18 You know, not out of fear of retaliation or anything like
01:56:21 that, but in order to open the door for conversation.
01:56:24 So the resident who lived there and sleeps there and wants
01:56:27 to get a good night's sleep.
01:56:30 The others can community with the owners of those properties
01:56:34 or businesses.
01:56:35 So I think that's a positive move.
01:56:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Yes, ma'am?
01:56:42 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
01:56:47 Looking at the decibels, as Mr. Cohen said, I seem to feel
01:56:55 that in an area like SoHo, or anyplace where you have a
01:57:01 number of establishments close together, a decibel reader is
01:57:07 going to give outside readings where the person is
01:57:13 complaining.
01:57:14 You are not going to be able to distinguish with a decibel
01:57:17 reading where or who the party is responsible for the
01:57:24 measurements on that device.
01:57:25 But someone listening could identify the lyrics of a
01:57:30 particular -- the lyrics of a particular song and say, okay,
01:57:34 they are the ones who are playing it, and they are the ones
01:57:37 who are responsible for my discomfort in my home.
01:57:41 So I think the plainly audible makes a little bit more sense
01:57:45 in that you can properly identify who the egregious party is
01:57:54 rather than the meter.
01:57:56 The meter doesn't distinguish where it's coming from.
01:58:06 To identify who the guilty party is.
01:58:10 So
01:58:20 And the issue that Mr. Maniscalco brought up, the complaint,
01:58:25 I think, is important, because you want to have people who
01:58:30 are going to be respectful of, you know, a business owner
01:58:39 who put a lot of money in and is trying to make their own
01:58:42 living, and you want to make sure that, you know, it's not a
01:58:46 personal grudge, it's not someone who just has an ax to
01:58:54 grind with a particular person.
01:58:57 So leaving that up to the officers I think is kind of unfair
01:59:01 where they have to start playing mediator.
01:59:04 And going to the Code Enforcement Board instead of Nuisance
01:59:08 Abatement Board I would also be in support of.
01:59:13 Has anybody brought up the number of warnings before a
01:59:19 citation?
01:59:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I was about to.
01:59:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE: So there's three currently, warnings,
01:59:31 but there's no -- and correct me if I am wrong -- there's no
01:59:34 time period.
01:59:35 So there can be three in one day.
01:59:37 It could be three in two hours.
01:59:39 It could be -- it would make sense to put some sort of time
01:59:47 frame on the number of warnings.
01:59:51 And it gives them an opportunity to comply and coordinate.
01:59:56 So maybe it could be, you know, five a month, you know, or
02:00:05 one a week.
02:00:06 I mean, something.
02:00:07 But just to say that it's three, you can have three warnings
02:00:14 no matter of an hour.
02:00:16 And that doesn't seem to be right either.
02:00:17 But I want to hear what everybody else has to say.
02:00:20 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes, just to follow up.
02:00:26 When a citation is issued required that the complainant be
02:00:30 required to identify and appear at any meeting where the
02:00:32 matter is considered.
02:00:32 I think that's a good call, except what I think that we
02:00:35 should put a number on there.
02:00:37 If there's three complaints from the same complainer, then
02:00:41 that person needs to show up and needs to be identified, and
02:00:45 then they can work it out.
02:00:47 So that people know that they are going to be required.
02:00:52 And as far as it going to Code Enforcement Board as opposed
02:00:55 to Nuisance Abatement Board, the issue here is that when a
02:00:59 business owner -- I had a small business my entire life --
02:01:03 and if I have to show up to any court, anywhere, that's
02:01:06 money out of my pocket.
02:01:07 It's time.
02:01:08 Time is money.
02:01:09 So it already hurts.
02:01:11 So it doesn't matter if it's code enforcement, you know,
02:01:15 unless they have to show up somewhere.
02:01:19 I think maybe three would be identified and show up.
02:01:23 Because I don't think that -- because we have seen where
02:01:30 there are people that make it their job to be the monitors
02:01:36 of the neighborhood.
02:01:39 Use common sense, applicable -- eliminate chronic nuisance
02:01:45 callers and the source of complaint.
02:01:48 I don't know what that is.
02:01:49 That relates to 4 and 5.
02:01:51 So I agree that the chronic caller -- and we can put a
02:01:56 number, whatever the chronic is.
02:01:58 But they should be identified and they should show up.
02:02:03 Everybody shows up.
02:02:04 Everybody has got to pay a price for either being a nuisance
02:02:09 caller or a nuisance, period, in the neighborhood.
02:02:11 I mean, by the business.
02:02:14 So that's that.
02:02:15 And of course I just wanted to bring that up.
02:02:18 And as far as the audible.
02:02:20 Now, when you said, it's not only Miami Beach.
02:02:23 They adopted Miami-Dade county.
02:02:26 So tell me, I it's not only Miami Beach.
02:02:32 This is much broader.
02:02:33 >> Right.
02:02:35 So it started with Miami-Dade county in their ordinance.
02:02:38 >>YVONNE CAPIN: There's lots of homes there.
02:02:41 >> Yes.
02:02:43 And so the city of Miami Beach took their ordinance, adopted
02:02:47 it.
02:02:47 They did work with the community.
02:02:49 They had their target areas.
02:02:51 And they had a lot of meetings very similar to what they
02:02:54 have done already with the City of Tampa, where they had
02:02:57 people come, and they tried to reach compromises within what
02:03:01 was already in place.
02:03:02 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Okay.
02:03:04 >> SAVINO: So I think there was some evidence and already
02:03:11 approved after the ordinance was already in place.
02:03:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I think it would be very helpful to have
02:03:15 them talk to us.
02:03:18 I think that would be very, very helpful.
02:03:25 You know, the decibel is a real quagmire to get it and try
02:03:32 to figure out from where the meter -- and Councilwoman
02:03:37 Montelione said, you are not sure where that sound came
02:03:40 from, because there's a lot of sounds coming out at one
02:03:43 time, many times.
02:03:46 So I can appreciate that.
02:03:48 So maybe we'll come up with something in here.
02:03:52 We'll see.
02:03:53 Thank you.
02:03:54 Thank you, chair.
02:03:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick?
02:03:57 >>FRANK REDDICK: I just wanted to follow up, and I was
02:04:02 going to suggest what you just said, and that is to -- I
02:04:07 think we need -- I am going to suggest that we set up a
02:04:12 conference call where the gentleman can call into our
02:04:16 meeting as we did with somebody else one time, and explain
02:04:20 this program, the plainly audible program in Miami-Dade
02:04:25 county, Miami-Dade or city, or whatever it is, and we got a
02:04:29 chance to ask a lot of questions.
02:04:32 So I would like to see if we can schedule that conference
02:04:38 for our December 1st meeting.
02:04:40 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Would you like to have that under workshop
02:04:44 session?
02:04:45 >>FRANK REDDICK: Well, workshop --
02:04:49 >> Do we have a workshop?
02:04:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We could do it -- I mean, we could have --
02:05:01 we have a CRA in November, could do it after that, have a
02:05:05 special workshop at that time.
02:05:06 I'm just thinking because it gives us more time.
02:05:08 >>FRANK REDDICK: Okay.
02:05:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: It gives us the time to have weigh in.
02:05:12 And I think we can have it done before the end of the year.
02:05:16 And that date would be November 10th.
02:05:19 Immediately after the CRA meeting.
02:05:21 >>FRANK REDDICK: All right.
