City Council - Oct 15, 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 Gibbons Jr., and District 8 and Council Vice Chair, Richie Floyd. Hi, everyone. Welcome to the October 15, 2026 City Council Meeting. Clerk, can I please have a roll call? Gabbard? Here. Harding? Here. Hanowitz? Here. Nick Sanders? Here. Gibbons? Here. Floyd? Here. Curtis? Here. Today we're going to have our invocation given by District 7 Council Member Corey Gibbons Jr. and if you can stand and then please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Let us bow our heads but lift our hearts. Oh, God, our Creator, our Sustainer, and our Guide, we stand before you today at a critical crossroads in our history and the chambers of decision-making. We thank you for the privilege of leadership, but we ask you today to give us the wisdom to serve. Lastly, Lord, remind us as a council today that leadership is not about the privilege of the position but about the purpose of the people and help us to remember that the true measure of our greatness is not found in the height of our skyscrapers nor in the wealth of our downtowns but in those who treat others at the bottom as if they are their own. Teach us today how to lead not by our will but by thy will. We ask right now that you give right now power to the powerless, voice to the voiceless. Let us guide right now those who need direction. Help us right now as we serve. Touch each council member, our mayor, each staff member, and each person who has gathered here today as we endeavor to do justice, love mercifully, and to walk humbly. In Jesus' name we pray. 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. Thank you. May you be seated. Thank you, Council Member Givens, for the beautiful location. Okay, we have an agenda before us. We have an edition of D1, the resolution of memorial tribute to Bill Edwards, and the addition of H2, H3, and H4, which are the October 15, 2026 HERS committee action items. Move or propose. We have a motion to approve as amended. Second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your vote. Seeing that all present council members have voted, Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously. Thank you. We have a consent agenda. Do we have any cards? We do not, Madam Chair. Okay. Move of approval. Second. We have a motion to second. The only thing I want to know on the consent agenda was the Sunken Gardens Forever Foundation that has a donation of $95,000 to Sunken Gardens, which I think is fantastic. It is a 5013C that was founded back in 2016, and it's dedicated to supporting and enhancing Sunken Gardens. So what they do is we don't have to pay for it. It's done through donations, so it's always a wonderful thing. So we have a motion in 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, the motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously. Thank you. Next up, we have open forum. Do we have speakers? And if so, can you please read the rules? Yes, we do have some speakers, Madam Chair. 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. Only city residents, owners of property, the 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 city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the hand-raised 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 have reached the three-minute time limit, you will be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including the three-minute time limit on comments. The requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting and the rules of decorum. If my public comments is disrupted by violation of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comments by alternate means, including by email only. And, Madam Chair, we do have some speakers. Thank you. 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, you'll have three minutes to address city council. First two speakers are Linda Stoller and Roger Covey. Good morning. I'm Linda Stoller. My address is 701 Mirror Lake Drive, St. Petersburg. I'm reading a proclamation to end all cooperation of local law enforcement with ICE, H-D-S-H. The Pinellas Coalition for Human Rights and to End 287G in solidarity with the Talk to the Sheriff initiative is a local accountability campaign focused on ending law enforcement's cooperation with ICE. Ma'am, if you have to stop the time, if you all can sit down, please. We try to keep everyone seated during the meeting. Thank you. Those are part of the rules. Go ahead. I'm in cooperation with ICE and protecting the rights and safety of our communities. We represent a growing nationwide base of activists committed to engaging sheriffs and local law enforcement directly, building local pressure and advancing policies that protect constitutional rights and immigrant communities. A prosperous Pinellas County is one where every resident, immigrant and US born alike, feel safe, valued, and able to participate in county life. Our local public resources should be used to keep all our communities safe, not to erode our public trust and take away our loving neighbors from the people that depend on them. Our Pinellas Coalition includes the Unitarian Universalists of Clearwater, Unity Church of Clearwater, the Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Workers Circle, Indivisibles of Pinellas, and Tampa Bay Immigrant Solidarity Network. We are committed to the following. One, end profiling and the practice of stopping, questioning, or detaining people based on their race, ethnicity, or the language they speak. Number two, follow due process. Require due process and judicial oversight of warrants and detainers issued by ICE prior to any enforcement actions. Number three, treat with dignity. Require that lawful deportation first include safe and dignified return to the individual's family, whether in the United States or outside the United States. Number four, protect children. Require that children born in the United States be placed with U.S. citizen families or friends known to them and their parents when their parents are detained. All detained members of the same family should stay together. And number five, allow inspection. Require that each detention center be open to inspection by elected officials, be subject to independent public inspection, and free of nutritional health and safety violations. Given to the gross violations of law and common decency committed by ICE, we call on all law enforcement agencies in Pinellas County to end the 287-G agreement. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker. I'm here to speak to the proclamation and the 287-G agreement. There is a legitimate role for federal immigration enforcement. But there is also a legitimate question for this council. Should the St. Petersburg Police Department be part of it? The 287-G agreement was entered without a preceding vote of this council and without public discussion. I am asking you to have that discussion now and then vote. The 287-G agreement blurs the line between the badge of a St. Petersburg Police Department officer and the badge of an ICE agent. When that happens, trust in the police is lost. And worse, people fear the police. This is not speculation on my part. You might remember the Reverend Andy Oliver spoke here in February about undocumented women and even some green card holders who were sexually abused or abused and were afraid to report those crimes. More recently, the University of South Florida researchers interviewed immigrants, lawful permanent residents, people with temporary legal protections, and U.S. citizens. They found a declining trust in law enforcement. Some participants reported avoiding police even during emergencies because they feared exposure to immigration authorities. Residents of St. Petersburg should not live in fear. The victim of a sexual assault in St. Petersburg should not hesitate to report the crime. A fifth grader in St. Petersburg should worry about long division problems, not the conversation their father had with the school resource officer that morning at drop-off. A high school sophomore in St. Petersburg should not be worried about racial profiling and being hauled off to jail. A churchgoer in St. Petersburg should be able to do just that, go to church without fear. I'm not asking this council to decide federal immigration policy. I'm asking you to decide St. Petersburg policing policy. Put the 287G agreement on the agenda. Hear publicly from Chief Holloway, immigration attorneys, victims advocates, clergy, and residents. Debate its costs and benefits and then vote. This agreement began without a public vote. It should not continue without one. Thank you. Next two speakers. The next two speakers are Zoe Tweedy and Walt Driggers. 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. Hello. My name is Zoe Tweedy. I live on 4th Street North. Good afternoon. I work full-time for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, and I am the Tampa Bay field organizer for the organization. I also hope all city council members can make sure they are paying and giving diligent attention to the speakers that are going up today about this issue. The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization whose mission is to defend, strengthen, and protect constitutional rights and liberties of all people in Florida. The St. Pete Police Department charter is to protect the public, but the record continues to show that voluntary 287G agreements do not promote public safety. Instead, they harm families, encourage racial profiling, destroy the community's trust, and unnecessarily divert local resources. Notably, voluntary 287G agreements deputize local law enforcement to make immigration arrests. Importantly, though, it also mandates jail sharing and information sharing between local police departments and homeland security. While we are glad to hear that the St. Pete Police Department has not engaged in the Designated Immigration Officer Training, or the DIO program, this is not an excuse to remain in the 287G agreement. By complying with voluntary 287G agreements, the St. Pete Police Department is still sharing information with ICE and is referring arrests to homeland security through the county jail. Rather, we see this as an opportunity for St. Pete to actually be a leader in Pinellas County, a county which has spent, and this is a correct number, $995,704,146 on mass deportation, according to the Economic Policy Institute. For reference, that's the equivalent to enrolling 71,000 St. Pete residents in Medicaid. Let's be clear. Florida law does not require local police departments to enter into voluntary 287G agreements with ICE. Lawyers for the governor and the AEG have admitted this in court. In fact, the Florida legislature has considered and rejected a proposed mandate for cities multiple times. This means that the city of St. Pete can choose to end its voluntary 287G agreement at any time because no law requires it to have one. It's as easy as terminating any other contract the city has signed. And despite his threats, the governor does not have the constitutional authority to remove municipal officials who have not been indicted for a crime. We are proud to stand with the people of St. Pete today in calling for the end to the city's 287G agreement as soon as possible. Let us end the chaos caused by these agreements, improve public safety, restore trust in the local police department, and give the people of St. Pete relief from this unnecessary attack on their civil liberties. Let St. Pete be a model of democratic just leadership in Pinellas County and beyond. Thank you. Walt Driggers, One Beach Drive Southeast, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701. I have three points to share with you today. One is I want to thank you so much for your support again this year for the scholarship program. We have allocated $16,500. We're only going to invoice for $16,000 because we've dropped the mechanics component to it. We haven't been able to find a successful partnership for that element. But thank you so much for working with these, supporting these young people and moving them forward in their aviation career. The second point is it's been two years this month since we've lost 32 hangars, eight airplanes, and two helicopters. We don't understand why it's taken two years to replace the demolished tin hangars with the hurricane-resistant, resilient, pre-stressed concrete hurricane-resistant hangars at no cost, no tax dollars to the city, and you wouldn't have to borrow any money. The group that's doing that is hoping to finalize this agreement soon. We're down to, or they are down to only one point and would like to get that resolved so we can move forward. The last point I'd like to share with you is I've had the great ability to work with another part of the city. We're working with the marketing and the events department. They have been doing a totally awesome job on an upcoming historic event that's going to happen at Albert Whitted Airport on October 30th. So if you ever see, when you see Kerry O'Brien and Tony Lino, please acknowledge their professionalism. It's been great to work with those people for this event. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next two speakers. Next two speakers are Robin Davidoff and Michael Kingsford. 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. Thank you, council member Robin Davidoff, 4830 Osprey Drive cell. I'm here on behalf of the League of Women Voters and our 500 members. We take the job of educating voters very seriously, and we've worked very hard the last couple months in educating voters about the geo bond. We did sponsor a forum with Mr. Tankersley, and we have posted a lot of social media information, as well as posting our conversation with Mr. Tankersley on our website. And the more people that we talk to as we educate voters in St. Pete, the question we get a lot is about accountability and public participation. This is the one thing that seems to concern a lot of voters. So to that end, we're here to support the HERS committee proposal to create these committees and have citizen involvement and transparency. We think that will go a long way to answer voters' concerns about this important legislation. We have voted to support the geo bond, and we're very proud to do that and work with you. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Kingsford, 1231 Monticello Boulevard in St. Pete. First, I'd like to apologize for my appearance. When I got notice of this meeting, I was in my garden, so you guys get the view of me that my plants get. I am also here with regard to the general obligation bond or GO bond. I'm representing the Sierra Club. We are in support of the bond, and we hope it gets passed. Beyond that, we really hope that the management of the bond includes a preponderance of green solutions. More than half a century ago, I was a kid growing up on a farm in New Jersey. My father worked in New York. Periodically, I would have the privilege of accompanying him on the train. Before we got to New York City, we would go through an area called the Meadowlands, where you'd look out, and you would just see grasses. It was a big marsh. My father would always comment to me that that land would never be developed because that was what absorbed storm waters. Without that, New York City would flood. I think you might remember pictures of Sandy with cars floating up out of basement garages in New York and flooded subways after the Meadowlands was developed. Green solutions are not only cheaper and supportive of our environment. They don't need to be renovated. Cement will always need to be redone. Mangroves don't. They get stronger over time. So I'm just urging you to, from concept on, focus on green solutions when it comes to this kind of resiliency. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next two speakers. Next two speakers are Mary Russell and Patricia Petijon. 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 Mary Russell. I live at 1527 5th Street, Apartment A1 in St. Petersburg. I wanted to address the 287G agreement. I believe that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE have shown us all that the true intent is to terrorize and to brutalize our immigrant communities. In the past year, we have seen this cruelty from the vigilante actions in the street, the inhumane conditions in the detention centers, and the deportation to dangerous communities and countries. Even with all that public exposure, DHS has stated very boldly that they will continue and even double down on the same process that they have been showing us for the last year or two. They have no intention of changing. In view of that, our St. Petersburg police cooperating with ICE is really eroding the trust of the immigrant community. And this is a trust that takes a long time to build up but can be destroyed very easily. My concern is that what is the line that has to be crossed before the city council says enough? I hope that the public outcry that is going to grow will encourage our city leadership to find the support and the will to end this agreement. And the citizens of St. Petersburg will applaud you and will support you in this effort. Thank you. Thank you. Patricia Petty-John, 1612th Street North, St. Petersburg. I am a Florida native. I'm a resident and homeowner. I am here to talk about 287G and the opportunity that it has presented you with to do the right thing for the right reason. By signing the agreement, you did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. And the wrong reasons were fear and intimidation. We know that when Key West didn't sign, the state attorney threatened to remove elected officials from their office. And very quickly, Key West signed. But South Miami, which is my hometown, stood up and said no. And they sued. They went to court. And immediately, the state of Florida acceded that, in fact, they're not required to sign the agreement if you're a city. Now, they tried to slip in that if you're a city with a jail, you might be required to. But that is not in the law. And there is no legal requirement for the city of St. Petersburg to sign that agreement. So, it's time to do the right thing for the right reason. And I understand how difficult that has become in the last year and 10 months. We know. But it's just something that has to be done. It can be done. So, good luck. I hope you do stand up. I'm sure that once you do, you will not be thrown from office. Thanks. We have one Zoom speaker I'm going to call. Sarah Hips, I'm going to enter you into the meeting space. Please unmute yourself. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, please. Awesome. I'm Sarah Hips. I am the president of Show Up Relief Alliance. It's a nonprofit for disaster preparedness and relief. I live at First Ave North and 23rd Street. I just want to take a moment to speak in favor of the GEO bond and the committees. The accountability that needs to be taken into account here is that we have an entire peninsula, but an entire city that is very much needing to move forward quickly to protect itself. We have a volatile and unpredictable hurricane climate. We've seen it this year, and we will continue to see it moving forward. A lot of people forget that just because we haven't experienced something this season does not mean that we are on a downscale. We are proven weather-wise that we are on the upscale, and what that takes from us is absolute preparedness. And a lot of times people only look at the areas deeply impacted, and they write those off because they consider the fact that they are storm surge, and those are things that we can't adequately protect from. But we are forgetting people like Janine, that my nonprofit was able to help where she lived across Fourth Street, and she was in an area that has never flooded before, but because we were not properly prepared to be able to take care of our storm water that came before Helene, she flooded. And while she only received five inches of water, she did have to lose four feet of drywall. And this is a woman who's a senior citizen whose only help was another senior citizen who was also handicapped. And if it wasn't for nonprofits like mine, I cannot tell you how long she would have sat there. The reality is that we have so many people who do not have a trust in our government, and so when they hear that their taxes are going to increase, that what they are going to be responsible for will increase, but they don't know if the city will be held accountable to show up properly for them, what we are given is an amazing opportunity to actually show up for everybody here in St. Pete, especially those who have been underrepresented and who have been low communicated and shown up for. I believe that while this may initially feel like a pinch for some people, it may sound like we are asking too much. In reality, we have to absolutely move faster to protect this amazing city that we live in, or otherwise we will be paying exponentially more. And individual homeowners, renters, and landlords will be paying exponentially more to be able to live here and continue to grow St. Pete as it is. I have a number of stories like Janine, people that you don't think of or consider that didn't live in Barrier Islands, and we don't initially think of, but I'm going to leave it with her, and I'm hoping that we are able to... Okay, next two speakers. The next two speakers are Kathy Harrelson and Franklin Alves. 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, Council. My name is Franklin Alves. I live at 1026 9th Avenue South. I'm here representing the Council of Neighborhood Associations today and our member neighbors. I wanted to first start off by thanking Administrator Claude, Maven, all of them, for taking the time this year, meeting with us very regularly, taking our feedback from our resiliency committee, all of our questions, and really following up with really intentional and thoughtful things. The item today for the GoBond Accountability Committee, we're in absolute support of that. That was one of the top things that came out from our meetings with Claude, and especially having representation from all of our different districts. This impacts... What we're asking for is the whole city to pay for these types of projects and infrastructure, and that having a committee that represents all of St. Pete is an important part of that. And so I'm here just in speaking in favor of that, and that that moves forward, and that we can see that that is an enormous part of what people ask us when we talk to them. You know, how do we hold our government accountable? This is specifically that mechanism to do that. So I'm very excited to see that move forward today with y'all's support. So thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Kathy Harrelson. I live at 32nd Ave North on 26th Street in St. Pete Heights. I've lived in, I think, five different districts in St. Pete, including 30 years in Shore Acres. So I've had lots of lived experience with resilience or lack thereof. I want to thank the City and Sustainability Specialists, Engineers, HERS Committee, and City Council for your work on the Resilience Advisory Committee and the Goban Committee. And to the many community organizations bringing attention to these key issues, which go hand in hand. I appreciate your willingness to allow for a more whole city community involvement in the important work of these committees, per what Franklin just stated. And of your converging viewpoints that living, nature-based infrastructure is a valuable adjunct to the drains, pipes, and pumps we all know we need to have to live here successfully. Transparency is not just reports, but must include education, involvement, and commitment to livability throughout the community. I was heartened this morning to hear additional items such as heat, rainfall, and drought added to our many resilience and livability issues. Reducing heat through protection increase in our tree canopy and green space is critical to livability, and perhaps to return us to a normal rainfall cycle, which, not surprisingly, brings me to the number one topic it's always about, the money. You thought I was going to say trees, didn't you? Yeah. The scope of work and where the money will come from for the resiliency project is exactly the way I continue to stress the need to stop the chop. Keeping and protecting the tree canopy we have left is a critical first step. This is an asset we can't afford to lose, and to do that just to build big box houses in neighborhoods after clear-cutting the property is not only devastating to our resilience, but also to our bottom line. Oops. Urban tree canopies function as a powerful form of green infrastructure that yields measurable financial returns. Measuring these assets should be step one in our scope of work. It's also the cheapest first step. Unlike traditional muni assets like roads and bridges that depreciate and require costly maintenance over time, trees are the only urban asset that appreciate and value as they mature, multiplying their community dividends exponentially. Finally, ongoing tree planting is vital. A five-city EPA study found that municipalities receive $1.50 to $3 in direct benefits for every $1 invested in planting and maintenance. So again, thanks to one and all, and let the resilience begin. Thank you. Next speakers. Next two speakers are Courtney Prokopos and Mary Gherkin. 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. Hello. My name is Courtney Prokopos. I'm the Immigration Justice Chairperson of the League of Women Voters of the St. Petersburg area, located at 38th and Haynes Road. I recently learned that the St. Petersburg Police Department officers regularly participate in the Florida Holocaust Museum's Law Enforcement and Society Lessons of the Holocaust, or L-E-A-S, training. How fortunate are we to live in a city with world-class institutions like that? We're literally right next door to that museum, which offers this kind of training. It's a gift. I'm curious, was this council aware of that training? Have you been briefed on what the police department has learned in that training? In Nazi Germany, police were steadily turned away from community policing and steered towards becoming force multipliers for an increasingly authoritarian state. How do you square this history with the present situation, where our police officers are being used as force multipliers for immigration enforcement, rapidly eroding public trust while also draining our local resources, as Zoe Tweedy of the ACLU so clearly articulated? I get it. When we're in it, it's hard to see it. That's how the saying goes. It's difficult to see the forest for the trees. But we have the gift of the training from the Holocaust Museum. You all have at least 18 months of irrefutable input on the public record against 287G agreements. What are you waiting for? At the beginning of open forum, while Mrs. Stoller was speaking, several individuals stood silently in solidarity. Councilmember, you stopped Mrs. Stoller's time and directed us to sit down. I'm curious, when else in history has standing in solidarity been weaponized? The irony is not lost on me. End 287G now. Thank you. Go ahead. Good afternoon. I'm Mary Gherkin, 1345 15th Street North. I'm an active member of Suncoast Sierra Club. When I moved to Florida 45 years ago, I lived in Tampa, but it didn't take me long to realize that St. Pete's vibe and resources is what my vibe is and that it's deep in my heart. I've never regretted it, but it always was in the back of my mind. Not only is Florida a peninsula, but St. Petersburg is on a peninsula completely surrounded by water. Of course, it brings the natural beauty, but it makes us responsible to maintain that. That's not just to keep our trees for wildlife and shade, clean shorelines and parks to walk to restore during this time of electronic overload, but we also must plan for the future. When looking for my home, a must-have was high ground, but of course, in St. Pete, that's not all really that high. But I took my responsibility personally and seriously. I have solar panels. I have an electric car, which I am luckily charging across the street, which is fantastic. I ride my bike whenever possible, and I'm building my neighborhood network. We help each other, either through just physical help or resources. We ask each other for help. So, I'm not asking for you to do anything that I haven't done. I had to do the research. I had to make wise decisions and spend some money. But I also knew that when Helene and Milton approached, I had done my part. I was prepared as I could be. And luckily, my neighborhood was not affected that much. We were on high ground. We did have trees come down. But I am part of this city, and I feel a responsibility for the whole entire city. So, yes, I voted yes on GoBond. I believe that we need to back the resources that we need to make us more sustainable and resilient. I attended the HERS meeting today, and I was very encouraged by the two committees that they proposed and also the policy that they put forward. And so, I hope that that will pass. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our final speaker is James Scott. 