>>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OUNDG GAL] >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WELCOME BACK. I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS TAMPA CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER, IF WE COULD PLEASE HAVE A ROLL CALL. >>LUIS VIERA: HERE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HEAR. >>BILL CARLSON: HERE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: HERE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: HERE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>THE CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. >> WE WILL GO TO ITEM 58 WHICH IS OUR LAST REMAINING ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY. I SEE THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS ON. MS. WELLS, WILL YOU BE PRESENTING ON THIS? >>CATEELLS THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, I WILL. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CONTINUE? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD. >>CATE WELLS: GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, CATE WELLS WELLS, CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO BRIEFLY REACH OUT TO CITY COUNCIL'S ACTION ON APRIL 1st AND HOW IT RELATE TO THE ITEM BEFORE YOU. TWO WEEKS AGO, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RESOLUTION NUMBER 20-21-273 DECLARING ITS INTENTS TO AMEND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DIRECT THE STAFF TO SUBMIT THE AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION. YOU MAY RECALL THE AMENDMENT IS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, LAND USE CATEGORY MATRIX, AND PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE F.A.R. FOR SINGLE USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF DWELLINGS, MULTIFAMILY, WITHIN THE URBAN MIXED USE 60, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 35, AND COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 LAND USE CATEGORIES. THE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS FILED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION EARLIER THIS WEEK TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MAY AMENDMENT CYCLE AND TENTATIVE HEARING DATES PROVIDED BRFING AND PUBLIC HEARING INN THE MONTH OF JULY AND AUGUST. CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL HEARING IN SEPTEMBER WHERE WE WOULD TRANSMIT THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO TE DEPARTMNT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. AND THEN WITH AN ANTICIPATED CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 27 OF 2022. BY SEPARATE MOTION, CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO PRESENT THE NECESSARY LEGAL DOCUMENTATION WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE CITY FROM ACCEPTING REZONING APPLICATIONS WHICH UTILIZ THE F.A.R. CALCULATION FOR SINGLE USE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS MU 60, UMU 35 AND CC-35 FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS. DURING A RECENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF PROCESSING THE PLAN AMENDMENT UNDER THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE. FOR THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE DOCTRINE, IT HOLD THAT AN APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT OR DEVELOPMENT ORDER SUCH AS THE REZONING APPLICATION FILED ON OR AFTER THE DATE WHEN A LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS PUBLICLY DLARE ITS INTENTS TO CHANGE ITS ZONING TO BE DENIED OR HELD UNTIL AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE. THE DECISION OUT OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS WHICH HELD THAT THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO A PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE ZONING AND PLANNING HAVE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS, AND BECAUSE CHAPTER 153 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES EXPLICITLY STATES THAT THE ADOPTED PLAN HAS FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL THE NEW PLAN IS IN PLACE. ALTHOUGH THE SECOND DIRICT URT OF APPEAL WHERE THE CITY OF TAMPA SITS HAS ADOPTED THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE, IT% HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE SPECIFIC ISSUE OF WHETHER THE DOCTRINE APPLIES TO PLAN AMENDMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, IF CITY COUNCIL WISHES TO SUSPEND REZONING APPLICATIONS DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS BEING PROCESSED, IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THIS APPROACH IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, GIVEN THE DIFFERENT DECISIONS BETWEEN THE FOURTH DCA AND THE SECOND DCA AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF INQUIRIES WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY. IF THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED, IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE JUNE 1st AND REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR 270 DAYS, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF NINE MONTHS. THIS PERIOD OF TIME INCLUDES THE ANTICIPATED ADOPTION HEARING IN JANUARY OF 22 AND THE STATUTORY 31 DAYS BEFORE THE PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE AFTER APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL. IF THIS IS ACCEPTABLE TO COUNCIL, THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE PLACED ON FIRST READING AT YR NEXT MEETING ON MAY 6th, AND THEN ADVERTISED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION DURING THE EVENING MEETING ON MAY 27th IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED AND IN EFFECT ON JUNE 1st. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, THEN COUNCILMAN GUDES. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'M DIAGNOSE THAT RIGHT NOW. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, SIR. >> I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU SAID, AND I AM ASKING IF YOU CAN PLEASE PRESENT THAT WITH WORDS THAT THE INDIVIDUALS LIKE MYSELF CAN UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID, BUT WHEN YOU SAID FROM THE DISTRICT COURT TO THAT COURT TO THIS COURT TO THE OTHER, I JUST WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS. YOU CAN DO SOMETHING, CAN'T DO SOMETHING, HOW CAN YOU DO IT, CAN YOU STILL DO SOMETHING WHEN IT'S STILL IN EFFECT? >>CATE WELLS: ABSOLUTELY, COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. THANK YOU. IN THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY CITY COUNCIL AT A FEW OF YOUR MEETINGS NOW WOULD ALLOW CITY COUNCIL TO OR THE CITY TO HOLD APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING WHILE THE PLAN AMENDMENT IS BEING PROCESSED, AND THAT IS DOCTRINE THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED OR ADOPTED BY THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, THAT IS THE DCA ANY CHALLENGES OF THE CITY OF TAMPA WOULD GO TO. THERE'S ANOTHER DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, THE FOURTH DISTRICT. THEY HAVE LOOKED AT THE IDEA OF THAT DOCTRINE AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD APPLY TO THE ADOPTION OF A PLAN AMENDMENT, AND IT DECIDED IN THAT INSTANCE THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COULD NOT RELY ON THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE TO SUSPEND THE PROCESSING OF REZONING APPLICATIONS WHILE THEIR LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS BEING AMENDED. AND THE COURT IN THAT CASE SUGGESTED THAT HAD THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO AVOID ANY CONTROVERSY, IT COULD HAVE ADOPTED A MORATORIUM. IF THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE COURT RATHER THAN RELYING ON THIS PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE. SO IF CITY COUNCIL WISHES TO SUSPEND THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATION WHILE THIS PLAN AMENDMEN IS BEING PROCESSED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY COMES BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A