Aug 23, 2021 City Commission

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME DURING THIS GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.

SEEING NO ONE, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE CLOSED.

MS. BEACH, SO THIS WILL BE BACK ON OUR AGENDA FOR-- DOES THIS COME BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION? THIS DOES NOT NEED TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

THE PURPOSE WAS TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ANY COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED SPECIFICALLY.

BUT JUST AS A GENERAL OVERVIEW, THE CDBG FUND ALLOWS A FIVE PERCENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND THAT'S TO TAKE THE BURDEN OFF STAFF TO TRY TO ADMINISTER THIS VERY LARGE PROJECT.

WE WILL HAVE TO DO A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION PROCESS IF WE'RE AWARDED THE FUNDING, AND WE WOULD ACTUALLY GO OUT AND SOLICIT FOR THE GRANT SUPPORT SERVICES.

SO IT'LL BE A COMPETITIVE PROCESS ON THAT.

DOES THIS REQUIRE ANY ACTION FROM THE COMMISSION TODAY? NOT AT THIS TIME.

THIS WAS FOR INFORMATION AND TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF HOW MUCH WE'RE ASKING.

BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS THE PRIMARY MISSION.

AND THE PUBLIC CAN SUBMIT ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, YOU SAID THROUGH SEPTEMBER 3RD.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND IN THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT'S BEEN ADVERTISED, THERE IS THE CONTACT INFORMATION WHERE IF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS, THEY CAN DO SO.

THERE'S THE EMAIL ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER.

OK, COMMISSIONER BLONDER.

OKAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ASK YOU FIRST TO ADDRESS MS. KALAIDI'S QUESTION ABOUT ANY POSSIBLE RELOCATIONS OF ANY INDIVIDUALS THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED.

YES.

THAT'S NOT ANTICIPATED.

WE CAN DO THE CONSTRUCTION OUT.

THAT SHOULDN'T IMPACT AS FAR AS LIKE HAVING TO MOVE PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES.

THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET EASEMENTS WHERE IT'S WITHIN RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THERE SHOULD BE NO DISPLACEMENT THAT WE ANTICIPATE.

THE SECOND COMMENT, IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, I WANT TO EXPRESS MY MY SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND IT IS REINFORCED IN PARTICULAR ON A COUPLE OF POINTS.

IF YOU PULL UP PAGE 18 OF THE AGENDA, WHERE YOU HAVE THE GRAPHIC WITHOUT PROJECT, WITH PROJECT, AND IT INDICATES THE 25 YEAR EVENTS PLUS THE 2050 SLR, WHICH IS SEA LEVEL RISE.

SO YEAH, YOU'RE BACKING UP A FEW MORE, NOT THAT ONE, THE ONE BEFORE THAT.

THERE IT GOES.

THAT ONE.

YEAH.

SO YOU'VE GOT THE BOXES THERE IN THE LEGEND TALKING ABOUT THE 2050 SEA LEVEL RISE.

AND I AM ASSUMING THAT THOSE WERE BASED ON THE PREVIOUS THE FIFTH IPCC CLIMATE ASSESSMENT REPORT FROM 2013, AS I MENTIONED IN THE LAST WEEK, JUST TO REINFORCE THIS, THIS IS THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND I JUST WANT TO QUOTE ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IN IT, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING THESE CHALLENGES ON A MUCH QUICKER TIMEFRAME.

AND SO THE SOONER WE CAN GET ON THIS, THE SOONER WE CAN FUND IT, THE BETTER OFF

[00:45:05]

WE'LL BE.

I'M JUST GOING TO QUOTE BRIEFLY FROM THAT REPORT, AND THIS IS FOR POLICYMAKERS.

C.2.5 QUOTE, IT IS VERY LIKELY TO VIRTUALLY CERTAIN THAT REGIONAL MEAN RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE 21ST CENTURY.

AND DUE TO RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE, EXTREME SEA LEVEL EVENTS THAT OCCURRED ONCE PER CENTURY IN THE RECENT PAST ARE PROJECTED TO OCCUR AT LEAST ANNUALLY AT MORE THAN HALF OF ALL TIDE GAUGE LOCATIONS BY 2100.

AND THEY HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE IN THAT PROJECTION.

RELATIVE SEA LEVEL RISE CONTRIBUTES TO INCREASES IN THE FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF COASTAL FLOODING IN LOW LYING AREAS AND TO COASTAL EROSION ALONG THOSE SANDY COASTS.

AGAIN, THEY HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE ON THAT.

SO IN SUM, WE'VE GOT THIS CHALLENGE IN FRONT OF US.

WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO FOR FUNDING TO FINISH THIS PROJECT AND I FULLY SUPPORT THAT.

I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE FOUND OUT MORE ABOUT THE DIVERSITY OF MARINE LIFE IN THAT LAKE THAN I EVER EXPECTED TO OVER THE WEEKEND.

I WAS IMPRESSED.

BUT IN ANY EVENT, THE PUMP STATION, WILL IT PREVENT TIDAL MOVEMENT INTO AND OUT OF THAT LAKE THAT INCREASES DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND SO FORTH AND WATER QUALITY OVERALL? WE LOOKED AT THAT VERY CLOSELY, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY CHANGED OUR DESIGN TO KEEP IT FUNCTIONING AS IT IS.

SO IT DOES ALLOW FOR THE TIDAL FLUCTUATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY EXPERIENCED WITHIN THE LAKE.

WE ACTUALLY GOT A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND INPUT ABOUT THAT VERY ISSUE AND CONCERN.

SO WE WENT BACK AND HAVE REDESIGNED THAT STRUCTURE, AND IT ALLOWS FOR THAT.

WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY IT'S CALLED A PINCH VALVE.

AND SO WHEN THE PUMPS KICK ON, IT'LL SHUT OFF THAT FLOW TEMPORARILY FOR THE DURATION OF THAT EVENT.

SO WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MODIFY THE DESIGN TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.

AND WILL THERE BE SOME SORT OF BARRIER THAT PREVENTS MARINE LIFE FROM BEING SUCKED INTO THE PUMPS? THE PUMPS ARE DESIGNED TO WHERE THERE IS LIKE A LIKE AN INTAKE STRUCTURE THAT HELPS KEEP DEBRIS FROM GETTING CLOGGED THROUGH THAT.

AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'VE DESIGNED THESE QUITE A BIT.

AND IT SHOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON THAT, BECAUSE WE DID LOOK AT THINGS LIKE FISH AND THINGS LIKE THAT MIGRATING AND WE'VE GOTTEN OPINIONS THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE IMPACTED NEGATIVELY WITH THE PUMP STATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

THE WHOLE TEAM THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON IT SO HARD.

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER BLONDER HAS SAID.

IF I MAY.

YES.

I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE PROJECT.

I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE AHEAD WITH IT QUICKLY.

I APPRECIATE THE LOVE OF MARINE LIFE.

I APPRECIATE THE DIVERSITY OF MARINE LIFE MARIA SANCHEZ LAKE, I LIVED THERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

I NOW LIVE ALONG OYSTER CREEK.

IT'S AMAZING, THE DIVERSITY IN OYSTER CREEK.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OYSTER CREEK AND MARIA SANCHEZ LAKE, FOR SOME REASON, OYSTER CREEK IS NOW GROWING MANGROVES.

I SUSPECT IT'S BECAUSE IT'S BRACKISH.

OYSTER CREEK, IF YOU MAINTAIN THE SALT CONTENT AND MARIA SANCHEZ LAKE, IF YOU MAINTAIN THIS PRESENT SALT WATER CONTENT IN 10 YEARS TIME, YOU WILL HAVE A MANGROVE FOREST THERE.

MANGROVES ARE PROLIFERATING.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS DRIVING THAT.

I SEE IT CONSTANTLY.

I HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE POINTING TO BUILD MARSH FRONT HOMES ABOUT BUILDING THEIR HOMES.

SO THERE ARE VIEWSHED IS FROM THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR.

THOSE ARE WILL BE [INAUDIBLE] FROM THE FIRST FLOOR.

AND I GREW UP IN CENTRAL FLORIDA.

I GREW UP ON TAMPA BAY.

AND IT WAS LIKE THE CANOE THROUGH MANGROVE FOREST.