02:05:23 Then let me make a motion that we schedule a conference call
02:05:26 with the gentleman.
02:05:28 Do you know the guy's name for the record purpose?
02:05:31 The attorney?
02:05:32 Do you know the guy?
02:05:34 >> SAVINO: Alexander Boxer.
02:05:43 >> Conference call on after the November 10th CRA
02:05:49 meeting.
02:05:49 And so each Councilman can address.
02:05:52 >>HARRY COHEN: I second that.
02:05:55 And may I ask, in addition, if there are other
02:05:58 municipalities in the United States that have plainly
02:06:01 audible standards, let's talk to them, too, if there's an
02:06:05 opportunity to do it.
02:06:06 And I would love to hear how it's all working in some
02:06:08 places.
02:06:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion by Mr. Reddick.
02:06:12 We have a second by Mr. Cohen.
02:06:13 All in favor of that motion?
02:06:15 Any opposed?
02:06:17 Before we go forward, if I could, I have a question of our
02:06:21 attorneys.
02:06:24 You mentioned that in Miami Beach, they have been following
02:06:27 this for five years.
02:06:29 Or I should say Miami-Dade.
02:06:30 They have been following the Miami-Dade model for five
02:06:33 years, is that correct?
02:06:36 SAVINO: Or more.
02:06:37 In five years they have not had any issues with it.
02:06:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
02:06:41 Because we of course over the last five years have been
02:06:43 under the understanding that there were two districts of
02:06:45 appeal that had conflicting rules concerning noise, and that
02:06:51 part of the reason why we had not drafted something or come
02:06:53 up with something more solid was because of those conflicts.
02:06:57 And I think if I am not mistaken Second DCA was one and then
02:07:01 whatever the controlling DCA was in south Florida I thought
02:07:05 was enough, and I think they must have allowed for plainly
02:07:07 audible.
02:07:08 I don't know.
02:07:09 I'm asking you, was there -- is that the differential that
02:07:12 we used to have up here, or what was it?
02:07:14 >>Michael Schmid: Mike Schmid.
02:07:18 I think the main reason that we were sort of in a hold
02:07:22 status was because there was a lawsuit against the City of
02:07:26 Tampa, and frankly it alleged numerous, numerous things.
02:07:34 So because of that, we are trying to not address our noise
02:07:38 ordinance while that was still pending, and when it was
02:07:41 resolved, that's when we brought it back to you.
02:07:46 I don't think it was because there was a split between the
02:07:48 districts between plainly audible versus the decibel levels.
02:07:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ: You know, I will say that having dealt
02:07:55 whenever this for the last five years, five and a half years
02:07:58 on council, I believe there were two different issues, not
02:08:00 only our own case against us, but that there was some case
02:08:04 law that was split between the districts, and that was part
02:08:08 of the reason why we could not come up with a plan that
02:08:12 either used plainly audible or the decibel or both, which is
02:08:16 what you came up with.
02:08:17 You split the baby, or I guess combined the baby in some
02:08:20 way.
02:08:21 So if I am not mistaken there was a court case in Pinellas
02:08:24 that someone challenged, and did it pretty aggressively by
02:08:30 playing, I think it was, air supply loud enough for people
02:08:33 to hear, and that he was saying, you know, you can't play
02:08:39 that the loud or whatever, based on whatever that particular
02:08:41 case law was at the time.
02:08:45 Just going by memory here.
02:08:47 So I would suggest checking into that.
02:08:49 Because I'm curious, because I think the plainly audible was
02:08:53 allowed down in the Miami-Dade district because that DCA
02:08:57 down there allowed the plainly audible.
02:09:00 And then we had the other.
02:09:01 And then Mrs. Kert, one person I talked to quite a bit about
02:09:04 this -- Mrs. Kert.
02:09:05 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
02:09:07 We are going back several years, which is why I came down,
02:09:12 because I was talking to you about noise during that time.
02:09:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sure.
02:09:16 >>REBECCA KERT: Originally what we had was we had the
02:09:18 decibel levels and people were having complaints where how
02:09:21 it was working and they wanted to use the mainly audible
02:09:24 standard.
02:09:24 And what I told you at that time was cases had been
02:09:26 pending -- this is what you are talking about -- plainly
02:09:30 audible had been declared unconstitutional and the second
02:09:33 district Court of Appeals and virtually everywhere else in
02:09:36 the entire nation has been upheld.
02:09:38 And I told you pending that, the Second DCA, our district, I
02:09:42 did not recommend of that we change it while that case
02:09:46 worked its way through the Florida Supreme Court.
02:09:48 That took quite a while.
02:09:49 Eventually the Florida Supreme Court said we could do the
02:09:52 mainly audible standard.
02:09:54 Meanwhile, the case we are talking about, V.A. mortgage, in
02:09:58 the southern district, virtually ever where else in the
02:10:00 United States, had been using the plainly audible, and now
02:10:04 it's clear that we also can use it.
02:10:07 That I think is the split you are talking about.
02:10:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: So a rose by any other name.
02:10:12 >>REBECCA KERT: Exactly.
02:10:13 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I wanted to make sure I got the facts right.
02:10:15 And I think I did, you know.
02:10:17 So I'm glad you reiterated that because for a minute I
02:10:20 thought I fried my brain way too much in the last five and a
02:10:24 half years.
02:10:25 Mr. Schmid, because of the way the ordinance has been
02:10:27 written, you know, essentially combining the two, meaning
02:10:31 what we had before plus some of the plainly audible part of
02:10:35 it maybe she should definitely look at using plainly audible
02:10:39 because it seems like we may in a donut hole, doing
02:10:42 something different than other people because we were
02:10:44 responding to not only what the Second DCA said, but
02:10:47 whatever court cases they had against us, because of what we
02:10:51 already had on the books.
02:10:52 So I think that the workshop is probably the best way to
02:10:56 look at it.
02:10:56 That way, we can have some idea.
02:10:58 Maybe we should go with plainly audible, if it's the law in
02:11:02 other parts of the state, and it hasn't been challenged
02:11:05 successfully.
02:11:06 Maybe we ought to go in that direction.
02:11:09 Go ahead.
02:11:09 Yes, sir.
02:11:10 >>Michael Schmid: To clarify something.
02:11:14 I believe that council had been discussing the decibel
02:11:19 levels and the rest of the City of Tampa which are separated
02:11:23 into two ways of enforcement, plainly audible, loud raucous,
02:11:30 versus decibels.
02:11:30 So we have currently created the two ways of enforcing our
02:11:34 noise ordinance, whereas in downtown Channelside and Ybor,
02:11:38 we only have one method, decibel only.
02:11:41 So just more clarification, I think we are all talking about
02:11:45 the other parts of the City of Tampa other than downtown,
02:11:48 Channelside, Ybor, where we all recognize the distinction.
02:11:52 There's only one method of enforcement, and to be clear,
02:11:57 that, you know, that was based on testimony back in '99,
02:12:03 2003, of all the stuff we put in the record, and based on
02:12:05 the fact that those were entertainment district, and also
02:12:09 the way that it's measured is different than South Howard
02:12:14 and the rest of Tampa, the decibel levels are measured -- so
02:12:22 therefore they are not having the same attacks where you
02:12:25 have to measure it further back and you are getting
02:12:28 different noises possibly that South Howard groups have
02:12:32 brought up before you.
