City Council - Mar 26, 2026

Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1, Hopely Gerdes, District 2, Brandy Gabbard, District 3, Mike Harding, District 4 and Council Chair, Lissette Panowitz, District 5, Deborah Fig Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, Corey Givens Jr., and District 8 and Council Vice Chair, Ritchie Floyd.

Welcome, everyone, to the March 26, 2026 City Council Meeting. Clerk, could I please have a roll call?

Harding. Harding. Here. Anowitz. Here. Nick Sanders. Here. Driscoll. Here. Givens. Here. Lloyd. Here. Gerdes. Here. Gabbard.

Well, everyone, we're going to start off with our invocation by Rabbi Philip Weintraub, and before we start, I want to make sure there's a lot of people that haven't been here before. Make sure your phones are turned off and silent for the meeting. And so if you can please stand for our invocation, and then please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Rabbi Weintraub, good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair. So 3,500 years ago, the Israelites, the Jewish people, left their indigenous home and went down to Egypt during a famine. They were welcomed as guests and made their lives there as immigrants. And then a new pharaoh came into power who saw them not as assets to a broader society, but as enemies, and so he persecuted them. He enslaved them, made their lives miserable, and for generations they endured that fate. But they cried out to God, to our shared creator, who sent Moshe to lead them out of bondage and return them home. To this day, the Jewish people reenact this journey every spring. We gather for a Seder, a ritual meal with symbolic foods. We eat matzah, the flat bread that reminds us that our ancestors fled so quickly there was not time for the dough to rise. We dip our vegetables in salt water, remembering the tears that were shed in slavery. And then we recline as a free people. We tell this story to our children, and at the center of it is the teaching we were slaves, and now we are free. And we remember our past and think of its echoes in the present. I thank Councilman Givens for the invitation this week to join some of my African-American colleagues for a tour of the Florida Holocaust Museum. There we saw how hatred can lead to state-sponsored violence and genocide. And we saw how our shared stories of exodus are not only in the past, but are renewed in each and every day. The Seder is a tool, a tool of education, to ensure that every generation knows who we are and what we stand for. It instructs us to look not only within our community, but throughout our society as a whole, because we know that not everyone has yet crossed their sea. We see people searching for safety, still waiting for relief, still hoping someone will hear their cry. The story of exodus is not ancient history. It is a mirror to the present. And we know that this season is a time of renewal for all faiths, for many faiths. Christians will be celebrating Easter with the promise of redemption and of the renewal of life. Muslims recently honored the end of Ramadan with the joy of Adolf Hitler, a celebration of community and gratitude of revelation. Each of these festivals cry out to declare there is something greater than ourselves. Divine Parent, as all gathered here serve this city, may the memory of bondage inspire them to be bold in pursuing justice. As those of us who celebrate Passover will eat the matzah, let us remember to move with urgency. May our retelling of the crossing of the sea give courage to all of us when the path seems impossible. And in a year that has brought hardship and division, let us not forget the light that we are capable of bringing to one another. I pray that all of us can work together to build a world of love. Amen.

Amen.

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.

May I sit. Thank you so much, Rabbi, for the wonderful invocation. Council members, we have an agenda before us. I'll entertain a motion for approval.

Approval.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, you please tally and announce the votes.

Madam Chair, motion to approve. The agenda passes unanimously with Council Member Gabbert being absent. Thank you. We have a consent agenda.

Clerk, do we have any cards?

We do not.

I'll entertain a motion for approval. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you vote. And there is Council Member Driscoll.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the interest of time, I chose today not to pull these items, but I just wanted to point out, and I can see that Council Member Gerdes probably knows at least one of the two that I'm going to mention, the first one being item CA5. On the heels of yesterday's groundbreaking for our new fire station number two, on the which side? West side, which was a long time coming, and quite a celebratory day for all of us and for the community. Today, we're approving additional funding to help us move forward with another project for our fire department, and that is the fire training complex, another item that I have advocated for and that we have all supported over the years, from me going back to 2018 when I first started on city council, to see these major projects for our first responders moving forward is something that I'm not just proud of but humbled by because we sit here and we're able to help make a difference in the way that our first responders are treated, the facilities that they use, the tools that they have, and the way that they can support you, the community. And so I wanted to just point out that that one is for that public safety training facilities project. The other item is item CB8, and that is an amendment for the city's agreement with Ready for Life, Inc. This is a pilot program that we had started some time back to help out with foster youth who are aging out of the foster system to help give them a better chance for success in life. And I just do have one question of the administration for this. Just one question regarding CB8 on the Ready for Life agreement. We were all extremely excited to support that when it started. I'm wondering if perhaps the administration can give an update on that at a future meeting. And, yeah, that would be wonderful. I'd love to know how it's going. I know it's been successful so far. That's why I support this particular amendment today. But I think it's time for us to hear some of the stories of success that are coming out of that program.

Thank you, council member.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, council member. We're very happy about the training facility. I know that every council member here that is present and not present has been extremely supportive and has wanted to see that take hold. So we're very happy it's going forward. Clerk, can you open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote.

Madam Chair, motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously with Council Member Gabbard being absent. Thank you. Now we go to open forum.

Clerk, are there any speakers for open forum? Yes, madam chair. You 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. Applause is not permitted except in connection with awards and presentations. 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 the city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the raised hand feature button in the Zoom app or enter 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 asked 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 a 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 two speakers in chamber and one in Zoom. I'm going to call the two speakers in chamber first. When I call your name, please go to an open podium. State your name, address, and cross street for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. The two speakers are Fonda Sabin and Sheila Monahan.

Go to the podium.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Fonda Sabin. I live at 263 21st Avenue South in Old Southeast. I'm speaking today as a concerned resident and on behalf of neighbors who support the meaningful flood protection of St. Petersburg. We want real solutions, but we do not support a fast-track structural intervention unless the city can clearly demonstrate three things. One, the existing system and infrastructure has been properly maintained. Second, the updated post-storm studies have actually been completed. And third, proposal projects are not worsening the flooding in Old Southeast. What concerns me the most is that the proposal being presented is an answer before the public has been shown the evidence. So we know that the longstanding infrastructure maintenance has been deferred for years. Residents have watched flooding in Bartlett Park, Lake McGorry, Bear Creek, and other connected waterways. Without confidence that the underlying systems have been fully maintained or restored. We also have concerns about the ongoing maintenance of the stormwater gates and controls that are supposed to prevent water from backing into the system during high tides. Three years ago, the city allocated funding for new monitoring and control technology that goes across many waterway systems. Residents deserve a clear and direct update. What's the prior funding produced? What did those systems reveal? What deficiencies were identified? What repairs have actually been completed and the results? Because if the city is already invested in advanced stormwater modeling monitoring and diagnosis, then the public should not be asked to accept a new project on faith. We should be shown what was learned, what has been fixed, and what still remains impaired. We also understand that the Basin C Resilient Saltwater Creek Outflow Pump was accelerated under SPAR. It was moved from 2026 to 2025. We have important questions. Why is the city accelerating the structural solution before providing current systems have been inspected, restored, or maintained? Before adding a new control structure near Lake McGorry, the city should prove that existing pipes, culverts, and outflows, wetlands, drainages are functioning properly and not impaired by neglect, obstruction, overgrowth, or deferred maintenance. We support flood protection, but we're asking for transparency, updated studies, and proof. Show us the models. Show us the maintenance history. Show us the neighborhood-level impacts.

Thank you. You're welcome. Sheila Monaghan, please go to an open podium. State your name, address, or cross street for the record. You'll have three minutes to address counsel.

My name is Sheila Monaghan. I reside at 266 23rd Avenue Southeast in Old Southeast near Beach Drive and 23rd Avenue. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I want to continue with a previous speaker left off. This is not opposition for the sake of opposition. This is a request for accountability, transparency, and inclusion before the city moves forward with a project that could have unintended consequences for surrounding neighborhoods. Residents of Old Southeast feel excluded from this conversation, even though we may be among the neighborhoods most affected. We recently met with a professor who reviewed the 2024 hurricane scenario with and without the Basin C solution, the floodgates. His indication was deeply alarming that Old Southeast could see two to five feet more flooding under the Bartlett Park Basin C solution than what occurred during the 2024 hurricanes. If that is even remotely possible, then this council should be demanding complete public review before any further acceleration of this project. So where are the city's models? Where are the updated studies using actual storm conditions from Hurricanes Helene and Milton? Where are the neighborhood level before and after flood maps showing which streets, homes, and blocks improve, and which might see more flood depth, longer flood duration, or more water backup? The city has also acknowledged the need for a stormwater system conveyance restoration assessment in late 2025. To many residents, that suggests there were still city-wide infrastructure issues needing inspection, rating, and restoration. If that is true, then why are we being told that a new structure is the right next step before the public sees the full condition of the systems already in the ground? We want answers to some basic questions. Since 2023, what systems were identified as not functioning properly? Which ones were repaired? What maintenance has occurred over the last five to ten years on the pipes, culverts, outfalls, channels, ditches, and detention areas, and gates, serving basin C, and surrounding neighborhoods? What wetlands, waterways, and natural storage areas have been evaluated for sediment, overgrowth, terrain changes, or reduced capacity? And finally, will the city release the full record so that residents and independent experts can review it? That should include updated post-storm modeling, technical assumptions, performance data from the Stormwater Technology Program, maintenance logs, sediment, and...

Thank you very much.

Any more speakers? One in Zoom. Tony Smith, once you enter to the meetings, please unmute yourself, state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council.

Good morning. Can the chair hear me? Yes. Good morning, chair. My name is Tony Smith. I live at 111 6th Avenue North in District 4. I would like to speak to the chair, the vice chair, and the council members about the nuisances that are coming from the pier. Obviously, the first act we have, we had the We Belong music event. Second event of nuisance coming from the pier district on Monday, March 9th at 9 p.m., another outsider by the name of Brantley Bradley Law Firm. They did have a permit, and they lit off a firework show. People in District 4 are exhausted from the noise and nuisances that are coming from District 6, which is the St. Pete Pier. I watched your February 19th council meeting where you guys had a 45-minute discussion regarding this. I have learned that Mr. Jeffries is leading this issue. However, I believe there's another department that is missing, and that's the peer manager. I just want to convey to you that the nuisances that are coming out of District 6 are affecting District 3, District 4, and also District 6. And I'm asking that the city start mitigating these noises on a Monday night at 9 p.m. where District 4 is exhausted. I want to briefly discover or share with you what I discovered. Chair, did you receive my correspondence this week?

Sir, this is your opportunity to speak, but if you sent something, I'm sure we received it.

Okay, thank you, Chair. I sent my letter, which outlined the 62 acts of booming noise that came from District 6. I also attached the article from the St. Pete Times that outlined where every city official failed us during the music event. I also discovered in the rules that the peer manager, the event manager, and the city council during this loud music event didn't do anything. The letter that I sent you outlined what I called the contract chain of failure. We have an event manager that didn't do anything. We have a peer manager that didn't do anything. The St. Pete police, I understand, did what they could. Fourth, I don't understand why the council didn't do anything with their contract.

Thank you, sir. Your time is up. Any more speakers?

No more speakers.

Okay. Now we move on to awards and presentations. Before we start, a little housekeeping. As you know, there's a lot of people here for a lot of awards. A lot of times you come up here, and then you're going to go leave, and there's a lot of chatter. Of course, there's a lot of excitement. So I'm going to ask, if you're done, you go out, and if you're going to talk, talk downstairs, because what happens is all the noise in that hallway, we can hear and hear, and it disturbs the other presentations and the other awards that are being given. So it's just as a courtesy and out of efficiency in running a meeting. As soon as you're going to leave, just go, and you can go downstairs, and then you can celebrate more. And with that being said, we'll start with D1, the Distinguished Citizen Award, to Janie Johnson. That's going to be given by Councilmember Givens.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The names, Catherine Crum, and Mamie Chapman, and Lois Bacon, and Alma Kicklider, and Evelyn Gardner, they are synonymous with nursing in St. Petersburg, specifically black nursing. But I believe that the name Janie Johnson goes up there in high regard as well. She is a graduate of Gibbs High School, class of 1969. Go, Gladiators, Councilmember Big Sanders. She's also a graduate of St. Petersburg College and the University of South Florida. Go, Bulls. She's been employed by Bayfront Medical Center for 16 years, employed by Pinellas Technical College Practical Nursing Program for 33 years. She is a United States Air Force Reserve veteran with almost 23 years of service. Thank you for your service. She's also been a flight nurse. She's served in Desert Storm, Shield, and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. And she is the co-founder of the St. Petersburg chapter of the National Black Nurses Association, where she served as past president. And last but certainly not least, she is a 2024 inductee of the St. Petersburg Senior Hall of Fame. For others, isn't just who Janie Johnson is, but it's what she does. She lives and she breathes service. She's loving, she's selfless, and she's dedicated to her God, her family, her church, Pastor Thomas, and her community. Although she has trained and taught hundreds, if not thousands, of nurses over the course of her almost 40-year career, there can only be one Janie Johnson. The city of St. Petersburg bestows its Distinguished Citizen Award to Miss Janie Johnson. Whereas a great city is only as great as those persons who give exemplary service to their communities, whether through participation in voluntary programs, through unique personal achievement in their profession, or other endeavors, or simply through a lifetime of good citizenry. And whereas such service that is truly the lifeblood of the community and the city so often goes unrecognized and unrewarded. Now, therefore, as a duly elected member of the St. Petersburg City Council, I hereby recognize that in Miss Janie Johnson, MSRN, we have an outstanding citizen who is truly worthy of the esteem of both the community and the great city of St. Petersburg. Ladies and gentlemen, our distinguished citizen, Miss Janie Johnson.

You know, I was just telling, and I thank you all so much for the acknowledgement and the love. I was just telling my pastor and some of my other friends, many times you don't see, but other people see. And as you go through life and you do whatever you can to make someone else happy, that is your reward. Amen. And as I moved through, and I was born here in St. Petersburg, Florida, stayed right on 22nd Street, right across from the Royal Theater. And to see myself as I stand here now into the City Hall and all the other things that I've acquired and become friends with so many people. And moving over from overseas and coming back home, you're always happy to be home. And I thank you all so much. I thank my pastor and all of my friends that came to share in this. And I was just telling Corey, Corey, please, please. And he said, my pastor, Reverend Lannis Thomas, he had announced it in church before I even knew. And I'm saying, they said, we hear you get an award. Those are some of my people from my church. I said, what? What award? You know? So then Corey, he says, I'm sorry, Ms. Janie. I said, okay. Okay. Thank you all so much. And bless all of you and all those young students that are moving on. Stay in your craft and make it your best. Amen. Thank you.

I'm going to turn it over to Revice Chair because I'm going to give the next one.

All right. Next up, we have CFY scholarship recipients given by Chair Hanowitz.

I have everyone that's here from CFY and the scholarship recipients, if you can all come up, please.

Here.

Okay. We'll find room. You can get on this side, too. Well, I want to thank Mr. Dunbar and everyone at CFI for their work and for their partnership with the city through the St. Pete Police Department's Forward Together Program and thanks to Chief Holloway, who's here in the room with us, and also Yolanda Fernandez, who's part of it and she's part of the board, and the entire police department team involved for fostering this collaboration with CFI. We are honored to recognize this year's 10 scholarship recipients, seniors from Gibbs High School, yay, Lakewood High School, Northeast High School, St. Petersburg High School, whose achievements reflect the core values of City Council's Distinguished Citizen Award, resilience, leadership, and a commitment to uplifting your communities. I'd like to thank each scholarship recipient to come up and accept your award. The first up is McKenna Kovacs from Gibbs High. Come here. Next up is Lila Kabrick from Gibbs High School. Next up is Ryan Thornley from Gibbs High School. Great gladiators. You're welcome. Next up is Jovan Gerais with Gibbs High School. Congratulations. Next up is Irene LaCoustra from Lakewood High School. We didn't make it. Okay. So we'll put her to the side. Now, I don't know if I'm going to say this right. Karolo Komarov? Yes. Oh, thank you. Oh, Northeast High School. That's Northeast High School now. Daryl Woods with Northeast High School. Now, Victoria Kastner is not here, but she also received the award from St. Petersburg High School. Next up is Alexis Fallon-Fifth-Lathip from St. Petersburg High School. I'm sorry. Thank you. And I tried to practice. And then the last one is Kayleen Washington, and she's not here, and she's with St. Pete High School. This year's recipients represent an extraordinary range of talent and service across all four high schools. At Gibbs, McKenna has strengthened literacy and student voice, while Leela has excelled

as both a high-level dancer and a dedicated instructor to younger students in dance and swimming. Ryan and Jovan stand out for their leadership in athletics and their understanding of mentorship and teamwork. At Lakewood, Irene is channeling the confidence she built through the years in the drama club towards a focused path in aviation. I'm sure Council Member Fick Sanders loves that.

At Northeast, Kivrolo became deeply involved in this high school community after arriving from Ukraine just a few years ago. And he shares his tenacity with Daryl, a passionate football player who turned injury into an opportunity to lead with character and support his teammates. And at St. Petersburg High, Victoria pairs national-level excellence in cheer and gymnastics with service as a guide dog trainer, while Alexis uses arts, creativity, and humility to strengthen representation in her community. And Kayleen has transformed tough-lived experience to lead with empathy while pursuing a path in pediatric health care. To the students together, you tend to reflect the strength, promise, and future leadership of our city. We can't wait to see all the great things you do, and we're so proud of you and how you represent St. Petersburg. Thank you so much. Thank you. And now we'll have Mr. Dunbar say a few words.

Thank you, Chair. Kevin Dunbar, I'm the Executive Director of CFY, and appreciate you having us back again this year. Special group of kids. One and a half times more than we were here with last year. If you remember, there were four. This year, there are 10. And there are 10 of 57 that we've done throughout Penelope. We've done 16 different high schools, over 527 applications in three different scholarship programs. The students either received a $10,000 scholarship, and there were 15 of those. We did 11 $5,000 scholarships. We did 18 opportunities to go get your AA degree at St. Petersburg College with your tuition fees and books paid for. And probably our most exciting piece that we're doing now is we gave out 13 vocational trade scholarships. If the student goes to Pinellas Technical College, if they're financial aid, CFY is covering all their expenses. That's their tools, unit for everything. We've gotten a chance to know these children. Many of us have gone out. Those you may recall my background, I was Parks and Recreation Director in Clearwater for 22 years, over 45 years of public service. Never anything more compelling than when we went to the schools and notified the student for the first time that they received their award. There's nothing they can pay you to gain from that or what you can get from that experience. But we have had the opportunity to really transform lives. The staff has been phenomenal with the city in terms of helping us connect with the St. Petersburg schools. In terms of the importance of this, over one half of our students first won their families to go to college. So we are actually going out and we're making that difference and impact. With me today are a couple of people I want to introduce. This is our, this is the chairman of our board, Mr. Hoyt Hamilton. Our previous past chair, Fred Miller, he kind of blended in with the, kind of blended with the picture there. A great help for us down here in St. Petersburg. Yolanda Fernandez also on our board. Chief's hiding over on the corner there. He's a passport member of CFY back in his old Clearwater days where I used to, I had the opportunity to work with him. A lot of the ways we're able to do this is with the support and help of the community. One of those people's with us today, kind of a pretty busy day in his life. Ray's opened up today for Mark Ferguson. Ferg is here with us today supporting. Mark is one of the sponsors of one of our, one of our scholarships. And that's how we, that's how we get things done. This year, CFY is going to distribute over $1.5 million. This was $407,500 are going to these students. So we thank you for your, your support. We thank you for how you, how you have embraced the organization as we're coming down to make a difference in, you know, in the life of a child. And we're so excited also to see what's going to happen in the future of these students. It's again, one of the cool parts of my job is we stay in touch with them. And so we know what they're doing, but I can tell you our future is great after meeting these, these students. So again, thank you very much for your time and thank you for honoring our students.

Thank you. Thank you so much. We're going to go to council member Givens. Thank you, vice chair. And thank you, Mr. Dunbar and to the team for all that you all do. You're doing something right. We brought you back again, but congratulations to each of our scholarship recipients. Being a first generation college graduate myself, I must say it's not going to be hard, but it's certainly going to be worth it. You will, if you have not already, overcome many obstacles, many challenges, but trust and believe you have a whole city behind you that looks forward to seeing you shine. Uh, so again, whether you're shining on the field, on the court or in the classroom, just keep letting your light shine and never let anybody dim it. Okay. Good luck to you. God bless. Thank you.

So I'm going to echo some of what council member Givens said. You know, I was the first in my family to go to college and what you see here in a room today, and you're very young. I can barely remember when I was that young. Um, but you see a lot of people that are willing to lift you up and take that opportunity. We're all here. You can call people. You can find out about their careers. You can ask for advice. There's lots of mentors out there and never hesitate to reach out because you'd be surprised where that leads you. And so I'm, we're very proud of you and we truly cannot wait to see what the future holds. Make the best use of this scholarship. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next up, we have D3, which is Women's Sanitation Drivers and D4 Women's History Month Proclamation that are going to be presented by council member Figgs Sanders.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon.

So I am so honored, um, to bring the two, these are two different items. Um, the first is to recognize our first women in sanitation, but there's something I want to read as a background before I do that. And ladies, I'm going to call you up one by one because I want everybody to recognize you, especially in that beautiful pink. Today we gather to shine a light on a truth that is too often overlooked. Women are the backbone of sanitation systems, yet their contributions remain undervalued, unrepresented, and under supported. When we talk about sanitation, we are not just talking about infrastructure or technology. We are talking about dignity, health, safety, and opportunity. And women sit at the center of all of that. Not recognizing their value is the missed opportunity, which is why I thank the sanitation department for this honor. When women lead in sanitation, systems become more inclusive. Solutions become more practical. Communities become more resilient. We see better designed facilities, stronger community engagement, and programs that actually meet the needs of our city. I don't sound biased, do I? So when women thrive in sanitation, everyone benefits. Health improves. Economies grow. So communities become safer, and the cycle of opportunity expands. Because empowering women in sanitation is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. And it is the only way we will build a world where dignity and opportunity are truly universal. Thank you, ladies. So I'm going to call, well, first of all, let me tell you this story real quick. I was at the MLK parade, and Mr. Reed, where are you, Mr. Reed? Come on, Mr. Reed. Came to me and said, Councilmember, you see those ladies over there? They are our first female sanitation drivers. So when I saw all that beauty sitting back there, and I have to thank Mr. Reed for acknowledging and recognizing that, I was like, I'm going to bring them to council. And we were trying to decide, do I do February for Black History Day? No. I want to do Women's Month. Women's is actually International History Month. I said, we're going to do Women's Month because, as a woman, I want to make sure that we continue to recognize, and thank you, Mr. Reed, for giving that information to me and recognizing this women, these women. Also, I want to recognize Mr. Willie Joseph. Where are you, Mr. Joseph? Come on up. Mr. Joseph is also the sanitation director. And when we reached out saying, we want to recognize these ladies, he did not hesitate. And so I want to thank you for even acknowledging the opportunity of promoting our women in such a male-dominated field because, you know, we can do it, too. So for that, I thank you. But here comes the major part. Y'all get ready for this. Drum roll. Amy Foster. Come on, Ms. Foster, who is the Housing and Neighborhood Administrator. She over all of these people, right? So when I say women rule, we rule. But you know what? We work hard. We really do. We work hard. And so I'm going to take this opportunity to acknowledge these eight young ladies, and I'm going to call you one at a time, and us going to take a picture. So y'all, we're going to take a picture. So the first driver, Andrea Archer Waller, who I am told is the first female sanitation driver and has been with sanitation for a third, I'm not even 33 years old, 33 years. Next, we have our former Mayor Cadet, Natasha Davis, who works in maintenance work within a lot clearing division. Next, we also have Ms. Lawanta Simmons, who is a sanitation technician with the Container Maintenance Division. Is she here? Oh, thanks. Next, we have Ms. Kimberly Lovett, who is the sanitation service worker within the Container Maintenance Division. Next, we have Ms. Sharon Turner, who is a sanitation specialist within the Residential Collections Division. Then we have Natasha Tanksley, the sanitation specialist within the Commercial Collections Division. So I'm going to ask the boss of all of us, Ms. Amy Foster, to come up and say a few words, because this is really a monumental moment, and I want to thank her for acknowledging these young ladies. Ms. Foster?