AND MARIA SANCHEZ LAKE WILL BECOME THAT PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

NOW, THAT IS GOING TO DRAMATICALLY AFFECT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AROUND MARIA SANCHEZ LAKE; IT'S GOING TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE CHARACTER, THESE LOVELY PHOTOGRAPHS AND PICTURES AND RENDERINGS WE'VE GOT SHOW MARIA SANCHEZ LAKE AS WE ALL KNOW IT.

IT WILL NOT REMAIN THAT WAY.

IT'S GROWING MANGROVES NOW.

SO PUTTING ON THE RECORD, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHERE WE WANT TO BE IN 10 OR 15 YEARS.

IN MY 35 YEARS OF BEING IN ST.

AUGUSTINE, I'VE SEEN MANY THINGS OCCUR THAT THEY WEREN'T LOOKING FAR ENOUGH DOWN THE ROAD.

AND NOW WE WISH WE HAD DONE THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS A PROBLEM THAT'S ALREADY DEVELOPING.

THE MANGROVES ARE THERE.

CLIMATE, IT'S NOT GETTING COOLER.

IT'S GETTING WARMER.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO PROLIFERATE AT MARIA SANCHEZ LAKE.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A LAKE ANYMORE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HAMMOCK.

IF YOU WANT A HAMMOCK, THAT'S FINE.

PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY BECAUSE MOST OF THE BUILDINGS WILL LOSE THEIR VIEW.

WELL, IF YOU LIKE LOOKING AT MANGROVES IT'S FINE.

NOW, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF A FRESHWATER RETENTION POND.

I UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTION TO MAYBE HAVING A BIG FOUNTAIN OR SHOOTING WATER UP IN THE AIR.

I UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTION TO MAYBE HAVING DUCKS AND CATTAILS, BUT YOU HAVE A CHOICE THERE.

[00:50:01]

SOMETHING HAS TO BE CONSIDERED.

I WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORDS THAT I'VE HEARD VERY LITTLE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS.

AND I WANT TO ASK YOU ALL TO LOOK OUT AHEAD.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO REOPEN THIS CONVERSATION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON THIS COMMISSION REGARDING MANGROVES, AND I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSION.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE--MAYBE WE'LL NEVER SETTLE IT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

I'VE SEEN IT MYSELF PERSONALLY ALONG THE WATER, WHAT'S HAPPENED, THE PROLIFERATION AND IT IS A CONCERN TO ME.

SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP.

AND I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE FURTHER DISCUSSED.

AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED, BUT I'M REALLY OPEN TO IT.

I THINK IT'S FASCINATING THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE A HOME OYSTER CREEK AND REBUILDING IT.

OYSTER CREEK HAS VIRTUALLY ZERO MANGROVES.

SO THAT TELLS ME THE SALINITY IS SUCH THAT IT'S NOT FOSTERING THE GROWTH.

NOW, CAN MARIA SANCHEZ LAKE BE MANIPULATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE DEFEAT THE GROWTH OF MANGROVES BUT ENCOURAGE SALTWATER REDFISH? WE'VE GOT BIG RED FISH OYSTERS AT OYSTER CREEK.

THEY'RE HUGE.

AND I WOULD GUESS A LARGER DIVERSITY OF MARINE LIFE.

AND A LOT OF THE MARINE LIFE WE SEE HERE ARE JUST AS HAPPY IN BRACKISH AS OUR SALT.

AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER BLONDER CAN SPEAK TO THAT BETTER THAN I CAN.

SHE'S THE BIOLOGIST.

I'M THE PLUMBER.

BUT HAVING SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SERIOUSLY NEED TO CONSIDER DOWN THE ROAD, SO, THANK YOU.

MR. MAYOR.

PLEASE.

I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION THAT WE ARE WORKING ON PERMITTING FOR SOME TRIMMING OF MANGROVES AT THIS TIME.

I'M NOT SURE OF WHERE THAT IS, HOW OFTEN THAT CAN HAPPEN.

MAYBE MR. FRANKLIN MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT BRIEFLY, OR MAYBE YOU COULD.

I KNOW WE'VE LOOKED INTO IT BECAUSE THAT CONCERN HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BY RESIDENTS WITH THE MIGRATION OF MANGROVES AND HOW DO YOU MANAGE THAT? AND SO THERE ARE REGULATIONS IN PLACE AT THE STATE LEVEL FOR MANGROVE TRIMMING.

WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH DEP TO FIND OUT THE INS AND OUTS OF THAT.

AND REUBEN MAY BE ABLE TO FIND THE LATEST UPDATE, BUT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAYS TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THAT, TO KIND OF BALANCE THAT.

SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE THREE SITES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, COQUINA PARK BEING ONE.

WE PUT IN A PERMIT APPLICATION, WE WERE SENT THEIR REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

SO ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS TO BE DONE.

THE PERMITTING PROCESS IS NOT EASY AS WE'RE FINDING OUT.

MANGROVES, YOU KNOW, THE MINIMUM THEY CAN BE TRIMMED TO IS SIX FEET IN ELEVATION.

SO THAT'S THE SHORTEST, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO TOUCH THEM UNTIL THEY GET ABOVE SIX FEET AND THEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO TRIM THEM DOWN TO SIX FEET.

THEY HAVE TO BE DONE WITH CERTIFIED ARBORIST OR A CERTIFIED MANGROVE TRIMMER.

SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH OUR FIRST PERMIT PROCESS.

AND WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS CONVERSATION UP WITH THE STREET ADVISORY COMMITTEE AS WELL.

AND PROBABLY GOING TO LOOK AT WORKSHOPS.

THE GOAL WITH MARIA SANCHEZ WAS TO REOPEN THE EXISTING MANGROVES THAT ARE THERE INTO THE MANAGEMENT PERMIT SO WE COULD CONTINUE TO TRIM THEM AND MAINTAIN THEM AS PART OF THIS PERMIT.

BUT A CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE HAD WAS, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY WE WERE GOING TO GO WITH A FRESHWATER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR MARIA SANCHEZ.

AND THROUGH FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FROM RESIDENTS, WE OPTED TO GO BACK TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THE SALTWATER ENVIRONMENT THAT'S THERE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT SLOW.

AND I WOULD AGREE WITH VICE MAYOR SIKES-KLINE THAT IT'S A FASCINATING ISSUE AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.

AND I WOULD BE DELIGHTED THAT FURTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.

LAST QUESTION.

MAYBE THE TIMING OF WHEN THE GRANTS MIGHT BE AWARDED.

I LOOKED BACK AT THE PROJECT'S SCHEDULE.

AND RIGHT NOW, ONCE WE'RE LOOKING AT PERMITTING AND DESIGN, WRAPPING THAT UP, PROBABLY NEXT SUMMER, WE SHOULD BE TURNING EVERYTHING INTO FEMA AT THE STATE LEVEL.

THAT THEN GOES THROUGH A FEMA PROCESS.

FOR THE CDBG FUNDING THAT WE'RE SEEKING THROUGH REBUILD FLORIDA.

WE WOULD BE HEARING BACK IN JUNE TIME FRAME OF NEXT YEAR AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'LL BE AWARDING THAT.

AND SO TIMING WISE, THEY MAY ALIGN VERY WELL WHERE WE'RE WAITING FOR FEMA TO MAKE A DECISION ON THE CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS FOR THE PHASE TWO PART OF THAT WHILE, THE CDBG PROCESS WE'LL KNOW MORE IF WE CAN APPLY FOR THAT.

THE REASON WE SOUGHT FUNDING FOR THIS ROUND TWO AND NOT ROUND ONE WAS WE WANTED TO GET FURTHER ALONG WITH THE DESIGN.

WE WANTED TO HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR COSTS AND MAKE IT MORE COMPETITIVE.

IT IS A VERY COMPETITIVE PROGRAM.

ROUND ONE, THERE WAS OVER 400 APPLICATIONS, ONLY 20 RECEIVED FUNDING.

THIS IS ABOUT ROUGHLY FIVE PERCENT OF THAT.

BUT WE HAVE A VERY STRONG PROJECT BECAUSE WE'RE HITTING ON A NUMBER OF THE

[00:55:03]

STRATEGIES THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO FUND.

AND IF WE DO NOT RECEIVE FUNDING THIS CYCLE, WE HAVE ONE MORE CYCLE NEXT YEAR THAT WE CAN APPLY FOR AND WE MAY KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THROUGH FEMA AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

OK, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS.

SEEING NONE.

COMMISSIONERS WERE NOW ON ITEM 8A 1.