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. Hello, council. James Scott here, 4604 49th Street North. So, this GoBond issue has been, this should be a no-brainer. If this was on the ballot two years ago, it probably would be an easy thing to pass, right? But there's an arc to resilient cities. There's the public engagement and planning process. Then you adjust the policies and the zoning and the land use, so that way you're building in the right places. Then you build the financing plan, and then you ask the public to finance it. And at that point, the public's behind it because they get it. They trust it. They know the plan. It's their plan. Well, we never did that. And so, we had to react in 2024. And I want to commend the administration and council for putting the GoBond on the ballot because it needs to be done. And that was a courageous thing to do. Otherwise, you all are going to keep having to hike our utility bills. That's the alternative. But we still need to get this right. And so, you all, especially Claude Tankersley and Maven with the Office of Sustainability and Resiliency, have heard that loud and clear earlier this year. And the items you have today to create an advisory board for resiliency, to create an oversight board as well for the GoBonds, that should have come earlier. But here we are. And the fact that you all are doing this today, I think, is a clear signal to the citizens that you take this seriously. We don't have to rehash how we got here. But getting it right today is really important. So, I urge you all to vote yes on your resolutions today, especially the resilience plan. That's what ties all this together. We have dozens of plans. We can't just focus on our infrastructure, like our streets and our pipes. We've got to focus on our neighborhoods and our communities. That's what the resilience plan kind of folds together. But we have to put – we have a major gap. We are very vulnerable. Just in 2024, I think it was over almost $250 million in recovery costs for this city, 113 of which was permanent damage to our facilities and infrastructure. These aren't abstract costs. And so, I think it's a shame that a lot of voters are unaware of this issue, don't feel ownership of this issue. This is a moment to change that. You all today are taking that seriously. We as a city need to. So, let's be a leader. You know, as a city, this is dragged on. The fact that this GO bond might fail really speaks to the fact that the citizens of St. Pete don't understand this issue and that the city hasn't shown what the plan is and why it makes sense and how utility bills are the alternative. So, I appreciate you all very much. I know this has been kind of a sprint this year. Let's shift from being a city that reacts to flooding and disasters to a city that's very proactive and makes us part of our ethos, part of our economy, part of who we are, because that's who we are, and we can do better. Thank you for your time. No more speakers. Thank you. I just want to remind everyone, the fire code prohibits anyone from standing in the aisles or in the back of the room. So, when I was said that you couldn't stand, it's because the fire code prohibits it, and we do it in every meeting. Thank you. Okay. Open forum is closed. Next up, we have awards and presentations. Council members, just a little housekeeping before. I have to pick up my daughter at 5 o'clock. So, at some point, depending on how long this part takes and 5 o'clock public hearings, I have to just go and I'll be back for the rest of it. So, I'll be back for most of the quasi-judicial and all that. With that being said, next up is D1, and our mayor is going to present the resolution of memorial tribute to the family and friends of Bill Edwards. Thank you. I'll give them one second, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of City Council, our city team, and members of the public for being with us today. I'm honored to join you to celebrate, honor, recognize, and most importantly, remember someone who has been such a part of the growth of the city of St. Petersburg, both in the arts and in our community, and that's in our friend William Bill Edwards. He was a friend to our city and businessman with a passion for the arts, community, education, youth, and all things St. Pete. We recognize that while we mourn the loss of a remarkable citizen and community leader, we also celebrate a life that made a lasting impact and a legacy that will continue to shape the cultural fabric, economic vitality, and character of our city for generations to come. We honor his life with a joint resolution of memorial tribute, and at this time, I'd like to invite his family, his wife, Joey, and children, Katie and Allie, to join me, as well as any friends and family who'd like to join me for the reading of this resolution. And it reads, He says, And whereas Bill Edwards' commitment to his community extended far beyond business, sports, and the arts, through the Edwards Family Foundation's annual Christmas celebration, Bill and his family made the holidays brighter for hundreds of local families in need, providing meals, gifts, toys, and a joyful celebration filled with the spirit of the season. And whereas Bill Edwards was equally passionate about the power of the arts, to bring people together, to educate and inspire our young people, to strengthen neighborhoods and create a sense of belonging, his commitment to the arts was not simply a financial investment. It was an investment in the identity and future of our city. And whereas St. Petersburg is a better and more vibrant city because he chose to make this community his home, to believe in our potential, and to invest his time, resources, and heart in our future. And whereas William Bill Edwards has been called from his season of service on August 27th to an eternal reward of rest. Now, therefore, be it resolved by Mayor Kenneth T. Welch, Council Chair Lissette Hanowitz, and the members of City Council of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, that we, for ourselves and for the citizens we served, and he served so well, in sorrow, publicly acknowledge the debt of gratitude this city owes to William Bill Edwards for his untiring and steadfast service. Be it further resolved that we express to the family of William Bill Edwards our heartfelt condolences with the hope that you will take some measure of consolation in the knowledge that he gave himself wholeheartedly to the service of this city. May God bless you and keep you. Thank you so much. Let's give them a hand, please. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Harding. Thank you, Chair. Mayor, thank you for being so eloquent in recognizing Mr. Edwards. Ladies, thank you for being here today. When you look back at names that are on buildings and that you hear and that you're not sure about, in Snell Isle, Roser and Roser Park, those are the folks throughout our history that shaped and made this community into what it is, and Bill is one of those people. I still find it interesting that it was scary to be in front of him. But on the back end of that? I know. Right? I get used to it after a while. But on the back end of that, he was going to do good things with whatever you brought to him. He's just going to maybe take a pound of flesh first, which I've had happen. But what he did for this community is immeasurable. The fact that he had resources available and he was willing to use them and commit the family to helping the city and the citizens of St. Pete, that's awesome. That's incredible. But he also did it with his time. And that is the bigger part of this, is that throughout all of this and building his career, he amassed an ability. And you'll find, as these things go forward and you get to hear from other folks, that going to Bill was the part that was more valuable was his counsel. The advice that he could offer you on how is it that you take this to the next level? Where do you look for the resources to build this? Hey, you could sit and listen to him forever, which is possible because he talked. I think you guys are familiar with that as well. But this one is, this is a name that will be remembered for well beyond us and well beyond this council. So Bill made an effect on this community that will last and stay here for a very, very long time. I am profoundly sorry for your loss, but I am privileged to have known Bill and to receive some of his kind words. So thank you for being here today. And Mayor, thank you for making this happen. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I will have to say that every council member here has probably at one point or the other, and the mayor, and lots of people probably in this room and staff have had conversations with Bill Edwards. There is never a question. First of all, he's a force, an absolute force. He cared. He was passionate. Council Member Harding said, you know, he had advice. Sometimes it was just an opinion, and he made sure that you followed it and that you knew what his opinion was. And you always, what I appreciated about that, Bill Edwards, is you always knew where he stood. There was never a question about how he felt about something. You were never taken by surprise. It is what you see is what you get. But you know what? Even with that, he still would listen to you, and you could change his mind on things, believe it or not. As scary as he could be sometimes, as Council Member Harding pointed out. You could have those conversations, and I appreciated that so much about him. Council Member Harding put it, basically, Bill Edwards is synonymous with St. Petersburg. And he has been a force for this community that just goes, it's going to go beyond our lives, the impact that he has made. So I want to thank you for being there and supporting him throughout all the endeavors, and for giving back to this community. We're very thankful, and we're honored that he was part of St. Petersburg. So our condolences to you and your family. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor, for the beautiful resolution. And thank you for everyone that's here and his family, besides his family, that's here for Bill Edwards. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have legal items to address. The first one is I-1, and Ken McCollum, you're here for that. Good afternoon, Council. Thank you. Ken McCollum from the City Attorney's Office. Here today on a settlement of a matter. This was Landry Pizzotta versus initially filed against four different officers with the police department, Pierce, Lenahan, Martineau, and Ortega. Ortega was dismissed from this case. We reached a resolution last month with plaintiff's counsel. This was a Section 1983 civil rights action in federal court. But the total sum of the settlement is $100,000. This is inclusive of attorney's fees, which can be part of this type of case. And I'm seeking approval if anybody has any questions. Second. 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, the motion to approve agenda item I-1 passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Next up, we have I-2. And Sarah Lecker is handling that. Good afternoon. Sarah Lecker with the City Attorney's Office also. This is an employment law case that our outside counsel handled and negotiated a settlement. It's the matter of Frida Exum versus the City of St. Petersburg. It's U.S. District Court case number 826, CV00438. It's a settlement in the amount of $60,000. That's inclusive of attorney's fees, lost wages, and claims for emotional distress. Second. 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, the motion to approve agenda item I-2 passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. We move on to reports. First item we have is Great Explorations 2025 and 26 update. Angeline Howell, the CEO, is here, who's going to provide the presentation. Hi, Angeline. Hi. Well, thank you for taking the time to listen to our report this afternoon. I appreciate being able to stand before you. Great Explorations has been serving our community for 39 years. Our mission is to stimulate learning through creativity, play, and exploration. We are honored to be part of our St. Petersburg community, and we value our partnership with the city. Is that right? Okay. Over the past year, I am proud of the hard work and dedication of all the employees of Great Explorations, and throughout this report, you will see the successes in all the different departments. Overall, we delivered $176,905 worth of in-kind services to the citizens of St. Petersburg. Our busy field trip season typically is in spring and summer, and as you can see, during last fiscal year, we hosted 37 free field trips to schools such as Campbell Park, Blanton Elementary, Jamerson, Lakeview, Maximo, and that's just to name a few. Over the past couple years, we have invested in hiring an evaluator who spends the time to immerse herself in programs and exhibits and really see, are we meeting the needs of the community, are we doing our job, are we making an impact? And as you can see, 90 to 100 percent of field trips have said they've enjoyed their experience and their educational programs. We receive numerous requests and needs for scholarships, and we are very pleased to be able to offer 57 scholarships to children living in St. Petersburg. As you may be aware, we, along with many other cultural institutions, have lost funding at federal level, state level, and local level. A lot of these grants have covered our outreach programs that have gone into neighborhoods and schools and broken down transportation barriers for every child to learn through hands-on education. However, this past year, we did provide 50 community outreaches here in St. Petersburg, as we believe there should be no barrier to hands-on learning. And our surveys show that many of our activities were fun and educational. During this past fiscal year, we provided 2,062 free admissions and memberships. We are honored to continue to be a resource to our community as we continue to rebuild after two major destructive hurricanes. One of our favorite things to do as an organization is to partner with other nonprofit and service organizations. We know that together, we can make a bigger impact here in our community. This past year, we held 63 free museum rentals to area nonprofits. And this next slide...oh, hold on. I think I'm behind. There we are. These just name a few of the many nonprofits that we partner and provide free space to on a regular basis. As mentioned earlier, we believe in no barriers for children to learn through hands-on education. We have many programs on-site at the museum as well as in our community. And this just lists a few that you may have heard of through social media and out in our community. This past year, we installed many new exhibits and experimentations. And this lists a couple of them for our members and our guests and our future leaders. Great Explorations holds many accreditations. We belong to some of the top associations in the museum industry, and we have received countless awards. Great Exploration continues to represent the city of St. Petersburg locally, throughout the state, and across the nation. So what's next for Great Explorations? We are growing. As mentioned in last year's report, our vision is to open a Discovery Center. A Discovery Center is where you take your hands-on science experimentation and you merge it with the hands-on learning of an early childhood center. That is a Discovery Center, and Great Exploration wants to take it one step further to tie it to careers and get our youth excited for what they want to be when they grow up. We are working very closely with Pinellas County Schools to find a location that fits the needs of our community. We're very excited for what the future can hold for our community and for Great Explorations. Thank you for your time this afternoon. I appreciate being able to report this to you. Thank you. Now, do you have any board members here with you? I do. Thank you for asking. I do see board members, unless they're here for another item. Several of my board members have joined me as well as our leadership team. Great. So if you all can raise your hands. Wow. You got a great turnout, Angeline. Not everybody gets as many board members at an event. Good job. Council Member Gibbons. Thank you very much, Cher, and thank you so much, Angeline, for being here. I am a product of the St. Petersburg Science Center, and one of my fondest childhood memories growing up in Pinellas County Schools was attending field trips annually to the Science Center. There's something about children's museums and institutions of learning that give you this cultural experience that really helps to broaden your horizons. That holistic experience, I think, really helps the whole child with getting a well-rounded perspective of careers, right? The possibilities beyond just the world that you see every day, wherever you come from. Can you talk a little bit about the interactive, hands-on learning experiences that Great Explorations provides for the children who are able to attend? Sure. Right now, we specialize in early childhood hands-on learning, so our demographic is 0 to 10. I mean, what we're learning is once you age out of Great Explorations, there really isn't anywhere to go here in Pinellas County. So that's the gap we want to fill. In the past five years, we have partnered with Pinellas County Schools, and we've brought the hands-on learning to middle schools. We have been in every single Pinellas County middle school, serving eighth grade with our Traveling Planetarium program, sixth grade with interactive steam crates, and seventh grade has really benefited from both of those programs combined. That is great information. I'm looking at Walt Driggers because he knows he and I have had multiple conversations with Barrington Irving about some aviation components that we can try to bring here to St. Petersburg, specifically with simulators and that sort of thing. So we will definitely be following up in conversation with you, connecting you to the Friends of Albert Woodard Airport. But I am excited about the growth. Can you speak a little bit about your conversations, if you are able to, that you've been having with the school district? It's my understanding there may be some closers or consolidations that could possibly benefit you all as you look to expand. Yes. Right now, we are considering Bay Point Elementary, the current site, which is an incredible area to be in because those are STEAM-focused schools. We are exploring other options as more schools continue to close, but we're really excited about being anywhere in Pinellas County and offering hands-on education to everybody. That is amazing and exciting information. I'm looking at Chair Hanowitz and some of your board members because a few of us were together last night with Shirley Proctor-Puller Foundation. And I'm wondering, are you all working with them at all? Can you speak a little about, like, your partnerships? I'm thinking about, like, even the Gathering of Women and their Sunflowers organization and Story 727, partnerships that could help expand your footprint. As mentioned in my report, we love partnerships. So, yes, all of our area nonprofits, we're speaking to a lot of them because, again, we know together we can make a bigger impact. We don't have any solid partners right now. We just want to make sure we continue to design something that is meaningful to the community of where we will be serving. Well, as we unfortunately have to brace for funding cuts wherever they may be if it happens, I certainly think there are possibilities when it comes to bridging that gap. So, no children are left behind. And I really appreciate what Great Exploration is doing as we talk about bridging that gap, the opportunity gap, what you all are doing, you're working with those high-poverty income areas, you're working with those areas that have a lot of them really, you know, we're talking about socioeconomic challenges. And what you're doing is you're exposing them to worlds beyond what they see every day. And I'm so grateful for what you all do. So, thank you all so much. And to you and your board, keep up the great work. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Fick Sanders. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. And my words are going to be very short, but I want to applaud, in my head, your employee of the monk, Daniel Sanders. Thank you so much. And, again, thank you for all that you do for the City of St. Petersburg. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Angeline, always great work from you and your team. You have a fantastic board. Council Member Gibbons mentioned we were yesterday at Shirley Proctor Puller Foundation event. And, obviously, Donna Cothran, who sits on your board, sits on our board. So, lots of opportunities there to collaborate always. And this is, to me, when you think about grade X, this is our city's children's museum. I mean, this is our city's children's museum, period. And when I travel different places and my daughter was young, you always found the children's museum to take your child to. It's not only serving our community locally with the preschool and everything else that it does, but it also is opportunity, obviously, for others who come and visit to bring their children to enjoy our city, not just the beaches, but the children's museum and other museums. And so, you know, it gives so much to the community, not just here for those that visit. So, I thank you for all your efforts. I'm also on the Tampa Bay Water Board, another great partner of yours. It's always wonderful to see how much you put online new exhibits. Last time you were talking about the Wonders of Wetlands exhibit that was the Tampa Bay Water Board collaboration, and now you have new exhibits. So, you're always growing and changing and engaging with children, and it's wonderful. So, a little bit about the preschool. How many children are you serving roughly at the preschool right now and growth and all that? Where do you see the preschool? We have 110 children currently in our preschool, and we've opened two new classrooms that we are currently enrolling. I believe we've offered 21 spots. I could be off on that number, but we knew we needed to expand. Last year, I reported we had over 300 kids on the wait list. We have contacted all those families, and we've gotten our wait list down to about 100 kids. 300 kids on the wait list? Wow. So, that's fantastic. So, you're growing, obviously, the preschool and your services. Yes. That's great. And I know you work fantastically with Sunken Gardens. Yes. Another wonderful partner. And I don't know if Sarah made it here today, but she's always talking about how wonderful it is to work with Grade X. So, anything that we can do for you, we're here for you. You're in my district. I'm always available. But I want to just make sure that you know we appreciate the work that you do. I always look forward to this report that you provide to us. So, thank you for that. And thank you to all the board members who took the time out of your jobs to come over here. Not just, like, support the organization all the time, because we know you do this voluntarily. It's not for the big paycheck. It's because you care about Grade X. But then you came and you sat here at a city council meeting to support Angeline. So, thank you. Didn't go unnoticed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Angeline. Thank you for your time. Okay. Next up, we have F2, which is the Home American Rescue Plan, Capacity Building Grant Update, and a – oh, Dr. Schleicher. I had someone else listen. That's okay. Good afternoon. Avery Schleicher, Director, Housing and Community Development. We are here this afternoon to bring you a report on our nonprofit Capacity Building Home ARP subcontract with Directions for Living. The Home ARP program was a part of the American Rescue Act of 2021. This was awarded as the Home American Rescue Plan program to provide housing, services, and shelters to individuals, experiencing homelessness, or other vulnerable populations. There was an assessment need done in 2022, and one of the top three needs identified through that assessment was Capacity Building for nonprofits. Therefore, the city carved out $151,832 for nonprofit Capacity Building. On December 12, 2024, this council awarded that to Directions for Living for an organizational readiness assessment with the state certification for the certified community behavioral health clinic. And so, we are here today to hear with April Lott, who is President and CEO of Directions for Living, to tell us about the success and the future of this wonderful opportunity. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Lott. Hi. Thank you for having me here today. It's a pleasure. It's always good to bring good news and to say thank you for your support. I have to say that the city of St. Pete, I brag on you often, while I don't come before you often, I hope your ears burn sometimes. I say probably too many times a week that you are the best funding partner for community nonprofits. We are Directions for Living, you know, home bases in Clearwater, but we serve all of Pinellas County. And when this opportunity came forward, I have to say many of our funding partners are not forward-thinking, like the city of St. Petersburg in particular, and who are investing in capacity. So, let's see, let's get this. So, right now, we haven't really talked in this city council meeting today about mental health care, but often you hear about it. It comes up often in our community, and right now, as you probably know, our crisis response system is very fragmented. It's expensive. Depending on where you live and which law enforcement agency is going to respond to you responds differently in terms of how that mental health crisis is going to be handled. But what I will tell you is usually when a mental health crisis happens, it's usually after midnight. It's usually in the middle of the night, and they often end up in the emergency room, in jail, and other very high-cost doors that they're going through, and often for no particular gain, I have to say. Some are Baker Acted. They go into the hospital. We stabilize them, and then they come out, and they're really not much better off than when they went in. So, what the federal government and locally across the country have really been working on for the last many, many years, which some of you may have heard about or haven't, is developing a certified community behavioral health center, which is often referred to as a CCBHC. So, if you're familiar with FQHCs, or federally qualified health centers, many of you probably are familiar with them. Evera Health is a partner, I believe, of the city of St. Pete. In any case, a CCBHC is comparable to an FQHC, only it is to meet the emergency and or ongoing mental health needs of our community. So, a CCBHC really is intended to be a one-stop or an urgent care clinic for mental health addiction services, oftentimes looking at kind of social determinants of health, which include housing and emotional support and financial assistance and all the things that our vulnerable, our most vulnerable in our community need. So, we used this capacity building, $151,000, to really start looking at the essential functions of a CCBHC. The state of Florida has not yet adopted CCBHC certification. We are probably a year or two away from that, but we, Directions for Living, as a community mental health center, want to be ready to apply for that certification. And in order to be ready, the capacity building funds became particularly important. So, right now, we are working to address same-day access, which I think is what was most needed at the time, access to care. We want people to be able to walk in and get mental health services the same day. You might have heard over the years of your service that people are often put out to December. If you call right now to get a mental health appointment or a meeting with a psychiatrist or to get meds, that somebody would say to you, right, that that appointment is scheduled out until December. Right now, if you walk into Directions for Living, any one of our clinics, you will get a same-day appointment. We will see you the same day, and you will walk out with having your needs met. These are the advantages of implementing a CCBHC, access to care, the cost of care, and then, of course, the long-term financial sustainability, which is, I think, what most of us are worried about, certainly in this current environment. What PPS stands for is the prospective payment system. I'm not going to go into that, but ultimately, we are working to achieve that status. Ultimately, a CCBHC really is trying to get the right people to the right care at the right time by the right provider kind of thing, and so that they are not waiting to get their needs met. I often think that people end up in an emergency room or in the back of a cruiser being taken to a crisis stabilization unit in the middle of the night because they didn't access care when it was necessary and needed. So we wanted to use these funds. We did use these funds for two of the recommended process changes needed so that we can apply for CCBHC once that designation becomes available in the state of Florida. So what we achieved is we did a full and complete phase one and two readiness assessment. It was rather lengthy, took us about six to seven months, and what came out of that assessment were two priorities. The first was the use of AI-assisted documentation, and the second was same-day access. So the two pain points, really, that I want to focus on, AI-assisted documentation, what we were hearing from most of our providers is that the time to document a service was preventing them from seeing more people because it would take, we would see somebody, it would take them, you know, 30 minutes, 45 minutes to do their documentation, which, of course, was complicating then people getting into the services that they need. So documentation time was reduced from an average of 15 days to complete notes to three minutes, and where we are right now is about 45 seconds. So as service is provided, and the provider now reads that note real time and hits the accuracy button to say, yes, it's correct, it literally is down about 45 seconds. We have, as a result of reducing that