Thank you, Councilmember Fig Sanders. I just have to say that it's so appropriate to recognize these women, and it's great to see that the face of sanitation is changing. It's unfortunate that in future years, a celebration like this may not be allowed in the state of Florida. And so I keep that top of mind. But we will always recognize the women that work for us, and all the hard workers that make sure that the trains keep running and that the trash gets picked up. You know, it is the most easiest job to make somebody happy if their trash gets picked up. It's not an easy job in any way, shape, or form, but I will tell you, you know, other things that we do in the city are hard. The pipes are under the streets, and you don't see the work that's happening there, but whenever the trash gets picked up and you come home at night, it makes everybody happy. So thank you, ladies. I also want to recognize two managers who weren't recognized. We have Antoine Jackson, and we also have Mr. Bob Turner, who is our assistant director as well with us.

Last but not least, because I'm not going to tell y'all I forgot, we have Ms. Anita Richardson, who is my classmate. Come on, Ms. Anita Richardson, sanitation specialist within residential collection division. Thank you, Ania. Okay, so since you were last, you have to have your picture. There you go. Check your picture. That's what we do. All right. So thank you. So you guys stay up as I read the proclamation from the mayor's office acknowledging Women's History Month. Whereas March is annually observed as Women's History Month and has been designated to identify the historical and significant contributions of women. And whereas women have made countless tangible and intangible contributions to our city, state, nation, and the world. And whereas the National Women's History Alliance selects a theme each year to highlight the contributions of women everywhere. The 2026 theme is Leading the Change, Women Shaping a Sustainable Future. The theme extends beyond environmental sustainability to matters of finance, resilience, succession, and equity. And whereas we celebrate women everywhere, and especially in St. Petersburg, and reaffirm our commitment to advancing the cause of equity and opportunity for women and girls. Now, therefore, I, Councilmember Dever Fick Sanders, on behalf of Kenneth T. Welch, mayor of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, do hereby proclaim March 2026 as Women's History Month in St. Petersburg. And I urge residents to join with me in celebrating women's history, their legacy, and their profound contributions to our society. Thank you, ladies, and congratulations.

If you can please stay there, because Councilmember Givens has some comments for you.

I'll be brief, because I know y'all are ready to leave. But I'd just be remiss if I didn't preface my comments by paying honor where honor is due, and that is to the late Joe Savage, who blazed the trail that many of you traveled to get to where you are today. But also, I want to salute you, Ms. Andrea. You've been working for sanitation longer than I've been alive. So I thank you for your service, because these beautiful women that stand behind you, they follow in your footsteps. But, you know, I was raised by a strong black woman, a single strong black woman. And so when I look around, I see strength, I see courage, I see brains, and I see beauty. And I thank you all so much for your service to our city. These folks sitting up here with me, they know better than anybody that when our trash doesn't get picked up, we get the phone calls. So thank you for being there to respond and to help keep our city beautiful. So thank you so much. We appreciate you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Council Member Fix Sanders.

Okay, next up, we have D5, Do Good Day Proclamation. And we have our own mayor here, Mayor Welsh, to present it. Welcome, Mayor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Council, members of our St. Pete team, and members of our St. Pete community. It's great to be here on this day of celebrating folks that make our community what it is. You told them to.

I told them. And Rita's right behind them, shushing them.

It's worth being excited over, so we'll give them a couple seconds. But it is, Madam Chair, one of the things that makes St. Pete great. We have so many individuals and organizations who are focused every day on uplift and on making our community better. I'm pleased to recognize one of those individuals and organizations, the Do Good and Shine Brightly Foundation, led by founder and executive director Meredith Pericles. Pericles, I got close. You want to join me at the podium? Let's give her a hand, please. So this foundation brings together not-for-profit agencies across the city to make a difference in our community. And we appreciate their efforts because we know, as local government, that we can't do it alone, that progress requires partnership from leaders across our community. And, Meredith, I want to thank you for making an impact, for doing good in our community. And this is the second year, right, that we're going into. So we've got a proclamation for you, and I'll read it. And it reads, Whereas St. Petersburg is a community built on service, generosity, and the belief that every resident has the power to strengthen our shared future. And whereas acts of kindness, volunteerism, and civic engagement have long played a vital role in elevating the well-being of our neighborhoods, supporting local nonprofits, and fostering a culture of connection across our city. And whereas Do Good Day was created in St. Petersburg by the Do Good and Shine Brightly Foundation, Incorporated, to bring together nonprofits, local businesses, families, and volunteers for a citywide celebration of service, amplifying opportunities for residents to engage in meaningful acts of kindness that support community needs. And whereas this annual gathering highlights the essential work of local nonprofits, showcases opportunities for volunteer engagement, and encourages every resident to take small actions that collectively create a lasting and positive impact. Now, therefore, I, Kenneth T. Welch, Mayor of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, do hereby proclaim Saturday, March 28, 2026, as Do Good Day in St. Petersburg. And I encourage all residents, organizations, and businesses to participate in activities that promote kindness, volunteerism, and community support. Meredith, thank you for your leadership, and I'd love to hear a few comments from you.

Thank you to Mayor Welch and to City Council for this great honor. Do Good Day was created to bring our community and our nonprofits together in one place to make it easier for people to get involved and support the work that's happening all around them. Last year, we had 38 nonprofits in attendance. This year, we have 52 with a waiting list. There are roughly 2,000 nonprofits registered here in the City of St. Pete. 52 in one place. That's amazing. That says everything about the heart of the city and the incredible organizations doing work every single day across so many different causes. This is St. Pete. We are St. Pete. What makes Do Good Day special isn't just the number. It's what happens when people show up. It's the connections that are made. It's the moment someone finds where they belong and where they can make a difference. It is more than an event. It is a movement. And now it is a citywide movement. That's how real change happens here in our community. So on behalf of all 52 participating nonprofits and the thousands more doing work every day in this community, thank you for recognizing the good that everyone is doing and for believing in what we're building together. I hope to see you all this Saturday at Ferg's from 11 to 2 for Do Good Day.

Mayor, next up, we have D6, Transgender Day of Visibility Proclamation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So as Amy Foster alluded to, this is a recognition we might not be able to do in the future. So I think today's recognition is that much more important. It is recognition of Transgender Day of Visibility. I want to invite our LGBTQ liaison, Nathan Brummer, to join me. And let's give Nathan a hand. We all know how hard Nathan works to ensure that we're all well-informed, that our community is connected, and that we have meaningful impact in our community and give everyone access to the city of St. Pete and our services. Nathan, I want to thank you for all that you do every day, and we'll keep fighting. As I read the proclamation, I want to invite other representatives of the LGBTQ community to join me at the podium for the reading of this proclamation. Please join us. Good afternoon. Good to see everybody. You're going to need a wide angle for you. Thank you all for joining us. And it reads, Whereas Transgender Day of Visibility is observed each year on March 31st as a day to celebrate the strength, courage, and achievements of transgender and gender-diverse people, and whereas transgender residents are valued members of our city, contributing every day as neighbors, family members, employees, artists, students, business owners, volunteers, and civic leaders, and whereas the visibility of transgender people in our communities helps foster understanding, compassion, and connection, reminding us that diversity enriches our city and strengthens the fabric of our shared civic life, and whereas the city of St. Petersburg recognizes a welcoming and inclusive community benefits everyone, and honoring the dignity and humanity of all people reflects our highest civic values, and whereas by uplifting the stories, contributions, and voices of transgender people, we help build a city where all individuals, regardless of gender identity or expression, know they belong and are respected. Now, therefore, I, Kenneth T. Welch, Mayor of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, March 31st, 2026, as Transgender Day of Visibility in St. Petersburg, and I encourage all citizens to treat each other with dignity and respect, without exception. I want to thank you all for joining us, and Nathan, I know you have a few words. Okay.

Thank you, Mayor, Chair, Vice Chair, Councilmembers. We're going to hear from two of the beautiful leaders behind us, leading two phenomenal organizations. For me, this is a different celebration, and I am so grateful for all of you on the dais and the thousands of employees to be a part of the team now as a member of the city team, especially this year. And what you see behind is just a very small group of the leaders doing phenomenal work that you do work to support, so as we move forward this year, whatever it brings. I was really excited to invite this larger group here today so that you know who these community members are and these leaders. There are six different organizations represented behind us, Trans Network, the Tampa Bay Trans Film Festival, which is hosted by Tigliff, St. Pete Pride, the LGBT Chamber, Swamp Boys, and Doll Dynasty. You may not know all of those, but the community and you all will get to know them. But this is the beautiful tapestry of what makes St. Pete so special, and when we say we are St. Pete, this is who we are. I would love to introduce you all to Unity Jalal, who is the president of the board for Tigliff and leading our efforts with the Tampa Bay Trans Film Festival. Also standing with her is Caden Rodriguez, my partner in crime and co-founder of the Trans Film Festival, Unity.

Thank you, Nathan. It's been an honor and a pleasure to be a part of Tigliff for the past six years. And since, well, I started just as a volunteer. Caden and Nathan founded the Trans Film Festival and really made it what it is today. And I've been really excited to be a part of it and be a part of its growth and to be leading us into a new era where we've expanded to be across the bay and where we've expanded to do all kinds of events to help all kinds of people experience joy. And that joy is critical right now because over these past six years, while there's been a lot of joy and a lot of strength in that growth, we've also experienced a lot of hardship as a community where it's become more difficult to access health care, where it's become more difficult to be represented on our identification properly, where it's become more difficult to use the restroom in public facilities. And there's been a lot of those kinds of things to try to hold us down and hold us back. But that's why we need to have joy and why we need to have film festivals, why we need to have pride. And that's why we've moved forward to do Trans Pride and to do a big ball on Friday and to do all kinds of incredible events so that we don't only focus on the bad things happening to us, but we also focus on joy. And I'm extremely excited that St. Pete is still continuing to support us and to proclaim trans state visibility and accept that we're here and that we're visible and that we're here to stay. Thank you. My name is Unity Jalal. My pronouns are she, her.

Thank you, Unity. And our second and final speaker, I'd like to introduce you all to Callan Jones, our president for Trans Network, a local organization that I will let them share a little bit more about.

Thank you, everyone. And one of the benefits of standing here on behalf of Trans Network is that we work with all of these folks. We've heard so many words today, starting with the rabbi. We've talked about overcome. We've talked about community, perseverance. We saw these beautiful women in sanitation who are showing up and being themselves, and that is who we are, and that is who our community is. We are a community that intersects with every other identity group. We are all races, all abilities, all religions, all socioeconomic classes. We are everywhere, and unfortunately, we're in a time right now where folks are telling us to be less. We're not going to be. Trans Network is an organization. We were founded three years ago when Florida started imposing more. We call it the slate of hate. We were founded because we needed to be, but we are here, and we're focused on joy. We're focused on resilience. We're focused on community connection and what people need. The Trans Network board members, if you could raise your hands. We are in community. We have an artist and a videographer who make our community that much more beautiful. We have a realtor and a mortgage broker who help folks buy houses and stay here. We are mental health therapists. We are some of the nation's leaders in disability advocacy. We are neighbors, and we are folks that partner with St. Pete Pride. We partner with the LGBT chamber. We partner with Swamp Boys, Dahl Dynasty, the other organizations that you've heard about, to say, who are we, what do we need, and how do we do that together? Because as the mayor said, we all move forward in dignity, in respect, in inclusion, and that is what we're here for. If you would like to join us and see more of our work, at the end of April, we have our next community meal. We do these every quarter. We bring together people. Last month, we had over 120 people RSVP, if that shows you the need and the desire. For free food, we had an amazing art activity. At this next one, we're having a clothing swap because we want people to be affirmed, to show up as their true selves and to know that they are welcome here, they are valued here, and within Trans Network, they have a home here because unfortunately, we have a lot of people who are looking for that. Thank you to the mayor. Thank you to the council. Thank you to everyone for being here, especially Nathan, for being out proud and visible in this work. We hope we can see you next year. That's what we'll leave that with. We hope that we can see you next year in this capacity.

You can stay a minute. We have a couple of council members who make comments. Council Member Driscoll.

Thank you. Thank you, mayor, for bringing forward this important proclamation. Nathan, thank you for your service to our city and for everything that you are. No matter what happens somewhere else that we have to go along with, it doesn't change the fact that St. Petersburg is a place where everyone is seen, safe, and celebrated. That will not stop. I don't want you to listen to the be less message because what that really is is BS, all right? Be you. Be exactly who you are because in St. Petersburg, that's what we want to nurture. That's what makes our city so special. And no matter if, I know that the symbols are important. I know that public displays are important. I know that times like this are important. But I don't think any of that is more important than the end of the mayor's proclamation where it talks about treating each other with dignity and respect. And that is something that no one can ever take away from us as a city or as individuals. And so with what is happening right now, I encourage everyone to think about ways that you as an individual can be more of an ally, be more of an advocate, be more of who we already are so that there is no denying what kind of a place St. Petersburg is. And it is a place where everyone is embraced. So as much as I hate what's happening right now, I'm looking at, okay, what can we do? And if we stick together, we can do it. And you better be back here next year no matter what because we'll talk about, you know, like we'll figure something out. Just show up and we'll do it. All right. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Council Member Fig Sanders. Thank you. First of all, when I spoke last year and thank you so much, you guys showed up in numbers and I appreciate that. Thank you, Mayor, for recognizing what is so important to the fiber of our city and that is diversity. First, that name Unity, I love that. Okay, I can't have any more children but that name Unity, I do love that. So, you know, I just want to thank you all for being here and I love that term, out, proud, invisible. I think when you were here last year I said, we see you. I see you. And no matter what happens, as they say, injustice for one is injustice for us all, we're going to have to definitely deal with that on so many different levels because so many different cultures and communities are dealing with injustices. And what we've done with the city of St. Petersburg, especially under the leadership of the mayor, is we've made it work. We've made everyone feel safe, welcomed, and that we know, we're going to always be different. You can see the differences between myself and Council Member Floor. We're different. We're on our own individual people. Yeah, I had to use you because you're sitting right next to me. But we're all our own individual people, and I love the fact that, you know, because I teach my children to be who they are, whatever that may be, to be who they are and to be the best at it. And I continue to share that message because it is so important for us to know who we are and to walk in our steps, to make sure your journey counts. So thank you so much again, Mayor. Thank you, Nathan, for everything that you do. And I just want to applaud all of you for recognizing who you are and not bowing down to anybody else and our, as we say, hypocritical judgment of who people are supposed to be. Congratulations. Thank you.

Vice Chair Floyd.

Thank you. I'll be brief. I just want to thank everyone here in front of me today for the work that you do publicly and for being yourselves publicly. I've had a lot of friends who have chosen to step back from public life because of their LGBTQ identity, move away from the state. And all I would say is I understand when that decision gets made. But the courage that it takes to continue to be publicly active in this advocacy is really, how do I say this, it's really inspiring to me because no matter what they push down from Tallahassee, no matter what hateful crap flows our way, people are, there's going to be more LGBTQ people born every day in this state. And so we can't all escape. We can't all give up. And so I'm really proud and inspired by the work that y'all do every day. So thank you.

My colleagues and the mayor have said pretty much what the city of St. Pete stands for. And I hope you all feel the love in this room because we are in an environment right now where they're trying to push people into the shadows. Many in the community, not just you, but many. And you know what? It is very disheartening. But you know what? We have to embrace love because there is so much love out there and you see it in our community as opposed to some of the hate that's out there. And I know the hate can sound very loud lately and it's hard to ignore it. But trust me, when you go out to the community, there is much more love out there. And that's what we need to continue pushing. And that's what you do every day and continue to be yourselves. Period. No one is going to change who you are. You live your life 365 days of the year and you're going to live happy, not because of what they do in Tallahassee. Like a council member said, BS. It's BS. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Next up, we have an item from Legal. I won. And we have Sarah Looker who is going to be presenting. Hi, Sarah. Hi. Thank you, everybody. One second. We'll give them a minute to be able to walk out.

Okay. So this afternoon, I'm just bringing forth a settlement for an employment claim. It's in the case of Wheaton Williams versus the city of St. Petersburg. U.S. District Court case numbers 824-CV-01230-NHA. This is a failure to hire claim where the plaintiff claimed that the city violated his civil rights by failing to hire him due to his age, race, and national origin. The total quantifiable exposure for this type of claim in this instance amounts up to $460,000, but a jury could decide to award additional non-economic damages related to pain, suffering, and emotional distress. And our outside counsel who handled this was able to negotiate a settlement in the amount of $90,000. So that's what you're voting on today.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk, you please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote.

Madam Chair, motion to approve adjournment I-1 passes unanimously with Council Member Garrett being absent.

Thank you, and thank you, legal, for the great work on this and let the outside attorneys know. Great job. Thank you. Amen to that. Thank you. Next up is H-1. This is my item. It's a BFNT action item. Well, it would have been your item, but I was there. So, respectfully requesting city council approval of a resolution authorizing the mayor or his designee to accept the proposals submitted by Brown and Brown of Florida to provide property insurance coverage effective April 1st, 2026. And Council Member Gerdes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and Madam Chair, thank you for stepping in as chair of BFNT as I was sick that day. I just wanted to quickly thank Tom and Blaze and the whole team and so, and then Brown and Brown because let me tell you, again, having lived half in this world for 15 years, the work that they do on a daily basis to make sure that the city is protected is really incredible and to come back, frankly, with increasing coverage and still be saving money is pretty unbelievable and I think that's, that goes all the way down to the auditors and the inspections that we do on an annual basis and so I'm just very thankful. Again, thank you to the BFNT committee for the discussion at committee but I'd be remiss if I just didn't bring it up and Chris, sorry, I didn't say your name as well but everybody on the team, I'm just very thankful for all the work, a lot like we were this morning on the financial side. It's just, they continue to do great work and I'm very, very, to have a small, very, very happy to have a small part in that and I'll move approval.

Second. I have a motion and a second. Clerk, you please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, Clerk, please tell I announce the vote.

Madam Chair, motion to approve the agenda of H1 passes unanimously with Council members Driscoll and Gabbard being absent.

Thank you and thank you all for the great work. Next up, we have E1. We're in ordinances. E1 is setting April 2nd, 2026 as a public hearing date for an ordinance. Clerk?

Proposed ordinance number 632-H. An ordinance amending section 2-209 parentheses A of the city code to clarify provisions related to the cone of silence and provide an effective date. Public hearing date for this ordinance is scheduled for April 2nd, 2026 and we have no speakers.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you could please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted,

Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve the agenda E1 passes unanimously. Council member Driscoll and Gabbard being absent.

Next up, we have E2 setting April 2nd, 2026 as a public hearing date for an ordinance approving the vacation of a dead-end 20-foot alley abutting lots 3, 4, and 5 located at 1013, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street South. Clerk, if you could please read the ordinance.

Proposed ordinance number 1178-V. An ordinance approving the vacation of a dead-end 20-foot alley abutting lots 3, 4, and 5 in the Alma Heights revised subdivision. Generally located at 1013, Dr. ML King Jr. Street South, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective and providing for an effective date. Public hearing date for this ordinance is scheduled for April 2nd, 2026, and we have no speakers. Move approval. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you could please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote.

Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda E2, passes unanimously with Councilmember Gabbard being absent.

Thank you. Thank you, Cheryl, for being here. We have report snub, F1. We have a presentation by Excelsior University BSN pre-licensure program. Dr. Tisha LeCouf, are you present? Hi, how are you doing? This was Councilmember Gabbard's item and she invited you here, but unfortunately she is out sick. So she, I'm sure, would have great things to say about what you do, but you can introduce yourself and then do the presentation. That would be great.

Hello, I am Dr. Tisha LeCouf and this is Dr. Angela Owens. She is the associate dean of our program and I'm the department chair. And we are here in St. Petersburg on site on 4th Avenue. So I'm going to figure out this to change my slide here. Okay, so Excelsior University is a program that we have, our nursing program and it was founded in 1971. We have other programs as well at our university, but we're here to talk about our BSN pre-licensure program. So we are not-for-profit distance learning institution. We're mainly for adult learners, but we have had our youngest graduate at age nine, believe it or not, and our oldest at 90 years old. So our average of our students is 35 years old. We are also accredited and we will be doing our ASIN accreditation for our nursing program once we are in the progress of having our students and all of our staff and faculty on site. Mainly, our students are working adults as well as could be high school graduates. And our program, again, is going to allow our students to sit for the NCLEX exam. Florida nursing shortage, as you know, Brandy and I spoke and we are short 60,000 nurses. So we are here to help fulfill that need and fill that gap. So in the next 10 years, again, it could be because of our aging workforce. 40% of our current nurses, again, are nearing retirement. So what is our program exploring? We're looking, again, at medical surgical, pediatrics, maternal newborn, mental health, community health, and nursing leadership with our partners, our local hospitals in the area, as well as some of our skilled nursing facilities. So our program is what we call a hybrid program. So our didactic theory courses are actually online. So our students will be doing their program remotely. And then they'll come on site to our 4th Street address to do their exams and then, of course, do their labs. Their clinicals will be at our partner sites for the hospitals. And then also, so we're looking at, again, simulation hours, 168 hours. That will be on site, possibly one to two days a week. And then we also have our clinicals, 562.5 hours. And those are on our local clinical sites. So the goal is, again, for our students to be able to hit that general education requirement. If they're coming in with that, they can already start our nursing core program. And so we're looking at doing our BSN pre-licensure program in less than four years, which is not really something that's common around here, right? So that is the goal. You can kind of see our progress and how the program will go. And then the main thing is, is we're here to help fill this nursing gap and help this shortage. These are just some videos of our labs and simulation center that are up and running right here in St. Petersburg. So this just kind of gives you a quick little overview. I know I don't have a lot of time, so I'm just going to kind of speed through it for you. So this just kind of gives you just a little brief overview of what we have going on in our lab. So we are having an open house. We have three actually open houses next week, starting on Tuesday. And then Wednesday is going to be all day, 10 to 7, for our potential nursing students. We do have, obviously, financial aid available. We have some scholarships available with our partners and for different programs available for students. Again, we have our veterans program. And this is all information, again, that can be seen on our partnership site. And then this is just going to kind of go over a little bit of our mission process, who the contacts are, if anyone's interested. I also left some flyers regarding our open house at the front desk out in the hallway. So again, our students coming in, again, they could be coming with a previous biology degree, so they could come directly into our nursing core program, or they could be starting just basic from high school going into the general ed and then starting our program. So the goal is, again, that we have all these criteria met, though, before they would be coming in. So if any of you know of anyone that is wanting to get their bachelor's in nursing license degree or even getting probably from our LPNs to be able to have that opportunity for advance, helping with the workforce situation in St. Petersburg, again, this is our open house, one of our open houses that's mainly going to be for the nursing portion, but we do have other programs. We have cybersecurity program as well as engineering that will be on site. And I'm just going to leave you with some more pictures of our lab and if you guys have any questions. And definitely come by and see us. Yeah, come by and see us and check it out.

Great. Well, thank you.

I don't see any speaker. Oh, Council Member Givens.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. I come from a family of nurses, so this is exciting. I did have a question. You mentioned your prerequisites. Students who are graduating from high school, I'm thinking about Bogosiega High School, for example. They have a medical academy there. Have you all connected with those schools? Do you have any relationships with Pinellas Technical College, Job Corps? Do any of those schools have any relationships with you all already?

So we are also, our site director is here, Christina Jones. She can answer that question probably more directly. I did go to some of the different college nights that the Pinellas County had recently last month, and I spoke to a lot of different students about that. A lot of them were juniors, which is fine, because we are still going to be here and be available for that. So that, go ahead, Christina.

Hi. I don't like to speak as much as they do. But yes, to answer your question, the answer is yes. So we are making connections locally. The good thing, although we are based out of Albany, New York, the staff down here is all local, so we are all part of our community. So long story short, yes, we are making connections with everybody local because we want to give back to our community that we serve.

I love it. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Great. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for being here again. April 1st, 10 o'clock. April 1st, open house. It's the open house at 9400 4th Street North.

Yeah, so we have also Tuesday, March 31st, 4 to 7, and then Wednesday, April 1st, 10 to 7, and Thursday, April 2nd, 10 to 2. Great. Okay. Well, thank you, ladies, for being here. Thank you for the opportunity.

Next up, we have F2, a resolution approving the Second Amendment to the agreement between the city and BMSCAT to expand the scope of work for BMSCAT to provide additional sanitation services at Tropicana Field and to increase the contract price in amount not to exceed $25,653.91. Hi, Beth. We approve. Hello. We have a motion. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, you please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally announce the vote.

