3.A. Proclamation 2022-23: Proclaims October 2022 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. (R. Horvath, Commissioner)

[6.A. Appeal of a Planning and Zoning (PZB) action in the denial of Conservation Overlay Zone One Development to approve a retaining wall/landscape feature adjacent to rip-rap at 40 Hildreth Way and 0 Hildreth Drive. (A. Skinner, Director Planning and Building)]

ONE DEVELOPMENT TO PROVE A RETAINING WALL/LANDSCAPE FEATURE ADJACENT TO RIP WRAP AT AM SORRY AT 40 HILDRETH AND ZERO HILDRETH.

MR. MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO JUST VERY BRIEFLY GO OVER SOME OF THE PROCEDURAL REMINDERS BEFORE MS..

SKINNER MAKES HER PRESENTATION? THANK YOU. SO AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING.

THERE ARE EX-PARTE DISCLOSURES THAT HAVE TO BE MADE, IF ANY, BY THE COMMISSIONERS AS WELL.

THE HEARING IS ON THE RECORD OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

SO I KNOW IT MAY BE TEMPTING FOR FOLKS TO SHOW PICTURES OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING HURRICANE IAN OR OTHERWISE, BUT REALLY THE HEARING WILL BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE MULTIPLE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARINGS.

FOLKS WILL NOT BE PUT UNDER OATH BECAUSE THEY AREN'T TESTIFYING.

AGAIN, IT'S THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT WAS IN THE RECORD THAT HAS TO BE HEARD.

AS YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE CODE SETS OUT THE OPTIONS FOR THE BOARD, FOR THE CITY COMMISSION.

YOU CAN AFFIRM, REVERSE OR MODIFY THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

IF THE APPLICANT DOES PRESENT A MODIFICATION, THEN WE DO HAVE TO OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING AND GET NEW TESTIMONY.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT, THE APPELLANT AND HIS ATTORNEY, WILL NOT BE PRESENTING ANY MODIFICATIONS TODAY AND THE STANDARD OF REVIEW AS, AS YOU KNOW, FOR ALL OF OUR LAND USE, QUASI JUDICIAL ACTION ARE THAT PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS WAS AFFORDED TO THE APPLICANT THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPLIED THE CORRECT LAW AND THAT THE DECISION WAS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT PCB, NOT ANY NEW EVIDENCE FOLKS MAY WANT TO PRESENT TODAY.

WE WILL HAVE, AS YOU KNOW, THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

MS. SKINNER IS AT THE PODIUM RIGHT NOW.

PUBLIC COMMENT.

AGAIN, FOLKS WILL NOT BE PLACED UNDER OATH BECAUSE NO NEW EVIDENCE CAN BE PRESENTED.

SO FOCUS ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT PZB.

AND OF COURSE, OUR APPELLANT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE AND TO REBUT ANY TESTIMONY.

I DID PREPARE TO DRAFT MOTIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

ONE FOR 40TH HILDRETH AND ONE FOR THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO AS A ZERO HEALTH DRIFT.

SO THAT'S AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT LITTLE PROCEDURAL HANDOUT THAT WAS AT THE FRONT OF YOUR PACKET TODAY.

AND THAT GIVES YOU THE THE POSSIBLE OPTIONS.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

SO LET'S CLARIFY, MS..

LOPEZ, THAT WE WILL HEAR STAFF PRESENTATION.

WE HAVE THE OPTION OF HAVING PUBLIC COMMENT AT THAT POINT, OR WE CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE APPELLANT PRESENTS.

CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION NOW FROM THE APPELLANT AS TO WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE PUBLIC COMMENT TO COME FIRST OR AFTER THE PRESENTATION? CERTAINLY. NO PREFERENCE.

SOMETIMES IT'S CLEANER IF THE APPELLANT HEARS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND THEN CAN REBUT.

BUT SINCE THE APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY HAS NO PREFERENCE, IT'S UP TO THE OK THEN MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD IS THAT WE'LL HEAR STAFF, WE HEAR THE APPELLANT, WE'LL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT THIRD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS.. LOPEZ.

MS.. SKINNER. YES.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AMY SKINNER.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

AS YOU'VE STATED, THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACTION OF A DENIAL OF CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE DEVELOPMENT.

[00:30:01]

TO APPROVE A RETAINING WALL LANDSCAPE FEATURE ADJACENT TO RIP WRAP AT 40 HILDRETH WAY AND ZERO HILDRETH DRIVE.

AN APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED BY JESSICA SCHAEFER TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR, QUOTE, A DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY TO HIDE A RIP WRAP WALL THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE DEP UNQUOTE, SIGNED ON DECEMBER 15, 2021 FOR 40 HILDRETH WAY, WHICH IS CONSIDERED LOT ONE.

THE APPLICATION WAS HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AT THEIR REGULARLY SCHEDULED FEBRUARY 1ST MEETING.

THE PLANNING, THE PZB EXCUSE ME, THE PZB CONTINUED THE ITEM UNANIMOUSLY TO THEIR APRIL 5TH MEETING WITH CONDITIONS.

THERE WERE FIVE CONDITIONS.

NUMBER ONE, SUBMIT INFORMATION FOR THE PLANNING, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RELATED TO THE HISTORY OF THE RIP WRAP.

SUBMIT THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ACTUAL BLOCKS RELATED TO POROUSNESS OF THE BLOCKS, THE INSTALLATION METHOD AND THE SOIL.

SUBMIT THE RESULTS OF THE DEP MEETING SCHEDULED WITH THE APPLICANT FOR FEBRUARY 9TH, 2022, SUBMIT AN ENGINEERED REPORT ON THE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE 17 CRITERIA THAT ARE OUTLINED IN OUR CONSERVATION ZONE, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

A SURVEY MUST ALSO SHOW ELEVATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THAT WAS THE FIFTH ITEM THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE PCB.

ON MARCH 1ST, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN EMAIL REQUESTING THAT THE ITEM BE POSTPONED TO A LATER DATE TO ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED.

ON APRIL FIFTH AT THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.

THE PZB CONTINUED THIS ITEM WITH A 5 TO 1 VOTE.

MR.. MR. LEE DISSENTING, AND MS. GRIGGS WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING TO THE JULY FIFTH, 2022 MEETING.

THE JULY 5TH MEETING WAS CANCELED DUE TO A LACK OF A QUORUM.

AS OF JULY 25TH, NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT BY THE APPLICANT.

A LETTER FROM THE AND ARCHITECT LES THOMAS AND A LETTER FROM AN ENGINEER, ROBERT MORGAN WERE SUBMITTED ON JULY 27.

ON AUGUST 2ND, THE PZB DENIED THE APPLICATION.

THE DENIAL WAS UNANIMOUS BY THOSE PRESENT.

MS. RYAN WAS NOT THERE STATING THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF RELATING TO THE 17 CRITERIA HAD NOT BEEN MET FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 11, WHICH IS OUR CONSERVATION CODE.

CRITERIA NUMBERS TWO, THREE, SIX AND 11 OUT OF THE 17 CRITERIA WERE NOT MET.

CRITERIA NUMBER TWO RELATES TO THE SITE'S RELATIONSHIP TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, BODIES OF WATER AND SURROUNDING CONSERVATION ZONES.

CRITERIA THREE RELATES TO NATURAL AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS.

CRITERIA SIX RELATES TO THE IMPACT ON THE FLOODPLAIN AND CRITERIA 11 RELATES TO IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON SHORELINE BY LINEAR FEET AND PERCENT OF SITE. ON JULY SIX.

THIS SIGNED APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED BY JESSICA SCHAEFFER TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE SECOND PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR APPROVAL OF THE DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL FOR DESIGN OF THE BACKYARD LIVING SPACE FOR THIS ADJACENT BUT SEPARATE PROPERTY AT ZERO HILDRETH WAY OR DRIVE, EXCUSE ME, LOT TWO.

ON AUGUST 2ND, THE PZB UNANIMOUSLY DENIED THE APPLICATION BY THOSE PRESENT.

AGAIN, MS.. RYAN WAS NOT THERE, STATING THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF RELATED TO THE 17 CRITERIA HAD NOT BEEN MET FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

CHAPTER 11 CRITERIA NUMBERS TWO, THREE, FOUR, SIX AND 11, INCLUDING THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL AND DID NOT HAVE TIME TO REVIEW ADDITIONAL MATERIAL.

THESE ARE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR THE BASIS OF THE DENIAL AS THE FIRST PROPERTY, BUT ALSO ADDING THAT NUMBER FOUR THE EFFECT OF POINT AND NON POINT DISCHARGE IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT.

WAS NOT ADDRESSED.

THE APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE PZB IN RESPONSE TO CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS FOR A WALL BEING BUILT ACROSS THE MARSH.

THE WALL EXTENDED ACROSS BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES.

IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE WALL WAS IN CONSERVATION AND CONSERVATION ZONE AND REQUIRED PZB REVIEW.

THE FEBRUARY 1ST, APRIL 5TH, JULY 5TH AND AUGUST 2ND, PZB HEARINGS WERE PROPERLY NOTICED AND ADVERTISED.

THESE HEARINGS INCLUDED PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, EXCEPT FOR THE JULY 5TH MEETING, WHICH WAS CANCELED DUE TO LACK OF A QUORUM.

ALL PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE OF THESE PCB HEARINGS WERE CORRECTLY FOLLOWED IN THE WRITTEN ORDERS ACCOMPANYING THESE HEARINGS WERE PROPERLY NOTED.

[00:35:02]

THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

AS THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS SAID, SHE HAS OUTLINED POSSIBLE MOTIONS FOR YOUR REVIEW.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF MISS SKINNER AT THIS TIME? NO, I HAVE A COUPLE.

I WANT YOU TO AFFIRM.

I BELIEVE YOU'VE SAID THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL REFERENCES IN THE PACKET, BUT IN FACT, THE RIP RAP WALL WAS APPROVED OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE RIP-RAP WAS APPROVED BY DEP.

THE DEP REVIEWED THE RIP-RAP.

YES. THE DEP INDICATED THAT THE SIZE OF THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS THE CITY OF ST AUGUSTINE AND THE LEVEL OF RIP-RAP PLACED DID NOT REALLY QUALIFY FOR THEIR REVIEW.

OKAY, SO THEN IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY DEP.

IT SIMPLY DID NOT FALL WITHIN DPP'S JURISDICTION.

YES, IT DIDN'T MEET THEIR CRITERIA.

I THEN, IS THERE ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CITY CODE BY THE PLACEMENT OF THE RIP-RAP? THE RIP-RAP WAS PLACED IN 2016.

IT PROBABLY DOES WARRANT A REVIEW FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT, BUT SINCE IT WAS IN 2016, THE THE TIME LIMIT FOR DOING THAT HAS LONG SINCE EXPIRED.

I ASSUME. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

THIS THIS LANDSCAPED WALL IS PUT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO OR RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE RIP-RAP.

OK. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN ANSWER YET.

SO, MISS LOPEZ, IS THE PLACEMENT OF THE RIP-RAP WALL UNDER REVIEW OR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION THIS EVENING? NO.

THAT QUESTION CAME UP AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, ACTUALLY.

AND OF COURSE, WE'LL ALLOW THE THE APPELLANT TO OPINE ON THEIR INTERPRETATION.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MS..

SKINNER AND OTHERWISE IN THE RECORD WAS THAT EVIDENTLY NO ACTION, NO ADVERSE ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE CITY BACK IN 2016-2017 REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF THE RIP-RAP.

NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE I SUPPOSE IS A POSSIBLE QUESTION, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS BEING HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

SO IT IS NOT THE MATTER BEFORE YOU.

IT'S STRICTLY THAT WALL DECORATIVE ELEMENT, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE, NOT THE NOT THE UNDERPINNING RIP WRAP.

OKAY. MY SECOND QUESTION, MS. SKINNER, IS THE FIVE ELEMENTS OR THE FIVE CONDITIONS THAT WERE SET OUT BY THE PZB AT ITS APRIL 5TH, 2022 MEETING? IT IS THE OPINION OF STAFF THAT THOSE WERE NOT SATISFIED.

YES. AND MY THIRD QUESTION IS THIS IN THE PACKET PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS THAT APPEAR TO BE STAFF DOCUMENTS THAT INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OR HAD CONFORMED WITH THE 17 CONDITIONS SET OUT IN OUR CODE.

AND I GUESS I'M WONDERING WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF STAFF'S REVIEW, WHICH THEY, IN EFFECT, SAID THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IS ABLE TO APPROVE THIS SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO APPROVE.

STAFF DOES A CURSORY REVIEW.

AND WE DID MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATIONS.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IS CERTAINLY YOU KNOW INTERESTED IN FURTHER DETAIL.

AND THEY HEARD THE APPLICATION AND THEY REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

SO ONCE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS REQUESTED FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

STAFF TAKES THAT AS DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

AND WE EXPECTED THE INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED.

OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SKINNER. MR. WHITEHOUSE.

MR. MAYOR, DID YOU WANT TO DO EX PARTE AND PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST? I WANT TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER THE APPELLANT.

ALL RIGHT. AND EX PARTE NOW OR AT THE APPELLANT DOES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT.

WE'LL DO IT AFTER THE APPELLANT PRESENTS.

[00:40:50]

MARIN, CAN YOU PLEASE SWITCH TO THE PRESENTATION, PLEASE? MR. MAYOR.

YES. COULD I JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT WE WERE JUST HANDED? I'M SORRY. I BELIEVE THIS WAS IN OUR PACKET.

OUR AGENDA PACKET. AM I CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. I JUST.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS BROUGHT IT WITH YOU OR IF IT WAS IN COLOR.

SO I PROVIDE IT TO YOU FOR EASY REFERENCE.

IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT.

YEAH, I WASN'T PLANNING TO READ IT WHILE YOU WERE PRESENT.

NO, NO, IT'S ALL PART OF THE RECORD.

YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. JUST WAITING FOR HER TO SWITCH IT TO THE.

IS IT SWITCHED? OKAY.

MR. MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JAMES WHITEHOUSE.

ST JOHNS LAW GROUP 104 SEAGROVE MAIN ST HERE IN ST AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.

I AM A BOARD CERTIFIED EXPERT AND SPECIALIST IN CITY, COUNTY AND GOVERNMENT LAW AS RECOGNIZED BY THE FLORIDA BAR.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SHAFER FAMILY AT 40 HILDRETH AND ZERO HILDRETH WAY.

AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE FOR AN APPEAL ON ALL APPEALS.

WE TALK ABOUT STANDING FIRST.

STANDING HAS ALREADY BEEN REFERRED TO IN YOUR PACKET BY YOUR CITY ATTORNEY AND HAS BEEN FOUND.

THEY FOUND TO HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL THIS THESE ORDERS OF THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD.

SO I WON'T GO OVER THAT.

THE REASON FOR THE APPEAL IS THE PZB'S DENIAL, GIVING THE APPLICANTS TWO MIDDLE OF THE EXPERT, COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORDED MATERIALS AND THE DENIAL EFFECTIVELY DENIES THE APPLICANT OF A REASONABLE REVIEW OF THEIR REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCIDENTALLY MEETS THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE 17 CRITERIA USED FOR REVIEWING THIS TYPE OF APPLICATION.

AS IS APPARENT FROM THE EXPERT STAFF REVIEW ANALYSIS IN THE ATTACHED STAFF REPORTS FROM FEBRUARY 1ST, APRIL 5TH AND AUGUST 2ND.

FURTHER. ALSO PART OF THE RECORD, AS TESTIFIED TO BY THE APPLICANT'S EXPERT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST, THE FDEP HAS FORMALLY STATED FROM ITS AGENCY OFFICES THAT THE LOCATION OF THIS APPROXIMATELY TWO FOOT HIGH BY ONE FOOT WIDE DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL IS APPROPRIATE IN THE UPLANDS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF WETLAND LINE.

AND THE EXISTING RIP-RAP AS CURRENTLY SITUATED IS ALSO IN AN APPROVED APPROPRIATE LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION BASED ON THE STATE REGULATORY VIEW AND REQUIREMENTS.

MOREOVER, THE APPLICANT OWNER WILL BE IMMEASURABLY DAMAGED IF FORCED TO REMOVE THE DECORATIVE WALL, WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE 17 CRITERIA.

AS I SAID, AS FOUND BY YOUR EXPERT STAFF IN THEIR STAFF REPORTS AND WHICH WAS FULLY ANALYZED AS REQUESTED, INCLUDING A SITE VISIT AND EXAMINATION OF THE PROPERTY AND LANDSCAPE WALL BY AN EXPERT STATE LICENSED ARCHITECT, ONE THAT'S WELL RESPECTED BY THIS BODY WHO FOUND IT TO BE WHOLLY APPROPRIATE AS TO DESIGN CONFIGURATION ESTHETICS AND ITS FULLY PERVIOUS NATURE.

IT WAS ALSO ANALYZED AS REQUESTED THROUGH MULTIPLE SITE VISITS AND EVALUATIONS BY AN EXPERT STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, AND FOUND TO BE WHOLLY APPROPRIATE AS IT EXISTS IN RELATION TO CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS.

EVALUATION AS THE HYDROLOGICAL IMPACTS, WATER DISPLACEMENT AND EFFECT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE PERVIOUSNESS OF THE DECORATIVE WALL FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE. FINALLY, IT WAS ALSO FULLY ANALYZED AS REQUESTED, AGAIN, INCLUDING ONSITE REVIEW AND EVALUATION BY AN EXPERT STATE LICENSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL WETLAND SCIENTIST AND FOUND TO BE IN AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION AND MEETING ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AS ESTABLISHED BY THE REGULATIONS OF OUR CODE.

THEREFORE, WE'RE HERE.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE HERE, AND THEY PETITION THE CITY COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THEIR APPEAL AND THE RECORD, BECAUSE THIS IS BASED ON THE RECORD FROM THE PCB MEETINGS AND TO FIND THAT THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT AND PRESENT COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF A CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE APPROVAL FOR THIS TWO FOOT HIGH BY ONE FOOT WIDE PERVIOUS STACK TREMRON BLOCK, DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE BALL ON THE PROPERTY UPLANDS, AS PROVIDED IN EVIDENCE BY THE APPLICANT'S EXPERTS, AS I SAID, INCLUDING THE REPORTS AND TESTIMONY OF STATE CERTIFIED REGISTERED ARCHITECT LES THOMAS, STATE CERTIFIED AND LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER BOB MORGAN P.E.

AND STATE CERTIFIED AND LICENSED ENVIRONMENTAL AND PROFESSIONAL WETLANDS SCIENTIST JONATHAN SUMMERFIELD, AS WELL AS THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY PROVIDED AND CERTIFIED BY STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR AND MAPPER, TERRY DURDEN,

[00:45:02]

PSM. ALL OF WHOSE CREDENTIALS WERE STATED ARE WELL KNOWN BY THIS COMMISSION.

AND AS I SAID, ALL OF THOSE ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE RECORD.

GOING A LITTLE BIT OVER THE STAFF MEMO THAT YOU HEARD FROM A SKINNER.

THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT.

THE CITY WENT OUT AND THEY DETERMINED THAT THIS LANDSCAPE WALL WAS IN A CONSERVATION ZONE.

SO THEY INFORMED THE APPLICANT THEY NEEDED TO MAKE AN APPLICATION.

SO THE APPLICANT DID MAKE AN APPLICATION ON DECEMBER 15, 2021.

THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL.

UP ON THE SCREEN, IT'S A COPY OF THAT APPLICATION.

AND AS YOU SAW FROM YOUR PACKET, THE JUST IN NUMBER SEVEN DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION, IT'S A DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN AS TO JUSTIFICATION, IT TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS WAS TO HIDE THE RIP WRAP WALL.

THIS APPLICATION CAME TO PZB ON FEBRUARY 1ST AND THE PZB CONTINUED THE ITEM TO THE APRIL 5TH MEETING UPON DIRECTION BY THE CHAIR.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THE CONTINUANCE TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AS WAS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD AND SUMMARIZED BY THE CHAIR AS FOLLOWS.

THIS WAS FROM THE CHAIR, MR..

MR. LEE. I CAN RUN AND THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET TOO.

IN THE TRANSCRIPT. I CAN RUN DOWN THEM REAL QUICK.

AGAIN. SPECIFICATIONS ON THE BLOCKS OUTCOME OF THE MEETING WITH THE EP, A SURVEY AND SOMETHING SIGNED AND SEALED FROM AN ENGINEER WITH EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA ADDRESSING THE 17 CRITERIA THAT OUR BOARD LOOKS AT.

AS TESTIFIED THEREAFTER, THE APPLICANT IMMEDIATELY SOUGHT TO SECURE THE TIMELY PROVISION OF THE INFORMATION FROM THE PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING THE SURVEY, THE ENGINEERS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS.

BUT ALL OF THEM TOLD HER THAT THEY WOULD NEED SEVERAL MONTHS DUE TO THE BACKLOG IN WORK.

SO ON MARCH 1ST, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN EMAIL, WHICH WAS OVER A MONTH IN IN ADVANCE OF THE APRIL 5TH MEETING THAT THEY HAD BEEN SET FOR REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE. THE ITEM WAS CONTAINED, WAS SET FOR APRIL 5TH.

THEY CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND BEFORE THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD.

