All right. Good evening, everybody. It is 5 o'clock on August 19th. We're going to go ahead and get started. We're going to convene the Land Use and Zoning Committee with introductions to my left. Good afternoon, Reginald Gaffney, Jr., District 8. Joe Carlucci, District 5. Good evening, everyone. Kevin Carrico, District 4. Good evening. Raw areas, District 11. Randy White, District 12. Terrence Harvey, Office of General Counsel. Susan Kelly, Planning Department. Aaron Abney, Planning Department. Casey Cox, Planning Department. Councilman Johnson. Bachman Johnson, District 14. Good afternoon. All right. And we do have a excusal slash late arrival for Mr. Diamond, I believe. So we will be on the lookout for him. So with that, we'll go ahead to our first item on the agenda. And staff, I previously said we're going to take up, we're just going to go in order, basically. So we'll just go with that. All right. Item number one, 2026-124. Item number two, 2026-125 is deferred. Item number three, 2026-126. Let's open the public hearing. No speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 9-1-26. Item number four, 2026-127. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 9-1-26. Item number five, 2026-376 is deferred. With a public hearing, next cycle on 9-1-26. Item number six, 2026-436. Open the public hearing. No speaker cards will continue this public hearing until 9-1-26. Item number seven, 2026-5-23. Open the public hearing. No speaker. Wait. Hold on. We have one speaker card. Paul Harden in support. Questions only. Yes, sir. And item number eight, 2026-524. Open the public hearing. One speaker card. Paul Harden in support. Questions only. And this public hearing will be continued until 9-1-26. First action item, committee members, item number nine on page 5, 2026-525. Open the public hearing. And let's get a staff report. Coordinates 2026-525 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately .37 of an acre at 4427 Emerson Street from residential professional institutional to community general commercial in order to broaden the commercial uses offered along Emerson Street. Emerson Street is an F-dot minor arterial roadway. The site is a portion of a larger office park, approximately 5.6 acres, and it consists of several buildings. However, the proposed land use amendment is only for building one, which fronts on Emerson Street. The remainder of the site would stay RPI as a transition between the CGC that fronts Emerson and the residential uses to the north. West of the subject site, along each side of Emerson Street, land is designated as CGC, and it consists of commercial retail and services, churches, those sorts of uses. Approximately 300 feet west of the site is the intersection of Emerson Street and the Hart Expressway. The proposed amendment to CGC allows for commercial redevelopment on a site with existing infrastructure and full urban services that fronts a minor arterial roadway. This is preferred for new CGC designations. The proposed amendment is a logical extension of the abutting CGC designation to the west of the site, resulting in a compatible land use designation along the commercial corridor. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. The planning commission heard this item on August 6th, and they approved it unanimously with minimal discussion. Thank you. All right. We have one speaker, Mr. Grafton Addison. He is in support, and he checked questions only for this one. Is that correct? Okay. All right. So we have no other speaker cards. Let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second on the bill. We've got no discussion. Let's open the ballot and record your vote. Five yays. Zero nays. By your action, you have approved 2026-525. Item number 10, 2026-526. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-526 seeks to rezone approximately .37 acres along Emerson Street from commercial residential office to commercial community general one. The intent of the rezoning is to allow development of a nonprofit thrift and consignment shop that will operate in conjunction with the neighboring church. The site is located within a multi-tenant office park containing a mix of commercial, retail, and institutional uses, and fronts an FDOT-classified minor arterial roadway. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2045 comprehensive plan. CGC encourages compact commercial development along corridors and supports retail uses that serve surrounding neighborhoods. CCG1 is a primary zoning district within CGC. The request is compatible with the surrounding development, which includes office, retail, banking, warehousing, storage, public park uses, and residential neighborhoods. And the introduction of CCG1 provides an orderly transition between the existing CRO to the north and CCG2 to the west. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward recommendation of approval. The item was heard at the August 6th Planning Commission meeting, and commissioners voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you so much. We have one speaker card, Grafton-Addison, in support. Questions only again? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. We have no other speaker cards, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays. Zero nays. By direction, you've approved 2026-526. All right. Council Member Carricko, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take a moment to let everyone know that a legend has arrived, and we wanted to recognize former Council Member Reggie Gaffney Sr., who just walked in. Always good to see you, my friend. A legend. All right. Well, you stole my thunder, because now I have a card in my hand. We've got to go back to item number four. And the public hearing has remained open, so we can hear from this card. For number four, 2026-127. The public hearing has remained open and will continue until 9-126. Mr. Gaffney, would you like to come down and speak? We all know who you are, but name and address, sir. Good evening. My address is 2648 Workings Court, and I'm here to speak on this. I got some calls, and actually, and this is Council Member Gaffney, this is your district. So the one I got calls on was on Soutel. I got in calls this morning about this particular ordinance that they wanted me to speak on, because you had some people in the community who was against it. And so I told them I'd come down, and what I was attempting to do is see if I can get you. I was attempting to get you to see if we can actually, who is there? I see Mr. Horsberg, is he here today? And if it's possible, can I ask him a question? I don't want to stop this if he done did a community meeting. I was told by the community that he haven't did any community meeting. That's the only reason I'm here. The community told me that this was put up in front of him with no notice, so that's what prompted me to come here. So what I would do is, Mr. Horsberg here? He's not here. He's not? Okay, so if he's not, then I'm going to trust that you guys are going to do the same thing. So Mr. Gaffney, Jr. hasn't said anything to me, so I'm going to leave this one alone. Okay, then. All right, thank you. Okay. Well, we'll let Mr. Horsberg know that there was a public speaker and be on the lookout for the next public hearing. Do you want to see him? Not yet, okay. I can get you Mr. Gaffney, Sr.'s phone number if you like it. Yeah, we have it right here on the card. All right, so that was 2026-127. So we're going to go back into the swing of things here and get on to item number 11, 2026-527. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. The Ordinance 2026-527 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately 0.35 of an acre at 4730 Spring Glen Road from low-density residential to residential professional institutional to allow for office uses. The site is located adjacent to the roundabout at 4730 Spring Glen Road between Englewood Avenue and the I-95 Expressway. The site is the southern portion of a larger parcel that totals approximately one acre. The northern portion of the parcel is currently utilized as a tree service company, and it is within the CGC land use category. The applicant seeks to place an office use on that southern portion, and so the department recommended RPI, and the applicant agreed. The proposed amendment to RPI allows residential, office, and or limited neighborhood commercial uses on a vacant underutilized parcel supplied with full urban services within an urbanized area near a collector roadway and less than a mile from access to an F-dot expressway. Because the subject site is located between residential uses and a commercial node, the proposed RPI land use category provides for compatible uses and a gradual transition of densities and intensities. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the planning department recommends approval. The planning commission heard the item on August 6th, and they voted unanimously for approval with no discussion. Thank you. All right. One second. So, with that, we have one speaker card, Ms. Stacy Warming. Are you here? All right. She is in support with questions only, and we have no other speakers in the queue. So, let's go ahead and close the public hearing and bring this back to committee. We have a motion in a second on the bill. No one in the queue. We're going to open the ballot and record the vote. Five yays, zero nays. By reaction, you've approved 2026-527. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. Mr. Chair, a point of information, if I may. I know we don't usually do this, but I have looked out into the audience, and I see Council Member Elect Monet Holder is here with us. Yes. Can you recognize her officially as the chair? Absolutely. Ms. Monet Holder, Councilwoman-elect. Thank you for joining us. And Chair of Planning Commission. She's already looking for assignments. Already looking to get to work. We can make some space for you up here. Randy, sit down. He's ready to get off of here. All right. We're going to move on. Thank you for coming, though. We appreciate seeing you. All right. Item number 12, 2026-528. Council Members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council Member Keriko, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have ex parte on this. As I received an email from the applicant, Stacey Warming, in which she was just introducing the application. And that was on August 14, 2026. Well, we have the paperwork to file that with legislative services, and we'll do so. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, rise to declare ex parte. I got an email, and then I called. I had a few questions. I spoke with Ms. Warming on the 14th. Those things have been filed with legislative services. Thank you. All right. And we have no one else in the queue. I'll declare my ex parte. I had a phone call with Stacey Warming on August 13th at 1 o'clock via the phone, and this paperwork is going to be filed with legislative services. Council Member Arias, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I, too, also received an email and a phone call from Ms. Warming, and it's currently being filed as you speak. Thank you. All right. With that, let's open the public hearing and get staff report. 2026-528 seeks to rezone approximately 0.35 acres along Spring Glen Road, Edgewood Avenue, and Clinton Avenue from RLD 60 to CRO. The rezoning would remove existing split zoning on the larger parcel and allow office and low-intensity commercial uses across this portion of the site. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan with the land use of RPI. CRO is a primary zoning district within RPI and provides an appropriate transitional intensity between the adjacent CCG2 zoning to the north and east and the residential neighborhood to the south and west. Surrounding development includes warehousing, storage, a church, single-family dwellings, and FDOT-owned right-of-way. The CRO district limits intensity and scale, creating an orderly transition from commercial activity to residential properties. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. This item was heard at the August 6th Planning Commission meeting, and the commissioners voted unanimously for approval. All right, thank you. We have one speaker card, Ms. Stacey Warming, in support, and she marked questions only. And we have no other speaker cards, so let's close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Five yays. Zero nays. By direction you've approved, 2026-528. Item number 13. Mr. Miller, you good to go? Mr. Rowe? Okay. All right. Item number 13, 2026-529. Let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Ordinance 2026-529 is for a small-scale land use amendment to change approximately 10.64 acres on Gate Parkway from residential, professional, institutional to community general commercial to allow for additional commercial uses. The site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Burnt Mill Road and Gate Parkway. Burnt Mill is a local road, and Gate Parkway is a minor arterial. The subject site is a portion of a larger parcel. Approximately 4.82 acres along the western boundary of the property will remain RPI, which provides a gradual transition of uses from the residential to the west to the commercial uses along Gate Parkway. Abutting the site to the south, land is designated as CGC and contains various commercial uses. The proposed amendment would extend the CGC designation to the north, offering compatible uses within a commercial node. The proposed amendment to CGC also allows for commercial redevelopment on a site with existing infrastructure and full urban services and the parcel fronts of minor arterial roadway. For these reasons and those in the staff report, the plan department recommends approval. The planning commission heard this item on August 6th, and they unanimously recommended approval with no discussion. Thank you. All right. And we want to welcome Council Member Diamond. Thank you for joining us tonight. And we will go to our speaker cards now with Mr. Zach Miller. Good evening, Zach Miller, 3203 Old Barn Court. I'm going to speak on the land use amendment, but I'm also touching on some items that are in 530 next because I think they're important. This property is currently designated RPI in the land use. It's approximately 15 and a half acres. About 10 years ago, it was rezoned from PUD to PUD to allow for two quite large medical office buildings totaling 180,000 square feet of medical office uses at 50 feet in height. There was some pushback from the neighborhood at that time, but the council ended up approving it. What this land use amendment does is it takes approximately about two-thirds of the property and designates it as CGC. That will allow us to have commercial parcels along Gate Parkway, but it will preserve an area that's a JEA easement on the western third of the property. That area is going to remain RPI. And then working with planning department, we were able to designate that in the PUD that you'll hear in a moment for a plant nursery. And by plant nursery, no structures, nothing to be built in it, just plants and pots that could be built or could be sold. To the immediate west is a very large berm that separates this property from the existing residential uses. So it will set up as residential berm, about 150 feet of easement that can only use as nursery, nothing built in it. There's a middle segment that will primarily be a low-intensity commercial medical office. And then the most intense commercial uses, which are similar to CCG1, will be on the eastern part fronting on Gate Parkway. That's covering the land use amendment. I have to answer any questions and then provide any more detail on the PUD. Okay, thank you. Next speaker card, I'm just going to go with Randall Whitfield. My apologies if it's mispronounced, but he is in opposition and Mark does not wish to speak. So with that, we will... Oh, you're coming down? Oh, just a clarification. Name and address, sir. Randall Whitfield, 7880 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, Florida. Will you be voting on these separately? Item 529 and 530 separately? Yes, sir. They're separate. Okay. And this is just for the land use? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. No problem. All right. With that, the public hearings close and we'll bring it back to committee. Motion and second on the bill. Council Member Aries, would you like to speak now or after the bill? On the second one? Okay. All right. Let's open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By reaction you've approved, 2026-529. Item number 14, 2026-530. Council Members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Yes. Thank you, through the chair. I spoke with Zach Miller. He gave me a call this morning. Can you hear me? Yeah, you're good. All right. Yeah. Through the chair, I'd like to declare ex parte. I received a call from Zach Miller this morning. I made sure I get the call. He asked me, did I have any questions about this project? I let him know I did not have any questions. I made sure everything gets filed with legislative services. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I spoke with Zach Miller, the applicant's attorney, yesterday for about 10 minutes. We just walked through the basics of this project. Thank you. And I'll follow it for legislative services. Council Member Ayer, yes, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I have a few ex partes. So I spoke to the applicant, Zach Miller, yesterday to see if there were any updates. I also met with some of the neighbors as well yesterday to kind of brief them on to what's about to happen today. And then I had a town hall on 8-12 with about 40 residents from the community of James Island, which abuts the neighborhood. And then I also met with the actual developer as well, too, on 8-16 to discuss this rezoning. And it's all currently being filed. Thank you. All right. Council Member White, you're recognized. Yes, sir, I'll declare my ex parte, August 18th, yesterday at 1130. I spoke to Mr. Miller. And then again today at 210, I called him with some additional questions, and both of those will be filed. House President Carricka, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have ex parte. I met with the developer, Justin Asherian. We actually were meeting about something in my district. But he mentioned that he had something coming up at LUZ. We didn't even talk about the details because he said that Mr. Miller would reach out. We did not connect, though. So, life of the past president. All right. And I will declare ex parte. I also had a meeting with Mr. Asherian. And we actually didn't really discuss many of the details. He said the same thing. Mr. Miller was handling it. And we will get this paperwork filed with legislative services. What? You good? Oh, Justin. All right. So, that's all the ex parte. Let's get staff report. Thank you. This is the companion PUD rezoning application ordinance 2026-0530 requesting to rezone approximately 15.46 acres of a parcel that's located along Gate Parkway. It's rezoning from an existing PUD that was approved back in 2015 to a new PUD. The request is seeking to allow for general commercial uses along the eastern portion of the site. That would be fronting Gate Parkway. And then also to allow for a plant nursery facility on the western portion of the site. The proposed PUD adds commercial uses similar to CCG1 while still limiting these uses within the PUD to certain parcels. Parcel B, which is the westernmost portion of the site, will be restricted to the low-intense nursery operations. The amendment also retains the site's existing total allowable square footage and maintains internal circulation with access points along both Gate Parkway and Burnt Mill Road. Staff finds that the requested rezoning is consistent with the comp plan. It supports goals related to compact commercial development, infill and redevelopment, and strengthens commercial nodes along minor arterial roadways. This corridor surrounding Gate Parkway includes retail, multifamily, office, and other several commercial PUDs, making the requested PUD with commercial uses a compatible continuation of established development patterns for this area. Internal and external compatibilities are met. A substantial planted berm and JEA easement buffers the James Island neighborhood that is to the west. And setbacks within the written description maintain adequate separation. Height is also limited within the PUD as parcel B closest to the existing residential is limited to 35 feet. And then parcel A, which is the center section of it, and close to Gate Parkway increases that to 50 feet. So you have a gradual transition of height as you move from the residential to the west, to the commercial that's to the east. Gate Parkway, again, is classified as a minor arterial roadway, which provides connectivity to both I-295 and JTB. Commercial trip generation is appropriate for this corridor, as Gate Parkway is currently only operating at 57% capacity. So for these reasons and those in the staff report, we are forwarding a recommendation of approval with two conditions that are listed in your agenda. The first condition in your agenda is related to a payment to be made to the James Island HOA. This was a condition that was placed on the existing PUD by city council in 2015. That condition has not been fulfilled. And since it was negotiated between the developer HOA and council at that time, we are forwarding it on to the new PUD. This application was heard by Planning Commissioner on August 6. There were no speakers in the opposition and little discussion amongst the commissioners. And they voted unanimously for approval with those same two conditions listed in your agenda. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. We have three speaker cards. First up, Zach Miller. Good evening again. Zach Miller, 3203 Old Barn Court. Just to hit on some of the high points, then I'm going to walk you through the particulars of the PUD. As mentioned by staff, the current PUD allows up to 180,000 square feet of commercial uses. We are not increasing that. What we're trying to do is spread that out over the site, in particular to allow for the more intense commercial uses, restaurants, retail, things like that, along Gate Parkway while preserving the medical office, the neighborhood commercial uses, and the interior. And then, as mentioned by staff, the most significant thing is being allowed to do the nursery in the JEA easement. The PUD does say within the JEA easement that we could build up to 35 feet, but the JEA easement itself limits any structures to only 10 feet. And we're not going to be planning on doing any structures in there. Again, it's just going to be a plant nursery. The other thing that's interesting about the JEA easement, which is about 150 feet wide, is we think that the nursery will act as a buffer in addition to the berm there from the development that's going on in this property. I tried to get an accurate height of the buffer, the berm. It's actually pretty large. If you go online and look at the Google Street View, there's actually a construction equipment on site, and the berm is taller than the construction equipment. So it's a pretty significant buffer from the other property. As to the actual dimensions, I'm going to focus on the property that's along Gate Parkway. Those are taken directly from the CCG1 uses. In fact, CCG1 allows you to have basically no setbacks at all and build up to 60 feet. As we put in the PUD, we can have those uses up to 45 feet. But in talking with my client, we're willing to go down to 30 feet in height along those uses for the parcels along Gate Parkway. There's also some discussion at the James Island community meeting about there's no front yard setback. That's because in your code, you have a provision in Part 12 that requires a landscape buffer between commercial uses and any roadways, in this case a minor arterial roadway. And the more parking you have, the larger the buffer would have to be. In this case, at minimum, we're going to have a 10-foot buffer, if not larger. So if you look in the PUD, we actually defer to Part 12, so all of that gets shepherded into the PUD. That's why there isn't a front yard setback. But that's also why in your standard code, you don't have a front yard setback for CCG1. If you look at our site plan, we're also doing a 240-foot D-cell lane on Gate Parkway to allow for a ride in, ride out on the Gate Parkway to help with access to the commercial parcels. And then, well, I've covered a lot, and I see my time's actually running out. If I have any questions, or you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. All right. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Randall Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Randall Whitfield, 7880 Gate Parkway, Jacksonville, Florida. And, Mr. Chairman, fellow members, thank you for your time this afternoon. I am president of Ash Properties and through an affiliate, Shops of Gate Parkway. We own the property in the northeast quadrant of Gate Parkway and Burnt Mill, and we've developed a substantial property there, the Shops of Gate Parkway, about a $50 million investment there. And it is directly across Burnt Mill from the subject rezoning. We don't mind the rezoning, per se. I have issues with how normally a PUD, you build in controls. So if the developer doesn't do this, then he gets his hand slapped. Well, as I read the PUD and look at the site plan, there's just too many discrepancies, and I think that clarification needs to be done before any further action would be taken. Again, there's really a serious problem with ingress and egress along Gate Parkway and Burnt Mill. We're allowed for our full section with a storage unit and the 122,000 square feet of retail and office. We've got two cuts, one on Gate Parkway that's shared with the storage facility and one on Burnt Mill. Now, I know the planning department reads that there are only going to be two cuts, one on Gate Parkway and one on Burnt Mill. But if you look at the site plan, it shows five access points, three on Gate Parkway, two on Burnt Mill. And it goes on to say, in paragraph B2 of the written description, the vehicle or access to the property will substantially be shown on the site plan. So what's going to control? The site plan? Probably, because that's what everybody's looking at. And there's already a problem with traffic parking on this in this general area. We have to hire security to make sure that our tenants have parking spaces within our facility, and we don't want to exasperate that situation. You look at parcels C, D, E, F, and G on the front facing Gate Parkway, as Zach has pointed out, according to CCG1, there's pretty much no limits. But what I'm saying is on C, D, E, F, and G, there's no square foot limit per lot. There's no maximum lot coverage. There's no front, rear, or side setback. All right. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield. Your time is up, and we do have Council Member Diamond in the queue, so we'll go to you. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Whitfield, I just have a question for you. I'm just trying to understand something. Forgive me for being a little slow today. I've seen you here over the years representing Ash Properties and have great respect for you. The applicant here is Justin Asurian, and his entities usually represent Ash Properties. Who are you representing today? Pardon? Who are you representing today? I am representing the Shops of Palms, which is right across the street from Justin's development. And I'm not opposing a rezoning of the property. That's why I didn't oppose the land use. But there's things that need to be addressed in the PUD text. He could build a 40-foot-high building right on the property line on Gate Parkway and be in conformance with the PUD language. It just needs to be corrected. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm tracking. But you're representing the applicant's father, criticizing the son's development? That puts me in a strange spot, yes. Okay. I'm just making sure I'm not crazy today. Okay. All right. Well, I do think it's fair if Mr. Miller wants to respond to that, like, to let him. But that's all I wanted to figure out here. I was very confused. Thank you. Councilman Diamond, we're just looking for clarification. I'm not trying to oppose what he wants to do. All right. So before we go, Councilman Harris, did you have a question for him? We do have one more speaker card. All right. Okay. All right. Next, we have Scott Klazowski. Good evening. Yeah, I represent Gabe. Name and address, sir. Name, Scott Kuzlowski, James Island HOA. And I'm also the Southeast CPAC chair. So there are several questions about this property. We're not opposed to this. It's the ingress and egress and the vagueness of what they're going to put in there with the buildings along with the size. I know they're going down from two 50-foot buildings down to one and then along Gate Parkway. And that's our major concern is the ingress, egress off of Burnt Mill Road, which if you look at the other property right across the street, there is an entrance right there off of Burnt Mill and you're going to have conflicting traffic right there and along with Gate Parkway going in and out of there, there are only two entrances and there has been a fatality on that corner already. So that's our major concern is the ingress, egress out of there and trying to figure out exactly the square footage that they want to put in there and the parking. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. And we have one speaker in the queue, Council Member Arias, you're recognized. All right, Chair. Thank you. So to my colleagues- We're still in the public hearing, so did you want me to close that or did you want to ask any questions for the applicant? Well, yes, I do actually. Okay. So Mr. Miller, if you don't mind coming up. Thank you. So we, obviously you heard from the two gentlemen that just spoke right now regarding the concerns that they have. I know you've been in communication with my office and I've been in communication with them. You and I address a lot of these issues. The biggest one that Mr. Scott just mentioned was obviously the ingress and egress from Burnt Mill. That's the one that really resonates the most with our neighbors because we had a fatality there less than a year ago. Secondly, he didn't mention this today, but I know that in the town hall they spoke about the lights being on some sort of timer or at the very least point towards Gate Parkway. That way it doesn't flood into the abutting neighborhood. And then the third part would be, you know, the part of the access road to the desal lanes going into the shopping center because what we don't want, and you already touched on this, but what we don't want is having any of these entry points to not have any desal lanes. Otherwise, they're literally going to stop on Gate Parkway to make a right turn and needs to slow down into that shopping center. So whatever rendition of the site plan you guys come up with, we need to make sure that all entries have desal lanes. Otherwise, that entry point is going to have to be omitted from this site plan. Just FY. Yes, sir. And again, through the chair to Councilman Harris, thank you very much for reaching out and allowing me a chance to speak on those items. I'll start with the ingress and egress. Just to clarify one point of what Mr. Whitfield said, it does say in B2, vehicular access to the property shall be substantially shown as substantially shown in the site plan. But then it says, the final location of all access points is subject to the review and approval of the city's traffic engineer. And there's a condition on this that we have to do a traffic study based on whatever the use is and the traffic generated before we have any curb cuts that are approved. So the site plan is just conceptual in nature. We are absolutely prepared to make a commitment that on Gate Parkway, if required to do a desal lane by the traffic engineer, we will do a desal lane in order for any of the curb cuts that we need. On Burnt Mill, currently conceptually shows two access points. If the traffic engineer says no or restricts the movements, we have to abide by that. But, it's very important that we can't interfere with JEA. There's actually the furthest west access point is actually also access for JEA to access the easement. So we can't interfere with that. But as to, on our site plan, the access point, I'll call it the northeast corner, the one closest to Burnt Mill and Gate Parkway intersection. We're prepared to have a condition that if we do get that access, that one would be limited to right in, right out. Thank you. All right. Another concern that they addressed at the town hall, and Mr. Whitfield brought it up today, was the fact of the height restriction that we had. Obviously, you're allowed 40, 45? Well, we're allowed 50 feet under the current zoning. CCG1 actually allows the 60, and we put 45 in there. But for parcels C, D, E, F, and G, we're willing to go down to 30 feet. That allows, that's the flat line of the roof, but we allow parapets slightly above that. The code speaks to that. We think that's sufficient for the commercial uses. So does the 30 feet include the parapet? That was going to be my next question. 