City Council - Jan 23, 2025

Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1 and Council Chair, Copley Gerdes, District 2, Brandi Gabbard, District 3, Mike Harding, District 4 and Council Vice Chair, Lisseth Hanowitz, District 5, Deborah Figg Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, Corey Gibbons Jr. and District 8, Richie Floyd. Good afternoon. We'll call to order the January 23rd, 2025 City Council Meeting. Joining us today we have, excuse me, let's do a roll call. Curtis. Here. Gamber. Harding. Here. Hanowitz. Here. Nick Sanders. Here. Driscoll. Gibbons. Here. Here. Thank you. Okay. And joining us today we have Sapita Eskandare from the Baha'i Faith St. Petersburg Center to do our invocation and then followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. If everybody will please stand. O thou kind Lord, thou hast created all humanity from the same stock. Thou hast decreed that all shall belong to the same household. In thy holy presence they are all thy servants, and all mankind are sheltered beneath thy tabernacle. All have gathered together at thy table of bounty. All are illumined through the light of thy providence. O God, thou art kind to all. Thou hast provided for all. Thou hast sheltered all, conferest life upon all. Thou hast endowed each and all with talents and faculties, and all are submerged in the ocean of thy mercy. O thou kind Lord, unite all. Let the religions agree and make the nations one, so that they may see each other as one family and the whole earth as one home. May they all live together in perfect harmony. O God, raise aloft the banner of the oneness of mankind. O God, establish the most great peace. Cement thou, O God, the hearts together. O thou kind Father, God. Glatten our hearts through the fragrance of thy love. Brighten our eyes through the light of thy guidance. Delight our ears with the melody of thy word. And shelter us all in the stronghold of thy providence. Thou art the mighty and powerful. Thou art the forgiving. And thou art the one who overlooketh the shortcomings of all mankind. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Thank you, Sabita. Okay, council members, we have an agenda in front of us. I'll entertain a motion for approval. We'll approve. Second. We have a motion improperly seconded. Clerk, if you could open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present council members have voted, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to approve. The agenda passes unanimously with council members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Okay, we have a consent agenda in front of us. Council members, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Second. We have no cards. Thank you, clerk. Seeing no other comments, clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your vote. Seeing as all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to pass. The consent agenda passes unanimously with council members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you very much, clerk. Just quickly, we just passed $432,000 of ship money, which is going to directly go to disaster relief. I just wanted to thank my colleagues for that conversation in committee and for the unanimous vote we just had. I think it's something to be celebrated. I think both administration and council have moved quickly on this and just wanted to thank you for your partnership, both administration and my colleagues. I think we just wanted to quickly celebrate that. Okay, let's go to open forum. Clerk, if you could please read the rules. If you wish to address city council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individual wishing to speak may sign the open forum sheet. Only city residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open forum must be limited to issues related to the city of St. Petersburg government. If you are speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once during the open forum or when the item comes up on the agenda. In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes to speak and after which the microphone will be muted. If you wish to address city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the raise hand feature button in the Zoom app or star 9 on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and ask to state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments or when you reach the three-minute time limit, you will be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including the three-minute time limit on comments, the requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting, and the rules of decorum. If live public comment is disrupted by violations of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comment by alternate means, including by email only, and we do have some speakers. Mr. Chair. Please call two to time. Clerk. Don Walling and Kevin Bell, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes to address city council. Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Don Walling. My address is 7421 First Avenue North in St. Pete. I've lived in St. Petersburg for over 20 years, and I'm currently a student at the Public Policy and Administration Program at St. Pete College. Today I'm here to discuss the city file AR2024-02 and FLUM-78 regarding the appeal of a Community Planning and Preservation Commission decision to deny a request for an adaptive reuse, future land use, and official zoning map amendments for the property located at 919 10th Avenue North, the former location of the Euclid Church of Christ. I was fortunate enough to meet with Mr. Derek Kilburn yesterday before this meeting. He did an excellent job of explaining the complicated issue that you're tasked with ruling on. The complicated nature of this matter highlights the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the diverse interests and concerns of the community. After reviewing the meeting minutes from the CPPC and the information provided by the City Planning and Historic Preservation Department, I can understand the perspectives of both parties. It seems that there is a way to compromise, allowing for the restoration of the 98-year-old church while helping residents adjust to the change that may occur due to the opening of a bed and breakfast and event center in their neighborhood. Granting the adaptive reuse request and the future land use map amendment that the Planning Department has recommended would allow for the building to be restored and used by property owners as the meeting hall and community assembly facility, as well as a bed and breakfast. This initiative not only preserves an important historic structure, but also gives it new life as a location that benefits the entire community. Delaying the rezoning approval will allow the neighborhood to adjust to the change and prevent commercial zoning encroachment, which is what the residents fear might set a precedent in their community. If necessary, this could be revisited in the future. The City of St. Petersburg is a growing and changing in many ways. It's become a beautiful mixture of history, culture, and vibrant life since I've moved here in 2000. But growth can sometimes come at a cost as we see old buildings raised to make way for new construction. Preserving our history not only enhances our city's beauty, but this project also restores a historic structure for many people to enjoy. I myself am fortunate enough to live in a 100-year-old home that is across the street from the historic Crystal Bay Hotel. My neighbors and I share our road with the hotel guests, their staff, and their deliveries. Having the history so close to my home brings me pride, and the rare inconveniences that it causes are not nearly enough to make me want to see that building empty or demolished. I hope that you take my remarks into account when you guys make your decision, when you have a public hearing. Thank you for letting me speak. Thank you. Good afternoon. And, Corey, welcome back to Florida, where it doesn't snow as much, except for the panhandle. I live on 474 34th Avenue North, the neighborhood of Five Points and Crescent Heights. Can you name your name, too, please, sir? Kevin Bell. Apologies. On 34th Avenue and 5th Street, over the past three years, once I've been living here and owned a house on 34th Avenue, there have been a number of different accidents that have occurred in that location. So you guys can participate with me, but I'm just going to raise my hand when I've just asked these simple questions so they can kind of give you a visualization of what I've kind of gone through or seen and what could be the impacts of things, if there's more congestion or if anything else like the sorts were to occur. People go 70 miles an hour on my street in the mornings. It's a pass-through to avoid 38th Avenue, which goes to both Publix's and now the new Whole Foods. So I've actually been accustomed to seeing some pretty bad things, including a lady that was in an accident about a year ago because there is only one stop sign, both north and south. On other streets, there are speed bumps, but not on ours. And because of that, we have people who think that the stop sign is on both sides and don't tend to look left and right. So I've been a party of seeing somebody deceased, right, seeing the blood go to their head and having to call 911. That's not something I want to do. I've been the party to see something in a neighborhood street, a residential street, to where pets get run over and people cry out loud directly in front of me because of that. These are some of the risks that could occur. I've also been a helper to that lady who said during that process, while she was in immense stress, I can't breathe. I don't want to have to see that again. I don't think anybody in St. Pete residential streets, especially where canopy builders and other builders are building nice family homes, to where once only snowbirds occupied, to have that be an issue. I brought it up. I don't know the particular processes. My dad's an attorney, so I do apologize for not understanding the details. He would probably hate me because he's been a U.S. attorney for 52 years working on Bernie Madoff's case. But my point is that in these streets, whatever development is in the future, I ask all of you to consider putting speed bumps in because that will deter people from using it as a pass-through and going 50 miles, 60 miles, 70 miles plus. Police officers can do their own part to stop and police and deter, but putting a stop sign both east and west and north and south and speed bumps will slow down the process and probably save lives in the future. Next two speakers. No more speakers. No zone. Okay. Thank you. We'll close open forum and go into our first item, which is I-1 legal item approving a settlement. And we had Mr. Patner. There he is. Mr. Patner, welcome. Good afternoon, counsel. I'm here to seek settlement in the case of Militia Porter versus City of St. Pete. It's an auto accident. Ms. Porter was struck by a police vehicle. Clear liability against us. We can settle the case for $60,000. Ms. Porter was diagnosed with a herniated disc, a C5, C6, which is the neck, L5, S1, lower back, and had a left shoulder injury. I pointed at my right shoulder, but I shouldn't have said that probably for the record. And I received three injections in her left shoulder. Total medical bills were $70,400. Insurance paid about $20,000 of that. We could resolve the rest of her $60,000. Move of approval. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no council members wishing to speak, Clerk, if you could please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all council members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to apprise agenda I-1 passes unanimously with Councilmembers Gabbard and Driscoll being absent. Thank you. Thanks, Joe. Thank you. And Councilman Gibbons, Councilman Harding, welcome to my first. I'm officially, and I thank you very much for your support, Nat. Thank you. Always good to have you, Joe. Okay, going into our new ordinances, E-1. Clerk, please read the title. You want me to read both of these together? Yeah, I think that's fine. Yeah, thank you. Opposed ordinance number 762L, an ordinance amending the future land use element of the comprehensive plan for the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, by changing the future land use map designation from PR-R, Plan Redevelopment Residential, to PR-MU, Plan Redevelopment Mixed Use, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof, and providing an effective date, and providing an effective date. The public hearing for this item is on February 6, 2025. Proposed ordinance number 797Z, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, by changing the official zoning map designation for Bartlett Court BLK Block A, Lots 10 and 11, from NT-2, Neighborhood Traditional, to CCT-1, Commercial Corridor Traditional, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof, and providing an effective date. The public hearing for this item is also on February 6, 2025. We have no cards. I'm sorry, here is a card. And I would just like to note for the record that this is first reading for the ordinances, but this is the subject of an appeal from the CPPC. Thank you, Heather. We do have some cards. Okay, let's go to public comment. Michelle Geiger and Michelle Geiger, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address city council. Hello, my name is Michelle Gehrig. I'm 1021 10th Street North, and I am the house that abuts the property of the Euclid Church on 10th Street. So, sorry, just getting my breath. So, the church is, the neighbors and I are not opposed to preserving the church. In fact, we'd love to see it restored and saved. What we're opposing in this, in the appeal that is happening, is the conversion of the property to commercial, to CCT-1, and also the adaptive reuse as an event venue, which is planning to host wedding and receptions. We learned at the CPPC that there, we already had concerns about noise being an event venue, but now we're concerned about unamplified noise as there are no ordinances to control that. We're concerned about parking. There are only seven on-site parking places allotted. We're concerned about traffic flow. There's Uber and Lyft stations set up on residential streets that we're concerned about. So, those are our main concerns. We do have petitions out. We have 80 signatures now on a petition, and they are growing. So, I just wanted to relay those concerns to you and your thinking on this appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? No. Okay, just as a reminder, city council, there's no discussion on this item because it is quasi-judicial, and so this is just setting the public date, so I'll look for a motion to approve. Move approval. Second. Seeing as we have a motion and a second, clerk, if you could please open the machine for voting. To confirm, I ask for A and B. Yes. Yes. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to oppress agenda item E1, A and B, passes unanimously, with council members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Okay, moving on to E2. Clerk, if you could please read the title. Opposed Ordinance No. 606H, an ordinance amending Chapter 27, Article 5, relating to solid waste collection disposal, etc. Modifying definitions and terminology, removing provisions related to corrective actions taken by the city for placement of containers during prohibited hours, modifying requirements and limitations for private collectors, providing for six months suspension of private collector permit under certain circumstances, adding a division four related to registration of recovered materials, dealers clarifying and recognizing provisions provided for severability, providing for severability and provisions, and providing an effective date. The public hearing for this item is also on February 6, 2025, and we do not have any cars on this item. Move approval. We have a motion and a second. Seeing as no council members wishing to speak, clerk, could you please open the machine? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to oppress agenda item E2, passes unanimously with council members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Okay, moving right along. We'll go into reports. We'll start with F3, a resolution approving changes in the self-funded group health insurance program. And I know we have Chris Guella here. Chris, I'll turn it over to you if you've got anything. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, all. I'm Chris Guella, Human Resources Director. Before you today is a resolution to fund the employee's 2025-2026 health insurance plan. Historically, we've brought this on consent, but as discussed earlier at BF&T this year, this year is a little bit different. The plan experienced some considerable increases in its large claims. It would have resulted in substantial premium increases. So to mitigate those premium increases, we have proposed some plan design changes along with an increase in the premiums. So we wanted to bring that and just be transparent with that. Now, we haven't made any plan changes since 2016, so we still feel really good about our plan and the cost containment strategies that we have in place, most especially the wellness center, which has proven to be a really great addition to our health plan. But overall, we expect a premium increase of 11.9%, and the plan total cost for the year to be about $73.8 million. So with that, though, I do request that you consider approving the plan for the year. Move approval. Second. Councilmember Floyd. Thank you. Do you have any impacts with our employment agreements? No. No. They do not have any individual provisions for health insurance that falls under the rules and regulations in the city plan. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Seeing as no other council members wishing to speak, clerk, could you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your vote. Seeing as all present, council members have voted. Clerk, please sally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to a passage in item F3 passes unanimously with council members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Thank you, council. Okay. Moving on to F1, state of an emergency update, pursuant to city code 2-429. Turn it over to Administrator Gerdes. Thank you, chair, and good afternoon, city council. As you know, we are required by the city code, the administration has to provide you a brief report on the current state of the emergency. By city code, that report is required to discuss why the state of emergency is necessary, any actions we've taken since the last report, and how we might use the state of emergency provisions going forward. This is just a brief verbal report, and we'll be happy to take any questions. So we do believe at this time that the state of emergency is still necessary to have the flexibility, especially on code enforcement related to debris and domestic equipment, we've talked about this before, that technically to put a pile of debris at the curb is technically a code violation. So we overlook that through the state of the emergency while we're picking up debris. We're allowing residents to put a travel trailer or RV in their front yard if they have damage to the home from the storm. That is technically a code violation as well. So the state of emergency allows us to allow that. It also could be necessary in some procurement situations. So since the last report, we've continued to use it for the code violation situations that we've discussed. We also did use it on one occasion to procure the services of Lighthouse Advisors, Inc. to work with us on Tropicana Field. I know Mr. Tankersley contacted all city council members before we went forward with that decision. It is an $80,000 contract, and we waived some procurement requirements to put that in place using the state of emergency order. We do anticipate going forward that we will continue to use the state of emergency related mostly to code enforcement. We talked about this morning at a committee meeting that we will be moving away from the contractor, and sanitation and in-house will wrap this up. We don't expect that to go on very long, but it will be going on, I think, for several weeks. The RV issue, I think, will go on much longer than that while people repair their homes. And then there could be an occasion to use it for procurement. Again, one thing that is on our radar right now is the report that is going to be required by HUD related to the CDBGDR funding, the $159 million that we heard about. We're meeting with HUD on Tuesday. We're trying to work through the significant regulations required to procure that money from HUD. There could be some very tight timelines. If that is accurate, we may contact you about bringing a consultant on board to help us with the plan basically in a very short-term order. We don't know if that will be necessary or not yet. Until the meeting on Tuesday, they may give us some more time to go through the procurement process and bring a consultant on board to do that. But as part of the report, I just wanted to let you know that that is a possibility. And that's all I have, and we're happy to take any questions if you have any. Thank you. Councilmember Floyd. Thank you. Thank you for the update. You did cover most of the things I was going to ask about when I pressed my button. I think my overarching thought is just like, how long do you hope to be able to continue? I mean, is it unforeseen right now? Are the couple of hurdles you mentioned, things that you're hoping to close out? If you could speak to that at all. Yeah, absolutely. And again, you know, we want to work with city council on this. If city council, I believe by city code, you know, if you became uncomfortable with the state of emergency, you do have the ability to terminate that. I'll defer to Janine and Jackie on that. And you know, I would think within hopefully the next 30 days, we would probably remove the debris provision within the state of emergency. We've talked about that already. We need to work with the city attorney's office. We might be able to, to continue some of the RV things without the state of emergency. So we'll have to work through that. And I think kind of the, after the HUD CDBG issue, I'm not knowledgeable right now of any potential procurement issues. So I'm thinking another 30 days. That's where I'm kind of at right now, but we're, we're completely open to feedback and working with you. If there's any uncomfortableness from city council. Okay. Thank you for that. I'm not uncomfortable right now, but like, you know, generally I would prefer for these things to be as short as possible. And if we have like longer term issues, like the RVs and whatnot, we come to a solution that doesn't involve this. But I, right now I still see where y'all are at. And, but I did want to uplift like, yeah, I'd like for us to get through the state of emergency as quickly as possible. So we get back to normal operating and normal procurement plans as well. That's always beneficial for city council. But thank you for the update. And I look forward to, specifically some things being solved completely like debris removal. Although I think everything's gone really well so far. Thanks. Council members, any other questions or comments for administrative Gertz? No action taken on this one. Yep. Okay. I appreciate the update, Rob. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to F2, a resolution accepting, accepting a GMP proposal in the, and just over $3 million from create building company for Al Lang. I think we're joined by Brjesh. Welcome Brjesh. Good day, council member. Pleasure to be here today. And I wanted to, I do have a short presentation I've put together, just really showing some of the images from the damage that was experienced during the hurricane Haley and primarily, that's where most of the damage was occurred for this facility. So I'll go ahead and just get started and walk you through some of the damages. So this is more for the surface level. And obviously, as it is a stadium originally designed as a baseball stadium, it goes lower. So as you see on the surface elevation, you could already see what we refer to as the rack line. And you could see it along that yellow column. That's where the debris line hit its highest point. So at that point, we know at least it was that high. Obviously, it's also going to continue high inside the building because the elevation of the structure goes subsurface. So again, as you see, as we come in through the building and again, the operations team at the stadium, the users of the stadium, the Rowdy's team, they did a tremendous job of actually cleaning up the site. So some of these images are not even as drastic as what we saw when we were actually trying to do the initial damage assessments. So this is probably on one of the first days immediately after the storm. This isn't a dugout. Actually, one of the entry points going in. There was a flood barrier. However, you can see that the surge level did exceed it. And based on the information that we recorded based on the storm, we did go out and pick up some survey points of actual elevations. And in this general vicinity, the surge was at approximately 6.4 NAVD to 7 feet NAVD. And that's primarily based on the dynamics of the shoreline and how that dominant surge came in. So as you continue further in the building, again, this is after it started to draw down because you could see the rack line is still in that yellow area. But we still did not have access to the facility at a point, but you could see the extent of the damage. Then as they continue to drain the facility, they get more access to what inside of it. And you see how much damage on the interior and the lower levels. So these are the changing rooms that were, again, you can see the rack line on the center cupboard on black shading. You can see the rack light just on the side of that as well. This goes into the training room. These are rubber mat areas. And I also want to touch on the changing room. That's also a rubber mat area because of the players coming in with their cleats from the field directly into those areas. The physical therapy area, treating area, as well as other parts of the changing room, you can see again, the amount of sediment that came in as well as the rack lines. There were some points that we could not access easily. The operations team, the operators of the facility. And this is a good example. The soda machine in some cases or other machinery floated and was propped up against the doors, blocking access. And so you can imagine the amount of water that was in there to actually topple that. And that was not based on wave action because the doors were closed. That was just the amount of water that was in the facility. And this is getting back again onto the ground level. This is the store on the ground level. Some of the management offices, again, damaged floors, walls, and also the equipment and machinery. And then you get out in the outer sections where they did sustain substantial wind damage as well as flood damage. So what this GMP is intended to do, we're trying to bring the facility back into its operational capacity. Now, some good questions were asked in the last time we presented one of the facilities, Lake Vista, and I'll go back to as an example. But in this facility, which as part of our walkthrough with the Rowdies, we did decide to change some of the flooring configuration types going away from the wood. And we'll use more of a, almost like what you see, like the 3M coating, a polyurethane coating. So it's much more resilient. We're also pursuing alternative sheet rock materials so that we don't have this. If we do have moisture intrusion, we don't have as much damage in the future. So as much as we can make the system resilient or the facility resilient. There's also some electrical upgrades and replacements that we'll get into here on the panel on the right-hand side. Some of these panels, while they were not damaged, meaning the water did not get in and shorted out, because it sat on a saltwater environment for so long, it has already started to develop corrosion. So some of these may have to be replaced. Some of these can be cleaned. But again, as part of the project, we'll address these as we go through it. So the intention of the GMP is we would like to get the facility as close to operational capacity by March to provide it back to the Rowdies team so they could get it back into operation for game day. Now, the facility will not completely be done. There will still be elements that we have to focus on. But our primary focus at the beginning will be elements that are essential for health and safety, as well as operations during the game day, meaning the players' changing room, restrooms, the referees, I almost said umpires, sorry, referees. And yeah, I'm going to cricket, not baseball there, sorry. So the referee changing rooms, and so those are primary elements. There are elements that we'll continue to work through. So we'll really structure this project in a three-phase delivery. The GMP is really laid out as what you see, allowances for different categories of work. And we will be working on the initial delivery to try and complete as much of the work that don't require permits, to try and get the facility up and operational. While we also have a consultant working with us to develop the permit packages for any electrical or HVAC systems that have to be done to support or upgrade it to make it more resilient. A good example is an image on the left, where the transformer one will have to go up, as opposed to one that's already elevated. So this is the complexity of it. It is a complex project, even though it's rebuilding a shell back to deliver back to the roadies. It's not a simple project, but it is going to be a very fast-moving one for us. So with that, I will open up any questions and ask for approval. Councilmember Floyd. Thank you. Just two quick things, and I don't know if you're even the right person to answer this first one, but just how does this interact with insurance? We're doing this expenditure. Yeah. Thank you for the question, Councilmember Floyd. As we kind of discussed earlier this morning at BF&T, it's all very fluid, right? So we are receiving some advances on insurance, and that will be factored into our overall kind of settling up of all of the expenses. But right now, we haven't, we've asked for an appropriation here of the 3.6 from the $50 million cash flow loan. But again, some of those resources that we've received could be applied towards this expense as well. And so I think Ms. Langan's talked about that this morning at BF&T. It's kind of a case-by-case determination looking at the available resources that we have. Okay. Yeah, we'll have a, I guess we'll have a holistic picture, like as time goes on and we are making our claims and whatnot then. That's exactly right. Okay. All right. The other question was maybe a little more engineering related, and it's just real quick. I saw, it looked like one of the first images, it was like a dugout. It looked like there was a drain at the bottom of it. I mean, obviously, during a surge situation, it wouldn't drain, but I'm assuming it was a drain to like a stormwater system. I could be mistaken as to whether or not that's even a drain in that left picture. Yeah, some of these are internal drains within the facility itself, but this was immediately after. So, again, it was fully saturated soils, and these drain within the facility. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I just wondered what the deal was there. I figured, obviously, it's not enough to drain this away. I just figured I'd ask. All right. Thank you. That's all. Questions. Thank you. Move approval. Second. Brajesh, thanks for the presentation. Obviously, I don't know if you heard, but I brought this up in budget priorities. I'm very thankful we're at this point. Again, it's kind of my belief that this is a good point to really talk about the next steps. Sorry. Does Council Member Givens like to speak? Oh, yes. I was pressing my button up. Oh, okay. I didn't see it. I'm sorry. And so I know I want to focus on this right now. I want to get a game ready, but I'll just reiterate my two cents for money and budget priorities. Appreciate the presentation. Look forward to getting this back to playable shape. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I concur, and I just want to thank you, Brajesh, for that presentation. I know for me, this was also a budget priority, and I also wanted to see the Rowdies get back in their home just as much as we're trying to put the Rays back in theirs. So I think this is a priority for us all. We know how valuable the Rowdies are to this community. So thank you for this. I appreciate it. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no other Council Members wishing to speak, Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your vote. Seeing as all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to a pass. Agenda item F2 passes unanimously. Okay. Moving on into new business, we have G1, which was Council Member Gabbard's new business item. So do I read it, or does it get... I mean, you can reference it and ask for a motion. Okay. So I'm happy to read it. Council Member Gabbard's respectfully requesting a referral to the Health, Energy, Resilience, and Sustainability Committee to discuss the post-hurricane impacts of the St. Petersburg tree canopy. Discussion should include ideas on how to establish an inter-depart... See, look at her big words for me. Inter-departmental program to replace trees when the St. Petersburg Disaster Assistance Program is used for tree removal. Second. Seeing as no other Council Members wishing to speak, we have a motion and a second. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to passage an item G1 passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. On to G2. Council Member Floyd. Oh, my goodness. I'm sorry. I don't have it pulled up right here. Give me two seconds. You want it? I've got it. I am respectfully requesting a referral to the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee or other relevant committee for a discussion on neighborhood traffic calming. And there's some background information in there as well, but we've all talked about this a lot, so I'm looking forward to it. I'll move approval. Second. Seeing as we have a motion and a second, no other Council Members wishing to speak. Clerk, please enter. Everybody enter your votes. Seeing as all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to passage an item G2 passes unanimously. Okay. Moving into Committee Reports H1. That's me respectfully requesting City Council approval to remove the following items from the Budget, Finance, and Taxation Committee referral list. A discussion and report on capital needs for non-enterprise capital improvement projects. That was a Council Member Montaneri referral. Stormwater pavement and traffic operations management evaluation progress update. And then the discussion on co-op, grocery, and business. I think that one actually got moved to a different list. And so I'll entertain a motion for approval to remove these from the referral list. I move approval. Second. Seeing as no other Council Members wishing to speak, and we have a motion and a second, Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to passage an item H1 passes unanimously. Council Members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Moving on to H2, I'll go to Vice Chair Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. Respectfully requesting City Council approval to remove the following items from the Public Services and Infrastructure Committee referral list. A discussion on potential requirements for the undergrounding of power lines in certain circumstances and providing for exemptions. That was Council Member Driscoll. A discussion on alternative locations for the City's Breschite, located at 2500 26th Avenue South. That was Montanari's item. Update regarding the findings of a large item pickup software system. That was Council Member Fick-Sanders' item. And review of the conceptual future metered reclaimed water fee structure. That was Council Member Driscoll's item. And I so move. We have a motion. We need a second. Thank you. Seeing as we have a motion and a second, no other Council Members wishing to speak, Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to pass it unanimously. H2 passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. On to H3. Council Member Floyd. Yes. Can you do H4 and then come back to me? Be happy to. I'm having some computers. No problem at all. You want me to skip it? Actually, I've been gifted. All good. H3. We are respectfully requesting City Council approval to remove the following items from the Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee referral list. Parking requirements for multifamily dwellings in downtown St. Petersburg. It was Council Member Montanerius. I'll move approval. Second. Seeing as we have a motion and a second, no Council Members wishing to speak, Clerk, please open the machine. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to approve H3 passes unanimously with Council Members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to H4. This is Council Member Driscoll at EWD. Who's the Vice Chair of EWD? Council Member Fix-Sanders? Yeah. You want me to read it? No. Okay. H4. I'm sorry I started this. You're good? That's okay because I'm trying to get caught up, but we're good. We're good. Respectfully requesting City Council approval to remove the following item from the Economic and Workforce Development Committee referral list. A discussion on the renewal option to separate operations of the Manhattan Casino and restaurant component at the lease end date, either by default or contracted date. And with that, I move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no other Council Members wishing to speak, Clerk, could you please open the machine for voting? Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to approve a agenda on H4 passes unanimously with Council Members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you. Moving on to H5. We'll pass this one to Vice Chair Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. Respectfully requesting City Council approval of a resolution confirming the 2025 City of St. Petersburg State Legislative Agenda, and I so move. Second. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no Council Members wishing to speak, Clerk, could you please open the machine for voting? Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to approve a agenda on H5 passes unanimously with Council Members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Thank you. We'll move on to H6. Back to Vice Chair Hanowitz. Thank you. This was Council Member Gabbert's item. You should have an updated resolution that was on the dais. There was changes made to it where, as opposed to having the language, whereas proposed legislation SB with a blank and HB have been filed, it was changed to propose, whereas proposed legislation will be filed for consideration. That's the only change, just to be clear. That's my understanding. So, with that being said, respectfully requesting City Council approval of a resolution supporting proposed legislation to allow local governments to regulate vehicle speed during flooding or inundation events, and so I move. Second. We have a motion and a second. Seeing as no Council Members wishing to speak, Clerk, could you please open the machine for voting? Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to a passage of H6 passes unanimously with Council Members Striscoll and Gabbert being absent. Okay. All right. We've gotten to the point where we need to recess. We have public hearings at 501, so we'll go ahead and recess City Council. Thank you, everybody. Okay. We will call back to order the January 23rd, 2025 City Council meeting. We're going to move into our public hearings in J1. Clerk, please read the title. Opposed Ordinance No. 1170V, an ordinance approving the vacation of a 16.5 and 15-foot alley abutting lots 1, 2, 7, 24, and 25 in the Purvis and Harris 4th Street addition and lot 1 in the number, excuse me, and lot 1 in the Mariner subdivision and a 20-foot alley and utility easement located on lot 1 in the Mariner subdivision. Generally located at 3338 4th Street North, 426 34th Avenue North, and 425 33rd Avenue North, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective and provide an effective date. And we do have some cards for this item, Mr. Chair. We've got a presentation. Colleagues, I'd like the presentation, so we'll go ahead. Cheryl, welcome. Good evening. For the record, Cheryl Brigaylo with Development Review Services. So the ordinance you have before you is a request for a vacation at that address on the slide, mostly on 4th Street North. So the applicant's request is to vacate an alley with 16.5 and 15-foot widths in the eastern portion of Block 1 and a north-south 20-foot wide alley and utility easement located on lot 1 in the Mariner subdivision. The Mariner car wash is currently on the property. So here are the sketches of the right-of-way to be vacated. The purpose of the vacations is to allow for the redevelopment and expansion of the car wash use on the property. The red areas are the existing alleys to be vacated. The blue is the alley to remain. And the green is a proposed new north-south alley through the applicant's property. Here's the zoning map for the area. The project is located in the Corridor Commercial Suburban Zoning District in red. And the new north-south alley would be located on a lot in the neighborhood traditional zoning district in yellow. The site plan for the car wash was approved by the Development Review Commission on December 4th, 2024, and was not appealed. I have several slides from that presentation to share. The applicant proposes to demolish all the structures on the site and develop a new express self-service car wash. So some of the factoids about the project are on the slide. The area, the building site, existing versus proposed. Proposed building is smaller. And the impervious surface will remain the same. So in terms of site circulation, vehicles enter from 34th Ave North, which is at the top of the drawing, and proceed southward in two stacking lanes through the pay stations. A minimum of five stacking spaces are required by code, and approximately 20 spaces are proposed to keep queuing on site. Vehicles loop up through the car wash building and exit at the north side of the site. Customers can either proceed to the vacuum canopies or exit the site. Customers who only want to use the vacuums would enter the site from 33rd Ave North, which is at the bottom of the drawing. There's no proposed access from the car wash or Subway restaurant to the alley. The alley would only serve the residential uses on the block. The DRC required an additional condition of approval that is egress onto 33rd Ave North shall be left turn only to minimize impacts to the neighborhood. Here's more information regarding the location of trash enclosures and the vacuum canopies. Four-foot and six-foot-tall walls are proposed around the perimeter for additional screening purposes. Here are the building elevations from all sides, east, south, west, and north. There have been several alley vacations in the surrounding area in the past, and they are denoted on this aerial photograph. Here are photos of the alley as it existed in August. So the left-hand photo is the eastward view along the existing alley, and the two on the right are northward and southward along the existing alley near the Subway restaurant. And here's a northward view, kind of a panoramic view of the location of the proposed alley on 33rd. So in terms of comments, we received no objections from city departments. Water resources and engineering have no objection provided that a new alley is dedicated and utilities are located in the alley or in a public utility easement on the applicant's property. Transportation and parking management and the urban planning and historic preservation division have no objection to the request provided that a new alley is dedicated on the applicant's property so that a dead-end alley is not created. Duke Energy and Spectrum have facilities in the rights of way. No objection letters from them are a recommended condition of approval. And at the time that this presentation was prepared last Friday, no comments had been received from the neighborhood associations, but we did get correspondence from Five Points yesterday afternoon. And with that said, in summary, the vacation of the alley and subsequent reconfiguration of the right-of-way is in the best interest of the neighborhood as it will limit overall commercial traffic through the alley. They object to the overall project, however, primarily related to traffic concerns. So the DRC hearing, the related site plan application was approved by the DRC on December 4th, 2024. Eight residents spoke in opposition to the site plan case and to the vacation case. Concerns primarily included additional traffic, noise, and headlight glare. Other concerns included stormwater control and the use of a residentially zoned lot for the new north-south alley. The DRC considered the concerns and on the whole found the proposed development to be an improvement over the configuration of the existing car wash and alley in terms of sensitivity to the neighbor's general efficiency and safety because the plan included removal of commercial traffic access to the alley, which will reduce its usage and impacts to residents. The condition that they established that no left turn onto 33rd Ave is estimated to reduce traffic down that street and because the project has a large queuing lane capacity that will minimize delays on 34th Ave North and the perimeter walls will shield headlights and improve aesthetics. The DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed vacation. After the hearing, one resident, Kevin Bell, provided comments objecting to the car wash, citing concerns about traffic, property values, and the lack of a four-way stop at the intersection of 34th Ave North and 5th Street North. Also, Eric Monaco today provided comments objecting, and he cited concerns regarding the scale of the use and traffic. Staff recommends approval of the right-of-way vacation. The application meets the criteria for the vacation of right-of-way as outlined in the staff report. It is not needed for future use by the city and does not conflict with or impair the objectives or policies of the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, provided that the alley is replaced through the applicant's property and the requested utility easements are dedicated. So the conditions that are in the ordinance are a required replat of the abutting properties and the alley, and that the alley be replaced through the applicant's property. Compliance with the water resources and engineering memos, the obtainment of a letter of no objection from Spectrum and Duke Energy, and the other four and five are general conditions of approval. So that completes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, let's go to public comment. I'm going to call two speakers at a time, Mr. Chair. Kevin Bell and Joshua Shulman, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you will have minutes to address city council. So you go first, sir. Okay. Joshua Shulman, on behalf of the Five Points Neighborhood Association, I'm the current president. I did send an email earlier that we are in favor of a general reconfiguration of the alley. However, we are opposed to the vacation of the alley for this particular project. The main issue being the traffic study that was done was inadequate for the space, and I need more than three minutes to go through that, so I'm not going to go through all the details other than you heard the entry to the car washes on 34th Avenue North. It's about 150 feet west of 4th Street. 