AND AT THAT HEARING, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONTINUED IT AND THE APPLICANT THEREAFTER WENT AND LINED UP THE PROFESSIONALS TO HAVE THE JOB.

THE JOB IS DONE TO APPEAR AT THE JULY 5TH MEETING.

HOWEVER, ON THE DAY OF THAT HEARING, THE JULY 5TH MEETING, IT WAS CANCELED DUE TO A QUORUM AS TESTIFIED AND AS APPARENT FROM THE SECOND APPLICATION.

AFTER THAT. AFTER THAT JULY 5TH MEETING, THE APPLICANT WAS INFORMED THAT THEY NEEDED TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR ZERO HILDRETH AS WELL.

AND SO THEY DID.

AND AGAIN, YOU SEE FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF THE OF THE ACTION REQUEST, AS WELL AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ACTION REQUESTED, IT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE INITIAL APPLICATION FOR 40. HILDRETH AND THE EVIDENCE THEY PUT INTO THE RECORD WERE FOR 40 HILDRETH AND ZERO AS WELL.

ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OR AS YOU HEARD THE STAFF SAY, ADDITIONAL APPLICATION MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED A WEEK BEFORE THE HEARING AS WAS TESTIFIED.

AND YOU CAN SEE THIS IN YOUR TRANSCRIPT AS WELL.

THE APPLICANT EMAILED THE STAFF A WEEK BEFORE THE HEARING AND ASKED ABOUT SUBMITTING ALL THESE REPORTS.

STAFF TOLD HER THAT THEY WERE DUE AND THEN SHE EMAILED THEM OVER IMMEDIATELY.

PZA THEN HELD ITS REGULAR MEETING ON AUGUST 2ND, HEARD THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE REPORTS FROM LES, FROM BOB, FROM JONATHAN, THE EXPERTS AND ALSO RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE THE SURVEY THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MR. DURDEN AND THEREAFTER THE APPLICATION FOR 40TH AND THE APPLICATION FOR ZERO HILDRETH WERE DENIED.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE AND I THINK YOU HEARD THE MAYOR ASK ABOUT THIS, BUT EVERY ONE OF THE STAFF REPORTS REVIEWED THE 17 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE REPORTS FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT HAD MET THOSE.

IN FACT, THE FIRST TWO REPORTS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

AS THE COMMISSIONER WILL NOTE, THE INITIAL STAFF REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE APPROVAL PRODUCED A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

YOU CAN SEE THE FEBRUARY 1ST MEETING MINUTES, THE FULL STAFF REPORT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A WITHIN THE PACKET.

THE EXPERT STAFF STATED AS FOLLOWS.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON A REVIEW OF SECTION 1129 AND WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, STAFF FINDS THAT THE BOARD CAN APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW LANDSCAPE FEATURE FOR THE APPLICANT WITHIN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE AT 40 HILDRETH WAY.

SIGNED JACOB FREDRICKSON, SENIOR PLANNER, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.

IN FACT, YOUR EXPERT PLANNING STAFF SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE 17 CRITERIA THAT OUR CODE REQUIRES FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERING CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT, AND ANALYZE THIS APPLICATION AS FOLLOWS AND I WON'T GO THROUGH EACH ONE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR PACKET AND PROBABLY IN YOUR REVIEW PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, THE STAFF WENT SPECIFICALLY THROUGH EACH ONE AND SPECIFICALLY THROUGH THE ONES THAT THE BOARD NOTED SAYING THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT MEET.

[00:50:01]

ACCORDINGLY, AFTER THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 1ST PZB MEETING, THE EXPERT STAFF AGAIN AT THE APRIL 5TH MEETING, READ THEIR EXPERT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL INTO THE RECORD AND SUBMITTED THEIR SAME EXPERT ANALYSIS AS OUTLINED ABOVE.

FINDING THE APPLICANT MET THE 17 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.

AGAIN, THIS IS IN THE RECORD.

YOU CAN SEE YOUR APRIL FIFTH PZB MEETING MINUTES AND STAFF REPORT ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT B.

FINALLY, EVEN THOUGH THE STAFF STATED HE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THE ENGINEER'S REPORT WHEN THE ITEM CAME BACK FOR HEARING AT THE AUGUST 2ND 22 MEETING, THE EXPERT STAFF FOR A THIRD TIME SUBMITTED THEIR EXPERT STAFF REPORT, PROVIDING THEIR SAME EXPERT ANALYSIS, FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT MET THE 17 CRITERIA FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE PERMITTING. YOU CAN SEE AUGUST 2ND PCB MEETING MINUTES AND THE FULL STAFF REPORT ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT C.

AS IS EVIDENT FROM EVEN A CURSORY REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL.

THIS REQUEST DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE 17 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AS FOUND BY YOUR EXPERT STAFF.

THE APPLICANT ALSO SUBMITTED OTHER EXPERT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

THE APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE SUBMITTED CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN FULLY ANALYZED AS REQUESTED, INCLUDING AN ONLINE EXAMINATION OF THE WALL IN QUESTION BY AN EXPERT STATE LICENSED ARCHITECT.

AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE WHOLLY APPROPRIATE AS TO DESIGN CONFIGURATION ESTHETICS AND FULLY PERVIOUS NATURE.

THAT EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS UNCONTROVERTED WITH ANY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE HAD VISITED THE SITE, EVALUATED THE WALL, AND HE FOUND THE REQUEST TO BE WHOLLY APPROPRIATE.

HIS LETTER IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT D.

UP ON THE SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE A COPY OF HIS LETTER.

AGAIN, HE SAYS THE SAME THINGS THAT I JUST SAID.

BUT YOU NEED TO USE YOUR OWN JUDGMENT.

YOU CAN SEE THAT LETTER, WHICH IS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

IT WAS ALSO FULLY ANALYZED AS REQUESTED, INCLUDING MULTIPLE SITE VISITS AND EVALUATIONS BY AN EXPERT STATE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, AND FOUND TO BE WHOLLY APPROPRIATE AS IT EXISTS IN RELATION TO CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS.

EVALUATION AS TO HYDROLOGICAL IMPACTS, WATER DISPLACEMENT AND EFFECT ON ANY ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE PERVIOUSNESS OF THE DECORATIVE WALL FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, HIS LETTER IS ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT E IN YOUR PACKET.

FURTHER, HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR FROM HIS LETTER HE HAD REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTATION AND MADE MULTIPLE SITE VISITS.

UP ON THE SCREEN IS A COPY OF HIS LETTER THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL AS EXHIBIT E, AND THAT'S PART OF THE RECORD.

IT WAS ALSO FULLY ANALYZED, AS REQUESTED BY AN ONSITE EVALUATION BY EXPERT STATE LICENSED ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS AND FOUND TO BE IN AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION AND MEETING ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AS ESTABLISHED BY THE REGULATIONS OF OUR CODE.

THE EMAILS ARE ATTACHED TO EXHIBIT F, THE SURVEY AND AS EXHIBIT G AND THE TRANSCRIPTS IN THE APPEAL FOR AUGUST 2ND AND THE PAGES ARE OUTLINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE OWNERS, AS I SAID, ALSO SUBMITTED THE CERTIFIED SURVEY, AS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, CLEARLY SHOWS THE LOCATIONS IN A SCALED MANNER AND ALSO CONTAINS THE NOTATIONS THAT THE EXPERTS FROM THE EXPERT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS AND SITE VISIT BY FDEP WERE USED TO ENSURE ACCURACY AS TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE WALL IN THE SURVEY. AND FINALLY, THE EXPERT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST APPEARED AND PRESENTED TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE PROJECT, HIS DEALINGS WITH DEP, THEIR FINDINGS THAT THIS DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL WAS APPROPRIATE AND DID NOT INFRINGE ON THE WETLANDS.

FURTHER, THAT THE RIP-RAP WAS NOT A PROBLEM AND THAT THEY WOULD BE ISSUING AN ORDER APPROVING ITS LOCATION AND CURRENT STRUCTURE AS MEETING ALL THE STATE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS. AND FINALLY, HE TESTIFIED THAT THE PROJECT DID, IN FACT, MEET THE 17 CRITERIA.

TESTIMONY WAS PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE AND NOTEWORTHY GIVEN DIRECT QUESTIONING BY THE CHAIR OF MR. SUMMERFIELD AND HIS DIRECT ANSWERS THAT THE PROJECT DID IN FACT PASS THE CRITERIA AND DID NOT IN FACT IMPACT THE VEGETATIVE ANIMAL COMMUNITY, DESPITE THE CHAIR'S INSISTENCE AS TO ONE OF THE 17 CRITERIA.

HE ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT, QUOTE THE DEP HAS DEEMED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT HAS OCCURRED DUE TO ANY VEGETATION OR WILDLIFE.

NOTEWORTHY IS ALSO THE FACT THAT YOUR EXPERT STAFF FOUND THAT THE APPLICANT HAD MET THE CRITERIA IN ALL THREE OF THEIR STAFF REPORTS.

ALTHOUGH THE RECORD CONTAINS A CLAMOR OF THE CROWD WITH QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AS TO FLOODING, FLOODING AND MORE FLOODING IN THAT AREA OF NORTH CITY, AND A CLEAR CONFUSION BY THE BOARD MEMBERS AS HOW TO ACT ON THIS APPLICATION.

GIVEN ALL THE EXPERT TESTIMONY DISPELLING THOSE FEARS AND THIS ANXIETY AS TO THE UNKNOWN, ALL OF THE COMPETENCE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD, INCLUDING THE EXPERT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL AND THE EXPERT ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST TESTIMONY, WHICH CLEARLY CONTRADICTS AND DISPELS THIS FEAR AND ANXIETY, POINTS TO THE FACT THAT THIS DENIAL WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS WITHOUT BASIS.

IN FACT. THIS APPEAL IS THEIR RECOURSE.

IN SUM, A FAIR AND REASONABLE EVALUATION OF THE COMPETENCE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED AND IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE RECORD ON APPEAL, INCLUDING BOTH IN DOCUMENTATION AND

[00:55:03]

TESTIMONIAL FORM IN THE TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED WILL FIND THE RECORD CONTAINS THE COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT TO MEET THEIR BURDEN FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE PERMIT TO ALLOW THIS APPROXIMATE TWO FOOT HIGH BY ONE FOOT WIDE DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE BOARD BECAME FRUSTRATED AND APPLIED THE WRONG LAW ON STANDARDS.

THE EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED.

THE EVIDENCE ADDRESSED THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA THROUGH EXPERT SUBMITTAL.

ACCORDINGLY, THE EXPERT STAFF, NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, BUT THREE TIMES, FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION HAD MET THE 17 CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

ACTUALLY, FROM THE OUTSET, THE OWNERS PROVIDED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH IS MOST LIKELY WHY YOUR EXPERT STAFF FOUND THAT IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL. MOREOVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED ITS GUIDELINES.

THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOW SUBMITTED A PLAN THAT MEETS THOSE GUIDELINES, AS WITNESSED BY THE EXPERT TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD.

THUS, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT FAIR AND ADEQUATE REVIEW OF THAT SUBMITTAL BE AFFORDED AND THE PROFESSIONAL REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE EXPERT STAFF BE RESPECTED WITHOUT THE BOARD ATTEMPTING TO ACT AS SUPER PLANNERS AND IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS THAT WERE NOT REQUIRED OR THAT WERE ALREADY MET.

FAILURE TO DO SO WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION OF THE APPLICANTS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND A PERVERSION OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF LAW.

FINALLY, AS AFOREMENTIONED, THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT A DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL.

TO THAT END, THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON TO SUSTAIN THE ULTIMATE FINDINGS SHOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL THAT A REASONABLE MIND WOULD ACCEPT IT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED.

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPLICANT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED WITH COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THEIR APPLICATION MET ALL OF THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY'S GUIDELINES AND COMPLIED WITH THE CITY CODES.

THIS FACT WAS UNCONTESTED BY THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING.

IN FACT, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SHORT OF THE CLAMOR OF THE CROWD CONSISTING OF LAY OPINION, TESTIMONY AND THE PURELY HYPOTHETICAL OPINIONS AND CONJECTURES POSITING THAT IT WOULD CAUSE FLOODING, LET ALONE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REFUTING THE EXPERT PLANNING STAFF'S PROFESSIONAL REVIEW THAT FOUND THE PROJECT MET THE 17 CRITERIA AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL AND THE EXPERT METICULOUS SITE REVIEW BY AN ARCHITECT, A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST.

THE SPECULATIVE REASONS OFFERED BY THE BOARD, BROUGHT ON BY THE UNSUBSTANTIATED EMOTION AND PERCEPTION RILED UP BY THE CLAMOR OF THE CROWD AND THEIR ATTEMPTED APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THE CITY CODES, GUIDELINES, STANDARDS, OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR REQUIREMENTS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED BY THEIR OWN CERTIFIED EXPERT PLANNERS WERE UNDENIABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS AND LED TO THE UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL.

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT THIS DENIAL, WHICH WAS OPPOSED BY EVERY EXPERT WITNESS ON THE RECORD WHO OFFERED UP SUBSTANTIVE, COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY WAS IN FACT AN ABUSE OF THE APPLICANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, THAT IT REPRESENTS A FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW.

AND IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OF RECORD, MUCH LESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL.

MERELY BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE RESULT THAT A BOARD DESIRES, OR THAT THE CLAMOR OF THE CROWD DESIRES DOES NOT GIVE THAT BOARD OR ANYBODY THE RIGHT TO DENY AN APPLICANT AN APPROVAL AFTER THEY HAVE MET THEIR BURDEN THROUGH CLEAR EXPERT COMPETENCE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THEIR PROPOSITION.

IN FACT, FEARS AND ANXIETY AND QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT MAY BE OR OF THE UNKNOWN QUESTIONS AND FEARS THAT ARE DISPELLED BY THE FACTS AND THE RECORD FROM EXPERTS AS PROVIDED, ARE NOT A VALID BASIS ON WHICH TO FASHION A DENIAL.

SUCH AN ACTION IN THIS CASE AT HAND IS CLEAR ERROR.

IN CONCLUSION, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU GRANT THIS APPEAL BASED ON THE FACTS AND LAW AS PRESENTED.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS PETITIONED THIS CITY COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THEIR APPEAL AND THE RECORD FROM THE PZB MEETINGS AND TO FIND THAT THE APPLICANT DID IN FACT SUBMIT AND PRESENT COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF A CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE.

APPROVAL FOR THIS APPROXIMATE TWO FOOT HIGH BY ONE FOOT WIDE, PERVIOUS STACKED TREMRON DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL ON THE PROPERTY UPLANDS, AS PROVIDED IN EVIDENCE BY THE APPLICANT'S EXPERTS, INCLUDING THE REPORTS AND THE TESTIMONY OF A STATE CERTIFIED REGISTERED ARCHITECT.

LES THOMAS, A STATE CERTIFIED AND LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, BOB MORGAN PE AND A STATE CERTIFIED AND LICENSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL WETLAND SCIENTIST JONATHAN SUMMERFIELD, PWS AS WELL AS THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY PROVIDED AND CERTIFIED BY STATE LICENSED SURVEYOR TERRY DURDEN, PSM.

ALL OF WHOSE CREDENTIALS WERE STATED ARE WELL KNOWN BY THIS COMMISSION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. QUESTION OF MR.

[01:00:03]

WHITEHOUSE. MR. WHITEHOUSE, IS IT, WAS IT YOUR CLIENT'S INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE FIVE REQUESTS MADE FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TO YOUR CLIENT ON APRIL 5TH? YES, AND I THINK THEY DID.

AND THAT WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT I PRESENTED.

MR. SUMMERFIELD, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING TO SEE WHAT HE ADDED TO THIS, SINCE ALL WE HAVE IS A SERIES OF EMAILS.

THERE'S NO FORMAL REPORT.

IS THAT CORRECT? HE APPEARED AT THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD MEETING.

OKAY, BUT IS, SO WHAT DOES HE ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION? IT APPEARS FROM THE WRITTEN MATERIAL THAT ALL HE'S DOING IS OPINING UPON WHERE ONE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL LINES EXIST.

DOES HE OFFER MORE THAN THAT? YES, SIR. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY, NUMBER ONE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE IN HIS IN THE NOTES.

AND I BLEW THEM UP FOR YOUR FOR YOUR REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO SEE ON THE SURVEY BUT I BLEW THEM UP.

IT TALKS ABOUT HOW WE MET WITH DEP AND HIS OUTCOME OF THOSE MEETINGS WITH DEPP, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE REQUESTS OF THE BOARD, NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, HE APPEARED AT THE HEARING AND GAVE TESTIMONY AS TO HOW THIS REQUEST MET THE 17 CRITERIA.

IN FACT, THERE'S SPECIFIC DIALOG BETWEEN HE AND THE CHAIR.

AND I THINK NUMBER THREE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHY MR. MORGAN DID NOT APPEAR AT THE AUGUST MEETING.

HE INTENDED TO APPEAR AT THE AUGUST AT THE JULY MEETING.

IT WAS CONTINUED ON THE DATE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO QUORUM AND HE WAS NOT ABLE TO APPEAR THE OTHER ONE.

THAT'S WHY HE SUBMITTED HIS REPORT.

OKAY. MY LAST QUESTION IS, DOES THE SURVEY PREPARED BY MR. DURDEN SHOW ELEVATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES? YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING AND I AND I DIDN'T QUESTION WHAT THE STAFF SAID IN THEIR STAFF REPORT AS TO WHAT THOSE REQUESTS WERE.

THE BOARD CAN GUIDE THEMSELVES BY LOOKING AT THE TRANSCRIPT.

BUT I DID CUT A QUOTE FROM MR. [INAUDIBLE], WHO IS THE ONE WHO SUMMARIZED THE REQUEST AND THE REQUEST TO HAVE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE ELEVATIONS ON THE SURVEY ITSELF WAS ONE THAT CAME UP DURING IT. MR. SHAFER TOOK NOTES ABOUT IT.

SHE ATTEMPTED TO HAVE THAT DONE DURING AND THIS IS ALL IN THE TESTIMONY.

I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT'S NOT.

SHE ATTEMPTED TO HAVE THAT DONE, BUT APPARENTLY THE SURVEYOR WAS NOT ABLE TO DO ELEVATIONS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO GO ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS. SO THAT WAS ONE THING.

AND THEN THE FINAL THING, I THINK, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

AND NOW I FORGOT THE SECOND PART OF IT.

BUT ANYWAY, IN ANY CASE, THEY DIDN'T.

YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD GET THOSE.

AND HAVING MR. SUMMERFIELD AND MR. MORGAN TALK ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THE WALL HYDROLOGICAL, ETC., ON ON OUTSIDE PROPERTIES WAS SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL.

BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THE SURVEY THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED US BY MR. DURDEN, I DO NOT SEE EITHER IDENTIFICATION OF THE STRUCTURES OR ELEVATIONS.

AND IF I'M MISSING THEM, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

BUT THESE ARE BOUNDARY SURVEYS WITH THE WETLANDS DELINEATION, BUT I DO NOT SEE A SURVEY SHOWING ELEVATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES . I THINK. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M READING THE SURVEY CORRECTLY.

I THINK THE WALL AND THE RIP-RAP ARE SHOWN ON THERE, SIR.

THEY ARE THE LOCATION OF THE WALL AND THE RAPPROCHEMENT.

ABSOLUTELY. AND AS FAR AS ADJACENT STRUCTURES, THE ONLY THING I WILL ADD, I THINK YOU NEED TO GUIDE YOURSELF AND YOUR CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF CAN GUIDE YOU, BUT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT IN 1129 TO PROVIDE ELEVATIONS, ETC..

IT'S TO PROVIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU MEET THOSE 17 CRITERIA.

AND THAT'S WHY THEY PROVIDED THE ENGINEER, THE WETLAND SCIENTIST, AS WELL AS THE ARCHITECT AND THE SURVEY.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU. AND SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT IS COMMISSIONERS, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, WE NEED TO DISCLOSE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WE'VE RECEIVED ON THIS APPEAL.

I, AS THE MAYOR, HAVE RECEIVED NONE.

VICE MAYOR SIKES-KLINE.

I HAVE RECEIVED NO EMAILS, WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE.

HOWEVER, I HAVE HAD CONVERSATION WITH MS. GINA BURRELL PRIOR TO THE APPEAL.

I HAVE HAD NONE. I WAS WALKING MY DOG AND BRIEFLY SPOKE WITH GRANT MISTERLY, WHO IS OUR NEIGHBOR, AND I ALSO WAS CONTACTED BY TAWNY KERN AND WENT OVER TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE SEVENTH OF THIS MONTH AND DID A SITE VISIT FROM AFAR FROM TED AND ROBIN MOONEY'S HOME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

I HAVE TWO CARDS ON.

THE CITY CLERK IS CERTAINLY BRINGING ME SOME MORE.

WE DO REQUEST AS AS IS OUR STANDARD PRACTICE FOR ALL OF OUR

[01:05:11]

PUBLIC HEARINGS IS THAT WE DO ASK THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO 3 MINUTES AND WE DO NEED A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD THAT YOU'RE WELCOME TO FILL OUT FROM THE BANK AND IN THE BACK IN HAND TO CITY STAFF.

OUR FIRST SPEAKERS, MR. PATRICK CODD.