Madam Chair, motion to approve a joint of F2 passes unanimously with Council Member Guybert being absent.

Thank you. Thank you, Beth, for being here. May I just take one point of privilege? We do have a few members of the team here, of the team, so I'd just like to say thank you. We have members of Hennessey, Hennessey and Hunt Construction are here, BMSCAT. We have, and I would name them, we have our engineering, Cat Corcoran from engineering, and I just really wanted to take the opportunity. The facility will be ready for opening day, is ready. The city's work is substantially complete, thanks to the people who are here, and Pete Karamatsanis are owner's reps, so I really just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to them and to all the city departments because there are many, many, many who were involved in the repair work.

Thank you, Beth, for saying that, and obviously we approved it so quickly because the work has been done so great. Because otherwise, then it wouldn't have been good if this would have taken it long, but you did now get some people to actually say stuff, so here we go.

Sorry, sorry, thank you.

No, no, you're good. It's fine, but a fast approval is a good thing. That's all I wanted to say. Council Member Driscoll.

Thank you, Beth. Thank you for bringing this. I met with Beth last week, took a walk around the Trop. It's looking great. I'm so glad that the others are here so that I can thank all of you. I can't believe we did it. Not we. I can't believe you got it done. I mean, it's just amazing the time. I didn't know if we were going to be able to get it done on time, but you guys were so confident all the way and, you know, this hasn't been easy for any of us, but seeing it last week and seeing that the new ownership of the race has put in some investment too to make it a better fan experience, but looking at what the city did with the help of our partners that did the toughest work, I couldn't be more grateful and I'm so glad that we chose the partners that we did. When you say Hennessy, when you say, you know, Pete, then it's like, you know what, we might actually be able to get this done and it's done. And just, Beth, you're the best one of all, I just gotta say.

Raul Quintana, who is retired and is in California, I asked him to be today, he's to be here, he's in California with his daughter and his granddaughter in California, but Raul was one of the first people on who brought these wonderful Dome experience consultants to the table and so just a tremendous amount of gratitude goes out to Raul.

Yes, yes, big thanks to him and I'm glad he's there and not here. So is he. I'm sure he's having a much better time but he knows who to call and I couldn't be more grateful and Beth, you are doing this on top of so many other things right now. Man, my admiration for you is just unending. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Gertes.

Thank you, Chair and yes, sorry I was quick and on the move approval but to Chair's point, that's why but this is the second time now Council Member Driscoll has stolen half of it. Sorry. But Beth, first and foremost, just thank you so much for your leadership. I really don't know what else to say other than that. Just a massive thank you from all of us here and everybody that's going to be able to get to enjoy that stadium over the next few years and they wouldn't be able to do it without you and so thank you and thank you for bringing up Raul. You guys are a rock star team. Very thankful for Raul. He was in constant communication I know with all of us but I'll just speak for me over the last year and a half and just it really has been incredible. I think I've toured it five or six times over the 14 months and to see the transformation is absolutely incredible. I mean my kids see it from the outside when we're on the interstate and they talk about it and then I'm like yeah you should see the inside. Like that's not the easy part. That's the easy part to see and so and then last but not least certainly the teams at BMS and Hennessey just so thankful for your partnership and not just on this right like the partnership across multiple projects throughout our city really is incredible and just very thankful for that type of partnership with people we know we can rely on in a time like this and in normal times too just to get the job done and so that's that's really important to us as well and so just very thankful and Beth again once once again Council Member Driscoll said it this is on top of everything else that you're doing and so thank you for shepherding all of these projects for us.

And I do I'm sorry and Audit and I definitely want to say thank you to Audit and to Blaze and his team at Risk Management for all the work they're doing with FEMA and the insurance providers because we have yes because we have we have received quite a bit and they continue to work with both FEMA and FDEM and our insurance providers to get even more reimbursement dollars.

Awesome. Thank you very much and thank you again to everybody. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you. Council Member Harding. Thank you Chair.

Beth I will echo what has been said and I actually had a speech prepared for Roel but I think we've I was going to talk about all the places that he should be today that we've talked about

and I'm very happy for him and very proud of you and everyone sitting behind you and the

what is hundreds if not thousands of other people that worked on this project that has no that has no real predecessor except for it except for the project itself which is what 40 some odd years old or however old it is so you guys reinvented all of this I don't think that most people appreciate that you've told us in the past that parts of this roof were made in Germany assembled in China and then brought just the logistics alone

are mind numbing that you all were able to accomplish and to make sure that it's all done by opening day which is absolutely monumental

congratulations to you and the team I hope all of you and everyone sitting behind you will be there I hope we have a box reserved for all the people that moved this and we appreciate the chance to share this with you and congratulations and now you can get on to these 17 other projects that you have on your list thank you

probably more than 17 probably council member Gibbons

thank you very much chair and congratulations to you Beth Raul and to the entire team you all did all the heavy lifting and we appreciate you all for that I agree with council member Harding I hope you all get the best seats in the house for the opening game I did have one question if you don't mind Beth just for transparency purposes and for those who are listening and may not be aware of what we're approving today do you just kind of can you go into detail without going into too much detail of what the scope of work is that we're approving for that 25 million dollars

sure absolutely so today's today's item is for 25,000 excuse me I apologize 1,000 misspoke thank you

thank you

no problem smaller thank you yes yes yes we had an initial so BMS Cat was our remediation provider so they chased collected cleaned the water and damaged drywall and all of those wonderful things including the six inches we had on August 23rd which we remember not so fondly but we got through it so the original agreement with BMS Cat was for 3.9 million there was a first amendment for 1.6 million I'm rounding and then today I'm asking for a second amendment for about just under $26,000 that's for some additional services that they did cleaning and things once the mechanical systems came on online and it's not extra money we had some savings in other areas particularly in our security that we had approved so we're just taking some of those funds and adding it with your approval to the BMS Cat contract but it's not added to the budget

and I appreciate you clarifying that you know a lot of times you have constituents who have questions and so I appreciate you going on the record for that I've stated it before this is a city-owned asset that I think we have to protect and to preserve regardless of what happens in the future with baseball this is our asset and so I thank you all so much for pouring all your hard work into making sure that we protect the Tropicana Field and I look forward to coming for opening day so thank you so much for all your hard work thank you

thank you well Beth like always I mean already Councilmember Gerda said what I was going to say rock star okay rock star team for sure over here stand up y'all come on and that's also for Roa who's not present that clap but you know there were lots of people that said you know there were naysayers like is it really going to happen especially when it's government that's involved sometimes are they really going to do it by the date well guess what you did so congratulations and honestly Beth you really I mean I can't believe how many balls you have going on at the same time and you're not dropping those balls you got this one you knocked this one out of the park I had to I had to do a baseball analogy I had to do the baseball analogy you knocked it out of the park and I think you've done a great service to our city and we're extremely appreciative and that's why the votes happened so quickly thank you

thank you thank you again to this amazing team you're welcome

well thank you all okay next up we have F3 we have a resolution approving the first amendment to the transportation disadvantage program agreement between the city and PSTA to increase the maximum annual subsidy from $175,000 to $250,000 hi Evan how are you doing

hi good afternoon council Evan Mori director of transportation and parking management and Tom Whalen is here our regional transportation coordinator and some friends from PSTA are here as well our partners in this Amanda Barrett and Devin Deal right behind me here so this partnership began about two and a half years ago and based on prior use the annual cost would have been $136,000 but we knew that it would be popular we knew that more people would join if we removed that financial barrier and so we budgeted $175,000 for future growth and I'm happy to report that we're exceeding all expectations and that's one reason why we're here today for an amendment is to ask for a funding supplement so what's the program due and who's it for so it's just for St. Pete residents below 200% of the federal poverty poverty level qualify for entirely free transit on all PSTA routes 10 day pass would normally cost $5 we bring that down to zero unlimited monthly pass $11 we bring that down to zero so why would we make make this commitment well one reason is it's right in our comprehensive plan and you know the price reduction even though the state pays for most of the cost there's still a barrier and that's proven with the numbers that we've seen so once we have removed that barrier down to zero the numbers have gone gone well increased significantly here's a map of by zip code users across all of Pinellas County of the TD program and this is actually before the program began we weren't able to do a new map but when we are able to do get a new map from Fort Pinellas you'll see even darker colors in St. Petersburg because of the way that this has has expanded but as it has been you can see that the majority of folks who use this are St. Pete residents within Pinellas County so besides the state funding and the city funding that I mentioned the Pinellas County Health Department does provide a subsidy for their customers so in that case where we also have Pinellas County involved the city subsidy is only $6 per month and then in the bottom on this chart you can see the growth over the years so in the first fiscal year it actually didn't grow very much it took a little while for a word to get out but then in FY25 we saw a substantial increase and so far in FY26 only four months in again a big increase so what we saw from FY24 to FY26 is about a 58% increase in use so with that I'd be happy to take any questions and I will point out that this is one of those transit investments where the Transportation and Parking Management Department has an enterprise component general fund component and we're utilizing some of that enterprise to pay for transit related activities so that we're not taking away from the general fund and this is another one of those examples so

second we have a motion and second council member Driskell

thank you I have a question about ridership so I'm not sure if that would be you but I'd love to hear from our friends at PSTA great to see you I miss seeing you twice a month but glad you're here today the increase in use of the passes are you noticing an increase in ridership or is it that more current riders are signing on for the TD program

a little bit of both in February we saw just over 2,000 rides from those with 80,000 excuse me 80,000 rides 2,000 passes so we are seeing increases both on utilization of existing passes as well as enrollment so

okay great my hope is that offering this will help more people be able to use the bus for transportation and not just help those who are already using it but get more people

absolutely this cap increase would effectively allow the city to subsidize about 500 more individuals per year that's 12 months of bus passes which each of those individuals is about a thousand dollars that if they weren't part of the TD program they would have to pay out of pocket full retail for their transportation costs and for

each of those individuals it can mean a better job absolutely way to get to a way to get to school way to get to the grocery store to the doctor's appointments that is money well spent so thank you and thank you for your continued partnership with our city thank you councilmember

givens

thank you this question is probably for evan evan how are we pushing and promoting the program currently

most of the promotion actually so I'll phone a friend again here and most of the promotion is I think on the PSTA side but we have worked with the marketing department another thing that we're doing is we're cross marketing between the access to our scooter share program and this trying to make sure everybody that does the access for scooter share knows about PSTA and everybody that's on this knows about the scooter so we have the bus system and then the scooters and bikes could be part of the first mile last mile solution there we've done some pushes in the past I think you'll see something come out about this program from the city if council hopefully approves it this afternoon so we'll have another push today or tomorrow on getting the word out

I appreciate it and I look forward were you going to say something

I was just going to say I am the director of communications and marketing for PSTA so you happened to have the right person available on the PSTA side talk about what we're doing to promote the program we are working directly with schools and non-profit organizations who serve those populations there was talk about ready for life earlier that's one of our partners directions for living we've worked with a large number of organizations in the community to get the word out about the program not only to their customers directly holding outreach events at those locations but also doing train the trainer programs so that those case managers and staff of those organizations are directly trained on our application process and qualification process and can help their clients get enrolled in the program

that is awesome news and that's what I was actually hinting at is seeing an expansion of services or collaboration with our non-profit partners I'm thinking about metropolitan ministries family support services lutheran family services even our faith-based partners right that may be providing those wraparound services to the community how can we better inform them I believe people perish from a lack of knowledge and a lot of time people don't even know about the disadvantaged program when I'm out in the community promoting it so I look forward to seeing a heightened partnership and collaboration between the city's marketing department I look at our social media page I think that's a great opportunity and outlet for us to reach the masses so thank you for what you do we really appreciate this and this is exciting 500 more people will be served at least a thousand dollars a year you are saving the actual excuse me the average taxpayer so I really appreciate this thank you

chair thank you thank you all for everything you do thank you Evan we have a motion and a second oh no we don't have do we have we have yeah we do we have a motion second okay clerk please open the machine for voting council members please enter your votes seeing that all present council members have voted clerk please tally announce a

vote I'm chair motion to approve agenda three passes unanimously with council member Garrett being

absent great thank you thank you all for being here okay next up we have new business G1 is a referral to HLUT it's a staff request vice chair Floyd I pass it to you

thank you I'm respectfully requesting a referral to the housing land use and transportation committee or other element committee for review of the draft findings and recommendations for the connecting south st petersburg CRA mobility study it's a staff request I'll move approval

second we have a motion and second clerk if you can open the machine for voting council members please enter your votes Mike seeing that all present council members have voted clerk please tally announce the

vote madam chair motion to approve agenda G1 passes unanimously with council member Garrett being

absent thank you we have next up is G2 is referral to PSI council member Driscoll thank you

this new business item respectfully requests a referral to the public services and infrastructure committee or other relevant committee for a discussion on creating a vessel exclusion zone within the lagoon at Coquina Key Park this could also be sent depending on what this schedule looks like for everybody it doesn't necessarily have to be PSNI it could be hers because it's an environmental issue and it could be HLUT because it's about kayaks and canoes and that my friend is transportation

well I will say as PSNI is pretty packed well so I don't know how the other committees are looking how quickly

I mean well council member Gabbards and her Cheryl Stacks is

working with me on this as well so that makes so it could be transportation related

okay but I I don't have a I mean this isn't something that my next item has a is time sensitive this one is not so much except that people really want to see this happen so if we could send it to HLUT and it could be heard sometime soon

HLUT it might have to be a couple of months for HLUT I think we've got our next two meetings planned already and they're quite packed agendas but after that would be a possibility depending on if that's still the fastest route possible

does any I don't know how hers is looking yeah I don't know either if somebody has any information on hers that would be helpful but this is a referral to PSNI or any relevant committee so it should be fine although it didn't say in the item you did say that that's gonna be that's the motion

yeah usually usually it's that the committee is determined at the time that the new business item is read I would

I could make one thing I agree council member Driscoll that typically that's the case it doesn't mean it absolutely has to be though so if it was the will of the body to say you could even theoretically say as between HLUT hers whatever other committee you wanted to identify the first available agenda you could phrase it that way in your motion if you chose to and then the chair Jeannie could work with the check with the chairs of the various committees and it just goes as long as that's okay with everybody it just goes on whichever committee meeting can first hear it

then I'll keep the reading the reading of this as it is with the specific committee to be determined based on availability okay and I'll move approval second of a motion a second council

member Gerdes thank you

madam chair and I I thought this was about one thing and then you said kayaks and canoes could you just council member Driscoll madam chair if it's okay could you give a little bit of background to this because I I honestly thought this would be about mooring no in Coquina Key Lagoon and so which makes total sense but if you could give a little background on the canoeing and kayaking that would be super helpful I'm certainly not against the conversation just looking for some context I wish it

was about mooring but I don't have enough time left on City Council to take up mooring so I'm going to do this this particular lagoon area is very popular for kayaking and canoeing and it's a very there's a very small opening into Big Bayou and Tampa Bay from there and it's a perfect spot for and there used to be more like Boy Scout troops that would go out and learn how to kayak or canoe water safety that kind of stuff we want to make it more inviting for that and more welcoming and safer for that having motorized vessels mixed in with that does create a safety issue because it's such a small almost enclosed area it seems to pass initial legal observation question that we wouldn't be going up against any state laws regarding voters rights by doing this so my so my goal is for to establish kind of a kayak and canoe trailway if you will so think about a really mini version of

Wheaton Island it's the exclusion of motorized vessels is what you're looking for yes okay my water brain went to all vessels and so that's why I was looking for some no it's really

just addressing the motorized so that the non-motorized can can operate

safely thank you very much thank you

chair yeah and I look forward to talking about it much more and whatever committee it lands in we have

a motion and a second clerk if you can open the machine for voting council members please enter your votes seeing that all present council members have voted clerk please tally announce the

vote madam chair motion to approve it the council member garrick being absent

okay next up we move to g3 it's also councilmember driscoll's thank you for

this item I'm respectfully requesting a referral to the public services and infrastructure committee for discussion on the designation of the city of st petersburg as a bird sanctuary in accordance with florida administrative code rule 68a-19.002 the reasoning the main reason behind this is that as our city grows we're losing habitat for our birds and st petersburg is actually home to some quite uncommon birds and this is something that quite a few like dozens of other cities in florida have established large and small and it creates more protection for those birds and actually for people as well but it's just a really great way as a growing city for us to make sure that we're taking care of nature along the way I look forward to the conversation this one actually is time sensitive because of the process this one requires an approval by the FWC and they make these approvals in January and July and I would very much like this to be in their hands by July I don't know if there if you want to add anything to this part of it because it's just it's not as easy of a process as us just going to committee and then doing a public hearing so there's three

steps to the process and the process is quite old so there aren't a lot of examples of cities doing it recently because a lot of the ones that implemented their ordinances is before this process was being utilized so there aren't a ton of examples to work off of but the way that the administrative code lays it out it's three steps the first one is a local governmental body with jurisdiction over an area so over a city which would be like city council in this instance submits a written request to create a bird sanctuary to fish and wildlife and they also have to have a resolution saying that they're taking on responsibility for enforcement of that sanctuary so that would be like signage telling law enforcement this is a bird sanctuary and then step two is after receiving that request the commission investigates what they say is to ensure the tract of land under consideration is sufficiently developed as to preclude recreational hunting in the interest of safety and that its closure will not result in a denial of reasonable and lawful hunting opportunities so they're looking to see is the city developed enough that it makes sense that people should not be able to hunt in this area is it a safety concern is that going to counteract anyone's rights and abilities to hunt and then the third step like council member driscoll mentioned is that action of the commission is taken on evaluating that at the january and july meetings so those are the two days that they could evaluate it if we don't get it to them until july they may not have time to do that staff review for step two so that's where the time sensitivity piece comes in i don't feel like this is an

extremely complicated issue um i i don't think it's going to take up a whole lot of time it's really just being able to get that request letter in so the only

thing i'm going to say in terms of psi and i check with janie we're really backed up like we have a lot of items hers is more open you're in you're on hers if you want to put it on you know like the last one put it open and see where we can get it in faster because of the time sensitive nature would that work that's fine i

think yeah it's a great fit for hers as well

yeah and i think you may be able to get it on hers quicker but we could do both like we did in the last one and then to see where we can get it in quicker

okay well i'll amend this and um to um read that it is requesting a referral to the health energy resilience and sustainability committee for a discussion on the designation of the city as a bird sanctuary in accordance with florida administrative code and i move approval

okay motion a second count and no other speakers clerk you please open council members please enter your votes seeing that all present council members have voted clerk please tally announce the vote

madam chair motion to approve agenda 8g3 passes unanimously with councilman

government being absent great thank you we move on to council committee reports h2 the february 26 2026 ewd action item council member driscoll thanks one second

while i get to that page all right so this is in regards to our february 26 meeting we had an action item which was um sent for city council and we are respectfully requesting city council approval of a request for our administration to support the grant proposals for the economic development agency and the pinellas county employment sites both of those grants along with the st petersburg innovation district and the st petersburg downtown partnership providing technical assistance and support to the city for these grant applications and this is in relation to the hub 2 project at the maritime and defense technology hub and i'll move approval we have a

motion a second clerk if you can open the machine for voting council members please enter your votes seeing that all present council members have voted clerk please tally announce the vote madam chair motion to

approve agenda h2 passes unanimously with councilman regara being absent next up

we have h3 the march 12 2026 cow action item which is mine respectfully requesting city council approval of a resolution appointing mark vigiano and david harbeider beitner to the community benefits advisory council standing committee we have a motion a second clerk if you can open the machine for voting council members please enter your votes seeing that all present council members

have voted clerk please tally announce the vote madam chair motion to approve agenda h3 passes unanimously

council member gabbard being absent thank you and i just want to thank every council member at the cal it was done really well we went through that like i thought it was just everyone did a great job um and we have selected two great people for that committee so i'm very for the council i'm very excited about that okay i think we are going to have a little break before 501 when we have public hearings and quasi-judicial proceedings at this time we are adjourned thank you everyone thank you

media march 2026 is reconvening we're starting with public hearings and quasi-judicial proceedings

the first up we have is j1 and j2 which can take in together i have a motion hi joe clerk you please open the machine for voting council members please enter your votes seeing that all present council members have

voted clerk please tally announce the votes madam chair motion to approve adjournments j1 and j2 passes unanimously with council member gabbard being absent thank you thank you joe for being here

we move on to j3 an ordinance amending the official zoning map by changing the zoning of a 3.84 acre parcel located at 7701 22nd avenue north the science center from neighborhood suburban one and this dash one to institutional center slash institutional i see that initial anyone wishing to speak on this item must fill out a yellow card and provide it to the city clerk and all speakers must be sworn in before presenting testimony the procedures for quasi-judicial proceedings can be found on the yellow sheet attached to the printed agendas or if viewing digitally pages 14 through 15 of the council agenda clerk can you please swear in all parties and speakers including city staff so if you're a party or a speaker please stand up to be sworn in j3 science center property re-zoning science center property

re-zoning thank you can clerk can you please read the ordinance title proposed ordinance number 799-z an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of st petersburg florida by changing the zoning of a 3.848 i'm sorry is this the wrong one okay parcel located at 7701 22nd avenue north from neighborhood suburban dash one parentheses ns dash one to institutional center backslash institutional parentheses ic backslash i providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof and providing an effective date and we have no cards for j3 thank you clerk we'll now move on to

presentations each party will have 10 minutes for their presentation and we will begin with the city

staff's presentation good afternoon good afternoon madam chair and fellow council members britain wilson for the record presenting an amendment to the official zoning atlas for a 3.84 acre site which is home to the science center located at 7701 22nd avenue north petitioned by saint pete for steam llc the subject science center is located on the north side of 22nd avenue north surrounding uses starting on the top right is the city's northwest water reclamation facility below that is a large vacant industrial site and then south of 22nd avenue north is the azalea single-family neighborhood followed by the jungle prada neighborhood then azalea middle school is directly west of the site and then walter fuller city park is on the north side of 26 avenue north this is the future land use map showing the subject site as designated institutional which will remain as a land use designation is intended for parcels utilized utilized for government hospital religious or educational uses and is consistent with the proposed zoning district this is this is a zoning map showing the subject site as designated neighborhood suburban or ns1 which is proposed for amendment to institutional center institutional or ici which will allow for the revitalization of the science center and to accommodate education assembly and indoor and outdoor museum activities that aren't currently allowed under the single-family zoning of ns1 so this slide shows the overall change in development potential from the existing ns single-family zoning that would allow a total of 29 dwelling units and where the proposed zoning would allow for 48 accessory dwelling units with an increased far from 0.35 to 0.55 and both with the same allowed height of 36 feet however all parcels over two acres are eligible to follow the large tract plan development process where when large buffers of 75 feet or more are used building heights could reach as high as 72 feet so with both the existing and the proposed zoning district a 72 foot high building could potentially be built after obtaining approval from the development review commission or drc so as noted in the staff report the proposed amendment is consistent with many policies of the comprehensive plan such as supporting a logical and compatible land use transition and is consistent with the established surrounding neighborhood that is a mix of institutional and residential uses staff was contacted by two residents one was a letter of concern from a neighbor about building height compromising backyard privacy and a phone call that expressed concern regarding the lack of formal historic designation of the site and both staff and the applicant reached out to these residents and discussed their concerns and ways to address them during the site plan review process and with that staff recommends a finding of consistency with a comprehensive plan and recommends approval of the proposed rezoning from neighborhood suburban to institutional center as it allows for the revitalization of the former science center which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and that completes my presentation staff and i believe the applicant is here to answer any questions you may have thank you does the applicant have a presentation

can you please speak at the podium so that way it's clear for the record thank you that's all right

hello sean williams uh carbon design and architecture i'm the architect for the project we don't have a

presentation at this time thank you is there a registered opponent for this item staff there isn't okay we'll now take public comment clerk do we have any cards we do not this concludes the public comment portion of this proceeding now it's cross-examination that i still have to ask even though there's not an opponent so everyone understands thank you now we will move into cross-examination each party will have five minutes for cross-examination staff would you like to cross-examine staff waves thank you as there is no registered opponent does the applicant wish to cross-examine the applicant waves the applicant waves okay we go to the closing arguments now we have to move on to closing arguments or rebuttal each party will have five minutes to provide a closing argument or rebuttal staff any closing argument or rebuttal no ma'am as there is no registered opponent does the applicant have any closing arguments or rebuttal he does not he does not thank you the quasi judicial proceeding is now closed and we will move into executive session approval we have a motion second and a second council member driscoll