[8.A.I. Ordinance 2021-13: Makes amendments to Chapter 11, Section 11-29, Standards of Review for Conservation Overlay Zone 2. (I. Lopez, City Attorney)]

THESE ARE ALL SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WE'RE ON ORDINANCE 2021-13 MS. LOPEZ FOR BRIEF INTRODUCTION.

YES, ORDINANCE 2021-13 IS HERE FOR SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING.

IT INCLUDES THE LATEST CHANGES THAT ARE AUGUST 9TH, FIRST READING A MEETING WHERE WE ADDED ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE AND EXPLAIN THE 10 PERCENT CALCULATION OF THE BUFFER, WHICH IS INDEED AREA AND NOT LINEAR.

SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT MISSTATEMENT AT OUR LAST HEARING.

UNLESS THE COMMISSION HAS SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, THIS IS ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING LANGUAGE REGARDING PERMITTING IN OUR CONSERVATION OVERLY ZONE TWO.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME.

IF NOT, I WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I HAVE ONE CARD.

I'M DELIGHTED TO RECEIVE OTHERS.

MS. KALAIDI, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

BJ KALAIDI WEST CITY OF ST.

CONSERVATION, ORD 2021-13 CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE TWO, LET ME SAY THANK YOU TO THE RESIDENTS WHO QUESTION SECTION 11 29B AT THE APRIL SIX, 2021 PZB MEETING AND CONTACTED COMMISSIONER BLONDER.

IF AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE 11, SECTION 1129 ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER AT 70 FLORIDA AVENUE TO GO AHEAD WITH A BULKHEAD SEAWALL OR RETAINING WALL.

THE PURPOSE OF CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE TWO, WHICH SHOULD REMAIN UNDEVELOPED, WILL CONTINUE TO BE DESTROYED.

CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE, TWO AND THREE CONTINUE TO BE DESTROYED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO CARE MORE ABOUT BRIDGES, DOCKS, BOATS, WALKWAYS, BULKHEADS, SEAWALLS AND RETAINING WALLS THAN PROTECTING OUR NATURAL NATURAL SHORELINE.

IF THE CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE IS SERIOUS ABOUT PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT, USE PART OF THE NINE MILLION EXTRA TAXES TO HIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT WHO HAS NOT WORKED FOR THE CITY OR APPEARED BEFORE CITY BOARDS? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WHEN I GO TO THESE PZB AND HARB MEETINGS IN THIS MEETING, A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS GOING ON IS GEARED TOWARDS MAKING A BUCK.

AND AS WE'RE MAKING A BUCK, IT SEEMS TO ME IN MY OBSERVATION THAT WE'RE LOSING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND IT ALWAYS GOES BACK TO ME.

THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

AND I UNDERSTAND ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND WE ALL DO.

BUT WE COME TO ST.

AUGUSTINE FOR A REASON.

AND I THINK IT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY THAT UNFORTUNATELY I SEE BEING DESTROYED.

AND IT'S UP TO YOU ALL TO TRY AND STOP SOME OF THIS LEGALLY.

AND AGAIN, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN UP AS AN ORDINANCE, IT'S GOING TO ALLOW ALL THESE THINGS TO CONTINUE.

SO I'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT HAPPENS AGAIN AT FLORIDA AVENUE, WHICH A CITIZEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE STAFF.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION DURING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ORDINANCE 2021-13? YES.

MS. GUYVER, WELCOME.

WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED, MS. GYVER, IF YOU WOULD FILL OUT A CARD JUST FOR OUR RECORDS.

I KNOW MS. KALAIDI LIKES TO GO LAST, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT LETTING THAT HAPPEN.

BUT I AGREE WITH WHAT SHE SAID.

AND UPON HAVING READ THIS AMENDMENT, I THINK WE'RE RIGHT TO QUESTION IT, BECAUSE ALL OF THESE DEVELOPERS, THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO GO THAT WANTS TO BUILD IN NORTH DAVIS SHORES AND THE PART THAT WANTS TO BUILD AS WELL IN SAN SEBASTIAN.

THAT'S A PROBLEM IF THEY STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY.

AND WHILE I REALIZE THE SEA LEVEL, WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO LOCATE IS NOT MAYBE AS

[01:00:04]

HIGH AS IT MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE STILL HAVEN'T SEEN DESIGN PLANS GOING BACK ONCE AGAIN TO ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH THE PUD.

AND WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY IS NOT DESTROYED BECAUSE OF THE DOLLARS AND THE DO RE MI.

AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE MONEY IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER AND TO OTHER FACTORS IN THE CITY, MAYBE THERE'S OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN DO WITHOUT SO MUCH DESTRUCTION OF OUR PUBLIC LANDSCAPE AND OUR WATERWAYS.

BECAUSE EVEN AFTER YOU GO PAST THE KING STREET BRIDGE AND YOU SEE THE VISTA WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING UP THE ROAD ON US 1 AND YOU'RE HEADING NORTH, YOU SEE ALL THE OPEN AND YOU WONDER WHAT ELSE IS THERE, AND IT'S NOT MANGROVES, IT'S ALL MARSH.

SO SOMEHOW WHATEVER MARSH LIFE IT GETS THERE, IT TRAVELS THROUGH THAT PART OF THE RIVER TO GET THERE AND VICE VERSA.

SO ALL THESE BOATS THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN AND ALL OF THESE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE LIMITED TO SAILBOATS.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE BIG YACHTS.

AND I WONDER WHAT IS THAT GOING TO DO TO OUR CONSERVATION OVERLAY SECTION TWO? AND I WOULD AGREE WITH MS. KALAIDI.

VERY GOOD POINTS THAT SHE BROUGHT UP.

AND I APPRECIATE HER FOR BEING AS SMART AS SHE IS.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? SEEING NO ONE ELSE, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

COMMISSIONERS.

IF I COULD DIRECT A BRIEF COMMENT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, MY UNDERSTANDING, WELL, THE WAY I READ THIS, IT'S MUCH BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS VERSION AS AMENDED OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED WITH THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND THIS AS A STOPGAP MEASURE, THAT IS AN IMPROVEMENT AS THE CITY STAFF WORKS TO MORE CLOSELY ALIGN OUR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES IN OUR CRITERIA AND OUR RESTRICTIONS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AM I CORRECT IN THAT? THAT IS CORRECT.

DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE FOR THAT PROCESS OF ALIGNMENT? I WOULD ASK MR. BIRCHIM OR THE CITY MANAGER.

I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A HIRING OF ECOLOGISTS.

I WOULD JUST SIMPLY SAY THAT I SUPPORT THE REVISED LANGUAGE.

I WOULD, IN FACT, MOVE TO PASS IT.

AND I WOULD URGE CITY STAFF TO MOVE WITH ALL HASTE IN ALIGNING THIS THESE OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONES.

I'M SORRY, WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER BLONDER IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HORVATH.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

I WAS TRYING TO PICK UP SPEED HERE.

WAIT, I HAVE TO READ IT.

I'M SORRY.

READ IT.

I WILL BE SPEEDY.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2021-13, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 11-29, PROVIDING CLARIFICATION AND CONSISTENCY OF PERMITTED STRUCTURES, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

FURTHER DISCUSSION SEEING NONE MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

WE'RE NOW ON ORDINANCE 2021-15, MS. LOPEZ.

THE ORDINANCE PASSES.

YES, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS SIMPLY TO CORRECT A SCRIBNER'S ERROR IN OUR FIRE PENSION TRUST FUND SECTION

[8.A.2. Ordinance 2021-15: Amends Section 20-219 of the City Code to correct a scrivener's error, (i. Lopez, City Attorney)]

OF OUR CODE.

IT INCLUDED AN ERROR IN CONCORDING THE ALPHA AND THE NEW MERIT.

OK, SO THIS IS TO CORRECT A SCRIBNER'S ERROR, IS THERE DISCUSSION OF QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES ANYBODY WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ORDINANCE 2021-15? SEEING NO ONE.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE WE PASS ORDINANCE 2021-15 ON SECOND READING, READ BY TITLE ONLY AND PASSED.

YEAH, I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER VALDES.

MS. LOPEZ.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2021-15, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA AMENDING SECTION 20-219 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE TO CORRECT A SCRIBNER'S ERROR IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 2020-33 RELATING TO THE

[01:05:01]

FIREFIGHTERS PENSION TRUST FUND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WE'RE NOW ON ORDINANCE 2021-16, WHICH DEFINES THE CRAFT ALCOHOL INDUSTRY.

THE ORDINANCE PASSES.