IS MR. CODD HERE? PLEASE, YOU'RE. WE'RE GOING TO START THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND YOU ARE MY FIRST CARD.

AFTER MR. CODD IS BILL BOUCHARD.

FORGIVE ME AGAIN.

WELCOME, SIR.

THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO BRING THAT MICROPHONE UP A LITTLE BIT CLOSER.

THAT'D BE PERFECT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

IF YOU'D STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PATRICK COD.

I LIVE AT 18 ALTHEA STREET.

AND WE WE HAVE A LOT OF MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY HERE.

AND WE HAVE MET SEVERAL TIMES AND AND KIND OF STRATEGIZE THIS.

AND I WAS ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE THE LAST ONE UP, BUT NOW I'M THE FIRST.

SO ANYWAY, THIS THIS HAS JUST BEEN KIND OF AN ONGOING SAGA FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW. SEVERAL OF THE THINGS THAT THE ATTORNEY BROUGHT UP, I JUST IT WAS SOME OF THE INFORMATION WAS BRAND NEW.

AND I'VE NEVER MISSED ANY OF THESE MEETINGS.

AND THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF LEGALESE INVOLVED.

AND I THINK THAT THERE'S THAT.

AND THE ONE THING THAT KIND OF STOOD OUT IS THAT HE KEPT MENTIONING THAT THESE 17 CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MET.

I MEAN, IT WAS THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD THAT SPECIFICALLY TOLD US THAT AT THE LAST MEETING WHAT THEY WERE, THEY WERE NOT MET.

SO I SAID, SO MAYBE I THINK WHAT WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT THE I WANT TO STATE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING MADE A CORRECT AND LEGAL RULING AFTER 234 DAYS OF THIS SAGA, AND THE COMMISSION MUST UPHOLD THE DECISION TO DENY.

SO THE WALL WILL BE REMOVED.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

OUR NEXT, THE NEXT CARD I HAVE IS MR. BILL BOUCHARD.

MR. BOUCHARD.

AFTER MR. BOUCHARD IS CLAIRE NORRIS.

YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES, SIR. IT'S A BEECHER.

BILL BEECHER. THAT'S OK TERRIBLE HANDWRITING.

SO. MY NAME IS BILL BEECHER.

I LIVE AT 20 ATLANTIC AVENUE.

I LIVE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION.

I LIVE ON. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MARSH ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU KNOW, AS JUST MENTIONED, THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORS THAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY.

AND THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT, AND I'LL GET INTO THAT.

BUT BEFORE I DO, FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THIS IS MY FIRST TIME GETTING UP HERE SPEAKING, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.

YOU GUYS DO KIND OF A THANKLESS TASK.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO FILL YOUR ROLES.

SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE ON THE BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR DOING THAT.

SO I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF BULLET POINTS HERE.

PARDON ME. I'M JUST GOING TO READ BECAUSE I TEND TO FORGET WHAT I WANTED TO SAY WHEN I GET UP HERE IN THESE THINGS.

SO FIRST IS THAT LIKE ALL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WE HAVE FLOODING.

AND A MATTER OF FACT, THAT'S WHY YOU PROBABLY HAVE A LARGE PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HERE, BECAUSE THERE'S FLOODING.

AND I THINK AS A SEPARATE NOTE, THE CITY NEEDS TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT THEY MENTIONED AND WHAT ARE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO LOOK INTO THE FLOODING IN OUR AREA. AND THAT'S WHY EVERYBODY HERE IS SO WORRIED ABOUT ANY POTENTIAL LITTLE CHANGES, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL INCHES FROM OUR HOMES FLOODING ON A CONSISTENT BASIS AND INCLUDING WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE AND AND MATTER OF FACT, SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS WERE FLOODED.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A LOT OF PASSION WITH THIS.

I AM A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IS I AM TAKING THE OPPOSING STANCE THEN PROBABLY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME UP AND SPOKE TO YOU BEFORE.

MY WIFE, I THINK, SPOKE IN THE APRIL MEETING AND I AM FOR ALLOWING THE SHAFFERS TO HAVE THIS WALL AND I DO HAVE SOME POINTS FOR THAT TOO.

SO THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE CITY HAD MENTIONED A BUNCH OF POINTS BACK IN APRIL, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING SEPARATE THAN PATRICK'S IS THAT I'VE BEEN LED

[01:10:05]

TO BELIEVE THAT ALL THESE CRITERIAS HAVE BEEN MET.

AND IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO ALLOW FOR THIS WALL.

SO ASSUMING THE MATERIAL, THE DRAINAGE, THERE WERE SOME GOOD POINTS THAT I NEVER EVEN THOUGHT OF, LIKE ABOUT RESCINDING WATER'S IT'S OKAY FOR WATER TO GET IN.

BUT HOW DOES THAT WATER GET OUT AND NOT AFFECT THE REST OF US? AND THAT'S REALLY NOTHING I REALLY HAD THOUGHT ABOUT.

BUT NOW BEING THROUGH SOME OF THESE FLOODINGS, IT'S A BIG CONCERN FOR MYSELF.

THE OTHER IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AND UNLESS WE ALL PUT UP A WALL, I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT IT.

WATER JUST GOES AROUND IT AS IT WAS KIND OF SHOWN BY THE RECENT FLOODING THAT IT COMES THROUGH OR IT GOES AROUND.

I'M NOT SURE HOW, BUT IT DEFINITELY DOES NOT STOP THE FLOODING.

RIGHT. AND I SAW EVIDENCE OF THAT WITH IAN TWO WEEKS AGO.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE WE WE DO HAVE FLOODING IN OUR AREA, THAT IF IT WAS THE CITY COMING UP AND RECOMMENDING THIS TO KEEP DEBRIS OUT OF OUR YARD OR TO REDUCE ANYTHING, WE WOULD ALL PROBABLY BE FOR IT.

BUT BECAUSE IT'S ONE NEIGHBOR, THEN IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALL HAVE TO MAYBE DO INDIVIDUALLY.

AND I THINK THAT CHANGES IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CLAIRE NORRIS.

AND AFTER MS. NORRIS WILL BE ROBIN MOONEY.

HELLO. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LET ME SPEAK.

SETTING EMOTIONS ASIDE, I THINK TO QUOTE A FAMOUS MOVIE, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE.

I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF SEMANTICS.

THEY ARE CALLING THIS A DECORATIVE WALL.

WELL, THEY MAY THINK IT'S PRETTY, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY A BULKHEAD.

I MEAN, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS MY PROXIMITY, BECAUSE I AM ADJACENT AND I AM UNPROTECTED. AND IF IAN IS ANY INDICATION, IT'S NOT PERMEABLE.

IT WASN'T PERMEABLE.

SO. YOU KNOW.

I WAS GOING TO SHOW YOU THESE PICTURES, BUT THEY MIGHT BE CONSIDERED NEW EVIDENCE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT A RIP-RAP.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S A FULL OUT GRANITE CONCRETE BLOCK, REBAR, CEMENT.

AND THE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE, HAVE BEEN DONE THE WAY THE MARSH IS RIGHT NOW.

WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW IS THAT IT'S CHANGED SINCE THIS HAS BEEN DONE.

THE END OF THE MARSH SPILLED IN SHOWS CLEARLY IN THESE PICTURES.

THE VEGETATION HAS GROWN OVER IT.

THERE'S LESS WATER.

THE ONLY WATER THAT EXISTS NOW IS THE STRIP RIGHT BEHIND MY HOUSE AND THE TWO HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE OF ME.

BUT IF STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE, THEY'VE BEEN DONE AFTER THE FACT.

I MEAN, THIS WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT.

AND NOW THEY WANT TO SAY AFTER THE FACT, I FEEL THE PUBLIC ZONING BOARD MADE THE RIGHT DECISION, THE LAWFUL DECISION.

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PERMISSION FOR THIS.

THERE WERE NO STUDIES DONE AHEAD OF TIME.

AND ANYTHING THAT'S BEING DONE NOW IS BEING DONE WHEN THE MARSHES IS ALREADY CHANGING.

IT'S CHANGED.

I SHOULD KNOW. I'VE LIVED THERE 30 YEARS.

MY BACKYARD, I'M ADJACENT TO THEM AND I FACE THEIR PROPERTY.

AND I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE ONGOING PROCESS EVERY DAY.

AND I'VE BEEN LOOKING OUT AT THAT MARSH FOR 30 YEARS.

AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

AND I'D LOVE TO GIVE YOU ALL A COPY OF THESE PICTURES.

YOU KNOW, THE WALL WE'RE TALKING TO 300 FEET OF GRANITE AND CEMENT, AND I'M ADJACENT TO IT AND I'M NOT PROTECTED.

AND WHEN IAN CAME THROUGH.

THEY BUILT A GOOD WALL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET ANY WATER.

NONE OF THE WATER COULD GO SOUTHERLY IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION FOR 300 FEET.

SO, I MEAN, THEY CAN HAVE ALL THE SCIENTISTS AND WEATHER AND WHATEVER THEY WANT.

BUT I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 30 YEARS WATCHING THIS, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY.

I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF SEMANTICS.

IT'S NOT A DECORATIVE WALL.

IT'S A BOUQUET. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. NORRIS, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, SIR.

DID YOU SUBMIT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE PLANET? NO, NOT THESE.

THESE ARE RECENT ONES.

[01:15:01]

I SUBMITTED THEM.

THANK YOU FOR THE GRANITE WAS AT IT.

YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ROBIN MOONEY AND AFTER MS..

MOONEY'S GINA BURRELL.

HELLO. ROBIN MOONEY, 14 ALTHEA STREET.

MY PROPERTY ACTUALLY SHARES A PROPERTY LINE WITH THE APPLICANT, SO I'M PART OF THE CLAMOR OF THE CROWD.

I TAKE GREAT OFFENSE TO THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A CROWD HERE AND WE ARE CLAMORING AND IT'S NOT EMOTIONAL.

WE'RE HERE TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY.

THAT'S IT. OTHERWISE, I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY DO.

BUT WE'RE HERE TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY.

AT THE PZB HEARING ON AUGUST 2ND WHERE THE WALL WAS DENIED, THE MARSH BULKHEAD WAS DENIED.

THERE WERE MORE THAN SEVEN CONCERNED NEIGHBORS WHO TESTIFIED IN OPPOSITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OVERLAY ZONE THAT THERE IS. ONE NEIGHBOR DISCUSSED THE ORDINANCE, WHICH COVERED THE APPLICATION THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES, AND HOW THE WALL VIOLATED SEVERAL SPECIFIC CRITERIA.

NEIGHBOR TWO DESCRIBED THE SENSITIVE NATURE OF THIS AREA, THE HISTORY OF THE FLOODING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE PAST ACTIONS WHERE PERMITS HAD BEEN DENIED OR EXISTING STRUCTURES WERE EVEN REMOVED BY ACTION DECISION OF THE PZB.

NEIGHBOR THREE REVIEWED THE PCB MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY AND APRIL OF THIS YEAR, AND DISCUSSIONS WERE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES AND OR ARE AVAILABLE ON THE VIDEO RECORDING, WHICH REINFORCED A STRONG CASE FOR DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION.

THE PZB WAS REMINDED THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NOT PROVIDED OR RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY TO ASSIGNMENTS GIVEN BY THE PZB.

THE STOP WORK ORDERS, DATED DECEMBER 10TH, 2021, AND JULY SIX, 2022, WHICH CALLED FOR NO ACTIVITY AT THE SITE.

THIS INCLUDES THE WALL.

EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED THAT THE WORK HAD CONTINUED ON THE WALL IN VIOLATION OF THOSE ORDERS.

NEIGHBOR NUMBER FOUR SHARED HIS VIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL AND ONGOING WORK IN THE SEVERAL MONTHS WHILE THE STOP WORK ORDER WAS IN PLACE AND HE PRESENTED PHOTOS AS EVIDENCE. NEIGHBOR FIVE, WHO RESIDES ON OAK STREET, SPOKE FROM THE HEART ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE WITH FLOODING FROM THE MANY NOR'EASTERS AND THE BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF ALL THE CHANGES WITH WILDLIFE IN THIS AREA.

AND HE SHARED PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH INCREASED FLOODING AT HIS PROPERTY AND THAT OF HIS NEIGHBORS.

ANOTHER NEIGHBOR PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS AND HISTORICAL EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF THE INCREASED FLOODING TO HIS AND THE REST OF OUR PROPERTIES.

ANOTHER NEIGHBOR SYMPATHIZED WITH THOSE OF US WHO DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY AND THE CONCERN THAT IF THIS WERE APPROVED, OTHERS WOULD FOLLOW PRECEDENT.

AND THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

OTHERS WILL FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT AND WOULD ADD FLOODING TO THE DIFFICULTIES TO LEAVE SO MANY VULNERABLE.

WE PROVIDED PROOF.

FIRST OF ALL, NO ONE ASKED TO COME ON MY PROPERTY TO LOOK AT ELEVATION.

NO ONE. THEY WOULD NOT BE DENIED THAT AT ALL.

WE PROVIDED PROOF THAT THEY CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE WALL AND WE CONTEND AS OWNERS OF A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, THEY KNOWINGLY AND INAPPROPRIATELY USE THE DEP OPINIONS TO THWART AND SUBVERT THE PZB PROCESS.

AND I'M SORRY THEY'LL BE DAMAGED, BUT I HAVE TO LOOK OUT FOR ME AND I WILL BE DAMAGED AND SO WILL MY NEIGHBORS.

AND I THINK THE PZB MADE THE CORRECT DECISION.

AND PLEASE, THANK YOU.

WE REQUEST THAT YOU DO NOT INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE SPEAKERS.

IT SLOWS DOWN OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU'RE FINE. I JUST DON'T WANT APPLAUSE OR OTHER COMMENTS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MISS MOODY.

YOUR TIME'S UP. THANK YOU.

GINA BURRELL IS OUR NEXT SPEAKER.

AND AFTER MISS BURRELL IS NANCY.

YOU TOLD. NO, NO, NO.

YOU TOLD ME AND I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.

BERTOLLI BERTOLLI.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M A SLOW LEARNER.

OKAY. I'M GOING BACK TO THE PZB MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1ST AND APRIL 5TH, 2022, SIGNED BY GRANT MISTERLY, THE CHAIR.

IN REFERENCE TO THIS ITEM, WE NEED TO GET YOUR TIMER STARTED, I THINK.

THERE WE GO.

AND IF YOU WOULD, GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

OH, I'M SORRY. GINA BURRELL, 27, SEMINOLE DRIVE, SAINT AUGUSTINE, RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM A FEW BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS PROJECT.

I'M GOING BACK TO THE PZB MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1ST AND APRIL 5TH, SIGNED BY GRANT MISTERLY, CHAIR, IN REFERENCE TO THIS AGENDA ITEM, FEBRUARY ONE MEETING, TEN NEIGHBORS SPOKE OUT AGAINST AN OPPOSITION TO THE AFTER THE FACT APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FOR THIS WALL.

THE MOTION MR. DEPRETER MOVED TO CONTINUE 2022-005 WITH CRITERIA AS FOLLOWS AS SPECIFICATIONS ON THE BLOCKS,

[01:20:09]

INSTALLATIONS AND SATURATION FROM BEHIND THE WALL AND OUTCOME OF MEETING WITH DEP SURVEY WITH THE WATER FLOW AND SOMETHING SIGNED AND SEALED BY AN ENGINEER WITH EXPERTISE IN THE AREA ADDRESSING THE 17 CRITERIA THAT WERE IN THE CODE, MR. MISTERLY SAID THE BOARD USED THE 17 CRITERIA TO JUDGE THE APPLICATION AND CITY STAFF COULD PROVIDE THE 17 CRITERIA IF AN APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE IT. HE SAID AN ENGINEER WOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND SEE HOW IT ALL WORKED TO TELL HOW IT COULD OR COULDN'T IMPACT THINGS.

MR. BLOW FELT THE RIP-RAP SHOULD BE LOCATED ON THE SURVEY, A TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY, AND HOW IT WAS IN RELATION TO THE 725 FOOT BUFFER AND THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS LINE.

THE VOTE ON THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

APRIL FIVE MEETING MINUTES, EIGHT NEIGHBORS SPOKE OUT AGAINST THIS PROJECT AND WANTED THE PERMIT DENIED.

AMY SKINNER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT, INFORMED THE BOARD THAT DP CAME TO THE SITE AND DETERMINED THAT THIS IS NOT PART OF THEIR JURISDICTIONAL.

THEIR JURISDICTION, DUE TO SIZE OF THE PROJECT BOARD VOTED 5 TO 1 TO CONTINUE TO JULY PCB MEETING AND THAT AN ENGINEER, SPECIFICALLY A HYDROLOGY ENGINEER, SHOULD ADDRESS THE BEFORE SITUATION AS WELL AS IMPACT OF THE WALL.

MY COMMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS INFORMED ME VERBALLY THAT TWO STOP WORK ORDERS DATED DECEMBER TEN, 2021, AND JULY SIX, 2022, STATING NO ACTIVITIES ON THE SITE.

I AGREE WITH THE CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD DENY THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THIS WALL AND DENY THE AFTER THE FACT PERMIT AT 40 HILDRETH WAY AND ZERO HILDRETH DRY.

THEY DID NOT SUPPLY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUCH AS A REPORT FROM A HYDROLOGY ENGINEER IN THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST 2022.

I TALKED TO JASON NEWMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST WITH FLORIDA DEP.

HE EMAILED ME A WARNING LETTER WL 22-094, DATED APRIL 11, 2022, SENT TO THE SHAFER'S REGARDING UNAUTHORIZED RIP-RAP FILL.

I HAVE FOUND OUT THAT DEP CAN ASSIST WITH RIP-RAP WALL, BUT DON'T.

THANK YOU, MR. PERMITS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.

THANK YOU MS. BURRELL.

IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU CAN PUT THIS ON? YES, THERE IS.

YES, THERE IS.

WE DON'T THINK IT'S BROKEN.

YOU THINK IT'S BROKEN OR IT IS BROKEN? IT DOES NOT WORK.

OK. WELL, THAT'S A SHAME.

BUT I ASSUME WE HAVE A COPY.

HOLD ON. I ASSUME WE HAVE A COPY OF IT IN OUR PACKET.

SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE, MS. BERTOCLI, IS A BLOWN UP VERSION OF THE SURVEY.

THAT'S A PART OF THE APPLICATION.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO WE ALL HAVE THIS IN OUR PACKET.

YOU DO? AND I'M SORRY THAT THE THE DOCUMENT CAM DOES NOT WORK.

OKAY. NANCY BERTOCLI 44 ATLANTIC AVE.

I'D LIKE THE COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THE SURVEY PAGE THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE APPEAL.

IT IS PAGE 59 OF 398.

IT SAYS AT THE TOP A SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY, LOT'S ONE AND TWO RECORDED IT IN MAP BOOK 71, PAGES, 21, 22 PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST JOHN'S COUNTY. I LOOKED THIS UP ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE AND FOUND THE ORIGINAL SURVEY DONE BY ANCIENT CITY SURVEY ON MAY 13TH, 2014, AND RECORDED ON JUNE 26TH, 2014.

THAT SURVEY DOES NOT SHOW A WALL OR RIP-RAP.

GEOMETRIC CORP USED THAT SURVEY, THE ANCIENT CITY SURVEY, TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF THE WALL IN THE RIP-RAP.

SEE NO ONE.

IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT THERE.

IN NO. THREE, IT STATED TO BE A SURFACE SURVEY ONLY THEY DID NOT LOOK FOR FOOTERS OTHER THAN SHOWING A ONE FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE WALL. THERE ARE NO OTHER DIMENSIONS TO SHOW THE HEIGHT OR LENGTH OF THE WALL.

THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION INFO OR TOPOGRAPHY DETAIL.

THE PZB HAD ASKED THE APPLICANT FOR ALL THAT INFO, BUT DID NOT RECEIVE IT.

THIS SURVEY LOOKS LIKE IT WAS MADE FOR FDEP, NOT THE CITY.

THE APPLICANTS CALL IT A DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL.

[01:25:03]

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY ADJECTIVES YOU THROW IN FRONT OF IT, IT'S STILL A WALL.

BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.

THE PZB MADE THE CORRECT DECISION TO DENY THE PERMIT.

I'M URGING THIS COMMISSION TO UPHOLD THE PCB DECISION TO DENY THE APPLICATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TONI LEE KERN.

AND THEN AFTER THAT WILL BE MR. JOHN MOONEY.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TAWNI KERN AND I RESIDE AT 23 ALTHEA STREET.

AND WHAT I WANTED TO DO TONIGHT IS WE HAVE A NEARLY 350 FOOT LONG STRUCTURE BUILT IN THE CONSERVATION OVERLAYS ZONE, ONE MOST RESTRICTIVE BY A CONTRACTOR WHO'S THE APPLICANT.

AND I WANT TO GIVE A SUMMARY OF ALL THE MEETINGS I'VE ATTENDED BECAUSE I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS CLOSELY BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT MY COMMUNITY.

ON FEBRUARY 1ST, THE PCB MEETING, IT WAS CONTINUED UNTIL APRIL 5TH, AND THE ACTIONS ASSIGNED TO THE APPLICANT WAS A TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY.