thank you there was one letter that was received by a neighboring resident with some concerns that really weren't related to the zoning but there were some concerns about the the project itself and so even though it doesn't really apply here i i do hope that either city staff or the applicant or both will be in contact with that resident to work through the concerns that they have in the future

absolutely all right thank you thank you chair thank you we have a motion and a second clerk can you please open the machine for voting council members please enter your votes seeing the all present council members have voted clerk please tally announced vote madam chair motion to approve of

unanimous j3 passes unanimously councilman regard being absent thank you and thank you britain for

being here and everyone for that was here for j3 now we move on to j4 which is an appeal the drc's approval of a site plan to construct a 21-story building in the 400 block of fifth avenue north this item is quasi-judicial anyone wishing to speak on this item must fill out a yellow card and provide it to the clerk of city clerk and all speakers must be sworn in for this item before presenting testimony the procedures for quasi-judicial proceedings can be found on the yellow sheet attached to the printed agendas or if viewing digitally agenda clerk can you please swear in all parties and speakers including staff so i would figure that pretty much everyone in the room here stands up please because you're probably going to speak and if you are planning to speak you stand up

and you get sworn we will now move to presentations each party will have 10 minutes for their presentation

and we will begin with city staff's presentation next we will have applicants presentation and then its opponents presentation so we will start with city staff all right thank you so much adriana puentes

shaw urban design development coordinator for the city of saint pete the subject property is generally located at 434 4th street north and 432 442 450 and 466 fifth avenue north these parcels are currently developed with surface parking lots and various multi-family buildings the subject property is within the downtown st pete national register historic district the downtown st pete national historic register district is established in 2004 and includes diverse collection of buildings constructed between 19 sorry 1888 and 1954 of the 10 parcels being redeveloped five are considered contributing while the designation acknowledges the area's historic significance it does not impose restrictions on property use this is a survey of the existing property showing the structures as well as the surface parking areas and these are some of the structures that are existing on site as well as structures adjacent to the property the proposed development consists of 21 story building with 370 dwelling units including 3819 square foot ground floor commercial space and a 485 space parking garage based on the project breakdown provided by the applicant the minimum required parking by code would be 254 spaces the project massing has been designed with sensitivity to the nearby potential eligible historic church surrounding neighborhoods the main tower is strategically positioned at the northeast corner of the pro of the property to maximize its distance from the church residential units a double height lobby commercial spaces will wrap the first two levels of the structured parking garage on north east and west façades of the building the use of the podium paired with transparency open areas aims to produce to enhance the pedestrian experience residential indoor and outdoor amenities will be restricted to the amenity deck which is located above the parking garage and the remaining floors will be devoted solely to residential units vehicular access will be from 5th street north the existing east west alley that is south of the proposed building the development review commission also referred to as the drc heard the subject site plan application at the january 7 2026 hearing after hearing testimony from staff the agent the registered opponent and members of the public drc made one motion the motion was to approve the site plan and the motion passed with a vote of four to one a copy of the drc staff report for case number 2531 0007 and the results letter along with the vote record were included in exhibit a an appeal was filed by preserve the burg on january 20 20 2026 pursuant to city code appeals require the super majority vote of city council to overturn the drc's decision with a standard review for appeal as de novo which means that the city council may hear new evidence and may substitute its judgment for that of the drc city council may decide to retain eliminate or further amend any of the conditions of approval adding new conditions of approval is also permissible but the burden of proof of the appeal is on the appellant it is the responsibility of council to evaluate the weight of this criteria in making their determination staff has reviewed the grounds for appeal set forth in the appeal letter we will now state the appellant's grounds for appeal and as well as provide staff's response the appellant states that the project has inconsistencies with several of the comprehensive plan sections staff finds that the comprehensive plan is a broad document that covers many subject areas or elements that address numerous issues through a system of goals objectives and policies it is recognized in the plan that there are competing policies and that staff has a discretion to interpret the plan as it relates to a particular project or development in a matter that would maximize the consistency with the plan in the memo staff identified several objectives and policies demonstrating that the proposed multi-family use is consistent with the comp plan appellant states that inconsistencies with st p 2050 policies staff finds that the st p 2050 plan does not address specific uses land uses rather it's a broad visioning document that outlines 10 priority community themes these themes are identified to help making future decisions and guide the plans for the city's programs and services throughout the next 30 years the st p 2050 plan theme of community character and growth identifies downtown as an area for redevelopment and future growth appellant states inconsistency with development standards providing opposition to the massing and the height of the proposed development with concerns to how it will impact surrounding developments and neighborhoods staff reviewed the subject property which is located in downtown center 2 also known as dc2 zoning district this district provides for intense residential development that still allows for a mixture of uses that enhance and support the core of the surrounding neighborhoods heights in this district begin to taper down from those in the core of downtown and the development sites transition to other corridor districts as well as the neighborhoods however the setbacks within this district still apply creating a pedestrian scale environment at the sidewalk level the proposed building sorry the proposed building setback at grade along 5th avenue is 0 feet to 10 feet the portion of the building at 0 foot setback does not exceed more than half the block the setback along 4th street also provides relief as a proposed setback at grade is 10 feet portions of the building above 62 feet meet the minimum setback and the required distance between buildings as proposed the project meets or exceeds all standards for development on this site the following design features were incorporated by the applicant into the project to address pedestrian scale they placed the building close to the property line defining a street edge parking is concealed from view store from windows and large glass entries were incorporated at the ground floor street scrape improvements including a white sidewalk deck decorated hardscape as well as landscaping and the integration of overhangs and decorative arches and vertical changes in the facade there are multiple examples of projects built in dc2 and dc1 west of mlk that require the same setback and distance between the buildings and subject property that have building height at least 60 feet and have a majority of the building extending the length of the street along the property lines there was a chart provided in the memo with a list of these properties the subject property is also within the in-town activity center the in-town activity center was established by city to encourage urban development with significant higher intensity and density than other parts of the city the maximum building height for the subject property is 200 feet but the applicant qualifies for an additional height of 12 feet due to the fact that there's 50 percent of the first floors being devoted to parking the allowable height map from dc section of the code is shown here for reference and provides further illustration of the tapering of the heights within this district allowable heights in this district tapered from the core and transitioned to the surrounding corridors and neighborhoods the tallest area being the orange and blue zones followed by magenta zones then green zone and ending with the beige zone the subject site has a base height of 125 feet the block immediately to the south also zone dc2 which is adjacent to the mirror lake local historic district has a base height of 300 feet the character of dynamic and changing areas such as the in-town activity center cannot be narrowly defined by selected few existing buildings immediately surrounding a particular development staff asserts that the appropriate context for this review and for this development is broader and encompassing downtown more generally and dc2 in home the applicant has also the applicant states that the user has only agreed sorry the appellant states that the applicant has only agreed to 0.5 far towards historic tdr bonus the projects in dc district may utilize bonuses to receive greater development rights per city code this property has a contributing resource to a local historic district or a national register or historic place district then the which requires the first 0.5 bonus to be dedicated towards historic preservation and the following additional 1.0 bonus shall be towards workforce housing the demolition of the con the appellant states that the demolition of the contributing structures will be weak in the overall integrity of the downtown national register historic district in the memorandum staff detailed analysis that was prepared by derrick kilbourne planning director the memo states that existing buildings include 33 multi-family dwelling units and 41 licensed beds in a residential equivalent use during testimony the drc public hearing mr kilbourne was asked to confirm whether this proposal would demolish more contributing structures than any other development constructed or approved in recent years mr kilbourne has since confirmed that this is accurate redevelopment at 200 mirror lake drive consisted of five buildings and at 443rd avenue north consisted of four buildings prior to the drc hearing staff received email requests and additional information staff also received several emails in opposition and support and two registered opponents emails were attached to the drc report as exhibit a after the drc hearing staff received additional emails in opposition which were provided for distribution planning staff recommends that city council deny the appeal there by upholding the decision of the drc and approving the site plan subject to the special

conditions of approval thank you this concludes my presentation thank you three seconds two one sorry i was three two one i've been i've been practicing time i know it was a lot i'm sorry everybody look i speak

fat i'm hispanic so when i speak in english i speak as fast as i do and i speak in spanish so i speak spanish too i figured yeah sorry thank you very much next we'll have applicants presentation this is what i have

here can you double check it's generally applicant when we're doing regular quasi-judicial but because the actual applicant here is the appellant in a way because they filed the appeal so appellant and then we'll

do property owner you're right that's this is just my cheat sheet that i have to say and if i don't say it then i get in trouble so i said what it said but it's appellate so there you go so appellant and just a reminder anyone that's arriving um late is going to have to be sworn in if you're speaking and we will do that before public comment just in case i forget thank you so let's see if you can do it within the 10

minutes like he did my name is manny leto i'm the executive director of preserve the berg i want to thank you for hearing this appeal i know this is kind of over time for you guys so we do appreciate your attention to the matter uh my colleague peter belmont will be presenting this case but i think what you will see is that the argument is deeply rooted in code this project is incompatible in mass and scale it does not taper it demolishes more historic resources than we have seen in recent memory and by the way it's also over parked by about 50 percent per code preserve the berg is happy to support compatible infill development we have supported a number of projects in downtown st pete

and in other neighborhoods we are very happy to support these sites being redeveloped in a sensible thoughtful manner in the last few years here's just a few of the projects that we were more than happy to lend our support for and we want to be judicious in our time before you so looking at the downtown development guide over the last year or two we see about 68 projects that are under development or under construction preserve the berg has officially appealed three of them that's including our time here today we have not been before council on an appeal since 2019 um so i'm going to turn things over to uh peter to walk you through the rest of the case thank you thank you i also am going to be

speaking fast because there's a lot to cover you actually have three options you may not realize that to continue the case is an option and if you need more information or input from the drc yep that's an option so a good place to start is the development review process and the importance here is that when you get bigger there's more review and so smaller projects are not subject to the site plan review criteria but the bigger projects are the significance for you is when embedded within those site plan review criteria are the neighborhood compatibility standards and that's what's really at issue today why do we have neighborhood compatibility review i would suggest it makes common sense and to me it goes back a long time and what i mean for a long time is back in the 70s and yep in the 70s i was here before you then too but back in the 70s there was a comprehensive planning effort undertaken and it was recognized then that it was a good idea to have big development intense development downtown it was true then it's true today but it was also understood that biggest is not always best and there has to be some process some pathway to say for particular locations in downtown we need to temper biggest by something else something less intense how do you do that these are your rules to do that by these are what we refer to as the compatibility review criteria that are embedded within the site plan review criteria as you can see they give you broad authority broad discretion to basically look at how does the building fit within its surroundings what is the context and if it's basically too big too massive it doesn't really fit you can say no what do we talk about when it's compatible the comp plan tells you this is the comp plan definition compatible not having significant adverse impact limited variation from adjacent uses in net density etc so those are the rules i think it's clear that when you apply those rules and think about is biggest best in this location the answer is clearly no it's not compatible not compatible with the neighborhood across the street tapering staff mentioned there's a tapering requirement it's unique to dc2 where the pelican is located so you have the maximum height that the pelican go to and that's what it's reaching for but what you see on the screen is the requirement in dc2 that buildings also have to taper down i don't think there's a lot of argument what taper means use your common sense use the dictionary what i came up with when i looked at the dictionary is what you see on the screen to become progressively smaller to diminish gradually i don't think that's what you see with the pelican the code has a maximum building height map staff seems to think this is the taper map but it is what you see before you it's not called the taper map in the code it's called the maximum building height map and so it provides for any location how high can you go and secondarily how high can you go before there's a mandated public hearing review as was mentioned the pelican is going to destroy more buildings for the downtown district than any other project over the last five years or so pick your recent time frame we've had a lot of development downtown and basically the north half of downtown is the national register district and the pelican somehow becomes the champion knocking down or intending or proposing to knock down more than anything else what is an historic resource it's not limited to landmarks don likes to tell you that it's not and how do i know that because again the comprehensive plan tells me that there's a definition for historic resources and what the definition means all you need to know is that everything on the site there at issue that's going to be torn down that's contributing to the district is an historic resource and you're supposed to look at it the cop plan has a number of policies that are applicable that one would have to question how does this project meet i want you to pay particular attention to the the top one because naturally occurring affordable housing or noah is an issue today we're never going to answer the affordability crisis without using our existing housing stock that's affordable the city recognized that in the comp plan and it said we're going to protect that housing stock and how are we going to do it we are going to discourage demolition of national register properties and so here we are that you're being asked to approve to demolish all of them at the pelican site and by the way again it's 74 beds or units of naturally occurring affordable housing are there i challenge you to think of a development that's going to knock down more downtown parking is mint manny briefly mentioned um there's a lot of parking being provided 485 spaces when the project went to the drc the drc was told most of that is required they the drc was told 370 of those 485 spaces are code required parking we had a lot of problem with that we couldn't quite figure it out we asked staff about it a couple times and finally post drc staff came back to us and said you know actually only 254 spaces are needed and so the drc never had the right numbers about parking and i would suggest to you it matters because parking is part of the mass problem the more parking there is the bigger that massive parking garage is and if there was an option not to require it maybe things would be different the drc decision i respect the drc i do a lot of participation particularly with the cppc our commissioners work hard but i want you to understand the context of what happened because you have in your backup material minutes from january but not minutes from september it first went to the drc in september and basically it was continued because the handwriting was on the wall on the wall for what that it was going to be denied and how do i know that because after the public comments were taken after the commissioner spoke the chair said to the applicant would you like to continue the case and perhaps speak with staff about making some changes and so it was continued comes back in january it's approved it has prettier pictures but no changes in the massing and scale of the project and it's approved but when you add up all the commissioners who have voted on it there were eight in total we know four voted for it we know one voted against it and we know three more are about to vote against it before it was continued so just for your information in context of that decision it was closer to four to four can you say no based upon the compatibility criteria yes you can because the court tells us you can and so back in 2008 there was a court case and it was the direct issue that we're talking about today on appeal before the court the developer said oh my gosh i meet the far standards oh my gosh i meet the height standards but you said no how can you do that you're telling me it's not compatible i'm going to challenge you in court and the court said city council you're right you get to do that one important factor that the staff i think was a bit incorrect on what is the focus of the compatibility review it is the surrounding neighborhood it is not downtown as a whole or the entire disc zoning district that's what the city explained to the court this is an example of compatibility in action this was a drc matter two years ago it started big it ended up much smaller when the compatibility standards were applied we're asking you to do that to this project

so thank you and please approve our appeal thank you next we will have the applicant good afternoon

my name is don mastery my address is 200 central avenue i've been sworn in i represent the applicant in this matter and it might not surprise you i disagree with most of what peter has said he's distorted many things that he said but the preserve the berg states the proposed buildings are a greater intensity than any other building on fifth avenue built under the current code i don't care what code it was was built under there's a building at 400 beach drive on fifth avenue that's 29 stories and it's been there forever and it's across the street from a two-story older home and it's across the street from the historical northeast neighborhood and no problems have developed from that preserve the burn misimplies and misinterprets the height map it also feels that a hundred and park 115 uh the excuse me the parking ratio is 1.15 spaces per unit i don't think that's too much and preserve the berg says that the ldrs are inconsistent with a number of comp plan provisions but preserve the bird does not think tall buildings are compatible with shorter buildings well that the the that that's just not so and we will deal with that in a minute the application is a no variance application which means it complies with all of the ldrs if the position of preserve the berg is correct it means all the buildings which have been approved in the dc districts are not consistent with the comp plan and we all know that's not true or correct and preserve the berg stated many comp plan provisions which he says are inconsistent with this application he failed to mention lu 23.3 and i'm going to read it to you and it states the city's ldr shall continue to support greater development intensity within the corridor and the center zoning districts particularly where located along fixed transit lines and around transit stops and transit stations this project is located in a center zoning district it's located along fixed transit lines on both 4th street and 5th avenue and the dc two ldrs are entirely consistent with the comp plan in spite of what has been said now i would like to speak to the project this project which staff has recommended approval and the drc approved this project satisfies all the standards of review for site plan set forth in the code and on pages five through eight of the staff report to the dc drc that confirms the standards are met the use is consistent with the comp plan the property is designated central business district and in-town activity center in the city's comp plan these designations permit the highest intensity development within the city along with a range of various uses including those proposed for the project now i'll speak to criterion 14 there is one local landmark trinity lutheran church located at 467 fourth avenue north and it's within 200 feet of the property the church is located south of the property and is separated from the church by 75 feet across an alley and a surface parking lot and also a three-story non-designated building the church faces fourth avenue north and fifth street north with the proposed project being adjacent to and facing the rear of the church's three-story office building which they did not ask to be designated the three-story building at the rear of the church in the parking lot on the north side of the church were expressly not designated and they're in between the church the building proposed and the sanctuary and the church has also been across the street from a 15-story apartment building for over 20 years and that hadn't been a problem either the project and property surrounding it are located within the downtown saint petersburg national register historic district and as stated by your staff in the staff report national register designations do not impose any restrictions on the use of the property the project has been thoughtfully designed to be sensitive to both the church and the surrounding neighborhood the main tower of the project has been deliberately located towards the northeast corner of the property which is the intersection of 4th street and 5th avenue north and is as far away from as possible from the church and no elements of this church are in any way obstructed view obstructed or affected by this project the height map has tapering built into it as was stated by to the drc by mr meliska and i urge you to ask him to explain that to you because i don't have time the area covered by the height map contains buildings of over 500 feet in the core and it goes down to 200 feet at the edge it's not like mr belmont explained to you tapering does not also mean that the buildings in the dc district have to match the height of the buildings across the street and outside of the height map area the height map does not regulate the height of buildings outside of the area covered by the map i urge you to again ask mr melissa to confirm what i'm saying and tall buildings are compatible with shorter buildings and big buildings are compatible with smaller buildings and there are many examples around town you've got the 400 central avenue at 46 stories across the street from two and four-story buildings you have art house of 42 stories across the street from two-story buildings and at 400 beach drive four blocks east on fifth avenue you have the 29 story building across from a two-story house in situations where this city and this council is going to limit the height map it has been done by legislation amending the code and one example of that is where roser park neighborhood is adjacent to the johns hopkins all children's hospital the code was amended to increase the setback and reduce the height the future hospital buildings right next to the property lines it was done by legislation not by the drc or this council just saying it shouldn't apply because it says it does apply a few blocks to the east on fifth avenue there's the 29 story 400 beach drive building that is across the street from the historic old northeast neighborhood and a two-story older house and there does not seem to be any facts which support permitting that 29 story building to be on fifth avenue and this building not being on fifth avenue in fact the facts are stronger for this building because the tallest building is across the street from predominantly commercial uses and residential uses the code also says all prompt all projects in the dc district may utilize the far bonuses if the project meets the qualifications to use the bonuses far bonuses are written to provide public benefits and amenities which this city wants to occur or to be built such in this case a payment of one million three hundred and forty thousand dollars is being made to the workforce housing fund the city through the code is saying a building can be larger than the far if far bonuses are utilized and the code says they are available to all projects in the dc district do not follow the height map or to not allow the limit or to limit the utilization of their bonuses to the extent permitted the code when the code expressly says all projects within the downtown center may utilize the bonuses to receive greater development rights just tantamount to rezoning this site i would also point out that every city department that is required to review this has reviewed it and has recommended approval the planning and historical preservation division has said in its report and i quote the seven buildings on four contributing parcels to the downtown st petersburg national register district are not protected from demolition without a separate landmark designation continuing the code the historical preservation division agrees the applicant has made an effort to articulate the base at 20 feet in recognition of the surrounding character and kept the base at a height of 60 feet the opponents want these buildings to receive the same protection as if they had been designated without going through the designation process and i don't believe that's the correct or was intended by the code in any way nor does the uh preservation department at the city the transportation department concluded that there is traffic capacity on 4th street 5th avenue and 4th avenue and the in its words the proposed development is anticipated to have relatively minor impact on the traffic carrying capacity of the downtown road the planning department states and i quote again the site is zoned dc2 with a future land use of central business district and is located in the in-town activity center these designations permit the highest intensity development within the city and the proposed uses are consistent with the comp plan the project is well suited in the surrounding high intensity mixed-use neighborhood which is approved for and features similar mid to high-rise buildings those are the words of your planning department those are not my words and property owners i think should be able to rely on the code it's not right that the property owner reads the code spends the time and hundreds of thousands of dollars to to develop a no variance project agrees to the conditions of approval all city departments recommend approval thank you sir

almost made it pardon almost made it in time but the bell rang thank you okay we have some late arrivals that need to be sworn in so those who arrived and are speaking have filled out a yellow card and have not been sworn you need to stand up to be sworn so everyone that arrives late that filled out a card that is

going to speak and has not been sworn please stand up okay clerk hey clerk we will now take public comment

and i know we do have cards uh i'm going to call two speakers at a time when i call your name please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record and you will have three minutes to address city council first two speakers are christy bruner and nori morimoto so if your name

is called you take one of the podiums you don't have to fight over it good afternoon good afternoon

my name is christy bruner vice president of advocacy with the st petersburg chamber 102nd av4th i'm here today to reiterate the chamber's support for the pelican project and to respectfully urge you to deny the appeal and uphold the drc's approval of the site plan in october the chamber submitted a formal letter of support for the project following a thorough review by our housing land use and development committee that process brought together business leaders and stakeholders to evaluate the project's alignment with our city's growth housing and economic development priorities after careful consideration our members strongly supported this pelican as a project that meets both the intent of our policies and the needs of our community importantly this project has already gone through the city's established review process the development review commission evaluated the site plan against the applicable standard and determined it's consistent with our codes and vision upholding that decision is critical not just for this project but for maintaining a predictable and transparent development process that businesses and investors rely on when choosing to invest in st petersburg from the chamber's perspective the pelican produce represents the type of high quality investment that supports our city's continued momentum first it addresses housing in walkable job accessible areas with 370 new residential units in a central downtown corridor this project helps expand housing supply in a location where residents can live work and contribute to our local economy second the project contributes to economic vitality it will generate jobs during construction and operation activate the streetscape with new retail space and increase property tax revenue that support essential city services and third pelican will enhance the northern gateway to downtown st petersburg it design reflects careful consideration of the surrounding development patterns incorporating a thoughtful transition and scale an active pedestrian friendly streetscape along fifth avenue north we recognize and respect the passion of residents who care deeply about our city's character and we share that commitment while there may be differing perspectives on individual projects the chamber remains committed to working alongside preservation advocates and community stakeholders to support long-term success of st petersburg balancing growth with an appreciation of what makes our city unique st petersburg has built a reputation as a city that values growth design excellence and a fair consistent review process when a project meets our standards and receives approval through appropriate channels it is important we uphold that process for these reasons the st petersburg chamber of commerce respectfully ask that you deny the appeal and uphold the drc

approval thank you for your time and your leadership sir good evening uh i'm nori morimoto the current uh president of the historic uptown neighborhood association and i'm here in favor of the repeal the pelican development has been a topic of discussion at various hoona meetings for the last seven months opinions and comments range from negative reactions of destroying the historic nature of the neighborhood to positive support for development of st petersburg in december of last year we conducted a survey with the approximately 1200 hoona households the results show strong overall concern for three items the proposed architecture conflicts with the neighborhood's predominant craftsman style the pelican design does not fit the character of historic uptown north of fifth avenue the proposed development is out of scale for its location the proposed 21 stories will overwhelm the one to four floor buildings across fifth avenue north third increased density will exacerbate parking issues parking and traffic impacts are a major concern currently of the three concerns the most important to the community is the style of architecture and scale of the structure the proposed development brings a stark high rise development across the street from a neighborhood with mostly single floor craftsman style homes and within close proximity to the historic round lake a special concern nearby residents park dwellers and wildlife would be impacted by large shadows the park is important to our residents quality of life and their property values the developer must consider how the proposed buildings will affect this unique community asset in conclusion addressing the style by adding a craftsman style facade and reducing the height so that the structure does not cast shadows over historic round lake park which significantly improve hoona support towards the pelican

development thank you thank you next two speakers are christy anderson and victoria stouts please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record and you'll have three minutes to address city council