02:12:34 In the downtown Channelside and Ybor, the officers had been
02:12:37 able to go right to the property line to make sure they are
02:12:41 isolating the source of the sound to that one business, one
02:12:45 speaker, whatever it may be, one piece of property, and
02:12:49 therefore were not subject to all the attacks that you can't
02:12:52 isolate the noise because we are measuring it directly at
02:12:56 the property line.
02:12:58 And so, therefore, I just want to make sure that's clear,
02:13:01 that we are not saying that we are having an issue with
02:13:04 downtown Channelside and Ybor at this time.
02:13:05 >>MIKE SUAREZ: No.
02:13:06 Perfectly understood.
02:13:08 You know, on some of the information that was given to us by
02:13:11 the SoHo alliance, you know, there were a couple of things
02:13:16 that stood out to me and I was going to see if legal could
02:13:19 look at it.
02:13:19 I had actually given a copy of this to Mrs. Mandell
02:13:22 yesterday so I know that she hasn't had a chance to do all
02:13:25 of this and look at it.
02:13:27 But the one question was about taking the measurement from
02:13:31 inside the property of the climb ant or the complainant,
02:13:34 excuse me, and so I wasn't sure if there was a legal
02:13:38 standard in terms of that when you are talking about some
02:13:40 type of code enforcement in relation to that.
02:13:44 I don't know if that's something that is a doable thing that
02:13:46 we can even do an ordinance that allows that.
02:13:48 >>Michael Schmid: I would express some concerns about that.
02:13:54 Mostly if enforcement concerns.
02:14:00 I would also -- well, first I will point out that what that
02:14:03 would do essentially is require the person complaining to
02:14:07 allow an officer to step into their residence or whatever it
02:14:11 is that they are complaining about.
02:14:16 So the person complaining then is now having to have an
02:14:20 officer come inside their house at three in the morning or
02:14:22 whatever it is, or if it's a code enforcement officer, you
02:14:25 know, that's really putting the code enforcement officer in
02:14:28 jeopardy, because -- and I think law enforcement, too.
02:14:32 We don't know -- I think it would be risky for the law
02:14:36 enforcement officer as well as cumbersome upon the person
02:14:39 hop may not want the officer inside their house.
02:14:41 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I think there's probably a little bit of an
02:14:46 equal protection issue, too, that you could look at meaning
02:14:49 why do I have to have them come in for me to complain.
02:14:52 So that was what I was thinking about.
02:14:55 But let me ask you another question.
02:14:57 You know, there's been a lot of question as to the Nuisance
02:15:02 Abatement Board.
02:15:03 And then there was some discussion here earlier today about
02:15:06 the number of warnings.
02:15:08 And, you know, I had a discussion with SoHo alliance and
02:15:12 some other folks about maybe a cumulative way of looking at
02:15:19 warnings when it comes to these types of things.
02:15:21 As an example, somebody may be thinking that it's you
02:15:24 causing the problem but it really isn't, that heightens
02:15:29 itself to a warning that eventually gets you in front of the
02:15:31 abatement board.
02:15:32 You know, how do we come up with a better way of having an
02:15:38 enforcement mechanism that is a strong enforcement
02:15:41 mechanism.
02:15:43 I think the Nuisance Abatement Board is a pretty strong
02:15:46 enforcement mechanism, but gives the folks that are being
02:15:50 alleged to have done something in terms of the violation,
02:15:54 some way of actually changing their with behavior, and, you
02:15:58 know, without it being so quickly over to the abatement
02:16:02 board.
02:16:02 So we may want to look at an additional way of doing the
02:16:06 warning.
02:16:07 Maybe there's more warnings or maybe there's a limit to the
02:16:10 number of warnings on a per-day basis, because I do think
02:16:13 that there are some chronic violators at some point.
02:16:16 I think that most of SoHo for the most part, most of the
02:16:21 businesses that not only have been engaging us but engaging
02:16:25 the neighborhood, have really tried to kind of accommodate
02:16:28 what the neighborhood's needs are.
02:16:30 And it's not a perfect fit and it never will be.
02:16:34 But I do think we have business owners there that are trying
02:16:36 to do the best that they can.
02:16:37 Some are better than others.
02:16:39 And I think most of them are here.
02:16:41 They come before us or come and talk to us, are those
02:16:44 businesses that trying to comply, in some way.
02:16:46 So how do we make it more of a better fit for folks that are
02:16:51 trying to comply?
02:16:53 And of course it's complaint driven.
02:16:56 We need to figure out how many warnings there's going to be,
02:16:59 that type of thing.
02:17:00 I think we may want to look at that also.
02:17:02 I am not going to make the motion.
02:17:04 Or second it if no one else does, that we come back and have
02:17:08 that discussed during the workshop also.
02:17:10 >> We have a motion.
02:17:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Oh, we still do.
02:17:19 Go ahead.
02:17:20 >>HARRY COHEN: I thought Mr. Reddick's motion is very open
02:17:25 ended that we can cover any topic, if people want to get
02:17:27 into them.
02:17:28 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I apologize.
02:17:29 I did not realize we had not cleared the motion yet.
02:17:32 But that's okay.
02:17:32 We can still finish that.
02:17:35 Mr. Schmid?
02:17:37 >>Michael Schmid: Fibbing just touch on something that was
02:17:39 brought up by several City Council members.
02:17:43 The public Nuisance Abatement Board, just to give a little
02:17:46 bit of explanation why it was put into the public Nuisance
02:17:49 Abatement Board versus Code Enforcement Board, in our
02:17:53 opinion when we came back and made recommendation, the Code
02:17:57 Enforcement Board has provisions typically where a code
02:18:00 enforcement officer goes out, issues a warning, 21 days.
02:18:06 So like a tall grass violation, whatever, you have a long
02:18:13 period of time.
02:18:13 So the problem is, you are supposed to abate that issue, cut
02:18:19 your grass in the next 21 days or we are going to come back
02:18:21 and issue a citation.
02:18:23 When something is immediate, and it is hard to say turn down
02:18:28 your noise within the next 21 days, of course they are going
02:18:30 to comply.
02:18:31 21 days later we come back out, of course the noise is gone.
02:18:35 It was gone, you know, a couple hours later.
02:18:38 And so we didn't think that the code enforcement board
02:18:41 structure seemed to make sense.
02:18:43 Also, code enforcement boards, the ones that we have set up
02:18:47 are only allowed to issue fines on the property.
02:18:53 So if I issue a fine as the Code Enforcement Board, issuing
02:18:58 on the property owner, and fish they don't pay we can get a
02:19:02 lien on the property owner, that's problematic in the
02:19:05 situation where it's often the tenant who is the problem.
02:19:07 So without the public nuisance abatement board makes sense
02:19:11 because they actually have in their authority by statute, in
02:19:14 our code, both, basically they can have 12 months -- they
02:19:21 have 12 months over this place in which they can impose what
02:19:25 they think are appropriate abatement conditions.
02:19:28 So typically that comes in the form of a property that has
02:19:32 been a nuisance, and they have asked them to get security
02:19:36 guards, or they have asked them to establish cameras, or to
02:19:40 see in the case of noise, they would say, we want you to
02:19:44 attempt certain noise attenuation, or we want you to do
02:19:47 certain things.
02:19:48 So that's why we thought the noise -- the public Nuisance
02:19:51 Abatement Board made more sense because they have more
02:19:55 jurisdiction actually here, and I have heard some of the
02:19:58 concerns from South Howard business alliance, and their
02:20:03 concerns with the abatement board.