THE SPECS ON THE BLOCKS USED THE OUTCOME OF THEIR MEETING WITH THE DEP, ALSO A CERTIFIED ENGINEER, TO STATE NO IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND TO ADDRESS THE 17 CRITERIA. THE APRIL 5TH PCB MEETING WAS CONTINUED UNTIL JULY 5TH.

SINCE THE APPLICANT DIDN'T HAVE THE REPORT FROM THE ENGINEER, THE ACTIONS WERE ASSIGNED TO THE APPLICANT AS FOLLOWS SUBMIT AN ENGINEERING REPORT, NOT JUST A LETTER, AND SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE SO THEIR ENGINEER CAN REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE IT'S VALID.

COMPLETE THE APPLICATION FOR THE OTHER LOT THAT HAD NEVER RECEIVED AN APPLICATION TO APPEAR BEFORE A PCB, AND THAT WAS FOR ZERO HILDRETH DRIVE.

AND THEN WE GO TO THE JULY 5TH PCB MEETING AND IT WAS CANCELED BECAUSE OF LACK OF QUORUM.

SO THEN AUGUST 2ND WE SHOW UP AND THE APPLICATIONS WERE DENIED BECAUSE THE APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE 17 CRITERIA, NAMELY NUMBERS TWO, THREE, FOUR, SIX AND 11.

THEY HADN'T SUPPLIED ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, AND THEY BROUGHT AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST TO THE MEETING VERSUS A HYDROLOGIST.

AND THIS IS ALL HAPPENING NOW DURING HURRICANE SEASON IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS FLOOD PRONE.

SO THIS HAS CAUSED SOME STRESS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND IF A NEIGHBOR WOULDN'T HAVE CONTACTED CODE ENFORCEMENT, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T ALL BE HERE BECAUSE THIS THIS IS A HIDDEN AREA AND I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD HAVE EVER APPLIED. THEY GOT CAUGHT.

SO BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, THE PCB MADE THE CORRECT RULING AND THE COMMISSION SHOULD SUPPORT THE DECISION TO DENY THE APPLICATION AND HAVE THIS WALL REMOVED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JOHN MOONEY.

AND AFTER MR. MOONEY WILL BE JIM SPRINGFIELD.

THE OVERHEAD IS NOT WORKING.

IS THAT CORRECT? VERY SORRY.

NO PROBLEM. MY NAME IS JOHN MOONEY.

I'M CALLED TED. I LIVE AT 14 ON FEAR STREET.

SO THE PZB MADE THE CORRECT DECISION TO DENY THE PERMIT AND IT SHOULD BE UPHELD.

THE WALL IS OVER 300 FEET LONG AND IT'S THREE FEET HIGH, AS THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY STATED IN ALL OF THE OTHER HEARINGS, NOT TWO FEET, AS WE HEARD IN THE LAWYERS TESTIMONY, IT WAS CHARACTERIZED BY THE APPLICANTS IN A SALES DOCUMENT FOR ZERO HILDRETH AS A MARSH BULKHEAD.

THIS MARSH BULKHEAD WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE ONLY AFTER THE FIRST PZB HEARING WAS THE NAME CHANGE TO WHATEVER THE APPLICANTS CALLED IT.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT'S CALLED.

IS IT A DECORATIVE WALL ANYWAY? CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE, AS WE ALL KNOW, IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE.

THE POLICY STATES THAT PERMITS SHALL BE ISSUED ONLY FOR SUCH STRUCTURES AND USES WHICH HAVE RECEIVED PERMITS UNDER PROVISION OF APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS AND WILL BE USED ISSUED ONLY FOR THOSE STRUCTURES WHICH ARE DETERMINED TO BE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE, AND WHICH ARE DETERMINED AS HAVING NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NATURAL SYSTEMS BY EITHER INDIVIDUAL OR CUMULATIVE EFFECT.

SUCH A DETERMINATION CANNOT BE MADE BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONDUCT A BEFORE MEASUREMENT OF THE TIDAL AND INUNDATION, FLOW OF THE MARSH, SCOURING, ETC.

MUCH OPINION HAS BEEN OFFERED REGARDING THE WALL AND WHAT IT WILL OR WON'T DO, BUT ALL OF THAT IS OPINION.

SOME OF IT'S EXPERT, BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO DATA, NO MEASUREMENTS TAKEN OR OFFERED.

FOR EXAMPLE, CRITERIA ONE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED SINCE NO MEASUREMENTS BEFORE STATE EXIST.

[01:30:05]

THEREFORE, NO DETERMINATION CAN BE MADE THAT THIS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT.

AND AS WAS STATED HERE ALREADY, THE APPLICANT'S BURDEN OF PROOF HAS TO BE MET AND IT HAS NOT.

OTHER CRITERIA FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE INCLUDES THE SUBMISSION OF DATA TO SHOW NATURAL AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS.

AGAIN, NO DATA HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SHOW WHAT THE BEFORE CONDITIONS WERE NOR THE AFTER CONDITIONS.

CRITERIA SIX WAS THE IMPACT TO THE FLOODPLAIN.

THE APPLICANT STATED THAT SHE HAD OVER 200 CUBIC YARDS OF DEBRIS IN HER YARD AFTER HURRICANE MATTHEW.

SO EVEN IF THE WALL PROVIDES PERMEABILITY, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETELY ESTABLISHED, THE DEBRIS WILL BE KEPT OUT AND WHAT PUSHED BACK INTO THE MARSH.

SO THERE GOES, IT'LL GO BACK AND FORTH ON THE SURGE AND WHERE WILL ALL OF THAT DEBRIS, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ENDING UP IN HER YARD NOW FALL? IT'LL FALL ON MY YARD.

IT'LL FALL IN THE MARSH.

AND THE THING AND THE MARSH WILL CHANGE.

AND IT HAS CHANGED.

SINCE DECEMBER 2021 WHEN THE APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT WAS MADE.

BUT AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL, NO MEASURED DATA HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AS ASKED FOR BY THE PZB THAT CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THERE WILL NOT BE DAMAGED TO OUR HOMES AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF STILL REMAINS WITH THE APPLICANTS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, SIR.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JIM SPRINGFIELD.

I WOULD SAY, AS MR. SPRINGFIELD'S COMING UP TO SPEAK, THAT I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS.

THANK YOU. IF YOU'LL HAND THOSE TO CITY STAFF, THE POLICE CHIEFS COMING UP RIGHT BEHIND YOU, AND WE'LL ACCEPT THOSE FROM YOU.

MR. SPRINGFIELD.

GOOD EVENING, JIM. SPRINGFIELD, 6 ALTHEA STREET.

I HAVE LISTENED TO THE ATTORNEY AND LISTENED TO THE CLAMOR OF THE CROWD.

AND I REMIND YOU THAT THE CLAMOR IS ARE WITNESSES THAT DID ATTEND THE PZBS, AND THEY DID MAKE TESTIMONY THAT IS IN THE RECORD.

AND THEY DID TALK ABOUT THE DATE OF 2016 WHEN THE WALL WAS APPARENTLY BUILT.

THAT WAS WHEN THE WALL STARTED ON ONE SIDE OF THE YARD.

IT WAS COMPLETED MUCH LATER, PARTICULARLY AFTER THE HEIGHT OF THE NOR'EASTER WE HAD A YEAR AGO.

THE DECORATIVE WALL THAT IS IN QUESTION WAS ASKED TO HAVE SPECIFICATIONS BROUGHT SEVERAL TIMES.

THE LANDOWNER DID COMMENT AT THE LAST MEETING.

HE COULD WALK OUTSIDE AND GET IT ON HIS PHONE RIGHT AWAY IF HE WANTED TO.

IT JUST TAKE 2 SECONDS.

THE TRIM LINE WALL THAT HE REFERENCES IN HIS DOCUMENT IS ACTUALLY A RETAINING WALL BY TRIM LINES, HOW THEY ADVERTISE IT.

AND THEY HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT WALL AS A RETAINING WALL.

IT'S HELD TOGETHER WITH PINS.

IT'S NOT STACKED AND IT'S NOT MISUSED, AS MR. SHAFER IMPLIED IN THE LAST HEARING.

SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF EVIDENCE THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD.

SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING AS THE CLAMOR GROUP THAT WE DENY THIS TONIGHT.

BUT IF IN FACT YOU DO REFER IT BACK TO PCB, I REQUEST TWO THINGS.

ONE IS THAT YOU ALLOW THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES TO BE ENTERED AS EVIDENCE INSTEAD OF JUST CLAMOR, AND THAT YOU ALSO ASK THE SHAFER'S TO GET AN ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION, PRO OR CON, BUT AN ENGINEER THAT THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE RECOMMENDS SO THAT WE HAVE A NEUTRAL ENGINEER.

THAT WAY WE CAN BE CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE AFFECTING OUR PROPERTIES, WHICH I DO LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY.

WE HAVE BEEN EMOTIONAL ABOUT THIS BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID ALREADY WE GET FLOODED REGULARLY AND EVEN IN HIGH TIDES, KING TIDES, WE HAVE WATER DOWN OUR ROAD. WE DID HAVE IRMA LIKE WATER.

THIS TIME IS NOT QUITE AS HIGH AS IRMA.

SO WE KNOW THAT AT ANY MOMENT WE COULD HAVE ANOTHER ONE.

AND I HAVE CALLED THIS STOP THE BLEEDING, THAT ANY TIME YOU DO ANY KIND OF OF WORK THAT AFFECTS ANY PIECE OF FLOODING, IT'S CONTRIBUTING TO THE BLEEDING.

AND I GO BACK WAY BACK TO MY CHEESEBURGER ANALOGY.

IF I CONTINUE TO EAT CHEESEBURGERS, MUCH TO PETTY'S CHAGRIN, I'M GOING TO PASS OVER AND HAVE A HEART ATTACK.

BUT EVERY TIME I GO TO GET THAT CHEESEBURGER, I SAY, WHAT'S ONE CHEESEBURGER? WELL, ONE RETAINING WALL IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE CHEESEBURGER.

THE ARCHITECTS, AS ALSO MENTIONED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPRINGFIELD. I HAVE ONE MORE CARD.

IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

I DO NEED TO RECEIVE YOUR SPEAKER'S CARD IMMEDIATELY.

[01:35:02]

AND, MS.. HARNS, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.

THANK YOU. IT'S A TOUGH DECISION TONIGHT.

IT'S VERY EASY FOR A LAWYER TO CHARACTERIZE THE PUBLIC AS BEING EMOTIONAL AND CLAMORING.

AND I THINK THAT'S VERY UNFAIR.

I THINK UNLESS YOU ALL HAVE FOLLOWED THIS.

THIS REQUEST TO THE CITY, IF YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED IT ALL VERY CLOSELY, THAT YOU SHOULD CONTINUE THIS LATER ON.

HERE WE HAVE ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS WHO FEELS HE'S ABOVE THE LAW OR THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW.

AND THE BEST THING TO DO, RATHER THAN ASK FOR PERMISSION, IS TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS.

WELL, I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS.

THE AUDACITY OF SOMEONE TO NOT THINK OF THEIR OTHER NEIGHBORS OR TO THINK OF THE CODES THAT DO EXIST IN THE CITY.

AND THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF THOSE.

AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY, IF WITH THIS POINT OF THE ELEVATIONS, IF THAT IS NOT IN OUR CODE, THEN OUR ORDINANCE, CERTAINLY BECAUSE OF THIS CASE, SHOULD BE REDUCED AND POSSIBLY CHANGED BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE IS GOING TO BUILD A WALL.

AND THE SAME QUESTION WILL BE, WELL, WHAT ARE THE ELEVATIONS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES? WELL, WHY ISN'T THAT A REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE? AND WE SHOULD MAKE IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

SO AGAIN, WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO BREAKS THE LAW, WHO DECIDES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME UP HERE AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE ASKED FOR PERMISSION.

AND WHERE'S THE PEOPLE'S LAWYER? HERE'S THE PEOPLE'S LAWYER.

HERE'S THE APPELLANT'S LAWYER.

YOU ARE NOT LAWYERS, ANY OF YOU.

SO I DO BELIEVE YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO NIGHT TO MAKE A COMPETENT DECISION.

AND IF YOU CAN CONTINUE THIS, I THINK IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC THAT YOU DO SO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OUR NEXT SPEAKERS, BJ KALAIDI.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BJ KALAIDI, WEST CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE.

I THOUGHT I IMMEDIATELY GOT UP TO BE THE LAST ONE.

BUT HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO SAY AFTER.

GOSH. TIME IS FLYING BY.

ONE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A LAWYER TO PROVIDE EXPERT, COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHICH IN MY OPINION, I'M A LAWYER.

I KNOW YOU ARE, MR. UPCHURCH.

EVERYONE DID KNOW THAT.

I'M SO SORRY. SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH THESE RESIDENTS HAVE PROVIDED, I FEEL, DURING THIS COMMISSION MEETING.

SO DENIED THE APPEAL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE LAST SPEAKER CARD, I HAVE IS FOR CYNTHIA GARRIS.

GOOD EVENING. I'M JUST SITTING HERE LISTENING TO THE DIFFERENT RESIDENTS SPEAK OF THIS WALL THAT EXISTS.

WHEN I WAS AT A MEETING GREET THING, A LADY CAME AND TOLD ME THAT A WALL WAS PUT IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THAT IT WAS CAUSING A BACK FLOW.

SO I KNOW THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE THAT SHE WAS SPEAKING OF.

THERE APPARENTLY IS A CONCERN HERE FROM YOUR RESIDENTS THAT I HOPE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AND INVESTIGATE MORE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WOULD CARE IF THERE WAS A DECORATIVE WALL ON SOMEONE'S PROPERTY IF IT WASN'T AFFECTING THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IF NOTHING ELSE IS MORE RELEVANT RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY, THE MOST CRISIS THAT WE FACE RIGHT NOW IS FLOODING.

AND IF WE DIDN'T SEE THAT WITH IAN THAT, WE JUST EXPERIENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO KEEP REBUILDING THEIR HOMES AND THEIR FLOORS AND DIFFERENT THINGS.

SO IF THIS WALL IS AN ISSUE FOR THESE RESIDENTS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO SEARCH.

MAYBE IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOUR HOMES, BUT APPARENTLY IT AFFECTS THEIRS.

OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE SPEAKING ON THIS TOPIC.

WE HAVE TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND AND LISTEN TO WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE SEEKING BECAUSE IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT PUT US IN OFFICE.

IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOODS BETTER.

IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED JUSTIFIABLY CORRECTLY IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO I'M JUST ASKING THAT YOU LISTEN TO ALL THE TESTIMONY HERE AND CONVERSATE AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE.

[01:40:06]

I KNOW THE LAWYER SPOKE OF A LOT OF LEGALITIES AND SOMETIMES IT JUST SEEMS LIKE JUST SPINNING WHEELS AT A CERTAIN POINT.

BUT THOSE PEOPLE LIVE THERE.

THEY'RE THE BEST WITNESSES TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU LOOK OUTSIDE EVERY DAY.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HAVING NO FURTHER CARDS.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION OF THIS APPEAL.

COMMISSIONERS. IS THERE A REBUT? REBUTTAL? NO, BOTH SIDES HAVE PRESENTED THEIR EVIDENCE.

NOW, THE APPELLANT DOES HAVE A RIGHT TO REBUT PUBLIC COMMENT AND TESTIMONY.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

SO YOU HEARD SOME PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES, SOME REFERRED TO THE PRIOR HEARING.

SOME DIDN'T. SOME OF THE EX PARTE YOU RECEIVED MAY HAVE REFERRED TO THE RECORD, SOME MAY NOT HAVE.

SITE VISITS, TECHNICALLY NOT APPROPRIATE.

BECAUSE THIS IS ON THE RECORD.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE REPORTS THAT WE RECEIVED WHICH WERE ON THE RECORD, NUMBER ONE.

YOU HEARD SOME YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC SAYING THAT THIS DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

I HEARD YOU, MR. MAYOR, TALK ABOUT THEM EARLIER IN YOUR QUESTIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT.

WELL, I JUST WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE STAFF REPORT.

NOW LET ME GO TO THE, SO THIS IS THE ORDER.

CAN WE PUT THE OVERHEAD BACK UP, PLEASE? SO THIS IS THE ORDER FROM 40 HILDRETH.

SAYS DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2829 OF THE CODE AND DENIES THERE'S NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO ANY CODE REQUIREMENTS. IT MAY BE ON THE RECORD AND IT'S IN YOUR TRANSCRIPT.

BUT SINCE THE STAFF TOLD YOU THAT THEY CITED TWO, THREE, SIX AND 11, I'D LIKE TO GO TO THOSE IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET A, B AND C. AS I SAID, THEY EVALUATED THE 17 CRITERIA BEFOREHAND.

NUMBER TWO TALKS ABOUT THE SITE'S RELATIONSHIP TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, BODIES OF WATER AND SURROUNDING CONSERVATION ZONES.

THE STAFF RESPONSE WAS THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY BORDERS THE BODY OF WATER AS WELL AS WETLANDS.

THERE'S NO COMMENTARY AS TO HOW IT DOESN'T MEET THAT SECTION.

IN FACT, THERE'S NO COMMENTARY IN THE BOARD FINDINGS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT TRANSCRIPT WITHIN YOUR RECORD AS TO WHY IT DOESN'T MEET THAT.

NUMBER THREE.

NATURAL AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERNS.

THE STAFF RESPONSE.

IN ALL THREE STAFF REPORTS, GRADING PLANTS HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM A REGISTERED ARCHITECT STATING THAT THE PERVIOUS BLOCK ALLOWS WATER TO FLOW THROUGH THE WALLS JOINTS . AND THERE'S NO COMMENTARY BY THE STAFF EXCEPT FOR AT THE END WHERE THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

NUMBER SIX.

IMPACT ON THE FLOODPLAIN.

THE STAFF RESPONSE MINIMAL.

NO COMMENT BY THE STAFF.

I MEAN, YOU CAN HAVE THE DIRECTOR COME UP AND SAY THAT WHAT THEY MEANT WAS THAT THAT WAS THEIR EVALUATION, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEIR EVALUATION IS EVERY TIME PEOPLE HAVE LOTS OF APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU AND THEY DO THEIR EVALUATION AND WE RELY UPON THOSE, JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER DOESN'T MEAN WE WE CHANGE OUR PROCESS FROM ALL ALONG.

NUMBER 11.

IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON SHORELINE BY LINEAR FEET AND PERCENT OF SITE.

THE LANDSCAPE FEATURE IS ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, BUT BEHIND THE RIP-RAP.

THE STAFF DOESN'T MAKE ANY COMMENT THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM AT ALL.

IN FACT, AT THE END, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

SO I WOULD PAUSE IT TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BECAUSE IT MET THOSE CONDITIONS.

SECONDLY, I THINK IN THE RECORD, THEY SAID THERE'S NO CONFIDENCE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

WELL, YOU HAVE THE EXPERT STAFF REPORT OR THE EXPERT OPINION OF THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE FIRST APPLICATION, WHICH IS MR. THOMAS.

AND THAT'S IN THE RECORD AS WELL.

AND HE AND THIS WAS IN THE FIRST APPLICATION, HE CLEARLY SAID, I HAVE VISITED THE PROPERTY AT 40 HILDRETH WAY AND EXAMINED THE WALL IN QUESTION.

THE WALL IS LOCATED ON THE OWNER'S PROPERTY AND DOES NOT TOUCH THE EXISTING PERMITTED RIP-RAP.

THE WALL IS MADE OF TREMRON BLOCK THAT ARE SIMPLY STACKED.

THERE IS NO MORTAR IN THE JOINTS AND THERE IS NO CONCRETE FOOTING ONTO THE WALL.

[01:45:05]

THE TREMOR ON BLOCK IS PERVIOUS TO ALLOW WATER TO FLOW THROUGH THE AIR AND WATER TO FLOW THROUGH AND WATER CAN ALSO SEEP THROUGH THE JOINTS WITHOUT A FOOTING AS HINDRANCE.

THE WATER CAN FLOW IN BOTH DIRECTION.

THE WALL ACTS AS AN ESTHETIC COVER TO THE RIP-RAP BEHIND IT.

SIGNED AND SEALED STATE REGISTERED ARCHITECT LES THOMAS.

AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS REPORT.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN OUR GM ENGINEERING HAS REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTATION AND HAS MADE MULTIPLE SITE VISITS AND HAS LISTED THE FINDING TO PARTIAL ID 1511510010 AND 1511510020 IN REFERENCE TO THE GROUNDWATER FLOW REPORT.

BASED ON MY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SOLUTIONS THAT THE PROPOSED DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING WALL AND RIP-RAP WILL NOT CAUSE AN IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, NOR ANY PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE OF BANKS, SOILS AND EXISTING VEGETATION, ESPECIALLY TREES AND AQUATIC VEGETATION.

HOWARD AND JESSICA SCHAEFER HAS PERFORMED THE REMOVAL OF THE COQUINA FILL AND FROM MY FINDING THE FTP AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SOLUTIONS FINDINGS, THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE THAT THERE WILL NOT BE DISPLACEMENT OR RISE OF WATER ONTO AN ADJACENT OR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

BULLET POINTS. THE DIRECT DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE WALL IS PERVIOUS.

THE RIP-RAP WALL IS PERVIOUS.