i'm victoria stout 633 8th avenue north and if my speech sounds emotional rather than legal don't take any of it personally i've sort of given up on the idea that saint pete could be a shining example to other cities in florida instead we're falling into all the cliches that are a product of our time people with money and political influence just keep buying property and putting parcels together to make bigger projects that only benefits them and their cronies in real estate construction and government the cliches we are falling into destruction of historic areas in favors of in favor of mcmansions or endless townhouses the high-rise disease that has ruined so many florida towns already and no thought to dwindling water supplies or availability of public transportation resulting in noisy crowded streets more danger to pedestrians and some of the highest auto insurance rates in the nation my neighborhood is already suffers from all the noise generated by fourth street and fifth avenue north racetrack onto the interstate downtown events endless sirens and mega glass gas blowers everywhere now you want the earth to shake as we endure months of pile drivers loud beeping bulldozers jackhammers and all the other noise associated with giant construction projects chirping birds gone noise pollution instead we already have high-rises without full occupancy maybe the units are all sold but there's no one there to add to our local economy meanwhile people that live and work here are often getting priced out because the money people that come here heard it was an easy place to plunder and squeeze them out of the market putting a gigantic high-rise next to our historic neighborhood uh puts it in grave danger of being next on the list for redevelopment just by its proximity they'll just present their case for rezoning throw the money around the right places come election time and poof there goes the neighborhood hello fort lauderdale which is uh by the way case study a friend of mine who was a geography professor at university texas said broward county and fort lauderdale in particular was a case study in bad or lack of urban urban planning i can't think of any benefit that this uh current uh production current thing would offer to the city or its citizens except those who would um reap a financial reward like developers real estate agents construction companies etc don't sell us out because of threats of money and power plays by big talkers etc this town has been suckered many times in the past

please don't let it happen again there are so many things we could and should do to make saint pete a better place another high rise next to an historic neighborhood is not one of those things it's time to start thinking creatively instead of in florida cliches when it comes to taking saint pete into the future

thank you thank you next speaker hi uh council thanks for giving us an opportunity to speak my name is kristen anderson and i live at 826 dartmoor street in historic uptown i'm in the immediate past president of the neighborhood association i am first and foremost opposed to the the destruction of this village of seven historic buildings one of which the weiric is housing low-income seniors 62 and over in an independent living home and another kara house is an independent living community for adults with mental health challenges the two combined buildings have more than a hundred residents the and how many residents are in the other five structures the weiric was financed in part through state of florida low-income housing tax credits and yet this property will now become luxury apartments height tamper tapering of and maybe tampering of high-rise buildings into surrounding communities we're the surrounding communities we're not this height that height this height we're people in a community it's an important part of saint pete's comp plan along fourth street and central is the 46 story red apple building then you go to the 23-story condo across from mirror lake library approved in 2021 but still an empty lot yet already flipped to a different developer then there is the 12-story peterboro building on the block across the street from this proposed 21-story building which has been there for decades i don't think this adheres to the tapering mentioned in the comp plan no matter what lawyerly explanation

is dreamed up no i've had this in me no let me let me finish i've had this happen in meetings before this is a quasi-judicial hearing there is no laughing there's no clapping none of that you're we handle this just like any other meeting and it is disrespectful you have just taken from everything she said because i have to focus on what you're doing and it's just wrong so give us the give us the ability to listen to the speakers and i do not want to hear any more clapping i will recess and we will take this longer and i'm not kidding and i will tell you something else when you're speaking you speak to us it is six o'clock at night and we want to listen to everyone and we want everyone to be respectful and we're sitting here quietly listening to you there's no need to act

like children go on i apologize this building is way too large and too high with its lot line construction the traffic from this building as it's currently proposed will be a huge burden on historic uptown located at it as it is at next next to fifth avenue this is a horrible place to put a building this large in the middle of a confluence of three national register historic districts it just doesn't fit into the height nor the culture of the surrounding neighborhood the city should not just be helping developers but it should be helping residents especially those who are at poverty levels or those like us long-term residents of uptown who have to live with the problems that come with over development we need more enforcement of codes that create some sort of preservation for these historic buildings by enforcing codes that are going to make them have uh roofs that don't have holes in them you know the plumbing whatever people are there thank you thank you next two speakers please next two

speakers are sancy sussman and hyla griesdorn please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council hi my name is sancy sussman um

my address 450 6th avenue north i'm one block from the development could i ask the clerk to put up that picture of the northwest corner while he's doing that as you can see i ride my bike and the corner of fifth street and fifth avenue which at the lower end of that building um only has a flashing light it's a dangerous intersection i don't believe the traffic study and i would ask you to confirm this studied that whether or not a traffic light should go in there but with the impact of 370 more cars in that area as well as if you looked down you'll see a bunch of green trees and it was just mentioned there's already an approved 21-story building only two blocks away that hasn't been built yet but that will also impact traffic in that area and if you look to the that's the northwest i guess the southeast and northeast corner you'll see low rise buildings there but if you allow a 21-story building here there's no reason that the owners of those buildings wouldn't consider development there matching also increasing so i don't i believe you can ask this to be reconsidered based on infrastructure needs that's pretty much my my point was transportation and and the traffic uh worries and concerns thank you

i'd like greased on her card indicates she's for the appeal thank you next two speakers next two speakers are irma whaley and david hislop uh please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council my name is david hisslop and i live

at 134th avenue north i've been sworn in and i am for the motion for decades now city council and its appointed boards have carefully considered development projects in downtown st petersburg for the first half of that period the comprehensive plan for the city was carefully followed particularly the clauses that require tall buildings to taper from central avenue to the outer edges of the city one can see this tapering successfully done wherein buildings such as 400 central which is the highest in town are located at the spine of the city and the height decreases as you approach fourth and fifth avenues north and south the current project would disrupt this flow by allowing a multi-story 21-story tower which is several times higher than its surrounding fifth avenue north community this not only degrades the carefully worked out vision for the city but also disrupts the local community which is primarily two and three story residences also of consideration is the fact that the required demolition of one half of an entire city block of structures dating from the early 1900s as was mentioned before is unprecedented in modern st petersburg people often confuse when they look at these buildings as run down buildings that are no longer of any use however it is not the building's failure but rather that of owners or landlords many blocks like this can be restored to quite a high density of occupancy merely by restoring the existing buildings that are already there which also is much much better for the environment all these buildings could easily be rehabilitated into usable dense housing the continuation of the approval of outsized high-rises particularly with their pedestal parking will probably be looked upon as a bad decision in the next decade or so as cars and automobiles are phased out in favor of pedestrian scale and walkability the blank and multi-story parking spaces in these buildings at the base will be seen as a major mistake thus i urge the city council to reconsider past opinions on this pelican project clearly the high density diverse neighborhoods of this block deserve to have housing in compliance with the st petersburg comprehensive plan and the general good practices of urban planning planning i urge council members to vote to reconsider approval of this plan and substitute a more community-friendly rehabilitation of existing houses thank you thank you sir good afternoon i'm irma whaley i'd

like to read a letter um from rob words that was sent to the drc on january 6th i'm sorry your address

ma'am your address what where you live your address oh i'm sorry that's all right 1935 bonita way south and

lakewood estates thank you thank you members of the development review commission the historical northeast neighborhood association hona urges denial of the proposed plans for the pelican development in the 400 block of the fifth avenue north unless it is modified to address negative impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods as proposed it will present an entire block-long facade of parking garage twice as tall as the abutting residential neighborhoods there is no provision for the required step down in scale to transition to the immediately adjacent residential zoning category compatible step down of the garage facade to adjoining neighborhood is achievable by lowering the roof line along fifth avenue north to a compatible three to four stories with the garage stepping back or hidden by the apartments these spaces could be liner town homes or apartments with street entrances what is shown on the rendering appears to be an unbroken wall of storefronts that is unlikely to succeed as retail spaces without subsidies subsidies other development projects of this scope within saint petersburg downtown have incorporated such compatible scale residential examples include park shore condominiums two-story residentials along first street northeast and candom central 800 block of central avenue which provided townhomes with entrances along first avenue north both of these completed developments offer concrete examples of how compatible scale incorp can be incorporated into a large project along with similar thoroughfares unless and until such compatibility is addressed hona urges you to reject the current design rob words co-chair preservation and planning committee historical northeast neighborhood association my 30 seconds worth of personal opinion is i'm concerned about the block immediately across fourth street east that's a block with two-story buildings i'm sure developers are waiting to see what is approved in the pelican project to because that will tell them what they can do and then that will make actually three almost three full

blocks of thank you next speakers okay uh peter belmont filled out a card however as he spoke as an appellant he cannot speak again under public comment the next two speakers are carol swaney and edward gross please go to an open podium state your name and address for the across street for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council and look like they're here okay carol swaney indicates she was for

the appeal and are you carol swaney is going to pass to the next the next person so edward gross edward gross okay yeah my name is i'm sorry was for was for the appeal thank you uh my name is edward gross i live at 616 7th street north which is about three blocks uh from from this um and one thing i want to say about the neighborhood is right now with the traffic that we have we are a one-way street it comes off a fifth so you come off a fifth and you make a right onto our street because of the density of traffic we have people going the wrong way down our street every day we sit on the porch and we watch three or four people a day going the wrong way on the other street on grove we don't know what's going on there it's also one way this area cannot handle any more traffic you're talking about putting three or four hundred cars on the road we cannot cross over fifth fifth avenue it's dangerous for us to go across fifth avenue right now it reminds me of when we were just recently in miami and to go two blocks it took us almost an hour and a half in miami that's that's that's where we're headed what's in that neighborhood we got the coliseum we got the palladium we have the shuffleboard courts we have that beautiful arts and crafts museum that's what we have in that area that's the character of that area what they are building is basically a huge box and it's very ugly it's not even a beautiful building it's just a box to to enhance their income right they haven't even designed a beautiful building to go into there if they're going to go forward at least give us something nice right now i'm also a biker and i try and i have to go up fifth it's going to be impossible to bike around that area now what's going on in our neighborhood right now okay uptown is really becoming more and more upscale okay we have young people with babies we live right next to millennium playground and there's kids in there all day that are playing in there little kids we have young people who are just getting started in life in their 20s and 30s that's what's going on in our neighborhood the people who are going to buy these condos they're not going to do what the chamber is saying they're going to do and work downtown that's not the people that can afford these million dollar condos that's not what's going to happen so if you want to maintain the character of the area and particularly of our neighborhoods you'll reject this project or make them scale it way back thank you next two speakers are laurie

mcdonald and jason mathis please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council go ahead ma'am my name is laurie mcdonald

i live at 103 wildwood lane in the driftwood neighborhood i support the appeal and i oppose the the pelican the there are a couple issues i want to bring to mind that i that are important to me one of these is that qualitative versus quantitative criteria quantitative criteria are more clear-cut i understand that the qualitative criteria like compatibility can be a little tougher to deal with but they are really important to citizens they're really important to the people in our town they're also important to the visitors so i ask you to be sure that you are giving the due attention to each part of the of the code that you should another thing i want to say is that national register buildings they're identified as valuable buildings valuable parts of our history and actually our history is a very important part of our future and even what is relied upon with national register buildings is for local government decisions so it does rely it does rely on you to be making decisions about what should happen with national register buildings that are so identified there are more things but i'm going to end by saying that you know that's a really well traveled road we've all traveled on that avenue and when you go down that if it's going to have this massive building on one side and a community of neighbors on the other side it it's two different saint pete's both have a place here but they don't have a place across the street from each other thank you good evening my name is jason mathis

and i am with the downtown partnership located at 244 second avenue north i wanted to thank you all for your service i've said that to you before and i will say it every time i talk to you it's it's not easy what you do and i sincerely appreciate it whether you like this project or not this is a process question as staff has noted the building meets every zoning and land use requirement and has been recommended by city staff and approved by the drc it is consistent with the comp plan and meets the city's code for height that's not in dispute the developers followed all the rules as staff has noted the comp plan provides broad regulations and height restrictions in other neighborhoods through a zoning category but downtown is unique for whatever reason we decided that height is regulated through the downtown height map and not the comp plan in downtown st petersburg and as you saw the height map stages down as you go towards residential neighborhoods i want to reiterate this as staff has noted the building is consistent with every aspect of the city's building code and meets the height requirements that we have all agreed to through the legislative process if you don't like this project you think it's too tall okay that's fine amend the height map to make it lower through the right process and we would be delighted to engage with our friends at preserve the berg the chamber downtown property owners residents and developers to have a community conversation about what the height map should look like and work with you all to enact any changes that's the way that st pete works we collaborate and we do it the right way through the legislative process but that's not what has happened here the city has an obligation to follow the rules that we have all set to govern development in our community and we urge you to deny this appeal thank you next two speakers are alex kaufman and corey

lint please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have

three minutes to address city council hi my name is corey lint i live at 510 5th street north um i'm for the appeal um i'm very nervous i've never done this before so i'm just here as myself a regular person i'm a millennial um i've lived in st pete since about 2015 um i live in uptown now i've lived in crescent lake and in roser park um as probably all of us have seen i've uh seen the city change a lot um and i i came here like a lot of people did and like a lot of people visit for sort of what i see as the heart of the city it's the arts i came here to work for the florida orchestra um and a lot of my friends work for the orchestra are working artists working class people um uh i think those people like me and and you know my colleagues um are are the heart of the city um i know there are a lot of details a lot of legal you know process things going on that i'm not familiar with frankly um i just know i mean if there's any subjectivity here to me it kind of feels like a choice between like are we choosing like the people the existing residents or are we choosing dollar signs and it feels like the dollar signs have gotten so many yeses over the years and it's really sad to me to see the the people kind of suffer from that and things like character are not just like emotional you know appeal things these are like really meaningful to the identity of our city and who we are and the pride that we take in our city um i had some notes so i'm going to refer back to those um just want to reiterate what some people said about the crosswalk i live at 510 5th street north which is like basically catty corner from this development this proposed development um and yeah that crosswalk is already pretty dangerous so i'm really concerned about the traffic there um even with the light like i mean i use that crosswalk probably six to ten times a week and people just blow through that they don't care about the lights so that's definitely a concern um i do worry about like the artists and the people that make this community what it is about them sort of continuing to be pushed out um and i guess a question that i had is sort of do we want to be a place where like we're filling it in with more and more wealthy people and again just like paying attention to the dollar signs and and i look at this proposal and i'm just like why is that what we need is that going to help us is that going to help um i'm really just concerned about the identity you know of the city and i really love and care about my neighborhood and my neighbors um so yeah this is very off the cuff uh but i hope

it's helpful thank you so much for listening to us today uh alex kaufman 940 granville court north uh hello city council my name is alex kaufman you may know me from such public art projects as the first flight at the pier gladioles blossom in front of the police station and the sunshine city mosaic thank you guys for the extension on that project um i am here to speak against the pelican development and i've done lots of renderings i've done lots of designs and there's one word that comes to mind when i look at this proposed development and it's going to be harsh but it's grotesque i don't really care what the rules are to see this proposed building put in this specific location there's no other way to describe it but grotesque in its current form scale is inappropriate i think you can tell from people in the community it is not beneficial to the neighborhoods um you know i left fort lauderdale 15 years ago broward county to come here because i love this place and i have poured my heart and soul into contributing to the fabric of the culture as best i can it is very sad to see developments like this get the green light without much debate and just full head of steam toward that direction it is a place that i despise and i avoid at all costs i really hope that you guys can take a look at this specific development in this specific location and ask yourself is this really contributing to the culture of the city in this spot or is it grotesque i yield the rest of my time thank

you thank you next two speakers are eliza shannon and emily elwin please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council

hi good evening i'm emily elwin i live at 836 16th avenue northeast i'm a board member of preserve the berg a former president of preserve the berg and i'm an architectural historian with 30 years of experience in the field of historic preservation i've reviewed the development project and i'm familiar with the on-site historic research resources as well as the adjacent historic districts and landmarks it's my professional opinion that the tower and the monolithic parking podium will negatively impact the historic resources and historic districts in this area including but not limited to the national register listed historic structures proposed for demolition when evaluating historic resources we consider more than the loss of the individual buildings of course this demolition will have an immediate and irreversible effect on those structures but it also weakens the overall integrity of the historic district by removing the historic fabric and disturbing the pattern of development the downtown national register historic district is significant not just for its historic architecture but for its community planning and development this legible pattern of historic development and diverse collection of both high style and vernacular buildings creates a coherent and identifiable sense of place it's this sense of place that makes saint pete so special and it's under intense pressure maintaining that workable balance between growth and preservation requires that new development be compatible with the historic district in scale and massing as you've seen by the many project images this out-of-scale construction creates a significant adverse impact on the remaining historic resources through its looming effect and incompatible height and massing which fundamentally alter how a historic place is experienced at street level the parking podium reads as a monolithic single element and the unbroken vertical facade along fifth avenue north is not compatible in size massing or scale with the historic surrounds finally i urge you to consider the cumulative effect of this proposal will have on our city's valuable sense of place by allowing intense new construction in a sensitive historic district we damage piece by piece the historic character that draws residents and visitors downtown each loss compounds the next over time it erodes the historic integrity and leaves us with an unattractive placeless city rather than a downtown that feels rooted and recognizable for these reasons i respectfully recommend that you overturn the drc committee the drc decision and approve the appeal thank you thank you eliza shannon

uh here she's usually here uh her card indicates she is for the appeal next two speakers are tori riley and ray arsenault please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council

hi hello hi a little nervous i'm tori riley i live at 226 fifth avenue north here um i'm not for this project at all and i know that you have a difficult decision in front of you and i really appreciate all the time that you're taking listening to us um for all the reasons stated it's just wrong it's just not in the right place um that wall of parking is really a berlin wall for the rest of the city you can't cross over without walking around this building this massive building so it just is a wrong place for the and not a very pretty building as well we moved here to st petersburg because of what it was it's walkable it's friendly it's artsy um it's a balance of of neighborhoods and height and scale and with this building is really setting the new marker a new line that says this is going to be allowed on this corridor 22 stories that's huge huge against a two-story building and despite all the rules and regulations that allow this building to be this height sometimes the rules aren't right and you just have to say no so i would you consider re-examining that and i appreciate your time thank

you ray arsenal okay uh his card indicates he is for the appeal next two speakers are robert blackman and roy shore please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have

three minutes to address city council uh robert blackman 11901 four street north uh first i want to thank everybody on the council for your service to the community and i want to thank preserve the berg for their service to our community their advocacy and all they do to help maintain the historic fabric of our community especially peter belmont i remember when we gave him the key to the city well deserved deserving of that excuse me um let's talk about this project though this week we tore down fit to run a historic victorian building i didn't see any outrage we've been celebrating the scarlet letter painting pink of a bunch of historic buildings on fourth and fourth there was no appeal on that we're burying the lead on this project which is yeah maybe we're losing 70 units of what i would say are not contributing anything the blight of this site to maintain the historic jewels of them which is the hollander hotel and the avalon hotel those are over 150 units between the two of those so two thirds of this site which is owned by the same owner right now will be enhanced with the investment that will be put into those buildings so many times this council has heard people with historic buildings say that they don't have the money to maintain them they're very expensive this is not a destruction or obliteration of the site it's a culling of the herd getting rid of the weakest least contributing parts of the site if this were to talk about the avalon the hollander being demolished i would be against this i am for this site think about what we're getting as a community at the central where the old pd is we paid public money to get parking spaces by peter's presentation we're getting 250 spaces over what is mandated that's pretty good and we're getting it for free as a city we're also getting an increased tax base when we've had discussions i've seen you all discuss the fact that there could be property tax changes at the state level where we're going to need taxes also 1.5 million dollars is being put into the public housing fund from this project in real public art not ephemeral like the pink buildings that'll be gone in a heartbeat there's real contribution being made not only by the developer putting in the pelicans but also fifty thousand dollars to the public art fund you know there's also talk about the tapering tapering is from district to district not within a district when you are in a speed limit zone it's a 65 when you get towards the end of it if you're going 60 you can't get a ticket it's mandated within the district what the tapering is the tapering is why you go from district to district i think that's been misunderstood also there's been talk about traffic calming in the past fifth avenue north is an interstate on-ramp this is going to naturally cause traffic calming which is good for pedestrians and bicyclists i think the preserve the berg deserves more money you've seen charleston you've seen savannah have gotten support from their government the city council controls the purse strings of the city i think there should be a program where money is given to preserve the berg to invest first party in these properties as opposed to these 11th hour appeals you know at the end of the day though these have all been my opinions we need to look at the true facts the experts the city every city staff that's reviewed this has supported it and there was only one vote against this at the drc unanimous support from the experts and those we entrust to make the decisions i'm for this project and i hope that you will consider these points thank you i'm going to remind people when people are speaking please no

laughing and no snickering we have a democracy here and people are going to have differences of opinion if there wouldn't be differences of opinion would be in north korea and there are times you're just not going to agree with people and that's okay but we're going to listen to people respectfully just like we're listening to you all respectfully that's all we ask it's part of the decorum it's part of our rules it's hard for us to concentrate if there's noise and after a long day of hearing people trust me it gets exhausting to concentrate so i'm trying to concentrate just like every other council member is trying to concentrate it's not a huge ask it's just being respectful next two speakers

please uh rory sharr okay his card indicates he is for the appeal next two speakers are bill herman and erica stanley please go to an open podium state your name address across street for the record and you'll have three minutes to address city council good evening my name is bill herman i live

at 134th avion north i have been sworn and congratulations you've made it through the first hour of your public hearing i have two objections the first is that in july of last year i submitted comments that do appear in your backup uh in your backup information but like the drc in july of last year i got it wrong i then submitted amended comments on march 12th and they're not in your package let me begin by silencing something that my friend mr master will probably say at some point we just hate tall buildings well i don't hate tall buildings i just hate ugly tall buildings i like the 400 i like the nolan i like large buildings that are set on the normal 100 foot wide separation if you stand or you take a map and measure out from 400 across the street to the buildings are on the other side it's 100 foot nolan to the other side is 100 foot that opening that airiness breaks up the mass and scale in this case fifth avenue north has 78 feet from their property line of this project across the street to those two story buildings is 78 feet that difference in scale is kind of a difference in width is important unfortunately because you don't have my notes or were not included in your backup you may not have read my email you would not have had the opportunity to go down and take a walk on fifth avenue north the whitney the w building the walker whitney tower that building with that painting of the young woman on it is about 150 feet tall i walk that area all the time because that's where i live so when i walk down that street it actually feels tighter when you walk by the whitney because of the size and that narrower street you walk down central past uh 400 it's really nice that tightness makes a difference it's important to remember that they're asking for a building 50 percent taller than the w and it's important i'm saying the word asking the right as i understand the code is 125 feet and if they were coming in 125 feet i'd be home having dinner with my wife nothing personal instead they're asking for something dramatically taller i bring to your attention one last time so i'm running out of time my comments are not in your package and i have to ask how many other comments were not included in your package it's kind of important because that's what you want to base your decision on and i'm going to cut this short so you can get out of here a little bit oh five seconds

thank you very much thank you hi i am erica stanley i live at 540 8th avenue north which is just a few blocks from this proposed development um which i i want to say first and foremost um we're all here because we love saint pete you all are here serving because you love saint pete and and we're here for the same reason um i moved here in 2002 and have lived downtown um in several different neighborhoods and i i think that there are three main three main things here that i want us to consider um the first is stewardship we're here because we love saint pete and yes i i understand the 400 beach example i i get it um it's a different zone but our neighborhood doesn't have to be that way just because it's there doesn't mean that ours has to be there as well i saw the looks on your faces during the presentation when that image of the rendering came up none of you want that in your neighborhood either i don't know i'm speculating but but if you go and you stand on the sidewalk where this is going to be and look up and think about 21 stories i'm not pro development i'm not pro building i think that it is the right of a landowner to be able to build on land that they own but as stewards of a city that we love and a community that we love is this the right building on that land um second of all i i want to talk about affordability now i know that affordability is not the responsibility of the developer it's not their fault it's not their responsibility um but i i do want to appeal to council that if we're adding this many more units we're going to need more teachers more firefighters more first responders those are not the types of people who are those are not the types of salaries that are going to be able to afford the places that are being built and i'm not just talking about this building but the other buildings that are the cranes in st pete where are all of those people that we need in our community that hold our community together where are they going to go and i'm going to skip over the third because that's infrastructure and that's boring but i really don't want my water pressure to go down um and i know that that's something that gets addressed with codes and but on what timeline um and what's going to happen to our anyway a lot of points have been made about how well they have followed the rules and i appreciate that so much rules are so important and our governor was following the rules when he came into our city and painted over all of our beautiful murals and our crosswalks that was legal those are the rules and we all know it wasn't right and we all know that wasn't in the heart of st pete and so i would just want you all to think about that as you're making your final decision thank you next two speakers are