4th Street does not have a signaled left turn light, so anyone coming from the south. So to enter the car wash, you have to go from the north, the south, or the east. We'll all have to come and make a left-hand turn into the car wash on 34th Avenue North. With no signal turned on to 34th and 4th, with current backups that already happened on 34th headed west, and then potential traffic coming south, if that entrance to the car wash is blocked by anyone going eastbound, you're going to have blocks in that area, which users will most likely over time start to then use 33rd and 35th to then drive around and make an eastbound approach to the car wash from the west, and that leads to more traffic within the neighborhood. So with some additional information about the neighborhood itself, there are limited and intermittent sidewalks on 5th Avenue, on 5th Street and 7th Street that run north-south, and 33rd, 32nd, 35th. It's intermittent, and in a lot of places they don't exist at all. The speed limit's already 30 miles an hour, which is faster than either side, and we've had two speed studies done in the neighborhood that show that there currently is speeding above that 30 miles per hour as well, and we're working on trying to figure out calming measures. The Winn-Dixie at 9th and MLK is being converted to an Aldi, so we expect more traffic already coming through the neighborhood from the east across 4th Street to get to the new Aldi on MLK. So we would like to see a lot more work done on the actual traffic study. The original study just said 48% will come from the north, 48% will come from the south, 2% from the east and west. That is not at all what the demographics of what that neighborhood looks like and what that area of the city looked like, which leads me to believe that it was a mathematical study, not an actual demographic study of what the usage might be. This is the closest car wash or would be the closest car wash to downtown, to Shore Acres, to Old Northeast, to Venetian Isles. These are where the folks are going to be coming from, from the south and from the east, which is going to cause backups on 4th Street and 34th Avenue North. So we are absolutely opposed to the vacation of the alley for this project and wish we had an opportunity or the ability as a neighborhood association to have appealed the original DRC approval on the site project, but we weren't in a position to do so. Thank you for your time. Hello. I'm just going to actually pass this around so you guys can have some. I'm not allowed to do that. All right. All right. Let me begin. Okay. So I'm a little nervous right now. So I was listening to Eminem before this. So palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy, get vomited, sense of sweater. Everybody knows that song. So I'd just like to go start off with a little bit of something light. So I also, if you look at this, I mean, I don't know if I was supposed to, but I dropped off some maps. So you can see this. The proposed thing, which is the first time I'm hearing about it, would add two entrants and exits directly onto 34th Avenue. As we know, like, and I can show you guys, I mean, maybe you can see this because the, you know, I guess I'm the defense or I'm not, I'm the whatever it is, prosecution in this case. There's big accidents that happen here. This lady went to the hospital. There was ambulance that came. It's because of how fast people go on that street. I know I mentioned to you this earlier. It happens having an entrance and an exit on 34th Avenue is not that smart. What it should be is when you come into 4th Street, there should be a one way turn in and then you should go out 4th Street. There's so many other businesses that go out on 4th Street. It doesn't make any sense why you would put something in the neighborhood. And I give this example because a coworker of mine, her daughter, 14 years old, got pinned underneath a vehicle in Lakeland and died. And that is not fair for us in this neighborhood who are just trying to raise a family to have a entrance and an exit closer to our homes that is going to lead to more cars speeding and the possibility of people being killed. And I know Martin Luther King said that he had a dream that every man and woman could basically live out their life as they're supposed to. This is going to increase the risk of fatalities, right? And can you imagine going home to your family without your daughter or your son or going into the grieving room like I've been before and knowing that your significant other has died because of something that could have been prevented? City Council and your responsibilities and ours are to make sure that we are to protect all of our citizens. As we know, vehicles can be used whether accidentally or on purpose to kill. We saw that in New Orleans, and the fact is a terrorist also was in Tampa and could have scouted out areas. But the accidental deaths from vehicles are real, and people do speed at 70 miles per hour through that street, 70. And how do I know? It's because I got a speed gun and I tested it, okay? So I just would like something and some input to deny and do more studies on what actually is going on in that neighborhood. I beg you at 4 o'clock just to stand there on the street and see these people fly by, and I think that would change your mind when you vote no on this. Next two speakers, Mr. Chair, Eric Monaco and Todd Wagner, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes to address City Council. Good afternoon. Eric Monaco, 434 33rd Avenue on the house. It's right across from where the alley is going to be, and one of the closest houses to the proposed car wash. We, of course, me and my rest of my neighbors, of course, object to the alley because we object to the car wash. I chose St. Pete for home. The government sent me to Tampa to work, but I chose St. Pete for home. I like the area. I can't believe how many car washes are in the area, though. There is another car wash 2.2 miles right up 4th Street, and there's one a couple blocks past that. And then farther out, you know, there's five car washes in this area. I don't think we need another car wash in this area. The owner told us at the 4th December meeting, the 4th December hearing, that he has no business study, no idea of how many cars are actually going to make it to this. He simply estimated how much the proposed facility can handle. So there's been no business study that tells us how many cars are going to come in. It could be much less than expected. We'll have another vacant building in a year, and I hope that doesn't happen to him. But we're going to have way too many cars. We're going to have further increased traffic on 34th Avenue and 4th Street. There's also been no highest and best use study for the best use of this property. Not required. But, again, there hasn't been a lot of study into what should be going into this property. If you can look up and down 33rd Avenue where I live, there's been a number of homes sold at over a million dollars. We, of course, would rather see homes or condos on part of this property. Up again, 4th Street, we understand it's a business area. We don't, of course, like the idea of turning that residential lot into a business lot. Traffic engineers have approved the traffic plan. You heard the association president talk about it. I just can't imagine how many cars are going to stack up there, and it's going to become a fight with people trying to get in and the residents trying to get off. And then, like you said, we're going to see more residents come down my street, 33rd Street, get on to 5th Street where there's no sidewalks, and loop around to try and get into this facility. Just don't want to see that. The exit on 34th is not a great idea either. We talk about a lot of stacking inside the vehicle or inside the facility. There's a number of places to stack vehicles inside. There's space for one vehicle to wait to get out. Otherwise, it's traffic getting between the vacuums and the exit of the car wash. There's one car that could sit there and try and get out. All those other cars are going to back up in the car wash, perhaps, or go somewhere else in that facility, probably try and come out on 33rd Street, my street. I don't need to waste your time with, of course, our objections to the expected traffic, the lights, the sounds. They told us 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day until that thing cars off. I can already hear people on the bank working all night long. I assume they have a permit for that on 34th Street, and we're just continuing against that. We're not excited about the impact to our property either. A lot of folks in the neighborhood have had these homes for years. We had a residential piece of property there. They're being asked to turn it into a business. That has a huge impact on our properties, and that's all I have. Counselors, thank you for your time. There's no clapping, but thank you. Sir, can you state your name and address, please? Hi. My name is Todd Bogner. I live at 455 33rd Avenue North. So I've lived there for over 15 years. I'm an AICP, and I'm a transportation planning project manager for a national firm. So I have reviewed the reports, I have reviewed the plans, and I have reviewed the traffic study. Mariner Car Wash was there when I moved there. It had an entrance and exit on 34th Street with no access to 33rd. It already started getting backed up then. 34th is a striped bi-directional roadway, whereas 33rd is an unstriped neighborhood roadway. My issue with the project is the scale and the direct impacts to our neighborhood. The Car Wash intends to do 900 cars a day, up from the 400 that Mariner did. This is all supported within the documents that you've received from them. While I appreciate that the DRC did mandate the left turn only on 33rd Avenue North, I don't feel that this is sufficient, as there should be zero access to 33rd Avenue North. Like I said, it's a neighborhood road. It's an unstriped road. It's not meant to handle commercial traffic. The neighborhood association did submit the letter stating that they were in favor of the alley realignment. I agree with it in principle. We were not, those of us on 33rd, did not have input into that. If the alley is to be realigned, it should be realigned within the commercial area of the owner's property, not in the residential. We are very much against residential encroachment into our neighborhood. So therefore, I don't really support the realignment as it's proposed. There's no commercial travel on the alley right now that's really taking any kind of issues. It wouldn't really change anything to realign the alley for commercial traffic. I know. I live on it. But that's at the crux of the argument, right? Realigning the alley and allowing this monstrous car wash to be built replaces residential properties with commercial ones and roads. It moves business into what the city has stated is a traditional neighborhood. We can't have driveways. Any extra employees, if this thing gets bigger, wants to do full service, will be parking on our street, where they're tearing down old homes that had driveways, putting up traditional neighborhood homes without driveways, making the parking worse by the year. So I don't know. Maybe it is traditional to impact working-class families by allowing businesses to develop and take precedent over them. But as a professional planner, I think we can do better. Two speakers, please. Madam Speaker, Mr. Chair, Don Mastry. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. And you will have three minutes to address city council. Thank you. My name is Don Mastry. My address is 200 Central Avenue. I've been sworn in, and I represent the applicant in this matter, which is seeking to vacate the alleys and easement described in the staff report and the staff's presentation. The purpose of the vacation is to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing car wash facility, which has been at this site for 38 years, and is purported to be the oldest car washer in the city. And I looked at the records when it was approved, and the same complaints were made then. Traffic, danger to the children. It has not occurred in 38 years. And in 1999, the records show that this lot where the alley is going to was approved for commercial use, the commercial parking lot. On December 4th, we're here today not to determine if the car wash can continue. That was decided on December 4th of this year, last year, 2024. On December 4th, the DRC unanimously recommended approval of this vacation. But the approval of the site plan and all the comments they're making, they don't have the right to make those. The DRC voted for a site plan approval. They didn't appeal the case, and it is the law of the city right now. The only thing we're dealing with, and I hope the city attorneys will confirm what I'm saying, is on the vacation. We're not here on the site plan or the traffic that it's created. There's no question. I mean, even the homeowners association said, and I quote, The vacation of the alley and subsequent reconfiguration of the right-of-way is in the best interest of the neighborhood, and it will limit the overall traffic through the alley. That's what they said. They want to use this now to defeat the site plan that was approved back in December. And that's just inappropriate. The existing alley is presently accessible to the residential and commercial users on the block. The proposed alley will be limited to serve only the residences, which is deemed preferable for the safety and noise perspective, and is anticipated that the removal of the commercial traffic on the alley will reduce the usage and impacts on the residents. This alley, the existing alley, is not wide enough. People cut across private property. The new alley will be five feet wider. It satisfies the LDRs. The Transportation Department has said it would not cause any substantial detrimental damage. And I would recommend the request that you follow the DRC and confirm the vacation of the alley. I'd answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Hanowitz. Vice Chair Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. I have a question for staff on the left turn only on these properties, because I see them on a lot of properties, that commercial properties on 4th Street that abut neighborhoods. How is that enforced? Look, Cory Milishka zoning official. So at the time of permitting, we do review that. We would consult our Transportation Department if needed. And then it really comes down to the Police