NO STRUCTURAL CONCRETE FOOTER, BREAKAWAY, DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING WALL SYSTEM.

THE LANDSCAPING WALL IS NOT ADHERED WITH ANY CEMENTITIOUS PRODUCT, NOR CONSTRUCTION ADHESIVE OR ANY MECHANICAL FASTENER FASTENERS SIGNED AND SEALED.

ROBERT MORGAN, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, STATE OF FLORIDA.

FINALLY YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU THE SURVEY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, MR. MAYOR, THAT TALKS ABOUT AND THERE'S NOTES ON IT, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REFER TO THOSE NOTES BECAUSE THIS IS A SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY.

AND MR. DURDEN IS TELLING US THAT HE RELIED UPON THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SOLUTIONS, WHICH WAS MR. SUMMERFIELD, A DIVISION OF SES ENGINEER SERVICES, AND BECAUSE THEY HAD ASSESSED THE SHAFER PROPERTY LOCATED AT 40 HILDRETH IN ST JOHN'S COUNTY TO DETERMINE THE REGULATORY LANDWARD EXTENT OF THE WETLANDS AND THE SURFACE WATERS WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

DURING THE FDEP SITE VISIT MEETING ON 14 JULY OR JUNE 2022, FDP AND ERS DETERMINED THAT THE WETLAND LINE WAS WATER WARD OF THE CONCRETE WALL, CONCRETE BLOCK WALL.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU HEARD SOME SOME DISCUSSION SAYING THAT THIS WAS IN THE WETLAND.

WELL, IT'S NOT IN THE WETLAND.

THAT'S WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT.

THAT'S WHY THIS SURVEY IS IMPORTANT.

IN FACT, IT'S NOT EVEN IN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE, IF IT'S OUTSIDE THE WETLAND, IT'S IN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE TWO, WHICH IS DIFFERENT.

AND ALSO WHEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR TESTIMONY WITHIN THE TRANSCRIPT, THIS IS ALL BUTTRESSED BY THE YOU ASKED WHAT MR. SUMMERFIELD ADDED TO THE DISCUSSION.

WELL, MR. SUMMERFIELD, CLEARLY IN THE RECORD, TALKED ABOUT THE FDEP HAD PREVIOUSLY VERIFIED THAT THE UPLAND RETAINING WALL IS LOCATED WITHIN THE UPLANDS AND THE RIP WRAP SPANS THE WETLAND BOUNDARY.

HE ALSO TALKED ABOUT IT BEING AT THE TIME OF THE FIELD INVESTIGATION, THE LANDSCAPE WALL AND RIP-RAP HAD BEEN INSTALLED AS PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED BY FDEP.

MR. WHITEHOUSE, LET ME INTERRUPT YOU.

YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE TRANSCRIPT NOW? YES, SIR. COULD YOU CITE ME TO A PAGE? START ON PAGE.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TRANSCRIPTS.

SO THIS IS IN THE AUGUST 2ND.

OK. AND AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE, HE INTRODUCED HIMSELF.

I'LL WAIT UNTIL YOU GET THERE.

OK ONLINE 15.

HE INTRODUCES HIMSELF MYSELF.

JOHN JONATHAN SUMMERFIELD, A PROFESSIONAL WETLAND SCIENTIST, FORMER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REGULATORY REVIEWER WITH ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SOLUTIONS.

I CAME OUT, LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY.

I'M A SKIP DOWN A LITTLE BIT DEEP.

HE HAD PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED THIS IS THE PART I WAS JUST READING, BUT I'M SORRY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M WITH YOU.

WHAT PAGE YOU ON NOW? PAGE FOUR. I JUST GOT TO THE BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE AND WENT TO PAGE FOUR.

OKAY. I MUST NOT BE ON THE RIGHT.

OH, OKAY. IT'S AUGUST.

IT'S THE AUGUST 2ND HEARING.

AUGUST 2ND. SO I SEE WHERE HE INTRODUCES HIMSELF.

AND SO THEN I JUST WENT TO WHERE I WAS READING BEFORE ON PAGE FOUR.

IT'S ONLINE. THREE A PAGE FOR.

[01:50:04]

EPP HAD PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED.

YOU DON'T HAVE THAT. I PUT GOD IN TRYING HIM IN EVERYTHING.

LINE THREE. PAGE FOUR.

AUGUST 2ND.

AM I THE ONLY ONE? OH, YOU MIGHT BE ON THE.

YOU'RE ON THE ZERO TO GO TO 40.

SORRY, SIR. THERE'S TWO AUGUST 2ND HEARINGS.

YES. NOW ON THE AUGUST 2ND TRANSCRIPT.

YES, SIR. PERTAINING TO 40 HILDRETH WAY.

YES, SIR. AND WE'RE ON PAGE FOUR, SO GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. SO THIS IS BEFORE WE WENT TO THE TRANSCRIPT.

THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

THE DEP HAD PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED THAT THE UPLAND LANDSCAPE OR THAT THE LANDSCAPE AND THIS IS AFTER HE'S UNDER OATH.

SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, UPLAND LANDSCAPE OR THAT LANDSCAPING WALL WAS WITHIN THE UPLANDS AND HAD GRANTED AN EXEMPTION FOR THE RIP RAP THAT WAS IN PLACE, SKIP BACK DOWN TO LINE 11.

SINCE THAT TIME, PURSUANT TO MEETINGS WITH DEP, THE SHAVERS HAVE REMOVED THE COQUINA SAND MATERIAL FROM THE TOP OF THE RIP WRAP.

NOW IT IS JUST A LANDSCAPING WALL AND THE RIP RAP IN FRONT OF IT WAS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY DEP AS BEING EXEMPT OR NON REGULATED DOWN TO 21 WHERE HE CONTINUES.

SO THE COQUINA WALL WAS NOT IN.

WITHIN THE CELLS OF THE BLOCK.

IT WAS NON MORTARED NON FOOTED.

I THINK IT'S A TREMOR NON MATERIAL, SORT OF LIKE A CINDER BLOCK MATERIAL, BUT WATER FLOWS THROUGH.

IF WE GO DOWN TO UH, LET ME FIND WHERE HE STARTED AGAIN.

I'M CURIOUS WHY WE'RE HERE, WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT THE HYDROLOGY OF THE SITE.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO READ.

THE ENGINEER TALKS ABOUT THE HYDROLOGY OF THE SITE.

THAT. YES, SIR. HE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL WETLAND SCIENTIST.

AND HE SAID, HERE, LET ME GET TO IT.

IS THIS MR. SUMMERFIELD YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES.

OKAY. SO IF YOU GO TO PAGE 49, LINE 16. YOU SEE, BOARD MEMBER GRIGGS IS ASKING ABOUT WOULD, THE WALL BEING IN THE WHAT SHE'S SAYING THE WALL IS IN THE WETLAND BUFFER.

BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT SHE SAYS.

THIS IS FOR YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT.

WOULD THAT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE WILDLIFE OR VEGETATION? MR. SUMMERFIELD.

I'M NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE UPLAND BUFFER WAS BEFORE THE WALL WAS IN PLACE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS NATURAL IN THE CONDITION.

I'VE SEEN IT IN THE WALLS NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT.

IF THAT WAS A NATURAL COMMUNITY.

PRIOR TO THE WALL GOING IN, THE VEGETATION WAS ALL REMOVED.

AS PART OF THAT, THE WALL IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT AS THE CLEARING OF THE BUFFER.

HE GOES DOWN TO THE TO THE BOTTOM, HE SAYS ON PAGE ON LINE 22, THIS WALL IS NOT GOING TO BE REGULARLY THE TOE OF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE REGULARLY WET.

SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT FISH SPAWNING AREAS OR MIGRATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BEING ADVERSELY AFFECTED.

I DON'T WANT TO READ THROUGH HIS WHOLE TESTIMONY, BUT THERE'S MORE IN THIS TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE CITING US TO DOES NOT SPEAK TO HYDROLOGY, BUT IN FACT SPEAKS TO WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION BECAUSE HE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST AND THAT'S WHAT THE 17 CRITERIA REQUIRE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD ASKED HIM ABOUT WHAT THE BOARD'S CONCERN WAS.

CLEARLY, THE CONCERN OF THE FOLKS THAT HAVE SPOKEN THIS EVENING AND SPOKEN TO THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS WAS WHAT'S THE IMPACT UPON THE FLOW OF THE WATER.

AND THAT'S THE QUESTION I WANT YOUR EXPERTS TO ANSWER FOR ME.

I CAN'T FIND THAT ANSWER.

THAT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ENGINEERING REPORT THAT I JUST READ TO YOU, WHERE HE SAYS, BASED ON MY STUDY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SOLUTIONS THAT THE PROPOSED DECORATIVE LANDSCAPING WALL AND RIP RAP WILL NOT CAUSE AN IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, NOR ANY PHYSICAL DISTURBANCE OF BANKED SOILS, EXISTING VEGETATION, ESPECIALLY TREES AND AQUATIC VEGETATION.

THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS. AND THAT'S AND HE'S I MEAN, AGAIN, WHETHER WE BELIEVE HIM OR DON'T BELIEVE HIM, HE IS A STATE REGISTERED

[01:55:07]

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA WHO IS ALLOWED TO MAKE DECISIONS ON THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

PEOPLE CAN HAVE WORRIES, PEOPLE CAN HAVE COMPLAINTS, PEOPLE CAN HAVE FEARS.

I UNDERSTAND. WE UNDERSTAND IT'S A POLITICAL SEASON.

WE UNDERSTAND FLOODING IS A POLITICAL ISSUE.

BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS YOU HAVE EXPERTS SAYING..

MR. WHITEHOUSE, FLOODING IS A PRACTICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL ISSUE.

DON'T, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, AT LEAST ON BEHALF OF ONE OF THE DECISION MAKERS HERE, TO SHY AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL DECISION BECAUSE THE ISSUES HERE ARE MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THAN A PARTICULAR POLITICAL RACE OR RACES.

I AGREE, MR. MAYOR, AND THAT'S WHY I'M TELLING YOU THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD BY EXPERTS TELL YOU THAT THIS DOES NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE ADVERSE HYDROLOGICAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN YOUR TRANSCRIPTS ASKS HOW IS THE WATER GOING TO GET IN? HOW HOW'S THE WATER GOING TO GET OUT? GIVE US EXPERTS THAT TALK ABOUT IT.

THEY WENT THEY GOT AN ENGINEER WHO SAID IT.

THEY WENT THEY GOT A WETLAND EXPERT WHO SAID IT.

THEY SAID THIS WATER GOES IN.

IT COMES OUT. WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO BELIEVE THAT.

THAT'S UP TO YOU TO DECIDE.

THAT'S UP TO THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD TO DECIDE.

BUT YOU HAVE EXPERTS WHO SAY IT, PEOPLE SAYING THEY HAVE FEARS ABOUT IT, PEOPLE SAYING WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, PEOPLE SAYING THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

THAT'S NOT TRUE. AND BY THE WAY, THE REASON I STATE THAT EX PARTE VISITS TO THE SITE, EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT AREN'T IN THE RECORD ARE INAPPROPRIATE.

BECAUSE I COULD HAVE CALLED YOU.

I COULD HAVE SAID, COME OUT THERE.

THE HURRICANE JUST CAME. THE WATER CAME IN, THE WATER CAME OUT.

BUT THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. I COULD HAVE SAID COME OUT TO THEIR PROPERTY AND LOOK AT IT, BUT THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.

AND THAT'S WHY VISITS TO OTHER PEOPLE, TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT IT, HEARING STUFF THAT'S NOT IN THE RECORD, IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND CONSIDERING THAT IT'S ALSO INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, YOU HAVE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR STAFF THAT SAYS THIS MEETS THE 17 YEAR CRITERIA. WE CAN SAY, OH, WELL, THEY SAID IT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THEY DIDN'T REALLY MEAN IT BECAUSE THEY JUST KIND OF DO A CURSORY REVIEW.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, THEN WE AGREE WITH WHAT THE BOARD SAYS.

IT'S EASY TO SAY THAT.

BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THEY DID A REVIEW, THEY'RE PROFESSIONAL, THEY'RE CONSIDERED TO BE EXPERTS.

AND THEY SAID THAT IT MEETS THE 17 CRITERIA.

AND I DON'T AND IT DIDN'T CHANGE.

IT WASN'T LIKE THEY WENT TO THE FIRST HEARING, HEARD THE COMMENTS OF THE BOARD, AND THEN WE CAME BACK AND SAID, OH, YEAH, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE REEVALUATED AND IT DOESN'T MEET SIX, THREE, FOUR, 11.

THEY SAID THEY STILL SAID THAT IT MET IT.

AND EVEN THE LAST HEARING THEY SAID THAT MET.

ANYWAY, I WANT TO I'LL GET, I'LL GET TO THE END HERE.

I THINK THAT WE'RE ON REBUTTAL.

YES, SIR. AND SO GO AND GOING BACK TO WHERE I WAS, WHERE I WAS AFTER TALKING ABOUT MR. SUMMERFIELD COMMENTS, I THINK THE LAST SORT OF THING THAT I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU REVIEW THIS, YOU KNOW, BASED ON REBUTTAL, WHEN YOU REVIEW THIS AND YOU KNOW, YOU SAW IT IN YOUR CITY ATTORNEY'S, YOU KNOW, GUIDELINES WHEN YOU REVIEW THIS OR WHEN A COURT REVIEWS IT, YOU LOOK TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT DUE PROCESS WAS WAS AFFORDED, WHETHER OR NOT THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF LAW WERE FOLLOWED AND WHETHER THERE WAS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE DECISION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE ONLY RECOURSE THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS IS TO APPEAL TO YOU TO SAY, HEY, WE PUT EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD WE BROUGHT AN ENGINEER AND WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY WANTS TO SAY IT'S A LETTER OR REPORT, THAT'S A REPORT.

THIS IS SIGNED AND SEALED BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

YOU HAVE A REPORT FROM AN ARCHITECT THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION THAT IS SIGNED AND SEALED BY SOMEONE WHO I WOULD SAY WE ALL HIGHLY RESPECT.

HE DOES LOTS OF WORK IN THE CITY.

HE'S NOT GOING TO MAKE UP THE FACT THAT THESE ARE ARE NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT PERVIOUS.

HE'S SAYING THAT THEY ARE.

THE ENGINEER'S SAYING THAT THEY ARE.

THE WETLAND SCIENTIST, EVEN THOUGH HE MAY NOT TALK ABOUT HYDROLOGY, HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE 17 CRITERIA.

AND IN FACT, YOUR STAFF APPARENTLY AGREES WITH WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE 17 CRITERIA.

SO, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A HOT BUTTON ISSUE.

IT'S A HOT BUTTON ISSUE ALL OVER THE CITY.

BUT THE FACT IS, YOU HAVE EXPERTS TELLING YOU THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO CAUSE ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY AROUND IT.

AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS SAYING THAT SAYING THAT IT IS WITH NO EVIDENCE, THERE'S NOT AN ENGINEER COMING IN HERE AND TELLING YOU THAT IT'S GOING TO DO IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. THERE'S NOT A SURVEYOR WHO OR I MEAN, I'M SORRY, A ARCHITECT WHO'S COMING IN HERE AND SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'VE LOOKED AT THESE TREMRON ROCKS AND THEY AREN'T PERVIOUS. YOU KNOW, LES IS FULL OF BUNCH OF HOOEY.

YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE EXPERTS TELLING YOU THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE WANT IT OR THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT IT OR THEY FEAR IT OR THEY CAN'T SEE IT FROM THEIR PROPERTY.

I UNDERSTAND THE FEAR, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT'S NOT HOW THE LAW OPERATES.

AND I THINK THAT THAT YOU KNOW THAT.

ANYWAY. SO I APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION.

[02:00:03]

YOU KNOW, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR. MAY I? MAY I? OVER HERE.

SORRY. YOUR ATTORNEY.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT BECAUSE REFERENCE TO OUR CODE WAS BROUGHT UP, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD THE CORRECT LANGUAGE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ORDER MUST CONTAIN.

OUR CODE AT SUBSECTION FOUR IS SPECIFIC.

IT SAYS THE RECORD SHALL CONTAIN ALL EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY AND FINDINGS PLACED IN THE RECORD OF THE HEARING WITHOUT THE NEED TO REITERATE THE SAME IN THE FINAL ORDER.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT OUR CODE CONTEMPLATES THAT THE FINDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE IS IN THE COMPLETE RECORD AND DOES NOT NEED TO BE ITEMIZED VERBATIM.

AND THAT'S PER THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR CODE VERBATIM.

I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT, I KNOW I TRAIN ALL OF YOU AND ALL OF OUR LOWER BOARDS AS WELL ON SOME OF THE KEY CASE LAW WHEN YOU TAKE OFFICE.

AND ONE OF THE CASES IS THE BLUMENTHAL CASE.

AND THAT CASE DOES STATE THAT CITIZEN TESTIMONY IS ALLOWED AND CAN BE DEEMED COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IF IT IS FACT BASED AND NOT MERELY EXPRESSING AN OPINION.

AND I KNOW MR. WHITEHOUSE IS FAMILIAR WITH THAT CASE, BUT THAT IS WHAT THAT CASE STATES.

AND LASTLY, ON THE X PARTY, BOTH BY CASE LAW AND BY OUR ORDINANCES, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE EX PARTE, WHICH BY CASE LAW INCLUDES INCLUDES SITE VISITS.

YOU DO KNOW THAT FOR THIS PARTICULAR HEARING YOU'VE DISCLOSED YOUR EX PARTE.

BUT WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN A IN A VISIT AFTER THIS RECORD CANNOT BE USED AS AS A DETERMINATIVE IN YOUR DECISION MAKING. SO I'M SEEING NODS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHATEVER CASUAL CONVERSATION YOU MAY HAVE HAD ABOUT WITH SOMEONE WHO WAS WALKING THEIR DOG CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE. OBVIOUSLY, YOUR DECISION MUST BE BASED ON THE RECORD BELOW, JUST AS MR. WHITEHOUSE STATED, LET ME ASK TWO OTHER QUESTIONS, MS. LOPEZ. THE FIRST IS THAT I ASSUME THE APPELLANT HAS WAIVED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THAT, WHETHER IN FACT THIS IS SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION ZONE ONE OR TWO.

THERE SEEMS TO BE HE'S RAISED IN HIS REBUTTAL, A FACTUAL ISSUE.

BUT SINCE WE'VE PROCEEDED AND HE'S APPEALED AND HIS DEFENSE IS IS ON CONSERVATION ONE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TO CONSIDER.

AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN DIRECT THAT TO THE APPELLANT AS WELL.

BUT THE RECORD IS WHAT THE RECORD IS AND WHAT THE APPLICATION WAS, HOW IT WAS FILED AND HOW IT WAS PRESENTED.

CERTAINLY, MR. WHITEHOUSE MAY HAVE A DIVERGING VIEW, BUT BUT THAT IS THE RECORD YOU HAVE.

WHETHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AS SOMETHING ELSE OR AS A DUAL APPLICATION THAT I CAN'T SPEAK TO, BUT THE RECORD IS, IS WHAT IT SAYS.

AND I BELIEVE THE THE APPLICATION, UNLESS MR. WHITEHOUSE CAN POINT ME SOMEWHERE ELSE, DOES SAY THAT IT WAS FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE.

MY LAST QUESTION IS I ASSUME THAT THE COMMISSION CAN GIVE CREDIBILITY TO WITNESSES AS ANY TRIER OF FACT CAN.

CORRECT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YES. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE SITE VISIT ISSUE AS WELL.

I THINK YOU ALL KNOW I DO MY HOMEWORK AND I TAKE UMBRAGE AND QUITE PLAINLY WITH THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER IN AND MAKING THAT STATEMENT THAT IT'S INAPPROPRIATE.

MY SITE VISIT WAS AN INVITATION BY A NEIGHBOR.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY EVALUATION OF THE DECISION BEFORE US.

AND YOU'LL SEE IN MY COMMENTS, MY EXTENSIVE COMMENTS THAT FOLLOW THAT THAT'S THE CASE.

IT IS SIMPLY ON WHAT IS ON THE RECORD.

WELL, IS WHAT I WILL BASE MY DECISION ON.

I SIMPLY WANTED TO SEE FOR MYSELF THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DO THE SAME THING FOR PRETTY MUCH EVERY PROJECT THAT ANYBODY HAS CONTACTED ME ON, INCLUDING MR. BRODY'S PROJECT, WHICH WILL COME BEFORE US BEFORE TOO LONG.

I HAVE BEEN ON THAT SITE AS WELL, SO I JUST WANT TO SET THAT STRAIGHT.

ANOTHER THING THAT THE IN THE REBUTTAL THAT THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER MENTIONED WAS THE WETLANDS DELINEATION LINE.

I DON'T HAVE A PAGE NUMBER THAT YOU ALL HAVE IN YOUR PRINTED AGENDA, BUT ON PAGE 101 OF THE ONLINE AGENDA THAT WE HAVE IN OUR PACKET IN THE SURVEY NOTES, IT INDICATES THAT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SOLUTIONS WERE ENGAGED TO DELINEATE THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS LINE.

THAT WETLANDS LINE WAS DETERMINED TO BE UNDER THE EXISTING RIP RAP, WHICH THEN REQUIRED THE INITIATION OF A CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR THAT RIP RAP FROM THE DEP.