30 feet plus the parapets. So what are we looking at? 35 feet then? Parapets usually will come out to about four or five feet, yes. So 35 feet. All right, and then, Chair, just one more question on this part would be the buffer. You talked about the landscape buffer, 10 feet. I was actually going to suggest that earlier, being that it's part of the code. I know that Mr. Whitfield, as well as some of the neighbors, what we don't want is people driving on Gate Parkway and see a building right off of Gate Parkway. There needs to be some sort of landscape buffer. And so obviously, that's already embedded in the code. However, if we could also just have it written in the PUD as a description, just to make sure that the neighbors know that they're going to have that, I think that will be the best route for this, if you're okay with that. What I'll do is I'll specifically reference, there's actually a chart in your code, but I will get with Mr. Harvey, and I will rewrite that section to specifically reference that section of Part 12. And an amended PUD written description that will be dated today's date. Okay. All right. I'm done with questions for now, and then we'll have the conversations up here. And then we may call you guys a backup. Thank you. All right. We have no other speakers in the queue. Let's close the public hearing and bring back to committee. All right. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Can someone please explain the amendment? The amendment just attaches a revised Exhibit 1, which is the legal description, to reflect the entire parcel. So that's the amendment that you would be moving, and then their conditions would be the other items to take up as well. Okay. Great. Council Member Ayers, are you on the amendment? All right. All in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Any opposed? The amendment carries. Motion and a second on the bill as amended. Council Member Ayers. Anybody else on the queue? Nope. Okay, cool. Colleagues, so I've already met with everybody in this room. I feel comfortable moving this forward. I will tell you, though, that the biggest concerns from the neighbors have been already answered today. Now, I do want to call up Mr. Whitfield one more time, and then Scott as well, too, to make sure that we are on the same page. Do you guys feel comfortable moving with this? I know that one of the concerns was JEA. I also communicated with the JEA as well, too, to make sure that this nursery wouldn't impede in what they're doing over there if they ever need to do it. And that's the reason why the applicant proposed having a plant nursery that's really on pots. That way, these pots could be moved. There's no physical structure there. So with that being said, JEA was saying, they said, essentially, if we ever need to figure something out, they can move it. But at the end of the day, they're still in conversation. So JEA is not saying no, which is why I feel better about this. The second part would be, Mr. Whitfield, I want to confirm with you. When we met, you proposed a 25-foot height for these one-story buildings. Right now, as you heard, the code allows for 50-plus feet. I'm one of those guys that likes to meet in the middle with our neighbors. So do you feel comfortable with a 30-foot height tolerance for this? Well, Councilman Airy, the height will ultimately be higher than 30. It'd be at 35 a time. You count the parapet, et cetera. So it will be higher. And the location is, they can do it right up on Gate Parkway. And there's no building size. They could build a massive building, 45 feet high, right on the property line, the way the PUD is written. That is my problem with the way it's written for those parcels front in Gate Parkway. I'd like to see a building size for each building on each parcel, the height limit of about 25 feet. I think that would be, they're proposing, they say, one-story, but you go 30 feet, you're going two-story. If you line every building up two-story, that's a lot of square feet right there. Okay. And then the other concern that you brought up to me was the entry points. And obviously, the traffic study is going to happen. And that was your concern on the email you sent myself and to the committee members. So go ahead. I'm sorry. I thought I understood Zach to say that they would have a desail lane. And then I heard him say just now that if the traffic study said they needed it, then they would certainly put it in. Okay. So some clarification on that. Yeah. Is there anybody here that could actually answer that part, Savany? Through the chair to the council member. So what the traffic study will do is that they have to meet with the city's traffic engineer, transportation divisions, chief, and development services. And out of that traffic study, if it says that they need a deceleration lane, they will be required to put that in during their civil plan review. So that's what the traffic study does. It looks at the proposed development that's going to go in. It gets reviewed by the traffic engineers. And if out of that traffic study, it says that in order to mitigate the traffic impacts that are going to come out of this type of development, a deceleration lane is needed. They will have to put that in when they go through civil plan review. But we could also, in this PUD, include that as part of the PUD, as a condition, correct? Yes, sure. All right. And that's where I'm going to look to Mr. Miller. And you may have a seat, sir. Thank you. Mr. Miller, is that something that your client would be able to work with us out of safety more than anything else? Yes. And just to kind of square the circle, we have a site plan that is being approved and voted on by you that shows a decel lane of 240 feet. So we're committed to doing that. If, for some reason, the traffic study says that we need that to be longer, then that's what we have to do. So that's where we have the commitment to do it. But if it needs to be larger, that's subject to the traffic study, which is a condition of the PUD. Okay. But you would be okay with us incorporating into the condition that a decel lane will be the only access to this shopping center based off of what you have here on the site plan and any of the future site plans. On Gate Parkway. On Gate Parkway. Correct. Yes, yes. So, yeah. Subject to wordsmithing of Mr. Harvey, yes. I just want to make sure that we protect our neighbors off of Gate Parkway. Absolutely. All right. And then while I have you up here, I would like to also put in the conditions there as well to talk about the lights. Yes. What is it that you guys can give us, at least the neighbors in James Island? I've spent some time through the chair to Councilman Arias trying to figure out what we could do on it. And when I've talked to anybody, talked to site designers, talked to Mr. Fleming, who's here, who's sort of an expert in this area, we can't build any structures within that 150 feet next to the berm. So we've already got a 100-foot buffer, and then we're already limiting the height. It's very unlikely that there's going to be any light pollution from the site into any of the residences, certainly less than what is already would be allowed with a 250-foot tall, 180,000-square-foot building there. So we will certainly work to make sure that there's no light intrusion into the neighboring property. But I think the site design and the uses and the other restrictions are about as many restrictions as we can put on it. Got it. Okay. And then the last point I have here is for the neighborhood. Obviously, we spoke about the $60,000, and that was obviously a condition that was approved 10-plus years ago on the existing at PUD. When will they be able to receive these funds? My opinion is that it would be before Tencent is approved for any of the actual development that's not the nursery. If the nursery goes in, I don't think there's that much need for it. But prior to horizontal approval or subject to horizontal approval for any of the development. Okay. And I just want to clarify that this, bless you, the $60,000 doesn't have any restrictions or conditions when you give it to them. No. Obviously, the goal is for the berm if they need it. But if they need it for other community components? Correct. Correct. And I have to put on the record, I actually don't think a restriction like this is or a condition like this is probably legal. I agree. But it was already agreed to 10 years ago, so I think that's why we have to agree to it again. Yeah, I agree. Okay. All right. Chair, I have no questions. May I just call one person up? Scott, thank you so much. Scott, if you don't mind, please coming up. I want to make sure that you, as not only the Southeast chair, but also the president of James Island, are you okay with everything that's transpiring today? We are. It's just site plans like this that come in front of us and everything that are very vague and not clearly laid out on what they're going to put in. You know, instead of coming here and saying, okay, this is exactly what we're going to do along Gate Parkway. We're going to go 25 foot, go with the square footage out of one of the 50-foot buildings, and we're going to use that square footage for the front. It's very vague on what they're still going to do. But we understand PUD to PUD and everything, but we're looking at the parking. We're looking at, just like Mr. Miller said up on the front of Gate Parkway, you know, going with the square footage and a wish and a prayer that, oh, yes, we're going to keep it down to 25 or 30 foot, and we're going to put four buildings in, but still, there's no real site plan on what's going to go in. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that. I'm good in this. All good? Okay. And, yeah, just for, like, the general public, the process and the procedure is kind of wonky as far as, like, site plans getting attached to PUDs because, obviously, they haven't spent thousands of dollars on the traffic study, so they don't know exactly where it goes. So that's why it does say all these things are subject to change because they don't want to put it in the site plan, and then they're wrong from a traffic engineering standpoint, and then they have to, you know, change it all the way back over. So that's the reason it's kind of done that way. I've had multiple conversations with these types of things in my district, and so it is just kind of how that process is currently laid out. But we have no other speakers in the queue, and we do have the bill ready for the ballot. Oh, do you have more conditions? Okay. You're not on. So right now, the posture that you guys are in right now is on a motion to move the bill as amended. The conditions before you so far are the two from the Planning Department regarding the $60,000 to James Island's Homeowners Association and whether or not to also include the traffic study. But you would need a motion for those to adopt those conditions in any other conditions. Do we have a motion for those? Mr. Chair, I put that motion as well, too, but I also want to add one more condition to that. All right. Ready? Yeah, go ahead. We're ready. All right. So you mentioned the desal lane, obviously, already. I want to add the desal lane to this as a condition. And then I also want to add the height restriction. Obviously, we have 50. We have 25. I'm okay with a 30, as it is right now, plus a parapet. With the understanding, Mr. Miller, that your client is only going to do a one-story, correct? In that area, that's correct. I just want to make clear, these are conditions, but just as someone who pulls PUDs and has to tell clients what's in them, I'm also going to provide these in an amended written description to Mr. Harvey, so it's all consistent. So what's in the written description lines up with what's in the legislation. Sure. So I'm just writing this down as you're saying it. Okay. And then those are the two that I have unless I hear otherwise from any of the speakers that came tonight. All right. And I'm good. That's my condition. Okay. All right. So just to repeat, so I have for parcels C, D, E, F, and G are limited to 35 feet in height, which includes the 30 feet plus the five feet for the- For the architectural features in order to hide air conditioning, things like that. As your third condition, and then your fourth condition would be a deceleration lane on gate parkway entry subject to the traffic engineering's review on land. Yes, sir. And sorry, the fifth condition would be, which is already part of the code, but the 10-foot buffer, landscape buffer, just to make sure that it's already embedded there. Even though you guys are going to follow the code, I want to make sure that it's clear that it's not a Z. And the fifth condition for the 10-foot buffer. All right. I think we got all those, and I just need someone to say something moved in second. We have a motion to second on the Arias Amendment. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. The amendment carries, and we will roll those two amendments up into one. Council Member Gaffney, you're recognized. Yeah, this will be brief. I just want to say kudos to Council Member Arias, man. It seemed like you've done a lot of great homework and research and spent a lot of great deal in getting everybody to come to this head. So, I mean, it's a lot of moving parts. I see you got Scott, Edge Properties, Jason, and Zach. I mean, they're bringing everybody together and fix everything. I appreciate that, man. That's what it's about, man. So, I just want to give kudos to the public. All right. Council Member Diamond, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to say the same thing. Like, these are tricky ones for a district councilperson, and you landed the plane, you hurt all these folks, you took care of your constituents, and we're still moving forward as a city. It's going to be a nice work. All right. And, Mr. Harvey, where are we at right now, just as far as, because we had a motion on the bill with the amendment. Now, we had another amendment. Do we need a motion on the bill as twice amended? And then, yes. Okay. We need a motion on the bill as twice amended, please. All right. We have a motion second on the bill as twice amended. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Seven yays. Zero nays. By direction, you've approved 2026-530. Moving on now to item number 15, 2026-531. Council members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Seeing none, let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. 2026-531 seeks to rezone approximately .73 acres at the southeast corner of Wheat Road and DiMaggio Road from rural residential acre to residential low-density 50. The applicant intends to develop two single-family lots fronting Wheat Road. The property is designated low-density residential, which supports low-density single-family development within the suburban development area. RLD 50 is a primary zoning district within LDR and allows a residential pattern consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. The request furthers comprehensive plan goals that promote adequate land for residential uses, protection of established single-family areas, and opportunities for a variety of housing types. Centralized water and sewer service are available to the site, meeting required infrastructure policies. The surrounding area is primarily residential and includes RLD 60 to the north and east, multifamily development within existing PUDs to the south, and RMDA to the west. The proposed RLD 50 zoning district is compatible with the nearby development. For these reasons and those in the staff report, we forward a recommendation of approval. The item was heard at the August 6th Planning Commission hearing, and the commissioners voted unanimously for approval. All right. Thank you so much. One speaker card. Zach Miller, questions only? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, sir. With that, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to committee. Okay. We've got a motion and a second on the bill. Council Member Johnson, did you say you wanted to speak or no? Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Open the ballot. Record your vote. Six yays. Zero nays. By your action, you've approved. 2026-531. Item number 16, 2026-532. Council Members, please declare your ex parte communication at this time. Council Member Aries, you're recognized. All right. Thank you, Chair. I met with Ms. Reed on August 11th, August 7th at 11 a.m. to talk about the project and surrounding uses, and it's currently being filed. Thank you. Council Member Carrick, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have ex parte communication with Kristen Reed. She came to a meeting in my office on 8-11 at 2.30 p.m. to discuss the details of this ordinance, and we'll get that filed with Let's Leave Services. Council Member Johnson, you're recognized. Point of information, Mr. Chair, do you mind? Through the chair to counsel. Mr. Harvey, I did not speak. I did go to the CPAC meeting where this was discussed. Do I still need to declare? I mean, because my signature is on the sign-in sheet to the CPAC, so I didn't think I did because I just listened. You didn't make a comment, but in an abundance of caution, since you've already gone this far, go ahead and declare. All right. Thank you. So, Mr. Chair, I did attend the CPAC meeting where this issue was discussed on last week. That will be filed with Legislative Services, but my signature is on the sign-in sheet for CPAC. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you. We have no other speakers in the queue for ex parte, so let's open the public hearing and get a staff report. Thank you. This is PUD rezoning ordinance 2026-0532, requesting to rezone 16.7 acres located near Soutelle Drive and west of New Kings Road. It's seeking to rezone from industrial light to a PUD. The proposed PUD would allow for the development of a concrete batch plant and rail terminal. This would include material storage and distribution by way of the railroad and truck shipping. The permitted uses within the PUD will generally follow those allowed within the industrial light zoning district. The site is designated currently with light industrial and heavy industrial future land use designation. This does include about 3.11 acres of heavy industrial land use, where heavy industrial uses, such as the concrete batch plant, are consistent within that category. The concrete batch use would be limited to the boundaries of the heavy industrial land use designation. This property also is located within the industrial situational compatibility zone, which is an overlay designation intended to preserve strategically located industrial lands that have direct access to both the railroad and trucking routes. Staff finds the request is consistent with the comp plan by supporting infill development on long-established industrial lands. It promotes redevelopment and supports existing industrial areas within the city. The operation is appropriately located along an active railway surrounded by existing industrial uses to the south and east, and it also includes manufacturing, storage, and several industrial heavy zone properties within the immediate area. The PUD meets internal and external compatibility criteria. The site is appropriately buffered from any existing residential areas. There is natural wetlands along the northern boundary, which provides a substantial separation from the residential uses that are farther to the north. You have the railway that's adjacent to it, and then there's also industrial parcels that provide physical barriers to the west and east. And then there's also, again, surrounding entitlements for industrial. This is both IL and IH. So this does reinforce compatibility within the general area. The PUD is seeking waivers from portions of the landscaping code of Part 12. It's asking to waive interior VUA landscaping and then certain perimeter landscaping requirements. Because the industrial rail operations and material storage areas limit where landscaping can safely be installed, this application was reviewed by the city's landscape architect, who recommended retaining interior landscaping just for the employee parking area, stating that this portion does not conflict with industrial operations, so provides important visual relief and functional buffering. So we did, for those conditions, those comments from the landscape architect onto the staff report as a condition. Transportation impacts are minimal and appropriate for industrial corridors. This old King's Road is currently operating at 24% capacity, and Soutel is operating at 39% capacity. And there's also a condition for a traffic study on the report. So for these reasons and those outlined in the staff report, we are affording a recommendation of approval with the two conditions in your agenda. Application was heard by Planning Commission on August 6, where there were no speakers in opposition, and discussion revolved around the need for the landscaping condition. The site is only for employees only and not viewable from the public right-of-way. So Planning Commission ultimately decided to remove that condition. So they voted unanimously for approval with the one condition in just the traffic-related condition. Thank you. All right. Now we will go to the speaker cards. First up, we have Kristen Reed. Good evening. Thank you. Kristen Reed. My address is 12740 Grand Bay Parkway West. And one second. Just so we do this sort of how we normally do it, when there's this many speaker cards in opposition, we'll go ahead and just make sure. Do we give five minutes up front for her to have for this and then rebuttal time as well, or do we just do three and three? Say that. You typically would give her her normal speaking time and then give her rebuttal time as well. Okay. So keep it at three. That's fine. Okay. All right. We'll give you time for rebuttal. And Council Member Gaffney, do you have a question? Thank you. Through the chat. This will be brief. I just want to make a quick point, because I know we got at least 10 speakers here to speak against this. And we had a community meeting. My colleagues might be ready to vote, but it might be a dead issue if we haven't had a community issue. I don't want to push this back. Like, I mean, I want to be respectful to your time, day time, everyone's time. I just want to know that in advance, so if we could save an hour of time. I mean, but that's up to them. They might be ready to vote. Like I said, we got 10 community members that's here to speak, maybe opposed to it. I don't know. But have they met with the Councilwoman, Ms. Pittman, and you guys have discussed the conditions of the hold-on yards? All right. So this is a great time to have that before we go through, like, an hour's worth of conversation. So, Ms. Reed, has there been any community meeting? Has there been a conversation with the Councilwoman? Like, talk to us about those aspects. To the chair, to Councilmember Gaffney and the LUZ committee, I have spoken to Councilmember Pittman. I had reached out to her, as I have all of you, asking for a meeting. I've spoken to her aide multiple times. I did speak to Councilmember Pittman on the phone at one point as well, and then I received a call from Pittman's aide just a few days ago that she didn't have any additional questions. She's not here this evening. I've gone through the process. We filed the application. We've gone through proper notification. Signs are posted. Newspaper ads are done. Mail notices went out. The application was introduced in on the Council agenda as of June 9th. There was a public hearing before planning, before the City Council on 8th of 11th. Ms. Reed, it's okay. We know what's been done. We're just wondering if there's been a community meeting, and there hasn't been. So, Mr. Gaffney, you still have the floor. Through the chair, just to be brief, because I know we want to get out of here. So, it's up to the will of the committee. I mean, and I don't know if you could defer this one cycle. It's up to the committee, and it's up to you. If you want to do two weeks, like I said, I just want to save us an hour worth of time before the community come up here and say, well, we didn't know about A, B, C, and D. You know, and it's valid. You know, but I want to be respectful to my colleagues' times as well. So, I would love to hear what you guys have to say as well. So, Ms. Christian, I guess from you, do you mind deferring this for two weeks? It's up to you. Then I would love to hear from my colleagues. So, through the chair, my preference would be not to defer. I think that we've done everything we need to do, and I think that it's a good application, well buffered from any residential uses, and well designed in consideration of the compatibility with the area. My preference would be to take up the item. But if the committee has reservations because there hasn't been a community meeting in addition to all of the public meetings that the city holds, I certainly would be interested in hearing that. All right. Well, let's do this. I'm going to hear from Council Member Johnson, and then I can kind of make the call on that if you want. But go ahead, Council Member Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask. I noticed that the community are saying that they didn't hear, but the question is, and I certainly, Ms. Reed, as you know, through the chair, respect you and the work that you've done when you were here with the city. However, I don't typically agree with you and what you say because the community has not had a chance to express it while there was public hearing. I think sometimes it's good to go into the community. I tell all the developers that are doing things in my district to preempt