[8.A.3. Ordinance 2021-16: Defines the craft alcohol industry. (L Lopez, City Attorney)]

MS. LOPEZ.

YES, THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE 2021-16 WOULD CREATE A NEW DEFINITION IN OUR ZONING CODE FOR CRAFT ALCOHOL INDUSTRY.

THIS IS TO BETTER EXPLAIN THE TYPE OF MANUFACTURING THAT IS INVOLVED IN CRAFT MANUFACTURING OF VARIOUS ALCOHOLS, BE IT CIDER WINE OR SPIRITS OR BEER.

WE DO HAVE LATER ON THE FIRST READING FOR WHERE THAT ZONING CATEGORY WILL BE INCLUDED.

BUT ORDINANCE 2021-16 IS SIMPLY TO CREATE THAT DEFINITION.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT.

I WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I HAVE ONE CARD, AND WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO RECEIVE OTHERS.

MS. KALAIDI, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

BJ KALAIDI WEST CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE, ORDINANCE 2021-16, THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD BE DENIED.

LOBBYISTS MANIPULATED THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO EXPAND WHAT STILLS CAN DO.

THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL WELFARE.

ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2021, MR. MCDANIEL MET WITH MR. REGAN IN MS. KLINE.

HE IS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THE SALARY PERFORMANCE TO THE PLAZA.

THE ALCOHOL NIGHTLIFE IS DESTROYING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF ST.

AND WE HAVE ONE PERSON, MR. BARRY FOX, WHO'S NOW SHORT TERM RENTAL IN CHARGE OF NIGHTLIFE AND THEN CODE ENFORCEMENT.

WE NEED TO KEEP OUR EYES ON THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE BEING CREATED UP UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK, BECAUSE THE MORE THIS HAPPENS, THE MORE PEOPLE ARE MOVING OUT OF DOWNTOWN ST.

AND IT SHOULDN'T BE, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED HERE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, NOT TALKING ABOUT MYSELF.

I WAS SMART ENOUGH TO MOVE OUT OF THE CITY ON THE EAST SIDE BACK IN 1979.

SO I DO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON DOWNTOWN.

AND I THINK ALLOWING THIS KIND OF STUFF, JUST BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE SAYS WE NEED TO EXPAND THEIR BUSINESS SO THEY CAN MANUFACTURE THE STUFF.

AND I THINK IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO BE TRANSPARENT, SOMEONE IN THE CITY SHOULD MAKE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC WHERE THIS IS GOING TO BE.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE IT OR WILL BE HAVING IT AND REALLY WHERE ALL OUR BARS ARE.

I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, BUT IT'D TAKE TIME TO WALK AROUND DOWNTOWN.

IT SEEMS LIKE NO ONE COULD DO ANYTHING IN THIS CITY AS FAR AS EATING IS CONCERNED OR PROVIDING FOR ANY ENTERTAINMENT WITHOUT THE USE OF ALCOHOL, WHICH IS CAUSING NOT ONLY QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES, BUT ALSO PUTTING A STRAIN ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ORDINANCE 2021-16? SEEING NO ONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE PASS ORDINANCE 2020-16 ON SECOND READING, READ BY TITLE ONLY AND PASSED.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND IT.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

MS. LOPEZ, IF YOU PLEASE READ BY TITLE ONLY.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2021-16 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF ST.

AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, SECTION 28-2 TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF CRAFT ALCOHOL INDUSTRY PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

FURTHER DISCUSSION SEEING NONE.

MS. LOPEZ, WE'RE NOW ON ITEM 8B1 ORDINANCE 2021-17, WHICH IS HERE ON FIRST READING.

THE ORDINANCE PASSES.

[8.B.I. Ordinance 2021-17: Provides zoning for the craft alcohol industry. (I. Lopez, City Attorney)]

YES, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS A BIT OF AN UNUSUAL FIRST READING.

BY FLORIDA STATUTES, ONCE YOU CHANGE THE ALLOWABLE USES WITHIN A PARTICULAR ZONING CATEGORY, IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL.

[01:10:01]

SO THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE IS AT FIRST READING, BUT PUBLIC HEARING.

AND IT PLACES THIS NEW DEFINITION THAT YOU JUST CREATED IN THE PRIOR VOTE ALLOWS THAT USE IN VARIOUS ZONING CATEGORIES OR ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND THE PLANNING STAFF DID MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR EXISTING CRAFT ALCOHOL INDUSTRIES WERE ALL INCLUDED IN THOSE ZONING CATEGORIES.

SO IT SHOULD BE A PERFECT OVERLAP, AS WELL AS MATCHING SOME OF THE CRITERIA, WHETHER IT'S A USE ALLOWED BY RIGHT VERSUS A USE ALLOWED BY A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO MAKE IT MATCH SIMILAR MANUFACTURING WITHIN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

BUT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU FOR THE CORRECTION, MS. LOPEZ, ON THIS BEING A PUBLIC HEARING, I WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 2021-17.

THE COMMISSION.

IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ORDINANCE? SEEING NO ONE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

COMMISSIONERS.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO, WE HAVE IT IN THEY'VE CHOSEN CATEGORIES TO PUT THE ACTUAL ACTIVITY IN.

AND YOU MENTIONED PERMISSIBLE BY USE.

WHERE IS THAT ADDRESSED? IF YOU GO THROUGH EACH SECTION, YOU WILL SEE IF IT'S PERMITTED USE, WHICH WOULD BE BY RIGHT.

WAIT, I'M LOSING MY CUE HERE.

SO THE FIRST TWO ARE PERMITTED USES.

RGO IS PERMITTED USE.

YES.

HP THREE IS STRAIGHT UP.

CORRECT.

AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.

SO WHICH ONE ISN'T? THEY ALL LOOK TO ME LIKE THEY ARE JUST BY PERMITTED USE.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SECTION TWO COMMERCIAL LOW ONE.

CL1 IS THE ONLY ONE PERMISSIBLE USE BY EXCEPTION.

SO I WOULD RGO THAT WE SHOULD DO, SINCE WE HAVE THIS ISSUE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, WITH PROLIFERATION OF ALCOHOL SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS DOWNTOWN IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS.

I WOULD ALSO PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE HP 2 & 3 PERMISSIBLE USES BY EXCEPTION.

MS. LOPEZ AND MR. BIRCHIM IS HERE AS WELL SHOULD WE NEED HIS EXPERTISE.

JUST A CLARIFICATION.

THIS IS FOR THE MANUFACTURING, NOT THE SERVING AND CONSUMPTION ON SITE.

TWO AND A HALF MONTHS AGO, WE ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT SAID IF IN ADDITION TO THE MANUFACTURING OF YOUR CRAFT DISTILLERY, YOU WISH TO DO SALINE CONSUMPTION ON SITE, WE WILL TREAT YOU LIKE A BAR.

THIS ORDINANCE AND THE PRIOR ORDINANCE CREATING THE DEFINITION DOES NOT CHANGE THAT.

THIS WAS STRICTLY FOR THE PERCOLATION, THE MANUFACTURING OF THE WE'RE HAVING MANUFACTURING IN HP TWO AND THREE.

THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING, WE'RE SAYING IT'S OK TO MANUFACTURE AND DISTILL ALCOHOL IN HP 2 & 3.

CORRECT.

AND I THINK YOUR CONCERNS ARE MORE OF A PLANNING QUESTION, AND THAT'S PERHAPS MR. BIRCHIM.

MR. BIRCHIM.

IF YOU COULD PROVIDE A LITTLE LIGHT ON THIS, PLEASE.

I'M JUST SAYING, WHAT ARE WE SAYING HERE? WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FACT THAT BARS ARE USED BY EXCEPTION IN THE HP DISTRICTS.

WE ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE HAVE MICROBREWERIES LIKE A1A ALE WORKS THAT EXIST THAT HAVE EXISTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS DEFINITION, IN THIS USE.

WE DID NOT WANT TO MAKE ANYONE NONCONFORMING BY ENACTING THIS LAW.

SO WE'VE GOT A1A ALE WORKS AND WE HAD ANOTHER MICROBREWERY ON CATHEDRAL PLACE, I CAN'T THINK OF THE NAME RIGHT NOW.

ANCIENT CITY.

YES, MA'AM.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

THEY DON'T ACTUALLY DO IT THERE.

THEY JUST DISPENSE IT THERE.

THEY DON'T MAKE IT THERE.

THEY JUST DISPENSE IT THERE.

A1A DOESN'T MAKE BEER ANYMORE, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND; THEY DON'T DO IT.