[02:05:04]

AND THE QUOTE IS THE RIP RAP QUOTE.

MASKED THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE WETLAND LINE, END QUOTE.

AND THERE IS NO QUESTION IN MY MIND THAT AND IT IS ON THE RECORD THAT THIS PROJECT IS IN CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE AND I'LL STOP HERE FOR NOW, BUT WILL YOU COME BACK TO ME LATER? THANK YOU.

SO ANYBODY.

NO. I'M LISTENING.

I HAD A COUPLE OF CLARIFICATIONS TO ASK OUR STAFF.

IS THE ACTUAL WALL THREE FEET OR TWO FEET TALL? I BELIEVE IT'S 2.8.

AND THEN I BELIEVE SOME PEOPLE MADE COMMENTS ABOUT THE WALL, THE SYSTEM HAVING REBAR AND CEMENT AND GRANITE. THAT WASN'T MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS WALL.

THE TESTIMONY AT THE MEETING SAID THAT IT DID NOT HAVE IT.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WITH CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT IT DID NOT IT DOES NOT HAVE IT.

BUT WE IT WAS WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT'S THERE OR NOT.

SO DID THEY SUBMIT SOMEWHERE IN THIS PROCESS, THE WALL SYSTEM AND HOW IT ACTUALLY IS ATTACHED? SOMEBODY SAID IT WAS PINNED.

SO WE HAVE NO IDEA.

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFICATIONS ON THE BLOCKS OR THE WALL.

OK. IT WAS ALSO SPOKEN OF AS A BREAKAWAY WALL.

SOMEWHERE IN THIS TONIGHT'S I BELIEVE THAT WAS TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE MEETINGS THAT THE APPLICANT SAID THAT IT WOULD COULDN'T BREAK AWAY.

OKAY, I'LL PASS IT ON TO YOU, AND THEN I MAY ASK MORE QUESTIONS IF IT PLEASE THE MAYOR.

YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. I JUST.

I WANT TO BEGIN MY COMMENTS WITH A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS.

AND THESE ARE OBSERVATIONS.

THEY'RE NOT EVIDENTIARY AND THEN CONCLUDE WITH THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION ON MY DECISION ON THE MATTER BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE ONE, SECTION 1129 OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

MY THIS IS AN OBSERVATION AGAIN, BASED ON KNOWLEDGE I'VE DEVELOPED DURING MY OWN CAREER, AS WELL AS WHAT I'VE LEARNED IN MY ROLE AS A COMMISSIONER.

THE LANGUAGE IN THIS, IN THIS CHAPTER IN THIS SECTION, AND THE PERMITTED USES ASSOCIATED WITH IT WERE CREATED TO ENABLE A PROPERTY OWNER REASONABLE ACCESS TO THE WATERFRONT BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY WHILE MINIMIZING NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THIS MOST SENSITIVE OF OUR WETLAND ECOSYSTEMS. THE PROTECTION OF OUR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES IS, IN PRACTICE, A KEY ELEMENT OF OUR FUTURE SUCCESS IN RESILIENCY TO SEA LEVEL RISE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME CONTRIBUTING SUBSTANTIALLY TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

ANOTHER OBSERVATION ARE JUST THAT THEY ARE THE BEST RECOMMENDATIONS THAT STAFF CAN PROVIDE FOR OUR BOARDS TO CONSIDER IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER RELEVANT QUALIFYING INFORMATION AND INTERPRETATION THAT IS PERTINENT TO THE BOARD'S DELIBERATIONS.

SO IT'S ONE ELEMENT OF OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, IN FACT, BASED ON THE BOARD'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND I DO MEAN THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD'S REQUEST, WHICH INCLUDED ESPECIALLY QUOTE ON THE PERMEABILITY OR DISTRIBUTION OF WATER ON OR AROUND THE PROPERTY, END QUOTE, FROM THE APPLICANT THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THAT BOARD OR TO STAFF.

STAFF REVERSED THEIR RECOMMENDATION, AS I ASSUME, AS A RESULT OF THAT, THAT OMISSION DURING THE AUGUST 2ND MEETING IN IN CONTRAST TO THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY MADE THE STATEMENT OF AT AUGUST SECONDS MEETING BY THE WETLANDS EXPERT IN IN THE TRANSCRIPT BY MR. SUMMERFIELD IS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST, HE STATES IN DESCRIBING THAT HE HAS WATCHED THE MOVEMENT OF WATER FROM THE APPLICANT'S POOL DRAINING IN THE VICINITY OF THE WALL.

QUOTE, IT DOES POOL BEHIND THE WALL, SO IT DOES DELAY IT LEAVING THE PROPERTY.

BUT THEN YOU CAN SEE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL ON THE RIP RAP WHERE THE WATER IS FLOWING DIRECTLY THROUGH IT.

CONTINUING TO QUOTE, IT MAY BE A SLOWER DISCHARGE, BUT IT IS THERE.

END QUOTE. THIS POINTS PRECISELY TO THE NEED FOR THE TOPOGRAPHICAL AND ENGINEERING HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES THAT WERE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED BY THE

[02:10:06]

PCB BECAUSE THE APPLICANT'S OWN EXPERT HAD OBSERVED SOME IMPACT UNKNOWN BY THE WALL ON THE MOVEMENT OF WATER.

I AM CONCERNED.

THIS IS ANOTHER OBSERVATION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR SETTING A PRECEDENT WITHIN OUR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES, BY WHICH CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED IN ADVANCE OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

IN FACT, AT ITS APRIL 5TH, 2022 MEETING DURING PUBLIC HEARING, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS EXPLICITLY STATED THAT SHE INTENDED TO APPLY FOR THE SAME CONSTRUCTION DOWN TO THE EXACT MATERIALS. A REVERSAL OF THE PZB'S DECISION MIGHT WELL RESULT IN ERODING THE VERY ATTRIBUTES THAT CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES WERE MEANT TO PROTECT BY ESTABLISHING SUCH A PRECEDENT.

IT'S MY OPINION, THEREFORE, THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACTED TO UPHOLD THESE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF OUR CITY'S ENVIRONMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S RELEVANT ORDINANCES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE.

FURTHERMORE, THE PZB GAVE THE APPLICANT EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MIGHT IN FACT HAVE EVEN SUPPORTED THE APPLICANT'S CONTENTION THAT THEIR CONSTRUCTION WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON EITHER THE INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER OR OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS FLOODING CHALLENGES.

HOWEVER, WITHOUT THAT ENGINEER'S REPORT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THESE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS OF TOPOGRAPHY, HYDROLOGY, I MEAN AH WATER FLOW AND SO FORTH, ESPECIALLY ADDRESSING CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE CRITERION NUMBER THREE AND SIX.

SUCH A DETERMINATION COULD NOT BE MADE BY THE PZB DESPITE THEIR REPEATED REQUESTS.

AND THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, THE DENIAL BY THE PZB DID IN FACT MEET THE STANDARD OF REVIEW.

OTHER COMMENTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO FREQUENTLY THAT THIS IS A BULKHEAD.

THAT'S NOT MY DEFINITION OF A BULKHEAD.

I MEAN, BULKHEAD IS SOMETHING STABLE TO EITHER HOLD LAND IN PLACE, KEEP WATER OUT.

THIS IS A BREAKAWAY WALL WHICH WILL, UNDER REALLY BAD CIRCUMSTANCES, ADD TO THE RIP RAP SITUATION BECAUSE IT'LL BREAK APART. AND I'M CONCERNED OF IT BEING A BARRIER TO DEBRIS FLOWING INLAND FROM A STORM AND NOT BECOME PERMEABLE BECAUSE IT'LL THE DEBRIS WILL COME UP AND BE CAUGHT BY THIS WALL AND WON'T LET THE WATER IF IT'S RAIN DRAIN OUT.

AND IT COULD ALLOW THAT DEBRIS TO BE DISPERSED ONTO OTHER PROPERTIES.

SO AND I'M BOTHERED BY, YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR THIS APPROVAL AFTER THE FACT, I MEAN.

PEOPLE KNOW YOU DON'T BUILD STUFF WITHOUT PERMITS.

AND SO.

THAT'S MY COMMENT. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR OBSERVATIONS.

I'M STRUCK BY THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 1127 OR 11, DASH 29 THAT STATES WHICH ARE REFERRING TO THE STRUCTURES AND USES WHICH ARE DETERMINED TO BE TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE, AND WHICH ARE DETERMINED AS HAVING NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NATURAL SYSTEMS. SO OUR CONVERSATION THIS EVENING HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE SECOND PART OF THAT SENTENCE, THE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACT.

BUT I CERTAINLY HAVE HEARD NOTHING AND I ON MY OWN AM UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE.

WE'RE CLEARLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FLOW OF WATER.

WE KNOW THAT THE FLOW OF WATER, THE IMPACT OF FLOODING IS, AS MR. REGAN IS FOND OF SAYING, AS A GAME OF INCHES.

I SHARE YOUR CONCERN, COMMISSIONER HORVATH, THAT THIS IS AN AFTER A FACT.

APPLICATION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE SO MUCH OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF WE HAD FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURES.

BUT I'M ALSO STRUCK BY THE FACT THAT THE RECORD CLEARLY INDICATES THAT, HE ADDED COQUINA FILL IN IN OPPOSED IN VIOLATION OF WHAT DEP ALLOWS AND IN FACT HAD TO REMOVE IT.

AND SO THAT CERTAINLY IMPACTS MY THINKING AS WE WEIGH THE TESTIMONY THIS EVENING.

[02:15:01]

NICE MAYOR, I.

I'M FINDING IT DIFFICULT TO CALL SOME OF THESE REPORTS CREDIBLE.

I FEEL LIKE PLANNING AND ZONING.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR DECISION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT THEY GOT ALL THE INFORMATION THEY WERE EXPECTING, ACCORDING TO THE CODE.

SIMPLE AS THAT.

SO AND I AGREE ABOUT THAT AFTER THE FACT.

THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT, BUT.

I THINK THAT'S IT. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S BASICALLY.

THEY DID NOT FEEL LIKE THEY THEY COULD GET THE INFORMATION THAT THEY ASKED FOR.

AND IN THE OUT OF THE 13, 17 CRITERIA.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE ACTUAL CRITERIA THAT THEY ASKED FOR OR DID NOT FEEL THEY GOT ANSWERS ON WERE KIND OF THE BONES OF THE BONES, THE ACTUAL BONES, THE REALLY MOST IMPORTANT, ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED.

SO THAT'S IT.

I WOULD JUST ADD ALSO REGARDING THE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO, I BELIEVE TWO STOP WORK ORDERS ON THIS PROJECT AND WORK WAS CONTINUED. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THANK YOU.

IS THERE MOTION? YES. AND ONE FOR 40TH AND ONE FOR ZERO.

SO LET'S FOR THE 40TH.

I WOULD MOVE THAT WE AFFIRM THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN AUGUST AND DENY THIS APPEAL.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

A MOTION AND A SECOND.

HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATION.

SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THE MOTION PASSES.

IS THERE SECOND MOTION AS IT PERTAINS TO ZERO HILDRETH WAY YES, FOR ZERO HILL.

HILDRETH WAY I WOULD MOVE THAT WE HAVE HELPED WITH DRIVE.

JUST SORRY, DRIVE.

HILDRETH DRIVE. I WOULD AFFIRM THE MOVE TO AFFIRM THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN AUGUST AND DENIED THE APPEAL.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. SECOND? FURTHER DISCUSSION HEARING NONE.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THE MOTION PASSES, SO WE'RE NOW COMPLETE.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE JUST A VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL BREAK TO ALLOW THE ROOM TO SETTLE A MOMENT.

SO WE STAND ADJOURNED FOR 5 MINUTES.

I'D LIKE TO CALL US BACK TO ORDER.

I WOULD REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD REMIND STAFF AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WE DO HAVE A STANDING RULE, THAT OUR MEETINGS LASTS FOR 4 HOURS.

AND SO WE ARE NOW WELL INTO HOUR THREE.

WHEN WE COME TO 4 HOURS, WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER WE EXTEND TIME OR WHETHER WE ADJOURN.

BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

SO WE DO NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE TIME.

BUT NOW WE HAVE A STORM REPORT FROM OUR FIRE CHIEF, CARLOS AVILES, AND FROM OUR CITY MANAGER, JOHN REGAN.

[7.B.1. Storm report. (J. Regan, City Manager)]

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS CARLOS AVILES, YOUR FIRE CHIEF.

I'M HERE TO PROVIDE A REPORT, AN INITIAL STORM REPORT FROM HURRICANE IAN.

MAKE SURE THAT THE PRESENTATION IS UP.

SO I'LL START WITH JUST A BRIEF VIDEO FOR YOU.

THESE WERE IMAGES THAT WERE CAPTURED DURING THE STORM AND THE EVENT ITSELF.

[02:20:05]

ALL RIGHT. SO HURRICANE IAN OR TROPICAL STORM IAN AS IT AS IT APPROACHED OUR AREA, PASSED AROUND THE 28TH TO THE 30TH OF LAST MONTH.

THIS WAS A VERY DIFFICULT STORM FOR THE FORECASTING FOLKS.

IT REMAINED VERY WELL ORGANIZED AS IT TRAVERSED THROUGH THE STATE.

THE PATH WAS WELL SOUTH OF WHAT THE PROJECTED PATH WAS EVEN 24 HOURS PRIOR AS OUR UNFORTUNATE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTHWEST FOUND OUT.

I MEAN, AT ONE POINT, EVEN 36 HOURS BEFORE LANDFALL, WE HAD MUCH OF APALACHICOLA BAY WITHIN THE PROJECTED IMPACT ZONE.

SO THIS WAS A VERY DIFFICULT STORM TO FORECAST.

IT ALSO BECAME A HYBRID STORM.

IT WAS NOT A TRADITIONAL TROPICAL STORM AS WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR FORECAST TRACK THERE, SO WE'RE ON THE STAR HERE.

USUALLY YOU'RE THE WORST OF YOUR WEATHER AND WINDS ARE ON THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF A TROPICAL SYSTEM.

YOU SEE HURRICANE WINDS WELL TO THE WEST AND NORTHWEST OF THE CENTER OF CIRCULATION HERE.

TRANSITIONED INTO MORE OF A NOR'EASTER, COLD FRONT, LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM THAN IT WAS AN ACTUAL TROPICAL SYSTEM.

AND THAT THAT DID HAVE A LOT OF IMPACTS ON THE FORECAST AND THE AREAS THAT WERE IMPACTED.

WE ALSO SAW THE IMPACTS OF THIS STORM WELL IN ADVANCE OF LANDFALL AS A NOR'EASTER DEVELOP, LOW PRESSURE TO THE SOUTH, HIGH PRESSURE TO THE NORTH.

OVERALL, OUR WHETHER STEM WAS UP, WHAT WE SAW HERE, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS JUST A GRAZING FROM A TROPICAL STORM.

I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT FOLKS WANT TO HEAR.

THIS IS OUR THIRD, JUST A MISS THAT IT REALLY DOES SPEAK TO THE VULNERABILITY OF OUR AREA.

WE RECORDED A 56 MILE AN HOUR WIND GUST AT THE CITY MARINA IN A LITTLE OVER 11.3 INCHES OF RAIN THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE EVENT.

WE HAVE UNOFFICIAL MEASUREMENTS FOR FROM ABOVE GROUND STORM SURGE, FLOODING FROM SOME DATA POINTS THAT WE HAVE AROUND TOWN. FOR REFERENCE, MATTHEW WAS APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET, IRMA AT 4.9 AND IAN AT 6.5 FEET RESPECTIVELY IN SOME PARTS OF TOWN. EVERY STORM DOES BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY.

SO WE SAW WATER BEHAVIOR THAT WAS UNCHARACTERISTIC OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST.

AND SO I'LL TOUCH ON THAT NOW.

SO HERE ARE SOME MAPS FROM OUR FOLKS AT GIS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE THAT SHOW SOME OF THE IMPACTS AND FLOODING AREAS.

WE SAW QUITE A BIT OF ON STREET FLOODING AND FLOODING INTO HOMES IN NORTH AND SOUTH DAVIS SHORES.

A LOT AROUND THE AGRICOLA AREA HERE.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, ARE THE MORE LOW LYING AREAS THAT WE'RE ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING FLOODING IN THE DOWNTOWN PENINSULA.

WE SAW A LOT AROUND GRANADA AND CORDOVA STREET AND THE AREA SOUTH, CERRO, DUERO, TWINE STREET ALL SAW SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF FLOODING.

TRANSITIONING HERE INTO THE NORTH PART OF TOWN.

THE FULLER WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD SAW QUITE A BIT OF WATER.

THAT AREA AROUND ALTHEA, WE SAW A LOT OF RUN OFF OVER THE MARSH.

SO THOSE AREAS THAT SAW A LOT OF NORTHERN EXPOSURE, IF YOU WERE EXPOSED TO WINDS FROM THE NORTH OR WERE NOT LOW LYING, YOU SAW A LOT OF WATER THERE. THE AREA AROUND FLAGLER MODEL LAND SAW A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WATER AS WELL.

WE WERE VERY WORRIED. SO FOR REFERENCE, YOUR DOWNTOWN FIRE STATION IS THERE.

THE WATER IN FRONT OF THE STATION DID NOT RECEDE UNTIL ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER LOW TIDE OR AN HOUR AND A HALF AFTER LOW TIDE, THAT THAT AREA HELD WATER FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.

AT LOW TIDE, WE STILL HAD TWO FEET ABOVE GROUND ON MOST OF VALENCIA STREET.

AND IT SEEMED TO BE ISOLATED TO THIS AREA BECAUSE AT THE SAME TIME, WE WERE GETTING REPORTS FROM THE BAYFRONT THAT THE BAYFRONT WAS CLEAR OF WATER.

SO IT JUST SEEMED LIKE CERTAIN PARTS OF TOWN WERE HOLDING WATER DIFFERENTLY.

AND THEN THAT LAST PICTURE THERE TO YOUR RIGHT IS THE FLORIDA AVENUE AREA OFF OF MASTERS DRIVE.

NOT PICTURED HERE WOULD BE THE OYSTER CREEK AREA.

WE DID SEE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WATER IN THAT AREA AS WELL, BUT THAT WAS TO BE EXPECTED.

SO SOME OF OUR RESPONSE ACTIVITIES AND SERVICE DEMAND DURING THE EVENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO 78 CALLS FOR SERVICE DURING THE STORM IMPACTS.

THERE WERE 19 RESCUES THAT WERE CONDUCTED DURING THAT TIME.

COUNTYWIDE, THERE WERE 367 CALLS FOR SERVICE, WITH 26 RESCUES DURING THE STORM.

SO 19 OF THOSE 26 HAPPENED HERE IN THE CITY.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE IN DAVIS SHORES, 100% OF THOSE WERE FOR FOLKS THAT REMAINED INSIDE OF EVACUATION ZONES.

[02:25:09]

FOR OUR BROTHERS WITH THE SAINT AUGUSTINE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THEY SAW A TOTAL OF 432 CALLS WITH 225 BEING NON OFFICER INITIATED.

207 WERE OFFICER INITIATED.

THEY WERE ALSO EXTREMELY ACTIVE PRE-STORM ACTIVITIES AT THE SANDBAGGING OPERATION AND DESERVE A LOT OF CREDIT FOR THEIR WORK OUT THERE.

DAMAGES. SO THE MARINA AND THE BREAKWATER SAW QUITE A BIT OF DAMAGE.

WE HAVE NOW BEEN APPROVED FOR CATEGORIES A THROUGH G, BUT C THROUGH G CAME LATER FOR FEMA REIMBURSEMENT.

ONCE WE DEVELOP A SCOPE OF WORK AND BID IT OUT, WE'LL WORK WITH FIND AND THE PORT AND WATERWAY AUTHORITY TO SECURE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO REBUILD THE MARINA.

BUT THE EARLY ESTIMATES FOR DAMAGE ARE AT APPROXIMATELY $1,000,000.

THE FEMA LIFT STATION PROJECTS PERFORMED EXTREMELY WELL, SO WE HAD TWO LIFT STATIONS THAT SUFFERED DAMAGE COMPARED TO OVER 15 THAT WE SAW WITH HURRICANE MATTHEW AND ALMOST AN EXACT REPEAT OF IRMA.

SO THIS IS I MEAN, FOR US RIGHT NOW, THIS IS A WIN.

THIS IS A, THIS IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT YOUR RESILIENCY EFFORTS ARE WORKING, THAT IT IS WORTH THE EFFORT TO NAVIGATE THROUGH THOSE FEMA PROJECTS. THEY'RE VERY CUMBERSOME AND THEY REQUIRE A LOT OF RED TAPE.

BUT IF YOU CAN CONTINUE TO NAVIGATE THEM AND STAY PERSISTENT.

SO THESE ARE TWO IMAGES OF THOSE NEWLY REBUILT LIFT STATIONS PERFORMING DURING THE PEAK OF THE STORM.

IN TERMS OF DAMAGES TO HOME.

WE HAD 20 HOMES CATEGORIZED AS MAJOR DAMAGE, 162 WITH MINOR 351 WERE AFFECTED, THREE WERE INACCESSIBLE.