mary dowd and kimberly franklin please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council good morning lady i mean

good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is kimberly michelle franklin i'm trying to hold together i live at four five my mail goes to 450 fifth avenue north i live at 442 fifth avenue north apartment number two cross street fifth street north and my porch paces paces fifth avenue north since i have lived there april 3rd will be three years ladies and gentlemen i have eyewitnessed a t-bone wreck where the people takes off from the from the red light it's at four street north and when they take off they're off to the races they're either going to the interstate to the 375 they're in the wrong lane i i witnessed a t-bone where this one vehicle hits the vehicle pulling up fifth street it flips it upside down onto the sidewalk thank god there was nobody there nobody on their front porch it took out a street light electric power poles people it scared me to death i live across the street diagonally from now where there is a yellow flashing crosswalk that some people you watch them they're on the phone you better not just rely on them flashing lights because there's so many people that does looking at their gps on the big screens not knowing which direction to go they're tourists they're confused we can't cross the street fifty percent at least of the residents of care house are a hundred are special needs individuals they see the psychiatrist thanks to carolyn and miss maggie who own the care house if it weren't for them they would probably be in the state hospital or someplace like that here at care house where i live they can see the psychiatrist through the video through the office through the ladies they can maintain not they can maintain independent living they stay on their medications if they don't then they are checked in to a psych hospital and treated and they're allowed to come back and be productive citizens of saint petersburg that said um i'm basically begging for compassion and

empathy from all the rich people proverbs chapter 22 verses 22 and 23 folks that's what i'm talking about thank you don't take away our affordable housing it's all supposed to be about promising

all this to the gaslight district people they're still waiting where are we supposed to go the owner of the hollander hotel says oh we'll provide 50 percent of you folks at the a place to live what about the

other 50 percent oh my name is mary dowd i live at 205 8th avenue northeast and i have been sworn in i support the appeal and ask that you vote to deny the pelican project for all the reasons previously stated i drive up and down fourth street regularly to work on fourth street and it's just a few blocks away from the proposed 400 block of fifth avenue project the traffic and increasing number of serious accidents and yes there was another one yesterday make downtown traffic on fourth street not only congested but incredibly dangerous adding a 200 feet high tower to fourth street and fifth avenue north only adds fuel to the fire i disagree with some of the previous comments made that the pelican is thoughtfully designed sensitive to scale tapered that the pelican respects historic buildings such as the trinity church honestly i don't see that i see another luxury condo condominium and a reduction in the amount of affordable housing i applaud the efforts of the preserve the berg and appealing this drc decision and i urge city council to please deny approval thank you thank you drexie smith does not wish to speak and they have checked the

against box the next two speakers are charles de frites and brian van vander blee bleat please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record and you'll have three minutes to

address city council good evening sir you can start hello my name is charles de frites i'd like to thank you for being here you've been here for hours already i've only been here for a little um about 30 years ago my address is 1425 11th avenue north thank you uh for the record i'm also intimately connected with every single building between dartmoor street and the alley behind it on fifth avenue going as far as sixth avenue i walk that alley every single day three four five times a day and i am absolutely familiar with every square inch of that block now about 30 years ago in spite of my accent i was a welder in orlando and i came to st petersburg hearing that it was a nice town and it was i came here and i've settled here and i've lived here ever since there comes a time when no matter what the rules and the regulations are you sometimes have to take a stand st petersburg that i remember has been chipped away and chipped away it has been ground away by you might say by progress but all i hear is a wrecking ball of progress coming right now um we've had a previous speaker who said big buildings can live alongside little buildings i'm sure if i walked into this room with an 800 pound gorilla you'd all be taken aback by that that is what we're faced with we have an enormous another speaker called it grotesque building going up alongside two two-story buildings small they may not fit the picture perfect image of what perhaps the chamber of commerce might like to have for our city when you think of money and income and taxes and this and that but you forget people and we have to look at these things all the time this is it's almost brutalist the architecture that they are proposing it's tall and you can you know you can put lipstick on a pig but it's not going to make it anything different it is grotesque um also remember that big fish eat little fish and it's been happening in st petersburg ever since i've arrived and i do beg you to take a stand against that thank you thank you my name is brian vandervalete

i live at 728 7th street north uh i'm a long time resident of historic uptown which is just a few blocks away i live just a few blocks away this is the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the proposed pelican project i've lived in the neighborhood since 2001 and i've been a volunteer serving on our neighborhood board since 2019. i would like to express my significant concerns about this structure as proposed i am not opposed to all new structures but i believe this particular 21 story building would have a significant negative impact on the quality of life for the residents of my neighborhood historic uptown i believe it is completely out of scale with the surrounding buildings would cause additional parking issues and additional heavy traffic throughout our neighborhood streets and the round lake park area i do wonder what impact this mammoth building would have on the ecological balance of the wildlife that currently thrives in our beloved round lake park if you've never been to round lake park i highly recommend it it's beautiful particularly in the morning i've i was there a couple of months ago looking out towards the cities thinking my god how is this mammoth building going to impact this park these birds these turtles these trees we have something really special with that park so i do want you as you're considering what's happening to take that into consideration i wonder if if uh if any kind of environmental studies by actual experts were done to review what impact the sunlight blocking structure could have on round lake park in the surrounding areas our neighborhood conducted a survey with 68 respondents and more than 70 percent agreed that the proposed structure is out of scale for its location this result reflects much of what i've heard through conversations with many of my my friends and others who i've talked with in the neighborhood i hope that message is heard by you today many decades ago our city leaders had the wisdom to protect our waterfront parks from over development i do not know the names of those leaders but i'm still grateful for their foresight and wisdom today i ask you the city leaders of our time to carefully consider what kind of city do you wish us to be we are not austin we are not miami we are not fort lauderdale we are saint pete and i hope you have the wisdom to guide us into a future that includes growth of course but also carefully considers the needs of our residents our communities and our beautiful natural parks thank you for your consideration thank you the final two

the final two speakers are philip tonight and colleen codner please go to an open podium state your name address or cross street for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council i'm phillips

and i live at 512 dartmoor street north right across the street from the and uh and i support the appeal live in historic uptown i want to thank you for listening to the neighbors and residents of the community in this process the historic uptown neighborhood's a beautiful quaint area with historic homes and a quiet park around round lake a towering 21-story building on the south side of fifth ave would put our community in its shadow i live in a 100 year old hotel converted into apartments right across there and it would include a parking garage the proposed property would to help with the influx of visitors and guests to the massive building i mean even though they'll have a parking garage a lot of people still won't use it they'll park around the lake they'll park on the neighboring streets and um parking's already hard to find in our neighborhood this will just end up a battle for the visitors and residents such as parking out their own home it's not just after the garage is built but during construction as well we'll take up spots for local businesses in the area and if the property were to be respectful the neighborhood and simply be asked to keep it at a reasonable height tapered off it would fit with the community the current plan is very inconsistent with the neighborhood's architecture if there were to be development here there are many other options in size scope style character that would be more appropriate it could possibly fit among high rises in that sort of area but that's not what exists here you know and um it would displace people on the block and offer only expensive expensive options in the future eliminating affordable housing raising rent prices in the area for an already high market i live in a hundred year old building it's proof that you can improve the use of a property without destroying the historic charm or building a massive skyscraper the developer said that other tall buildings have been approved one even 20 years ago i would point out that that's because that just because someone made a mistake 20 years ago that doesn't mean the same mistake has to be made today hopefully we're all wiser now and can recognize how important the character of a community is property owners on the north side of fifth ave have had the foresight to preserve the area because of its unique character and historic nature i would ask that you further preserve preserve that you have a unique property to i mean a unique opportunity to preserve a historic

community and i would ask you to please do so thank you thank you um i'm colleen codner i reside at 512 uh dartmoor uh i am in support of the appeal and i do oppose the pelican project um again i'll apologize like someone said before for speaking more from emotion and from the heart i'm also a nervous speaker so i'm a a little freaked out up here but um ma'am did you get did you arrive late uh yes ma'am he needs to be

sworn i did swear oh you did okay i just want to make sure i remember you coming late i want to make

i was with the last few speakers thank you yeah and thank you and thank you all for being here and listening and i apologize yeah um so before i speak i i have to digress i was one of those people that arrived in st pete maybe six years back from a bigger city and i was like more culture more diversity more growth more people you know all those things which of course i understood included more buildings and more upward buildings and and i still stand stand by a lot of that i'm not i'm not completely against that um but as a person who's lived in cities across america i i've personally watched caprini green be raised to the ground at chicago projects raised to the ground i've watched san francisco rapidly gentrify and redevelop and i could go on and i think that um even those of us who are not wildly crazy about all this rapid development of st pete can unanimously unanimously agree that yes some amount of you know development is necessary for the growth and advancement of our community that being said you know i'm not there to refute that um i'm here to say that i think that we should be very deliberate and careful about how we go about this um all development i think someone else mentioned all development is not good growth it's just not i've seen it firsthand and there's a certain essence and soul to each community that needs to be protected uh period because once you lose that soul of a city you don't get it back uh st pete's a beautiful and unique city in florida and particularly found of its quaint neighborhoods and perhaps the most notably most notably the violent if you will eccentric residents um i'm not technical and i'm not good with the legal and zoning expertise so i'll leave that to the professionals to address but i will say from the average citizen's um perspective and logic it would be unreasonable for a family to move to the downtown district and in a growing city and expect that a high rise wouldn't go up right next to them that's what a downtown district hopes to be building up is great and it's a good sign in many ways but to move to a quaint tree-lined cobblestone neighborhood in a historic craftsman district it's it's it's reasonable and logical to expect not to be blindsided by a 21-story monstrosity being your new neighbor this building is grossly out of sale and character for this historic neighborhood it will be towering over us it will be displacing affordable housing with more luxury living and largely changing the character of a whole neighborhood shadows parking socioeconomic status changes i've heard many people say that they would just

sell their homes and move away if this goes through like just talking in the neighborhood around round lake and stuff that would be a loss from us characters that have been here in our saint pete

if saint pete is a city won't make us stand against disallowing corporate greed and money to take precedence over the best interest in the existing community then i think that we all know no one in florida will no one in florida will i pray in all this development that saint pete strives to continue to lead by decent and dignified example as i've seen other cities change there have been almost indisputable mistakes that have been made thank you thank you no more speakers okay now

we close public comment we go to cross examination each party will have five minutes for cross examination staff would you like to cross examine staff waves thank you would the appellant like to

cross examine sorry yes that's fine um five minutes corey uh let me just start um with the question do you agree that a part of the development review process for larger projects like the pelican includes consideration and valuation of the compatibility criteria within the site plan review criteria yes and do you agree that council can approve the appeal and deny the present pelican application if it concludes the development doesn't satisfy the compatibility criteria yes when an applicant seeks an far bonus can the applicant be told no they are not entitled to the bonus uh when they request the

depending on the threshold of the bonus there is the 16 review criteria that staff uses either at the streamline level or the public hearing level uh so the bonus itself uh if approved could uh and create a larger building that could have an impact and staff could deny it because of potential impact of that

building so is it fair to say that uh the bonus is not a matter of right yeah i mean it's uh um anyone

can request the bonus and approve the bonus it's just what does that bonus have on an impact of that building

what does streamline height with public hearing mean well there's two different ones so the base height

in the zoning district is 125 feet you can request up to 150 feet through a streamline approval there's still public notice provided but it does not have to go before the commission unless there's an appeal that will be forwarded to the commission uh public notice is provided for 15 days uh staff will review it against the 16 review criteria above the 150 it goes through public hearing approval which is the development review commission who makes the final decision okay so if i understand it it's it's a

process it's kind of like the far process if you're above a certain base level of far there's going to be further review required and potentially more criteria that will be applied to the review is that fair to say that is correct and again just regarding the pelican site um did you say the the streamline height for that location is 125 feet above 125 feet all right and um if it's above 150 feet there's a required public hearing is that correct that's correct and so again uh those are height entitlements that are not uh an entitlement of right they're subject to again review and criteria correct so obviously then the answer could be no correct let me ask you a bit about um the parking garage at the uh pelican and um you have the the street level part of the garage and then above that is there um uh a part of the garage that does not have any any other use or liner around it so on the first floor of the building along

fifth avenue and fourth street the garage is completely hidden uh the only exposed area i would say on fifth is the bicycle parking room the entrance into the garage is off of fifth and then on the upper floors you can see the parking garage on the second through fourth floor right and the fifth avenue

side all right and so when we talk about that upper level portions of the garage where there is no other use masking the garage um the block is some 450 feet long is that correct and so that upper level portion of the garage does it approach 400 feet or or what are we talking about about 300 feet and um and the pelican block um is it true that it's the same size as the block on central avenue in terms of the block face uh where the new residence is at 400 is located that block i believe is slightly smaller okay and um again you can say that uh the base of the parking garage there is it accurate to say there's again a liner some retail and then up above it in the upper levels you can see the parking garage correct i mean

i would almost say in that case there is no parking on the first floor it's more the access into the garage for 400 and so we wouldn't really consider a liner building because it's nothing to screen okay and

then the garage is on the upper levels of 400. all right and again uh is it fair to say that again on those upper levels of the garage that takes up most of that block yes all right and so um do you have an approximation uh in terms of again how long that would be i didn't go out and measure that one so i can't give you a definitive answer okay then uh do you feel then as to whether or not you can uh answer the question if one was trying to get a feel for the length of proposed pelican garage on those upper levels um uh would uh you know looking at the at that garage face on 400 central give some uh feel of

a comparison um the lengthwise could be similar the difference here is that there is an end cap uh on fifth street so anchoring kind of the garage in the middle where on uh 400 the garage goes all the way to fifth street so there's no anchor kind of book capping uh bookending excuse me the parking garage

okay but you said it lengthwise it would be a give it would give you an idea of what would be at the let's say similar correct um and uh in terms of uh back to the pelican garage and first of all there isn't any other garage in the dc zoning district along fifth avenue that is as long as the pelican garage would be along fifth avenue north you're correct um and um regarding the 400 beach project uh that's a different zoning district correct correct uh what's the base far in that zoning district 2.0 and what's the biggest you could ever go for far in that far is 4.0 okay so it's fair to say that 400 beach does not exceed for far correct uh now the map that tells us how tall you can go that's that colored map that was displayed in the staff report on the screen is that correct that's correct all right can you find that quick to put it back up yeah he has it right there all right and so this is this is a copied out of the code it is the downtown maximum building height map is that correct that's correct that's correct all right and then when you're trying to figure out how tall a building can go there's that table and that table dictates what the maximum building height can be on any particular location correct ah and uh this is again out of the code correct correct there's nothing in the code on this map that says anything about taper is there there is not it actually talks about stepping down um and um and step down is referenced across all the districts correct uh it's basically under the

section of the paragraph describing really the intent of the height map um and it specifically says that the height restrictions do not correlate directly to the zoning district they are designated designated to concentrate heights within the core area of the downtown and let's step down towards the surrounding neighborhoods the height map establishes the specific locations of height restrictions in addition to the height restriction limits specified on the map and then there's the criteria that talks about faa and then different approval processes okay is there a uh is there a separate map that that

shows the otherwise that shows uh tapering no thank you thank you applicant any cross-examination sir i just have a question

even though there is no map that says tapering doesn't the map taper would you explain to council that we have tapering we have 500 foot buildings in the core and we have tapered down to 200 correct um it doesn't

yes the the map has been construed over time since 2007 but when you look at the core area of the town which is we're just outside of that here it's unlimited height and then it goes down to the surroundings typically the north side of long fifth avenue um and what was methodist town is 200 feet uh max height and then we do have unlimited heights um again where tropicana field is or if you're looking at properties across from usf so again it's all about where it's really the heights really relate to what

it abuts could i stop could you i stop you a second can you put on the map again because they're continuing to talk about the map in that way it's i'm just put the map up so they can see you're talking

about the map there you go sometimes he talks fast too from new york go ahead um so as you can see the height map doesn't correlate i mean the zoning district isn't overlaid here uh but you can see that the green is 200 feet that's typically abutting a single family like the old northeast uptown and then you have the green that's on the south side that's also abutting kind of some of the the neighborhood there then you have tropicana field then you have the other uh kind of magenta color that's abuts usf so again the colors kind of go with what's abutting on the other side of fifth avenue and then of course on to the left hand side of the screen that goes into grand central we have the interstate there buffering it again as well um and so the heights greatly go down once you go into the grand central district um but the interstates help offer that i don't have any more questions

okay the rest thank you now we move on to closing arguments rebuttal each party will have five minutes to provide a closing argument or rebuttal staff any closing argument yes mostly just closing statements

i just want to make two points for clarification for the record um the first one that was made was that staff um gave drc incorrect information regarding to the parking that was proposed um at the time of the drc review um staff was there was no determination as to what the unit sizes would be um so with that said if all the unit sizes were over 750 square feet then they would be allowed to be required to provide 370 spaces um if they chose there's a 10 reduction due to proximity to high transit routes that city cannot require them to implement that but if that was the case then the number would go down to 330 spaces um once the appeal came through they were asked to be more narrowed down as to what the unit types would be and that's how the number reduced in size so when it was presented to the drc the understanding was that the units were all over 750 so making the minimum numbers of 370. um and then the the other comment that was made was that um there was a letter that was not provided to to council um it is actually within the pdf on page 481 um it i believe is mr herman's email and his comments so they're in the packet if not they're in the staff report on a different page and that's all i appreciate

that thank you does appellant have any closing argument so can you come to the sorry they they have to record this and so it you have to be at the microphone my understanding was actually we went first and we go last did i get this is this wrong on my thing it says rebuttal closing by city administration the opponent and applicant applicant seems to be at the end here i guess applicant i guess we don't have an opponent so we should go to applicant followed by appellant okay so it's my sheet

you're right thank you thank you applicant you know i have a whole lot of points here that i was going to raise like this is a no variance application it was totally reviewed by every single department in the city and they approved it where we and first i would mention that 88 units are less than 700 square feet those are not multi-million dollar units and just because it's less than 700 feet doesn't mean they don't need they may have a car and may need parking so the parking ratio is 1.15 unit parking spaces per unit and at the drc the property owners on the north side of fifth avenue right across from the tallest part of this building all submitted letters supporting this application they're for it they want it it's part of your record now i guess i'm gonna you know i'm burdened with being a lawyer i i am burdened because i know what the law of this city is we went through we adopted account plan we adopted ldrs and your staff is review reviews every application and they reviewed this and it says clearly this complies these people they don't have to convince me they don't like this project but this project complies with the law of this city if they want to change all the things they're saying they need to change the code they need to change the height map and and in all due respect to every one of you up there i don't think you have the right to just not enforce the laws of the city and your staff is confirmed what i'm saying it meets it now these people want to treat these buildings as designated and they're not designated they can be demolished preserve the burg for years could have gone and tried to designate them i even suggested it to them and my client did and they refused now they want to get this they want the same thing as designation without doing it that's not right and it bothers me that these people are good people here and they've been hoodwinked they've been told that this doesn't comply with the code this shouldn't be allowed they've been told that height map controls height over in another district it doesn't and i am really frustrated and i'm glad i'm near the end of the line because i can't take this is just not right we the worst thing a city and a government can do is have laws and not follow it that's a slippery slope and you're not going to make people very happy to see an application that meets everything on the books at the city and meets the approval of the city reviewers and deny it that just is not good if you don't like 21-story buildings on fifth avenue change the code but remember you've already got a 29-story one on fifth avenue down at beach drive and i don't care what code it was approved under it's still a 29-story building and it's been across the street from a two-story old residence and across the street from the historic old northeast neighborhood for over 20 years and it hadn't been a problem at all and you know what i'm gonna quit and not use all my time i'm really i urge you to deny this appeal there is no basis to grant the appeal whatsoever thank you and i can tell you this peter and and uh manny have told my client they didn't think the field should be approved they they

didn't have a chance of getting it approved thank you sir now the appellant has closing the argument

for five minutes thank you could have my powerpoint back my suggestion to you is to use your common sense and it's a suggestion that i've made over the years to a fair number of juries when i was involved in trial work as an attorney common sense and apply the law because the law does say you have the option of denying this project common sense says when you apply the law it's too big and when we say too big what we're talking about is the mass and scale of the project and again it is the law it is the criteria that you as the decision maker have to work with in terms of compatibility review you've heard and seen the site map there isn't a tapering map per se that map shows a step down it doesn't show tapering and dc2 has a separate tapering requirement from any other district within the downtown i showed that to you at the beginning of the of the conversation the thing i want to talk about parking is really related to mass and scale and so again we know that the request is for the biggest far possible in dc2 we know the request is for the tallest building possible in dc2 and in terms of mass and scale it's really for the biggest possible parking garage possible and i say that because when you calculate far in terms of the site plan review parking does not count unless it's more than twice the minimum required and so what we know is it's almost at that threshold 254 via v485 so if there was just a bit more parking they would be eating into their far far so again it's that overall mask and scale everything is maxed out the most it possibly could all right you've heard the talk about well we've met the criteria we have a right to depend upon your saying yes my response to that is actually the people here preserve the berg we have that same right to say that we expect you as council will use the entire code and that you will consider and apply not just those objective numbers that we don't dispute they meet but you also apply the more qualitative criteria that laurie mentioned which is that compatibility review section of the code you have to apply all the code before you make a final decision common sense if 400 beach was going up where the pelican is you probably wouldn't have a room full of people upset not only is there that huge difference in far and far really is all about mass and scale four into seven but also look at it there was a design feature that doesn't happen at the pelican the tower there is on a diagonal it does not provide that massive wall parallel to the street parallel to the neighborhood across the street it's an entirely different animal it's apples and oranges so again common sense and the and the facts you have to deal with 200 feet at the pelican 36 across the street seven far at the pelican one far across the street historic resources there's been some talk about you know sometimes historic buildings don't look so great they need maintenance they need loving care and particularly when the owner is intending to tear them down there's not a great deal of maintenance being undertaken but i've heard far too many stories where oh it looks like it should be torn down and then somebody renovates it and then i hear oh how could that building ever be torn down the queen of that of course is the benoy there's many many many other examples but i want to again focus you on the law which is the compatibility criteria and as i told you at the start the courts have already said yes you can say no and you can say no because that court case was the same circumstances i've mentioned to you yes on the quantitative criteria no on the qualitative criteria and the court said you were with your total authority to say no in that case the last thing i'll do i'll mention here uh well since i'm running out of time i will ask you as i said use your common sense approve the appeal and thank you thank you sir before sir mr belmont before you

go i want to ask you something you mentioned the court case you have a copy of the final order that

court case uh actually i do not have it with me um i was an attorney of record in the case um and the more important thing is to read the city's brief because again that has the exclamation and the court

approves what i what i'm interested in is what the court decided um counsel can you get a copy of that okay we're going to take a 50 minute break i want a copy of that court case i want copies for all city council members and for the attorney and for mr belmont because i want to see what the ruling was by the court itself um in his all i have here in the presentation and i would advise if attorneys are going to mention a court case that they're relying on each the order should be provided um here it says in what was submitted that the court affirmed the city's authority to use compatibility to reduce maximum potential development intensity so i want to see if that's what the order says so 50 minute

break thank you know that the quasi-judicial proceeding is closed we'll move into executive session i'll start since i asked about the court order and the attorney's got copies i'll start with mr belmont and give him the opportunity to let us know where in the order denying petition for register charari uh it says that the court affirmed the authority's use authority to use compatibility to reduce maximum potential development intensity in that court order and then i'll give you um a chance to

respond mr mastery okay all right um and i'm going to start by saying you that verbiage itself is not in the court order and and you chair probably understand maybe better than some of the non-attorneys on the on the council um that um this is a writ a writ assertiori and basically what the order says is it outlines the situation and most of the order as you can see in reading it is about the different pieces of a briefing that was handled in the case um it briefly outlines what was that issue in terms of a 23-story development um and it ends up obviously saying that um that the writ is denied the writ is challenging the city council decision and the decision was denying approval of that 23-story building and so in terms of what the court is saying i would still stand by my argument that the court is saying that when city council voted and turned down this building that met height and far requirements but council decided didn't meet compatibility requirements that the court approved that decision-making process so no those exact words are not in the court order but i think when you read the briefing and then read the order you will understand that is the conclusion reached by the