amount of time per service, we're now able to see that many more people simply because of the efficiency. The accuracy of documentation has improved by 100%, and employee satisfaction related to the time it takes to do documentation has increased by 100%. It really is quite amazing. And I wish I could show it to you here, not that you're necessarily interested, but it's super, super, super cool. In any case, okay, all intake and first-time appointments have been eliminated at DFL. So if you were to call us and say, you know, I have a neighbor who needs, you know, to see a psychiatrist, can I get an appointment? We are not going to give you an appointment. All appointments have been eliminated at Directions for Living. Instead, what we will say to you is come. Come right now. If you want to be seen today, we can see you today. I will tell you that one of the things that was a surprise to all of us, because since the day I got to Directions for Living, which was 20 years ago as the CEO, I have been hearing that the problem with access to care is that you can't get an appointment when you need it. And so when we took this step to eliminate appointments, I thought confetti would fall. I thought people would cheer and have parades for us, right? It did not happen. People got mad because they couldn't get an appointment. It's like, no, no, no, no, we want an appointment. And I was like, well, you don't need an appointment. Just come in. Well, I can't come today. Well, come tomorrow. Well, come whenever you want to come, in fact, right? And so now we are working through some things with some of the hospitals to say, listen, if you have to fabricate or create an appointment just so that they feel like they have an appointment in order to come, just give them an appointment. But we don't actually need appointments at Directions for Living. If you need a service, you can walk in. We have a 98% success rate, which means that 98% of 100 people who walk through our door to get an appointment same day get not only an appointment that they wanted and that they needed, but they get the service that they were looking for. The wait time is less than one hour, and individuals are no longer asked or required to wait six weeks, you know, three months, that kind of thing, to get an appointment. I can't tell you how revolutionary this is, and I really hope that you are proud of that accomplishment. So what we achieved in between January of 25 and June of 26 is for the City of St. Pete specifically is we provided same-day access to mental health care to 1,828 new individuals from the City of St. Pete, and 2,661 individuals from the City of St. Pete benefited from the improved accuracy and documentation and all the efficiencies that came from the ELIOS, the AI documentation product. These are just some of the statistics, just so you can kind of see by zip code where individuals from the City of St. Pete are originating from when they come to us. We are, we have two locations, one that's physical locations, one that is in Largo, and one that is in Clearwater. We are also co-located in all of the health departments, including the St. Pete Health Department. We are also co-located in all of the schools within the school system. So we are a lot of places, and we deliver, the vast majority of our services are delivered in home and in community with people who need those services. If I could get rid of clinic-based services altogether, I probably would. It really is a far more meaningful service when we are with people in their own neighborhoods, their own spaces, their own homes, and that kind of thing. Again, this is new and existing, just some information about the zip codes in terms of where individuals and families are coming from in the City of St. Pete for our services. So what's next? We are going to continue to raise funds and write for additional funds for additional capacity building so that we can implement Phase 3, 4, 5, and 6. We have already submitted our application to SAMHSA. We did get noticed today that it is currently under review. We are very, very hopeful for that. We have also recently submitted an application to actually purchase a mobile crisis van, which will be retrofitted to respond to the community. We were notified last week that we were fully funded for that vehicle, and so that vehicle is currently being purchased. The cost of that vehicle is about $250,000. So we recently got that funding, and it's being purchased and going to retrofit. And then we are going to be working on same-day medication management. So oftentimes people run out of their medications because they fail to meet their appointments. And if you don't meet your appointment, you can't get your psychotropic medications, unfortunately. So we're coming up with a way that people can then get bridge medication until they can get back in front of perhaps their psychiatrist by using just-in-time. It's a, it's a, it doesn't matter what it is, it's a, it's a platform that helps us with that. And then the next stage is the integration of primary care. So we've converted two of our, our clinic office spaces into primary care spaces, and we will be partnering with the Department of Health in Everett to have primary care on site so that we are our own medical home. All of this leads us to CCBHC designation. How's that? What was my time? What was my time? Perfect. Very good. So thank you. Truly, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for the capacity-building dollars. It made the biggest difference. I said to your team, to your staff, right, like, honestly, who knew that $151,000 could, could do what it has done? And sometimes it takes a little, I know $151,000 is a lot of money, but sometimes it's just a little bit to, to really revolutionize kind of the way things done, are done. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. And April, it is so good to see you. You know, I just, the work that you are doing and, again, how you're taking these dollars and you're just kind of spreading them so thin but making such an impact is so incredibly impressive. But I'm just going to take a moment of personal privilege to say I think that is just who you are. You may not know. You mean the world to me. So, you know, back after the storms of 2024, what you did for our people, I can remember being on the phone with Amy over and over and over again and her singing your praises and what a relief you were to her as the administrator. You know, really working to try to bring mental health to our employees with everything they were going through. And then turn it around. And in May of that year, we had the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's Resiliency Summit. The entire summit that year was really about trying to bring things to people as everyone across the region was recovering. And it was important to me as part of that planning process that we address the mental health component around what people were still suffering from. So I called Amy and I said, who was that amazing lady that you had working with the employees? Because we have got to have her. And you came on the last day. It was the first morning session. And I will tell you, I think that it was a complete room of 400 people who, after we heard from April, just sighed this breath of relief and was able to really kind of let all of that trauma out that everyone was feeling. Some of us had to take a sidebar with her and have a little cry session on the side. I mean, but you were there for every single person in that moment as the region was really looking to each other for how we move forward and making sure that we didn't forget that every single person was in some sort of response during those days, but also needed care as well. And you brought that to us. Thank you. And I will never forget it. I will always be grateful to you. And so thank you. Thank you for what you do for people every single day and just the light that you shine on the help that is there for people when they are having mental stress and they need trauma relief. What you do cannot be replaced in our community. So thank you. Thank you. From the bottom of my heart. Thank you so much for those kind words. I have to say that I said to Amy this morning, are they going to be nice to me? Oh. And now, look, you're going to make me cry. And she's like, yes, they're going to be nice to you. You're giving them good news. And here you are being incredibly kind to me. So thank you. Thank you for those kind words. It's just who you are. You just exude this positivity. And I think that when people are in their darkest moment, they need someone they can trust, but they also need someone that they can see a light in. And that is who you are. So thank you again. Thank you for saying that. Great to see you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gibbons. Thank you, Chair. And thank you so much, April, for what you do. Councilmember Gabbert said it so well. I mean, we really could not do what we do without you and people like you. In my work in child welfare, I know firsthand how much of an asset Directions for Living is to our community. With the families that we work with in preservation and prevention, you know, like I know, how many unnecessary hospital visits, Baker X, how many incarcerations we prevent, how many unnecessary unhoused families we keep housed because of resources that you all provide. It goes beyond just mental health counseling and family therapy, I mean, you all are making sure that families keep roofs over their heads. Let's just be honest. And when you have to worry about things like where your next meal is going to come from, if your lights are going to be on by the time you get home, if you'll be able to make your child a hot meal, you know, those things really do play on your mental health. And as Councilmember Gabbert said, when you're recovering from things like a hurricane, you know, you all are there to provide that stabilization, that support. And I just want to let you know that we are grateful and we are thankful because if it wasn't for institutions like you, where would we be? Where would our community be? And I am just in awe when I, when I look at the statistics, 2,600 plus existing and new clients served in a six month period. And we're talking about a little over $150,000 here that you've been able to, to help build capacity with. I have to say, little becomes much when it's yielded to the touch of the right person. So thank you so much for being the right organization to really help lead the way in trying to combat the mental health crises that we are dealing with in our community. So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you for those kind words. Of course. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember, fix it. Hey, April. Hey. So thank you so much for being here. So, you know, you've gotten that, the kind side, you know, you were the savior, you're the nice side. Now I'm going to talk about that warrior side. Okay. So, so I've had the pleasure to work with April. We're on COC together. And when I tell you, um, in this environment that you are in, it's good to be kind, it's good to be nice, but you have to stand up for what you do because you are in an arena that is fiercely combating for dollars, fiercely combating, um, to be able to provide those services for those that do not have that voice. And you have been steady. We have been in meetings when you, April raises her hand and I just sit back because I know it's coming. And I do appreciate the fact that you do not stand down. You are there for the clients that you serve. You know, we are, you know, on that same vein as to understanding that, you know, we have to get this done and nobody's going to hold our hands, you know, through this process. And I am glad that Amy has been there and the city of St. Petersburg has been there to understand the challenges that you face to provide the services that you do. Um, and so for, you know, as far as my assistance with you is concerned, I would love to continue to work with you because I see firsthand what you do. I pick up the phone, April, what can we do with this? How can we handle this? Do you have clients for us to serve? And you get right back with us. But more importantly, I do appreciate your voice. I do appreciate the fact that you state the real. You know, a lot of times we try to be politically correct, but you understand what you are having to deal with and to have your voice in that room has not served us wrong, not one time. And so, again, thank you for your advocacy and your work and for what you and your staff, what you do, especially for what you do for our children at Maximo Elementary. I just absolutely love what you do for our babies there and for our families. And so, again, I publicly, I applaud the kindness in you, you know, your consideration, but continue to be that warrior, continue to be that advocate. And if I'm here to hold your sword, I will definitely be there to shield you in that battle. So thank you so much, April. Thank you. Thank you for those words. I am a bit of a street fighter, I have to say. You know, I, but, you know, I, I'd much rather be the, the sweet, kind person, but when it becomes necessary, I am, I am taking my earrings off and my, and my shoes are coming. I, you know, I'm going into the street. That's all I'm telling you. It's going to, you know, maybe I shouldn't have said that. No. Look for it. No. No. No, sweet, kind, street warrior. Oh, love your energy. I, I will tell you, this is the only thing I'm going to say, because everything's been said already. And I'm like, I can't add to any of that. I will say I was interested in the AI stuff. Yeah. But granted, it's probably best for another time. Yeah, probably best for another time. You were right about that. But, you know, after hearing everything I've heard about you, the fact that you made $152,000 go as far as it went, not shocked. So thank you for the work that you do. Thank you. Very much appreciate it. Thank you to all of you, truly, for your investment. It really has made a, a, a meaningful difference, not just now, but for many, many years to come, truly. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, we have F4. This is a resolution for funding various arts and cultural agencies tolling an amount not to exceed $557,000. This I pulled from consent. It's the arts advisory grant. I pulled this because I have to celebrate our group, the arts advisory committee. Like, I sit on it. They, they care so much. We discuss every grant like you would not believe. And because we care. And so I have, by share, Jorge Vidal here also, which I love serving with. So I also want to thank Celeste and Tracy for their work. And Paul Corder, I see back there. So, and Paul's also on, on the committee. So I, I love being on the arts advisory committee because you see the, the passion that everyone on the committee has for the arts. And so I just wanted to kind of make sure that city council heard. So I'll leave it to you, Celeste. Thank you for the opportunity. Good afternoon, Chair Hanowitz and members of city council. It is my pleasure to share information about the FY 2027 City of the Arts grants. As Chair Hanowitz can confirm, it is a big task that the arts advisory committee takes on. The committee is dedicated and a hardworking group. And members of the committee represent a cross-section of local arts organizations. Their involvement gives them unique and valuable insights. Since we're talking about good news, some of the good news from this year's grants is that we have the most grants that I could find that we have awarded for FY, or that you will consider awarding for FY 2027, 42 recipients. Three of the proposed grantees are the first-time applicants. And ten of the 2027 proposed grantees are second-year option applications, which means that they scored 90 or above on their grant application. I cannot pass this moment by without talking about the economic impact. Investing in the arts is a wise thing for the city to do. In the Americans for the arts, AEP-6 study, St. Petersburg's nonprofit arts and culture sector generated approximately $132.5 million. That's how much they added to the economy. So thank you for the support. And to share more about the grants, I have Jorge Vidal, who is the Vice Chair of the Arts Advisory Committee, Philip Moran from Tampa Bay Symphony, and Craig Batinger from Free Fall Theater. Thank you, Celeste. Good afternoon, Chair Hanowitz and members of City Council, and all community members that are here today that are still here. I'm Jorge Vidal, Vice Chair of the Arts Advisory Committee and CEO of Florida Craft Art. Thank you for the city's continued support for the arts. My fellow committee members and I see our work as grant panelists as both an honor, but it's also a huge responsibility. Helping make our city of the arts an even better place to live is our main focus. For me, it's personal. I grew up here. I've worked at several of the organizations that this funding supports, and now I lead one. I've seen firsthand what that investment means for our neighbors, opportunities to learn something new, discover their own creativity, and feel connected to the community. The committee works throughout the year to refine the application process, helping organizations tell their stories, and giving us the information we need to make thoughtful recommendations. And then comes the reading. When Councilwoman Handowitz approached me when I was up on the same dais, she was carrying the biggest white binder that I'd ever seen in my life. And before I even had the chance to ask her what I was, her aide was following right behind her with volume two. She immediately let me know that she had printed out everything that we had read that summer. Those applications offer us a wonderful view of the city. Even after years of working in the arts here, I'm struck by the depth and range of that work, and by the thoughtful, inventive ways organizations reach and serve our neighbors. Behind every application are people working hard to serve the community. Our responsibility is to give that work careful consideration. Thank you to my fellow committee members, Paul, to Celeste and Tracy, who would not, we would not be able to do what we do without their behind-the-scenes organizing. And the City Council for continuing to invest in this very important part of our city, the creative community. It is a privilege to help support the work that makes St. Petersburg the city we love. Thank you. You're welcome. Philip? Madam Chair, Vice Chair, and members, thank you for the opportunity to let me talk today. On behalf of the 80 volunteer musicians and our Board of Directors, we want to express our sincere gratitude for the Arts and Grants Cultural Grant you have awarded. Your support strengthens our mission, enriches our community, and allows us to bring meaningful music experience to the residents of St. Petersburg. Your support helped us mark the 40th Annual Jack Heller Young Artist Competition, a milestone that speaks to dedications of nurturing young musical talent in Florida. Many of our past winners have gone on to distinguish musical careers, and they often tell us that this competition experience was foundational. Your grant also helps fuel our Call for Scores composer competition. This year, we received 16 entries from five different countries. Brazil won, Ireland won, Portugal won, Singapore won, and the U.S. 12. This international participation has put St. Petersburg on the global map as a city that champions living composers and welcomes new orchestras. I, as a grant writer, enjoy your streamlined process for application funding and final reporting. Your program of sharing funding with all applicants is a great testament to your love of the arts. It also shows that you can be small group or a large group so that everybody has a good chance to be funded. Applying for a grant is a unique process. I have been doing two grants for the past two years now, and requesting funds for classical music is hard to express when there are so many other organizations, as we have seen in the past, in this meeting, vying for the certain amount of money of funds. Your process is wonderful, and I hope that other granters will take your process. Council members, we want you to know how deeply we appreciate your commitment to the arts. We recognize how fortunate we are to be based in a city that values cultural vibrancy, artistic excellence, and community access to classical music. Your support strengthens our mission, inspires our musicians, and enriches the cultural life of St. Petersburg. Once again, on behalf of the Tampa Bay Symphony, thank you all for believing in us. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Craig Batinger, Executive Director of Free Fall Theater. Hello from West Central Avenue. I'm also a resident of Bartlett Park since 2022, and I'm here today to thank you as a council, and to give testimony to the importance of funding the arts in our city. For the fiscal year 27, City of the Arts grant cycle, Free Fall Theater has been scored at 93.9 to receive just under $14,000. We're grateful. A few things I think are important for you to know. First, I'll take a moment to acknowledge the good work of Jorge and Paul and the other members of the grants panel. To observe the grants panel is to recognize that these folks dedicated a lot of time and attention to all of the grant applications. The scoring rubric and the panel's questions, comments, and feedback suggest a fair and unbiased process. At all levels of government, we should be so fortunate for all processes to operate this well. Now, three ways that this grant impacts Free Fall Theater. One, the impact on our budget. Free Fall's fiscal year 27 budget is $1.7 million. To balance this, we're expecting close to $700,000 in ticket sales, which means we're relying on contributed revenue, which means support from our community, for the remainder of $1 million. It's a tall order. But last year, we raised $900,000 for the first time, and mostly from individuals. We need to do it again. And this $14,000 helps. In fact, $14,000 is just about the exact amount of next week's payroll. So it's nice to know I have that covered. Two, the impact on our people. Free Fall Theater has a staff of nine full-time employees, plus five, technically seven, hourly and contracted employees. Next week is our first rehearsal for the Da Vinci Code, and we're adding nine actors to payroll. When you fund organizations like ours, you are directly paying wages to these employees. We work very hard to enable our actors and theater technicians to earn a living wage. These are our neighbors who rent and own homes here, who spend their money in our stores, who live, work, and play right here in St. Petersburg. Your investment counts. And three, the impact on our patrons. Please understand that I'm not getting political when I bring this up, but this is the third consecutive year that Free Fall Theater will receive no funding from the State of Florida Division of Arts and Culture. Our patrons have taken notice. I'd say, on average, once a month, when I'm meeting with a major donor, they ask about our status with state funding, and they're never happy to learn of it. They almost always follow it by asking about the city, to which I can say, yes, the city has once again stepped up to fund the arts. And I will tell you how proud they are to learn that the city of St. Petersburg shares their values, that you as a council continue to fund the arts that make this a special place to live. Our people take notice. And on behalf of Free Fall Theater and our supporters, I thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Craig and Phillip, for being here and sharing the impact to your organizations from the grants and what the Arts Advisory Committee does. I have to say, you know, when you talk about the process and how wonderful it was to go through, that's specifically the work of the committee. And I will tell you, they just finished this big process, and guess what? They were like, how can we improve it yet again? Right, Celeste? Absolutely. Like, that was the conversation. We'll tweak it for months. And that's the conversation every year. How do we change it, tweak it? What do we have to do? And so, you know, when Jorge said the committee is well aware of the people working hard in our community and the care that they show, like, in the meeting, the questions that are asked. I mean, this time, there were so many applications. And Jorge was, when I printed that out, it's just to show the amount of work. They read all those applications. And when you go to that meeting, you know they read it because of the questions they ask. And so that is a huge testament to the work that's done by our community in the arts who are part of the advisory committee who care about arts because they want to make sure that the money is used in the most effective way with the largest impact. And that is really the goal. And so just hearing from you all and hearing that the process was wonderful and we'll continue to improve it. And please never hesitate to let us know if something does go wrong because, trust me, I will tell you, we will have a conversation at the committee. About it. But I want to also take the opportunity to thank, again, the committee members that are not here for all their work. And thank you, Jorge, for being here and Paul, who are just fantastic. I sit back in that committee because I let the experts do most of the work. I give my take every once in a while. But we do have a very engaged committee. And I'm just very thankful. And our city should be very thankful for our arts advisory committee. So thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Okay. So next up. Oh, no, we have to have a vote. We have to approve the money. Motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seen now, present council members voted. Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item F4 passes unanimously. And that was the look I was getting, like, are you going to approve this or not? I saw it. Thank you all. Bye. Okay. Next up, we have F3, a resolution adopting the master plan for the Port of St. Petersburg. Good afternoon, David. Good afternoon, all. How are you? Good. Well, good afternoon, Council Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Port Master Plan. We are excited. It is one of my favorite facilities that I have. So, just a bit of a background, the Port is one of the 15 deepwater seaports of the state of Florida. We are federally regulated. We are not big by any means. We're only about four acres. But we are still an important economic driver for the state and for the city. Our master plan is an important document that we have to have on file with the state for FDOT for applying and receiving grant funds. So, FDOT likes to have an updated plan on file. Every 10, I mean, for small reports like us, we can get away with 20 years. But the last master plan we've done was in 1999. So, we've really pushed that envelope, right? So, today's presentation is you have the full master plan packet. But today's presentation is kind of condensed in overview and kind of a highlight of the areas, key areas we're focusing on. And I'll take you through that. So, early on, we started the planning process. We engaged with Moffitt and Nickel as our consultants to lead this whole process for us. We wanted to look at two main questions, how the port land can support new economic opportunities and how the port should prioritize future capital and operational improvements. So, the process included a lot of site assessments, case studies, planning concepts, market insights, stakeholder input, and implementation strategies. The objective was to develop a flexible, actionable plan spanning more than 10 years. And the plan is intended to guide future decisions as market conditions, technologies, and community needs evolve. So, it's meant to change as the surrounding city does. Community engagement was a big part of our initial planning process. We recognize that the port is part of a much larger waterfront network and that its future affects more than just the port operations alone. Community engagement was a major component of this, and we sought input from port users, waterfront stakeholders, city departments, academic partners, USF, and the broader community. That input helped shape the initial concepts, and public engagement will continue as individual projects are developed and brought forward for your consideration. Core tenants were identified as part of this early development process. These eight principles will guide future port development. They are the common thread throughout the master plan, and we want a port that remains operationally relevant but contributes to the blue economy, supports innovation, and maintains a symbiotic relationship with the city's waterfront. These principles also reinforce the need to balance public access with the security and maritime operations of a port facility. The initial concepts were created based off of our early public input, and they show the different ways that port property could be organized and developed. So we presented these at our public workshop in June of 2025, and we asked for feedback and discussion from community stakeholders, report stakeholders, and the community members, and then it all helped identify which opportunities warranted greater attention and kind of pointed us in the directions to go. So these were very early on preliminary. One was focused mostly on crews. One was focused on innovation. One was focused more on kind of that public access. So with our draft plan, we took it to PS&I on March 12, 2026. We presented what we had and our findings at that point. We listened and we heard back from the community. There were three main priorities that we were kind of directed towards. It was expand the maritime and defense technology hub through the proposed innovation of Hub 2. explore marine maintenance and overhaul and repair, or MRO operations, and pursue public-private partnerships and expand or enhance our passenger terminal for our small cruise operation that we have. There's an important piece that I want to just kind of point out again. The entire master plan is 400 pages plus. It's a massive plan, lots of concepts, lots of opportunities in there. So this, we're not proposing to advance all of it, right? We've got these key three ideas in these areas that we want to focus on. And so by the end of this today, I don't want you to think that we're here asking for everything in that 400 pages that is not the goal that we're going for here. We want to adopt the plan, but these are the three areas of that that we're going for. So starting on the easternmost end of the port, kind of working westward towards USF, this concept shows that MRO, that Marine Repair Opportunity Area, it'll be adjacent to the existing hub building. And we're kind of looking at ways that they can complement each other, right? So the hub has areas and tenants that need access to the water. They've expressed interest of a haul-out or crane to lift assets in and out of the water for some of their tenants. That could also benefit partial marine repair, lift vessels, or other service equipment in and out of the water. So this obviously would need much more in-depth studies and analysis and evaluation, but this is kind of the area that we were thinking could lend itself to be part of that marine repair area. The innovation hub, as you know, is an existing tenant on the port property with a 32,000-square-foot building. Hub two is the proposed next step or next building for that. We have Allison Barlow, CEO of the Innovation District here, who needs no introduction from me, but I figured I'd have her step up, because who better could describe hub two and where we are with that process than Allison Barlow. Hello, council members. Thank you very much. Really quick, I just want to highlight it for a moment, the existing hub. Many of you already know quite a bit about it, but it's a great example of how St. Pete has been able to transform this port area into an economic engine for our community. Since its opening in 2022, the hub has become home of innovation companies developing technologies in maritime and coastal resilience, partnered side-by-side with the University of South Florida and Florida Fish and Wildlife Institute. It's attracted national attention from NOAA, Coast Guard, Defense Department, and international partners. And its value extends beyond the entrepreneurs and the researchers occupying the building. Over the past four and a half years, we've documented dozens of business collaborations, educational partnerships, and government engagements. We've connected the St. Pete community in the innovation happening there to over 50 youth tours, internships with students from USF, St. Pete College, Ecker College, and more than 100 community activities. And this is what we envision as we look to expand from the current building into a future hub building as well. The approximately 50,000-square-foot facility that we're in the process of applying for grants for and working with funding partners would provide, most importantly, bay areas or large workshop areas on that first floor that would provide waterfront access. That's a critical need. As David said, we are a unique asset in Tampa Bay and across the state. Being one of 15 ports and one of three ports in Tampa Bay, our small size is actually an asset, an asset we should lean into because we're able to work with the research vessels, the researchers, the test and evaluation, the demos, in a way that our larger counterparts across the bay can't because they have the large cruise ships, the large vessels that they are dealing with. We do a great job among the partners within that Bayboro Harbor area, deconflicting. We're running right now a demo this week on a device that's autonomous that does seagrass mapping. And we're demoing it for students at the university and also potential partners. You might have read last week about Sail Drone out of Tampa Bay, out of St. Pete, out of this building doing the work of the hurricane mapping and tracking. So you can see what we could do more of. This is a little bit of the video or picture of the building. It would be adjacent to the current building, 50,000 square feet, working to have that first floor be bays with port access and then offices accompanying spaces on the second and third floor. The idea is that we would lean into even more the technology, the maritime areas, the research collaboration. Many of you might know that we brought in a lot of the folks from the College of Marine Science after the fire, and we'll be holding a space for them for the next couple of years. So quickly running out of space. And this is a picture of that first floor, which is the most unique floor. It shows on the right side, the current hub, and on the left side, those three bays with a little bit of a communal area. The other upper floors would have like a loft area for offices and then the other offices above. So we're really excited. We see this as an opportunity to position the Port of St. Pete as nationally recognized for maritime innovation while creating jobs, attracting investment, and expanding opportunities. Thanks. Thank you. All right. And then the final kind of eastward section of the port closest to USF. We would consider that area for the small cruise development and an opportunity to leverage the waterfront while evaluating the economics, obviously, of it all. This is, again, very ambitious. It shows about a 600-foot pier addition to the existing wharf. Double-sided. That essentially doubles the wharf space of the port right now. We have 1,200 linear feet of wharf space. So if we go out 600 on a parallel to the USF, we could potentially theoretically do it. It's a very large build. We know that. But, again, with the cruise industry, we would be looking for those public-private partnerships. So this also considers kind of a new access to the port, right? So the concept considers how passenger arrivals, terminal operations, ground transportation, security, and that access could be organized more effectively. Again, we don't have a lot of space out front for bringing in passengers, buses, Ubers, ride shares, all that stuff. So the intent here is to create a functional gateway that supports cruise activity that remains sensitive to the port's limited size and location on 8th F southeast. And, again, this is by no means a final terminal design here. This is still purely conceptual. We need to continue evaluating the viability of those types of facilities and buildings and access to that area of the port. But this does build upon the existing cruise operation we have operating out of the port. We have American Cruise Lines. This will be their fourth year, I believe, operating out of the port. We're on three ships a week for the season, the six-month season that they run. They'll be back into port on November 3rd. And we'll run through next April. They have expressed interest in a public-private partnership for development of a passenger terminal for their passengers to wait, load, disembark, and also expansion of a pier as it could help them stage more vessels in the future as they develop more southeastern routes here. Right now we run St. Pete to Key West and back on an eight-night trip overnight. And they have their last two nights. They board in St. Pete. They have their last two nights in St. Pete aboard. And that's where we link up with Mahaffey, the pier, sunken gardens, and they kind of get bussed all around the city. Capital investment. Again, everything is purely conceptual. This is all very high-level, high-level planning estimates. They're not final construction budgets by any means, but just a couple of kind of the main points there is the estimated terminal and cruise center could range anywhere from $26 million to $40 million, $50 million. And the estimated range for the MRO area and the innovation hub can total between $60 million and $120 million, honestly, by that point. But these figures also do not include permitting, design, the soft costs, potential utility and infrastructure upgrades. So, again, as we get into these projects, the approach will be to evaluate each proposed phase independently. There will be detailed market and financial analysis to determine if there are infrastructure requirements and identify appropriate funding strategies. Again, we have, as a port, access to state and federal dollars, appropriations, and private investment as well. So, the objective here, again, is to not commit the port to a large, unfunded capital program. That is the last thing we would like to do. And so, key takeaways from all this, again, the last study we had was in 1999. We are required to have a current master plan on file, at least with Department of Transportation, for those grant funds. We have narrowed that focus of that entire plan down to these three main areas, the innovation, the MRO, and the small crews. And we will, in their own right, respectfully evaluate each aspect of that as we move forward with any projects before we bring them to you for consideration. They will have definite market demand studies, viability studies, financial analysis, all of it. All the due diligence will be done. With that, I open it up to feedback, questions. I look forward to discuss it. Thank you. Of course. I'll pop a comment first. Jason Mathis, please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Good. I don't need three minutes. Jason Mathis with the St. Petersburg Downtown Partnership. We're located at 244 2nd Avenue North in beautiful downtown. I just wanted to commend Dave for all of his work on this project. It's been thoughtfully constructed. I think that it makes a ton of sense. You know, we, as a city, decided a long time ago to put our resources into a waterfront park and not a big working port. And I think that was a wise decision. I think it served us really well. But we've got this beautiful, discreet little port that we haven't always activated in the best possible way, the maximum way for economic development. And this takes us to the next level. So I mostly wanted to commend Dave, all of his work, the work of the consultants that put this together. They really did listen to the public. And then I also wanted to thank all of you, as I always do, for your service. It means a lot. And I don't say that. I don't want it to ever be a cliche. When you put yourself out there in the public and commit to doing good things for your community, it's not easy. And I really appreciate each and every one of you for the work that you do. So thanks very much. I hope you support this adoption of this master plan. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers? No other speakers, Madam Chair. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. David, thank you for all of the work that you do. I know you're excited about this. And, you know, we've talked about it as it's been, you know, brought forward and taken out there to the public. And I just really appreciate all of your passion that you've put into this and also your expertise. Maybe I think you even know more than Allison about the port. But I do love the way that you two work together as well. And I appreciate all of the considerations for our success that we've had on the port for the Maritime and Defense Technology Hub and also for the partnership with American Crews to not only serve them now but keep them in the conversation about how we can collaborate to serve visitors even better in the future. And I love seeing that part of this plan. Depending on what happens with the referendum item regarding the port leases, that could serve to accelerate. some of this, and I am hopeful and can't wait to see what happens next with this. One thing, as I was looking through the master plan itself, and on pages six and seven, you've got the map and kind of a key to all of the different areas. And I was thinking back to when we had the PS&I committee meeting, the priorities that we've put forward. You've illustrated here in the presentation, but then when we look on the map, there is a lot that's kind of earmarked for recreation and visitor opportunities. More than I think was expressed as a priority by the committee at that time. And I do wish that this had come back to like a committee of the whole or something like that before we had for some final input before we had a chance to vote on it. But here we are the on the legend item number two, where you've got recreational boating and super yacht marina. That appears to be like directly in front of the hub on the water side. And we just finished talking about how the access to that water is so important to the hub and for the expansion for the Center for Coastal Resilience. Why would you like and I know this is conceptual, why put it there in the first place if we know that we need we need that space for the hub? It's a great question. And to your point, yes, it is completely conceptual at the time when we were going through this process. We were not as as far along, I should say, as we are with the hub to now. So hub to was still part of kind of that conceptual options of what we could do with that space. And so with I think we did, we threw kind of everything in those renderings all at once to show a whole host of everything that is possible. And then after PS and I, we went back and we looked at altering the plan as the way that that whole book flows together, that plan flows together with those conceptual images to change those little tweaks and everything would have to kind of re-narrate and re-orchestrate a lot of that. And it was just outside the scope of our budget we had left for this project at the time. Because again, this project is half grant funded from a DOT grant. And unfortunately, it was just outside the scope of the budget to make all of those necessary changes to just reflect hub two as the priority, get rid of the marina slip since that was not a priority and change all those renderings. Okay, thank you. Now I understand that better. And I want to make sure everyone is clear that's paying attention to this, that everything that you see here is not exactly what's going to happen. Just like when we were presented the, well, it wasn't you, it was Chris, the, or Beth, sorry, Beth, the Center for the Arts Master Plan, which included the demolition of Outland Stadium. And we know that's not going to happen. So that does make me a little bit nervous when we bring forward master plans that have everything but the kitchen sink in it. And that's why I wanted to get some of this stuff clarified because we are certainly not trying to turn the port into a playground. It is very niche. As Jason mentioned when he spoke, you know, and Allison too, having the smaller port, like it's been under-recognized, but we don't want it to be over-activated by that. I mean, we have, we have the pier, we have so many other assets along the waterfront. That brings me to another question regarding the marine repair. In the committee, I had asked to maybe look further into what some of our, some private businesses and developers are planning to do. Um, because my understanding at that time was that, um, at least one of the marine repair businesses was going to be kept and, um, and remain open, which would eliminate our fear of not having any of those resources here. Is one enough? I don't know. Um, you would know better than I. Um, but I'm not sure about dedicating that much space to marine repair and having, when we have other places where even we could find, um, for people to take their boats for repairs. Yeah, absolutely. And, uh, again, it purely conceptual on that, um, kind of went for everything we could possibly throw in there. So that, um, that area that, that build over the water that we show for the marine research, I mean, I think some of those images show hauling out, you know, some significantly large yachts in that area. Um, that may not necessarily, you know, be the case. Obviously we have some of the larger yacht haul outs on the Tampa side and up in Tarpon Springside. Um, the Salt Creek area did see a significant reduction in boat yards, but there are still service yards there. Um, so this could function as an extension of those yards because again, Allison and I aren't going to run a boat yard. We don't, we know a lot. We don't know that. Um, so it could be public private partnership, uh, or an expansion of a Salt Creek yard into the port area into Bayboro Harbor on that side, just as another haul out or a staging area or, you know, some, some prop work or some lighter work on that. Cause again, we don't want to turn that section, especially between hub and Coast Guard into a full blown operational boat yard. Those are gritty and dirty and a lot of debris and stuff like that. So anyway, it could compliment that kind of service. We'll be happy to evaluate further. Um, and again, you know, Allison has expressed interest in a need for a crane of some sort or a larger hauling out thing. So if that can be utilized and in a complimentary way, we're happy to explore that too. Yes. If I can add, um, that is a great point. I won't belabor it, but, uh, cranes or those types of equipment to haul things out are expensive, right? And so if we can find multiple uses, so whether it's using it in the innovation capacity, but also for our research vessels and for our commercial vessels and things like that. I think this is one of those cases where we're going to try to find the best win win, um, to make it a viable thing for a partner to come to the table so that we can get the best possible equipment. Right. Good point. We will keep the dream of the crane alive. Yes. Okay. So, um, that's pretty much all I had. I just, I really wanted to make that point that this is, um, really the, the world of possibilities. And, um, as we move forward, it'll be, uh, definitely a specialized approach. And David under your continued, uh, stewardship of the port, I know that it's going to be successful. So thank you. And Beth, I know you're here in case, uh, extra assistance is needed. And so I will thank you while you're here for all that you do. Thank you, Madam chair. Thank you. Um, I'll try to keep it brief because everything's been covered, but I want it. Number two, I want to focus conceptual again, conceptual, conceptual, conceptual. Um, I want to include the disclaimers on the cost. I focus on the cost of first time around the estimated costs, which were not really detailed in terms of like what they were. And I want to make sure for those that are watching or listening, you know, we're looking originally it was, you know, 150 million to 270 million. Now we're looking at about 93 million to 163 million based on what you brought down. That's in today's costs. Originally it would take 10 to 20 years. What does the, just now the change is it still 10 to 20 years? I would assume it's a 10 to 20 year plan. So bottom line today's cost is not 10 years from now or 20 years from now. So that number is going to be much larger. Um, and it does not include soft costs. So everybody can keep it in perspective in terms of what is before us. But again, you need a plan for all the purposes we've discussed. I'll entertain the motion motion and the second clerk, if you can open the machine for voting council members votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted clerk, please tally announced vote. Madam chair, the motion to approve agenda item F three passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for your work on this. Thank you all for being here. Next up. We have new ordinances. E1. Um, clerk, if you can read the ordinance. Proposed ordinance number 768-L and ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan for the city of St. Petersburg, Florida by changing the future land use map designation for a 0.26 acre MOL portion of a parcel located at 4201 4th Street North from Plan Redevelopment Residential PR-R to Plan Redevelopment Mixed Use PR-MU providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof and providing for an effective date. The public hearing for this item is November the 5th. There's the second one. Proposed ordinance number 803-Z and ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida by changing the zoning for a 0.26 acre MOL portion of a parcel located at 4201 4th Street North from Neighborhood Traditional-1 NT-1 to Corridor Commercial Suburban-1 CCS-1 providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof and providing for an effective date. The public hearing for this item is November the 5th and we do not have any cards. Second. I have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your vote. Seeing that all present council members have voted, Clerk, Talley, announce the vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda items E1A and E1B. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Clerk, if you can read E2. Proposed ordinance number 654-H, an ordinance of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida creating a vessel exclusion zone within the lagoon at Coquina Key Park, amending the city code to add a new section 7-104 Coquina Key Park Lagoon, limiting the lagoon to vessels under awards or under sale only, providing boundaries, providing penalties, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. The public hearing for this item is November the 5th and we do not have any cards. Thank you. Thank you. You have a motion and a second. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. I just wanted to thank Heather Judd for her work on this. We did receive feedback from FWC on this request and they had recommended that we include swimming as an activity and as part of the documentation. So that was an easy adjustment to make. That's why it looks very, very slightly different. And we're just thrilled that we have the support of FWC on moving this forward. And I look forward to seeing the results. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Council member Driscoll, for the work on this. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your vote. Seeing that all present council members have voted, Clerk Talley announced a vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item E2 passes unanimously. Thank you. Next up, G1. Council member Givens. Thank you, Chair. Well, after the DoorDash incident involving a city vehicle, I had a conversation with Rob and also with Clyde. Just involving doing a deeper dive on city vehicle usage and the technology that we use to monitor that usage. So it was recommended that we hopefully get with our tech team, IT, just to find out more about how we can understand better trust and utilize this system so that we don't lose transparency and trust when it comes to city vehicle usage and their policies. So respectfully requesting referral to the Public Services and Infrastructure Committee or other relevant committee to discuss the usage of city vehicles, including policies surrounding city vehicle usage and the technology used to monitor and audit usage. And with that, I move to approval. A motion to second by Chair Floyd. Thank you. Thank you. I'm interested in the conversation, see where it goes. But, you know, around the time I got here, just before that, there was a big battle between administration and the union about surveillance in the vehicles. And I still am inclined not to support that just because we had one employee who felt like she needed to do something that was inappropriate. And so I'm interested in the conversation. But if it turns in that direction, you'll lose me pretty quickly. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Fix Sanders. Thank you. When I initially saw it, I took it back to the fine line between city council involvement in HR. And I do understand that there may be an issue, but I don't know how in depth city council needs to get into HR and administration's concerns. And I do need to know if, and I'm going to ask this of your administrative girders, based on that particular incident, has the administration not been charged with reviewing the possibilities? I mean, we can't follow employees. And I agree with Councilmember Floyd on the surveillance, but I'm sure that there's conversations going on internally in regards to how we can better monitor that without getting city council involvement in HR. issues. Well, thank you, council member. I appreciate that. And, you know, we have a really robust program on how we monitor vehicle usage. Vehicle usage is important. We have a lot of vehicles in the city of St. Petersburg. There are costs associated with that. So we would be happy to come and report on how we monitor vehicles, what we do. You know, I think this would be more Randall Johnson and fleet talking about the systems that we have. It wouldn't be our intent to get into any particular human resource issue. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that, that we're just talking about what you all are doing and not openly giving recommendations to HR issues. Because as long as I've been on council, I've been told that that is not a boundary that we are supposed to cross. And I want to make sure that we are having that conversation as an update. Okay. All right. I'm okay with that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council member Harding. Thank you, Chair. I think my comments relate back to tie together what both council members said. I see this as an HR issue. I reviewed the policies that we have on vehicles. I find them to be pretty standard policies. Unfortunately, this person did something wrong, got caught, and was punished for it. And the only other thing that we could add to that, aside from policy-wise, is being able to track those vehicles. And if folks in certain positions are allowed to take their vehicles home, the idea of tracking them doesn't sit well with me. And so I don't see this as rising to the level of something city council needs to get involved in. I see this as an HR issue. And more to the point, I see this particular case as an HR issue that was handled well. It is very unfortunate that someone chose to do this. But administration is faced with HR issues like this routinely. We have a staff of 3,800 people. Sometimes these things just happen. So I'm sad about what happened. That's unfortunate. I'm okay with how the – I'm not okay. I appreciate the way that administration handled it. And I would assume be done with it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Before I go back to you, Councilmember Gibbons, I'll just say, look, when I read this, the reality is it's just discussing the use of city vehicles, the conversation that we're having here. We can have a committee. It's going to be a general conversation. And it's not going to get into anything specific. So I don't mind having the conversation. Frankly, I think we've had conversations at committee meetings on things that we don't control many times. And so I'm fine with that because we've done it in different subjects. And I don't think it's going to focus on that. And, frankly, there are things that we probably couldn't discuss anyhow. It's going to be a general conversation. So with that being said, Councilmember Harding. Nope. I think my name – Oh, okay. I thought you wanted to speak again. Okay. With that being said, we have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present, Councilmembers have voted. Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item G1 passes 7 to 1 with Councilmembers Driscoll, Fick Sanders, Floyd, Gabbard, Gerdes, Gibbons, and Hanowitz voting yes. And Councilmember Harding voting no. Thank you. Next up, we have G2. Councilmember Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm respectfully requesting a referral to the Budget, Finance, and Taxation Committee for a discussion on potential amendments in the in-town CRA redevelopment plan to include funding options for improvement initiatives, and I'll move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present, Councilmembers have voted. Clerk, tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item G2 passes unanimously. Next up, we have G3, Councilmember Gerdes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This comes out of our joint CPPC City Council meeting where I'm respectfully requesting a referral to the Committee of the Whole for a discussion on the creation, on the possibility of a creation of a task force or similar body for the purposes of a historic preservation master plan. I'll move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, please enter your vote. Seeing that all present, Councilmembers have voted. Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item G3 passes unanimously. Thank you. Next up is my item H1. It is a committee report action item, respectfully requesting City Council approval to remove the following item from the Public Services and Infrastructure Committee referral list. A presentation discussion regarding the use of AI permitting software from Councilmember Gabbard and expand the scope of the referral item. A discussion on a citywide strategy for artificial intelligence adoption, including use cases, data governance, risk management, and budgetary implications from Councilmember Harding to incorporate the contents of the AI permitting referral item. We'll approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present, Councilmembers have voted. Clerk, please tally announce the vote. Chair, the motion to approve agenda item H1A passes unanimously. Thank you. Councilmembers, I know that we got documentation while we were here. If you want to take a break to review that before we go through H1, H3, and H4, I will grant that. If not, if everyone is ready to go, we can take those items. But I want to give at least the courtesy to the Councilmembers here if they wanted to, if anybody wants to review it, we can take a little break or we can continue going forward. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. Okay. I don't see anybody saying that they're not good. So, with that, we're going to H2. October 15, 2026 for his action item. We'll start with A, Councilmember Gabbard. All right. Item H2A, respectfully requesting City Council approval of a resolution supporting the creation of a Resilience Advisory Committee. And I so move. Second. We have a motion to second. Councilmember Gerdes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I was not in attendance this morning at hers, but I did watch it. And I've obviously been following and just, frankly, just wanted to say thank you to the committee. I think you guys have done a really good job here. I thought the discussion was well done, well thought out. I appreciated all the sentiment. And I just, I didn't want to go through these votes without just saying, I think you guys did a really good job when we came out in a place, especially a few weeks before some of these initiatives are going to go to our voters. And so just thank you so much for the work. Really well done. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Ditto. Do we have a motion and a second? We do. Clerk, if you can open the machine for voting. Councilmembers, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present Councilmembers have voted. Clerk, please tally now us a vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item H2A passes unanimously. H3A, Councilmember Gabbard. Respectfully requesting City Council approval of a resolution supporting the creation of a General Obligation Bond Advisory Committee. And I so move. Second. Motion and a second. We have public comment. Amber Woods. Is up here. Amber Woods is in the audience. Again, I thank the committee for all the work this morning. The only thing I will say, and I told this when I spoke to the Sierra Club on this item, is the only thing that I have a concern about is always putting the cart before the horse. The election is in November. We're doing this. And for me, and it's very different than doing what we're doing with the fire fee, because the fire fee, we're going through a profit. A process. We haven't established a fire fee, right? Because we're going to see what happens in November. And so whenever we do action like this and we create something without the public completely voting. And I understand Sierra Club's position, but it can also backfire. So but with that being said, I'll support it. So we have a motion and a second. Yes. Amber Woods was in support of the item. Okay. 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, the motion to approve agenda item H3A passes seven to one with council members, Vic Sanders, Floyd, Gabbard, Gerdes, Givens, Hanowitz, and Harding voting yes. And council member Driscoll voting no. Thank you. H4A. Respectfully requesting city council approval of a resolution supporting the Resilient by Nature program, including the development of administrative policy. And I so move. Second. 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, the motion to approve agenda item H4A passes unanimously. Next up, we have public hearings that start at 501. With that being said, we're in recess. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. The city council meeting. And begin on our public hearings starting with items J1, 2, and 3. Rule. Second. All right. Seeing no request to speak, will the clerk please open the machine for voting. Council members enter your votes. Council member Harding. Oh, sorry. Seeing all present council members have voted. Will the clerk please tally and announce the vote? Mr. Vice Chair, the motion to approve agenda items J1, J2, and J3 passes unanimously with council member Hanowitz being absent. Thank you. We're moving on to item J6. Presentation by Evan Morey, but we need to first have the title. Opposed orders number 650-H. In order to the city of St. Petersburg, amending the city code to increase parking penalties fees, provided in section 26-167A, amending section 26-168, related to residential parking permits, to increase permit fees, adjust eligibility criteria and duration of permits, and make updates to the program. Generally, amending section 26-172 to increase the removal charge of the immobilization device, providing for severability and providing for an effective date, and we do have a card on this. Move approval. Second. Max McCann. Second. Max McCann. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Thank you. Thanks, everybody. Max McCann, 3rd Avenue South and 27th Street South. Just want to quickly voice my support for this. It's good that we're updating these violations, and I'm especially glad that we can use some of this revenue for Safe Streets improvements. This is a nice step forward. Thanks, everybody. Our violations were cheaper than the cost it is to park on some days in downtown, and so I've personally witnessed a lot of illegal parking, people just blatantly doing it because they decided it'd just be better to pay a ticket, and so I'm happy to see this go for that reason, and also because using this funding for Safe Streets will be beneficial for everyone. So having said that, seeing no further requests to speak, will the clerk please open the machine for voting? Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members that voted, will the clerk please tally and announce the vote? Mr. Vice Chair, the motion to approve agenda item J6 passes unanimously with Council Member Hanowitz being absent. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go to item J5 now. Will the clerk please read the title? Proposed order number 649-H, an ordinance of the City of St. Petersburg, amending section 27-505 of the City Code related to the use of brush disposal sites and the penalties for violating this section, providing for an appeal process and providing for an effective date, and we do not have any cards on this. Move of approval. Second. Request to speak. Will the clerk please open the machine for voting? Council members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, will the clerk please tally and announce the vote? Mr. Vice Chair, the motion to approve agenda item J5 passes unanimously with Council Member Hanowitz being absent. Council Member Harding. Thank you, Chair. As with all, I'll read the title first. Sorry, read the title first. Proposed ordinance number 648-H, an ordinance amending the St. Petersburg City Code section 16.30.060.3.1.C.1, increasing the regulated maximum intensity distance from quarter mile to half a mile from the Sunrunner BRT bus rapid transit overlay urban station area type, adding a footnote clarifying the regulation where two maximum intensity distance radii overlap, providing for severability and providing for an effective date, and we do have a card on this one. Okay, great. Now we'll go to Council Member Harding. Thank you, Vice Chair. As with all other business that has come before the Council related to this topic, I do own and run a business that is in this geography, so I'll abstain from being involved in this topic in the vote, and I'll excuse myself until you guys are done. Thank you, Vice Chair. Curtis. Thank you, Vice Chair. Again, I'll repeat what I said during first reading. This is a clean-up item. I appreciate Derek and the team's work on this, and glad we're moving this forward, and I'll move approval. Thank you. Thank you. That's great. Council Members, we have a motion. I don't see any requests to speak. We've had this presentation a few times. Go ahead, Council Member. On behalf of PSTA, I want to thank you all for this extension on that. Thank you, Chair, or Vice Chair, shall I say. Okay. Seeing no further requests to speak, will the clerk please open the machine for voting? Council Members, please enter your votes. Oh, I'm so sorry. Will we do that? Let's unvote. Yeah, that was my fault. I thought you asked. No, I was told there was a card, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Max McCann, please go to the podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Thank you. Max McCann, 3rd Avenue South and 27th Street South. I will keep it super short. I just want to say, I live two blocks away from this area that we're updating right now, and I'm really excited to have more housing options and more customers to support these businesses in Grand Central. That's an important component of this update. So, thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further requests to speak, will the clerk please open the motion? Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, will the clerk please comment announce the vote? Mr. Vice Chair, the motion to approve agenda item J-4 passes unanimously with Council Member Hanwitz being absent and Council Member Harding recusing himself. Thank you. We're going to go to J-7. Proposed ordinance number 1180-V, an ordinance approving the vacation of the 7th Avenue South right-of-way between 34th and 35th Street South in the Adwood Re-Platt Subdivision, generally located at 3430 Fairfield Avenue South, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective and provided for an effective date, and we do not have any cards on this, sir. Thank you. Move approval. Second. It's up to you, Chair. Yeah. No, I mean, if everyone's comfortable with it and reviewed the materials, then we can go forward. So, you know, seeing no requests to speak, will the clerk please open the motion? Council Members, please enter your votes. Mm-hmm. Seeing all present council members have voted, will the clerk please file in and announce the vote? Mr. Vice Chair, the motion to approve agenda item J-7 passes unanimously with Council Member Hanwitz being absent. Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll move straight to item J-8. J-8. Okay. Proposed ordinance number 1181-V, and ordinance approving the vacation of the 7th Avenue South right-of-way abutting lots 1, 2, and 3 in block A of the General R&T Re-Platt Subdivision, generally located at 4451 8th Avenue South, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective and providing for an effective date. And we do not have any cards on this, sir. Move approval. Second. Seeing no requests to speak, will the clerk please open the machine for voting? Council Members, enter your votes. Seeing all present council members have voted, will the clerk please file in and announce the vote? Mr. Vice Chair, the motion to approve agenda item J-8 passes unanimously with Council Member Hanwitz being absent. Thank you. Thank you. Quasi-judicial item next. I was asked to see if we could hold for the chair to come back before this, but I'll leave that determination up to legal so that we can have everyone here. Yeah, absolutely. Chair, it's up to you whether you would want to have a recess. Yes. I'm told she should be here any minute now. Okay. Okay, cool. All right. Well, then we'll recess until, we'll call it 10 minutes. 520. Perfect. All right. Thank you. Is that what I heard? 520, yes. With that, we start to, let's see, J-9A and B. We have a private initiative application for a .43 acre parcel generally located at the southeast corner of 2nd Avenue North and 35th Street South. So, this is quasi-judicial. So, what's going to happen is that I'm going to be reading from a script. So, if it looks like I'm reading from a script, it's because I'm reading from a script. So, with that being said, anyone wishing to speak on this item must fill out a yellow card and provide it to the city clerk. And all the speakers must be sworn in before presenting testimony. The rules for quasi-judicial proceedings can be found on the yellow sheet attached to the printed agendas or viewing digitally pages 15 through 16 of the council agenda. Clerk, can you please swear in all parties and speakers, including city staff. Clerk, can you please read the ordinance titles. Proposed ordinance number 766-L, an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan for the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, changing the future land use map designation for a 0.43 acre MOL parcel generally located at the southeast corner of 2nd Avenue North and 35th Street North and 35th Street North from residential medium RM to planned redevelopment mixed use PR-MU, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof and providing for an effective date. Proposed ordinance number 801-Z, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, Florida by changing the zoning for a 0.43 acre MOL parcel generally located at the southeast corner of 2nd Avenue North and 35th Street North from neighborhood suburban multifamily-1 NSM-1 to corridor commercial suburban-1 CCS-1 providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof and providing for an effective date. And we do have some cards, Madam Chair. Good evening. A Britton-Wilson city planner presenting proposed land use and zoning amendments initiated by the property owner, St. Vincent Dupal Cares, and the purpose of the amendments is to allow for multifamily affordable housing. The subject property is a 0.43 acre vacant lot located a block in to the west of 34th Street North and a block north of 1st Avenue North. 34th Street North, also known as US 19, is a principal arterial roadway supporting suburban auto-oriented commercial uses, such as a self-storage facility located at the top right, followed by the Walmart Supercenter. Directly next door to the subject property is the St. Vincent Dupal Thrift Store. Then on Central Avenue are the Central Plaza commercial strip buildings, and just outside of the image to the southeast is the PSTA bus transfer station, and then the Sunrunner Activity Center overlay. Then there is office retail and insurance and banking to the south of the site. To the north are apartments, and to the west are single-family homes in the Central Oak Park Neighborhood Association. This is the future land use map showing the subject property as designated residential medium, or RM, which is proposed for amendment to planned redevelopment mixed use, or PRMU, to match the adjacent property to the east and south, and the hatched area represents the Sunrunner Activity Center overlay. This is a zoning map where the subject property is currently zoned at Neighborhood Suburban Multifamily, or NSM-1, and is proposed for change to Corridor Commercial Suburban, or CCS-1, shown in red, to match the property directly east and south, and is consistent with the CCS-1 depth, as it extends on pretty much the entire stretch of US-19, as demonstrated in this zoning extent map, where the star is the subject property, and it is in keeping with the overall commercial depth on this roadway. The change in zoning from NSM-1 to CCS-1 will provide for little increase in development potential, as the residential density remains the same at 15 units per acre, and the workforce housing bonus remains the same at 8 units per acre. But the allowed development intensity and impervious surface increases slightly, and the main difference in the change in zoning is allowance for commercial mixed-use development, and the ability to take advantage of Senate Bill 102, also known as the Live Local Act, that allows multifamily to be built on commercial zoned property at a density of up to 82 units per acre, if at least 40% of the units are at or below 120% of the area's median income. As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendments are consistent with many policies of the comprehensive plan, and to highlight a few, the proposal furthers these policies as it will facilitate the construction of affordable housing, it provides for a compatible and logical land use transition, and is consistent with the established character of the US-19 corridor. So staff did receive public input this morning from two adjacent neighbors who object to the proposal of increased density and the commercial encroachment into the neighborhood, and generally stating that the applicant has not been a good neighbor as a vacant site has been a nuisance in regards to trash and crime. And with that, staff recommends a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan for the proposed future land use change from residential medium to planned redevelopment mixed use, and concurrent rezoning change from neighborhood suburban multifamily to corridor commercial suburban, because it furthers provisions of the comprehensive plan and is consistent with the neighborhood's established land use and zoning pattern. And that concludes my presentation, and happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Is there a registered opponent for this item? There is not. Okay, we'll move on to public comment. Clerk, do you have any cards? Yes, Madam Chair. We have two cards. When I call your name, please go... Is there an applicant? The applicant. Oh, the applicant. I'm sorry? Presentation by the applicant. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I miss... The applicant has a presentation. Thank you. Is there another presentation? Does the applicant have a presentation? There isn't. Okay. There is no other presentation. Now we can take public comment. When I call your name, please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Kim Van Weingart and Valerie McGaughy. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members of the Council. My name is Kim Van Weingart, and I live at 3511 2nd Avenue North, within 300 feet of the property in application FLOM 84. I've lived in the neighborhood for about six years now. I'm here to respectfully ask that you deny this application, and I do want to be clear that my concern is not about who lives, who would potentially live on this property. My concern is the zoning being requested. This application asks to rezone this parcel to Corridor Commercial. This parcel is not on the Corridor. It is not on 34th Street. It sits on 35th Street North and 2nd Avenue North, both residential streets, directly across from single-family bungalows. Commercial zoning belongs to 34th Street. Moving it onto our residential block shifts the commercial line into the neighborhood, and once that line moves, the next line, the next lot becomes easier to rezone as well. Second, the notice says the purpose of this change is multi-family housing, but CCS-1 permits far more than housing, and it allows retail as was previously presented. So if the goal is housing, why does this parcel need commercial zoning? Third, parking. Our street depends on street parking. Our neighbors, many of them have multiple cars in large homes. I often cannot park in front of my own home, which is unnerving and concerning at night in particular, so adding more units plus potential customers for any commercial use puts more cars on the streets that have no room left. Fourth, commercial use brings deliveries, longer hours, lighting, noise, and more traffic right next to homes where families live and sleep. And finally, this neighborhood has a real identity, not the 34th Street identity, the 35th and 2nd Avenue North identity. We have older Florida bungalows. The transition from 34th Street corridor to our quiet residential streets is part of what makes it work, if this change would erode that transition, so I respectfully ask the Council to deny Flam 84, and at a minimum, I ask that this parcel remain residential only in keeping with the homes around it on 35th Street North and 2nd Avenue North. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker. Valerie. Good evening. I'm Valerie Magoon. Thank you for listening to my comments. I am the owner and reside at 3501 2nd Avenue North, directly Caddy Corner across from this property. Whatever is built there, I'm going to be looking directly at it out my front porch, my front windows, whatever it might be. This is a concern to me that we may look at putting 30 units over there, or to Kim's point, it could even become something completely different without having to come back to Council for approval. I want to be clear, I support helping people who are experiencing homelessness. They are near and dear to my heart, but supporting the mission is not the same as every development having to be for that particular purpose, and every density and every location are not the right one. This request would change the land use designation and zoning from the 0.43 acre parcel. Based on my conversations with the planning staff, the proposed change would allow for 30 homes compared to the 10 currently that it's zoned for. The owner could pursue, as I mentioned, mixed use development without returning to you for approval. So the decision is about more than adding homes. It is about expanding what can happen on this property and the precedent that this decision can set for the rest of the city. Our neighborhood already faces real challenges. I have personally waded through water above my ankles to reach my vehicle parked on the street to try to go to work in the morning. We are adding building and paved areas. This raises serious questions for me about the stormwater capacity and who's going to pay for the necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate that number of residents or those potential businesses. 35th Street already carries substantial vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Young children and teenagers live within 300 feet of this site traffic pedestrian safety parking lighting noise and privacy must all be evaluated before development capacity is increased. Not after when we're dealing with the consequences for the residents. I also want to speak about stewardship. I pick up trash along the street multiple times every week. The neighborhood has made progress through clean-up efforts addressing litter and problematic activity. Sorry. Time's up. Thank you. I ask you to consider and please vote no. Thank you. Any more speakers? No more speakers. Thank you. Now we'll move on to cross-examination. Each party will have five minutes for cross-examination staff. Would you like to cross-examine? Does the applicant wish to cross-examine? Good afternoon or good evening. Kayon Henderson for the record. I have heard the concerns. I really just want... This is for cross-examination. Oh, I'm so sorry. Okay. All right. So if you have nothing to cross-examine, you can wave if you want to. Wave. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll get to closing arguments part. Now we move to closing arguments or rebuttal. Each party will have five minutes to provide a closing argument or rebuttal. Staff, any closing argument or rebuttal? Staff waves. Does the applicant have any closing arguments or rebuttal? Kayon Henderson again for the record. We are the applicant. I'm with the applicant, part of the applicant. I realize that part of what was stated was about the mixed-use. With Vincentian, we have been very careful and not have been in the mixed-use business. We are really just making sure that we provide safe, decent, and affordable housing for those individuals who are in need. While we are asking to go up, it proposes for a six-story, 75 units. We're really looking to do about 32, one-bedroom, one-bathroom with 24 spaces. It will be about 21, and then the rest will be ADA compliant, and then we'll have some bicycle spaces. So I just wanted for the record to state that we are looking to increase to 32, but not going to the maximum of 76, and we're not looking to do a mixed-use. We just need the density to be able to allow us to go up. Thank you. Thank you. Now, the quasi-judicial proceeding is closed, and we will move on to executive session. Council members. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. This is for the applicant. There have been some comments made about the conditions of the site as it stands right now. And thank you. If you want to come up. Although that's not part of this proceeding, you know, since that was flagged, I wanted to find out if there has been any effort or plans made to improve the conditions of the site until the construction would begin and address these concerns, which are quite valid. Sure. They are. So one of the things that we always do is also have wraparound and support services, so I can appreciate when someone comes up and speak. We are still in a very conceptual phase of the project, so we don't have a final concept yet. And so we hear the community, and we're not trying to put something that wouldn't otherwise be. We definitely want to kind of include the community as we look forward to move the concept forward and having that built. We are looking to clean up and make sure that that does not become an eyesore as we move forward. But without knowing which direction we were going and coming here to get that, we have not made any plans yet. Okay. Thank you. What I would like to see, and this is, again, this kind of a side note, is the best way to get the community involved is to be a good neighbor to start. And that includes making sure that the area is kept clean, free of hazards, free of litter, and make it look like you care about the neighborhood. Noted. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Fig Sanders. Thank you. And that was pretty much my same line of request, is because I know exactly where this lot is. And my concern is because I know it's right behind your store. Yes. And right now it is somewhat quiet. And I can see the concern of the residents with you going up and adding to the congestion of the street parking on that. And in my mind, I wish I had a better opinion of St. Vincent de Paul and the care of the trash and those that you say you serve. I just want to make sure that you have someone on site 24-7 to ensure that, you know, because, to me, when you don't take care of where your residents are, it's not only saying that you don't care about the neighborhood, but you don't care about the residents either. Because they deserve a quality of life just like everyone else, and any place that we choose to put them should not be substandard. So if you are looking to put these residents in that neighborhood, I know exactly where it is. If you're looking to put those residents in that neighborhood, we want them to blend. We don't want them to be an obvious, okay, now I know what I'm looking at. Um, because you will be doing yourself a disservice, because I do hope to be, you know, I don't know what your timeline is. But even if I'm not on council, I'm going to come back and make sure that I address it, because I agree with the residents wholeheartedly that are going to walk outside. And if I see what I see, you know, in other areas, I'm going to be that person, because I am an advocate for our unhoused. And I want to make sure that they're going to get the same care and concern as any other homeowners in the city of St. Petersburg. Um, so please let that be my request. Um, that when we're moving forward with that, that you're giving that care and concern to them, as well as the partnership with those homeowners, that you are looking to build that, that because of going up, how many stories, stories did you say? You'd be looking to go up about two, maximum three stories. Okay, that's going to make a huge difference in that eye line, um, in that neighborhood. That is going to make a huge difference. Yes, it's right off of 34th Street, but I do know that neighborhood, and that is definitely going to make a major difference for those neighbors. Um, so I will leave it at that. But I just wanted to voice on record, I come back, right? Um, because I, I, I do agree with the homeowners, but more importantly, the residents that you are wanting to serve should have the best. Um, and they should be in the best surroundings, which means safe, clean, and healthy. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Before I go, Council Member Givens, um, legal, I just want to touch base. This hearing is about land use, right? And then, so the focus is on not this, the, what's going to happen in the future with the site, right? Okay. So this is for map amendments, rezoning, and future land use. Right. And as some of the comments said, changing from one category to another is changing the allowable uses. Right. And so they might have a stated, uh, plan for the property, but that's not any way locked in or decided at this hearing. It's just, are you comfortable with the rezoning, the future land use map and the calculations for density and intensity that are coming with that change? Right. Okay. Um, Council Member Givens. Thank you, Chair. I, I do have a couple of questions, um, specifically, um, for you as the applicant in regards to how this is going to harmoniously work with the current neighborhood plan. Now I'm, I'm in support of it. I think it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. I also believe that it's consistent with the neighborhood's established character, but I want to know what is your plan? Um, as the developers of this property, how do you plan on complimenting what's already in place? There's a neighbor who spoke a little bit about the historic architecture of the neighborhood, the bungalows. Um, what is your plan for complimenting that character? Sure. So we've gone into other neighborhoods. I think St. Vincent is known for a mixture of things, not just for a congregate shelter, but also affordable housing. And we've gone through many different municipalities. And one of the things that we've always made sure is some community engagement. So we're not deaf to the fact that we want to make sure that we're good neighbors also. Um, and as stated earlier, we would still come back with whatever that plan project would be before you, um, for that approval. So we wouldn't be come in, um, creating a project just because it's, it's where we are now asking for that rezone in, but we would still have to come back for any approval for the actual project that was selected. And you left where I wanted to pick off, which is, this isn't the end all be all. This is not see you again. That is correct. Um, and one of the things that I'm excited about is the opportunity to engage the current neighborhood residents, right? So I see a few of them here central Oak park. That's my district. I represent it. What has your engagement been with those residents, the current homeowners in the area? So far, we haven't actually gone out to do any boots on the ground engagement. Um, I'll tell you part of that is we don't really know where this is going to go. Um, but once we either get approved or we have to come back, we'll then have an idea of which direction we'll be able to go hire someone to come in and give us an actual conceptual plan so that we can bring it to the residents to say, this is what we're looking forward to put there. Um, so that's something that we've done with all of our other neighbors when we do multifamily. Fair enough. I, again, I see a few of them here today, so it's my hope that you all will engage. Um, if this is to move forward and make this a harmonious effort, I think it's very important what you're doing when you're talking about providing affordable housing, especially for a vulnerable population like what you're seeking to provide housing for. I fully support that. But again, I want to make sure as we talk about engaging the community and making sure that the homeowners and those residents who are currently there are heard and considered. They have neighborhood meetings every month. I think it will be worthwhile for you all to consider attending. Sure. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Gurdas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Legal, I have a clarification. So, um, piggybacking off of what Councilmember Gibbons was saying, that they don't necessarily have, depending on what they propose, they don't necessarily have to come back to us. It could be a staff approval if they use Senate Bill 102, right? Possibly, or depending on what's proposed, it might be something that triggers site plan review or redevelopment plan, and those are generally a final decision of DRC and would only be before you again if it was on appeal. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I think that's where I'm having a little bit of a burn is, and I'd like to hear from anybody else that has any comments on this, but it seems to me that we're opening it up interior to the corridors on a commercial space and giving a pretty large breath. And when I'm looking at, um, you know, the criteria about, uh, you know, how, how does it, how does it affect the, uh, the neighborhood, the density pattern? I mean, we're talking about, can we go to the presentation, please, and go to slide, slide two. Britton, do you, do you know, um, how many units are on the two apartment complexes that you've identified at the top of the screen? Do you happen to know that? To the north, it's a walk-up. It is low density. Um, I believe it might be at seven units to the acre. That's the, that's the southern, um, property. The one, the direct, the one directly adjacent to the proposed property. Uh, so to the north are apartments, to the south, um, is insurance and banking, um. No, no, you got two, you've got two arrows of a point of apartments, right? Yeah. So I'm talking about that one. Yeah. Do we, do we have any idea what the density is of that or how many units? I don't. Okay. Um, it just looked bigger. We can find out really quickly though. No, you're right. It probably is a higher density. Um, my, so that, that's my concern is that we don't know what's going to come, what's going to come. Um, and not that I'm taking that into account, but they're, what I'm trying to use is the criteria to go, depending on what they did there, it could affect this criteria. And that's how I'm, I'm looking at that. Is that, is that a reasonable use of, of the criteria? I want to make sure I'm staying, I'm staying in line because if we open it up, it could be all sorts of different things depending on how they use it. Right. And so when I'm looking at the criteria and I go, okay, they could put 32 units on that, that, that does affect the criteria to me. But if they were to propose seven units, that's different. A criteria three for land use and zoning changes, whether the proposed changes would alter the population density pattern and thereby adversely affect residential dwelling units or public schools. So your point is well taken and evaluating this criteria about discussing whether moving in from the street is affecting that positively or negatively based on the potential use. I just wanted to make sure I was staying, staying in line. So I, I appreciate that. So that's where my concern about this is. If this were a budding first or 34 or 34th, I would have no issue whatsoever, but I think it's a worthwhile conversation to talk about. Do we, because you can already go multifamily here. It's by, by opening this up, are we adversely affecting the pattern that has happened or that's already there. And that, and that's kind of where I'm thinking, where I'm at. I haven't made a decision yet, but I'd be interested in everybody else's take, take on what I hope I'm explaining. Okay. So I'll, I'll leave it there for now. Thanks. Madam chair. Well, council member Curtis, I think you and I had that same conversation with another rezoning in your district. And I'm probably sure Derek remembers that I can't, that we had that conversation, right, Derek, which is, and I think one of the speakers touched upon that, which I think it was Kim who mentioned about the fact, okay, you start here. And I had that same conversation and I can't remember the development was, it was the church, the Pasadena church thing. And it's like, okay. And then next one comes to us and it's like, well, they have, it's on the south side and it's on the east side. And then you have a neighborhood that's adversely affected. It could be this neighborhood. It could be historic Kenwood. It could be any other neighborhood in the city, but then that changes the character of the neighborhood. And by the way, what we're making decisions right now is on land use has nothing to do with what they're going to do in the future. Cause we have no idea to your point. We have no idea how this is going to land. And so when you're looking at it, you are looking at those uses. And then if you change that, right, that RM, if you look at the map where it changes that, then you can look at the next one and they can make the same argument. Then they can make the same argument and the same argument. And I've had that issue and it's come up. And I'm concerned about going into the neighborhoods. There is a use there already that allows residential. And so I get where you're coming from, because I think we've had this conversation before. And the issue is, when does it stop? And then it's the same argument. Well, you know what? The zoning is, you know, on the south is the same and, you know, and it just doesn't end. And then you start taking away from the neighborhoods. And so I do have a general problem with that when we've had this discussion. And I don't care what it's going to end up. For me, it's just a more philosophical, like you're looking at land use in our city and neighborhoods are extremely important. And the development of the commercial corridors are extremely important. But that intrusion is that what you're touching upon and how it kind of evolves into the neighborhoods is also very important to us. So and that is part of the criteria that we're looking at. So why don't we and I just want to step back and kind of touch some of the issues that have been discussed already and brought up with by some of the speakers in the criteria that we have to be looking at because we've talked a lot about whatever they're going to do. I'm interested in the criteria. So the level of service issue that was brought up flooding issue right now, it's not developed. Has any of this been looked at in terms of the impervious area or what the difference is going to be? Do we even know the effect of the development from where it's now and what it can be developed, the impervious? You wouldn't know. Well, the allowed impervious increases from 0.65 to 0.85. Okay, so and the site was previously developed is three was three platted lots for single family homes that I believe were removed maybe 30 years ago. The property's been ownership with St. Vincent DuPaul for about that long. Okay, and talk a little bit about the parking issue that was mentioned in terms of the effect on parking. Well, it is within the Sunrunner overlay distance and so parking will not be required. So there's no parking required. Okay. So if there is no parking required, then that means that some of the parking is absorbed by the neighborhood potentially. Right. So there is something there. Okay. In terms of had you considered, I don't know if you've heard from the neighbors before today. Had you all heard these? They started coming in last night. So it's last night and this morning. Okay. So at the CPPC meeting, there was no public protection. Can you talk a little bit about the erosion, the eroding, the transition issue that we're kind of discussing? And I don't know if you or Derek want to talk about that transition. We do typically look at there being some sort of right of way buffer, whether it be an alley or a roadway. And in this case, there are two right of ways on both sides that would buffer it. A staff would not support it encroaching into the neighborhood further west. But as you zoom farther out, you can see that the precedent has been set for US-19 to extend this commercial zoning multiple lots in. On the east side, it's much more significantly encroached into the neighborhood than the west side. Right. So, and I think what we end up getting a lot is like when you look, and I think what Council Member Curtis mentioned, if you start looking at that, then you just look at those areas, and then all of a sudden they turn red up there, and then you can go down, and it would continue. Right? But generally, staff would not support it without there being a buffer, at a very minimum an alleyway buffer. The roadway buffer is ideal. There has to be a logical transition, and right now the transition from west to east is single-family, then multi-family, then commercial, going from west to east. Is that the only, I mean, for you, the buffer is basically the alley? The alley or a right-of-way so that they're not rate-abutting a single-family home. Okay. So the intensity or the increase in density, I should say, is how do you look at that? Well, it doesn't change in this case from NSM to CCS-1. It gives the same density allowed, and it also gives the same workforce housing density bonus. So both with the bonus can have 10 units for both zoning districts. But with the Live Local Act, it's three and a half times. Right. That's the part. So. And the height that's allowed. Is much higher. Is the highest within a mile of the site. Right. Right. Which is relevant. Which I've had. I mean, that's an issue that comes up in neighborhoods in my district for the same issues. And we've talked about lock consolidation and how that can happen and how it changes, you know, some of the areas, especially some of the historic areas. Okay. Well, I'll leave it at that. I see others want to speak, but, yeah, I'm still thinking about it. By Sher Floyd. I'm going to go in a completely different direction. I was looking through the backup and, sorry, my computer's having a little trouble, so I have to scroll quite slowly to make it work. It's a big document, you know. And we have these criteria and they have the staff responses to them. And I have some confusion about one of them. I believe it's item or number 10. Whether the subject property is within the 100-year floodplain, it says it's not. But if I pull up the map, it is. And so I don't know if I'm missing the definition of what the 100-year floodplain is. It's not in an AE flood zone. It's in an X. It's in part of the highest part of the city. It's probably around a 50-foot elevation. Oh, I'm aware. Because my house is about seven blocks north and flooded during hurricane. But that doesn't mean you can't have localized flooding due to congestion in the storm. It does say the 100-year floodplain, though. And according to this map, it's within the 100-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is AE and you're required to have flood insurance. The X zone is not in the floodplain. The 100-year floodplain. It's a question that maybe isn't for... It is outdated. It's from the 80s. So now when we look at probably FEMA flood zone maps, they would try to reduce that number from 100. It doesn't really only happen once every 100 years. It's starting to happen once every five years or 10 years. So that nomenclature of calling it the 100-year floodplain is kind of out of date. Yeah. That's not... I understand that. I guess I'm just confused because we came out with a stormwater map that has the 100-year floodplain on it. And it's an interactive map on our stormwater website. And it shows in a pink area where a one in 100-year rainstorm would flood. And it's all up and down 34th Street. And so I don't know if we're referring to something different when we say the 100-year floodplain map. This is referring to FEMA maps. So the city might look at more localized, developed maps. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'll let other people go and digest that for a second. But I just... First time I came across something like this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. And maybe I'll start actually where you left off, Vice Chair, because I did want to just clarify. I mean, I certainly am sensitive to knowing that there was flooding within that area. And I hear what you're saying about the 100-year floodplain and the coastal high hazard area. But that is... There are two different things we're talking about here. We're talking about the coastal high hazard area as it pertains to FEMA flood maps versus what you're looking at, I believe, which is the stormwater floodplain. And as part of site plan review, there will have to be some sort of mitigation on site for whatever kind of runoff will happen. Is that correct? Yes. They will have to meet code requirements. Right. Right. So, kind of trying to separate those two things as it comes to the criteria and understand what will eventually have to happen. So, that kind of alleviates that one for me, even though I never want to see, you know, reduced impervious or increased impervious surface. I'm saying it's opposite. I still think, I mean, when I'm looking at the density and the existing and the proposed, I think the change is so minimal between the two. I mean, it really is about height, which is less. And, you know, specifically to looking at the map on slide four. And, well, in between your questions and my questions, I went and looked up these two apartment buildings real quick. I'm the property appraiser. Thank you. And one of them, the one that is owned by Bully, is two buildings, 20 units, 10 units each. And the other one that's directly across the street, that one is nine units, one building. So, to kind of answer the question of what is already there. But then whenever I look at the proposed zoning, to me there already seems to be a pattern, if you switch to slide four. There's already a pattern that has been created within this area. And so, I don't look at this particular parcel as encroaching anymore, because I think that pattern already exists. That ship has kind of sailed. And so, just understanding that Live Local hangs out there. And essentially, I mean, they could come forward with a Live Local proposal. And what we could have gotten from this change is minimal compared to what could happen there. Am I off base? I mean, that's an accurate reflection. And so, while I'm sensitive to the single-family neighborhoods, I kind of feel like in this area, again, the ship has kind of already sailed. It's already happening there. And so, I think it's better to be more engaged as a city into what a developer is bringing forward versus leaving it open for this Live Local kind of boogeyman that could be out there to bring something that is much more dense. That's my concern. So, I'll leave it there, but those are kind of the thoughts I'm having. Thank you. Before I go, Council Member Gerdes, the CPPC approved this 7-0, right? Yeah. I think that was a little different than the one that we talked about, the church, which was… Mm-hmm. That was a denial by CPPC. That was a denial by CPPC. Okay. Council Member Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. Just to piggyback off Council Member Gerdes' point, I think when you look at that map, that… One more. Slide four. Or one less. Yeah. Those CCS-1s and that pattern that's being created moving north happened before Senate Bill. And the density impact, the pattern impact, the environmental impact, the LOS impact is significantly different now with Live Local. And that is where I'm at. And so, we have those CCS-1s and they could do that. They could go and make that Live Local application. I'm concerned about continuing that pattern because of what it does in Live Local that's not on accord. That's where I'm at. So, I just don't think I'm going to overcome that today. So, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Vice Chair Floyd. Thank you. Okay. So, yeah, I did pull up the FEMA maps. And I think my confusion was the distinction between like… Or just the definition of what the 100-year floodplain is. And according to FEMA maps, yes, it's nowhere near there. But like our stormwater maps that we've created at the city does place it in there. And so, I don't know like… I don't know what governs like the bullet points, the state statute or whatnot. Yeah, like… So, generally, when we're talking about these types of maps in Chapter 16 for land development, it does refer to, especially in our floodplain specific ordinance and sections in Chapter 16, to the FEMA maps, the firm maps, and official amendments there too. So, those are the maps that we use. Okay. Thank you. So, yeah. I just got confused. So, I wanted to clarify that. Second thing is, leading off what Councilmember Gerdes just said. Yeah. You know, in a vacuum, I see, you know, no problem with the land use change. But with the Live Local Act, I definitely understand people's concerns. And it's really more about a loss of control of like, you know, our ability to regulate. So, and I think this is a great spot for multifamily where it's zoned already for that. And so, I understand that. But I do want to get clarity, like, when I'm making a consideration. Like, is that… I mean, you know, how appropriate is the existence of the Live Local Act and our ability to regulate, losing our ability to regulate, an appropriate thing for me to consider? Well, I think that, you know, Councilmember Gerdes articulated that in that that changes the calculus for the density criteria and the established pattern. Because, again, the established patterns were solely governed by our code. But now, if you do make that, that makes that parcel eligible for everything in our code and that. So, that is a relevant criteria that may be different and evolving, but still appropriate for review. And also, Criteria 7, proposed change is consistent with the established land use pattern of the area in reasonable proximity. So, then considering all available potential uses and other requirements for that change in the surrounding area. And I think the evaluation of the map using the slide was correct by all Councilmembers, either positively or negatively. That does make sense. You know, if you consider historically what's been built in that area and specifically in the corridor commercial CCS 1 zoning district. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense to me. That's all. Thank you. Okay. And I'll just go back. I mean, Councilmember Gerdes, you know that I kind of fall within your camp and how I feel. The one thing that is moving me the other way on this one is the CPPC and their review. And it's one where there is an established pattern. I don't like the live local issue. I don't like it. And so, it's frustrating, but that's just one of the factors. I think with some of the other ones have had various factors that played into it. It wasn't just one. And I'll go back to, you know, what happened when we made that decision. I try to be consistent on some of these issues because I'm trying to look at it more broadly. When we consider something, whether it's in District 1 or District 4, I try to put myself in the shoes of those neighborhoods and those corridors and try to figure out, okay, how it affects them, but it also affects my district and the decisions that we make. So, I'm trying to be consistent and that's where I'm having a hard time with the consistency. But, I mean, I'm just, there was more on the other one. And I think the CPPC can push me in the yes on this, but I want to hear by Sheriff Floyd and Council Member Curtis. I just wanted to take two seconds to make myself clear. Like, what's been presented, which I'm not considering by the applicant, is totally reasonable. And, you know, but I'm not making that decision. I'm making the land use decision. And the land use decision is pretty significant when you consider NSM and CCS in the context of Live Local. And that's where I'm hung up because I don't think that, and I say this because I want to be clear. Like, I'm not opposed to anything that the applicant's saying. It's just now that I have to consider what the whole realm of possibility that could exist there, yeah, I start to get uncomfortable. Yeah. All right. Thank you. It's a broader question. Yes. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think you make a very good point. But what I would say is, because we've had two applications similarly, Pasadena Community Church and Palm Lake Community Church. And I even got some pushback from a neighborhood saying that I voted for one and not the other. But they were two very different applications. Very different. Very different. Right. One sitting right on 22nd Avenue right across the street from all kinds of other multifamily. Right. One was what is considered a corridor but really isn't a corridor. Right. Because it's a neighborhood road once it gets west of 66th Street. And so I very much appreciate what you're saying. And that's where I'm trying to do the same thing and stay consistent because what it does, that density change is not the same interior when you open up that category to live local. Right. And that's where I feel like, yeah, that's my big concern where I've made my points on the criteria. So, but I totally get it. I totally get it. So, I'll leave it there. Okay. Any other comments from other council members? Okay. Move approval. Second. Vote. The affirmative. From the cheap seats. 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 tell us to vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda items J9A and J9B fails four to four. With council members Driscoll, Floyd, Gabbard, Gerdes voting no. Council members Vic Sanders, Givens, Hanowitz, Harding voting yes. Next up, we have, thank you everyone for being here. Next up, we have J10, which is an appeal of a CPPC decision to deny a private initiated application requesting a text amendment to the comp plan. In town activity center boundary with concurrent amendments to future land use and zoning maps for a 1.08 acre parcel generally located at the southwest corner of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street South and 6th Avenue South, just north of Booker Creek. This item is quasi judicial. 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 rules for quasi judicial proceedings can be found on the yellow sheet attached to the printed agendas or viewing digitally pages 15 through 16 of the council agenda. Clerk, please swear in all parties and speakers, including city staff. Clerk, can you read the ordinance titles? Proposed ordinance number 651-H, an ordinance of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, amending its comprehensive plan map for in town activity center, providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The public hearing for this item is February the 18th, 2027. Would you continue, Madam Chair? Madam Chair. Proposed ordinance number 767-L, an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan for the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, by changing the future land use map designation for a 1.08 acre MOL parcel, generally located at the southwest corner of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street South and 6th Avenue South from planned redevelopment mixed use PR-MU and recreation slash open space R slash OS to planned redevelopment mixed use PR-MU with in town activity center AC overlay and recreation slash open space R slash OS, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof and providing for an effective date. The public hearing for this item is also February the 18th, 2027. Thank you. We'll now move on to presentation. We have one more. Oh, one more. Sorry. Proposed ordinance number 802-Z, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, by changing the zoning of a 1.08 acre MOL parcel, generally located at the southwest corner of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street South and 6th Avenue South from corridor residential traditional-1 CRT-1 and neighborhood suburban estate NSE, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof and providing for an effective date. The public hearing for this item is also February the 18th, 2027 and we do have some cards. Thank you. Now we can move on to presentations. Each party will have 10 minutes for their presentation and we will begin with the city staff presentation. Again, Britton Wilson City Planner presenting an appeal to the Community Planning and Preservation Commission's decision to deny a request by a vote of 6-1 related to three proposed amendments to a parcel located at Dr. MLK Jr. Street South. And this is the first reading and first public hearing for these items where staff is recommending denial of the appeal. The application request is multifaceted. First is a text amendment to the comprehensive plan proposing to amend map 4 depicting the in-town activity center. Second is a land use map amendment to be included in the in-town activity center overlay. And then a zoning amendment from corridor residential traditional one to corridor commercial suburban one. And then a 0.23 acre portion that borders Booker Creek is within the coastal high hazard area, which is proposed for amendment to rec open space land use and neighborhood suburban estate zoning. And the purpose of the applications ultimately is to allow for a higher intensity self storage facility. So both the text amendment and the land use map amendment proposed to include the site within the activity center overlay, which would grant increases in density and intensity. And then the proposed change in zoning to CCS one would allow for the use of self storage if approved through the special exception use public hearing process. And this would all allow for a potential build out of a six story 115,000 square foot storage facility. Sorry, I jumped ahead. The subject law is a vacant 1.0 acre irregular triangular shaped lot located at the southwest intersection of 6 Avenue South and MLK Junior Street South is within the Campbell Park neighborhood association and MLK business district. The orange hatch area depicts the coastal high hazard area. The surrounding uses starting at the top right are townhomes, then surface parking that supports Orlando health, followed by Booker Creek, which flows through the site and down into historic Rosa Park neighborhood. Then to the south is a Campbell Park neighborhood, then the Brookwood Terrace group home and then Campbell Park Elementary School and recreation area, followed by the exchange apartments to the north of the site. So initially we have a proposed text amendment to update the in town activity center boundary to include the subject property outlined in red and the yellow area outlined in blue is existing in town activity center boundary, which is irregularly shaped due to the carve out of the innovation district activity center created in 2019. This little extension that follows Booker Creek was not included in the innovation district because it is located within the coastal high hazard and it applies to residential uses in the historic Rosa Park neighborhood. It does not benefit from any density or intensity bonuses that will be granted by being located in the overlay thereby making the AC overlay at this section. No as it has no development value that can be applied to the underlying zoning. So staff is recommending denial in part because it does not meet the locational requirements as a parcels about 183 feet away from the nearest other parcel within the overlay as shown in the graphic on the right. But also staff is recommending denial because it is contrary to a countywide rule provision that does not support the use of warehouse and storage in an activity center, which I will speak to in more detail in a later slide. And typically winning any changes are