THIS IS A AGAIN, USING OUR GIS FOLKS, THEY HAVE MAPPED THE AFFECTED HOMES.

THIS IS JUST AN OVERVIEW TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE THE BULK OF THAT DAMAGE WAS ISOLATED.

THIS WAS THE HEAVIEST CONCENTRATION.

BUT AGAIN, YOU WOULD FIND SOME IN THE FULLERWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, OYSTER CREEK, FLORIDA AVENUE AREAS AS WELL.

THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER FIELDED 5000 PHONE CALLS DURING THAT TIME.

THEY WERE ACTIVE AT A FULL LEVEL ONE ACTIVATION FOR SEVEN DAYS.

THE COUNTY REPORTED 40,000 POWER OUTAGES DURING THE EVENT.

THIS IS A SHARP DECLINE FROM POWER OUTAGES THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST.

FPL HAS DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB OF HARDENING THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COUNTY AND IT SHOWED IT DID ADD TO OUR COMPLEXITY OF THINGS ON THE RESPONSE END BECAUSE WE'RE NOW RESPONDING TO FLOODS FOR HOMES AND BUSINESSES THAT WERE STILL ENERGIZED.

SO BUT REGARDLESS, THERE IS A VERY NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE IN IMPACT.

RESULTING FROM POWER LOSSES.

OUR SOCIAL MEDIA AND MESSAGING, YOU'VE HEARD THAT MENTIONED QUITE A BIT.

WE HAD OVER NOW THIS DATA HERE IS COMPRISED OF ALL OF OUR PLATFORMS. SO THIS IS FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM AND TWITTER COMBINED WITH POLICE, FIRE, THE CITY AND THE MARINA.

WE SAW 4799 NEW FOLLOWERS, OUR POST REACH WHERE 446,000 AND OVER 2.2 MILLION ENGAGEMENTS.

SO FROM A MESSAGING PERSPECTIVE, WE REALLY DID GET THE WORD OUT AND A LOT OF WHAT WE WERE PUTTING OUT WAS BEING SHARED AND HAD FAR REACHES.

SO WHAT'S NEXT FOR US? WE HAVE BEEN FEDERALLY WE HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FEDERAL DISASTER DECLARATION FOR CATEGORIES EIGHT THROUGH G.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS DOES OPEN UP THE POSSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE RIGHT NOW FOR HOMEOWNERS AS WELL AS LONG TERM HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT FUNDING FOR OUR AREA.

WE DO ANTICIPATE THAT DISASTER RECOVERY CENTERS WILL BE ANNOUNCED OPENING THIS WEEK.

FEMA'S ON THE GROUND.

THEY ARE LOOKING AT OPENING UP A SITE AT THE WIND MITIGATION BUILDING.

WE'RE WAITING ON A FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THAT LATER THIS WEEK.

I KNOW THAT SENATOR RUBIO'S OFFICE HAS SET UP A FEMA REGISTRATION AND ASSISTANCE CENTER AT THE GALLIMORE CENTER THAT WILL BE OPEN THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13TH, FROM 10 TO 2 P.M..

WE NEED TO CONTINUE HARDENING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, WORKING ON THESE LESSONS LEARNED FROM RESILIENCY.

WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ASSIST OUR COMMUNITY IN NAVIGATING THE FEMA PROCESSES AND ACCESSING INDIVIDUAL FUND FUNDING FOR MITIGATION GRANT PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE SEEN.

WE NEED TO CONTINUE THOSE AND THEN LONG TERM, WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT, HAVE MORE IN-DEPTH POLICY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE OF RESILIENCY LOOKS LIKE FOR SAINT AUGUSTINE AND WHETHER WE NEED TO PIVOT ON SOME OF THOSE REALLY CRITICAL POLICY DECISIONS TO SAFEGUARD OUR CITY AND OUR RESIDENTS.

[02:30:05]

BUT THAT DOES CONCLUDE MY REPORT, BARRING ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS.

JUST A COMMENT, IF I MAY.

I'VE HEARD ONLY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT THE CITY'S RESPONSE.

WIDESPREAD. POSITIVE.

AND I THINK YOU ALL JUST DID AN AMAZING JOB.

STAFF THANK YOU.

A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

THE SAILBOAT THAT BROKE LOOSE, THAT THAT WAS WAS POUNDED AGAINST THE WESTERN APRON OF THE BRIDGE.

DID IT, IN FACT, DAMAGE THE SEAWALL? THE APRON? WHAT? OBVIOUSLY, THE I ASSUME THE BOAT IS A TOTAL LOSS.

AND CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM? IT DID. THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DAMAGE TO THE SEAWALL.

SHE WAS ALREADY PRETTY VULNERABLE.

WE WERE IN COMMUNICATION WITH DOT DURING THE STORM.

IT ONCE IT EVENTUALLY MADE ITS WAY ONTO THAT APRON THERE BETWEEN THE SEAWALL AND THE WALK OUT PIER THERE AT GIBBS PARK.

IT CAUSED QUITE A BIT OF DAMAGE.

MOST OF THOSE CONCRETE PANELS ARE GONE OR WERE HOLLOWED OUT.

SO I KNOW THAT DOT'S BEEN OUT THERE ALL THIS WEEK AND THEY'RE ASSESSING THAT DAMAGE NOW AND STARTING WORK.

DO WE? DO WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAD ANY MATERIAL SEWAGE LEAKAGE? WE HAD SOME SURCHARGED MANHOLES AND I BELIEVE OUR ESTIMATE IS ABOUT 50,000 GALLONS, WHICH IS OUR GOAL IS ZERO.

BUT THESE ARE SOME SURCHARGING MANHOLES.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A SURCHARGE IS.

SO MUCH PRESSURE FROM THE FLOODWATERS ON THE LAND, ON THE PIPES, ON THE MANHOLES AND PUMPS PUMPING, THAT IT CAUSES SEWAGE TO COME AND OPEN UP ON A MANHOLE AND FLOW INTO THE STREET.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE HAD SEWAGE OVERFLOWS, NOT FROM STATIONS THAT WERE DOWN.

OKAY. YOU SAID THAT THREE OF THE STRUCTURES WERE INACCESSIBLE.

CORRECT. SO THAT INFORMATION'S FROM OUR DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TEAMS, FROM PLANNING AND BUILDING, MEANING THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET ACCESS.

UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO ASSESS BECAUSE THE OWNER IS OUT OF TOWN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND OF THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE IMPACTED.

A BREAKDOWN BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AS WELL AS BETWEEN HOMESTEAD AND NON HOMESTEAD.

OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE THE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT FOLKS WHOSE HOMESTEAD, WHOSE HOMES ARE BEING IMPACTED.

WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER PROPERTIES AS WELL.

BUT THAT FOR ME WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF INFORMATION.

I AGREE. SO THIS WAS A VERY BROAD OVERVIEW OF THE IMPACTS FROM THE STORM ITSELF.

AS WE PROGRESS DOWN THIS PATH, WE'LL DO A MORE FORMAL AFTER ACTION REPORT, IN WHICH CASE WOULD BE ABLE TO DELINEATE THAT INFORMATION MORE CLEARLY FOR FOLKS.

I, WE ALL KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THE MESSAGING IS.

AND SO I'M JUST DELIGHTED THAT AT LEAST THE INITIAL REPORTS ARE THAT IT WAS VERY POSITIVE.

I THINK WE ALSO OWE A NOTE OF THANKS TO CHANNEL 12 IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE COVERAGE THEY GAVE TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA KEEPS PEOPLE AT HOME BECAUSE WE CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN REAL TIME AND IT SCRATCHES THAT DESIRE TO GET OUT THERE AND SEE IT OURSELVES.

AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE.

AND AGAIN, BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE RETAINED POWER, WE CAN SIT THERE AND WATCH TELEVISION.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT PART.

ARE WE SENDING ANY OF OUR PERSONNEL DOWN TO HELP IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA OR ELSEWHERE? SO WE ARE IN COMMUNICATION WITH FOLKS.

THEY SEND OUT A DIFFERENT TASK OR EVERY WEEK FOR WHAT? I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL THURSDAY NIGHT TO SEE IF WE COULD DEPLOY THE FIRE BOAT.

IT'S JUST THAT THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC IN WHAT THEIR REQUESTS ARE RIGHT NOW.

BY ALL ESTIMATIONS, IT'S GOING TO BE A WHILE.

AND SO WE SHOULD BE IN THE SECOND ROTATION OF CREWS THAT ARE OUT THERE NOW.

I THINK THERE WILL EASILY BE 3 TO 4 ROTATIONS OF CREWS BEFORE THEY'RE ABLE TO KIND OF STAND UP ON THEIR OWN AND PROVIDE SERVICES TO FOLKS.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG ROAD TO RECOVERY.

SO WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR MORE MISSIONS TO COME DOWN.

WE DID HAVE A REQUEST FOR REMISSION THAT CAME DOWN AT THE END OF LAST WEEK.

[02:35:01]

UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THE OUR BRETHREN AT THE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVING LOST A FIREFIGHTER AND WE ARE PREPARED TO ASSIST THEM AND THEIR FUNERAL EFFORTS PROVIDING COVERAGE.

SO WE FELT IT MORE IMPORTANT TO BE HERE WITH THEM IN THEIR TIME OF NEED AND TO KIND OF TAKE CARE OF HOME.

AND THEN AS SOON AS THAT MISSION IS OVER, IF THERE ARE MORE MISSIONS TO SEND FOLKS DOWN THERE, WE WILL.

AND OF COURSE, THE BENEFIT IS NOT JUST HELPING THE FOLKS WHO NEED HELP, BUT IT'S ALSO, I THINK, A REAL LIFE TRAINING FOR OUR FOLKS SHOULD WE FIND OURSELVES IN THE SITUATION IN THE FUTURE? I THINK PARTICULARLY THE FLOODING MAPS WOULD BE VERY INTERESTING TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND I WONDER IF I WOULD ASK STAFF TO CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATENESS OF POSTING THOSE.

BECAUSE I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

MAYOR THERE'S ONE THING THAT JUST LIKE TO UPDATE THE COMMISSION ON THAT WASN'T MENTIONED IN AS MUCH IN THE CHIEFS REPORT.

SO WE ARE OUR FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHICH IS THE GRANT PROGRAM MANAGED BY JESSICA BEECH AND BUDDY SHELDON.

WE HAD A WORKSHOP TODAY AT 3:00 FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE IN GRANT CYCLE AND AT 6:00 WE HAD A WORKSHOP FOR THOSE THE NEWLY FLOODED THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST EFFORT TO PREPARE APPLICATIONS AND GET THEM WITHIN THIS NEXT GRANT DEADLINE, WHICH IS FAST APPROACHING.

I WAS HOPING I MIGHT HAVE SOME NUMBERS.

ACTUALLY, I JUST GOT A REPORT OF THE MEETING.

IT JUST WRAPPED UP A FEW MINUTES AGO AND 54 RESIDENTS, INDIVIDUAL HOMES ATTENDED BETWEEN BOTH OF THOSE MEETINGS. SO THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER.

SO WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO TAKE THE NEWLY FLOODED AND TRY NOT TO LOSE A YEAR.

THE DEADLINE IS TO THE STATE IS NOVEMBER 2ND.

SO WE'RE REALLY ON A FULL COURT PRESS.

TWICE A YEAR. YES.

SO WHAT I WOULD DESIRE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE WHEN YOU DO YOUR AFTER ACTION REPORT IS REALLY.

THE COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE COMPLAINT THAT I HEARD ABOUT.

THE PEOPLE DRIVING IN THE STREETS AND CAUSING FLOODING.

AND I MEAN, THAT WAS THE I THINK WE'RE COUNTING OUR BLESSINGS BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE COMPLAINTS.

ALTHOUGH IF I WAS ON THAT STREET, I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S HIGH TIDE WHERE THE WAKE IS CAUSING SO MUCH EXTRA ANXIETY.

SO THAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T NEED TO HEAR ABOUT IT NOW.

BUT I DO KNOW I WANT TO RECOGNIZE OUR PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MELISSA WHISTLE, FOR ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING EFFORT DURING THIS WHOLE ORDEAL, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SHE WORKED OVER TIME TO.

CONTACT MEDIA AND I THINK SUCCESSFULLY TO ASK THEM TO PLEASE HIT THAT HOME.

DON'T COME IN HERE AND DRIVE AROUND FOR FUN.

AND, YOU KNOW, BE CAREFUL OF YOUR WAKE AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

AND I THINK THAT I THINK IT DID MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO EVERY CHANNEL THAT I SAW HAD IT.

THEY WERE THE REPORTERS ON THE STREET WERE ALL TALKING ABOUT IT.

SO I JUST WANT TO THANK MELISSA FOR HER EFFORTS, BECAUSE I THINK IT DID HELP.

IT'S NOT GOING TO CATCH EVERYBODY.

BUT AND THEN REALLY, I JUST.

I THOUGHT MAYBE WE WON HALF THE BATTLE IN THAT WE DIDN'T LOSE POWER.

SO MANY PEOPLE DID NOT LOSE POWER.

THAT WAS AN AMAZING.

I HAVE TWO HATS OFF TO FPL.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY FEEDBACK.

THAT WAS A BIG DIFFERENCE.

BUT THERE'S A LOT OF HEARTBREAK AND THERE'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE A LOT OF HEARTBREAK.

AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS AHEAD OF US ON HOW WE ADDRESS HAZARD MITIGATION, FLOOD MITIGATION IN THE FUTURE.

AND I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT RECYCLING PICK UP.

ARE WE BACK TO NORMAL ON OUR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING AND GARBAGE SCHEDULES? I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE.

WE SKIPPED THIS PAST FRIDAY SO THAT WE COULD BE ON TO DEBRIS REMOVAL, BUT WE'RE COMING BACK ON CYCLE.

WELL, ONE THING'S FOR SURE IS RUMOR CONTROL GOES INTO OVERTIME.

I MEAN, RUMORS, RUMOR, YOU KNOW, ARE RAMPANT.

AND SO THE RUMOR IS OUT THERE THAT WE HAVE DISCONTINUED RECYCLING AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE IT WASN'T PICKED UP ON FRIDAY.

[02:40:04]

YES. I WAS GOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE TRASH.

WHAT I KNOW SO FAR WAS TRASH PICKUP IS BACK ON SCHEDULE, BUT WE'VE NOT BEEN TOLD YET WHETHER RECYCLING WILL COME BACK THIS FRIDAY.

SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, RECYCLING HAS NOT RESUMED NORMAL PICKUP FOR MOST FOLKS.

THAT'S FRIDAYS, I THINK.

SO RECYCLING IS SO QUESTIONABLE, BUT TRASH IS BEING PICKED UP.

OKAY. YOU'LL LET US KNOW WHEN RECYCLING RESUMES.

OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLONDER.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT THE VICE MAYOR SAID.

A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH REGARD TO OUR CITY MANAGER'S PHRASE ABOUT IT BEING A GAME OF INCHES.

WE REALLY HAVE TO GET A HANDLE.

I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THE MEDIA PUSH ON PEOPLE DRIVING AROUND, BUT I SAW THEM IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THOSE BIG TRUCKS PUSH AND WAKE AND IF IT HAD BEEN ANOTHER INCH MORE, MY GARAGE WOULD HAVE FLOODED AGAIN.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE SO.

AND I'M JUST SPEAKING OF MYSELF.

I KNOW OTHER PEOPLE WERE MUCH WORSE AFFECTED.

AND ONE DRIVER COMING THROUGH A FLOODED STREET CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR HOME FLOODING AT ALL OR FLOODING EVEN WORSE THAN IT WOULD HAVE.

AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO GET A STRATEGY ON THAT, A CLEAR STRATEGY.

I KNOW THAT A NUMBER OF THE PEOPLE THAT I THAT I SAW THAT WERE HIT HARD AGAIN HAD SEWAGE IN THEIR HOMES THAT CAME UP THROUGH THE TOILETS, SHOWERS, WHATEVER.

AND I'M AWARE THAT THERE IS A PLUMBING DEVICE THAT A HOMEOWNER CAN PUT IN, WHICH IS WHAT.

COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT FOR ME, PLEASE, MR. REGAN? WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN THE WATER IS SO HIGH IN THE STREET AND IT'S HIGHER THAN THE YOUR TOILET OR YOUR FLOOR DRAIN, IT ACTS AS A BACK SIDE FENCE. IT'S LIKE A SPRING, RIGHT? SO THEY DO MAKE DEVICES THAT ARE ONE WAY FLAPPER VALVES.

WHEN WE CHECK VALVES THAT CAN BE PUT ON SEWER LATERALS AND WE'RE COUNSELING HOMES THAT HAVE THIS PHENOMENON TO INSTALL A DEVICE BETWEEN THE DEVICE AND A PLUMBING BILL, IT'S A ROUGHLY $300 EXPENSE AND IT'S PRETTY MINIMAL MAINTENANCE.

OKAY. AND THEN LASTLY, THE THE WONKY PART OF MY BRAIN LOOKS AT THOSE GIS MAPS AND I, I WATCHED THE WATER COME AROUND OUR HOUSE.

IT WAS VERY DIFFERENT THIS TIME THAN IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS.

EACH TIME IT'S BEEN DIFFERENT, JUST LIKE YOU SAID.

AND I THINK WE HAVE A TREASURE TROVE WITH OUR GIS CAPABILITIES AND AND THE PEOPLE THAT WORK IN OUR GIS OFFICE. NOW, THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE TIME, BUT EACH TIME WE EXPERIENCE ONE OF THESE THINGS, WE LEARN MORE ABOUT WHERE THE WATER IS FLOWING AND TO THE POINT WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO BECOME MORE PREDICTIVE ABOUT IT.

IF WE KNOW MORE ABOUT EACH OF THESE STORMS AND WHICH DIRECTION THEY'RE HEADING.

I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, MR. REGAN, YOU'VE EXPRESSED THAT WE WE GO AFTER THE THE MOST VULNERABLE AREAS FIRST IN THE CITY.

AND SO BUT THAT VULNERABILITY CHANGES DEPENDING ON THE STORM TO SOME DEGREE.

AND I JUST WONDER IF THERE'S IF THE GREAT FOLKS IN THE GIFTS OFFICE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP US WITH SOME MODELING ON THAT.

SO I COULD TELL I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN ANYTHING, BUT WE'RE BLESSED TO HAVE EXPERTS IN HOUSE.

AND SO MISS BEACH IS INCREDIBLY GIFTED IN THAT ARENA.

WHEN WE WOULD SIT IN THE EOC AND RECEIVE THESE INDIVIDUAL BRIEFINGS FROM THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WHERE THEY COULD TELL US WHAT OUR EXPECTED IMPACTS WERE, SHE COULD QUICKLY PLUG THAT INFORMATION INTO HER SYSTEM AND ESSENTIALLY SPIT OUT A A FLOOD PREDICTION MAP OF WHAT AREAS WOULD BE IMPACTED AND HOW MUCH.

AND SO THAT THOSE ARE THE FLOOD MAPS THAT YOU SAW.

THOSE ARE DATA POINTS THAT THEY HAVE ENTERED THEIR BASE.

SO THE MAPS THAT YOU SAW IN THE PRESENTATION WERE BASED ON THREE FEET ABOVE GROUND FLOODING.

SO. IT'S NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE.

NO, NO, I SAID. BUT IT GETS BETTER EVERY TIME THINGS GET BETTER.

EVERY TIME WE HAVE THAT DATA TO BE ABLE TO SET BACK ON.

AND AS I STATED THIS TIME AROUND, IT LOOKS AT THIS STORM EVEN HAD THE EXPERTS CONFUSED ON WHAT IT WAS GOING TO DO.

AND THAT'S THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THIS ONE WAS A DIFFICULT ONE TO FORECAST.

BUT SHE HAS THE ABILITY AND WE HAVE THE ABILITY IN-HOUSE TO DO THAT.

SO I THINK IT'S MORE JUST ABOUT MAYBE IT'S A FINE LINE BETWEEN SHARING THAT INFORMATION AND PANICKING FOLKS.

YEAH, RIGHT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO STAY CONSISTENT WITHIN THAT MESSAGE, BUT WE CERTAINLY KNOW WHERE OUR LOW LYING AREAS ARE AND.

[02:45:04]

PART OF THE COMPLEXITIES WITH THIS ONE IS FOLKS DON'T WANT TO TAKE A GULF COAST STORM SERIOUSLY.

THEY'RE SO CONVINCED IN THEIR HEAD THAT IT'S GOING TO IMPACT ON THE WEST COAST AND THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANYTHING HERE ON THE EAST COAST.

BUT THAT'S USUALLY NOT THE CASE.

I MEAN, IRMA AND IAN HAVE PROVED THAT TO BE INCORRECT.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

AND LASTLY, I WOULD JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT I AGREE WITH THE VICE MAYOR AND WOULD GO EVEN FURTHER IN SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME REALLY HARD CHOICES ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS CITY.

AND I THINK WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US, AND WE ALSO HAVE BETTER PROJECTIONS INTO THE NEARER AND MORE DISTANT FUTURE THAN WE EVER HAVE.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH ROAD.

BUT I'M I KNOW WE'RE ALL READY TO DO OUR BEST.

SORRY. A QUESTION FOR MR. REGAN ON THE SEWAGE MANHOLE OVERFLOWS, DO WE HAVE THOSE LOCATIONS THAT WE CAN GET OUT TO PEOPLE? YES, WE WE DO.