02:20:08 I said if City Council directs us to go back and look at
02:20:11 their concerns, certainly we would.
02:20:13 But to explain the way it's set up presently, it's more than
02:20:20 two violations within a six-month period.
02:20:23 And the way that would work is what we could go back and
02:20:27 explore with the business alliance and address their
02:20:31 concern.
02:20:32 Their concern, as I understood it, was they might have one
02:20:35 person who makes those complaints over and over and over
02:20:38 again.
02:20:38 And so that I understood them to say that was their concern,
02:20:43 that they would want it to be more than one complainer
02:20:47 making the complaints.
02:20:47 And I said to them, you know, respectfully, if City Council
02:20:51 asked us to go back and explore that, we will.
02:20:56 And the way it would then work, let's say somebody did have
02:21:00 the more than two within a six-month period, the abatement
02:21:04 boards by law, the law is -- and this came out of a Pinellas
02:21:08 case -- they have to be given the chance to abate.
02:21:13 So TV way that works at TPD, when somebody qualifies on
02:21:16 paper more than two within six months, given the opportunity
02:21:20 to abate means a letter goes out to both the property owner
02:21:25 as well as the business manager.
02:21:28 And that letter will go out and say, listen, there has been
02:21:33 the cite of a public nuisance abatement, please remedy this.
02:21:39 So they are given a warning.
02:21:40 And because they are required to before an action can be
02:21:43 brought.
02:21:44 So if we don't do that warning, and we were to bring them to
02:21:46 the abatement board, the abatement board has no authority
02:21:50 until they have given them the chance to abate the nuisance.
02:21:53 So I think there's already a lot of built-in not only are we
02:21:56 saying two or more in a six-month period, we are saying we
02:21:59 also have to give them a chance to abate it and then bring
02:22:03 it.
02:22:05 I heard a lot of concerns that everyone is going to be
02:22:07 brought from the abatement board.
02:22:09 It's still a lot of hurdles for us before we bring it to the
02:22:13 abatement board.
02:22:14 I just wanted to clarify.
02:22:16 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Before we go further, let's clear that
02:22:20 motion made by Mr. Reddick and seconded, I believe, by Mr.
02:22:23 Cohen.
02:22:23 And Mrs. Marshall, you said we did not take that vote.
02:22:26 All in favor of the vote concerning the special workshop
02:22:29 session on November 10, right after the CRA, all in favor
02:22:36 please indicate by saying aye.
02:22:37 Any opposed?
02:22:38 Thank you.
02:22:39 Mrs. Capin, you had something to say?
02:22:40 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
02:22:42 And you brought it up.
02:22:43 And that's all of this can be taken care of at the workshop
02:22:47 which is how many in six months, who goes, who shows up,
02:22:52 what color shirt they have to wear, we can do all that.
02:22:56 And I want South Howard to recognize that everything we have
02:22:59 discussed would be brought to us.
02:23:03 So we are paying attention to everyone.
02:23:05 Thank you.
02:23:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Cohen.
02:23:08 >>HARRY COHEN: I just want too ask staff between now and
02:23:10 the 10th, if you are able to come up with examples of
02:23:15 jurisdictions that have the plainly audible standard, or
02:23:20 dealt with some of these problems, it would be wonderful if
02:23:22 we could have the information in advance of the workshop so
02:23:25 we would have a chance to look over it, familiarize
02:23:28 ourselves.
02:23:29 It would be great fish we could come into this workshop with
02:23:32 some ideas.
02:23:32 And I think we can get them from looking at what other
02:23:37 municipalities have done on some of these types of issues.
02:23:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay, any other questions or comments to
02:23:43 staff?
02:23:44 Okay.
02:23:45 Mr. Schmid, thank you very much so much.
02:23:48 I appreciate it.
02:23:49 Thank you.
02:23:49 We are going on to item number 61.
02:23:52 Legal department?
02:23:59 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Could I have a question for you?
02:24:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm sorry.
02:24:10 We are on number 61.
02:24:12 We had this conversation.
02:24:12 No one asked you a question.
02:24:14 You know, we do this like everything else.
02:24:17 >>STEVE MICHELINI: It's the process.
02:24:20 In a one made motions to direct the staff to come back with
02:24:22 anything at the workshop.
02:24:23 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I understand, it will come back in workshop
02:24:26 session.
02:24:27 Thank you.
02:24:28 Legal department, please.
02:24:28 >>JULIA MANDELL: City attorney.
02:24:32 This item was at the request of council to bring back a
02:24:36 draft ordinance, making certain changes to our WMBE program.
02:24:40 I did submit to you a request for continuance because one, I
02:24:46 was not really clear to what City Council was trying to do
02:24:48 with these type of amendments and how they would fit into
02:24:51 our program in total, and also to have time to do some legal
02:24:55 research.
02:24:56 Now subsequent sitting with council, I have had the
02:25:01 opportunity to speak with representatives of TOBA, as well
02:25:04 as Mr. Reddick who was the maker of the motion, to get a
02:25:07 better understanding of what the issue was, and what can be
02:25:11 done to possibly enhance our ordinance for the purposes of
02:25:14 assuring that there's more participation in the WMBE program
02:25:19 with our minority and women-owned businesses in our area.
02:25:23 Mr. Reddick did give to have me a copy of the Power Point
02:25:26 from the city of Denver as well as information as relates to
02:25:32 the city of Denver.
02:25:33 At this time of what we would really like to do is take some
02:25:35 time to look at the Denver regulation, compare it to ours.
02:25:38 In fact we'll go ahead and contact their office to be find
02:25:41 out what's been successful, what hasn't been successful,
02:25:44 gets some better understanding.
02:25:46 At this point in time, it appears that the sentiment would
02:25:51 be to look at our existing ordinance and make tweaks or
02:25:54 changes to those ordinances in order to increase the level
02:25:58 of participation versus scrapping what we had and seeing if
02:26:02 there's some other option.
02:26:04 The one thing I really do need to make clear in looking at
02:26:07 this, and looking at other jurisdictions -- and I think it
02:26:10 would be a value to do that -- is we do have legal
02:26:14 limitations as relates to these types of programs.
02:26:17 For example, we cannot implement under federal law, case
02:26:22 law, et cetera, any type of quota, any kind of mandate.
02:26:26 And these programs have historically been overturned in
02:26:29 different jurisdictions, when we originally went forward
02:26:32 with the program that we have today was based upon
02:26:34 significant disparity studies.
02:26:36 That was brought forward.
02:26:38 I want to say it was 12 years ago because I believe that
02:26:41 David Smith was saying the city attorney, and I recall a lot
02:26:44 of these conversations, and they may have been programs even
02:26:47 before that, that there's a lot of legal basis that exists
02:26:50 for the program we have today.
02:26:51 Jointly -- I think it's appropriate for us to look at
02:26:55 especially if other jurisdictions have better broaches for
02:26:57 us to look at different and better approaches, to assist in
02:27:01 increasing what it is we are doing right now.
02:27:03 I do appreciate getting additional time.
02:27:05 I do understand what Mr. Reddick said today, that he would
02:27:08 like for us to do this sooner rather than later and we can
02:27:11 do the best we can to bring something forward sooner rather
02:27:14 than later and we are prepared tore do that.
02:27:16 But as I said, you know, we do have legal limitations and
02:27:19 wave to be cognizant of those.
02:27:21 So that's my report for today.
02:27:23 And I'm available for any questions.
02:27:25 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Plaintiff Reddick.