it by going into the community and having those conversations. But I guess my question for you is, did you present to specifically, you said you had not had a community meeting. No, correct? No. And the second part of that, CPAC, did you go and speak with the CPAC and take questions from them? Yes or no? Through the chair, we are not notified of CPAC or when these items go to the CPAC. Staff just takes those as kind of an administrative process. It's not a public hearing. It's not noticed. It may have gone to CPAC at the last time I talked to Stephen Nagby, who's the planner. He had told me that it had not gone to CPAC. So I really don't know. If the CPAC heard it, I know that it is a courtesy for them to review it. Correct. Let me, if I may, and I apologize, Mr. Chair, just an admonishment to you, and this is something I've done too when I'm working on projects. Even if it has not gone to the CPAC itself, I would encourage all developers and all people that are here, you can preempt it. It doesn't have to be on the CPAC agenda for you to request to present at the CPAC. I know I do it regularly, especially in my district. And so I'd encourage you to do that. That way we wouldn't end up in a situation like this, and you can get those questions answered before getting to this space. So I'll preserve my thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is what I'm going to do. Councilman White, are you going to – okay. So this is what we're going to do, because I can kind of see where this, you know, plane is headed. We're going to go ahead and defer this, since I have the ability to just make a deferral on that, and we can open the public hearing again. Is that what you're going to say, Mr. Harvey? So we'll do that. Look, Mr. Reid, we know how these things go, right? There was no opposition in Planning Commission. We heard that. I heard that. But we know that sometimes neighbors are – they find out and they figure it out late, and then it becomes a community meeting and LUZ. And that's not what we want, because it's not productive, and then it just gets deferred after an hour's worth of conversation. So I'll let you and Ms. Pittman – obviously, Ms. Pittman's on notice right now that she's going to be needing to do a community meeting. But without any really further debate, we're going to defer 2026-532, and we will go ahead and open the public hearing again, and we'll continue this public hearing until – what date? What's the next LUZ date? 9-1-26. So all the speakers that are here, just be on the lookout for information from Ms. Pittman and Ms. Reid, and we will be hearing this on 9-1-26. So with that, Mr. White. Yes, can I ask Ms. Reid while she's here one question? Sure. Ms. Reid, on this zoning, did I hear correctly part of it is already industrial heavy, and the concrete batch mixing plant would be on the industrial heavy that's already zoned that, correct? Is that what was said? Through the chair to Council Member White, the land use is heavy industrial on the southern 3.1 acres. The rest of it is light industrial, but it is all industrial light zoning right now. Okay. Thank you. All right. Count. Oh. Okay. All right. We are good. So with that, if the public hearing is open, do we want to go through these cards, or are we going to wait for the next one? Okay. So what we'll do, I'll call the speaker cards, but I would encourage y'all just to, if you want to come up and speak, you're absolutely welcome. I can read out if you're in opposition, but I think we would get more valuable information after you've had that community meeting. But I'll go ahead and read out the speaker cards. Reginald Gaffney, senior, you did not check if you're in support or in opposition. Dr. Kashawn Chambliss is opposed. Wells Todd is in opposition. Vanessa Collins Hopkins, opposition. Nancy Murray Settle, opposes. LaShonda Sawyer, opposes. Eunice Barnum, opposes. Jamie Travis Leonard, opposes. Althea Michael, opposes. Lydia Bell, opposes. And James Matchett is, he didn't mark anything. I'm just going to, I'm just going to, we'll find out what you do, we'll find out if you're in opposition next time, I guess. All right. So with that, we're going to go, everyone good? Oh, sorry. Who wanted to, Jamie? So I'm going to go ahead and take my time. Okay, that's fine, Jamie. Yeah, go ahead. But everyone else in the community, thank y'all for coming out because that's what we need to see. We need to see our community input and hopefully there'll be a valuable community meeting. Good evening, City Council. My name is Jamie Travis Leonard. Sorry, I know it's deferred. I'm not going to be able to make the next meeting. That's fine, you're good. So I'd like to go ahead and get my public comment on record. So what's being handed out to you is some information about cement plant emissions. I do know there's a difference between cement and concrete, but concrete is a cement mixture. Now, there is some conflicting information about the health risks that cement can pose on the community from emissions. But across the board, the thing that it is most commonly attributed to and has been proven is respiratory issues. So I know that there's concerns about cancer. There's some concerns about cardiovascular stuff. That has been not as thoroughly studied as respiratory issues, which do show across communities an increased risk when there are cement emissions. And again, there's a difference between cement and concrete, but they're connected. So I really would like this council or this committee, as well as the regular council, Councilman Pittman, as well as anybody on the PD, the applicant, to really take that into consideration when you are reviewing this application. Based on what I've read so far, I am in opposition because I don't think that there are enough safeguards to address, again, the health risks that come specifically with the respiratory issues based on what's currently on there. So thank you for your time. All right, yeah, thank you. My name is Vanessa Collins Hopkins, 3283 Edgewood Avenue West, and I am going to put on my physician's hat right now. We need an environmental impact assessment done with regard to this request for the cement batch. The reason why we need this is because the production of cement typically causes air, water, and soil pollution. The fine dust has silica in it, and that silica can affect the lungs. It's really recommended that workers of cement use respirators to try to prevent the lung disease, silicosis, potentially lung cancer, and COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Now, there are residences that surround this property. So the environmental assessment, the impact assessment, is really for those people who are living around the land that's going to be used for this concrete batch factory. And I do think it's very important for the traffic study to be done, but in addition to the traffic study, and actually more importantly than traffic study, is the environmental impact assessment to both plants, water, and people. The silica contamination, the noise pollution, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, it's the high pH of the water runoff that will kill both plants, but also will kill animals that drink it. So it's very important that the environmental impact assessment be done because this is potentially very dangerous over time to the people who reside around these acres. And believe me, there are single-family residences and also trailers that are surrounding this property. Thank you very much. All right. Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Collins Hopkins, I think everyone is in the green room if you want to join them. Okay, thank you. Because they're getting additional information. Yes, ma'am. No problem. All right. So we have no other speakers coming up. We do have one last agenda item, committee members, which is on page 13, item number 32, 226-569. Looking for a motion. Motion is second on the bill. No one in the queue. Open the ballot. Record your vote. And for all of you out there who are still here, which is no one, that's just for rescheduling the committees. Seven yays, zero nays. Byer actually approved 2026-569. The following bills are currently deferred. Bill 2026-553-554-555-556-557-558-559-560-561-562-563-563-564-565-566-567-590. And the following bills are on second reading, 2026, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 623, 631, and 632. That concludes our meeting. This meeting is adjourned.