SO WHERE DO THEY DO IT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF TIPTOE AROUND AND NOT CREATE?

[01:15:08]

WELL, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT.

I THOUGHT THEY WERE.

NO, THAT'S ALL GONE NOW.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE DOES.

I THINK [INAUDIBLE] BREWERY DOES.

BUT THEY'RE NOT IN HP ONE OR TWO OR THREE.

HAVE A PERMIT TO DO IT IN HP ONE? A1A? I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE LICENSED FOR.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO KEEP EVERYONE WHO'S CURRENTLY DOING THIS USE LEGAL [INAUDIBLE] THROUGH THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITHOUT UPSETTING THE APPLE CART.

I WOULD REALLY PREFER IN THESE DISTRICTS WHERE WE'RE SEEING THIS PROLIFERATION OF ALCOHOL MAKING OR SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS TO GO THROUGH THE PERMISSIBLE BY USE EXCEPTION PROCESS.

AND I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT WE COULD GRANDFATHERED THEM.

IF YOU THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT'S EXISTING THAT IS DOING IT, THEN COULDN'T WE GRANDFATHER THEM? WE COULD, WE WOULD BE MAKING THEM A LEGALLY EXISTING NONCONFORMITY BY DOING SO.

MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IF THEY'RE NO LONGER DOING IT, THEY DON'T HAVE A LICENSE TO DO IT BECAUSE NO LICENSE EXISTS, ARE WE OBLIGATED TO GRANDFATHER THEM? NOT NECESSARILY.

HMM.

THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT SOMEONE COULD OPERATE THIS EXACT SAME TYPE OF BUSINESS AS A BAR AND GET A USE BY EXCEPTION AND APPROVAL FOR IT.

THIS WOULD JUST STOP PEOPLE FROM DOING THE MANUFACTURING AND SELL IT AT A RETAIL LEVEL.

I WAS JUST MAINLY FOCUSING ON A1A ALE WORKS.

I MEAN, IT'S A FAIRLY INDUSTRIAL USE.

SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

WE COULD CERTAINLY GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THIS A USE BY EXCEPTION IN HP TWO AND THREE.

I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS ORDINANCE AND ASK STAFF TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS THE CONCERNS.

IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION TO TABLE? I'LL SECOND.

A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR OF TABLING, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

THANK YOU, MR. BIRCHIM.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING BACK FROM YOU.

MR. BIRCHIM, DON'T GO FAR.

WE ARE ON ITEM 91, WHICH IS FIRST READING, NOT A PUBLIC HEARING OF ORDNANCE 2021-19,

[9.A.I. Ordinance 2021-19: Rezoning the Sebastian Inland Harbor Planned Unit Development of 159 King Street (PID# 203350 0030, 203470 0000) to Residential General and Office. (D. Birchim, Director Planning and Building)]

WHICH PERTAINS TO REZONING REQUEST FROM SEBASTIAN INLAND HARBOR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS DAVID BIRCHIM, PLANNING BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

ORDINANCE 2021-19 AND THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE, 2021-20 BOTH ARE REZONING APPLICATIONS FOR THE SEBASTIAN INLAND HARBOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

THIS APPLICATION IS TO RESUME THE PROPERTY FROM PUD TO RESIDENTIAL GENERAL AND OFFICE RGO.

THERE ARE TWO ORDINANCES TONIGHT BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS UNDER DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP.

BUT THE APPLICATION IS IDENTICAL.

ORDINANCE 19 IS THE SA MARINA HOLDINGS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS ON THE OVERHEAD SCREEN.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S--OH, I'M SORRY, I GOT THE WRONG ONE.

IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED PUD AND THEY ARE REQUESTING A REZONING TO RGO THE CURRENT PUD ZONING ALLOWS ALL OF THE USES IN THE RGO ZONING CATEGORY AS ALLOWABLE USES.

SO THIS REZONING WILL NOT CHANGE ANY PERMITTED USES FOR THE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE VERY MINOR DIFFERENCES AND BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE PUD, AN RGO ZONING, AND FOR A PROPERTY THIS LARGE, THEY'RE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL BUILDINGS SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

THE PUD ALLOWS 50 FEET OF BUILDING HEIGHT.

WITH AN ADDITIONAL 15 FEET ABOVE THE BUILDING TO SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AND THE PUD ALSO ALLOWS A 90 FOOT TOWER ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY ENTITLED.

THE PROPOSED RGO ZONING DROPS THAT BUILDING HEIGHT DOWN TO 50 FEET WITH ONLY FIVE FEET ABOVE THE ROOF DECK TO SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

AND IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE 90 FOOT TOWER.

SO REZONING THIS PROPERTY TO RGO WILL EFFECTIVELY REDUCE THE HEIGHT THAT'S ALLOWED TO BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY.

THE PUD ALSO DEFINES A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE

[01:20:03]

OVERALL USE OF THE PROPERTY AS 636.

THE RGO ZONING CATEGORY, IF YOU CHOOSE TO REZONE IT TONIGHT OR AT SECOND READING, WILL REQUIRE FULLY CODE COMPLIANT PARKING.

THE SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN PARTIALLY DEVELOPED AS A SURFACE PARKING LOT.

THERE IS ALSO A MARINA BASIN AND THE PILINGS FOR A RIVER WALK HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.

IT'S MOSTLY CLEARED OF TREES AND VEGETATION.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MADE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO RGO ON AUGUST 23RD.

I'VE INCLUDED A CHRONOLOGY OF THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY, AND THE NEXT ONE, YOU'LL SEE THE NEXT ORDINANCE.

I'VE ALSO INCLUDED THE FULL RGO DESCRIPTION AND THE FULL PUD DOCUMENT PACKAGE AND A SUMMARY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TWO.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THIS IS FIRST READING.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, THE PLANS THAT WE SEE IN OUR PACKET ARE THE SAME PLANS THAT WE SAW FOR PUD.

BUT THEY WILL BE WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY APPROVING THOSE PLANS, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND GET THE SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING AND THEIR CARS REDUCE THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT, BASICALLY WHAT THEY GET ON THERE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT APPROVING THIS SPECIFIC PLAN BECAUSE IT IS JUST WHAT PUD HAD.

YOU ARE NOT APPROVING ANY DEVELOPMENT THIS EVENING.

THIS IS JUST A REZONING APPLICATION.

OK, THANK YOU.

AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. BIRCHIM, THEY MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION, DEPENDING IF THEY NEED ZONING EXCEPTIONS, ET CETERA.

THAT'S CORRECT.

THEY WILL NOT NEED TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING OR TO THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE CITY COMMISSION UNLESS THERE IS A DETAIL THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE PZB APPROVAL FROM A SETBACK, VARIANCE OR TREE REMOVAL, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WHAT IS THE ISSUE THAT SEVERAL OF THE SPEAKERS BROACHED THE EXISTING PUD EXPIRES ON ITS OWN IN APRIL? IS THERE ANY LEGAL AND PERHAPS MS. LOPEZ, THIS IS YOURS AS WELL, WHY SHOULD WE REZONE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? WELL, THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PHASING SCHEDULE IN THE PUD DOCUMENT, AND I'LL READ WHAT THAT SAYS.

IT SAYS BY APRIL 22ND.

I'M SORRY.

THE CONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE BY APRIL 23, 2022 AND MUST BE COMPLETED BY APRIL 23, 2027.

COMMENCEMENT SHALL BE DEFINED AS THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR A HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT APRIL 23, 2022 IS THE COMMENCEMENT DEADLINE FOR THE PUD.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO.

IF THE PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT HAVE APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE APPROVED BY THAT APRIL DEADLINE, THEY'LL FALL OUT OF THEIR PHASING SCHEDULE.

THEY WILL STILL BE A PUD.

BUT THEY WILL BE WHAT WE LOOK AT, AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST, AS AN EXPIRED PUD.

THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS.

THEY HAVE TWO OPTIONS.

THE FIRST OPTION WOULD BE TO AMEND THE PUD AND EXTEND THEIR PHASING SCHEDULE, WHICH IS WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION DID SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A CONVENTIONAL ZONING CATEGORY, SUCH AS RGO, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT.

OK, THANK YOU, THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK MAYBE WE COULD CONSIDER IS THIS A KIND OF AN EIGHT MONTH COOLING OFF PERIOD, SO TO SPEAK.

IF WE JUST DID NOT REZONE THIS AND LOSE THIS PUD, WHICH I THINK WE'VE ALL WORKED REALLY HARD.