02:27:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you, Mrs. Mandell.
02:27:30 What I gave you before was the presentation that was done in
02:27:34 Denver.
02:27:36 Now, what I want to present to you at this time -- and I
02:27:41 gave a copy to you.
02:27:43 Here is the ordinance.
02:27:47 Okay, it's the ordinance, and it was done after 2014, and
02:27:53 they got all the legal alternatives here, all that stuff
02:27:58 here in here.
02:28:00 And they have given samples.
02:28:06 The case law and something and match all these different
02:28:09 cases.
02:28:10 They have all this in there.
02:28:14 And I am going to, if I may, Mr. Chair, ask Mr. Shelby to
02:28:21 expound on this because he had a chance to review it.
02:28:24 And I just want to say to you, if you -- I'm pretty sure in
02:28:38 the City of Tampa as well.
02:28:39 But I would like you to review it.
02:28:41 And the only thing that I disagree with in here -- and I
02:28:45 hope when you review this -- this thing called good faith
02:28:53 effort.
02:28:54 And that's something that I hate to see.
02:28:58 So I hope that is not brought back, this good faith effort.
02:29:02 But I'll let you make that recommendation to us.
02:29:04 And Mr. Shelby.
02:29:06 And then after that, Mr. Chair, I would like to make a
02:29:09 motion.
02:29:10 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I want to wait until after everyone has
02:29:15 spoken.
02:29:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Councilman Reddick, respectfully I have
02:29:18 not had an opportunity to look at this at all.
02:29:20 What I did was after the meeting with Mrs. Mandell last
02:29:25 night I went on the Internet based on the information that
02:29:27 you had related and I was able to pull it up.
02:29:30 But I have a copy to for you as well and I can forward it
02:29:35 electronically.
02:29:36 I have not had an opportunity to go over it.
02:29:39 >>JULIA MANDELL: And like I say, I have no problems with
02:29:42 borrowing from other jurisdictions.
02:29:44 That is absolutely appropriate and within the realm of what
02:29:47 I think we should always try and do, and we should always
02:29:50 strive to tighten our ordinances where we can.
02:29:52 But to make sure -- and as you know, my job is to make sure
02:29:56 that whatever comes back to you is something that -- and I
02:30:00 will use the term good faith -- and good faith can defend if
02:30:03 we were to go into court and not go in saying, well, we'll
02:30:07 just wait and see if anybody challenges it.
02:30:09 That's my role and my job is to advise you of those
02:30:12 regulations.
02:30:13 So I appreciate the time to be able to review Denver, and we
02:30:18 will probably go ahead and take a look at so other ones
02:30:21 while I am at it.
02:30:22 Ms. Peterkin of my office has been involved with the program
02:30:26 since she's been with the city and is very attune to working
02:30:30 with other jurisdictions and synthesizing the best approach
02:30:34 in making that part of our own process.
02:30:36 But I do want to get back with the idea that we have to be
02:30:39 careful.
02:30:39 There are legalities in these types of programs that you
02:30:42 have to be very cognizant of.
02:30:44 >>FRANK REDDICK: Let me just say this.
02:30:46 When I look at the back page of this thing here, and talk
02:30:49 about the legality and all of that, let me just say this.
02:30:53 And this will make me feel very good, and you shouldn't have
02:30:56 a problem.
02:30:58 It says prepared by Victoria J. Ortega, assistant D.A.
02:31:04 attorney, February 8th, 2014.
02:31:09 Now if an attorney signed off on it.
02:31:12 I just want to make that clear.
02:31:13 >>JULIA MANDELL: I like doing that as well.
02:31:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Miranda.
02:31:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Since we are talking about all the
02:31:21 legalities and ramifications, and when you come back and you
02:31:26 give me parameters of what the WMBE program is?
02:31:30 >>JULIA MANDELL: I certainly can do that.
02:31:32 What I think might be beneficial is also to do some
02:31:36 explanation of how our existing program works, not in
02:31:40 process legally, and the parts of our process does make this
02:31:44 a legally defendable process as we have it.
02:31:47 Then we take that opportunity to compare it to other
02:31:49 jurisdictions.
02:31:50 But as I said, we do have some parameters here we have to be
02:31:53 very cognizant of.
02:31:55 So I'm very happy to also get that and make that part of our
02:31:58 presentation.
02:31:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Okay.
02:31:59 Terrific.
02:32:00 Any other questions or comments at this time?
02:32:03 I'm sorry, Mr. Cohen.
02:32:04 >>HARRY COHEN: I am fully supportive of this effort to
02:32:11 tighten this language.
02:32:13 I want to remind everybody whether you voted for it or
02:32:17 against it, this council recently decided to spend $250
02:32:23 million on stormwater and infrastructure work coming up.
02:32:26 That money needs to be spent in such a way that it finds its
02:32:32 way to minority and women-owned businesses.
02:32:35 We have an enormous opportunity ever here to list a lot
02:32:39 of -- lift a lot of boats with the rising tide.
02:32:44 Having an ordinance like this on the books when we start
02:32:48 awarding these contracts of work, it's going to actually
02:32:52 many something in terms of real dollars.
02:32:54 So like I said, for or against it, we are going to be
02:32:59 spending the money.
02:33:00 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Montelione.
02:33:02 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Thank you.
02:33:04 I think it was back in 2012, right after I got -- we all
02:33:09 came in together, more or less, in 2011, my boyfriend's
02:33:15 business was a certified small business under the MLB
02:33:25 program and I saw a lot of flaws of being on the other side
02:33:29 of that point.
02:33:29 So when I came to council, that was one of the things I
02:33:34 first tackled.
02:33:35 And I spent many, many, many hours with Mr. Hart.
02:33:39 And part of the issue is that -- at least the way I see
02:33:48 it -- it's not only the language, but it's the function of
02:33:52 the department.
02:33:54 When Mayor Iorio cut staff, and then Mayor Buckhorn also
02:34:01 needed to -- you know, we were in an attrition period
02:34:06 because of the deficit in our budget, Mr. Hart lost almost
02:34:11 all of his staff.
02:34:13 And what he is able to accomplish with the few people that
02:34:16 he has is great.
02:34:19 But it's also a lot of people, myself included, when I first
02:34:25 got involved with the program, from an outsider, is that you
02:34:30 expect more than just applying for the certification, having
02:34:39 an orientation period, and then getting e-mails that give
02:34:44 you bid opportunities, part of the process.
02:34:49 There wasn't a lot of advice or guidance.
02:34:54 And it's a function because they used to, but they have not
02:34:59 the number of staff of that they need in order to do more.
02:35:04 So I'm not going to be here when this workshop occurs, so I
02:35:08 just want to put, you know, on the record some of the things
02:35:13 of that I have observed over the years, both as a contractor
02:35:17 participating as an SLBE and now as a council member.
02:35:22 So there's layers of things.
02:35:26 So strengthening the department so that there's more help,
02:35:30 there's more understanding, there's more communication with
02:35:33 the folks who sign up.
02:35:37 As Mr. Cohen well put, we have an opportunity -- and I
02:35:43 thought it was funny that he was using rising tides and
02:35:49 tides and rising all boats, when we are talking about
02:35:53 stormwater.
02:35:53 Interesting choice of words, Mr. Cohen.
02:35:55 But there is an opportunity.
02:35:57 And sometime I think in 2012, I had asked that every
02:36:00 contract when it comes to us for approval has listed on the
02:36:06 cover sheet, on the agenda item, what the percentage of
02:36:10 SLBE, MBE, WMBE, is.