court the procedure posture of this case there is an order denying petition for riddus or serrari it seems that the petitioner had an attorney correct right it seems here that the petitioner's attorney filed a motion to withdraw uh requested additional 30 days for a petitioner to obtain counsel and file reply brief the court entered and granted the petitioner's attorney's motion to withdraw and also granted additional 30 days to file a reply brief then petitioner failed to file a reply brief or any other paper subsequent to the last court order dated september 22nd 2008 and then the respondent and interveners filed their joint motion to dismiss and then basically the court just went on the pleadings of the case so the the petitioner did not file a reply hold on let me finish let me finish hold on i'm just i'm trying to understand what happened here and what the court did because we're looking at what the court did and what the posture was at the time of the ruling okay so they did not file a reply so basically what they had is whatever the the respondents filed and then the court having reviewed the court file including exhibits a through h of the appendix attached to the joint response determines that the petitioner has failed to establish that it has was not accorded adequate procedural due process that the essential requirements of law were ignored or that the decision is not supported by competent substantial evidence petitioners amended petition for rid of certiorari is therefore denied so basically the court just applied the standard of review which is the same standard of the review if we would get appealed to the court and it would be was there due process procedure to process were the essential requirements of the law applied and was it supported by competent substantial evidence they didn't really that would do anything else in this

court order well i'm gonna i guess respond by saying i i'm not entirely clear by what you mean by that i will say that they filed to initiate the process process that is called the writ for petition for cert and for the rest of the members of council typically that's a brief that is 40 to 50 pages 30 to 50 pages the brief outlines the facts of the case the brief gives the legal argument in support of the party's position and so that's what occurred in this case so the facts and the legal issues are set out by all sides involved and the court ends up making a ruling the court ends up making a ruling based upon the briefing that had been provided by all parties involved thank you mr mastery do you have a response

did you have a chance to review the order i think this is a in effect a procedural ruling and i agree with your explanation of it this court did not determine the case that he cited it determined it never got to this court they didn't they didn't accept it in effect if um he said that he had a court order that said that they could do x and y it doesn't say that yeah i think everybody agrees at this point

and an appellate has admitted that the court did not say that the city's authority to use compatibility to reduce maximum potential development intensity was affirmed because that's not in the court okay um count council for the city can you just please knowing what the order denying you've had a chance to look at it could you just let us know what the ruling was and what it was based on based on what

you read well again when you have what's called first tier certiorari review which that's essentially an appeal of a decision of this body then there are three-pronged tests and that is where it was the where the parties accorded adequate procedural due process that procedural process is usually easily found in the quasi-judicial process that we've just went through and making sure everyone's available to be heard and then the essential requirements of law were followed so we have our city code we have any applicable state statutes where we following our laws and then the essential and then the decision has to be supported by competent substantial evidence and the definition of competent substantial evidence is evidence that is sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached and so in layman's terms what you're being asked to do here as a body is to make a decision either for or against based on competent substantial evidence that competent substantial evidence comes out through the testimony and evidence provided here all of the written materials the entire packet submitted by all of the parties that's where you're gleaning your competent substantial evidence from you use that evidence in determining whether the criteria of the code is being met or is not being met and the criteria does include compatibility but it's council's job and you can see this you can see it according to the evidence that you may give certain criteria more weight than others but this is the thing that my colleague michael demos to say you're going to show your work like if you're going to be a yes or a no why are you a yes or a no and why is that important to your evaluation of these criteria and for the site plan criteria it is one through 16 and so that's what we're really focusing for here is those criteria and whether this project meets or doesn't meet that thank you and that's a

very good segue to what we're going to do right now because what we're doing is applying the standards of review that are in the code um in 16.70.04.1.4 um and we're applying that to what we've heard today and what has been submitted thank you okay so we have an opportunity to discuss this any comments council

member fig sanders thank you i don't mind going first i will i'll go ahead and start it um off and and first let me say thank you to everyone that came to speak today um i've been up here now five going five and a half years and we have had a lot of different conversations about what is considered right and what is considered wrong and thank you so much um attorney judd for that explanation and i'm going to start off by saying i know that we did receive a copy of this um the court ruling but i'm also going to cement my comment by saying i'm here for the constituents when i hear statements being made that what we have to do that takes me somewhere mentally because when i look at my buttons i see a yes and i see a no so i have a choice as a council member to do what i think is right and to do what i think is best so when i hear you know and please know i am not anti-development i am not anti-growth but i will say this morning we had a very constructive comment uh um conversation about our arts district and our arts residents how are we going to do this right how are we going to do this so in my wanting to be non-hypocritical in my own conversations i've entertained a conversation of how do we slow some of this development down how do we make it work and sitting up here we have had conversations where developments have come to us and we've pushed back we have not immediately said yes to everything that has come back to us or come to us we've asked for revisions we've asked for downsizing and it did work when i hear that this multi-million dollar development oh it's going to give fifty thousand dollars to the public art fund but where are those artists going to live that fifty thousand dollars isn't going to do much for anything or anybody i love sculptures i love painting i love murals but that does nothing for me as as an advantage to this i also looked at the information and i saw there were a lot of vacant structures in that department in that section one of my issues is is bigger than this part this this development we have code issues i've sat here for a long time we do have code issues we do have landlord issues we do have the opportunity to improve a process that was already broken before this development came before us and so i'm not going to hold this particular project hostage based on the fact that you all as constituents did not declare your area as historic you know it is historic we've had residents come before us to all of a sudden want to declare that their community is historic because they didn't want to see something move forward to me that was a cop out for not wanting to promote progress but then you say what is progress what does that look like well it does look like our constituents being able to have somewhere to live affordably and when i hear about our seniors i've had those conversations i am in in good right of my mind um can't see displacing seniors without giving us an option when i look at the designation you weren't supposed to designate your area as historic to stop development and then when i hear that the process followed the follow the process well this is a part of the process this is a part of the process we can vote yes or no we can vote yes or no on approving the appeal or not so to say we're not following the process i kind of take offense to that because this is a part of the process and nor do i want my authority as a council member representing my district to be diminished because i don't agree agree with what you say i'm not going to always agree so i'm saying this to say we have a decision to make we've heard everyone but i don't like to be told what i have to do all i have to do number one as my grandmother would say is stay black and die but as a council member i'm going to do what i think is best because i love development we're growing we are growing but i did entertain a conversation as to how fast is too fast when are we going to take the reins on some of this development when are we going to start addressing some of the things that pre-existed that were broken prior to the time that we get some of these developments before us so again everyone was heard um and and i hear what the needs are but again those that know me know i champion for the people i've supported development and i will continue to support development but at one point do you pull the reins back to say is this the right place is it the right type what can we do as a city to kind of alleviate some of this overgrowth that we're experiencing and again i'm not going to excuse the fact that i'm a mother and my colleagues have heard me say this i have children that can't afford to live here i have children that can't afford to live here help me fix that help me fix that um so some of the things that i've heard as far as the environment as far as housing as far as displacing our seniors i hear you on that and i'm gonna i'm looking forward to what my other colleagues are are going to say but i do appreciate you all taking the time of wanting us to hear you and i hope you appreciate that i did hear you thank you chair thank you council member

driscoll thank you chair and um thanks to all who have taken the time to be here this is one of the hardest parts of our job and it's not made any easier when we have someone come in on behalf of their client and in a situation where they're supposed to ask for something they demand it they act like it's their right and if that was the case we wouldn't be here right because if you want more you have to ask this development could have been done at 125 feet and we would not be here right now this development could have been done up to 150 feet and with a little bit of compromise we would not be here right now but they're asking for 212 feet i haven't done the math exactly but i'm thinking that's what about 60 percent more than the base that's why you're here and so for someone to say that their client has been hoodwinked because they have to be here unfortunately if they've been hoodwinked it was because they were made to believe that this was a slam dunk and it absolutely is not this is

a tough one for me because that north side of the block i know that something great could happen there

in the future and i have been hoping that when that area was developed it was going to be something that i

could be completely on board with and i know that that exists i didn't really hear a single speaker against this and for the appeal today who didn't want anything it's just about this it's really tough to hear someone making a comparison between this project and the project at 400 beach because this one the base is 125. the base at 400 beach is 300. what they got was 316. that's not 60 percent more but i guarantee you if they had asked for 60 percent more than 300 feet we would have been sitting here or whoever was here at that time there would have been people speaking up that's why you didn't hear a peep it's not even not even close to being a proper comparison but let's just throw that out right there before i go on i want to clarify a couple of things because when we vote i want to make sure that everyone up here and everyone out here and everyone watching on tv understands what's needed and what we're voting on so the first question this one would require in order to grant the appeal this would

require a super majority correct correct because the drc approved the plan so if you grant the appeal you're in effect denying the plan right that would be the opposite decision that requires a super majority since you have seven voting members that super majority is five tonight okay so we need um so

one would need five members to grant the appeal correct okay and we have not one but two resolutions before us to choose from that's because you can tell us why we have two and why we can't just pick you know pick one or the other and doesn't matter it does matter tell us about that all of your motions

are in the affirmative so an affirmative motion would be a motion to grant the appeal so if that motion passes then we will use the version the resolution version that reflects that so whichever way you vote tonight that corresponding resolution will be what is used it was just given as example of your choices but that that motion would be a motion to grant the appeal granting the appeal is effectively a denial

of the application for the building thank you so um resolution b is the resolution to grant the appeal and so if someone if a city council member wanted to make a motion and they want to grant this appeal where you pick the resolution you want to vote yes to so you would make a motion for resolution b to be

approved generally we just like vote on granting the appeal or not because then there's a question of if we voted on resolution b because then we then have a motion on resolution a so it's just a vote on granting the appeal yes or no and then the outcome of that vote will be reflected in either resolution a or resolution b that will be what is signed and stamped and that will be the final or administrative order for this case okay

thank you um we might need you to say it again later but i wanted to put it out there just so everyone starts to understand how this is going to understand how this is going to go down now there was something that was brought up earlier um by the speaker for the appellant regarding the drc meeting and i wasn't there i read the notes i noticed that there were four absences that day just enough for a quorum that's unfortunate so there was so the meeting started and then was continued correct we had a initial meeting yes and

then it was continued for more information in line and a potential addressing of concerns of the commission from that day which is something that they do fairly often and so we were rescheduling that and then we had to postpone it for attendance issues so when we finally got to the further date we did only have the five unfortunately we had sick commissioners and some other things that happened where we couldn't sit but the applicant elected to go ahead with the five so that's why we did that but because of that time span and the difference in the commission we went fully through and did a full 10 minutes and presentation full quasi-judicial again for all parties to make sure to recognize that there was that change condition with the commissioners so we did it basically all over even though it was all right

and the way that this was explained to us um by the speaker was that at the time of the continuance there were um four commissioners who were at least ambivalent if not um leaning against this and so then i'm just saying what was set i'm not saying this is what happened but this is what i'm hearing is that there were four that were not necessarily yes votes when it came back there were there were minimal changes that were made and when it came back three out of those four people were absent attendance matters and i know if there's a quorum you can make it happen and yet it is um interesting that it was that it was that it's the applicant's decision whether or not to come back then um people know how to count votes and so it troubles me it troubles me that there wasn't um like a full drc that was engaged in this that had started but then weren't there the next time i just want to make one clarifying point a

decision of drc always requires four votes so even if we would have had it would have been a three to two that wouldn't have passed so it requires four so that's why we allow the applicants the ability to defer to try to get a full board so they have that higher potential to get those four votes yeah it's

just um it's a little troubling the way that all of that happened if i may um just two commissioners

that heard that case in september that was their last hearing so they were termed out and so we actually had two new uh commissioners join in october so that was another reason why we did a full rehearing for that item as well and at that hearing commissioners did have some general concerns and asked the applicant if they wanted to defer to look at those concerns we don't know if they were going to what way they were going to vote or not vote um and so they chose to defer for 60 days and then as uh attorney judd said you know they didn't have enough staff or excuse me commissioner so they

wanted to defer until they did mm-hmm yeah and for different sides there are games that can be played with that um the drc's discussion and decision is something that weighs heavily in my my decision when it comes to things like this and and i i just this is one of those very rare times when i don't feel like i had um the full picture of from the full drc and it's um it doesn't serve us well um there are two things that are holding me back from um going along with this this project one is that height um we have i'm looking at the the height map and you know we have that for a reason the the 125 base we talk about about tapering the areas the areas in green are part of that tapering so we do have that built in that's why it's 125 in this area if it was at 125 feet i think that we would have something that when we looked at renderings it would look much more compatible it would also change the design which might make it more palatable but today i'm just looking i'm looking at height and i'm looking at the compatibility and neither of those really meets the threshold that i think is um appropriate for approval of this project when you look at no matter what rendering you look at that's in our big backup here every single one of those renderings shows this building that looks huge compared to everything that's around it that should set off that should set off um a a red flag there not compatible pretty simple and as far as that height like i said before if you want more you got to come ask for more and it's you're not always going to get it i applaud you for trying and i really wanted to find a way to go along with this but the pictures speak a thousand words and the voice the voices of the neighbors speak hundreds of thousands of words when it comes to whether or not i want to approve something or go along with something this sits on the edge of one neighborhood right next to another and so you've got two neighborhoods to take into consideration here and it does impact both and i'm really really proud that the residents of historic uptown decided to show up speak out and stand up for the neighborhood that you have worked so hard to preserve and to make into a community that really reflects what st petersburg is all about i am so grateful for you all being here it takes a lot to um send the emails write the letters sign petitions come out and speak um all of the things that go into this kind of advocacy and it's it's unfortunate that that you were treated with disrespect by the representative for the applicant i happen to know that the the applicants themselves the group themselves they're not like that and so i hope that you won't hold that against all of them because you were spoken about and to in the way that you were you deserve a lot more respect than that and i believe city council deserves a lot more respect than what we were given by being talked to as if we don't know anything and we don't even have the right to be voting on this because by god we do and we will sometimes when we send something back we end up getting something better i can think of two recent projects that changed for the better after hearing from the community and from the city council and so i'm going to hold out hope that we can get to something that's better than what we've got in front of us here i'm really looking forward to hearing from more of my colleagues i appreciate the words of council member fig sanders who spoke so eloquently about the gravity of what we're talking about here and the respect that should be given thank you chair thank you next up council member harding

thank you chair thank you for the opportunity i would like to to to thank everyone who came out um this to me is in the the year and in two months that i've been on this council this is the the best example that uh that i have seen from this chair of what democracy should and can look like and all of you came and uh and shared your thoughts and some of more emotional and some of more subjective and some of them were law based um i absolutely understand what my colleagues said but i appreciate the two attorneys advocating for their groups that's your job that's what you do um i will tell you that that in a vote like this um you all deserve to hear from each of us not just see the votes counted and the way that i look at this um that map that was just up a second ago um is let me start let me start on the other side it is very clear that the that the folks of this this neighborhood um do not like what was put in front of them and what they've seen and again you uh you explained it not only um subjectively and emotionally but objectively as well and um and i'm not and i don't disagree with uh with with most of what you said and uh and i'll be quite honest i don't really like the the building i don't that's my subjective opinion but this map that's put in front of you is the law of the land here it was decided on by um by councils past administrations past um and and i can promise you that every single block that has a color on it is going to be one of these buildings in the next two years five years 10 years 50 years unless unless unless we decide to change that um and that is where the change takes place and um and so i am uh i i am struggling with um with the fact that that i i that i i agree with what uh with what you're saying there has to be a line somewhere if not fifth and fourth and if not fourth and third and someone is going to live across the street from something that is much bigger than what they have there's no doubt about that and you all are the ones you happen to be on that line um and and my heart goes out to living next door to from living next door to a two or three story building to living next door to a whatever it is going to be a 21 story building if it if it gets built um but this is the law of the land and someone uh earlier said that that the time the time to do something about this was um was or that the way to go about doing this is by changing this map and assuring that uh that we make buildings um historic if possible or we change the the the the height of what city blocks can be um i truly honestly um struggle with this i side with uh with the residents in terms of i i don't think that i would want to live next door to what this is but from the council's perspective um from my perspective but the way i look at the council um this is what the the councils and administrations and mayors and administrators decided years ago and this is where we are today until we choose to change it um and so i'm i'm going to uh i'm going to to um vote in favor of of letting this go through and i am sorry for that i truly am this is uh this is truly uh a hard vote but that is uh that is uh that is where where my heart sits and um i think that's enough thank you chair thank you

councilmember by sheer floyd thank you um i'll start just by telling everyone thanks for coming out um and uh i and that i agree with uh the majority of comments uh this evening about um you know who's the city for and uh what we change uh how how things change in our city uh but i have to make this decision based off of uh the criteria laid out in front of me um and i have questions in order to make sure i understand and make that uh decision so i want to start i think uh i guess i might want to ask cory i guess uh i'll start with you and um there's comments a lot of comments about tapering and the height map and um you know there's there was a code pulled up a 16 uh 21 23 1 or 3 3 i think is the one that was cited downtown center 2 and it says uh let me see where does it say heights in this district begin to taper down as development sites become less proximate to the core and transition to surrounding neighborhoods um my question is just getting a firm understanding when it says heights in this district begin to taper down is it referring to the entire district or heights within the district

in individual buildings so what it's referring to is the specific dc2 the heights are less than okay what is permitted in like these portions of dc1 not all of dc1 jordan if you can put the height map on please uh as well as dcc so the dcc predominantly is what you see in the kind of the mustard color so that's unlimited height that's the most intense zoning district in the city um you know far is um basically 8.0 actually it's unlimited excuse me um it's um and so there it's unlimited height that's where you see like 100 central 400 central the art house that's and then you go out towards the green area some of the green area if you look west of ml king that is both dc1 and dc2 but again it's the heights are the same for that zoning district um and then if you look to the north where we're at now the subject property we're looking at the magenta is also dc2 for one of those basically at third avenue to fourth but the height map is different so there's no correlation specifically to the district but you can tell that between third and fourth the height in dc2 is higher and the block north of that the height goes down okay because it goes up to fifth avenue and there you have uptown and historical northeast and the same thing occurs on the south side along fifth avenue south you do have dc2 there again that's a buddy in usf and that's again magenta but then if you go more to the west that's kind of a budding more residential portion of dc2 and the height goes down there so again it's really relating to the development pattern and the neighborhoods that's

a buddy on the opposite sides okay i appreciate that um and i'm glad you had them pull this back up because this leads to my next question the uh you know green area we're discussing 125 base height uh and then public hearing up to 200 feet in that public hearing what criteria are considered when we are trying to decide 200 i mean i assume compatibility with the surrounding areas so what

you do is the 16 review criteria that are in the staff report the commission the drc reviews the exact same criteria so this approval before eats before the commission was for an far bonus and a height bonus so the 16 review criteria used to evaluate both and so those are listed in your report and you as counsel can review each of those criteria specifically this is a de novo hearing so you get to take all new evidence and look at what's before you today and again as city attorney judd said you get to weigh these criteria and you may put some weight on that ability compared to transportation you may put something

more in the historic than another criteria yeah yeah that's fair and i'm glad you said historic because that's where my next questions are um okay it because generally with this kind of decision you put before me things that i know are well vetted and this is too um i don't feel this one's a little unique in that it's like maximum intensity at the edge of a district um kind of drifting away from where other intensities are of that and so i just uh i'm hung up on it a little bit for that reason um so you mentioned historic as well uh can you just speak to you know i i can't remember i don't know where the quotes that we had gotten it's been a while now since i've seen them um which consideration of historic uh buildings i don't think most of the people here uh would actually let me take a step back you know there's no legal protections on the buildings that are there but they do contribute to the downtown historic district can you talk about that distinction and i'm going to defer to the director yeah absolutely i mean i'm asking you because you're in front of me yeah yeah good evening

derrick kilbourne director of planning department i knew corey malishka was going to do that to me i'm happy to see you though i'm always happy to see you too all right so for us we do this historic preservation review in response to criterion 14 so that is the memo that's included in your packet now over the the series of cases that have been brought forward where this criterion has been considered uh we have uh first presented and included all the background information so that you have that to that the drc and the city council on appeal has to consider background information related to national register background information related to local um some of what had come up in the discussion related to the comprehensive plan um talking about incorporating policies in the land development regulations that discourage the demolition of resources we agree that's that's a policy direction given by the comprehensive plan so when you move into the land development regulations that's where we have that substantive debate about how are we going to discourage the demolition of historic buildings so through the ldrs over the years we have incorporated a number of tools to do that some more effective than others but the first tool is to exempt the floor area ratio for any local landmark buildings in the downtown center bonuses there is an far bonus for prioritizing historic preservation so when you have a case like this one where the development proposal will directly impact contributing resources to the national register district they are required by code to use a historic preservation far bonus and so again that is um an ldr criterion in response to the complaint policy there was some ancillary discussion about housing as well so likewise there is also an far exemption for workforce housing there's an far bonus requirement for workforce housing that the project has to move through there is an adaptive reuse section of the code that allows multi-family units in adaptively reused historic buildings in locations where the zoning might otherwise prohibit multi-family units and then finally there are other incentives that can be stacked on those development regulations for example in the historic preservation section of the code we have an ad valorem section and individuals have been able to take advantage of the ad valorem tax incentive when they are restoring

the preservation of older historic buildings so uh let me make sure i understand uh you described uh how we laid out uh basically meeting the goals that we had set uh through incentive

structures uh is that accurate that statement some are voluntary incentives yeah yeah adaptive reuse or ad valorem others are code requirements uh the far bonus requirement to do historic preservation and the far exemption is it's it's an incentive yeah um that we would apply in our initial analysis of any floor air ratio calculation

okay so it seems to me like the analysis or i'm sorry the decision being made here today takes into a account uh all of uh um how do i describe this uh the code being written to basically set out uh this is a difficult decision and discussion uh the decision we're making here today is based off of all the things we laid out in our comprehensive plan and the way that we incentivized or required them and so they've met their requirements and that's why this has been able to be put in front of us they met their requirements when it comes to historic preservation uh and i'm assuming they have not chosen any of the

incentives well uh they wouldn't be choosing the incentives because in this case yeah the incentives are set up for any type of preservation which they are not doing yes yes okay all right uh okay so i do

feel like i understand um how our code intersects with the historic preservation because of that um i don't have another question for you derek i'll just say if anyone's sitting here going huh what's council member floyd's gonna vote it's because i'm figuring it out too right in this moment um i'd say the thing that hangs me up the most is uh the intensity and the height and its uh immediate surrounding environment which is not normally something that i get hung up on i uh am generally supportive of people doing what

they have a right to do i'm completely supportive of it but with us having to make a decision on these criteria and it being its maximum height right at the border that's that's the one thing that's hanging me up right now so i'm gonna leave it there for now council member curtis thank you madam

chair um thank you everybody who came out sticking with us um it's very appreciative and uh i know i know these can get long having been on the cppc before city council quasi-judicial's are a normal in that uh commission and so um i thank you very much for the input because it is important uh cory i have a couple of questions and you may need a second because it's not anything that was in the backup material but i do think it's relevant there's been a lot of talk about adjacent properties and obviously the adjacent property across fourth street on fifth avenue on the southeast corner is the same height restriction right or same height tier are you looking at on the same block of fourth i'm looking at fifth avenue and fourth street but on the east the southeast corner

so the southeast corner uh that block yes you're correct the height in the block of basically fourth

the fifth street fourth avenue fifth avenue and then can you quickly or within a minute or so tell me what what the zoning is for the northeast corner and the northwest corner of that intersection are so

directly across the street to the north where uh you have the bank the bank yeah and you also have the used to be a sushi restaurant yeah now it's like a portuguese right so that's cct1 okay and then on the east west side excuse me of that's uh dartmo dartmoor i believe uh that's going to turn into crt one so the height and cct1 is 42 feet by right they do qualify for a height bonus of 12 feet just like this project did uh and then the crt one the height by right is 36 feet they do qualify for a height bonus

of 12 feet which would give them up to 48 feet okay so you can go to did i hear 58 feet on cct and 48 feet

well it would know it'd be uh 54 feet with the bonus and c1 uh because the base height is 42 and then it's 48 feet with the bonus and crt one and then what about the north east corner of fourth street so looking at the northeast corner i mean you're looking at uh where the road curves there yep uh so that's gonna be uh that cct one as well so it's the same height 54. so i think i mean obviously