OVER MANY YEARS, YOU'LL SEE IN THE CHRONOLOGY.

OVER MANY YEARS, YOU'VE SEEN A LOT OF COOPERATION AND A LOT OF ANTICIPATION.

A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS HAVE HELD IN GOOD FAITH OVER TIME.

[01:25:01]

A LOT OF PROMISES.

AND I AM VERY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE IT COME TO THIS AFTER ALL OF OUR WORK IN THE PAST.

AND I THINK MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S SOME TEMPERS INVOLVED AND MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE BIT RUSHED.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER WHAT ESSENTIALLY WOULD BE AN EIGHT MONTH COOLING OFF PERIOD UNTIL BASICALLY IT EXPIRES.

OK, LET ME IF WITH THE COMMISSION'S PLEASURE, LET ME MS. ELLEN AVERY-SMITH IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER AND IF WE COULD HEAR FROM MS. AVERY-SMITH.

I CAN'T GET THIS MASK OFF.

I APOLOGIZE.

NO PROBLEM MYSELF.

FOR THE RECORD, ELLEN AVERY-SMITH, ROGERS TOWERS, 100 WHETSTONE PLACE HERE IN ST.

AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF SA MARINA HOLDINGS, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

AND IN RESPECT TO ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS TODAY, I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE LAST ALMOST TWO YEARS.

MY CLIENT, ABBAS ABDUL HUSSEIN AND [INAUDIBLE] INC., WHICH IS CHARLES COX, AND OUR TEAMS HAVE WORKED FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS TO TRY TO REVISE THIS PUD TO MAKE AS MANY PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE HAPPY AS WE COULD.

AND WE WORKED VERY HARD.

WE WENT TO THE PZB LAST YEAR, IN JANUARY, WE GOT A WHOLE LIST OF ITEMS TO FIX.

I'LL CALL IT.

AND SO WE WORKED AGAIN FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, FIXED THOSE 12 ITEMS OR HOMEWORK LISTS FROM THIS FROM THE PZB, AND WENT BACK TO PZB AND GOT UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BECAUSE THAT PEEZY B SAID WE HAD DONE ALL THE HOMEWORK THEY GAVE US.

AND SO WE FELT GREAT ABOUT THAT.

AND WE CAME TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

WE HEARD WHAT ALL FIVE OF YOU SAID THAT DAY VERY CLEARLY.

AND WE WORKED OVER SEVERAL MONTHS TO TRY TO COME TO AT LEAST I WILL SAY PUT TOGETHER A PLAN THAT MADE AT LEAST THREE OF YOU HAPPY IN THE INTERVENING TIME.

WE WORKED WITH THE CITY STAFF BECAUSE THE MARINA, WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU ON THIS PLAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE OVERHEAD.

THE MARINA WAS CONSTRUCTED FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL OF THE ORIGINAL PUD IN 2004.

BECAUSE THAT MARINA EXISTS, THE CITY CODE WILL NOT ALLOW IT TO BE COUNTED AS DEVELOPABLE LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.

THAT WAS A CHANGE THAT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF.

WE WERE COUNTING ON THAT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO GET THE MINIMUM ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT WERE DRIVING THE AMENDED PUD.

SO AFTER THAT RESULT OF NOT HAVING THE DEVELOPABLE LAND TO SUPPORT THE MULTIFAMILY BECAUSE THE MULTIFAMILY IS VERY EXPENSIVE TO CONSTRUCT, THIS SITE IS FILLED.

SO, ANY BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE BUILT ON PILINGS.

AND IT DOESN'T MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE TO BUILD FEWER THAN 150 MULTIFAMILY UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO WE HAD TO GET RID OF THE MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT.

THAT WAS THE FIRST CARD THAT FELL, IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT THAT WAY.

WE ALSO COULD NOT FIGURE OUT JUST IN GENERAL A WAY TO ADDRESS ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS, THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC AT THAT TIME DIDN'T WANT THE PUD.

THERE WERE SIGNS ALL OVER DOWNTOWN THAT TALKED ABOUT NO PUD, NO INCREASE, BULK, NO INCREASE THIS MAKE THEM COMPLY WITH THE CODE.

SO WE SAID, OK, INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO SPEND YOUR TIME, OUR TIME, THEIR MONEY.

LET'S GO BACK TO THE RGO ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED RGO UNTIL 2004.

THAT RGO ZONING DISTRICT IS THE COMPANION TO THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, MIXED USE, FUTURE LAND USE THAT THIS CITY COMMISSION GAVE TO THIS PROPERTY MANY YEARS AGO.

SO RGO IS THE HISTORIC ZONING DISTRICT OF THIS PROPERTY.

IT WE'RE JUST ASKING TO GO BACK TO THE HISTORIC ZONING DISTRICT.

AS MR. BIRCHIM SAID EARLIER, ALL OF THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE PUD THAT EXISTS TODAY THAT YOU HAVE APPROVED ARE RGO USES.

AND SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY TO JUST SAY WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR MORE BUILDING HEIGHT.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY CHANGES IN PARKING.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLER AND JUST LET EVERYBODY MOVE ALONG.

AND SO THAT WAS THE RATIONALE.

AND I APOLOGIZE THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN THIS FAR ALONG IN THIS PROCESS WITHOUT ME AND OUR TEAM STATING THAT TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

[01:30:03]

WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT PZB.

AND SO I JUST WANT YOU TO PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A DECISION THAT WAS NOT MADE LIGHTLY.

THESE LANDOWNERS HAVE INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY TRYING TO MAKE THE PUD WORK AND THAT WE JUST CAN'T SEEM TO GET TO A CONSENSUS.

SO, AGAIN, THIS IS THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU.

WE WOULD VERY MUCH, BECAUSE, AGAIN, THIS IS THE ZONING RGO THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

THERE'S NO PROBLEM LEGALLY WITH APPROVING IT.

WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PENDING APPLICATION, THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE ACTION ON THIS PENDING APPLICATION.

NEITHER OF THE--I WILL SPEAK FOR FOR S.A.

MARINA--WE DO NOT WANT TO WAIT UNTIL APRIL.

AND WE WILL GET TO THE RESULT OF BEING IN THE BACK IN THE SAME PLACE AND HAVE JUST SIX OR EIGHT OR WHATEVER MORE MONTHS OF PUBLIC CONSTERNATION ABOUT THE PROJECT.

WE'RE JUST DELAYING THE INEVITABLE, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.

AND SO I WILL ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT LIKE FOR ME TO ANSWER.

AND I APPRECIATE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE EXPLANATION.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS--THANK YOU, MISS AVERY-SMITH--THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

THAT OPPORTUNITY WILL COME.

SHE HAS THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER.

MAYOR, MAY I JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING? BECAUSE I THINK I'M HEARING A BIT OF AN ERROR.

THE PROJECT HAS ALREADY COMMENCED.

THE WINERY IS PART OF THE PUD.

IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE PEABODY.

THE PUD IS A ONE PHASE PROJECT.

SO IN SECTION THREE OF PHASING FOR THE PUD, IT STATES THAT CONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE BY APRIL 23RD, 2022 AND MUST BE COMPLETED BY APRIL 23RD, 2027.

COMMENCEMENT IS DEFINED AS APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR THE HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT INCLUDES THE WINERIES.

SO I JUST WANT US TO BE CAREFUL WHEN THERE'S THAT CONCEPT THAT IT HASN'T COMMENCED.

YES, THE PUD COMMENCED MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.

THE WINERY HAS BEEN BUILT.

SECONDLY, OUR CODE UNDER THE PUD SECTION DOES NOT JUST SPEAK TO COMMENCEMENT.

THE LANGUAGE FOR THE REVERSION BACK TO RGO SAYS TIMELY COMMENCE AND COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL OR PART OF THE PHASES.

SO THERE IS NO REVERSION SIMPLY BY A DELAY IN THE COMMENCEMENT.

ALTHOUGH FACTUALLY, COMMENCEMENT HAS HAPPENED WITHIN THE ENTIRE PUD THAT INCLUDES THE WINERY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD THE COMMENTS THAT WERE BEING SAID, BUT THE PUD HAS COMMENCED.

LET'S EXPLORE THIS JUST A MOMENT, THEN.

IF IT'S COMMENCED, THEN DOES IT EVER DIE FOR LACK OF INACTIVITY? IT DOES.