02:36:15 So we see whoever the council members are sitting here can
02:36:19 see when they look at that cover sheet how much is being
02:36:23 spent of that contact.
02:36:26 Sometimes they do a good job of putting it on the sheet, and
02:36:30 sometimes they don't.
02:36:31 So I am not sure -- I mean, it appears -- I think as a
02:36:37 request.
02:36:37 I don't think it was made as a motion.
02:36:39 I mean, in case it was not a formal motion, I am going to
02:36:43 make that motion.
02:36:44 Again it may be redundant.
02:36:46 But I think we the department was just doing it because I
02:36:51 requested it.
02:36:51 But I would like to have every contract that comes before
02:36:57 council for approval to include on the cover sheet the
02:37:03 percentage of funds being spent with the SLB, MBE, WMBE
02:37:13 broken down, so we can see what is being spent from that
02:37:18 contract.
02:37:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I'm sorry.
02:37:27 Yes, sir?
02:37:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It's such a broad thing.
02:37:30 I'm not against it.
02:37:31 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Well, they have been doing it.
02:37:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, they have been doing it, why are
02:37:37 you making the motion?
02:37:38 >>LISA MONTELIONE: It's just a request that I made of them
02:37:40 so sometimes they do it and sometimes they don't.
02:37:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I understand that.
02:37:43 But no case where there is a lot of participation, there may
02:37:47 be cases where there is no participation, so they have to
02:37:50 put none.
02:37:51 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Uh-huh.
02:37:52 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is that a second or --
02:37:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, I am not seconding nothing.
02:37:58 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Would anybody like to second that motion by
02:38:00 Mrs. Montelione?
02:38:02 >>FRANK REDDICK: I second it.
02:38:03 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick seconded the motion.
02:38:05 All in favor of that motion?
02:38:07 I apologize.
02:38:08 >>HARRY COHEN: I just want to clarify something, and that
02:38:14 is, I would think that a lot of times when contracts come in
02:38:19 front of us, they are not going to know.
02:38:23 They are not going to have a breakdown at the time of
02:38:26 contracting.
02:38:26 And they may not know the exact answer to the question.
02:38:31 So, you know, I hope that whatever they bring forward is as
02:38:39 accurate as they can make it, but I am not really quite sure
02:38:42 how that's going to be able to work in problem.
02:38:44 That's all.
02:38:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ: The only thing I can speak of -- and I won't
02:38:49 speak for Mrs. Montelione, but just saying if there are no
02:38:53 subs listed as either MBE, WMBE or whatever.
02:38:57 >>LISA MONTELIONE: When they award a contract, they know,
02:39:01 because when they bid out the contract, the contractor has
02:39:04 to fill out the sheet.
02:39:07 There's a form that they fill out.
02:39:09 And when the contract is awarded, they have the sheet.
02:39:14 I can't remember the name of it.
02:39:17 But what they are doing is taking the numbers --
02:39:24 >>HARRY COHEN: It's going to be inexact because of the fact
02:39:26 of the matter is you know as well as anybody that businesses
02:39:29 that want to once a contract is awarded, one can drop off,
02:39:33 another can come on.
02:39:35 I am not against the motion.
02:39:36 I am wondering how much real information it's going to give
02:39:39 us.
02:39:39 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Miranda.
02:39:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: [Off microphone.] the contract in the
02:39:47 bid proposals, there's a section where they put the
02:39:50 percentages of first, second and third.
02:39:53 So I don't understand what we are doing if it's on the
02:39:56 contract already what the once the bid sheet is committed.
02:40:00 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Because we don't see the bid sheet.
02:40:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Most that I see is a bid sheet.
02:40:06 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I requested it.
02:40:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Oh, you requested it.
02:40:09 30 years ago I was getting them.
02:40:12 You requested that one, too?
02:40:15 I'm serious.
02:40:16 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I requested, when we were getting the
02:40:20 agenda items, I requested that we get that sheet as part of
02:40:26 our packet.
02:40:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not against that.
02:40:29 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Unless you --
02:40:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The ones that I see, we have the
02:40:34 contractor that bid, they have a percentage of things that I
02:40:36 see.
02:40:37 And one of them is exactly what you are speaking about.
02:40:39 So you want it on the front page?
02:40:41 Is that it?
02:40:42 It's fine with me.
02:40:43 >>LISA MONTELIONE: Yes.
02:40:44 I want it on the front page.
02:40:45 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Capin, you had something else?
02:40:48 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Mr. Cohen has a point about the sub
02:40:52 dropping off.
02:40:54 We had it happen in the city where we have people mowing the
02:40:56 lawn, and then don't show up and we have to bid it out
02:41:02 again.
02:41:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Who pays for that?
02:41:07 We do.
02:41:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Yes.
02:41:09 So that is one of the things -- I totally understand that.
02:41:14 It's not going to be precise.
02:41:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ: To clarify, let's go back to the motion.
02:41:19 We had a motion from Mrs. Montelione, a second from Mr.
02:41:21 Reddick.
02:41:22 Let's go ahead.
02:41:24 If newer favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
02:41:26 Any opposed?
02:41:28 Okay.
02:41:31 Mrs. Mandell, one last thing before we go forward with Mr.
02:41:34 Reddick's motion.
02:41:37 You know, this is kind of a weird coincidence, but I
02:41:41 actually about a month ago, there's a new city attorney in
02:41:44 Denver, she is a Floridian, oh someone that I know.
02:41:47 Just a weird kind of coincidence.
02:41:49 And the second thing is I think probably the Denver example
02:41:53 is probably a response to a lawsuit they had I think in 08
02:41:57 called the Pena case which was the mayor of Denver, Pena,
02:42:02 and I believe they clarified in order to make sure that
02:42:05 whatever that settlement was at that time.
02:42:07 I'm guessing but I'm not sure.
02:42:08 >>JULIA MANDELL: That's my understanding.
02:42:13 And get a little more information since yesterday.
02:42:18 So I think you are right.
02:42:19 And I appreciate getting a copy of the ordinance.
02:42:21 And I love the idea that there's a Floridian who -- I have
02:42:27 family now in Denver that are Floridians.
02:42:31 I might have to go visit.
02:42:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I just want to point out this is not for you
02:42:35 to go and travel to Denver.
02:42:36 (Laughter)
02:42:37 Mr. Reddick, if you want to make that motion, go ahead, sir.
02:42:54 Mr. Cohen is ready to bite the bullet.
02:42:57 >>FRANK REDDICK: I want to make a motion that the city
02:43:02 attorney, the legal department, draft an ordinance for this
02:43:07 council pertaining to the MBE, WMBE program, and -- well,
02:43:16 let me ask you before I say the last part.
02:43:20 Would November 17th give you enough time?
02:43:23 >> I think we can come up with a draft by then.
02:43:25 It might be rough around the edges but I think have a draft
02:43:28 that you all can start to discuss using Denver as a starting
02:43:31 pointed knowing they did go through some legal issues, and
02:43:33 being able to compare it to what we have should give us a
02:43:37 head start that might not otherwise have had.
02:43:40 I also would like to look at some other jurisdictions and
02:43:43 wanted to look at specifically the issue that you raised as
02:43:46 to how the term good faith effort is utilized throughout the
02:43:49 country, to the best of my ability.