made to a activity center. Usually a special area plan is created or modified and community involvement and input similar to what we went through with the Sunrunner activity center overlaying. So we typically don't do a one off amendment to an activity center. Here's the existing future land use map where the site is mostly designated planned redevelopment mixed use or PRMU with rec open space designated around the creek and the CHHA boundary is shown and hatched. This is the proposed feature land use map where the PRMU designation remains, but the rec open space boundary is to conform with the CHHA area. Then the antenna activity center boundary is shown in red hatched on the east side of MLK that has been requested to extend over to the subject parcel. This is the zoning map showing the subject site as currently zoned corridor residential traditional or CRT1 and a small area is zoned neighborhood suburban estate or NSE. And this is proposed for amendment to corridor commercial suburban or CCS1 and NSE to conform with the CHHA area. And together the rec open space land use and NSE zoning, together they don't represent any development potential and which is why it is applied to the CHHA area. Sorry, I'm talking a little too fast. As noted in the staff report, the proposed amendments are not consistent with many policies of the comprehensive plan. And then the next few slides, I will speak to these four policies. I think it's just moving on its own. Policy LU 3.4 states that the land use plan shall provide for compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement. The proposed change from traditional zoning district to a suburban zoning district is not consistent with established land use pattern of the surrounding area and does not provide for a compatible land use transition through an orderly land use arrangement as a subject property is located 1.7 miles from another like zone parcel of CCS1. Such a change in zoning, if approved, would be considered spot zoning, which is contrary to the city's character framework detailed in the vision element of a comprehensive plan. Where spot zoning generally is the practice of rezoning a small parcel of land to a district that is inconsistent with the city's master plan and typically only benefits a single property owner without advancing a legitimate broader public purpose. Policy LU 3.6 states that land use planning decisions shall weigh heavily on the established character of the developed area. The word character is key here as the comp plan speaks to, as a comp plan speaks to, excuse me, very specific, either traditional character or suburban character. The in-town activity center, also known as downtown St. Pete or DTSP, is the city's original city center characterized with its distinctly traditional building form and scale that creates a notable sense of place. And this map is showing that the traditional zoning districts are shaded out and the suburban districts are in red, demonstrating that only traditional character zoning radiates out from downtown. And the suburban zoning of any category isn't found for a couple miles out until you get to 34th Street or to the west or south to Lake McGorry. Policy LU 3.7 states that planning decisions shall determine whether existing land use boundaries are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions and expected future conditions. The existing CRT zoning district is logically drawn and conforms to the district's development standards and lot dimension requirements. It is the proposed zoning of CCS-1 that, if approved, will create a non-conforming lot by not meeting the required lot width, which is not allowed by city code. The required lot width for a medium-sized CCS-1 lot is 200 feet. And when measuring irregular shaped lots, the code requires measurement to be taken in the middle of a lot, which in this case measures 108 feet, which is a 40% deficit in lot width. City policy LU 20.2 requires that the St. Pete comp plan be consistent with the countywide rules. And this rule section speaks to the purpose of activity centers, which is to create mixed uses with urban design that allows and encourages multimodal transportation. And it specifically states that storage uses do not support the goal and purpose of activity centers. To date, staff has received eight letters from neighbors in opposition. A letter was received from the MLK business district and from the St. Pete innovation district, both stating that their opposition to the application as they believe the self storage facility is inconsistent with both districts objectives, which are to support economic vitality and promote investment that strengthens the character of the community. And then a self storage facility generates limited employment or opportunity for collaboration and innovation. We also received a letter of objection from the Campbell Park associated association who voted unanimously against it and five other letters opposing or received from the townhouses located to the Northeast on MLK. And the applicant also submitted a letter of support signed by the property manager of exchange multifamily residential building to the North. And an email from staff to the applicant sent last December, the inconsistencies with the comp plan were identified. And it was also stated that staff could support an amendment from the current CRT one to quarter commercial traditional or CCT one as it would retain the traditional building form consistent with the area while opening up the allowed uses to hotels, restaurants, bars, and retail. The proposed use of self storage is a supported use in industrial and CCS zoning. And this map shows nearby locations of parcels with this zoning. And of these parcels, the highlighted ones are currently vacant. And with that, staff recommends a finding of inconsistency with a comprehensive plan and denial of the requested appeal, thereby denying the requested text amendment and denial of the land use and zoning amendments because they're inconsistent with the reviewed policies stated herein and other policies outlined in the staff report. And that concludes my presentation. And I have nine seconds. You got it in. You got it in. You got it in. Now you can breathe. We will have appellants presentation. Good evening, Madam Chair and council members. My name is Todd Pressman, 202nd Avenue South, number 451 St. Petersburg. There's an idiom we all know, which is that the proof is in the pudding. And we're going to present to you tonight what we believe is the proof in the pudding of this request. You've seen the location aspects. I'm going to move forward on that. But I want you to notice, first of all, that we're not abutting any residential community or any residential homes. Other than multifamily and we're separated significantly by Booker Creek. There are some multifamily that are in support, but we're located on a very busy arterial roadway of 15,500 vehicles per day. This is an extremely confined, constrained, difficult, unique, irregular shape that is a remnant that is still vacant and has been vacant for a long time. When you look at the challenge and constraint of this site with Brooker Creek, setbacks, street frontages, and extremely difficult shape, as you can see here then on the aerial, it's a very difficult site to develop in any logical manner, particularly in the geometrical elements of the both points that I'm showing you here. What we're proposing is a five-story modern style climate control self storage unit with street activation. This is a concept plan proposed. But proof in the pudding, number one, is that the planners advisory committee from Ford Pinellas and Councilmember Driscoll and Gabbard and a few others, you sit on Ford Pinellas, came forward with an important advisory committee that development trend of self storage has shifted from large lot single story to vertical orientation closer to within established neighborhoods and activity centers. This is a critical finding that codes of the city and county throughout Pinellas County are lagging behind. They found the advisory committee found support for self storage units because it is under the national average. Self storage demands have grown as more people experience the crunch of city living. You'll hear more about that. But again, that's the planners advisory committee for Pinellas, giving you a paradigm shift for these type of uses. And, of course, Derek and Brittany sit on that board as some of you members do, and they sit on the political action committee, you sit on Ford Pinellas. Proof in the pudding, number two, the Exchange Apartments, 132 apartments, which are virtually abutting this site, strongly recommend support. And they note that it represents a compatible and supportable use that would provide a valuable service. It is compatible. It is cohesive because they are small apartments, low trips, no noise, no parties, and provides additional storage for their units. This is the Exchange Apartments, which, again, is virtually abutting. The Exchange Apartments is there, you can see the site, and yet there's other multifamily in the immediate area that I've talked to who voice to me no opposition. There's nothing on the record. Those are my personal conversations. But, again, these are some of the multifamilies that would be able to take use of this site walking across the street for storage. We like to integrate well with Campbell Park in terms of a design and standard, which we have some nice elevations, and also provide a pedestrian path through Brooker Creek, which is a beautiful asset, and to adopt elements of Campbell Park Bridge, which is right next door. The current zoning corridor is very intensive. What's proposed is a very intensive commercial corridor suburban one to improve connections and compatibility of surrounding neighborhoods, which I presented to you already, in conjunction with residential multifamily units or structures. Same thing, of course, reflects on the future land use category, which would be an intensive area as well, which would be concentrated along that corridor. Now, council members, you're really very familiar with gerrymandered districts. Well, this is about as gerrymandered as it gets on the Intown Activity Center with some type of tail. And on the Intown Activity Center, we are not in it, but we should be in it. And you can see by this mapping, it was a Scrivener or following Brooker Creek or following other bureaucracies that ended up in a gerrymandered district that we should be in. In regard to the Innovation District, we should not be in the Innovation District. Again, we are barely in it, just barely catching the border of it, as you can see there, because the Innovation District is relying upon or looks for more intensive professional uses like the hospital and research. That's not what this use would be. So both in the Innovation District and the Intown Activity Center don't apply, the districts don't apply, and the uses don't apply. When you look at our market demand study, and John's here will talk more about this, it falls in line, again, with proof in the pudding of what the Planners Advisory Committee and Ford Pinellas put forward as a policy. That 90% of the self-storage is full in this area. There's barely any more room. Yet, demand is significantly increasing. New condo units, storage sizes are reduced. So when you add those elements together, you have a lot more development, which is less full, and we love it, and it's great, with smaller units, but no demand. So, again, proof is in the pudding that this use is important, it's critical, and it's comprehensive and cohesive for this particular site. Now, we asked Patricia Ortiz, who's a great planner, to look at the private planning or to look at the planning policies of the city, which she responded to. It's difficult for me to go through all these in 10 minutes. But in her report, she notes again the irregular triangular shape, undeveloped parcel, ideally situated for storage, that the proposed use is consistent as found under the Planners Advisory Committee of Ford Pinellas, that at present the subject site is actually an isolated zone. It is a spot zone, and opposing to the good comments that Britton made in regard to it being a spot zone, because there are no others, it is itself a spot zone of the CRT. The subject parcel is the only CRT one-zone parcel in the Innovation District Activity Center, which, again, were gerrymandered barely in. The zone is not designed to accommodate the Innovation District. She notes, in terms of the staff report, that the suburban character zoning, specifically neighborhood suburban single-family, abuts the site to the south. Therefore, the addition of suburban character zoning on a .85-acre parcel will have minimal, if any, impacts on the overall planning framework of the city. Point of denial from the staff number three is that it will create a substandard CCS1 lot. But she notes that this will reduce the size of development parcel to less than one acre, and the lot will be reduced to 100 feet, which can either be accommodated or required a minimal variance. She notes that the proposed mix of retail and storage is consistent with the best management practices, again, outlined by the white paper presented by Ford Pinellas Planners Advisory Committee. And she also notes, in terms of interpreting from state statutes what defines contiguous, which is touching, bordering, or joining along the border. For the purpose of that section, properties would be contiguous if not separated by roadway or other public easement. But I think it's important, again, as you've talked a lot at this hearing about residential communities. We are significantly away from residential communities by Brooker Creek, and the closest multifamily is in support. So we're not impacting or influencing or having negative impacts on the residential communities. On the other hand, there are very low trips, if any, for use of this nature. There's no noise, no parties. It's a great use that does not impact on residential districts. Now, the MLK district did submit a letter of objection, but we are proposing and talking. I want to provide a ground-level retail component was specifically included and consistent with the best management practices, again, by the political action or by the Planners Advisory Committee. So with that, Madam Chair and Councilmembers, you have a terribly constrained site, a terribly unique site that's remained vacant. It hasn't been able to be developed. It has part of the coastal high hazard area on it as well. It follows specifically the line of the Planners Advisory Committee from Fort Pinellas that is calling for a paradigm change on how storage is looked at. It follows the proof of the pudding that we showed you on the market analysis how we have a number of elements coming together to make it very difficult and that this would be a comprehensive and complimentary use for the community and vicinity in the area. With that, Madam Chair, we're happy to answer any questions. And we have a couple of the speakers for you who are listed with you on the yellow cards. Thank you. Is there a registered opponent for this item? No, there's not. We will now take public comment. Caller, do you have any cards? Yes, we do. I'm going to call two speakers at a time. When I call your name, please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. First two speakers are John Barquette and Franklin Alves. Good. Good evening. John Barquette. I own 900 through 938 MLK South and a few more in the district. I am also the president of the MLK Business District. Thank you, Chair Hanowitz, members of council, administration. I'm here on behalf of our board to respectfully ask that you deny this appeal and uphold the denial of the proposed land use and zoning amendments. Our board previously submitted a formal letter opposing this application. In responding to that letter, the applicant appears to have reduced our objections to a single concern, the lack of street activation. I want to clarify that point today. Street activation was one concern, but it was never our only concern, nor was it our most fundamental objection. Our opposition is about the long term economic productivity of this property. It's compatibility with the surrounding neighbors and whether the proposed zoning changes advance the city's vision for this important corridor. This is a strategically located gateway parcel connecting downtown along the MLK business district, the innovation in innovation district and South St. Pete. And yes, it also sits on on Booker Creek. The decisions made here will influence the character and economic vitality of this quarter for decades. The city's own professional planning staff has identified several reasons why the application should be denied. First, the proposed zoning constitutes spot zoning, introducing a suburban commercial designation approximately 1.7 miles from the nearest similarly zoned property. Second, it introduces suburban development standards into an established traditional urban corridor. Third, the proposed self storage use conflicts with its intended purpose of the in town activity center and applicable countywide planning policies. And fourth, the requested zoning would create a substandard lot requiring additional setback variances. These are fundamental land use and planning issues. They cannot be resolved simply by improving a building's appearance or adding features intended to activate the street. Our business district is actively working to attract neighborhood serving businesses, restaurants, retailers, entrepreneurs, and employers that generate sustained economic activity. A six story self storage facility may be a financially viable investment for its owner, but it offers comparatively limited employment, little ongoing commercial activity and minimal opportunity to strengthen the surrounding small business ecosystem. That represents a significant opportunity cost. I say this is both the commercial real estate professional and someone personally invested in revitalizing this corridor. We're going through a one way to two way pairing right now on MLK, which is going to change the entire paradigm right here in this property sits at that doorstep. We support private investment and respect property rights. But when an applicant request changes to the city's comp plan activity center boundaries and zoning framework, the city has both the authority and responsibility to consider the broader public interest. The question is not whether self storage can be made to look more attractive. The question is whether the city should change its long term planning framework to accommodate a use that its own staff is found inconsistent with that framework. Thank you. Thank you. Franklin house indicated he was against that. Go ahead. Go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. That was the wrong card. Next two speakers are Justin Cornoria and Stacia Schrader. Please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. My name is Justin Cornoria. I'm a resident of 1026 9th Avenue South in Campbell Park neighborhood. So I'm just a couple of blocks from this property. I just became the president of Campbell Park neighborhood association. My board unanimously voted to oppose this. I stand with Roser Park MLK business district and the innovation district in opposition to the this CCS is an auto oriented development pattern. MLK South is a former streetcar corridor. It has heavy pedestrian and bicycle activity. We're just a few blocks from downtown and we're within the innovation district with people walking and biking to work. This is an urban neighborhood corridor that has been through a lot in the last half century of urban renewal projects and highway building practices. But it is coming back as a vibrant walkable commercial corridor once again. I believe that MLK South could be another main street just like Central Avenue one day. I believe that this project would take away from that urban walkable street that we're championing for on MLK South. I also don't believe that there's a requirement that they could that they have to put the retail in on the ground floor. They could, you know, make the pretty renderings that it could never be built out. Walkability thrives when there are active blocks of retail housing and green space car oriented development like self storage takes away from that. This property is also adjacent to a culturally significant and environmentally sensitive Creek Booker Creek. It is an urban oasis full of native wildlife such as river otters. I've personally been down there and seen them. I've cleaned the Creek up several times with volunteers. There's even a local artist that goes down there and does live paintings on a raft in the Creek. It's quite magical. Storage units are also known to encourage illegal dumping, which is something that's a huge issue for my neighborhood already. And I personally know people that live inside of storage units instead of improper housing. That's not something that I want to see for my neighbors. I want to see housing. I want to see mixed use. I want to see retail. So I'm in opposition to this item. Thank you. Thank you. Next peak. Hello. My name is Stacia Schrader and I live at 692 10th Avenue South and historic Roger Park. I've lived there for 25 years. And I'm asking that you please uphold the CPPC's commission, the vote of six to one to deny all of these amendments. I love St. Pete. I welcome its growth. I'm a banker and I help all of the commercial growth here in St. Petersburg. 25 years. I've been waiting for vibrancy to finally hit the South side of St. Petersburg and it's coming. But it's got to be thoughtful development because it's going to bring new neighbors. It's going to support local businesses and it's going to create opportunities. Our planning decisions now are going to help ensure that growth strengthens the community around these developments. This parcel may be small, but it offers a meaningful opportunity. It's a gateway to neighborhoods shaped by decades of underinvestment in highway construction that divided historical black communities. Today, new homes, investment along the MLK corridor, including the Looking Glass Initiative, new townhomes, and the vision for Booker Creek offer a chance to reconnect these neighborhoods. The applicant makes a fair point vacant land does not contribute to vibrancy, but development for the sake of development does not contribute to activation. There are two different things. What we build should contribute to the life of this neighborhood. This proposal includes approximately 100 square feet of storage space, 2,341 square feet of retail space. That balance raises a reasonable question. How much will this project contribute to the active, connected neighborhood envisioned in our comprehensive plan that our city has put forward? I ask you to support growth that fulfills our planning vision with welcoming street footage, frontage, meaningful economic activity, and lasting neighborhood benefits. What we do now is going to be there 25 years from now. You've spent money on our new bridge. It's gorgeous. It's a historically accurate bridge. This is up against that. Our one-way street is finally coming to two ways. It's going to be active and vibrant. Please do the right thing. It's an awkward stretch of land, but there's a way to make this work. You own it, and you can do the right thing for us. We will help you make it the right place. Excuse me, ma'am. The comments are to us. I'm sorry. That's okay. Thank you. The final two speakers are Miko Seymour and Patricia Ortiz. Please go to an open podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Good evening, chair and council members. My name is Miko Seymour. I live at 824 10th Avenue South, and I have the privilege of serving as the president of Historic Rosa Park Neighborhood Association. I'm here tonight on behalf of our board, who also voted unanimously against this project, and on behalf of our neighbors to ask you to deny the appeal. I want to start by honoring the work that the applicant has put into this. For sure. We've been able to meet with them. That triangle of land at MLK and 6th has sat empty for a long time, and we believe they've tried hard to make something work there. We want to see that corner come alive, too, but just not in this way. And so we join with our friends at Campbell Park, the Innovation District, MLK Business District. Booker Creek runs through that lot and winds down into Rosa Park, past our homes and our brick streets, and our neighbors love that creek, and so do I. And we look after it. And whatever gets built on its banks upstream, we live with what comes down the water. And staff has already said a building pressed onto that lot could harm the creek. And that creek was here long before any of us, and we're basically asking you to help us look after it for the neighbors to come. Additionally, to show that their lot touches the activation center in their presentation to the CPPC, which seemed not to have come up today, the applicant pointed across the MLK to the homes in Rosa Park and even suggested that our houses could one day be rezoned for something bigger. And that's somebody else's picture of our future that we did not draw alongside them. The families of Rosa Park have everything that they want in their neighborhood, the historic old homes and the brick streets and the creek running past their front doors. What we hope for on that corner is a place that brings people together, homes with a few neighborhood shops on the ground floor, and a spot along the creek where a neighbor from Campbell Park and Rosa Park could get together and maybe even just sit for a while and get to know one another while watching some of those otters play. Everything around this corner was built for people on foot from the homes in Rosa Park and Campbell Park to the storefronts, including our new storefronts along MLK, with buildings that sit close to the sidewalk and front doors that face the street, a storage building people drive up to belong somewhere else in our city. And this corner deserves something that fits the way our neighborhoods were made. So with gratitude for your service as you look at all of this and with real hope for that corner, we're asking or I'm asking on behalf of Rosa Park for you to deny the appeal and uphold the CPP's decision. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good evening. For the record, my name is Patricia Ortiz and I am here on behalf of the developer. I'd really like to ask that you look at this from a practical perspective. Let's think about how quickly the city has grown and the density. The last statistics that I saw were, I believe, 9,400 dwelling units within the urban core and another 8,400 either approved or under construction. That's incredible densification. These urban dwelling units are small. People are exchanging, you know, more square footage in a home for location in the downtown area where they can enjoy specific amenities. And one consequence of that is storage. We have many people from many different walks of life living in the urban core and they need room to store large bulky items such as winter clothes, toys like kayaks, musical equipment, hobby items. So there's definitely a need for storage and the amount of storage currently existing is lacking. I'd like you also to think about the very limited impacts that a self-storage use will have on public services. It will have a net zero impact on hurricane evacuation and shelter space and it is vertical vertically integrated with ground floor retail. The property has been vacant for decades, presumably because of its size, shape, coastal high hazard area designation and its lack of the in-town activity center designation. But this is very interesting and alludes to a possible Scrivener's error. The innovation district was carved out of the in-town activity center. Our site is designated as innovation center activity center, but it doesn't have that in-town activity center designation. Staff notes that the rezoning would be a spot zoning, but I conclude that the site is already spot zoned. Staff also notes that the request is inconsistent with the city's planning framework. Well, a long-standing vacant lot in the urban core is also inconsistent with the planning framework. I'll go on to say that staff contends that approval will result in a substandard CCS one lot. I don't think so. The lot is greater than the minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet, and it's less than one acre in size once we take out the coastal high hazard area. So it would only be required a width of 100 feet as I read the code. Thank you. All right. Any more speakers? We have one more speaker. John Wittner. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes to address city council. My name is John Wittner. My address is 360 Central Avenue. I'm speaking on behalf of the development. I was asked to do a market study, and I think some of the findings of the market study should be pertinent to the decision of whether to consider this request. As noted before, we are above 90% occupancy in the three downtown serving self-storage centers. We are also 30% below the national average based on our current level. We also have a huge wave of development coming in. I'm into development-related brokerage. We've got site-plant-approved projects for thousands of units that are already in place waiting for economics to support starter construction and development. And then we have a little project called the gas plant that's supposed to be adding quite a bit of density and need for storage as well. The trend in current development is to not provide for as many storage options in either condominiums or the rental projects that are being built. So this problem is compounding. From my perspective, this lot has been sitting here vacant for over 10 years as a local concerned business person and broker. It feels a perfect solution for a very difficult triangular site that has very difficult setbacks as well as the fact that it's a relatively clean use to be next to Brooker Creek. There, of course, is some objection and desire by the neighborhoods, but I believe that this is a great solution that can provide and help stem the growing deficit for storage and can help activate with the planned retail that is involved in the current plans for the development. I wanted to also say that this really feels like a case where you should look at the most well-intended criteria rules and laws always have a reason to consider an exception. That's why we have a process. We are heading towards a greater and greater deficit with our needs for self-storage. It seems like a great location for it, and I think that it would be an excellent benefit that could be done in concert with the community and be a positive. Thank you. Any more speakers? No more speakers. No more speakers. Okay. Now we'll move into cross-examination. Each party will have five minutes. I could pull up a point, please. No cross-examination, correct? Staff will hold their comments to closing remarks. Okay. Would the appellant like to cross-examine? Would you like to cross-examine? No. We'll wait. Thank you. Thank you so much. Now we move to closing arguments or rebuttal. Each party will have five minutes to provide a closing argument or rebuttal. Staff, any closing argument or rebuttal? Sure. If the clerk could pull up my PowerPoint, I would guess that my first point would just be to point out that, but this site is not necessarily, staff doesn't consider it a remnant site. It was platted over a hundred years ago, and it was platted mostly to accommodate the creek. And that also, the location of the activity center boundary not being contiguous. So we have this parcel to the north that has a land use of activity center, and then the parcel to the south, the break open space. Both these two parcels are closer to the lot than the PRR lot that the applicant is claiming it is contiguous to. So staff does not feel that it meets the contiguous requirements to bring in the activity center overlay. And then also about the neighborhood suburban estate zoning being of suburban character. A neighborhood suburban estate, in order for it to be developed or have any development potential, it must have its compatible land use category of residential low, which it does not have. It has rec open space. And so together with the neighborhood estate zoning with rec open space, NSC acts as a protector to rec open space. It does not allow for any development whatsoever, because again, NSC requires RL land use, and it also requires a minimum of one acre to be developed. So it purely functions to protect the rec open space of the creek. And then just that staff does agree that self-storage isn't needed and necessary use, and it is allowed in zoning districts of industrial and commercial suburban, one which they are requesting, which is close by. It's about two miles away, and there are available spots, because we recognize that self-storage is a suburban use. It requires large truck access. Multiple people at a time, say on a Saturday morning, could be showing up with their U-Haul wanting to move in their items, and a small, constrained lot that is appropriate for traditional walkable zoning is not appropriate for a lot of trucks to be coming in and out. Trucks do not support a walkable traditional character. Do you have anything? I think that concludes staff's comments. Okay. Thank you. The appellate have a closing argument or rebuttal. Thank you, Madam Chair, Council members. First of all, I want to thank the citizen representatives who have come here this evening, taking their time for their communities. It's well, those comments are well heard and well respected, and I have a great respect for them. And for your planning staff, both Derek and Britton, they've been great to work with. We have some significant difference of opinions, but they've been great to work with. I think what you have here, Council members, is a difficult balance because you have a very tough, unique, geometric, small site that has remained undeveloped for a long time. You have to balance what clearly is a movement towards a significant change, a paradigm change, to how storage should be looked at. And that's, again, verified not to be a dead horse, but that's verified by findings of policy changes of the Planners Advisory Committee through Ford Pinellas. And that brings up the situation, which is typical in government, of codes that need to be changed and they lag, but they don't change until there's a big push and it becomes clear that those are issues that need to be addressed. At the same time, we can meet the concerns and the issues that have been raised by the community groups. We can provide street activation. In the PowerPoint, you want to pull it up, we show street activation and we show a use along Brooker Creek, if we could pull that up. We can provide that, but at the same time, provide a use that we presented to you has been, well, which is looked at as an easy target in that regard and to what it is and what it can be. And if you notice, we show street activation, this elevation, seats and seating outside, and as you can see here, and then along Brooker Creek. Brooker Creek is a great asset. We want to use it. We want to put it and use it as part of the project because we've heard a lot from the community groups to provide that pedestrian passageway, which may line up with one of the plans that were submitted for the stadium site, which would be a crossover over the interstate. So we're aware of those things and we think those are things that need to be included. We can meet those and we can provide those, but it's a balance of those elements of a use that really is a low impact. When you look at trip analysis, the trip analysis for storage is almost similar to a cell tower or nursing home. There's just not a lot of people coming and going. It's a great non-impact use as our planner has presented to you. So with that, we appreciate your consideration. I've been doing these things for a long time. I've been doing these kind of issues for 25 plus years. I sat on a lot of boards. In fact, one of your boards, Swift Mud Board, Tempe Planning Council. And I understand how difficult it is to have representatives from communities who have concerns to come before you and have to weigh those. But I'll say in final emphasis that we can provide the things that we want here that you want and they want. We can do that at the same time, provide, address a use that is needed in the area by demand and by development. Appreciate your attention. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So the quasi judicial proceeding is closed and we'll move on to executive session. And during the executive session, if any council members stepped out, if they can just put on the record that they were listening to the proceeding. proceeding so we have that on the record before I get to council member comments and questions I want to just just go over the standard obviously this is an appeal by a cppc decision voted six to one and making a finding of inconsistency with the comp plan which in the novo standard which means that we may hear new evidence and may substitute our own judgment for that of the cppc the burden is on the appellant this requires a supermajority to reverse the decision so if there are eight of us which they are that's a vote of six the staff recommendation is to deny I want to go over again just what we went over last time we're focusing here on future land use and the zoning map right that's what we're looking at and the question obviously is whether or not it meets the standards of review and I'm looking at legal yes those criteria and again the criteria leads with goals and objections of policies and guidelines of the comprehensive plan so it's the LDR criteria for review of future land use map and zoning amendments and then the comprehensive plan criteria and consistency with those thank you so now that I've laid the table council member Gabbard thank you madam chair I wanted to ask a question specifically about number two the effect whether the proposed amendment would adversely affect environmentally sensitive lands or properties can we talk about that specifically to the creek and the part that I wanted just clarification on which are documented as habitat for the listed species as defined by the conservation element of the comprehensive plan can you just give a little bit more clarity to what that means and the reason I'm asking is because there's a lot of reasons here all of which I feel like you've laid out that I agree is problematic but that one I just really want to understand kind of what that means within our code because I'm very sensitive to adverse effects on the creek so can you just kind of lay that out just a little bit more sure so Booker Creek is very important to the local ecology and the ecosystem for wildlife it has mostly functioned recently more as a storm water retention basin and the setbacks for wetland areas are put in place for a good reason and if they need any variances to those setbacks in order to accommodate the proposed development it can be reasonably expected that non-point sources of pollution would enter into the creek more so than if it remained a traditional zoning category understood thank you thank you for clarifying that I mean I certainly want to hear what everyone else has to say but for me I mean I first of all when all of the surrounding neighborhoods come together and are against this that speaks volumes to me um you know this is just such an important part of our city and to the point of you know yes activation but I also don't necessarily agree that every single inch of everything has to be developed especially when there is environmental sensitivity um that to me just continues to stand out and um even looking you know specifically at you know number one with the comp plan um adequate land area consistent land use pattern I mean I feel like the list kind of goes on and on for me as to conflict with um you know the findings and so uh I'm looking forward to hearing what everything everyone else has to say um but for me I just I don't think that this is an appropriate use for this property um but at the same time I think you know we also have to remember that there's no guarantee that the retail component would even have to be built here um and that's I think you know that unknown of what eventually could happen if we make that change is just a step too far for me um but I'm I'm open to hearing what everyone else has to say the last thing that I'll say about the comments that were made about the need for storage I don't know I've sat here for nine years never had anyone come here and beg us for more storage I hear more uses for the neighborhood like grocery retail things like that I just I'm not buying the oh my god we have to have more storage at the sake of environmentally sensitive lands that don't comply with the comp plan in my opinion so thank you council member grotes thank you madam chair uh I have a question for legal there's obviously been this talk about the regional planning council white paper and then staff talked about the county-wide rules I let's just set this straight right like even though there might be a recommendation from forward pinellas we still have to live by the county-wide rules just because they say that yeah we should be looking at this maybe differently we still we still have a rule yes forward pinellas is the county-wide planning agency and they do develop white papers working groups on evolving topics there's some involving data centers that we're participating in right now but again the actual regulations in place are the county-wide rules and this application if you grant the appeal it will then be transmitted to forward pinellas for evaluation with compliance with the county-wide plan rules thank you may I also point out one point about the white paper from that the pinellas advisory committee put together it was to address the proliferation of self-storage that that was popping up everywhere and that we wanted a little bit more planning control over where where the most appropriate places for it to go and in that process we determined that the ccs1 zoning was only an appropriate one if they were also got a special exception permit otherwise it's only permitted in industrial zoning because it is an industrial use well in that context I very much appreciate it because it popped all over the west side and I wish it didn't but I I back back to the point you know I I do I do think I thought I think you made a good point on the spot zoning the only the only thing I would say is that just because it seems spot zoned right now doesn't mean I want to spot zone it again and that's that's kind of how I look at that and that so but I thought you made it I thought you made a good argument there and and and made some good points but when I look at the non-conforming part part of the argument the city the the county-wide rules the ac overlay quadruples the intensity right next to quadruples it and so that that obviously is a concern and you talked about that council member gabbard so I I won't I won't double click on that but and and I also again I I I appreciate the market study but I don't think it has anything to do with this right like it's not even a criteria it's not part of anything we're we're examining at this point right can we just it can it is evidence that was brought before this commission you can find it compelling in your application to criteria or not compelling all right well I'm with council member guy right just I just don't think the use the use based on rules and and extending the overlay it just it just doesn't jive so I'll be voting now thank you chair thank you vice chair floyd thank you I had to step out for a second earlier and I was listening to my phone uh and uh will not say too much because a lot of it's been covered um but I did want to highlight one thing that had been covered uh the individual change to the uh in town uh area I we've never done that before uh as far as I'm aware right staff typically does not support piecemeal amendments to an activity center and part of that is because of the rules within the countywide rules that an activity center amendments used to have to be done with a special area plan that usually takes years to develop and a lot of citizen input and and meetings with council before it finally gets um approved and we don't do one-offs yeah that was my impression and you know that right there gave me pause immediately before we got into anything else uh but then yes as has already been described uh if it seems spot zoned already I don't want to spot zone it may I make a point yeah you can go ahead yeah I I said if it seems the current zoning of CRT1 is a traditional zoning it's corridor residential traditional so the traditional nature does in itself is consistent with the antenna activity center the property to the north and northeast and in I believe east used to all be consistent zoning with the subject property but over time those lots changed but this lot stayed the same at CRT and staff could support a rezoning to another traditional zoning district of cct which is would match the other properties fronting mlk to the cell and it would broaden the allowed uses right now townhouses are allowed and certain personal services are allowed I mean townhouses could be a reasonable use on this property um but staff could easily support the use of hotels um restaurants uh retail that the cct one would afford okay thank you for that context uh yeah I wasn't trying to imply that it was spot zoned it's I was careful about if it seems um because but I do think yeah if we were to change it to a zoning that's almost two miles away then it definitely would be um and then yeah environmental concerns as well I brought uh you know this this one very much is uh environmentally impacted um it's completely clear so uh those are my concerns and I'll stop there thank you thank you councilmember gibbons thank you very much chair um I'll have to support the cpp's decision to uphold them the denial here mainly just because of the lack of consistency um it's it's not contiguous um it does not meet the requirements for neighborhood suburban estate um and although it may be allowable for the the use I do not think this is needed um just because something is permitted doesn't necessarily mean that it's appropriate and I I don't think we have a shortage of self-storage container units here I think there's more than enough however we do not have enough housing we do not have enough retail we do not have enough uh lodging uh and I think hospitality is something that should be considered for this spot uh I certainly think uh preserving the green space that we have would be my primary desire and I think many of the people in that neighborhood and that district would probably agree um we have very very very little underdeveloped public green space across this city and the little bit that we do have I think it's worth preserving um so like I said based on the criteria um I'll have to uphold the cpp's decision thank you chair thank you councilmember driscoll thank you um I agree with what's already been said um here on the dais and I appreciate um the the work that staff put into this to come to uh these findings it is um really encouraging to see consistency not with the plan but with what's the conclusion that staff came to the conclusion that the cppc came to the conclusion that the mlk business district and the um innovate the st petersburg innovation district and the neighbors and the neighborhoods that are right next to this everyone consistently believes that this is not the right way forward for this property now if I had it my way I agree with council member givens um it would be great to just have it as green space and if it was public land then we would certainly be um uh protecting it and um you know that of course is not our decision we do not own that land but given the environmental sensitivity the fact that we have got to turn things around with booker creek not make it worse we have to find ways to improve the creek this isn't one of them um as was mentioned there are other uses for this property if someone wants to develop something there are choices there are options this one should not be one of them so I will um not be supporting the appeal and um I just really appreciate the the strength with which um you came forward for the the neighborhoods and the bits the two business districts and really stood in solidarity for um this piece of property in an area that is finally on its way to revitalization to um really reflecting the love that the neighborhoods have for it and um I look forward to seeing what does happen next with this property I just don't want this to be it thank you thank you council member harding thank you chair thank you for your work uh presented a very compelling argument on a on a very uh sisyphean hill um and it um but I I think that that what you've heard uh today um points in a direction um and there were enough opponents that showed up um that that this one's not going to move forward uh I do want to take a second before I talk further to recognize your clients um the property owners um we demonized we demonized them a little bit but these guys are these folks these folks are willing to spend money in our community they're willing to put um capital into an area that needs capital and I want to make sure we recognize that um for what it is this isn't the idea that that's going to move um it's going to move that piece of property forward but I appreciate their entrepreneurial spirit and their willing willingness to invest in our community that shouldn't be overlooked um but yeah that this uh this we've heard from from the the city we've heard from the business community we've we've heard from the neighbors we've heard from the neighborhood associations uh and it all pointed in the same direction we've also heard from legal um and I think that um that that allowing this and changing this designation is uh is a bit of a stretch so um although I I appreciate the effort I think uh I I will um I'll be voting with uh the CCP's uh I think I must see in their um decision uh and thank you very much thank you chair thank you Councilmember Sanders thank you um I definitely wanted to voice I'd already come to my decision but I did want to um voice um a thank you to Mr. Pressman and the developers that came today um I was really already on the side with the neighborhood association when it comes down to this particular piece of parcel on Booker Creek and I have to be fully transparent when I heard it was a storage unit I was like lord not another storage unit um although I know that they are so needed um for that particular area I just didn't think that that was the best spot for it um but I I definitely have to say thank you to everybody that was here the time and the effort um and the dollars that was placed into it um but unfortunately I'm going to have to vote no um on the appeal for this um but don't don't stop and again thank you to the neighborhood associations as well um and I look forward to MLK being revitalized as well thank you thank you and before I go to councilmember Gibbons again I'll um share my findings first of all I want to thank everyone for spending quality time with us at 7 30 at night um you know we this is important and so I'm going to go through some of the criteria um I do want to thank both sides um you know you both presented very well and um my decision is always based on the facts and the evidence that's presented before me so um with that being said you know in terms of the standards of review in terms of the um proposed use with the goals and objectives and policies of the comp plan um I'm going to refer to I mean there were various provisions that were included by staff but one of the ones that has come out in different ways that also I had for me highlighted was LU 3.6 which is inconsistent with city's overall planning framework by adding a suburban character zoning district within a traditional city center area which is what has been discussed in various ways which kind of went into kind of the spot zoning thing and that goes back to the criteria seven which is whether the proposed change is consistent with the established land use pattern of the areas in reasonable proximity and this proposed change is a significant distance from any other suburban character zoning call it spot zoning calling whatever at the end of the day under number seven it's it's not in reasonable proximity um the other thing in terms of whether the proposed amendment would affect adversely affect environmentally sensitive lands again this has been touched upon it has been shown that it could reasonably be expected to adversely affect booker creek this goes back to kind of it's not an adequate or appropriate lot with for the proposed change for the crt one to ccs with the overlay it would require approval variances by the drc prior to site plan approvals and this is this is under five appropriate and adequate land use sufficient for use and reasonably anticipated operations and expansions so this is more appropriate for large suburban lots located around city edges acc1s ccs1 parcel greater than one acre is required to have minimum lot width of 200 feet to be conforming and legal which the sub subject parcel does not mean so that was all in the um information that was provided to us um it has been said in different ways by city council members i just want to make the record clear in terms of the different standards of review and the different parts of our comp plan that were that i used to consider my um to consider this council member givens and that would mean that i'm also upholding the cppc's decision to deny it thank you chair i stepped out for a moment so i just wanted to go on the record to let you know that i did that so thank you i appreciate that thank you so uh i think we've all had her say now um legal can you since we're go through with how this should be framed and what a yes and the no means because that's always really helpful before this okay and as we discussed previously we as we are going into next year we've had a change in state law regarding applications related to land use and the requirements of boards and commissions like the city council to make written findings so at this time i am going to transmit what i believe is the written findings for review of this commission and then we can add or delete any of that and those will be included with whatever the result in the decision is that will be provided to the applicant after your vote i'm gonna hope the internet is still with me and do that right now oh thanks thanks for the lead up oh my gosh you got intro music oh we we did it that was awesome so we all we all have to remember that the attorneys have to somehow draft whatever we say here into written findings so it's it's it's good to kind of get that practice one moment please and we didn't just erase everything i can we have five minutes it just completely can we reset yes we can absolutely yes we can absolutely recess for five minutes city council's in recess from recess so heather's just going to recap the motion and the meaning of a yes or no vote okay yes and the uh we may be back online but my written findings for you guys is not so we will they were really good though everybody did a very nice job and we will practice again on november 5th and it will work then but so now we just go to vote the motion is a motion to grant the appeal granting the appeal is a yes to the project so a yes vote grants the appeal approves the project overturn cppc and the result of that is that this all these ordinances will then be transferred to the county and then they will come back on february 18th i believe clerk so if it is a no we will not transmit it to the county and you will not see it on february 18th and you uphold the cppc yes that's in the affirmative so is there a motion oh council member curtis thank you i just want to make clarification because if if we were to grant the appeal that's when there's a second here yes because granting the appeal overturned cpp's denial so then it just moves on in the process so i just wanted to clarify that real quickly okay thank you move approval second i have a motion and a second clerk if you can open the machine for voting just to clarify this for all three or just can it be all three yes yes because it's a um move approval is granting the appeal and the appeal includes the three ordinances to complete the application i'm sorry who's seconded sure yeah yeah motion a second clerk local machine for voting council members please enter your votes seeing that all present council members have voted clerk please tally announce a vote madam chair the motion to approve agenda items j10a gen j10b and j10c fail okay thank you and thank you everyone for being here today this quasi-judicial proceeding is closed completely with our votes yes this concludes of this constitutes final agency action on this application on behalf of the city thank you very much okay let me find my agenda thank you all for being here next up we have open forum i'm sure we do not have any speakers we have no speakers we close open forum and we go to announcements council member gibbons thank you chair uh just a little um update on events that are happening this weekend in the community uh eye care dental outreach will be doing a free dental clinic for those folks who are uninsured and looking for access to dental services um that'll be on 23rd in mlk this weekend from 9 to 1 pm and then we will also have our st petersburg fire rescue haunted house and so if you're like me and you love a good scare um i look forward to seeing you out at fire station number 10 at 2800 30th ave north thank you chair thank you council member curtis thank you very much madam chair uh i'll just repeat what i said earlier i just thanks for a great day everybody um well done um also tomorrow is boss's day and so um although technically we don't have one i feel like janey sure one yeah uh so we just want to say a big thank you to janey and everything she's she does she goes above and beyond uh she is going above and beyond currently right this very second partly because of me and so uh just want to thank her for everything she does for our entire administration she's awesome she's a rock star and we're very very lucky to have her um we also have a couple of birthdays in the coming week it's trisha and daphne's birthday next week and so uh i'm gonna struggle very mightily singing happy birthday this evening but uh if you'll join me in singing trisha and daphne happy birthday happy birthday to you happy birthday to you happy birthday happy birthday to you and i just got a text message that it was heather's birthday yesterday heather's birthday to you happy birthday to you you see we kept you here with us till 7 45. yeah this is your little birthday to you i'm appreciative your mom is here you got to see her in action yeah well thank you for big words well everyone we uh don't have a committee hall next week and we don't have a council meeting the week after so um we will see so basically yes i'm we're gonna have to wish everyone a happy halloween happy halloween everyone yeah and so we come back november 5th which is our next meeting okay see everyone then thank you thank you everyone media adjourned