Department enforcing that. Okay. So is the no turn sign on the private property, or is it on the street? Typically, I mean, I'm wondering, because law enforcement typically doesn't enforce things on private property. I'm just wondering how that works. So that type of signage would be on private property, but they're also designing it similar to Trader Joe's, so there will be a curved apron. Right. So if a person – so are you telling me that they won't enforce what's on the private property? It's the curb that's trying to discourage them from going into – that's what I'm – Well, I can't speak for the Police Department, but I'm saying the design of it would actually be basically a chicane trying to force traffic out to 4th Street. Okay. Similar to the Trader Joe's. I know when we had the Publix on 66th Street, we had the same similar situation where we had the chicane forcing traffic to 66th, as well as no right turns, and the Police Department did provide tickets. Okay. I was just curious about that. And in terms of – one of the speakers said it was 400 cars a day and it's 900 cars per day expected. Those numbers are about right. That I can't speak to what the speaker said. I can't verify that. Okay. So that's not in the record. Correct. Okay. So before – what we have is a request for vacation of two alleys, and there was a special exception and site plan application submitted to the DRC, which we discussed, and unfortunately there was no appeal on the DRC decision pertaining to the special exception and site plan. And among the reasons that it was approved is the fact that this is operated as a car wash. Now, I serious – I know that it was mentioned by a speaker that this was approved back in 1999. I wonder how many car washes were around in St. Petersburg. In 1999, it seems like they're everywhere. But I also think that car washes are not all the same. You have the one that's on MLK on 22nd Avenue where it's a self-serve car wash that's small. You have the ones that are at gas stations. And now you have all the new ones that are popping up all over 4th Street that have all the bells and whistles, and you could go in and watch film in different colors while your car gets washed and have separate areas where customers can park and vacuum. There are some places that they have – places where people lead and all that. So it's just completely different car washes than the old car washes. And from the pictures, this appears to be in the later category. It's a much bigger car wash, and it is, in size and scope, much larger. The special exception criteria allows us to look at the concentration of same and similar uses. And I'm curious – I want to ask staff, do car washes always go to special exception? Yes. So they do. And the question should be asked, how much concentration of car washes do we need? Is that something that is considered? And is that ever in the information that we receive as to the study of the car washes? And when do we reach the concentration of – when is it like, okay, there are so many car washes? So it's under the special exception criteria. So we get into concentration of use. Right. So there's an evaluation. In this case, it's an existing car wash with an expansion. So we didn't analyze it like we did. The last car wash, which we actually denied, and the DRC also agreed with staff, was where the current Zaxby's is. Where I'm sorry? Where the Zaxby's is located used to be a car wash. And across the street from there, they were proposing another self-serve car wash. So on the south side of, I believe that's 37th Avenue, which is across from the Walmart. So the Walmart was approved for a car wash where the bank was located. Another car wash wanted to come in. We recommended denial because of the proximity to another car wash. We also did a general study because we wanted to support, you know, at what point is it too many. And so we looked at, you know, the history of car washes with so many – I think it was within a quarter of a mile to a half a mile. And anything, you know, closer than that, it becomes a concentration. So we recommended it out. The commission actually denied it. And now affordable housing is being built there. Okay. At one point, it was said that it was inappropriate for us to void the action of the DRC. When you look at the matters for consideration that we have, one of them says the POD, Development Review Commission, and City Council may also consider any other factors affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. So it's within our purview to look at this vacation and make a decision whether to approve it or not. We are not bound by another decision. We apply the factors here, and it includes considering factors such as public health, safety, and welfare. So we are not completely bound by another decision made on the special exception on this. You know, I agree that the alley could help in terms of providing a buffer and limit impacts to a neighborhood. But the issue is that we are accommodating a use that is much bigger and more intense than it was before. And it is not sufficient, frankly, because I don't think it belongs there. And if it was but for the expansion, we would not have to have a question of whether to vacate alleys. The expansion leads to the vacation of alleys. And so that's what I'm having a hard time with. So we've heard from the impact from the neighborhood, and I'm just having a hard time because I am well aware of the area. I went to the previous car wash many times. I'm sure lots of people here have. And I'm well familiar with other car washes that are on 4th Street and the traffic that it causes and already the parking issues and everything. And I just, this one is, for that site, I'm just, I'm having a real hard time. That is the neighborhood there, the NT2 neighborhood, with the density that you're going to have in terms of the amount of cars going in there. I just can't support this. So I would like to hear what other council members have to say. But based on what I've seen, I think that this is just too big and too intense for this site. And Vice Chair, I just wanted to respond to your first question about traffic. So in the traffic report on page 6, it did talk about that the site under previous management washed about 400 to 600 cars per day. And that was in the traffic study. And there's also a memo, too, provided that based on the proposed car wash, this was also, in this report, it was dated June 17, 2024, that the potential car wash could handle 130 cars per hour. Thank you. No. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Council Member Hanowitz actually touched on, I'm sorry, Vice Chair Hanowitz touched on one of the things I wanted to talk about, which was, like, just the general proliferation and how staff makes determinations. What I think I heard was it was about proximity. Is that the only standard that you use to make your determination surrounding the special exemption for car washes? Well, there's multiple. There's 17 review criteria under the special exception. So we also look at traffic circulation and compatibility. So in this case, this one was a little different because it was developed with the car wash. So we're looking at is the expansion and how is the expansion compliant with those review criteria? Yeah. I meant more specifically, like, when you discussed concentration, you specifically mentioned proximity. proximity, yeah, and so when you think about the concentration of them, that's what you use to determine whether or not it's appropriate? Correct. Okay. Okay. Special, sorry. No, I'm sorry. You go ahead. Yeah. For this type of situation when staff was looking to deny the one on 34th Street South, you know, we had to have some kind of measure to what is concentration. So we did, staff did some research, and you're looking at, you know, the proximity of other car washes within a certain distance, and that contributes to the proliferation of car washes. So that was our main, was the distance between other car washes. Okay, yeah, you used that there. Now, I just. Also, member, may I step in here? These are special exception criteria that, in the interest of context, I thought it was important maybe to discuss it a bit. But I really, I need you to get back on track with the five criteria listed for vacations of right-of-way. No, I agree completely. I'm sorry to interrupt. No, I agree completely with you. I was getting lost down a rabbit hole, so thank you for bringing me back on track. Yeah. Thank you. It is a conversation that I'm eager to have, but you're right, it's not appropriate to have it right now. Now, we have before us a vacation, and I have to make a decision based off of the site plan that's in front of me and that vacation. Having said that, you know, we have a letter from the neighborhood that agrees with the vacation. I'm making a decision specifically on that. All that other stuff was sort of tangential to it. I was just seeking to understand some of the things that have already been brought up. I do want to get one quick clarification. There was an in and out on the old car wash on 34th, and there's one on the new. Okay, so there's nothing changing there? Correct. So the entrance will be, this will be a split. Right now, if you're familiar with it, that's an extremely wide curb cut on 34th Street. And the car wash also backs and dumps out into the existing alley. That alleyway goes behind the existing subway and also goes through to the neighborhood to the west. And so right now, they will have an entrance further west, entrance only. There will be an exit onto 34th Street as well. And then 34th Street will have an entrance and exit, which will provide access to the vacuums to the subway or people that are in line for the car wash and decide that they don't want to get a car wash, they can exit. Okay. All right. Thanks. I'll leave it there for now. I would be eager to hear from other people, though, yeah. Thank you. Councilmember Pick Sanders. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. And when I looked at this, it took me a minute to think about where this location is on 4th Street. And it also takes me a minute to even try to get off of 4th Street in this community to turn on to 4th Street. So, I started looking at where the new alley is going to be if the easement is granted. Going off on 5th Street, would not expect traffic to increase on the 5th Street exit? Because that's what's actually going behind the residence, right? I'm going to defer to Tom Whalen. He's a planner with the Transportation Department. You're asking about access on 5th Street? Yeah, the exit on 5th Street, because we're looking to have a new... Yeah, there's no access point on 5th Street. There's no access point? No. So, I'm looking at... I don't know if you can put that slide back out, but I'm looking at the blue alley to remain that's already there, that I assume is being used by the homeowners now, and then the red alley to be vacated, which is going to close any other access other than to 34th and the 33rd, and then the new alley connection, which is closer to the homes. That's going to build up additional traffic closer to the homes. So, I was just looking to see what the traffic was like now before the new addition, because there is an alley that exits 5th Street. If I'm looking at this correctly, doesn't that feel... The blue that you see there, basically the two-thirds of the aerial there, that is an existing alley. The red, the upside-down L, is the alley that's being vacated. So, traffic right now could go from 33rd Street up behind the subway, which is the building closest to 4th Street, and go down the alley to the west to 5th. The red on the north side of the screen, that's actually an easement that's being vacated as well. And so, what they're doing is they're vacating and eliminating the alley from the commercial. So, they're segregating the two. So, no access from those commercial uses will have access to the alley. They currently have access to the alley. Right. And then the green will be the new alley, which will be used by the 13 residents that live there along the alley. Which is pretty much directing traffic to 33rd Avenue, or to the blue behind the residence. That's going to increase, I would think. Well, it's the same amount of traffic, except that we're eliminating the commercial traffic, that could use that alley. Right. So, you squeeze the closing, you know, you restrict the flow. It's just for, well, the proposed is for residents only. Well, anyone can use the public alley. Right. But the alley is primarily serving the garages and the sanitation trucks and the utilities. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I have just a couple of questions. Oh, Council Member Harding, go ahead. Thank you. The business before us today is specifically related to this alley, and so I understand scope to our city attorneys. The intended use for the property, is that relevant? And if so, how? And does that factor in, vacating the alley, does that factor into the ingresses and ingresses that aren't related to the alley? So, as Vice Chair pointed out, you know, there's kind of a broad criterion related to consideration of other factors affecting the public health, safety, or welfare. And, but for this expansion of the existing use, this vacation wouldn't be before you. I think that there are some things within the matters for consideration, particularly whether the vacation would adversely impact the existing roadway network that could reasonably be related to use if that's part of the analysis you perform. I think that the capacity issue is reasonably related. And so I understand, regardless of how this vote turns out, that the rest of the property could still be used for a car wash. This is, this is, this is not related to that. If the vacation is denied, the special exception would fail. It was, a special condition of approval was added by the DRC, making that approval conditioned upon approval of this vacation. It wouldn't frustrate the existing use of the, of the car wash. It would simply remove the approval for the expansion of the use. Understood. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Okay. Um, one of the things, and I, I think Council Member Hanowitz touched on this a little bit. Um, Corey or Cheryl, this is probably for you. Talked about the impervious ratio at 67%, staying at 67%, but it's 67%, but of a much larger piece of property, right? That's correct. The code will permit 77, 75%. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure I was comparing apples to apples, because although the ratio is the same, the impervious space is more. And Chair, I would characterize that as kind of classically part of a site plan review criterion, and the special exception criteria. Okay, sorry. Um, I think part of the, I'll go on to the other, to the other portion of this is, is what, um, Mr. Dima was talking about, where I'm, I'm really struggling when you talk about adversely affecting the surrounding neighborhoods. When you're talking about 130 cars per hour, and we're pushing them onto the side streets rather than 4th Street. I think back to, um, the same issue I had on 66th Street and us doing this. And so, uh, at this, at this point, I'm, I'm struggling with the vacation, because I, I don't understand why you just wouldn't use 4th Street as, as the main corridor, rather than, and I'm assuming it's because we don't want people turning on and off of 4th Street, just like we didn't want people turning off, on and off of 66th Street. I'm going to let, um, Mr. Whelan speak to a little bit of that. The, uh, the number, the 130 vehicles, um, that's basically, what happened is the consultant used Institute for Transportation Engineers data, and for a car wash, there was a limited number of studies from ITE. Uh, the actual number of, um, cars predicted for a one-tunnel car wash was 39 vehicles per hour, in the peak hour. Uh, we thought that might be a little bit on the low sides. It was only based on one ITE study, so we suggested they go out and get more data. They got more data. They came back with, um, uh, more of a worst-case scenario, 130, 30 vehicles in the peak hour, using that car wash, the 130 coming in, 130 going out in that one-hour peak usage. So that's where that number comes from. Um, so basically, the concern at that point was, do they have the queuing on site to, to accommodate that number of vehicles? And they do. They have, uh, 20 stacking spaces on site. So even if there's 130 vehicles using that in the peak hour, uh, there's still sufficient space. And we looked at the study. We thought the intersections, the roadways would operate at acceptable levels of service based on the study, which were, you know, uh, they basically layered on, predicted, projected traffic on top of existing turning counts at those intersections, and came out with it being acceptable levels of service at the intersection, including 4th Street at 34th Avenue North. Is, is, is traffic the only level of service we do? Am I allowed to ask that? Probably not. Uh, okay. I, I, I'm, I'm struggling with pushing everything onto side streets and not 4th Street. Um, and so, uh, at this point, I'm against this. If there's nobody else to speak, I'll entertain a motion for approval or? I'll move approval. I'll second. Do we have a motion and a second? Seeing no other council members wishing to speak, clerk, could you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to approve agenda item J1 fails, 1 to 5, with council member Floyd voting yes, council members Vic Sanders, Gerdes, Givens, Hanowitz, and Harding voting no. Okay, thank you. Thank you, everybody, for coming out. Uh, we'll move on to J2. Clerk, please read the title. Excuse me. Proposed Ordinance Number 1171V, an ordinance approving a vacation of two public access easements, generally located at 12,000 Yandy Boulevard North, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective and providing an effective date, and we do not have any cards for this item, Mr. Chair. Okay, no cards. Council members, would you like a presentation? No. Okay. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no council members wishing to speak, clerk, could you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. It's not open. Oops, sorry. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present council members have voted, clerk, could you please tally and announce the vote? Mr. Chair, motion to approve the J2 passes unanimously, with council members Driscoll and Garrett being absent. Okay, thank you. Moving into J3, and this is quasi-judicial. Clerk, could you please swear in all parties and speakers, including city staff? We're wishing to speak included. Could you swear or affirm that the evidence that you're about to give will be the truth to hold truth and nothing but truth? Okay, clerk, could you please read the ordinance title? Opposed ordinance number 136HL, an ordinance of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, designating the Coquina Rock entrance to the Bear Creek Golf and Country Club section of Pasadena State, located at 535 64th Street South and 6354 Emerson Avenue South as a local historic landmark and adding the property to the St. Petersburg Register of Historic Places, Historic Places pursuant to Section 16.30.070 City Code and providing an effective date, and we do not have any cards. Okay, thank you, clerk. We're going to move into presentations. Each party has 10 minutes for their initial presentation, and we'll begin with city staff. All right, good evening. I'm Kelly Perkins, Historic Preservationist of the City of St. Petersburg, and we are here today for the local historic landmark designation of the Coquina Rock Wall Entrance, which are two walls on each side of the street located at 535 64th Street South and 6354th Emerson Avenue South. So this property, or the walls, have been subject to multiple inquiries over the years to the Urban Planning and Historic Preservation Division. We have received prior inquiries from prior council members, from the Neighborhood Association, and earlier this year we actually met with one of the owners of the wall to discuss putting up a marker and what could be done to protect the walls from future demolition, where we discussed local landmark designation. We've also received inquiries from the Neighborhood Association over the year as well. In June 2024, City Council initiated the designation of this application. We, up above the map, shows the proposed boundaries for the walls on each side, including a two-foot buffer so that we can review anything that could potentially damage the wall. The owner that we met with, Eileen Carmona, submitted a letter stating support for the designation, and that was included in the new business item. Staff also had an on-site conversation with the other impacted property owner. The owner had concerns about what limitations this would mean to their house, but once they realized it was only for the wall, they stated that they supported the initiative. That being said, our office never received any written correspondence from this owner. So here's a photograph of the walls from the mid-20th century. They were constructed in 1924 as an entranceway for a potential development called the Gulf and Country Club Section of Pasadena Estates. This was a development by I.M. Handsome Jack Taylor, who was a noteworthy young developer that came to St. Petersburg in the early 1920s. He built this wall as sort of the entrance marketing for a new section of Pasadena, which he had been working on developing. The vision, his vision for this area was that it would be of the old world. So these walls, while referencing sort of medieval architecture, are not actually based on any real traditional style of architecture. They're very fantastical. So staff has determined that they're sort of eclectic architecture. So here's an aerial of the image from 1926. If you zoom out, there's even fewer houses. There's really just that one 1920s house, which is still there today. So the walls, while constructed and used as sort of the marketing for the neighborhood, it never eventually was fully developed. And here's an image of the walls today. Part of the development was to include a full kind of community, churches, schools, hotels. Significant infrastructure was constructed for this Pasadena area. The most prolific structure to be built for this section was the Hotel Roliet, which today is the Stetson College of Law and is actually located within the city of Gulfport's jurisdiction. So this wall is sort of located towards the end of the city of St. Petersburg's city boundaries. Jack Taylor's vision for this area was really a shift in how development was in St. Petersburg in the 1920s from sort of passive health recreation towards a more younger active where you played sports and it was more youthful. So he actually, part of this development, recruited Walter Hagen, who was like the top golfer of the time, to come down and help kind of sell the golf course development. So the postcard on the left is Walter Hagen playing golf. So that was kind of part of the thing is come down, buy a house, and you can play golf with Walter Hagen. On the right was one of the infrastructure sort of beautification projects, which was building a mason, which was building a nursery. And I think of note of that postcard is that you can see that kind of masonry wall in the middle, and it has a very similar design in terms of the layout of the stones to the coquina entrance wall. And so these entrance gates, like I said, they were kind of used as like the vision of the developer for this area, and they're often one of the first things built. So this was another entranceway to Pasadena that Taylor had built on Central Ave in the 66th Street area. It has since been demolished. But these signs and markers, they kind of helped boast sort of these neighborhoods, and kind of there are kind of a lasting vision of what that neighborhood was supposed to be. So originally, the wall was plaited to be on city property. You can see a plait on the left where the lot had kind of been carved out. In the 1950s, when there was finally infill being developed in this area, they replaited the lots where the wall was on to incorporate the walls into the private property. So you can see on the right, you can see the former diagonal line, and then the new line that kind of incorporates more of the wall. So here's the wall today, and you can see the house that was built behind it. One thing of note I find is interesting is, I don't know if it was original or not, but the chimney behind the wall, you can see it's cladded with very similar material to the coquina rock wall. So I find that quite fascinating. And so there has been some changes to the wall over the years, which does diminish some of its integrity. Because the wall was kind of built in the middle of nowhere, there wasn't a ton of maintenance. And so at some point in the mid-century, the city removed portions of the large archways that were kind of designed to be pedestrian, like sidewalk access. So you can see it doesn't appear the sidewalks were ever built at this point. So you can see in the image on the left kind of where the connection was. You can see the brick that's used as the infill material. So I said there has been some diminished integrity, but you can still read kind of the appearance of the wall and sort of the intent of its design. So when reviewing these, we look at the, there are nine criteria for eligibility in the St. Petersburg Register for Historic Places. You need to meet one or more to be designated and staff finds that the walls meet five of nine. And its areas of significance are its architecture and then its association with the developer, Jack Taylor. For the factors of integrity, as stated that while some of the integrity has been diminished due to some of the changes to the wall, to the changes of the location around it, they still are mostly met. And so staff has found that they meet six of the seven factors of integrity. And then identified here are sort of the character defining features. This is sort of laid out to be used so that when future changes are proposed, staff can kind of reference what were the important aspects of the wall. And that is the end of my presentation. I don't think the owners are here to make a presentation, but I'm here for any questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And so no owner applicant. City was the applicant. This is a city initiated, but the owners, we would allow them to speak also if they were here, but the city was the applicant for this. And then no registered opponent. So no cards for public comment. Okay. And so obviously we're not going to cross-examine. Pretty waves. So, all right. So we'll move from, at that point, we'll move into any closing remarks? None. Thank you. Okay. We'll move into executive session committee members. Sorry. That's the CPPC in me. Council members. I'll move for a second. Council member Fick Sanders. Thank you. So with the designation, if it is approved, how does the maintenance, because I don't understand what the type of maintenance with something like this would be like, because I can, we didn't have any opponent, so there wasn't anyone that actually wanted to appeal it because of aesthetics. So would they still be allowed to, or what that looks like if they want to maintain it or improve the appearance of it? How do you say that? So as a local historic landmark, any exterior alterations would come as part of a certificate of appropriateness to staff. So what we would be looking for is making sure that their maintenance plan, one, the biggest thing would be the mortar, which is the areas that connect the stone together. You just want to make sure that's the proper hardness so that you're not creating something that will deteriorate the stone. If someone wanted to come in and stucco the wall, that would not be something that staff would generally recommend. So that would go through that type of process, which goes, you know, it can often be handled at the staff level, like for standard maintenance, but if it's something bigger, it would go to the CPPC. And council member, I just want to add to that. The wall is existing on partially on private property, partially abutting the right of way. So they would have the same maintenance requirements as any other homeowner with a masonry wall. So if it became deteriorated to a point where it became unsafe or a code violation, that would be handled whether the designation happens or not. It's just, as Kelly said, if they wanted to alter the wall or do something beyond maintenance that may affect those character-defining features, that would require a COA. But otherwise, they're still required to maintain it as they would, and any other citizen would, a masonry wall per the code. Thank you. Okay, just want to thank staff for working with the neighborhood on this. I very much appreciate it. I know they're looking forward to this. So thank you for all the support to the neighborhood and to this project. It's very much appreciated. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Seeing no other council members wishing to speak, clerk, could you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing as all present, council members have voted. Clerk, could you please tally and announce the vote? Mr. Chair, motion to approve of gen item J3 passes unanimously, with council members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Okay, thank you. All right, we'll move on to J4. This is another quasi-judicial item. Clerk, could you please swear in all party speakers, including city staff? Thank you. Clerk, could you please read the title? Proposed ordinance number 796Z, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, by changing the zoning of a 0.3 acre parcel located at 1847 First Avenue North from Corridor Residential Traditional-1 CRT-1 to Corridor Residential Traditional-2 CRT-2, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof, and providing an effective date, and we do not have any cards, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. We're going to move into presentations, starting with city staff. I think we have Britt. Yeah, hey, how are you? Hi, good evening. We have Britton Wilson, city planner for the record, presenting an amendment to the official zoning atlas for a 0.3 acre site located at 1847 First Avenue North, initiated by No Names Holdings, LLC. This is an aerial of the subject property, which is located on the north side of First Avenue North, just west of I-275. The site is within the Kenwood Neighborhood Association, and to the north and northwest are single-family and multifamily residential uses. To the west and south are medical offices and surface parking lots that support the office uses. This is the future land use map, showing the subject site is designated Community Residential District, or CRD, which is within the Grand Central District, which will remain. The site is also located within the in-town activity center overlay, which allows for increased development potential. And of note is that the activity center overlay does not extend westward past 19th Street north of First Avenue North. This is the zoning map, showing the site is currently zoned to Corridor Residential Traditional, or CRT1, which is proposed for amendment to Corridor Residential Traditional 2, or CRT2, to be consistent with the CRT2 property to the south, and in conformance with the CRD land use category and the in-town activity center overlay. So the change in development potential from CRT1 to CRT2 changes little by the way of the allowed development potential, as the density, intensity, and height stays the same, with the workforce housing density bonus actually decreasing by two units in the CRT2 zoning. But the CRT2 zoning allows for a freestanding restaurant and neighborhood-scale retail space that is not permitted in the CRT1 zoning district. And the neighborhood-scale retail is limited to 1,200 square feet. As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendments are consistent with many policies of the comprehensive plan, and to highlight a couple, the proposal furthers these policies as it provides for a compatible and logical land use transition, and is in keeping with the character and the established zoning pattern of the area, and furthers the intent of the in-town activity center overlay. Staff has received one public comment in opposition. The owner of the multifamily building to the north is opposed to the proposal citing incompatibility. With that, staff recommends a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan, and recommends approval of the proposed rezoning change to CRT2, because it furthers provisions of the comprehensive plan, as it is consistent with the neighborhood's established zoning and land use pattern, and is in conformance with the CRD land use with activity center overlay. And that concludes my presentation. Staff and the applicant are here to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Thank you. Now to the applicant. You have 10 minutes to present, if you'd like. Good evening. John Barquette, one of the owners of the property. I can keep this extremely brief. This property is extremely unique, not just in that it abuts I-275 and sits in the shadows, but it is in the in-town west activity center, which means it sets no precedent for any other CRT1 zone property all the way down the entire corridor to the rest in the Sunrunner activity center. The intent is to continue to connect what is a bifurcated section of the district in the city that's been created by the creation of I-275. This goes part and parcel with what we've been doing and championing for about five years that will be coming in front of you again next month in Trails Crossing, which we were a co-applicant with the city, and actually we just were awarded a planning grant in that regard. But the intent is basically to reconnect a bifurcated district and program it so that it's walkable, active, and safe, quite candidly. And I won't belabor this, but I think the nuance of this particular site really is the in-town activity center designation and location. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. We have no registered opponent and no public comment. Correct. All right. And so cross-examination, staff, applicant, and then any closing remarks. Closing remarks? Okay. All right. So we'll go into council comments, questions. Anything from council? Move approval. Second. I'll just quickly comment. I used to live around the corner from there and would have loved to have seen this activated. So thank you for being a part of it. All right. We have a motion and a second, seeing as no other further council members wishing to speak. Clerk, could you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your vote. Seeing as all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Mr. Chair, motion to approve of June item J-4 passes unanimously with council members Driscoll and Gabbert being absent. Okay. Moving into our second open forum. Do we have any cards, clerk? We do have speakers, Mr. Chair. All right. Let's call two at a time. I believe it's Daniel Kennard. I can't read the last name. And Kirsten McConnell. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address city council. Hello. My name is Daniel Cameradella. I live at 2726 2nd Avenue South. I'm not here for anything relevant to what was discussed today. It's just something that I know is on y'all's mind. I just kind of want to keep it on the forefront of the conversation. It's about zoning and development in St. Pete. I live in the Palmetto Park area right next to Grand Central, and we see all the development going on around here, and it seems more and more that prosperity is getting concentrated in a few and fewer people's hands. So I think one of the big kind of obstructions to letting more people benefit from the growth of St. Pete is the zoning regulations that are in place. Things like preventing mixed use, things like not allowing multifamily residences, really limiting opportunities for growth here, the opportunities for anybody to kind of grow with St. Pete, other than the people who are already coming in with deep pockets. So I, for one, would love to see smaller businesses be able to come into my neighborhood as opposed to more restaurant groups fighting for space on Grand Central. I would love to be able to provide a cheap rental in my backyard to a teacher who can't afford to live in St. Pete anymore as opposed to having them forced to spend half their money at a new condo downtown. I think a lot of people are kind of knee-jerk against this for reasons that I don't fully understand. There's a lot of reservations about development and gentrification, but I think if we look at Old Northeast, we're seeing a lot of grandfathered-in ADUs. Nobody in the neighborhood is mad about those. I think we see Black Crow Coffee in Old Northeast right there in the middle of a residential area that people love having there. So we have a prototype for the potential for kind of opening up these areas to this kind of opportunities, and I just want to keep that on y'all's radar and keep engaging that discussion. We have a lot of people, growing voices, that we're kind of organizing and want to just keep this conversation going. So thank you all for listening. Thank you. Go ahead. Hi. My name is Kirsten McConnell. I live at 861 20th Avenue, 33704 St. Pete. I'm here to talk in regards to the budget. I am hoping and in support of more of the budget going to community initiatives versus funding of the police. I'm a nurse at All Children's, so access to health care and youth programs are really close to my heart and important to me. Every day I see, you know, patients, children who are uninsured, so they either can't come to their appointments, they can't afford their medications, they can't get the care they need. So, you know, funding for health care is always important. We have a lot of great initiatives, you know, like the St. Pete Preclinic, which does amazing work, especially with access to food and health care. But as other people are going to talk about tonight, a lot of people don't know how to access the resources that we do have in place. So community outreach, you know, door knocking, talking to people who aren't on social media, don't have access to a smartphone, don't speak English, just making sure that people know how to access the really great resources that we do have in the city and then putting more funding towards those to even bulk it up even more. All of that, you know, is going to prevent illness, violence in our communities. It's going to meet people's needs, lead to a happier, safer, healthy community. And then last thing that's been on my mind, as I'm sure it has been all of ours, you know, the last two hurricanes of the season that we got hit with really hard, just emergency preparedness planning, especially for, you know, families with children, especially complex patients. I work with patients who are ventilator dependent, oxygen dependent, so it's really hard for them, you know, to make a plan. What do I need to do if I need to leave my house in a flood zone? So again, you know, community outreach, we have shelters, we have emergency evacuation plans, but how do we make sure that people know about these resources, know how to access them, know who to ask for help when they're feeling stressed and overwhelmed and don't know where to go? So, thank you all for your time. Thank you. Next two speakers, please. Okay. Lama Al-Halsan and Aqtab Mojaii, please go to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address city council. Hello, everyone. My name is Lama Al-Hassan. I live in Coquina Key, and I'm a part of the Bay Area Dream Defenders. We've come here before talking about what our communities, excuse me, we've come here before to talk about what our communities need and the importance of stopping the violence, especially gun violence that's happening. And as taxpayers, our budget should actually reflect what the community wants. Based off of one of our outreach, one of the things that we really heard was we need more accessible youth programming. And as hopefully most of y'all are aware, we have the Save Our Streets and Fund Our Future campaigns that actually are a public safety measure. So, this is funding that should actually be coming out of that budget. We're constantly told that we're asking for too much money and that the only solutions right now are piecemeal solutions that are available. We've seen the budget. The city has the money. The public safety budget has actually increased by $40 million in the last fiscal years. And if everyone claims to support the youth as much as we all do, we think that we deserve to have our tax dollars prioritize them through programs that are accessible, well-funded, and well-advertised. We're aware of some of the piecemeal solutions that are supported by nonprofit organizations today. And don't get me wrong, they're fantastic. And it's great that we have something like that. And yet, how can somebody know about all the different programs that are available if they're not centralized, if we don't have one place to learn about it? So, to truly address the root of gun violence, which in reality is divestment, we are advocating for a holistic and proactive approach that should be coming from the city itself. So, as part of the campaign, we believe it's imperative to also have paid positions to engage in active community outreach to not only boost awareness, but to actively help people access these programs and help them sign up, whether it's through making sure they have the transportation that they need, the childcare that they need to be able to get there. These people are meant to be going out in community and going door-to-door and providing this information. And as they're having these conversations with folks, if there's something that's missing, that is when we know the city needs to do something to fill that need. And we're aware of a position that already exists today with the city that happens after a situation happens with the youth. But the proposal here is that these are specialists that are proactive and go out into community before something happens in the first place. So, it's time for our city to make sure to take this very seriously and take the strides necessary to take care of our youth. So, that's why we demand that our city's budget actually supports campaigns like Save Our Streets and Fund Our Futures. Thank you. How y'all doing? My name is Aqtah Mujie. I'm from St. Pete. And I want to give council members some bullet points to take a look at. We need your address, sir. 2173 Queensboro Avenue South. I'm here to support and ask that a portion of the people's money be included in Save Our Street campaign. The people's money. Violence is not going south. You all should know that. It's going north every day. Violence is going north. And what are we going to do about it? That's on all of us. The sad part is that we know it's to be the truth that it's going north. It would be a blatant disrespect to include our street. I'm sorry. It would be a blatant disrespect to not include our street saving campaign when we are willing to help. We are willing to help. And for us not to be included in the budget, I think it would be a disrespect because we are willing to help. We have a blueprint. We fight it for what the people want. And we are in the trenches, in the rain, and in the cold. We are out there. You all might not know it. You might not see it. But we are out there knocking on doors. We are trying to make a change. We are trying to bring about a change. And we need your help. It's the people's money. Yeah, it's the people's money. And when the kids go to the corner store and spend their $3, $4, the taxes go all the way to the top, Washington, D.C., and trickles down to you all. So let's not be greedy. Let's not be stingy. Let's give a bite. Let's show a little love. I mean, we're responsible for you driving the car you drive, the clothes you're wearing, the home you live in. We're responsible for that. So I'm just asking you all to just show some consideration, show some love, and give back, help the poor, help the underprivileged. Violence, safety programs, and transportation is a paramount. You all know that. It's a paramount. In St. Pete it is. I don't know about no other county, but this county and this city of St. Pete is paramount. With the ability that you have, and if you are not inclusive with the people's money to save our street campaign, the only thing you are saying is let the inner-city violence continually go north. Is that what you would be saying? If you exclude us, you would be saying let it continually go north. And we can't allow that. In my closing, that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. There's two speakers, Mr. Chair, Jordanis Mola and Dylan Dames. Dames, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hi, council. My name is Dylan Dames. I live at 4546 Fifth Avenue North. I'm here today with Dream Defenders in support of the Save Our Streets campaign. We believe a lot in the campaign, and even though it's in the early stages, we've been doing the work to build the campaign over the past four years. Having conversations, building the culture within the organization to try and challenge some of the issues that we see impacting Southside. And I would say in addition to there being provisions in the budget to expand on youth programming and promoting those programs and assisting the office of Lisa Wheeler Bowman and the outreach that she does, is I think this is also an opportunity in addition to just, you know, more money, an opportunity to collaborate with community organizations and practice a co-governance model. I think we have a lot to learn from each other about St. Pete. So I would encourage you to consider that and how you prioritize, how you vote in the coming weeks, months, and moving forward, being open to conversations with Dream Defenders, being open to understanding the data and the conversations that we bring to you, and that we can look at it both with a critical eye and come up with some ways to expand what's already going on in the city and to make sure we keep the responsibility public and not depend on nonprofits and corporations to deliver programs to the city that they would have to deliver anyways so that they could write it off, but that we actually center the violence prevention and community violence intervention in public processes and democratic processes. Thank you, guys. Hi, my name is Jordana Smola. I live at 2000 Gandy Boulevard, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33702. I've spoken at multiple city council meetings regarding pushing for a people's budget, and I'm here today to continue to speak on that as a St. Pete resident for over four years and as a Bay Area Dream Defender member since today you are considering your priorities for the budget. And at this moment, we have heard from many people in the community for the need for free and accessible youth programming to decrease gun violence, and many of us have spoken at city council meetings multiple times over the year about our Save Our Shoes proposal to advocate for the city to fulfill this need. We've met with the mayor's office and with city council members about investing in existing programs at Child's Park Rec Center and funding the gaps, such as lack of transportation, lack of programs for older teens, and the lack of community engagement specialists that can ensure that outreach is being done in the community. And while there are various organizations that offer different youth services, these services are often siloed, and the city needs to make sure that there's a holistic approach to ensure that these programs are accessible and to invest in closing these gaps. The city must prioritize this as a community-led initiative as part of the city's budget. And as other folks have mentioned, the Save Our Streets is a public safety measure, so this funding should come as part of the city's public safety budget. We demand no more increases for the police budget and instead increasing the public safety budget to support this community-led initiative. We can't separate funding for youth programs from safety, and we think that it's important to ensure the safety of the youth by continuously to invest in them. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers. Next two speakers, Mr. Chair, Jay James and Sierra Clark. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hello. Oh, I forgot that says moves. Hello, my name is Jay James. I'm a little horse. I'm okay there. And what's my address? Twenty, sorry, twenty, what is my address? Twenty-42. Oh, Lord. Twenty-42 and 27th Street South. Oh, that is hilarious. Okay, I'm here clearly with the Bay Area Drain Defenders, and we are advocating our Save Our Streets initiative campaign, whether you want to call it, to reduce gun violence by increasing youth activities and programming for young youth, but especially for teenagers. I can tell you, when I was a teen, there were several different programs that I was involved with that, one, piqued my mind with education because I'm a nerd, but two, you know, provided me things to do besides be at home. I spent all day, well, after school and, like, during the summer. So, like, we, but I don't see as many of these programs anymore. Like, they would literally come and pick me up from home to take me. And if they exist, it's wild that I don't know about them, but then the people we talk to all the time don't know about them. So, like, we need these community engagement specialists to go out into the community to let people know, to go door-to-door, talk to our community. You know, have deep canvassing, deep communication, sorry, deep, well, canvassing, but deep conversations with folk to see what they actually need. And, like, earlier people were talking about the piecemeal solutions. Like, amenities are amazing programs, but then we have amazing programs that lose funding, like the Phyllis Wheatley Rise to Read program. Like, it's, it's just imperative that we do this because I'm tired of seeing, you know, teenagers being killed and harmed by gun violence. You know, we just had somebody else a few, a couple weeks ago. You know what I mean? I'm tired of this. And I hope you are, too. And I don't know if you know this, but, like, the police ain't helping with that. Like, like, we really appreciate the work that former Councilmember Lisa Willa-Borman does. The downside is that her work is after they've already been in trouble. We're trying to do stuff before. You know what I mean? So, like, we have to, you know, have these programs, have these initiatives that we can, you know, get them involved before. Because I'm tired. I'm tired. George Foday. My name is Sierra Clark. My address is 4544 22nd Avenue South. I'm here to talk about the budget. I think that the budget should reflect that we got something in common. I think it should reflect that if the voice of the people is saying that we need more outreach for our young people, then where we come to voice that with the people who can help make us that decision, we should try to collaborate on that. What I realize is what we've done over the two years and going door-to-door, talking to the neighbors and asking them what they need to feel like their streets are safer, that mothers don't know. When they're rubbing their bellies in the nine months of loving on their babies, they don't know that your decision here in this building, in their community that they live in, affects if their child would be unalive when they come home from work. And so if we have something in common about we are St. Pete and we make this city great, then let our budget reflect that. It's real for me, right? I'm born and raised in St. Pete's. Snotty nose and bare feet is what I call it because there was a time where we could be outside with no shoes on, heavy kickball games, snot running down our face, but we're running the first base and nobody cared. Our streets aren't safe like that anymore for our young people. They're finding guns. They're not finding support at home because moms have to be at work. Dads are out of the household. So this is a crisis that we're dealing, and our budget can reflect from our city that we want to do something about it because we got something in common. I was afraid to have children. I didn't really know all the details because I could feel the things that were unseen, and what's unseen is that this building is important. Your decision that you make with the city budget is important, and when parents are making babies, they don't think about that. When they're teaching sex education in our schools, city council and who you vote on the council, making sure that they care about the voice of the people, that's not written in sex ed, but it's important. And yet mothers are going off to work, and it's unfair that a mom would have to come home or be on a job in a city that only cares sometimes about making the skyline beautiful, and we need to make our communities and our streets back beautified again with young babies being free enough to have kickball games and community outreach and things inside that are free, right, because parents are off at work doing a thing, and so it's not our voice that we're standing here, that we've been here last year about the budget, and we still didn't get a dollar, but we're still back here again because we got something in common, because y'all keep telling us that y'all care and y'all hear us, and we want to make sure that we put the money where that is so that it feels like love, it feels like support, and it feels like we got something in common. Thank you. Let's go to Zoom. First Zoom speaker, Sarah. Sarah, once you enter into the meeting space, please state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Hi, my name is Sarah Peacock. I live at 5155 10th Avenue North, 33710. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the issues affecting our community. I've lived here my whole life, and I've watched programs come and go, and I've seen funding come and go, and I've seen nonprofits come and go, and I feel very deeply watching, you know, I grew up in Pinellas County Schools, watching my friends and fellow students when I was in school, and then going through young adulthood here in St. Pete, and now being a grown-up and, you know, having my own stepdaughter go through school here and seeing her friends struggling and seeing the people I was in school with struggling back then, it makes me, I care deeply about seeing the young people struggling to keep their heads above water, and I know that we have the power to help. I know you as council members have the power to help. I'm a member of Dream Defenders as well, and I've learned so much from them. We've been canvassing and talking to our neighbors and talking to community members about what they need to feel safe in their communities. And overwhelmingly, it's a safe place for kids to be in community after school, somewhere they can be that is not just a job prep course. It's not just treating them like a cog in our machine. It's treating them like human beings, giving them community, making sure they're people that care about them, making sure they have safe transportation to these programs instead of being on the streets or riding a bicycle in a lane with cars. It's making sure that they have food after school when they're going to these programs. Working-class families are struggling to keep food on the table and a roof overheads. We need affordable housing. We need a place for kids to be kids, and we need safety. Overwhelmingly, these families are crying out for safety. So I'm here to ask that you make sure that your dollars are being spent holistically on someone who can go door-to-door. Working-class families working two jobs and struggling with child care don't have time to spend an hour sifting through the government website hoping to find a service and then having to go fill out paperwork and jump through hoops to try and get financial assistance for those programs and then figuring out how to get transportation to those programs. They need someone in their community who cares about their needs enough to get there and hear what they need and come to you and tell you and be able to make that process short. They need to shorten the steps between you and the community. They need to have programs in their neighborhood. They need to have adults who care, and you are the adults who care. You're our city council. You represent us, and you are our voice. Okay, last two speakers, please. We have one more speaker. One more. Oh, one more on Zoom? I'm sorry. They just raised their hand. Okay, thank you. Christy Faust, once you enter to the meeting space, please state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Awesome. Hi, I'm Dr. Christy Faust. I use she, her pronouns, and I live at 753 29th Ave South in the Harbordale neighborhood. I applaud the Dream Defenders and all of their St. Pete members for drafting and putting forward the Save Our Streets program. And I'm a little disappointed to be back this year speaking in support of it again. I'd hoped our city would have adopted the solutions in this campaign for this year's budget, the people's budget, as a partial solution to gun violence among our young humans. Ultimately, we want to stop violence in our community and our budget. The people's money should reflect that every single year. And every year, our police budget goes up. But Dream Defenders' extensive neighborhood canvassing, in the rain, heat, and cold, month by month, shows the community doesn't feel safer with more police. They feel safer when our young humans have easy access to programs out wide in the Save Our Streets program. Things like programs for academic support, mentoring, learning life skills, career development, job readiness, and holistic activities and programs in a safe and enriching environment. The city has so many great programs already, and they are underfunded. And Dream Defenders canvassing shows that they are under-advertised and under-used due to a variety of accessibility issues. The Save Our Streets program asks the city to fund active outreach to the community to make sure our young humans and their families can benefit from these valuable programs, as well as other community programs. I'm looking forward to the pilot in Childs Park and for it to expand to benefit us as Harbordale neighborhoods soon after. Our young humans' lives are worth funding this program. Please make Save Our Streets a budget priority for 2026, remembering the budget is the people's money. Thank you. Thank you. No more Zoom. Last. Thank you. Thank you. Final two speakers. Misha Bundridge and Keisha Bundridge, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address city council. All right. Hi, my name is Misha Bundridge. My address is 5543rd Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida. With that being said, I'm also a former teacher, still teacher, and Save Our Streets is a campaign with Dream Defenders that I highly stand behind. As you know, teachers, it's starting to look a little bit like a battlefield these days. Coming to school, you never know if you're going to find a student of yours that might be missing. These programs are essential. I remember growing up in Lakeland, Poe County is where we're originally from. And if it wasn't for programs like those, because my mother was an addict, and my grandmother tried her best, but those programs that we're initially asking you guys to bring life to, to add money back into these programs, bring them back alive. Because these programs do save and keep kids off the streets. They keep them from going, finding guns in the alleyways, finding weapons at friends' homes, you know, things that are left out. Because, yes, our parents might be tired, and they are. And that's where all the, you know, the crazy things come in. People are always going to leave some type of mistakes or whatever. But let's not let our children's lives be, you know, the cause of that. Public safety is a community issue. It's our issue. And so, for us all, it's our responsibility. That's all I have to say. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Keisha B. I am at resident 555 43rd Street, South St. Pete, Florida. I am on, once again, here on behalf of Dream Defenders and the Child's Park Neighborhood Association. Save Our Streets campaign is dear to me. It is a public safety measure that funding should come from our city public safety budget. We shouldn't have to have extra surveillance and policing. What we need is supervision and security for our children when we do have these types of programs. We see more violence when there is lack of investment in our local communities. We need to address the violence at the root. Supporting communities is mostly impact. It's a lack of community programs that causes violence. I'm doing my part at home. I'm, you know, a single mom by different circumstances. But still, I'm a single mom. I'm working on helping my son at home with homework and things like that. But it is such a plus when we have the community involvement. When I come outside my door and I can reach out to a community program for help. Sometimes us parents ain't got it at home that we need to seek those programs to save our kids. Whether you believe it or not, it saved me in Polk County. I didn't come from a perfect family and I don't think too many of us do come from a perfect family. But these community outreach programs, we are in dying need. I fear every day when I take my kid up to Bear Creek or whatever school you may have. I fear, will he be coming home today? Will he be coming home today? My only son, will he be coming home today? I look for the community when I drop my kid off for safety. And it is a community issue as much as it is inside my home. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak today. Thank you. Okay, we'll close open forum and go to announcements. Any announcements, committee members? Anything? I'll just quickly thank everybody for coming out today at both open forums. And then we have two birthdays. Gina's legislative aide, Brian, his birthday is tomorrow. And then Liz Abernathy, her birthday is on the 28th. And as probably I'm sure all of you know, we won't be here next week. So you're welcome. All right, let's sing Brian and Liz's happy birthday. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, Brian and Liz. Happy birthday to you. Okay, thank you everybody. Council is adjourned.