it's very easy to talk about what's there now but what's allowable i think is important as well and so i just wanted to get a a scan of that so there was some there was a staff had not a correction but a i guess an explanation about the 74 units and then i heard somebody talk about it's a hundred people but then they're in the backup it talks about how some of them are multi-family units comparison to can

can you give some can you straighten that out for me yeah so there's um that we it was a blatant statement about 74 units but some of those are actually beds and not dwelling units um and we had the do you have the numbers specifically i think it was broken down on the report i have the information

here so the uh in my original memo regarding the historic preservation criterion i had a table included total units and beds it was a total of 74 units and beds combined thank you and i'm sorry we we did clarify that in the material so let me just uh break that down for you i'm sorry i probably just scanned

the table so i was 41 beds okay it was 33 multi-family units thank you very much and we do a conversion just uh three beds equal one dwelling unit okay and then um i don't know if corey you want to do this or derrick it might be you i i know there's been a lot of talk but just again for clarity's sake about officially registered versus a contributing factor and the demolition of those and the difference i i just want to make sure that that's clear i know we dealt with this a bunch on cppc but it's been

five years so sure so sometimes there are i hear comments here that national register is not historic so it is important to point out that national register listed properties are by definition historic they are more than 50 years in age and they have gone through a state level and federal review process and registered national there's historically designated right that is separate from a local landmark process that goes through a local review and is adopted by ordinance local landmarks have a certificate of appropriateness review process that is required national register does not and so the level of review that is applied to a local property landmark property is very specific but for national register we don't have design or procedural requirements for review other than this one comment in the site plan review and special exception that says if you are impacting a historic property then there needs to be some consideration or response in the site plan review process thank you okay okay so listen here's where i'm at on

this you know i i for the most part i'm in agreement with council member harding and i think a lot of what council member floyd said i i think this is why our meeting with cppc on an annual basis is so important and i think this year probably after this conversation it becomes even more important because i i just tend to agree that we have to agree that we have these criteria and that's that's the guidelines of what we should be doing and if we want to alter those criteria that's done in a separate arena and i'm struggling to combine the two and i i i have a lot of empathy for you know where it's like you know you got to do what you what you think well i would love to do that except that that's not in it doesn't that's not one of the 16 criteria do what you like and so i i struggle with that because when when we decide to come and be a part of this decision-making process we understand that there are guardrails inside of them and you don't just get to do you know whatever i would like i i would like a lot of different things that you just know aren't possible and so and if you want to make them possible then you've got to go through the legislative process in which to do it and so i i actually very much agree with what uh council member fig sanders said about we've got to find ways to rein it in i just don't think you do it in a singular decision that sets a very bad precedent in my opinion uh and again certainly my opinion we do it as a new business item that looks at the code and looks at the comp plan and looks at the 16 criteria and changes those things through the process in which i think is laid out that have done by our predecessors and so i i know that's not the fun thing to say it's i hate saying it um and i didn't like it on cppc when i did it and i haven't liked it here but unfortunately that's just where it's at and so i you know i i'm all for those conversations i just don't think it fits here inside of the criteria and so at this point uh i'm certainly willing to listen to everything else my colleagues have to say uh but at this point i i would deny the appeal thank you madam chair thank you council

member gibbons thank you chair and i'm going to pick up where councilman girdus left off um what president do we want to set right um as much as i don't like what i see um i agree i think 212 feet is a little bit of a monstrosity uh that is not my decision to make i fully support uh land development rights and because of that i i feel like there's three choices here if you don't like the process you can change the code you can change the height map or you can change the criteria and so my recommendation would be that for each of you and i thank each of you for showing up that you get with our planning department get with your council member and let's change the code but as it stands we have criteria we have laws and we have rules for a reason and i certainly believe that you all have a right to express your opinions uh but i have a right to abide by the law thank you chair

thank you council member driscoll madam chair you haven't spoken yet i haven't be to wait until

you have i i will speak um so first of all i want to thank everyone for being here um it's been a very long day um for you all it's been an extremely long day for some of us who started at committee meetings this morning and we've been talked at all day so when i get frustrated because i can't hear people because they're clapping and they're doing things and snickering um i hope you can understand that because that's not the behavior we expect from people here and it just at some point we're very tired and we're really trying to give the attention that this matter deserves and as you can tell from all my colleagues comments that you've heard everyone here has been listening and has been thoughtful about the comments wherever they land on this i also want to make a comment about the drc hearing because i think it's important and um to council member girdus's point regarding communication with drc and the cppc and what we expect to see um in the record i think it's all extremely important when we have the cppc or the drc make the record explain their reasonings and why they decided um how they did um i'm bringing that up because there was commentary that i saw on the record that i did not like uh and it was innuendo regarding the veracity of staff positions on certain cases and i want to make it clear to the cppc this drc any board including city council if you are going to make and people that are in here if you are going to make a statement about the veracity of someone's statement that is not true you better back it up you should never make any statement regarding anybody not being honest unless there's evidence when people say city council members are bought i'm sorry it's very convenient to say that but there is no evidence of that and it's the same thing when i hear that happen in any other meeting i will tell you this if i have anyone here at the podium that i think is not being honest with me i will take them to task you know why because i represent the citizens of st petersburg and if people are not honest with me they're not honest with the citizens of st petersburg so i just want to make that crystal clear and if there is a claim as to any employee in this city that has done something wrong it better be backed up with evidence and trust me when i tell you when i've had issue with something that's been said here i've made it very clear to whoever's standing and i back what i say up and i think that's extremely important so i just want to make sure that because we these are quasi-judicial matters and these records if there is an appeal it will go to a circuit court and so it's always important that the facts that are presented before the court are accurate and correct now that i've said that i'll go to the facts of this case so i want to touch on a couple of things i think the council members have done a fantastic job of really touching a lot of the issues that are before us i will say that to start the reason that there is a super majority and this is by the way no indication of how i'm going to vote but i'm going to say it the reason there is a super majority required to overturn the drc decision is because the drc has subject matter expertise and the reason you get a super majority is because it recognizes that expertise and to overturn that expertise it should only happen when there is broad agreement between city council members and there is a deference to that decision i think that's always important to understand i think that's always weighing in the mind of city council members so when we're going to make a decision and i think everyone here has articulated their reasoning it's important for the drc and the public and any court to understand why we're deciding what we're deciding whether we're going to overturn something or not so i do have to say that drc did did did make the record and they had a level discussion you know that was sufficient and there are times trust me it hasn't happened but i want to make that clear um we have it in front of us as de novo which means that right now we are just starting from strash and we can look at everything again and make our decision applying the factors that are in the code i will agree i will tell you it's not a very effective argument to tell a body i don't care if it's us i don't care if it's a judge i don't care who it is that they don't have the ability to make a decision that's just not effective i don't care who it's coming from just like it's not effective to tell people that they're about the reality is the most effective arguments are based on the facts and based on the factors that we have to decide because i understand that a lot of times we all come in with emotion and we feel very strongly about things but as many of my colleagues have mentioned we are have the burden of having to apply the law to the facts and that's what we're doing and believe it or not you can have a lot of leeway in that it's not a guarantee there is discretion in terms of how you interpret things and how the code is read and how things are seen and you've seen that kind of play out that's kind of how the process is supposed to work so i think it's very important to point that out so i will touch a little bit on two things that were mentioned first of all talking about the uh 29 story on beach drive that's in a different that's dc3 correct okay and i believe what was mentioned in in the hearing is dc3 the reason why the massing in that building looks a lot less is because in dc3 even though it's 29 stories it's up to 4.0 far correct so that's important to understand and i think that is incredibly incredibly important to understand when you're talking about 29 stories but it's 4.04 and if you can just explain floor area ratio for the average person out there and it could be read

easily in the record the florida ratio is a relationship to the size of the building to the lot area so for a floor area ratio of one to one if your lot is 10 000 square feet you can build 10 000 square feet that's a one to one ratio in this case it's four to one so basically 4.0 so if the 400 beach was 10 000 square feet they can build 40 000 square feet now there's certain exemptions that are built into the code this was uh approved pre-current code so um not knowing exactly we didn't really have a lot of exemptions in our old code but the garage did not count um for instance so that's why some of these projects are bigger because a lot of times a parking garage does not count against you for floor area ratio um and so looking at that they decided to go up instead of out and you'll see differences throughout downtown depending on how they design the far and setbacks are different too so beach drive does have a different setback than anywhere else in the city it's because they're all about pushing the towers away from beach so there's a 60 degree triangle so that's also why the tower is

pushed back where it is at so there is it's the design element obviously along with some of the standards uh that make it appear a certain way correct okay um this is dc2 and the tapering was brought up and i think part of the reason the tapering is brought up is because and i'm thank you for bringing up the map without asking you already know um the tapering is brought up because when you kind of look at the map and you talk about height map and they talk about step down when they're talking about height map and then they mention tapering in dc2 in the code and it's interesting because i mean here it says heights in this district begin to taper down as development sites become less proximate to the core and transition to surrounding neighborhoods but i mean the reality is and i know you have a certain interpretation this could be interpreted in a different way too and when i read this because it was added there because i mean when you start looking at these sites in many ways in the other i i think like different sections of downtown you could say there could possibly be some it's gonna you know the height isn't going to always be the highest the most the most intense is is in the dc in the center and then it goes further down right but it doesn't really talk about that in the other sections it only talks about tapering in dc too and so to me there is an area that i think can be ambiguous can be interpreted in a way where it acknowledges that in these areas that are closer to neighborhoods you may want to consider or at least take that into consideration for compatibility compatibility purposes i can't even speak at this point in time um in terms of applying the factors when you do have a public hearing when it's above 150 feet so that goes to where council member floyd was having his challenges in terms of intensity and how it kind of is within the environment so i do think there is leeway there and i will tell you i mean i saw it and i look the idea that this the site is going to be the way it is and all that was i mean that is probably not going to end up being the case no matter what because i think there will be development there the issue is how that development happens in terms of the mass and scale and whether or not it's appropriate for that site be and it's not you know it's not going to be small but i think the issue is is that the right development for that site the way it is right now before us and i'm having a real struggle with that i understand the elements of the code but i will tell you based on what i saw i'm having a real struggle on the compatibility issue and reading it the way i read it um and understanding beach drive was brought up even though it's higher it's just way different way different based on um the floor area ratio so you know i do i i don't know how they can make it better but i know that we have had developments that do make it better in terms of the mass and that's where these wonderful architects come in and kind of work with it so where i stand right now and and i will tell you part i got here i didn't know where i was going to get today frankly i had no idea and i felt like council member floyd i've been thinking about this through now and i didn't know what my decision is going to be and i will tell you that i've had the help of my colleagues and the comments that they've all made and they've all been valid because this could go either way based on how you frame it so i would upheld the appeal on this and um i'll turn it

over to you council member driscoll thank you chair and i i appreciate your remarks and those of all of my colleagues no matter where we land on this i think it's very clear that everyone has taken this very seriously giving it a lot of thought knowing that we want great growth in our city but we want it to be responsible and smart and true to our city as we move forward one thing i wanted to bring up here is just circling back to these heights and what the process is because um there who there are some who might say oh you know our hands are tied this this is this is the law the law is 125 feet the law with some compromise is 125 to 150 feet 212 feet is more than the maximum even with a public hearing that's on the books they're getting a little bit more than that if they win but that doesn't just because it goes to a public hearing doesn't mean you have to support it it means it's time for you to look at it if it was 125 yeah there's nothing i can do they can fire it up 150 we would never see it it's brought to us because yes we have a decision to make if it was just a law of the land do you really think that we would what would our vote be all about what is that even worth we sit here for hours for something that we can't do anything about it is a but i i want to make it clear that there's that part but these um 16 criteria the 16 items that we have to look at to use we can weigh the way that we want to you've heard from me i'm looking at the scale i'm looking at how big it is i'm also looking at the compatibility that's the biggest thing for me right now you've heard others talk about what their misgivings are their hesitations are about this project that's where we that's where we work is within that and yes every single person here can choose to uphold this appeal or to grant the appeal and with that send a clear message to the developer that they can do better and that we want better so the hesitations about this actually could be used to really influence the direction of this project i hope that everyone will keep that in mind as as everyone decides how they're going to vote but to be very clear the law of the land is 125 for this

property thank you chair thank you council member fake sanders thank you and um thank you for that council member driscoll and again um i just want to make it very clear that yes we do have 16 criteria that were used to determine moving forward however it coming before council is a part of the process we have a yes and we have a no button that i plan to exercise um as a council member in regards to you know setting precedent i'm not always about the status quo i'm not always about you know we can't make a change because we can to say that we have to change the the the site plan and the criteria well that that's fine we can do that but it's not applicable now because we can what we have before us does not take those things into consideration until after the vote so that's not something that we can do right now can we move forward okay yeah i'll do a new business item for that not a problem we can have that compensation for future development but i'm talking about what's in front of us right now and where we are right now and again i have been on this dais over five years and i have seen us get developments that we have pushed back and we have gotten something better a fantastic compromise between the developer and the residents and i have to agree i have not heard one resident say that they didn't want it that they didn't appreciate the the development and that's who i'm listening to that's who i'm hearing um because a developer can build anywhere those people would that will be displaced cannot they

cannot so rather or not i'll know only yes i will sleep well tonight i'm going to sleep very well tonight because i'm looking at the credentials i'm looking at what i've heard i'm looking at what i've read i'm looking at what we've experienced in the past and we have been able to make projects better because we've considered both sides of the argument and so as far again setting precedents i don't mind i don't mind setting the precedents we're not here just we don't go along just to get along that is not why we're that's not why i'm here let me speak for debra fig sanders i don't go along just to get along and when i hear you know so many hemming and hawing about the process we can still fix this it's not it's not written in stone we can still fix this um and again everybody's sentiments have been heard respected and well but i've heard so many different conversations over the years um that this can still be fixed it is not too late um i'm not going to be a part of displacing seniors i don't care if it's one i don't care if it's five i don't care if it's 74 i don't care how many beds that is i have talked to residents that have been displaced by development that are on the street that i can't be a part of knowing that we have opportunity and opportunity to fix this knowing that we have the opportunity to take this back and say we're not saying we don't like what you're bringing for us but can we tweak this can we make a change here to have we've done it in the past because i've been a part of it so i know that we've done it and again as far as the committees are concerned i've sat on cbac i've sat on cac i know how some of those committees are put together i've been a part of those conversations and when those conversations are presented in council it didn't take the full unison of everybody that was in that on that committee i've been there i've been a part of that so you can't tell me that every single person um may have been in unison when it comes to this somebody had a discrepancy somewhere i give the utmost respect to all the committees but had i not sat on some you can't tell me that everything has been 100 you cannot because i've sat on them so you know i i again i appreciate it um i just think that this can be better i think that we can do better if we need a new business item to be retroactive we can do that but standing where we are here to now you know again i'm gonna i'm staying where i'm staying and you know that that's my story and i'm sticking by it i just think that we can actually do better than what we actually have and you're right there's going to be growth somewhere but that doesn't mean it have to be there thank you chair thank you

council member curtis thank you madam chair um just out of completeness legal in the appellant's presentation on page seven they have council and then one of them is continue the appeal and remand to drc for additional information a is that possible b what does that look like that is one of the

choices is a remand to drc for reconsideration um i can't remember a time that that's happened so i can't give you a practical yeah we did that and then we came back or everybody was happy and then we didn't but it is one of the options you can approve with conditions or deny with conditions usually what that would be is you're going to go back to drc because there's some kind of new information that came up or in the course of testimony there was an offer to reduce or change the building but you might not feel comfortable with that like substantial modification to the plan so you remand it back to drc for them to reconsider that modification something like that but because this is de novo if there were some interior conditions that you wanted to add you can already do that right now without sending it back to them so yes it's an option but it's an option that also includes things that you can

kind of already do now thank you um and then real quick um it's probably corey corey talk about you know and i i appreciate what council member driscoll is saying about the 125 the 125 to 150 but can you just i know i use this term a lot so i apologize but can you kindergarten it for me and just talk about the process from going to 125 to here how you get there and and the steps in which you have to take

sure so as previously explained the by right height is up to 125 so and then if they were looking to do 125 to 150 it's what we call a streamline approval so by streamline it means staff level review and approval we still review it against the criteria and the code but public notices as well as advanced notices provided to any neighborhood associations so that streamline approval there's a 15-day window that someone could appeal that uh review and that could go then to the development review commission the development review commission will review that similar to what we're doing here um against all the criteria that vote by the drc can be appealed to council so council could hear that but it'll be the third step and then the fourth step and final step could be circuit court um then above 150 it automatically goes the drc um public notice is provided and basically we tell you there's a hearing date like we did for this case uh we review the same criteria we make a recommendation but drc is the one that will approve or deny that and again that could get appealed to city council which it did um and then of course the

final could be circuit court after this okay and then will you do the same they are yes so the base

approval by right is 3.0 floor area so three times the land area and then you can go up to a 5.0 i believe in this is only district you know offhand okay um but there's a threshold that could be a streamline

approval um they use workforce uh contribution the hci well that's to get to the bonus correct

so there's different uh levels so we're just double checking on the levels here so typically um it's you know 3.0 is by right no bonuses are needed you can just do that there might be some exemptions in the code such as like retail space in the first floor parking garages office etc three to five um is what we call a streamline approval process and i think good i was right uh and so between the three and the five you have to go to the bonus chart so the first one typically is workforce housing the second one would be historic preservation in this case since it was involving historic resources we're going to flip that um if they go above 5.0 max is seven um it does come to public hearing at that point as well up to five staff can approve with public notice could get appealed blah blah blah five to seven has to go to drc get appealed and come here which it did and so and again just to

reiterate there's a 1.5 million dollar uh payment in lieu going to the hcip right and the exact amount

will be determined that when it's permitting right right okay so approximately 1.5 million dollars and then approximately a 50 000 contribution into the public arts fund so that is up uh there's two things in the code uh so they can either uh provide art on site worth a hundred thousand dollars up to a hundred thousand um or do a contribution up to 50. now again that's based on construction costs so it could be less than 50 000 again depending on the construction costs all right thank you very much thank you madam chair

thank you um council member dress i'm sorry okay council member floyd uh i got i was fully engrossed

in your questioning so um just take a second to gather my thoughts um okay i'm just looking i just want to get real clarity on the decision to allow uh the the maximum height here and i feel like it's important uniquely important because it is one of the thresholds laid out to get to a public hearing and so what this might be too hypothetical or speculative but when you're making a decision as to you know what you um recommend for approval uh what's something that you would consider that would make you not want to approve the maximum amount the maximum public hearing amount if you could speak

to that at all yeah um so in this case when we reviewed the project when it came before adrian and i uh we met with the applicant the representatives and their designers they originally came to us with two concepts you know what you kind of see before you today and then one that was a large building took up most of the site so we looked at it we were like well we'd rather push that tower towards fourth and fifth because that's the main intersection into downtown they're carrying a lot of traffic they're wide roads if you go to the west now you're getting into the crt zoning district the lower intensity density you got also the historic church that was just designated you also have the the city's property right there as well which is another historic asset and you have a lot smaller buildings going down that part of fifth so we said let's push the mass of that building and we can support that because we're going to push the mass towards that intersection so that's how we reviewed that item um in every case and every project's a little different um and you know for instance we did look at a project the mirror lake that we supported the height and the drc did not so we just recommend and that's why this goes to hearing is so that the drc is another level because of the potential impact and they have a different view sometimes in staff um on how we look at the height okay

thank you actually that was really informative for me um and i appreciate the work that you did to get this proposal to this point um yeah but uh i i guess i see how you could have said like oh you know this mass and scale that is feasible you wouldn't have supported so you got the you got it to this uh level right here already um and i think yeah i might just have a slight disagreement and it's it's probably not even huge uh because you did sway me a little bit when you described how you shifted it towards the uh cct from crt uh but i do still think um you know it's it's quite a it's quite an intensity for the area so anyway i appreciate that i'm really glad to have some of your thinking thank you

okay council member driscoll thank you um i'm about to make a motion but first i want to ask once um so first of all i'm going to make the motion and then i want i would like for you to explain again what that what a yes vote means and what a no vote means but before i do that we have been in a quasi judicial cone for quite some time and no matter how this shakes out i'm really looking forward to having some conversations about um what goes forward because at the end of the day there are a lot of people i like that are on both sides of this issue when can i start having those conversations well there's

i would say we would require extending that cone throughout the appeal time so regardless both parties would have an ability to appeal this decision to the circuit court we already talked about position of writ and that's generally 30 days from the rendition of the order so for the next 30 days we're going to stay in the cone and then afterward depending on that if there's a current appeal then we move to let's kind of stay out of it because we're in a litigation posture we might not be um but in all likelihood there is a situation where this could come back depending on the vote and still be quasi judicial so i will give you the potential quasi judicial talk of just be aware it could be something that you could see again so but mandatory time 30 days all right i think that's important for

um every everyone in this room to know um so if we don't respond to your emails or calls about this particular topic you know why we want to make sure that we are doing things right um and before i make the motion i'll just say finally we've we've talked a lot about height what you can do what you can do what you can do by right but i think the biggest takeaway that everyone should have is don't walk in here with 125 by right and act and talk like you've got 212 by right because that is

not a way to win me over with that i will move i'm sorry i'm sorry councilman i hate to i apologize for interrupting you do you mind if heather gives the talk on the motion again real quick before before i make

the motion just to potentially inform how you phrase it yes so the motion here is going to be to grant the appeal so motion to grant the appeal granting the appeal so a yes vote means no to the project is there any questions about that sometimes it is with the appeals it's very confusing usually yes means yes but in this case a yes means a no to the overall project and the reason that even though you've seen

the resolution a and b like heather explained it gets cumbersome if resolution if we vote on a particular resolution and that vote doesn't pass we need a record we need and that's why it's set up as heather explained explained previously even though these these do tend to be cumbersome in that way to make the motion and the affirmative and then the purpose of the resolution b unlike the typical resolutions are before you are to really provide that final order of of your decision so i've got resolution b in front

of me we're just going to the motion is to grant the appeal if there are five yeses then you have met the super majority and the appeal is granted and the result of that would be resolution b that would be the example of the final order a and b are examples of the outcome of the vote the vote is

on granting the appeal got it all right then i will make a motion to um grant the appeal which overturn i can just read this which which would overturn which would overturn i'm sorry so i'm um i'm going to i'm i move to grant the appeal and overturn the development review commission's approval of this um of this project i have a motion a second clerk if you could open the machine for voting

council members please enter your votes seeing that all council members have voted clerk please tally

announce the vote madam chair to you of the motion to approve agenda j4 fails four to three with council members driscoll fix sanders floyd and hanowitz voting yes council members girdus gibbons and harding

voting no thank you thank you everyone for being here i know it's been a very long day um next up we have open forum clerk are there any speakers so i just want to clarify so that means we're using

resolution a the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the development review so that's what you'll be signing madam chair and we still have to wait 30 days thank you thank you very much thank you legal

for everything thank you everyone okay thank you clerk are there any speakers for open forum thank you announcements and adjournment any announcements i don't see anything oh oh council member driscoll thank

you um as as some of you um as you all might be aware um last weekend there was a terrible

fire in my district hold on a second can you can someone tell them if they can take it outside

downstairs please no out there it's fine now i know last last weekend there was um a terrible fire in my district that um unfortunately took the life of um a young woman and um you know the fire is still under investigation but you know at this time um i'm just i just ask that you all please keep that family in your in your prayers um in your thoughts and with that please help me remind everyone that when they're home at some point when they get home number one make sure every single person who lives in your house knows two ways to get out of the house two ways that would have made the difference the other thing is everyone can have smoke detectors in their house for free from our fire department all they have to do is call 727-893-SAFE it's easy let's put it in our newsletters let's get it out there you can call they will figure out when to come over they will take care of all of it for you and that is through a partnership with american red cross who we love they did a very successful canvassing in the harbordale neighborhood um very recently and that's not the only time that they give and install smoke detectors so you know if there's if there's any good that can come out of this i i hope that we can honor um the life of this young woman by trying to trying to help others stay safe so that's

all i had thank you thank you and thank you for that reminder and it's just a horrible horrible incident to happen okay if there's no other speaker thank you everyone for it's been a very long day and i appreciate all the staff that's been here uh thank you all for staying up with us meeting adjourned