PER OUR CODE, IT'S BOTH TIMELY COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, IF IT DIDN'T COMPLETE THEORETICALLY, THEN THE TRIGGER FROM OUR CODE WOULD OCCUR.

BUT FROM THE PHASING SCHEDULE, THE COMPLETION IS APRIL 23RD, BUT 2027.

OK, COMMISSIONER BLONDER, SO I APPRECIATE MS. AVERY-SMITH'S CLARIFICATION OF THE DEVELOPER'S POSITION.

I WAS GOING TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT THOSE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY YOU.

I DO HAVE QUESTIONS, SORT OF A CLARIFICATION OF OF CASE LAW, MAYBE AS IT RELATES TO THIS FOR THE CITY'S ATTORNEY, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I'M JUST GOING TO QUICKLY QUOTE OUR CODE THAT THE PUD PROCESS IS A VOLUNTARY PROCESS INITIATED BY AN APPLICANT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE PROJECT, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION TO INTEGRATE POTENTIAL BENEFITS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

SO BUT THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THE INITIATION.

SO SEVERAL OF OUR SPEAKERS AT THE GENERAL PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTED ON PORPOISE POINT OR OTHER PERHAPS RELEVANT DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PAST.

SO, AGAIN, THIS APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH THE PUD ON IT.

THE PUD WAS INITIATED BY THE FORMER OWNER.

AND THE REFERENCED PORPOISE POINT CASE WAS CONTRARY TO THAT, IN THAT THE COUNTY INITIATED THE PUD AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.

SO I JUST KIND OF I WANT TO HAVE A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THAT THOSE THAT

[01:35:04]

PREVIOUS DECISION, OTHER DECISIONS OR CODE IN THE STATE LEVEL APPLY TO THIS EFFORT AND THE REQUEST FOR REZONING.

MS. LOPEZ.

SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT CASE LAW, IT'S A BIT OF INTERTWINED AND BUILDING ON EACH OTHER.

THE SNYDER DECISION AND BREVARD COUNTY V SNYDER IS SORT OF THE LANDMARK QUASI-JUDICIAL ZONING CASE.

AND IT SETS OUT AND ITS SUBSEQUENT CASES SETS OUT A THREE PART TEST, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.

SO ANY APPLICANT, ANY PROPERTY OWNER IN THE CITY HAS A PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, RIGHT.

TO FILE A REZONING APPLICATION AND TO HAVE A FULL AND FAIR, COMPLETE HEARING.

THAT'S REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE PUD AND WANT TO REZONE TO TRADITIONAL ZONING CATEGORY OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

SO PORPOISE POINT DID NOT CHANGE THAT.

THE APPLICANT, WHETHER THIS APPLICANT OR ANY PROPERTY OWNER, HAS A PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS TO BE HEARD.

AND THEN THE SECOND TO THE TWO OTHER PRONGS, WHICH IS YOUR DECISION HAS TO BE BASED ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

AND THEN THE THIRD PRONG, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CORRECT LAW OR APPLY THE CORRECT LAW, ARE THE LAST TWO PRONGS OF THAT TEST.

HOW PORPOISE POINT SORT OF BLENDS INTO THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY THE COURT.

THE SECOND PORPOISE POINT CASE, THERE WERE TWO.

THE COURT SAID YOU CAN'T FORCE SOMEONE TO BE A PUD.

AN APPLICANT HAS A RIGHT TO ASK TO BE IN A TRADITIONAL OR QUOTE UNQUOTE STRAIGHT ZONING CATEGORY.

AND SO THAT, COMBINED WITH THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS FROM SNYDER AND ALL THOSE OTHER CASES, MEANS THAT ANY APPLICANT CAN APPLY FOR A PUD REZONING OR CAN APPLY FOR TRADITIONAL ZONING CATEGORY.

THEY HAVE THAT DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO APPLY.

THEN YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE YOU HEAR AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

EVERY ACTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION NEEDS TO MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHETHER THE APPLICANT MET ALL OF THE CRITERIA IN OUR CODE.

AND THEN IF IF THEY HAVE MET THAT BURDEN, THE COURTS CALL IT A BURDEN SHIFTING.

SO THE APPLICANT HAS DUE PROCESS, RIGHT, TO ASK.

THEY HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO MEET COMP PLAN AND CODE.

IF THEY'VE MET ALL OF THAT, THEN THE BURDEN SHIFTS BACK TO THE CITY TO JUSTIFY WHY THE CITY WOULD SAY NO.

AND THAT CANNOT BE ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS.

SO THEORETICALLY, ANY APPLICANT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, BUT SAY AN APPLICANT IS A PUD.

THEY HAVE A RIGHT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS TO APPLY FOR A TRADITIONAL ZONING CATEGORY.

THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT UNDER FLORIDA LAW.

YOU HAVE THE HEARING.

YOU LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE.

HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THEY WERE TO MEET A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL THE CRITERIA OF YOUR CODE.

HYPOTHETICALLY, THIS HYPOTHETICAL APPLICANT, THEN THE COMMISSION COULD THEN SAY, BUT THERE'S SOME SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC POLICY REASON TO NOT ALLOW YOU TO REZONE.

IN THIS CASE, WE CAN'T FORCE THE EXISTING REZONING.

SO THE PORPOISE POINT CASE, THE JUDGES SAID, WELL, YOU CAN DECIDE OR YOU CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON WHAT THE APPROPRIATE OTHER COMMERCIAL TRADITIONAL ZONING CATEGORY COULD BE.

BUT YOU CAN'T FORCE THEM INTO THE PUD.

AND IT'S NOT IT WASN'T GERMANE THAT IT WAS NECESSARILY THEY WERE.

THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO BE REZONE TO PUD.

THE POINT IS PUD IS A VOLUNTARY ZONING, AND AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, ANY PUD APPLICANT CAN ASK TO NOW COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION AND GET A TRADITIONAL ZONING CATEGORY.

AT THAT POINT, THEY EITHER MEET THE CRITERIA OR NOT, AND IF THEY DO, AND YOU STILL HAVE CONCERNS, THAT HAS TO BE BASED ON DATA AND EVIDENCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU.

AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON WHAT THE APPROPRIATE COMMERCIAL TRADITIONAL ZONING SHOULD BE.

BUT THERE IS NO OPTION OF BUT LET'S JUST FORCE THEM TO REMAIN PUD.

THAT, I DON'T BELIEVE IS CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA LAW.

THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT REPRESENTATION.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S STRICTLY COINCIDENTAL THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO THE PORPOISE POINT CASE THAT AROSE IN OUR COMMUNITY, IT'S A DECISION OF THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS.

COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS.

[01:40:04]

I'M ACTUALLY PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE SECOND READING.

BUT HAVING SAID THAT, AND I'D LIKE TO SAVE MY COMMENTS FOR THAT POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERABLE, BECAUSE I HAVE A LONG MEMORY AND A LOT OF HISTORY OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE ROXANNE AND I WERE BOTH ON THE 2004 PZB THAT DEVELOPED THE PUD WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT LOSING.

BUT I ALSO HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR MANY YEARS, AND IF IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT BUILT IN MY LIFETIME.

NO DOUBT IT'S THE WORST THING WE COULD DO TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

BUT BACK WHEN WE SOLD IT TO THE DEVELOPERS, IT WAS SOMETHING THE CITY NEEDED.

2004, WE EMBRACED IT.

TIMES HAVE CHANGED.

THE BEST THING FOR THAT PROPERTY NOW IS [INAUDIBLE] FOLLOW, HAVE NOTHING BUILT ON IT.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE REALITY.

SO I'D LIKE TO PUSH FORWARD TO SECOND READING HAVE STUFF OR HAVE THE CITIZENS CHIME IN ON IT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING OFF THE INEVITABLE, PUSHING IT BACK.

IT'S GOING TO BE BUILT.

THIS BUILD SOONER, SOONER IT'S ON THE TAX ROLLS, THE SOONER WE REALIZE THE MONEY TO DO OTHER THINGS WITH LIKE ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE MANY, MANY OTHER THINGS WE NEED TO FIGHT IN THE CITY AND TAKES MONEY TO DO IT.

SO, COMMISSIONER VALDES HAS MADE A MOTION TO PASS THE ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING.

I WILL SECOND HIS MOTION.

NOW'S THE TIME FOR APPROPRIATE COMMENTS.

SO I'M GOING TO COME BACK OVER HERE TO COMMISSIONER BLONDER.

AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED, I HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS, INCLUDING LOSING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF OUR ENTRY.