02:43:52 But we'll do the best we can and get you something at least
02:43:55 to be prepared to discuss and moving forward, at least
02:43:59 have -- I'm comfortable with that.
02:44:02 >>HARRY COHEN: I'll second that.
02:44:03 I want to state for the record I am not going to be here
02:44:05 that okay day.
02:44:07 I know Councilman Montelione won't be either.
02:44:11 >> I'll be in Denver.
02:44:13 (Laughter).
02:44:14 >>HARRY COHEN: But I am in support and --
02:44:16 >> And I will not be here either.
02:44:18 However that doesn't mean we don't have other folks in our
02:44:20 office.
02:44:20 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Finish up.
02:44:24 >>FRANK REDDICK: Under staff report.
02:44:26 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion from Mr. Reddick.
02:44:29 We have a second from Mr. Cohen.
02:44:30 All in favor of that motion?
02:44:32 Any opposed?
02:44:34 Thank you.
02:44:36 Appreciate it.
02:44:37 Okay.
02:44:38 We have completed our agenda for today.
02:44:40 I am going to go back to information reports and new
02:44:42 business.
02:44:42 Mrs. Montelione, do you have any information report or new
02:44:45 business at this time?
02:44:46 >>LISA MONTELIONE: I wanted to ask I.T., or TNI, to
02:45:01 investigate whether or not there is software available on
02:45:06 the marketplace that would review sites -- and I know this
02:45:16 is the three most heavily used sites by realtors or
02:45:21 properties for sale at Zillow realtors.com and Trilia to see
02:45:29 if there is a way that -- to extract whether or not a
02:45:35 mother-in-law suite or if it's he R listed as rental
02:45:38 property is in the description.
02:45:44 So algorithm, and app or something that might be available
02:45:49 to us where we can find out, as we saw this morning, where
02:45:54 in the listing it says mother-in-law suite.
02:45:58 Or can be, you know, rented and have tenant income or
02:46:03 something like that.
02:46:07 I need a date.
02:46:10 I don't know if they will be able to bring this back on
02:46:14 November 3rd.
02:46:15 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Are you asking for November 3rd?
02:46:19 We'll make it November 3rd under staff reports.
02:46:21 >>LISA MONTELIONE: And see if they can do it by then.
02:46:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I have a motion from Mrs. Montelione.
02:46:26 A second from Mrs. Capin.
02:46:28 All in favor of that motion?
02:46:30 Any opposed?
02:46:31 Anything else, ma'am?
02:46:32 >>LISA MONTELIONE: No, sir.
02:46:33 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Something about that.
02:46:40 My daughter's house is in Beach Park, and she added a new
02:46:44 garage, and she came to the variance review, because the old
02:46:49 garage, needed a variance for the setback and the neighbors,
02:46:55 nobody objected.
02:46:56 And at the time, was requested and granted, a guest house,
02:47:02 not a mother-in-law house, not -- a guest house.
02:47:06 People come from out of town.
02:47:08 So the whole thing is they are going to go in and take your
02:47:11 photo?
02:47:12 Doesn't make sense to me if it's a guest house.
02:47:14 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, ma'am.
02:47:23 Mr. Maniscalco, any new business?
02:47:25 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
02:47:27 I would like a commendation to be presented for MacDonald
02:47:29 Training Center at their event October 26th at 11 a.m.
02:47:33 as they celebrate the packaging of their 10 millionth sun
02:47:38 pass.
02:47:39 Secure the contract and keeping it for a decade led to
02:47:42 effective training and employment for many Tampa citizens
02:47:45 with intellectual disabilities.
02:47:47 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion and second from Mr. Cohen.
02:47:49 All in favor of that motion?
02:47:51 Any opposed?
02:47:53 Anything else, sir?
02:47:55 Mr. Cohen, anything?
02:47:56 >>HARRY COHEN: No, thank you.
02:47:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Capin?
02:48:00 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Ready?
02:48:01 I want to bring this up.
02:48:03 Because on the July 14, last Friday, Paul, an excellent
02:48:10 writer, wrote about Obama's Cuba changes to open door to
02:48:15 shipping to Tampa.
02:48:16 And what he talks about is that basically 1806 day wait was
02:48:21 a trade killer.
02:48:23 But it brought back, when I read that, I had the opportunity
02:48:28 and someone sent me this back in September.
02:48:30 There are five ports in the world that manage ports all over
02:48:35 the world.
02:48:36 One of them is the port of Singapore.
02:48:39 The port of Singapore's authority is the one that is
02:48:42 managing.
02:48:45 And this man back in September, his name is Charles baker,
02:48:48 general manager of PSA International, it said -- and this is
02:48:56 before -- we believe that transshipment in the U.S. is not
02:49:07 that business.
02:49:07 We are talking about doing transshipment as opposed to a
02:49:14 place.
02:49:15 Okay, let me get back here.
02:49:16 What I want to say is Mariel can accommodate massive ships
02:49:22 out of Panama.
02:49:24 What they are going to do is unload them in Mariel and then
02:49:29 put them on smaller ships and transship them.
02:49:33 What I would like to see us do here -- I mean, not that we
02:49:37 have any purview, but we have many things that we have no
02:49:41 purview over -- sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't.
02:49:45 What he said, back in the beginning of September of the PSA
02:49:49 that works in the port, here it is, another aspect we think
02:49:57 is very interesting is that if we allow transshipment to tap
02:50:00 place from Mariel to the U.S. port -- and this is before
02:50:07 President Obama made his announcement which was to take away
02:50:12 the 180 days.
02:50:13 You could open service to Tampa, which is the closest port
02:50:18 to Orlando, which is, of course, a huge area for hub
02:50:25 distribution centers serving the State of Florida, supply
02:50:28 chain costs that would reduce, and you would also get a
02:50:32 cargo closer to the distribution centers, that you could
02:50:35 reduce emissions from trucks that would otherwise have to
02:50:38 run cargo from Miami and Ft. Lauderdale.
02:50:42 We are no position.
02:50:43 So what I wanted, with this article that came out and just
02:50:47 reminded me and I went back.
02:50:48 So what I would like to do is ask council for resolution and
02:50:56 basically encouraging, suggesting work to promote the port
02:51:03 of Tampa Bay for ships coming from the port of Mariel
02:51:08 transshipment, which is what that's called, HUB, of the
02:51:13 hemisphere.
02:51:14 Larger ships that come are from Asia and all over the world
02:51:17 through the Panama canal will dock in Mariel where
02:51:21 containers will be placed on smaller ships headed to the
02:51:24 U.S. and other destinations.
02:51:26 We feel that the port of Tampa Bay should be the U.S.
02:51:30 gateway to Cuba and the world.
02:51:36 Support Tampa Bay's effort to work with manufacturers,
02:51:38 shiners and Cuban government, and Singapore's PSA which
02:51:43 operates port Mariel.
02:51:45 And we can condense it but it's a resolution --
02:51:51 >>HARRY COHEN: Well, I will second it.
02:51:53 And I would just add that now that the connector is done
02:51:56 between the Crosstown and I-4, now, everyone keeps talking
02:52:00 about how you don't have to go through a traffic light to
02:52:04 get to the state of Maine so it's definitely in line.
02:52:08 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Right on the dock.
02:52:12 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Would you like it to be a letter from
02:52:15 council to -- I mean, a resolution is fine.
02:52:21 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I like resolutions.
02:52:24 >>MIKE SUAREZ: You like resolutions.
02:52:26 Okay.