TENTATIVE ADOPTION IN JANUARY OF 2022, IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION, RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE CONCEPT OF THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE, THAT CITY COUNCIL INSTEAD FORMALLY ADOPT THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE THAT WAS FILED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SO THAT MEANS -- THAT ANY PROJECT THAT'S UMU 60 OR CMU-35 OR CC-35 INCLUDING SINGLE FAMILY UNITS, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ANY F.A.R. AND SO FORTH INVOLVED IN IT? >>CATE WELLS: IF APPROVED, WE WOULD SUSPEND THE PROCESSING OF REZONING APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE SINGLE-USE PROJECTS THAT RELY ON F.A.R. FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THOSE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. IT WOULD NOT PROHIBIT, HOWEVER, DEVELOPERS OR PROPEY OWNERS FROM MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT SAME TYPE OF REZONING APPLICATION BASED ON DENSITY, SO LIKE CMU-35, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED UP TO PERMITTED UP TO 30 UNITS TO THE ACRE, AND UMU 60, I BELIEVE UP TO 50 UNITS TO THE ACRE, SO THEY COULD STILL PROCESS THOSE APPLICATIONS BASED ON DENSITY, JUST NOT F.A.R. ALTERNATIVELY, FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A MIXED USE PRODUCT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SO, MR. CHAIRMAN, SO THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE MANUFACTURING A BUILDING IN THESE AREAS MINUS THE F.A.R.? >>CATE WELLS: THAT IS CORRECT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I GOT IT NOW. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN GUDES, THEN DINGFELDER. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THAT WAS BASICALLY MY QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MIRANDA. BECAUSE I AM KIND OF CONFUSED WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT NO ONE NEW ABOUT THIS TRANSPIRING. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT AND CITIZENS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE, SO TO ME IT'S DISSEN JIN VENICE WITH FOR NOTHING ABOUT THIS, WE JUST DID THIS OUT OF SHORT NOTICE. IT'S UNFAIR TO THE CITIZENS AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. MY ISSUE IS THIS. THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS, HOW LONG DOES THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS TAKE WITH THE PLANNING >>CATE WELLS: THE AMENDMENT WAS FILED THIS WEEK AND WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE MAY CYCLE. THE AMENDMENT WOULD THEN BE SCHEDULED FOR BRIEFING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN JULY, AND THEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING IN AUGUST. IT WOULD THEN COMEO THE CITY IN SEPTEMBER FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND WE WOULD ANTICIPATE BASED ON THAT TIMELINE THAT WE COULD SCHEDULE THE ADOPTION, PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 27th OF 2022. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SO APPROXIMATELY NINE MONTHS THAT F WE WENT FOR THE RESOLUTION ORDINANCE TODAY, GIVE THAT GRACE PERIOD NINE-MONTH PERIOD, FOLLOW UP WITH THE ACTUAL PLANNING COMMISSI ADOION, CORRECT? >>CATE WELLS: CORRECT. THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN INITIATED, AND IF IT IS COUNCIL'S DECISION TO SUSPEND THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YOU WOULD WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE FILED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. ALTERNATE TERNTIVELY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ORDINANCE AND JUST ALLOW THE PLANNING PROCESS TO CONTINUE, AND THEN DEAL WITH THE ISSUE WHEN IT COMES BACK TO YOU FOR TRANSMITTAL AND THEN FINAL ADOPTION IN JANUARY. FORWARD DEVELOPERS WHOEVER,ORK CAN STILL DEVELOP, THEY JUST CAN'T GO OVER THE DENSITY PORTION. CORRECT? >>CATE WELLS: IF YOU ADOPT THE ORDINANCE, THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE, DEVELOPERS COULD STILL DEVELOP A SINGLE-USE PRODUCT UNDER THE DENSITY. ALTERNATIVELY, THEY COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH A MIXED USE CONCEPT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS ON THE TABLE TO TRY TO GET TO THE SAME END RESULT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, STILL THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME. SO I DON'T SEE WHAT -- IN MY MIND, FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, YOU STILL CAN MOVE FORWARD. IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD, YOU ARE SAYING WE ALREADY PUT -- THE TRAIN HAS ALREADY LEFT THE STATION TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION STILL. SO I AM JUST NOT REALLY SEEING WHAT THE BIG FUSS IS AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, BUT I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THE OPTION IS WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH SENDING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ORDINANCE. COUNTY BE A TWO-PART -- OR WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, VOTE OR NOT VOTE. COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER THEN VIERA. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: PROCEDURALLY, THAT'S TRUE. BUT LEGALLY, I THINK WITHOUT THE ORDINANCE, WE ARE NOT PUTTING PEOPLE -- WE ARE NOT PUTTING THOSE DEVELOPERS ON NOTICE, AND THEY COULD CONTINUE TO USE THE NEXT NINE MONTHS TO PROCESS EVERYTHING THE WAY THEY HAVE BEEN DOING. SO IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT DOING ANYTHING AT ALL, I THINK THE ORDINANCE IS IMPORTANT. BUT I DO AGREE, I DON'T KNOW WHO SAID IT, BUT I DO AGREE, I THINK COUNCILMAN GUDES SAID THAT THE DEVELOPERS' OBJECTIONS TO ME SOUND LIKE THE WIZARD OF OZ, LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS, OH MY! THIS IS NOT THAT BIG A DEAL. THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE MORATORIUM BY ANY MEANS. YOU KNOW, AND CATE EXPLAINED IT VERY WELL. IF YOU HAVE A CMU-35 LAND USE CATEGORY, THOSE DEVELOPERS CAN STILL COME IN, YOU KNOW, AND GET OR AT LEAST ASK FOR A REZONING AT THAT LEVEL, EITHER 30 OR 35 UNITS, DEPENDING ON I THINK THEY START AT 30 AND IF THEY MEET SOME OTHER BONUS CRITERIA, THEN THEY CAN GET UP TO 35. ALL WE ARE SAYING IS DON'T COME IN WITH THAT F.A.R. CALCULATION THAT OFTEN TAKES THEM UP TO WHAT IS IT, MS. FEELEY, LIKE 40 OR 50 UNITS PER ACRE ON OCCASION. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S UNREASONABLE. YOU KNOW, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US IS GETTING BARRAGED WITH E-MAILS AND CORRESPONDENCE AND PHONE CALLS FROM PEOPLE ALL OVER THE CITY SAYING WE DON'T HAVE A HANDLE ON TRAFFIC, ON ACUATION, ON FLOOD BEING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND WE ARE GRANTING OR AT LEAST CONSIDERING WHEN THESE REZONING APPLICATIONS AT A VERY, VERY HIGH DENSITY, AND WE NEED TO SLOW IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT UNTIL SOME OF THESE STUDIES ARE DONE, ESPECIALLY THESE FLOODING STUDIES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE HAPPENING SOUTH OF GANDY. SO I DON'T THINK, IT'S NOT A HORRIFIC, YOU KNOW, INFRINGEMENT UPON PROPERTY RATES OR ANYTHING ELSE. IF IT WAS, LEGAL COUNSEL WOULD TELL US AND THEY WOULD WARNS THAT THIS COULD BE A RISKY PROPOSITION, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE HEARD THAT. I THINK IT'S A VERY CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE TO A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN STATED BY MANY, MANY NEIGHBORHOODS. BUT I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MS. FEELEY. I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS OFFLINE LAST WEEK. THIS F.A.R. HAS NOT BEEN AROUND FOREVER, HAS IT? I THINK THIS F.A.R. CALCULATION WAS SOMETHING, DIDN'T WE TALK ABOUT THIS AS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN THE LAST TEN YEARS OR IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S BEEN AROUND FOREVER. AM I CORRECT, MS. FEELEY. WHERE DID SHE GO? OR MS. WELLS, IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER. OH, THERE SHE IS. >>ABBYE FEELEY: ABBYE FEELEY, DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. IT HAS BEEN SINCE THE LATE 80s. THE BONUS HASOT - >>JOHN DINGFELT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THAT BONUS -- WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, IS USING THE F.A.R. AS A DIFFERENT WAY TO CALCULATE YOUR BONUS DENSITY. I THOUGHT WE CONCLUDED THAT THAT CAME INTO PLAY LIKE IN THE 2007 OR 2008 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >>ABBYE FEELEY: WELL, THE BONUS WENT FROM 7 TO 10 AND THEN TO AN ABSOLUTE FIGURE, BUT THROUGH OUR RESEARCH, NONE OF THE PROJECTS SOUTH OF GANDY HAVE EXECUTED BONUS. THEY HAVE BEEN ACHIEVING DENSITY ABOVE THAT WHICH WAS PLANNED THROUGH THE UTILIZATION OF THE F.A.R. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT. LIKE I SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THAT BIG A DEAL, BUT I DO THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO DO ANYTHING, WE NEED TO DO THE ORDINANCE AND DO THEM HAND IN HAND, SO AT LEAST THE MESSAGE GETS OUT TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT SOME OF THIS. OTHERWISE, WE HAVE WASTED A LOT OF TIME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU, SIR. COUNCILMAN VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS IF I MAY THAT I WAS WRITING DOWN. AND I'LL GIVE MY THOUGHTS ON IT . WITH PLAN AMENDMENTS, HAS THE CITY TRIED TO DO THIS -- AND I MAY BE USING THE INCORRECT LEGAL TERMINOLOGY BUT WE ARE STARTING A PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS AND WE SEEK TO IMPLEMENT THE EFFECTS OF THAT PLAN AMENDMENT PRIOR. HAVE WE DONE THIS? MAYBE I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE DONE IT SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE. IN ANY RECENT TIME HAS THE CITY SOUGHT TO DO THIS? >> I CAN ADDRESS THAT FROM THE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN I WAS HERE BETWEEN 2001 AND 2006 AND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCESSING PLAN AMENDMENTS. I DON'T RECALL THAT INTERIM CONTROL ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME OF THAT PROCESSING. AND THIS IS THE SECOND BATCH A LITTLE OVER 18 MONTHS. THIS OF COURSE BY THIS CITY COUNCIL IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT. I DON'T KNOW IF ABBEY, IF YOU RECALL IN THE INTERIM IF THAT'S BEEN UTILIZED. >>ABBYE FEELEY: WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE INCIDENCE POTENTIAL ZONE WITH MacDILL AND THE DENSITY DOWN IN THAT AREA, THEY ATTEMPTED TO DO THAT. IT DIDN'T PASS. WE HAVE USED IT OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE DO PENDING ORDINANCE FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS IS MORE OF WHAT I BELIEVE THIS COUNCIL IS FAMILIAR WITH, WHEN WE HAD USED IT, THE TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD COME BEFORE YOU, AND FROM THE PERIOD OF TIME WE WOULD SAY THAT WOULD BE THE PENDING ORDINANCE. SO MORE SO IN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS STANDPOINT THAN IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>LUIS VIERA: OKAY, THANK YOU. AND MAYBE I MISHEARD. I DON'T REMEMBER WHO SAID THIS. THIS DENSITY BONUS PROVISION THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, SCALING BACK, SO LAST TIME, WE STARTED TO PUSH FORWARD THE TEXT AMENDMENT ON THIS, AS I RECALL, I GUESS TWO WEEKS AGO. DID I HEAR CORRECTLY THAT NO ONE HAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THIS SOUTH OF GANDY? OR DID I MISHEAR THAT? I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE. >>ABBYE FEELEY: SO WHAT'S BEEN OCCURRING SOUTH OF GANDY IN THESE MIXED USE CATEGORIES TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU MAY EITHER USE DENSITY, OR FLOOR AREA RATIO ... AND A FLOOR AREA RATIO UTILIZATION DOES NOT REQUIRE BONUS. SO IF YOU CAN DEVELOP UP TO A 1 F.A.R., FOR EXAMPLE, CMU-35, AND I USE THE EXAMPLE OF BECAUSE THAT WLD GET YOU 43,560 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. IF YOU DIVIDE THAT BY A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT UNIT, YOU ARE GETTING 43 UNITS, WHICH IN THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORY, A DENSITY ONLY GETS YOU 30 UNITS TO THE ACRE. IF YOU WANT A BONUS, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE GAP IN BETWEEN 30 AND 35. SO WHAT'S BEEN OCCURRING IS THE THERE'S A UTILIZATION WITH THE ALLOWANCE WHICH THE CODE CURRENTLY HAS UTILIZATION OF F.A.R., PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING DENSITY THAT IS BEYOND WHAT WAS PLANNED FOR. SO AT THE 43 UNITS AN ACRE THERE'S 13 MORE THAN WHAT WAS PLANNED FOR AT THE 30 UNITS AN ACHE OAR BUT IT IS NOT A BONUS BECAUSE THEY ARE WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE F.A.R. SO THERE'S SOME UNINTENTIONAL CONSEQUENCES WHICH HAVE ARRIVED IN THE UTILIZATION OF F.A.R. RESULTING IN PROJECTS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DENSE THAN WHAT WAS PLANNED FOR. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU. >>CATE WELLS: ANDA F I MAY SUPPLEMENT MY RESPONSE IN REGARD TO THE USE OF THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE, WHILE A PLAN AMENDMENT IS IN PROCESS. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT WHILE THE PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN UTILIZED WHEN WE ARE AMENDING CHAPTER 27 OF THE CODE, IMPLEMENTING A PLAN AMENDMENT THROUGH A MORATORIUM BEFORE IT'S FORMALLY ADOPTED HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED BY THE CITY HISTORICALLY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WHAT -- IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, MS. WELLS? >>CA W. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, MS. WELLS, TO MOVE BOTH OF THESE FORWARD? >>CATE WELLS: WELL, THE PLAN AMENDMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER OR NOT COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INTERIM DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE. IF YOU DO, WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TODAY TO PLACE IT ON FIRST READING DURING YOUR REGULAR MEETING ON MAY 6th. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THAT'S MY MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER FOR THE IDCO AS ABBREVIATED ACRONYM. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER GUDES. YES, SIR, COUNCILMAN VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: I JUST WANTED TO GIVE MY THOUGHTS BRIEFLY ON THIS IF I MAY. JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC WATCHING THIS, I GUESS IT WAS -- AND CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG -- TWO WEEKS I THINK AGO, WE VOTED 7-0 ON PROCEEDING WITH THE PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET THIS THING STARTED. YOU KNOW, I HAVE ALWAYS TEN THE POSITION THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE MANY, MANY DEMONSTRATED CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE SOUTH OF GANDY, AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT MANY PARTS OF THE CITY OF TAMPA THAT ARE EXPERIENCING GROWTH AND WHATNOT, THAT INCLUDES PARTS OF NORTH TAMPA, NEW TAMPA, ET CETERA, YOU KNOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO ADDRESS THAT. ONE THING I HAVE ALWAYS CITED INCLUDING WITH A MEETING WITH OUR FRIENDS IN THE SOUTH OF GANDY NEIGHBORHOODS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS WHICH I SUPPORTED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AS WELL AS ALWAYS SAY A COUPLE OF OTHER INGS THAT I WISH WE WOULD TALK ABOUT CONCURRENT IN THIS CONVERSATION THAT I THINK ARE, YOU KNOW, OUR FRIEND COUNCILMAN GUDES ALWAYS SAYS DON'T TELL ME WHAT YOU CAN'T DO, TELL ME WHAT YOU CAN DO. YOU KNOW, WE ARE DOING SOMETHING TODAY THAT MAYBE WE CAN DO. WHETHER WE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T, THAT WILL BE UP TO THIS COUNCIL. BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO ADDRESS THE REAL CHALLENGES THAT ARE SOUTH OF GANDY THAT REQUIRE, JUST AS THIS DOES, BY THE WAY, A LEVEL OF COURAGE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT AND WTNOTIN TERMS OF COMING OUT WITH SOMETHING. THAT INCLUDES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS THAT OBVIOUSLY COST MONEY. THAT'S IN THE BUDGET PROCESS. AND YOU TAKE A LOOK AT A LOT OF THE CHALLENGES IN GROWING AREAS LIKE SOUTH OF GANDY AS WELL AS NEW TAMPA AND OTHER AREAS, THAT'S INFRASTRUCTURE. INFRASTRUCTURE IS A BIG DEAL. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT WITH ROADS, TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE STORMWATER, TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, ET CETERA, ANOTHER BIG ONE WHICH IS OBVIOUS ONE IS TRANCE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS. YOU KNOW, IN 2018 I WAS PROUD TO ENDORSE THE ALLOR TRANSPORTATION PENNY SALES TAX. I AM SUPPORTED PUTTING IT BACK ON THE BALLOT TAMPA SAFETY NET SALES TAX AND 2022 GOD WILLING WHEN IT'S BEFORE US GIVEN THOSE CHALLENGES, NOT AN EASY DECISION, BUT SOMETHING THAT WE CERTAINLY ALL SHOULD DO WHENEVER IT COMES TO CHALLENGES OF GROWTH. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ROADS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MASS TRANSIT AND INFRASTRUCTURE, ET CETERA. I THINK THOSE ARE REALLY GOOD WAYS TO DO THIS. PUTTING FORTH A PLAN AMENDMENT AND PUTTING FORTH SOMETHING -- AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS I PEOPLE'S MOUTHS, BUT SOMETHING THAT ISN'T OFTEN DONE WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION OF IT SORT OF BETRAYS THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS. I THINK THAT WE ALL ULTIMATELY SUPPORT THE PLAN AMENDMENT, BUT WE OUGHT TO HAVE MORE SCRUTINY ON IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT. THERE OUGHT TO BE MORE SCRUTINY THERE. OUGHT TO BE MORE DELIBERATION ON THAT ISSUE. AND A LOT OF FOLKS SAY WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. WE HAVE. BUT SOUTH OF GANDY. AND I WANT TO REMAINED PEOPLE, THIS IS SOMETHING -- AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG -- THAT'S GOING TO BE CITY-WIDE, BECAUSE OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. I THINK ABOUT UT, I THINK ABOUT AREAS AT USF, ET CETERA, HAS OUTREACH BEEN DONE, IMPLEMENTED? I THINK A LITTLE MORE DELIBERATION IS SOMETHING THAT IS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT'S WORTH SAYING SO. JUST MY THOUGHTS ON IT, IF I MAY. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN GUDES. GUDES GUDES MS. WELLS, HAVE WE DONE THE OUTREACH? IS THIS GOING TO BE A CITY-WIDE, AS OTHER FOLKS ARE TALKING ABOUT IT AND I KNOW IN SOME OF MY AREAS, DENSITY COULD BE UTILIZED BECAUSE WE NEED SOME HOUSING TO GO ON, SO FORTH. SO HAS THIS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES OR OTHER THAN JUST THE SOUTH OF GANDY FOLKS? THAT'S THE FIRST THING I HAVE. >>CATE WELLS: THE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT YOU DIRECTED US TO FILE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TWO WEEKS AGO WOULD BE CITY-WIDE. AND THE UMU, CMU-35 AND -- LAND USE CATEGORY THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO THIS ORDINANCE THAT IS BEFORE YOUTRACKS THAT EXACT SAME LANGUAGE. SO IT WOULD BE CITY-WIDE WITHIN THOSE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THAT'S WHAT I NEED, 9:JUST SOUTH OF GANDY. IT'S GOING TO PERTAIN TO EVERYBODY AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT. CORRECT? >>CATE WELLS: THAT'S CORRECT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CHAIRMAN, THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS -- AND I AM GLAD MRS. FEELEY KIND OF EXPLAINED THE F.A.R. DENSITY AND WHAT I CALL A SPECIAL PLAY WHERE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING, BUT SHOUL YOU BE DOING IT? IT'S KIND OF LIKE A FOOTBALL PLAY, GENTLEMEN, THAT THE QUARTERBACK WOULDN'T GO UNDER CENTER. HE WOULD COME UP, AND ONE OF THE PLAYERS COME OVER AND TAP HIM ON THE SHOULDER AND SAY, HEY, I NEED YOU TO CHANGE THE BALL, AND LOOK AT THE OFFICIAL. AND THE CENTER WILL TAKE ONE FULL MOTION, HAND THE BALL TO THE QUARTERBACK, AND HE RUNS, HE JOGS TO THE SIDE LIKE HE'S BRINGING ME THE BALL, AND I GIVE HIM A SIGNAL TO GO. HE GOES FOR A TOUCHDOWN AND SCORES. THIS IS KIND OF HOW I SEE THIS SITUATION WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND THE SOUTH OF GANDY FOLKS WITH THIS DEVELOPER HOW MS. FEELEY EXPLAINED IT AND IT'S KIND OF LIKE AGAIN THE F.A.R. AND THE DENSITY. WELL, IF I DO DENSITY I HAVE TO PAY BUT IF I CAN GET THIS F.A.R. SITUATION, I SLIDE UNDER THE RADAR AND SCORE A TOUCHDOWN. SO I AM GOING TO SIT BACK AND SEE HOW I AM GOING TO VOTE ON THIS. BUT AGAIN, IT'S DIFFICULT ON BOTH SIDES, BUT IN THE END I BELIEVE IT WILL WORK OUT, THOUGH. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, AND THEN COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, I SAW YOUR HAND, SIR. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MR. GUDES, I HEARD A LOT O THINGS IN MY LIFE, YOU DESIGNED THAT PLAY OR SOMEBODY ELSE AND THEY SCORED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I USED IT SEVERAL TIMES, AND THEY MADE ME STOP USING IT SAYING I WAS INTIMIDATING -- >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: WHAT I AM LOOKING AT IS, I HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT EVACUATION, EVACUATION EVACUATION. AND I AGREE WITH ALL OF THAT. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS, EVEN IF YOU DO YOUR EVACUATION 100% CORRECTLY ACCORDING TO THE RULES HOW YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IT, ERE'SO MY VARIABLES. FIRST YOU HAVE THE HURRICANE, YOU HAVE TWO OR THREE DAYS TO LEAVE IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DO IT RIGHT. AND WHAT ABOUT ALL THESE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, INCLUDING THOSE AROUND THE AREA? YOU HAVE GOT PEOPLE FROM SOUTH, FROM GIBSONTON, AND NORTH, AND YOU HAVE GOT PEOPLE FROM THE NORTH, ALL NEW TAMPA WHO LIVE IN THE CITY LIMIT AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA THAT HAVE TO LEAVE, AND MAYBE YOU HAVE TO DRIVE SOMEWHERE, GUESS WHAT, NOBODY IS LEAVING. OR VERY FEWREOING TO LEAVE. SO I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. BUT LOOK AT THE EXPRESSWAYS NOW. AT 3:30, AND 5:30, YOU ARE TRYING TO GET OFF THAT EXPRESSWAY, WEST FROM WESTSHORE BOULEVARD TO FOWLER AVENUE. THAT ONLY TAKES YOU A FEW MINUTES, BUT AT THAT TIME IT WILL TAKE YOU 35, 45 MINUTES WITHOUT A HURRICANE, WITHOUT A TORNADO, WITHOUT ANY DISRUPTION OF SERVICES. SO WHAT I AM LOOKING AT IS SOMETHING THAT'S CITY-WIDE, AND IF IEAD THIS RIGHT, IT'S THE SAME STATUS QUO MINUS THE F.A.R. FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ORDINANCE IF IT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE HEARINGS AND HOW DO YOU REVERT IT BACK IF YOU HAVE TO? I BELIEVE THE F.A.R. WAS PUT IN BECAUSE WE WERE DORMANT, POPULATION INCREASED, AND THIS CITY IS A BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IT'S A PUBLIC BUSINESS. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS VERY CAREFULLY, IF YOU KEEP STATUS QU ANDOU ARE SATISFIED WITH NOT INCREASING YOUR CUSTOMER COUNT BY ONE, ANY CITY THAT DOES NOT HAVE A POPULATION INCREASE, GUESS, WHAT IT'S ALSO DYING. ANY CITY WHO HASN'T MADE SOME COMMITMENTS TO CHANGE FOR THE FUTURE DOES NOT MAKE IT IN THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS. SO I AM TRYING TO DO THE BEST I CAN TO MAKE IT DO SOMETHING FOR THE BETTERMENT. I'M HAVING A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN MY MIND WHICH IS THE BEST WA THERE'S A LOT OF VARIABLES HERE THAT WE DO NOT CONTROL. WE DON'T CONTROL THE WEATHER. WE DON'T CONTROL THE POPULATION. WE DON'T CONTROL THE PEOPLE MOVING DOWN AND SAY, HEY, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND, IT'S NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE COMING UP FROM THE NORTH THAT ARE STAYING HERE, IT'S THE KIDS THAT USED TO GO AWAY TO COLLEGE AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE ARE NOW WANTING TO COME BACK AND LIVE IN THE SAME CITY WITH THEIR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS AND FAMILY, AND THANK GOD THAT'S HAPPENED. WHEN , YOU SAY WHAT WOULD I DO IF I CHANGE THE RULES, AND IF THE F.A.R. IS USED -- CAN WE ANSWER THAT QUESTION? IF THERE'S 40 DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING, IT'S 100% THAT USE THE F.A.R., OR IS IT LESS, OR WHAT IS IT? I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT. >>ABBYE FEELEY: LD DEVELOPMENT. I RAN ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, AND IT VARIES BY LAND USE CATEGORY. I PULLED OUT THE ONES THAT DID JUST MULTIFAMILY. SO THERE IS A COMBINATION. A HAND FULL HAD MULTIFAMILY AND NONRESIDENTIAL USE. IN THE UMU 60, MANY OF THEM USED DENSITY BECAUSE IT'S UP TO 50 UNITS TO THE ACRE. IN THE CMU-35 AND THE CC-35, THE MAJORITY OF THEM USED F.A.R. BUT I HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE EXACT NUMBERS. I DON'T HAVE THAT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ANSWER. BUT I NEED MORE SPECIFIC, LIKE IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AN INTEREST RATE OF A BANK, IT MIGHT BE .002, SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE .2. I DON'T KNOW. I AM ALSO INTERESTED TO FIND OUT WHERE WE STAND. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ENOUGH ARE USING IT THAT WE CAN SAY, LISTEN, THIS WAS DONE TO ENHANCE POPULATION TO MOVE IN, TO INCREASE THE POPULATION, AND WE ARE GETTING CALLS TO THE MAXIMUM THAT WE CAN STAND, AND THAT'S WHY. >>ABBYE FEELEY: I REPORTED WHEN I CAME BEFORE YOU A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT SEVERAL PROJECTS, AND NOT SOUTH OF GANDY IN THE CMU-35, WOULD BE ALLOWED UP TO 30 DENSITY WITHOUT A BONUS WERE OVER 100 UNITS TO THE ACRE BY USING F.A.R. SO IT WAS MORE THAN DOUBLE, MORE THAN TRIPLE, YOU KNOW, IN SOME CASES. ONE PROJECT WAS AT 137 UNITS TO THE ACRE, AND OUR HIGHEST LAND USE CATEGORY WAS IN THE CITY WHICH IS THE REGIONAL MIXED USE 100. THAT IS WHERE YOU HAVE GOT 100 UNITS TO THE ACRE BY RIGHT. THERE IS NO TIER BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE WE ARE LOOKING TO DO THE GROWTH. SO THIS IS REALLY LOOKING AT GROWTH DUE TO THE UTILIZATION OF THE F.A.R. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: AND WE'LL WRAP IT UP. COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, IT'S YOUR MOTION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES, SIR. I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO MR. VIERA REAL QUICK. AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, LUIS. I GUESS WHAT YOU SAID MAKES A GOOD POINT, YOU KNOW, THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU HAVE SAID IT IN THE PAST, IF YOU ARE TRYING TO FIX ONE THING AND THEN YOU GO OFF AND MESS SOMETHING ELSE UP, AND I KNOW THAT'S YOUR LEGITIMATE CONCERN. BUT HERE IS THE DEAL. THERE IS A MIXED USE EXCEPTION HERE OKAY? ALL THE DEVELOPER HAS TO DO, NO MATTER IF THEY ARE DEVELOPING IN YBOR CITY OR ARMATURE OR SOME OTHER PLACE THAT WE MIGHT BE IMPACTING BY THIS. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS INCLUDE A COMPONENT OF MIXED USE. AND I JUST CONFIRMED THIS MORNING WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF, THAT COMPONENT COULD BE VERY SMALL. YOU COULD HAVE 100,000 SQUARE FOOT PROJECT AND PUT IN 1,000 SQUARE FOOT LITTLE CONVENIENCE STORE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE IMPACTED AT ALL BY THIS ORDINANCE AND BY THIS COMP PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO PASS. SO AGAIN, LIONS, TIGERS AND BEARS, I THINK THEY ARE OVERSTATING IT. IF IT'S A CMU CATEGORY IT'S MEANT TO BE USED AS A MIXED USE. BUT THEN THEY OPT NOT TO OR THEY DO IT ON A ANOTHER BASIS. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS AS LONG AS THEY COME IN WITH SOME TYPE OF LEVEL OF TRULY MIXED USE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, WE STILL HAVE TO CONSIDER IT. WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO APPROVE IT, BUT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IT. SO WE ARE NOT STOPPING THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN YBOR CITY, AND CATE OR ABBEY, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH WAY JUST SAID, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN. BUT I THINK WHAT I SAID IS ACCURATE. >>CATE WELLS: COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. THE APPLICATIONS CAN BE FILED. WHETHER OR NOT THEY GET APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL DEPENDING ON COMPATIBILITY AND OTHER ISSUES, THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >>ABBYE FEELEY: I AGREE. I'LL CHIME IN TO AGREE. AND THAT BEING SAID, THAT IS YOUR JURISDICTION TODAY AND THAT IS NOT CHANGING. SO YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT, ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS, ONE THAT I WAS USING AS AN EXAMPLE AT THE CORNER OF WILLOW AND CASS, SOME OF YOU WERE ON COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, SOME OF YOU WERE NOT. THE FIRST TIME IT CAME, IT DID HAVE MIXED USE COMPONENTS. YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT THAT, WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE, WHAT REALLY CONSTITUTES MIXED USE. I BELIEVE THE PROJECT WAS DENIED THE FIRST TIME. ^ CAME BACK HAVING LISTENED TO THE MESSAGES THAT WERE SENT, THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD, AND THEN DID COME BACK WITH A GREATER MIXED USE COMPONENT. ONE OF THE THINGS BEHIND THE MIXED USE IS THAT IT CREATES THOSE OTHER USES THAT OFFSET REGIONAL DENSITY. SO IF YOU ARE HAVING A USE ON THE SAME PROPERTY, THAT TRIP THAT IS IN A SINGLE USE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE LEAVING THE PROPERTY TO ACCESS THE NONRESIDENTIAL COUPON COMPONENT MAY NOW STAY WITHIN THE PROPERTS THE DRY CLEANER OR THE COFFEE SHOPS OR THE OTHER NONRESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE BEING INTEGRATED INTO THE PROJECT AND ACTUALLY ACHIEVING MIXED USE AND THAT INTERNAL CAPTURE TO SOME OF THOSE IMPACTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SINGLE USE DEVELOPMENT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU, SIR, MR. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE IT. AND AGAIN, FOR ME, MY CONCERNS ARE NOT A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE INASMUCH AS THEY ARE A MATTER OF PROCEDURE. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHICH IS CITY-WIDE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, YOU KNOW, THIS GOES FORWARD TODAY, AND PEOPLE HEAR SHOULD 100% VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE AND THAT'S 110% RATE TO DO AND WHATNOT. BUT I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON FUSS THIS GOES FORWARD BECAUSE FIRST READING, SECOND READING, ET CETERA, TO DO ALL OF US DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF INQUIRING WITH DIFFERENT% COMMUNITIES BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING, AND MAYBE I MISSED IT, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF OUTREACH HAD BEEN DON TO NUMEROUS COMMITTEES. I'M TRYING TO REACH OUT TO NORTH TAMPA, TAMPA INNOVATION, DIFFERENT GROUPS, AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO ONE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES WITH THIS. SO AGAIN, FOR ME, WITH THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PLAN AMENDMENT THAT SHOULD GO THROUGH THE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS. I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER CONCURRENT THINGS THAT WE CAN DO ON THIS, INVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE, SUPPORT ALL FOR TRANSPORTATION, GO THROUGH THE TEXT AMENDMENT PROCESS, AND BY THE WAY, WE ARE GETTING AMERICAN RELIEF ACT DOLLARS OVER $80 MILLION SOME OF WHICH CAN GO TO SOME OF THESE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THROUGHOUT OUR CITY. SO AGAIN, MINE IS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE, NOT AS MUCH ON SUBSTANCE. BUT AGAIN, MEMBERS SHOULD 100% VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE AND I KNOW THAT A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE PUT IN A LOT OF WORK ON THIS, AND I AM APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER. WITH A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER GUDES. ROLL CALL VOTE. AND THIS IS FOR THE IDCO AS I CALL IT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: PUT IT ON FOR FIRST READING. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: IT WILL BE MAY 6th FIRST READING. MOTION BY DINGFELDER, SECOND BY GUDES. ROLL CALL VOTE. >>LUIS VIERA: I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE WHEN THIS UP ON FIRST READING BUT I WILL VOTE NO FOR TODAY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: [OFF MICROPHONE] >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: [OFF MICROPHONE] >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NO. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH VIERA, MIRANDA AND MANISCALCO VOTING NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S IT FOR THE AGENDA. AND THERE'S NO NIGHT MEETING. AND IT'S 2:20. ALL RIGHT. NEW BUSINESS. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING SIR? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I JUST WANT TO WISH ABLATED BIRTHDAY TO A DEAR FRIEND OF BASEBALL, IN THE HALL OF FAME, PETE ROSE 80 YEARS OLD YESTERDAY. I JUST WANT TO WH HIM A HAPPY 80. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I SECOND THAT. PETE ROSE, I BELIEVE IN FORGIVENESS AND MOVING ON, AND PETE ROSE IS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. SO HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO HIM. THANK YOU, SIR. ANYTHING ELSE? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THAT'S IT, SIR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMEMBER CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: A COUPLE THINGS. I HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH THE WALLBRIGHT PEOPLE AND SIDEWALK HOPPERS AND DEVELOPERS. YESTERDAY WE HAD A MEETING WITH ABOUT WAYS THAT WE COULD BUILD A NEW SIDEWALK FOALS THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER BY CONSENSUS SIMILAR TO THE TREE ONE A COUPLE YEARS AGO THAT WAS UNFORTUNATELY UNDONE BY THE LEGISLATURE. ANYWAY THAT PROCESS IS PROCEEDING. BUT IN THE MEANTIME THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE SEEN WHERE IF A HOMEOWNER DOES NOT HAVE A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THEIR HOME AND THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL, THE CITY CANNOT, I THINK BY STATE LAW, BUILD A CROSSWALK FROM THE SCHOOL TO THAT CORNER. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE THERE'S NO SIDEWALK ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT'S CAUSING A LOT OF DANGEROUS SITUATIONS WHERE KIDS AND FAMILIES CANNOT CROSS BECAUSE WE CAN'T LEGALLY BUILD CROSSWALKS. SO IN CONSULTATION, I KNOW THERE'S A SIDEWALK PLAN GOING ON AS PART OF THE MOBILITY EXERCISE, AND THERE'S A THING THAT WE ARE WORKING ON, BUT JUST TO TRY TO TRIAGE THIS IMMEDIATE WHAT I CONSIDER DANGEROUS SITUATION. I WLD LE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ASK THE MOBILITY STAFF TO STUDY THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTALLING CROSSWALKS WHERE NEAR ALL-WAY STOPS OR LIGHTS AT EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL ENTRANCE, EXIT, IN THE CITY OF TAMPA FROM THE SCHOOL PROPERTY TO THE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT BLOCK. THE CROSSWALKS CANNOT BE INSTALLED BECAUSE THERE IS NOT AN EXISTING SIDEWALK. SIDEWALK WOULD BE INSTALLED BY THE CITY TO ALLOW THE CROSSWALK INSTALLATION, AND THIS WOULD BE REPORTED BACK TO COUNCIL AT THE JUNE 24th WORKSHOP TO TRY TO PROVIDE PLENTY OF TIME. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER CITRO. THAT'S A GREAT MOTION. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. CHAIRMAN, I BRING TO COUNCIL'S ATTENTION JUST SO YOU KNOW, THERE IS NEXT WEEK, APRIL 22ND WORKSHOP, IS A DISCUSSION OF THE SIDEWALKS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE INTENT -- >>BILL CARLSON: THIS IS A SEPARATE ISSUE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: OKAY. >>BILL CARLSON: THIS IS A SPECIFIC MICROISSUE. AND THE ISSUE IS WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE PLACESHERE IT CAN'T BE CROSSWALKS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER SIDE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: SO ARE YOU REQUESTING THEN THE 24th OF JUNE? IS THAT WHAT I HEARD? DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? >>BILL CARLSON: YES. THE 24th OF JUNE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YOU PRESENTLY HAVE A COMMENDATION FOR POLICE OFFICER OF THE MONTH. YOU ALSO HAVE PRESENTLY IN JUNE THE STAFF TO PRESENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS. I DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG THAT TAKES. DO YOU WISH TO SCHEDULE THIS -- THAT'S AS 9:00. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SCHEDULE THIS FOR 10:00 THEN? >>BILL CARLSON: IT'S OKAY WITH ME. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OUND GOOD. MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANYTHING ELSE? >>BILL CARLSON: THANK YOU. THEN ONE MORE. YOU MAY HAVE SEEN WHAT I THINK IS VERY BAD NEWS. WE KNEW THAT WAS COMING, BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE VOTED YESTERDAY TO REQUIRE MUNICIPALITIES TO FORCE PEOPLE TO DRINK TOILET WATER, ESSENTIALLY, AND THIS GOVERNOR WAS SUPPOSED TO SIGN IT AS EARLY AS TODAY. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE NEWS TO SEE IF THAT WAS SIGNED ALREADY. I MEAN, IT'S INTERESTING FOR A REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR, THIS IS FISCALLY RECKLESS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COST HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR EACH CITY. YOU KNOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $400 MILLION PLUS 20 TO 40 MILLION A YEAR IN OPERATING EXPENSES. WE HAVE PLENTY OF SUPPLY OF WATER FOR 20, 30 YEARS WITHOUT HAVING TO DRINK TOILET WATER. AND I WISH THAT THE CITY HAD LOBBIED AGAINST IT AND MAYBE THERE'S STILL A WAY TO MODIFY IT, BECAUSE UNLIKE THE REST OF THE STATE, WE HAVE TAMPA BAY WATER, WE HAVE A REGIONAL SUPPLY AND A REGIONAL PLAN. WEON'T HAVE THE SAME PROBLEMS THE REST OF THE STATE HAS, AND IT'S UNFAIR THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHARGE OUR RATE PAYERS FIVE TO TEN DOLLARS A MONTH JUST SO THEY CAN HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRINK TOILET WATER. AND SO THERE IS A WORKSHOP DISCUSSION COMING UP ON PURE, WHICH IS THE NEW NAME FOR TOILET TO TAP, ON MAY 27th. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE -- I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION JUST ABOUT THIS LEGAL ISSUE. AND APOLOGIES TO GINA, IF THIS IS TOO SOON. BU SCE THE OTHER THING IS ON MAY 27th, AND THAT'S ON A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME, I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A LEGAL OPINION BY THEN SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS WOULD COME JUST BEFORE THE OTHER DISCUSSION, AND IDEALLY WOULD BE BY AN ATTORNEY WHO STUDIES LEGISLATIVE ISSUES SEPARATE FROM JUST WATER. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ASK CITY LEGAL STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL AT THE MAY 27th WORKSHOP ON THE NEW STATE LEGISLATION REGARDING TOILET TO TAP, AND ITS IMPACT ON THE CITY OF TAMPA. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I WILL CHEC. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: QUESTION ON THE MOTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I WILL CONSIDER SECONDING IT, BUT IF YOU COULD MODIFY THE WORD "TOILET TO TAP." >> UH-HUH. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A LITTLE INFLAMMATORY AND KIND OF ALLUDE TO THE FACT THAT MAYBE WE DON'T WANT IT OR WE DO WANT IT, AND I HAVEN'T DECIDED YET. SO IF THERE'S A BETTER TERM FOR THAT, I'M ALWAYS UP FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. I THINK THAT'S WHAT YORE LOOKING FOR. OF COURSE, WE ALL WANTS TO BE INFORMED ON WHAT THE STATUTE DOES OR DOESN'T SAY. AND I AM ALL FOR THAT, BILL. >>BILL CARLSON: AND JUST -- THIS IS NOT AN ANALYSIS OF WHETHER WE SHOULD APPROVE OUR OWN PROJECT. THIS IS JUST AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE STATE IS TELLING US WE HAVE TO DO. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: CAN WE CALL IT RECLAIMED WATER? CAN WE CALL IT -- >>BILL CARLSON: IN THE STATE WIDE REPORTS OUTSIDE OF TAMPA THEY ARE CALLING IT TOILET TO TAP. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WHAT'S THE LEGISLATORS -- >>BILL CARLSON: HOW ABOUT IF WE CALL IT CONVERTING WASTEWATER TO DRINKING WATER? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'M FINE WITH THAT AND I WILL SECOND IT. >>ANDREA ZELMAN: LEGAL LEGISLATIVE USES THE TERM RECLAIMED WATER. >> ALL RIGHT. RECLAIMED WATER? BILL? >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: RECLAIMED WATER IS OKAY? >>BILL CARLSON: YES. BUT I THINK IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT HAS TO BE USED FOR DRINKING WATER. AM I NOT CORRECT? FOR DRINKING, YEAH. >>ANDREA ZELMAN: IN OTHER WORDS, REFERENCE TO THE TE OF WATER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU REFER TO IT AS RECLAIMED WATER. >>BILL CARLSON: YOU KNOW THE LEGISLATIVE NUMBER THAT WE COULD CALL IT? OKAY, I -- HOW ABOUT IF WE CALL IT STATE LEGISLATION CONVERTED RECLAIMED WATER DO DRINKING WATER AND -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I SECOND THE AMENDED MOTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION BY CARLSON, SECOND BY DINGFELDER FOR THE MAY 27th WORKSHO >>BILL . >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL RIGHT. THERE'S THREE AT 9:00 SO WE'LL SAY AT 10:00. >>BILL CARLSON: I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT IT GO BEFORE THE PRESENTATION OF PURE, BECAUSE WE NEED TO KNOW THE STATE CONTEXT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SO WE WILL KEEP IT AT 9:00 AND HAVE IT AFTER THE POLICE OFFICER OF THE MONTHS SO THAT WILL BE RIGHT BEFORE THE PURE PROJECT. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >> SO FIRST ON THE AGENDA RIGHT AFTER POLICE OFFICER OF THE MONTH. MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER -- BY CARLSON, SECOND FROM DINGFELDER. I'M SORRY. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? >>JOSEPH CITRO: MR. CHAIR, I WILL SUPPORT THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE I REALLY DISLIKE PREEMPTION FROM TALLAHASSEE TELLING THE CITY WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE MILLIONS OF DOGS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WHO WILL BE VERY UNHAPPY THEY CANNOT DRINK FROM THE TOILET. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: DRINK GART AID. ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? >>BILL CARLSON: THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN GUDES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. I AM GOING TO BE MR. VIERA TODAY. I HAVE A BUNCH OF MOTIONS TO MAKE TODAY. [ LAUGHTER ] GENTLEMEN, BACK ON APRIL 1st I MADE A MOTION REFERENCE THE CLERK'S OFFICE, I AM LOOKING FOR A DATE ON THAT SO I NEED TO PUT A DATE ON THAT AS OF MAY 6th RETURN BY ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE APRIL 1st MOTION ABOUT THE CLERK'S OFFICE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD, SIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THE NEXT MOTION I HAVE, I ATTENDED THE AHAB BOARD FOR THE COUNTY, AND WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, A LOT OF FOLKS STARTED USING THE WORD WORKFORCE, WORKFORCE HOUSING, AND TO ME THAT WORD DOES NOT SYMBOLIZE FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITIES. YOU HAVE WHAT ARE CALLED ESSENTIAL WORKERS. AND PEOPLE ARE MIXING THE TWO. BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS OR CERTAIN PROFESSIONS ARE MAKING. TO ME THOSE NOT WORKFORCE. TO ME A WORKFORCE IS AN ACTUAL FOLKS THAT WORK AT THE WALMART, McDONALD'S, BURGER KINGS. SO WHAT I AM ASKING JUST LIKE I ASKED THE BOARD TO COME BACK AND MAYBE CHANGING THAT TREND IN NAME SO CLARIFY WORKFORCE FROM ESSENTIAL WORKERS SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE HOUSING AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO REFINE THE TERM CENTRAL WORKER AND WORKFORCE WORK OAR. I WOULD ALSO LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION TO EXPLAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AS IT REPRESENTS TO BOTH ESSENTIAL WORKER AND WORKFORCE WORKER AND HAVE THAT BACK ON 6-24. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE -- MR. SHELBY? >>MARTIN SHEY: JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR. JUNE 24th, IS THAT A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME? DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY? >>ORLANDO GUDES: I THINK THAT WOULD BE TWO MONTHS FOR THAT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: ALL RIGHT. YES, MS. ZELMAN, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? >>ANDREA ZELMAN: CAN YOU HEAR ME? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, WE CAN. GO AHEAD. >>ANDREA ZELMAN: THANK YOU. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE MOTION. I APOLOGIZE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE HOUSING AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO APPLY THE TERM WORKER AND WORK ESSENTIAL WORKFORCE WORKER AND IN THE CITY AS RELATES TO BOTH ESSENTIAL WORKER AND WORKFORCE WORKER. AND I WILL A COPY OF THE MOTION WITH THE EXACT VERBIAGE FOR YOU. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: JUNE 24th. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WHICH IS A WORKSHOP DAY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: 10:00. >>MARTIN SHELBY: AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SIDEWALKS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT THE NEXT ONE UP. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OKAY, 10:30. IS THAT ALL RIGHT MOTION FROM COO VIERA TODAY. [ LAUGHTER ] WHO IS THE SECOND? SECOND IS COUNCILMAN CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? >>ORLANDO GUDES: LAST AND FINAL ONE, SIR, AS NOW YOU HEAR A LOT OF COMMUNITIES TALK ABOUT GENTRIFICATION AND TALKING ABOUT BEING UPROOTED. WE HAVE TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT. AND TO BRING UP MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO LOOK INTO AN ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE DISPLACEMENT OF LOW TO MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS AND LOOK INTO THE CHICAGO ORDINANCE OR ANY OTHER CITIES AROUND THE NATION THAT HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO REDUCE DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS AND ATTACHING AN ARTICLE TO THIS MOTION AND WOULD LIKE IT BACK IF THAT'S ENOUGH TIME FOR JUNE 24th. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN GUDES FOR JUNE 24th. WE'LL PUT IT AT 11:00 OP ON THE WORKSHOP JUST SO EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN VIERA. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? COUNCILMAN CITRO. >>JOSEPH CITRO: [OFF MICROPHONE] PLAN AMENDMENT ADOPTION TACPA 20-21, TACPA 21 -- A, CPA 21-03, TACPA 21-05, TACPA 21-06, TACPA 21-01, TACPA 2104, TACPA 202nd 107, TACPA 2108 ON JUNE 4th, 2021 AT 5:01 P.M. AND DIRECT LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE THE CITY CLERK WITH A FORM OF NOTICE FOR ADVERTISING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A JUNE 3rd REGULAR MEETING. >>JOSEPH CITRO: JUNE 24th AT 5:01. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. PEST. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CITRO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER VIERA. ALL IN FAVOR? OPENS OPENS ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES, SIR. I HAD THE PLEASURE OF MEETING WITH SOME LOVELY PEOPLE AT THE BEACH PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND AMONG MANY THINGS THAT THEY HAD DISCUSSED WITH ME AND TALKED WITH ME, THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT THEY HAD ASKED ABOUT WAS THE CLOSURE OF WARD STREET FROM KENNEDY BOULEVARD TO WEST CLEVELAND STREET. NOW, DURING A THIS DISCUSSION I FOUND OUT THAT THIS STREET WAS CLOSED, OPENED, AND CLOSED YET AGAIN ALL BEFORE ANY OF US WERE ON COUNCIL? REGARDLESS. SO MY MOTION -- SORRY, VIK BHIDE PARTICULARLY MOBILITY, TO APPEAR REGARDING THE CLOSURE OF SOUTHWARD STREET FROM WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD TO WEST CLEVELAND STREET ON MAY 20th UNDER STAFF REPORTS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: QUESTION ON THE MOTION. I'LL SECOND IT. INTERESTING HISTORY ON THAT CLOSURE. HALF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED IT CLOSED, AND HALF WANTS IT OPEN. IF YOU LIVE CLOSE TO IT, YOU WANT IT CLOSED. AND IF YOU LIVE FURTHER AWAY IN THE BEACH PARK THEY WANT IT OPEN. BUT ANYWAY, I'M DEFINITELY -- I HEAR YOU, JOE, AND I WILL SECOND YOUR MOTION. >>JOSEP CITRO: BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE, THERE WERE A FEW PEOPLE THAT DURING THE DISCUSSION SAID THAT THEY WERE ALL RIGHT WITH IT, BUT AGAIN DIALOGUE SOLVES EVERYTHING. AND IF WE CAN GET THE SPECIFIC REASONS WHY, MAYBEE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND. BUT AGAIN, ALL THIS WAS DONE BEFORE I BECAME PART OF COUNCIL. AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT IT BEFORE I HEAR ANY MORE FROM THE BEACH PARK COMMUNITY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN -- >>BILL CARLSON: I WANT TO SAY THE SAME THING THAT MR. DINGFELDER SAID THAT I HAD AN EAR FULL A FEW MONTHS AGO, THAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WAS VACATED AND PRIVATELY OWNED BUT IT WAS NOT CLOSED. AND THERE'S A LARGE FACTION OF PEOPLE THAT WANT IT CLOSED. SO AS LONG AS THIS CONVERSATION IS GOING TO BE OPEN TO BOTH SIDES,HEN I WOULD VOTE FOR IT. IF NOT -- >>JOSEPH CITRO: I AM JUST LOOKING TO HEAR FROM STAFF. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>JOSEPH CITRO: THAT'S ALL I WANT RATE NOW. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER WITH THE SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? >>JOSEPH CITRO: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, JOE GRECO. >>GUIDO MANISCACO: JOE GRECO. BIRTHDAYS. >>LUIS VIERA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANTED TO JUST SAY ABOUT THIS COUNCIL THAT WE JUST WENT OVER THIS PLAN AMENDMENT ISSUE AND THE APPLICATION. I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND EVERYBODY FOR EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTFUL STATEMENTS AND WHATNOT, AND IT'S AN ISSUE THAT IGNITES A LOT OF PASSION, AND I THINK WE DID IT, THE DIALOGUE, IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. I HAVE GOT THREE IN TYPICAL LUIS VIERA FASHION MOTIONS, IF I MAY. FIRST OFF, THE URBAN LEAGUE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HAS JUST COME INTO FRUITION, LED BY STANLEY GRAY AND NICHOLAS GLOVER. AND THEY HAVE SUCH A WONDERFUL PERSPECTIVE ROLE TO PLAY IN TAMPA. AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM COME, ON JUNE 17th OF 2021 FOR LIKE FIVE, TEN MINUTES, WHATEVER, JUST TO COME TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO DO IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND WAYS THAT THE CITY CAN ASSIST THEM IN THEIR WONDERFUL MISSION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: FIVE OR TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION? >>LUIS VIERA: YES, SIR. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE'LL COULD HAVE BEEN THAT. DO YOU WANT TEN MINUTES? >>LUIS VIERA: SURE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>GUIDO MANISCALC JE 17th UNDER CEREMONIAL ACTIVITIES. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? YES SIR? >>LUIS VIERA: AND I DO THIS EVERY YEAR. I ALWAYS LIKE TO INVITE A GOLD STAR PARENTS TO COME. WE HAVE MEMORIAL DAY COMING UP. IF I MAY, I THINK IT IS MAY 27th IS OUR COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE MEMORIAL DAY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MAY 27th IS A WORKSHOP. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: IS IT OKAY TO HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES BEFORE? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: OR MAY 20th IS A REGULAR MEETING. WHICHEVER. >>LUIS VIERA: CAN WE DO MAY 27th? IS IT OKAY PROCEDURALLY TO HAVE SOMEBODY SPEAK ON MAY 27? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: IT'S A WORKSHOP. WHY NOT? >>LUIS VIERA: AND I WILL DISCUSS IT WITH THE FAMILIES AND CRAIG ROSE WAS HERE BEFORE. BUT THIS YEAR WE MAY GET OUR FRIEND CRAIG ROSE AGAIN, GOD BLESS HIM. BUT IF I MAY MAKE A MOTION. LENGTH OF TIME ATTACHED TO THAT? >>LUIS VIERA: AGAIN JUST TEN MINUTES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: CRAIG ROSE IS A GREAT GAY. COUNCILMAN VIERA WITH THE MOTION. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? YES SIR? >>LUIS VIERA: AND THEN JUST LASTLY, YOU MAY HAVE READ CT BOWEN ON THE DISCUSSION IN THE COUNTY COMMISSION ON THE NEW TAMPA PERFORMING ARTS CENTER. IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR ABOUT 17 YEARS, WHICH WAS MOSTLY A COUNTY INITIATIVE WITH REGARDS TO FUNDING. WE DID REZONING ON IT. IN FACT, CHAIRMAN MANISCALCO AND COUNCILMAN MIRANDA MAY REMEMBER THIS, IN 2017, A COUPLE WEEKS AFTER I GOT INTO TAMPA CITY COUNCIL, ON THE HUNTERS LAKE PROJECT AND WHATNOT. DAHTER YOU MAY HAVE READ ABOUT IN THE "TAMPA BAY TIMES" ON WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO FUND IT. IT'S A LARGE PROJECT THAT MEANS A LOT TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW TAMPA. THEN SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN THE DISCUSSION THAT I THINK IS SO PIVOTAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY OF TAMPA WILL HELP OUT WITH A REASONABLE MAINTENANCE COST WHICH ARE BELIEVED TO BE 2, 300 THAT YOU A YEAR, WHETHER WE WILL FUND A PORTION OF THAT. 300,000. AND THERE WAS A BELIEF, I GUESS IN THE COUNTY COMMISSION THAT THE CITY OF TAMPA HAD SAID NO TO ASSISTING WITH IT, AND THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESENT REALITY, WHICH IS THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION ACCORDING TO WHAT I HAVE BEN TOLD, THE BUCKHORN ADMINISTRATION, SAID NO. THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT, ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE PRESENTED TO ME, BEEN PRESENTED WITH A REQUEST. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR TAMPA CITY COUNCIL TO REQUEST THAT THE CASTOR ADMINISTRATION ENGAGE WITH THE COUNTY OUT FOR MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE OF ONE KIND OR ANOTHER, NOT PUTTING A DOLLAR, REASONABLE MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR THE NEW TAMPA PERFORMING ARTS CENTER OUT OF THE -- AND I'M SORRY, I WROTE DOWN HERE THROUGH THE SOCIAL ACTION AND ARTS FUND PROCESS, AND ANY PROCESS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO GET THIS -- AGAIN, THIS IS NOT PERSPECTIVE, BIG BUDGET ALLOCATION. YOU ARE PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT 60, $75,000 FOR THE CASTOR ADMINISTRATION TO ENGAGE WITH THEM ON THAT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO SUBSIDIZE ARTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF TAMPA AND I THINK THIS GOES A STEP IN THAT DIRECTION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: COUNCILMAN VIERA HAS A MOTION. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CITRO. ALL INAVOR ANY OPPOSED? COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES, SIR. NOTHING TODAY. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: AND JUST ON THE BIRTHDAY THING, HAPPY 62ND BIRTHDAY TO MY FATHER YESTERDAY. 62. WOW. JUST A KID. JUST A KID. I'M ONLY 22 SO, YOU KNOW. YES SIR? >>LUIS VIERA: I'M SORRY, IF I MAY. TOMORROW, I THINK AT 1:45, BECAES EXPRESSED SOME INTEREST IN COMING, WE WERE GOING TO BE HONORING, I THINK OUT HERE AT CITY HALL, LUIS COMPZANO, FOR THEIR SERVICE, INCLUDING UNITED STATES ARMY, NAVY, AND IT'S THE 60th ANNIVERSARY OF THE BAY OF PIGS INVASION AND WHATNOT. I KNOW SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN GOING. IF ANYONE DOES, PLEASE INQUIRE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MR. SHELBY, ANY NEW BUSINESS? >>MARTIN SHELBY: NO, SIR, JUST A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE? ANYBODY? COUNCILMAN VIERA WITH A MOTION. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. WE ARE ADJOURNED. .[ MEETING ADJOURNED ]