I MEAN, OUR MAIN ENTRY WAY INTO THE CITY.

SHOULD THIS BE REZONED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ENTRYWAY CORRIDOR CRITERIA? BUT I WOULD SUPPORT MOVING IT TO SECOND READING SO THAT WE CAN HEAR MORE FROM THE PUBLIC.

I THINK THAT WAS WELL SAID.

THAT IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN AS WELL, SO I CAN SUPPORT IT MOVING.

VICE MAYOR SIKES-KLINE.

I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY.

OK, COMMISSIONER VALDES, ANYTHING FURTHER? I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED IN HOW WE FIND OURSELVES AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.

THE DEVELOPER UNDERSTANDS, AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A A GREAT DEAL OF OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND CONSTERNATION OVER THIS PROJECT.

AND CERTAINLY IT IS THE DEVELOPER'S OBLIGATION AND OUR OBLIGATION AS A COMMISSION TO LISTEN AND TO CONSIDER THOSE CONCERNS, AS WELL AS THE POSITION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

BUT WHAT WE HAD HERE IS THE DEVELOPER COMING TO THE COMMISSION, SPENDING ONE SESSION WITH THE COMMISSION, HEARING A NUMBER OF CONCERNS.

AND THEN, AS MY STUDENTS WOULD SAY, WE WERE GHOSTED, NEVER APPEARING BEFORE US AGAIN.

NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHERE THE DEVELOPER WAS.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, AS THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY SAID, THERE'S AND I DON'T MEAN THIS TO SOUND ANY OTHER WAY THAN VERY PRACTICAL.

ONLY THREE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO BE CONVINCED OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, OF THE VALUE OF THE PROJECT.

I THINK COMMISSIONER VALDES SAID IT ELOQUENTLY AT THE ONE TIME THIS MATTER APPEARED BEFORE THIS COMMISSION WHEN AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET THE QUOTE RIGHT, BUT BASICALLY BRING US A PROJECT WE'LL BE PROUD OF.

WE LOSE ALL CONTROL, ARCHITECTURAL CONCERNS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

WHEN THIS GOES TO TRADITIONAL ZONING.

I WAS ON THE COMMISSION, IN FACT, I BELIEVE THE VERY FIRST NIGHT IN DECEMBER OF 1987, WHEN MY VERY FIRST NIGHT ON THE COMMISSION, WHEN THIS BODY VOTED TO ACQUIRE THE LAST PIECE OF PROPERTY TO COME TOGETHER.

IT SEEMS TO ME THERE ARE SEVEN OR EIGHT PARCELS TO CREATE WHAT WE KNOW TODAY AS THE SAN SEBASTIAN PROJECT.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT WAS A DEPRESSED PART OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS WAS AN EFFORT TO REPLICATE WHAT WAS BEING DONE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, SUCH AS BALTIMORE, WITH THE INNER HARBOR, ET CETERA.

IT WAS A GREAT VISION.

IT SIMPLY DID NOT MATERIALIZE IN A TIME FRAME AND IN A MANNER IN WHICH WE

[01:45:09]

HOPE.

AND NOW WE'RE AT A SITUATION WHERE THE NEED IS NOT THE SAME FOR OUR COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

BUT I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT WE AS A COMMISSION, WE AS A COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE LOST OUR OPPORTUNITY FOR MEANINGFUL INPUT ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THE LAW REQUIRES US.

THE LAW FORBIDS US FROM HOLDING THE DEVELOPER INTO A PUD WHEN THE DEVELOPER NO LONGER CHOOSES TO BE.

AND I BELIEVE I'VE CORRECTLY STATED THE LAW.

THIS WILL BE BACK BEFORE US IN TWO WEEKS.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND.

I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

YES, PLEASE READ BY TITLE ONLY.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2021-19, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY NINE POINT EIGHT EIGHT ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SEBASTIAN HARBOR DRIVE AND WEST OF RIBERIA STREET, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREINAFTER FROM ITS CURRENT CLASSIFICATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL GENERAL OFFICE.

RGO PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THE ORDINANCE PASSES ON FIRST READING.

NOW MR. BIRCHIM, WE'RE ON ORDINANCE 2021-20.

[9.A.2. Ordinance 2021-20: Rezoning the Sebastian Inland Harbor Planned Unit Development of 157 King Street (PID# 203350 0000, 203350 0010) to Residential Genera! and Office. (D. Birchim, Director Planning and Building)]

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS SIMPLY EXACT SAME ISSUES.

SIMPLY THE COMPANION PIECE, WHICH IS WHAT WE KNOW AS THE SAN SEBASTIAN WINERY.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE KING STREET CORRIDOR.

SO THERE ARE DESIGN STANDARDS OVERLAID ONTO THE NEW BUILDING THAT THEY PROPOSED TO BUILD.

IT'LL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE KING STREET DESIGN STANDARDS.

OK, THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF MR. BIRCHIM? IF NOT, I'D MOVE THAT--PLEASE.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I THOUGHT THE MAYOR WAS VERY ELOQUENT IN EXPRESSING HIS DISAPPOINTMENT.

AND I ECHO THAT FEELING, AND I WOULD HOPE THE DEVELOPER WOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT SHOULD WE BE BOXED IN TO APPROVE THE REZONING.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 2021-20 ON FIRST READING, READ BY TITLE ONLY AND PASSED.

FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SECOND.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2021-20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY TWO POINT SIXTY FOUR ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF KING STREET AND WEST OF SEBASTIAN HARBOR DRIVE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREINAFTER FROM ITS CURRENT CLASSIFICATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL GENERAL OFFICE, RGO.

PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

FURTHER DISCUSSION SEEING NONE.

THE ORDINANCE PASSES ON FIRST READING, SO THESE WILL BE BACK ON SECOND READING IN A PUBLIC HEARING.

OK, I FEEL COMPELLED TO CLARIFY ON THE RECORD MY COMMENTS AS TO ONE POINT, AND THAT IS, IS THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE TWO DEVELOPERS INVOLVED HERE.

THEY BOTH, IN EFFECT, HAD SEPARATE PROJECT UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE PUD.

MY CONCERNS WITH THE DEVELOPER, MY COMMENTS, LUMP THEM TOGETHER.

AND THAT WAS WAS NOT FAIR.

I DON'T SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS WITH MR. COX AND HIS BUSINESS, THE INTERACTIONS WITH THE DEVELOPERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT.

WE ARE NOW ON RESOLUTION 2021-29.

[9.B.I. Resolution 2021-29: Authorizes the execution of a one-year Construction and Maintenance Agreement to maintain colored epoxy coatings on pedestrian safety features as described in the Agreement. (R. Franklin, Director Public Works)]

THIS IS ITEM 9B 1 ONE OF OUR AGENDAS.

MR. FRANKLIN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS.

THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE USE OF EPOXY COATING FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL CABINETS AND [INAUDIBLE].

[01:50:02]

A WHILE AGO, THE CITY DECIDED TO GO WITH THE STANDARD OF PAINTING THEM CHESTNUT BROWN.

THAT'S WHAT THEY EPOXY COATING IS.

THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE STATE STANDARD IS.

SO WE DO AGREE TO MAINTAIN AND PAY FOR THAT.

MS. KALAIDI BROUGHT UP IN PUBLIC COMMENT COST FOR THAT.

IT'S ABOUT EVERY 15 TO 20 YEARS THAT THEY NEED TO BE REPAINTED.

AND THE COST IS APPROXIMATELY 10000 DOLLARS AN INTERSECTION.

SO THAT'S ALL OF YOUR [INAUDIBLE] AND YOUR CABINETS.

AND WE WOULD PROGRAM THAT, YOU KNOW, ON AN ANNUAL BUDGET.

SO THIS IS FOR NEW CABINETS AND [INAUDIBLE] THAT WILL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE BAY FRONT BETWEEN THE BRIDGE OF LIONS AND WEST CASTILLO.

AND SO THIS ISN'T [INAUDIBLE] ALLOWING US WE'RE PAYING FOR AN UPGRADE.

YOU GOT IT.

QUESTIONS OF MR. FRANKLIN.

I MOVE WE PASS RESOLUTION 21-29.

I SECOND THAT.

FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

IF NOT, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

PASSES.

THANK YOU, MR. FRANK--I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT TO MR. FRANKLIN.

THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

AND I THINK THAT WE CAN PROBABLY DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THAT STUFF.

MAYBE SINCE WE'RE HERE AND WE SEE IT EVERY DAY.