02:52:26 >>YVONNE CAPIN: Can we do that?
02:52:33 We did it?
02:52:34 Okay.
02:52:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ: We have a motion from Mrs. Capin.
02:52:39 A second from Mr. Cohen.
02:52:40 All in favor?
02:52:42 Any opposed?
02:52:45 Oh, keep going.
02:52:46 >>YVONNE CAPIN: I want to say congratulations to Jeff Vinik
02:52:50 for the Tampa Bay Lightning being ranked number one
02:52:52 franchise in sports by ESPN magazine.
02:52:55 Rankings were based on categories such as owners, players
02:52:59 showing appreciation to fans, on-ice successes,
02:53:03 affordability of tickets and experience in front office.
02:53:07 The ranking including 122 teams in four major pro sports
02:53:12 leagues.
02:53:13 Congratulations, Mr. Vinik.
02:53:14 We knew it all along.
02:53:15 Go Bolts.
02:53:17 That's fantastic.
02:53:19 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Sounds like you have a regular prescription
02:53:25 to ESPN.
02:53:27 (Laughter).
02:53:27 >>YVONNE CAPIN: We have -- I am going to announce it again,
02:53:31 the free shot clinic put on by the Humane Society of Tampa
02:53:34 Bay, for dogs.
02:53:37 Adoption event is November 5th, 2016, 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
02:53:43 Yuengling brewery.
02:53:45 You can tell how much beer that I drink.
02:53:48 It is 1111 north 30th street.
02:53:56 You can call the Humane Society.
02:53:57 813-876-4150.
02:54:02 There you go.
02:54:02 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Anything else?
02:54:05 >>YVONNE CAPIN: No.
02:54:06 I have met all my obligations.
02:54:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Reddick, anything?
02:54:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: Just one item.
02:54:19 I just want to -- the Tampa Bay water is requesting the
02:54:26 waterwise recipient to be presented to council on November
02:54:29 3rd, 9:00 a.m.
02:54:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Motion by Mr. Reddick.
02:54:32 Second by Mr. Cohen.
02:54:33 All in favor of that motion?
02:54:35 Any opposed?
02:54:37 Can I get a motion to receive and file all documents that we
02:54:40 have had today?
02:54:41 We have a motion by Mr. Maniscalco.
02:54:42 A second by Mr. Cohen.
02:54:44 All in favor of that motion please indicate by saying aye.
02:54:47 Anyone in the public that would like to speak at this time
02:54:48 on any item?
02:54:51 I figured somebody was sitting around for some reason.
02:54:54 Yes, ma'am.
02:54:59 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 South Sherill.
02:55:00 My only question is, at the meeting at the CRA is a
02:55:05 workshop.
02:55:07 Will that include extending the decibels in the entire city?
02:55:12 Will that be part of that?
02:55:14 Because I don't want to tell the T.H.A.N. members that this
02:55:20 is going to be discussed if you are not bringing that up at
02:55:24 that meeting.
02:55:24 Because what I have heard is mainly would be distances in
02:55:29 those particular areas.
02:55:34 And I didn't want to call you individually to find out.
02:55:37 So that's why I sat here.
02:55:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mrs. Advisory, if I recall correctly based
02:55:41 on the discussion that the special workshop that we are
02:55:43 going to have after the CRA meeting is going to discuss
02:55:47 primarily about the plainly audible doctrine, but during our
02:55:51 discussion we talked about a lot of different things, too.
02:55:53 So there may be other issues that come up.
02:55:55 But you are right.
02:55:56 It has to deal with that specific outside of the central
02:56:02 business district, Ybor City, Channelside that we are
02:56:05 talking about, because those other areas are special.
02:56:07 And whether or not some other discussion comes up concerning
02:56:14 just SoHo or something else I can't say because we will
02:56:17 probably be discussing a lot of different issues that have
02:56:19 come up during the time we will talked about today.
02:56:26 That's a problem that's part of the discussion about
02:56:28 decibels versus plainly audible doctrine.
02:56:31 Whether or not we would remove that as part of our current
02:56:35 noise ordinance.
02:56:36 That is part of what the discussion would be based on the
02:56:38 discussion that we had up here.
02:56:39 So we want to find out from the legal department and the
02:56:43 response from Miami-Dade and the city of Miami Beach as to
02:56:47 whether or not that is a standard that we can use here at
02:56:51 the City of Tampa.
02:56:54 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Oh, I'm sorry, will we be -- will you be
02:56:59 bringing up all these other issues at the workshop as well?
02:57:03 Or only to hear those things?
02:57:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Well, I will tell you based on the motion,
02:57:08 it was a pretty broad motion, so my guess is there will be
02:57:11 other issues besides just that one.
02:57:13 But that was the main one that we talked about.
02:57:17 Mr. Cohen, go ahead.
02:57:18 >>HARRY COHEN: Originally the discussion was going to be
02:57:21 about perhaps waiving the decibel level throughout the city.
02:57:24 It sounded to me from the discussion that is not the
02:57:28 direction that we are headed, primarily because it would
02:57:32 require us to have expert testimony if we have no ability.
02:57:41 So I don't think that's where we are going to go.
02:57:43 But you never know if that might come up.
02:57:48 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Well, did other part of it, we were
02:57:51 talking about the code enforcement.
02:57:53 As we understand from those who are on the Code Enforcement
02:57:55 Board, there was no such board anymore.
02:58:00 They don't meet anymore.
02:58:01 >> [Off microphone.]
02:58:08 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Did they?
02:58:09 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Code enforcement meets all the time, yes.
02:58:13 I think that is the board you are talking about, Mrs. Vizzi,
02:58:16 the Nuisance Abatement Board is really the board that you
02:58:19 are talking about.
02:58:20 That has not met on a regular basis.
02:58:24 So that's probably the board you are talking about.
02:58:27 The code enforcement meets on a regular basis.
02:58:36 >>MARGARET VIZZI: It was on a Tuesday, I think.
02:58:38 >>MIKE SUAREZ: No, but believe me, when we come up to our
02:58:41 offices when they are meeting, they are here.
02:58:44 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Then the people who were supposed to be on
02:58:46 that board are probably not --
02:58:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: I don't know who you are talking to, Mrs.
02:58:51 Vizzi, but you weren't talking to us.
02:58:54 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Well, two people that said they don't meet
02:58:56 anymore. Anyway, thank you.
02:58:58 So we will tell T.H.A.N. members to be here.
02:59:04 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Thank you, ma'am.
02:59:05 Anything else, ma'am?
02:59:06 >>MARGARET VIZZI: That's it.
02:59:07 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Mr. Frankhouser?
02:59:09 >>Are I have a couple more things.
02:59:11 I like Capin's idea of keeping the music inside.
02:59:16 Shut the door.
02:59:17 Keep the loud music inside.
02:59:20 Acoustic okay outside.
02:59:23 You can have a guy with a guitar, outside, banjo, whatever
02:59:28 you want to do outside.
02:59:32 Won't bother anybody on the other side of the parking lot.
02:59:34 But amplified music inside only and you won't have any
02:59:37 problem with your decibels, except for cars in the
02:59:40 neighborhood running around with their boom boxes exposed.
02:59:45 And I hope to see all of you on the 9th.
02:59:49 Thank you.
02:59:49 >>MIKE SUAREZ: Is there anyone else in the public that
02:59:51 would like to speak at this time?
02:59:52 I see no one.
02:59:53 In that case we are adjourned.
02:59:55 >> (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.