AND WE DO NOTICE AND WE DO DISINFECTION ONE OF THESE THINGS.

I MEAN THAT PEOPLE CAN KNOW IT DID OCCUR.

YEAH, THAT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD POINT.

THAT'S PART OF OUR AFTER ACTION.

GREAT ANALYSIS. THANK YOU.

OKAY, CHIEF, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. OK COMMISSIONERS.

WE ARE NOW ON ITEM 7C1, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE BROUGHTY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AT WEST KING AND US HIGHWAY NUMBER ONE.

[7.C.1. Development Agreement Related to the Broudy Project Development at the intersection of West King Street and Highway US 1 (Ponce de Leon Boulevard). (A. Skinner, Director Planning and Building)]

MS.. SKINNER. YES.

GOOD EVENING, AMY SKINNER WITH THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THIS ITEM IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO A PROJECT AT THE INTERSECTION OF WEST KING STREET AND HIGHWAY US ONE.

THIS ITEM AND THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE RELATED, SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ALL THREE OF THESE ITEMS TOGETHER AND THEN I'M WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THE ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OUTLINES THE REQUIREMENTS AND PARAMETERS AGREED TO BY THE BROWN BROTHERS, LAPD AND COREEN LANE AND THE CITY FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE KEY ELEMENTS INCLUDE THE PROPERTY WILL BE DESIGNATED WITH THE NEWLY CREATED MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CATEGORY AND THE NEWLY CREATED MOD ZONING DISTRICT, AS AMENDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 26TH.

THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ARE LIMITED TO NOT EXCEED 275 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 80% LOT COVERAGE.

THE PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE WEST KING STREET DESIGN STANDARDS AS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY.

THE PARKING IS SHARED FOR THE SITE REQUIREMENTS AND WILL CONTAIN A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PARKING GARAGE WITH A MINIMUM OF 500 PARKING SPACES UNLESS AGREED TO BY BOTH PARTIES.

THE PROJECT MUST BE A MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND CONTAIN THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CATEGORY AND MODE ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRES TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 24TH AT 5 P.M.

IN THIS ALCAZAR ROOM 75 KING STREET.

THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT IS THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, AND THIS IS THE SECOND READING IN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022 16 TO CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL TO THE NEWLY CREATED MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT LAND USE FOR APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES.

THIS LAND USE PLANNING AMENDMENT RELATES TO THE PROJECT COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BROUGHTY PROJECT.

A TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE.

THE ANALYSIS DISCUSSES POTENTIAL TRAFFIC IF A PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED ON THE CORNER WITH THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL MEDIUM INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORIES AS COMPARED TO A PROPOSED MIXED USE PROJECT IN THE MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT LAND USE.

THE COMPLETED ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON 275 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL SPACE AND A 700 SPACE PARKING PUBLIC PARKING GARAGE.

THE ANALYSIS DEPICTS A NET DECREASE OF DAILY TRIPS BY 20 TRIPS.

SO OVERALL, THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE ARE ESTIMATED TO CREATE IF YOU WERE TO DEVELOP IT IN A MORE INTENSE MANNER, APPROXIMATELY 10,000 DAILY TRIPS AND THE PROPOSED MIXED USE MOD PROJECT IS ALSO APPROXIMATELY 10,000 DAILY TRIPS.

THE CITY HAS ALSO ASKED THE CITY'S CONSULTING, TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY CONSULTANT JONATHAN PAUL TO REVIEW THE ANALYSIS.

[02:50:02]

HE HAS INDICATED THAT HE CONCURS WITH THE RESULTS.

THE REZONING APPLICATION IS THE NEXT ITEM.

IT IS THE SECOND READING IN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022-17 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL MEDIUM INTENSITY OR MEDIUM TO CM2 AND INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSING OR IW TO THE NEWLY CREATED MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT MOD ZONING DISTRICT FOR APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES ON THE CORNER OF WEST KING STREET AND US ONE.

THIS ZONING DISTRICT, AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 26, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE MOD LAND USE CATEGORY.

THESE ITEMS ARE ALSO PUBLIC HEARINGS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, COMMISSIONERS, IS TO GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT.

THEN I WOULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR THE QUESTIONS OF MS..

SKINNER. I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, IF IT WERE BUILT OUT UNDER CURRENT ZONING, DO YOU HAVE ANY HAVE YOU DONE THE CALCULATIONS ON WHAT SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD BE ALLOWABLE AT THAT LOCATION, HEIGHT AND COVERAGE? THE THE HEIGHT IS 35 FEET OR THREE STORIES.

THE THEY USED A CONSERVATIVE LOCK COVERAGE OF 70%.

I CAN THE.

ANALYSIS HAS SOME SPECIFIC NUMBERS.

SO THE ANALYSIS IS DONE BY THE APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT HAS APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES AS COMMERCIAL MEDIUM AND APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES AS INDUSTRIAL.

THE. LET ME INTERRUPT YOU.

YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS REPORT? YES. AND SO THEY DID A CALCULATION OF VOLUME UNDER THAT.

OKAY. YES.

AND THIS IS FOR THE CURRENT CONDITIONS.

WE KNOW BY LOOKING AT THE SITE THAT IT'S NOT DEVELOPED TO ITS GREATEST INTENSITY.

SO THEY USE 70% BUILDING COVERAGE IN THREE STOREYS OR 35 FEET, WHICH YIELDS APPROXIMATELY 300,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES. THE COMMERCIAL USE ALSO ALLOWS 16 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH ALLOWS 40 DWELLING UNITS.

SO THAT'S WHAT THEY USE TO FOR THE COMMERCIAL, FOR THE INDUSTRIAL.

IT ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF 80% LOT COVERAGE.

SO THAT'S ON APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES OF THE SITE AND IN THREE STOREYS OR 35 FEET, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 312,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES.

SO THEY USE THOSE PARAMETERS TO REFER TO THE TRIP MANUAL, WHICH IS AN ENGINEERING TRIP MANUAL FOR TRANSPORTATION.

AND THEY CALCULATED A NUMBER OF OF DAILY TRIPS, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 10,000 TRIPS PER DAY.

OKAY. SO BACK TO THE 300,000 OR 300,000 SQUARE FOOT AND THEN 312,000 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE LIGHT.

SO WE'RE TALKING 600,000.

YES, POTENTIALLY, YES.

THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT.

YES, JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THAT.

SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US IS THAT UNDER THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION, AS YOU JUST DESCRIBED, 10,000 TRIPS A DAY, AND THIS CONSULTANT, JONATHAN PAUL, WHO IS ALSO DOES OUR WORK FOR OUR CITY, WHICH IS AN INTERESTING NOTE, BUT HE'S ALSO SAYING THAT THE NEW.

HE REVIEWED THE REPORT.

HE DID NOT ACTUALLY GENERATE THE REPORT.

DID NOT DO THE MODELING.

NO, HE DID NOT.

HE DID THE MODELING.

THE WE HAVE MATTHEW WEST, WHO WAS HIRED BY THE APPLICANT AND SANDS LASSITER.

THEY WERE THEY DID THE MODELING AND THEY WROTE THIS REPORT.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

SO THE WE HAVE BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THE CONSULTANTS DID THE MODELING AND SAID THAT UNDER THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING.

10,000 TRIPS A DAY? YES. 10,000 NEW TRIPS A DAY.

YES. ON TOP OF WHAT'S THERE.

SO WHAT'S THERE TODAY? IS THAT RIGHT? NOT MUCH THERE TODAY.

THERE'S NOT MUCH THERE.

ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW? NO, I MEAN, ON TRIPS PER DAY ON WEST KING STREET.

WHAT ARE THE TRIPS PER DAY ON WEST KING STREET?

[02:55:02]

I DO NOT KNOW OFFHAND WHAT THE ACTUAL TRIPS ARE ON ON THE ROADWAY.

THE COUNTY DOES THE TRAFFIC.

WELL, WE CAN FIND THAT OUT.

SO WE CAN FIND THAT OUT.

SO BUT WHAT HE'S SAYING, WHAT THE MODELING IS SHOWING FROM THIS CONSULTANT IS THAT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS THE SAME AT 10,000 TRIPS A DAY.

YES. WILL GENERATE THIS SITE WILL GENERATE 10,000.

IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER.

NO, THE NUMBERS ARE FOR THE EXISTING FUTURE.

LAND USE, 10,210 DAILY TRIPS AND FOR THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AS DEFINED, WHICH IS 275 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES.

AND THE 700 SPACE PARKING GARAGE WOULD BE 10,190.

SO LESS.

YES, BY 2020, LESS BY 20.

OKAY, WELL, THAT'S.

I'LL HAVE TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO ASK THIS, BUT WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I THINK ABOUT STORM WATER AND I.

WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE TO ADD TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT AS MUCH PERVIOUS OR PERMEABLE MATERIALS BE USED AS POSSIBLE OR PUT SOME PERCENTAGE IN THERE? I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE.

THEY NEED TO MEET STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW I MEAN EXCEED YEAH.

AND START YOU KNOW START ASKING FOR THINGS IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND PADS THAT WE WANT TO SEE AND THAT WILL BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER AND FUTURE OWNER AND SO FORTH.

CERTAINLY. AND I'M SORRY.

I HAVE ONE MORE THING REFERRING TO THE TRANSPORT, THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT YOU PROVIDED US.

THERE WAS AN INTERESTING STATEMENT ON THE PAGES RENUMBERED OK ON PAGE FOUR AND THE THIRD THIRD PARAGRAPH.

I GUESS QUOTE THIS ANALYSIS ASSUMES THAT EACH CAR UTILIZING THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE IS A NEW TRIP TO THE AREA.

BUT IN FACT MANY OF THE TRIPS ARE ALREADY ON THE ROAD NETWORK IN THE VICINITY AND THESE CARS ARE CURRENTLY PARKING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO THE ZONING CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SO FORTH THAT GO ALONG WITH THIS MIGHT RESULT IN MORE THAN A DIFFERENCE OF 20 NEW TRIPS GENERATED A DAY.

AND I JUST WANT TO STATE VERY PLAINLY THAT THIS CURRENT THIS SITE CURRENTLY IS NOT FULLY DEVELOPED OUT.

IF IT WERE TO BE FULLY DEVELOPED OUT UNDER ITS CURRENT ZONING, IT WOULD BE ADDING 10,210 TRIPS A DAY.

AND THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE NEW TRIPS PER DAY GENERATED UNDER THE ZONING CHANGE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING.

OKAY, THANK YOU. I JUST HAD A QUESTION.

THE INTERSECTION THERE, WHAT IS IT RATED? I MEAN, LIKE, IS IT A C OR A D OR.

AND WHEN WE ADD 10,000 MORE TRIPS, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT IT? I BELIEVE IT'S. IT'S AN F.

IT'S AN F AT THIS TIME.

DOES IT GO ANY LOWER THAN F? IS IT CONGESTED AREA? THAT'S FOR SURE. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE AGAIN, WE'VE GONE WE GO BACK TO ONE OF THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT WAS MADE, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS AGO, THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE ROADS ARE NOT GOING TO BE WIDENED IN THE CITY TO PRESERVE OUR CHARACTER, WHERE THAT SOMEWHAT BINDS US TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.

AND ALL WE CAN DO IS WORK TO IMPROVE THINGS AND TO GET TRAFFIC OFF OF THE ROADS AND WITH ALTERNATE FORMS OF TRANSPORTATION.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARD WITH OUR MOBILITY PLAN.

SO THANK YOU.

SO THAT HELPS ME WITH MY NEXT QUESTION.

SO WHAT I DON'T SEE IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR REALLY IS SILENT ON IS WHAT ARE THE PROVISIONS? WE HAVE HEARD THESE IDEAS ABOUT WHAT'S THE MOBILITY HUB FOR, AND THAT'S TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION.

BUT WHAT ARE THEY AND WHO'S PROVIDING THEM AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THEM? SO I'VE ASKED THE QUESTION WHAT? THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS THAT THE CITY WOULD BE PAYING FOR, AND IS THAT PROVIDED FOR? I DON'T SEE I DON'T I DON'T SEE ANY MENTION OF THAT.

AND I DON'T SEE MENTION OF.

[03:00:02]

OF LIKE A SHUTTLE SERVICE.

A SHUTTLE SERVICE, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE YOU'RE BUILDING THERE'S GOING TO BE A 700 SPACE.

LOOKS TO ME LIKE POTENTIALLY 700 SPACE PARKING GARAGE.

500 OF THOSE WOULD BE PUBLIC USE.

I ASSUME THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE.

PEOPLE THAT WILL WANT THE WAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US AS PEOPLE WILL BE USING THIS PARKING TO.

BE TO ADDRESS SPILLOVER PARKING IN WEST AUGUSTINE.

SO WHERE WHAT ARE THE.

WHO'S GOING TO PROVIDE THE SHUTTLES? WHO'S GOING TO. I DON'T SEE THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ADDRESSING THAT.

MAYBE THAT'S MAYBE THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT TIME.

I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT'S A QUESTION THAT I HAVE.

IT'S LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND NOW WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS.

I DON'T SEE A TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

IS THERE A TIMELINE LIKE I SEE FIVE YEARS HE CAN START THE DEVELOPER CAN START FIVE YEARS TO COMMENCEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? WHO WROTE THIS, ARE THEY HERE? WHAT'S THE ANSWER? THE ANSWER IS FIVE YEARS COMMENCING.

FIVE YEARS AND FIVE YEARS.

IF YOU LIKE, MAYOR, I COULD GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION THAT WILL HELP UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION OF THE SHUTTLING THE PARKING GARAGE AND HOW THIS ACTUAL MODELING WORKS RIGHT NOW. HOW DOES IT FIT IN THIS? DOES IT NOT FIT IN THIS OR DOES IT FIT? I THINK TO THE VICE MAYOR'S POINT, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SPELLS OUT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHUTTLING.

AND FRANKLY, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SHUTTLING PROGRAM IS OURS.

WE ARE CO-LOCATING A PUBLIC GARAGE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAVE SET UP GRANT PROGRAMS WITH THE DOP TO GIVE US INITIAL SEED MONEY FOR SHUTTLING SYSTEMS. THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE MOBILITY PLAN IS TO GET PEOPLE TO LEAVE THEIR CARS OUTSIDE THE WALLED CITY AND TO BE SHUTTLED IN ON PEAK LOAD.

AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT.

BUT THAT ISN'T WHEN YOU SEE LANGUAGE.

IT WILL TALK ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CITY PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE SHUTTLING.

ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO POINT OUT ABOUT THE MODELING IS THAT WHAT WE DID WAS WE GAVE, WE'RE ASSUMING A 700 UNIT PARKING GARAGE.

IT MAY BE SMALLER DEPENDING ON THE DESIGN DETAILS OF THE STRUCTURE.

BUT WHAT WE DID WAS VERY CONSERVATIVE.

WE SAID 700 SPACES TURNING OVER THREE TIMES A DAY.

SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE OUR DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE ON A BUSY DAY IN HOLIDAY SEASON, TURNING OVER THREE TIMES SO THAT THOSE THAT NUMBER REPRESENTS A HIGH PEAK VOLUME.

IT'S LIKE 4000 TRIPS PER DAY.

SO WHAT THAT DOES ON AN AVERAGE DAY, THE GARAGE FRANKLY, WILL BE MOSTLY NOT USED.

IT'S REALLY A PEAKING STRUCTURE FOR FOR OUR PEAK SEASONS.

SO ON A PEAK DAY WHEN I READ THE REPORT, WHAT DOES IT MEAN ABOUT CARS PARKED ELSEWHERE? THE PREMISE IS TO GET PEOPLE WHO MAY BE COMING TO THE CITY, BACKING UP THE ROADS, TRYING TO GET INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE CITY TO PARK AND OTHER LOTS TO SEE THE LOT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, ON THE WEST SIDE OF OF THE SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER, ON THE WEST SIDE OF US, ONE IN PARKING AND USING SHUTTLING.

THE THEN PROVIDES TRAFFIC RELIEF WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.

THAT'S THE PREMISE OF WHY WE'RE BUILDING SATELLITE PARKING GARAGES.

SO IT'S A LITTLE WE I THINK WE NEED TO SPEND A LITTLE TIME WITH THE MODELERS BECAUSE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MATCHING WHAT IS PEAK CONDITIONS AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS AND GIVE YOU OUR BEST ANALYSIS, IT'S NOT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE 10,000 TRIPS PER DAY AS A FUNCTION OF THIS GARAGE AND THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS THERE.

AND SOME PEOPLE, WHEN THEY FIRST SAW THE RESULTS, THE FIRST RUN, THE TRAFFIC, THE PLANNER HAD INITIALLY HAD NOT INCLUDED THE GARAGE AND SAW A REAL DROP IN THE NUMBERS.

AND FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE MATH, I SAID, WELL, JUST THINK ABOUT IT FROM VERY PRACTICALLY.

IF YOU WERE TO STAND IN THE ANASTASIA PUBLIC'S SHOPPING CENTER, LOOK AT HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS COMING ON A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STAND IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE YOU HAVE 300 HOMES, NORTH DAVIS OR SOUTH DAVIS SHORES OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

AND LOOK AT WHAT THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS LOOK LIKE.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND WE'RE ADDING A LITTLE BIT OF COMMERCIAL.

BUT WHERE WE GET 4000 TRIPS, I MEAN, THE PROJECT BY ITSELF UNTIL WE HAD THE PUBLIC GARAGE ACTUALLY WOULD DECREASE THE TOTAL TRIP COUNTS.

BUT WHEN WE ADD THIS PUBLIC GARAGE AND WE SHOW IT MATHEMATICALLY AS THE PEAK DAY CONDITIONS, THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE 10,000.

[03:05:03]

SO I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL TAKE THIS CONVERSATION, GO BACK AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE SPECIFICS THAT CAME UP AND HOW THAT HOW THAT RELATES.

I HOPE THAT WAS HELPFUL.

IT WAS. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS IT? DID WE DO THIS STUDY? NO, WE DO. OKAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND ASK THE APPLICANT TRUST BUT VERIFY.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SORRY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.

THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT. I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.

THREW THE MAYOR, THE ENGINEER, THIS ENGINEERING FIRM, LTG ENGINEERING, PLANNING OUT OF ORMOND BEACH, WAS HIRED BY THE BAROUDI DEVELOPMENT GROUP.

AND SO THEY PERFORM THE ANALYSIS TO VERIFY METHODOLOGY, ADHERENCE AND CONFORMANCE TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS.

WE TOOK THIS PIECE OF WORK AND SENT IT TO OUR CONSULTANT, JONATHAN PAUL, WHO IS IN GAINESVILLE, TO GO THROUGH THE METHODOLOGY TO SEE IF HE WOULD AGREE WITH THE METHODOLOGY AND HE DOES.

HE DID ADD THAT HE ASKED AN EDITORIAL COMMENT ABOUT THE DOCUMENT ITSELF TO ADD A FINAL CONCLUSION PARAGRAPH THAT SHOWS A TABLE WITH THE GARAGE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHILE WE YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO BE SENSITIVE THAT LEAGUE ENGINEERING AND PLANNING WHILE THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD, IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO HAVE QUALITY CONTROL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING GOOD ENGINEERING, ANALYZES AND PLANNING ANALYZES IN FRONT OF US.

SO THAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP OF LTG.

OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS NOW OF STAFF? OF COURSE. MISS ELLEN AVERY SMITH HERE, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE BROWN FAMILY, IS PRESENT AND SHE'S AVAILABLE AND THE REST OF THE TEAM IS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE A QUESTION RIGHT NOW, BUT I'M GLAD YOU ALL ARE HERE.

IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY, MR. MAYOR? A QUESTION FOR MS. SKINNER OR FOR? FOR WHOEVER DREW THIS UP? WELL, IT SAYS THAT IT'S A JOINT DOCUMENT, SO WE'RE IN A TURN TO MS. SMITH FIRST. AND IF YOU'D DIRECT HER YOUR QUESTION TO HER, PLEASE.

SO, ITEM THREE, PUBLIC FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS.

OR FOURTH LINE AT THAT TIME, THE CITY AND THE OWNER WILL DETERMINE WHETHER ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHICH PARTY OR PARTIES WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTING SUCH IMPROVEMENTS.

SO THIS IS A SORT OF TUBE.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

I THINK IT'S A KIND OF MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

THIS IS TO BE DETERMINED.

SO WE DON'T KNOW.

CAN YOU MAYBE GIVE ME MORE DETAILS ON THIS? KIND OF LOOSEY GOOSEY TO ME.

MIND GETTING ME TO THE PAGE THAT YOU'RE READING FROM? SO I'M ON PAGE THREE AND IT'S ITEM THREE.

OH, YEAH, I SEE.

PAGE THREE.

ITEM THREE.

PERHAPS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF.

YEAH. SO THIS IS A GENERIC PARAGRAPH THAT ADDRESSES THAT.

IF THERE NEEDS TO BE CAPITAL UPGRADES TO PROVIDE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, STORM WATER SERVICE, SOME TRANSPORTATION THAT WE NEED TO YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO IDENTIFY WHO PAYS FOR THAT.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT UNLESS THERE'S A REASON FOR US TO PROVIDE CONTRIBUTION IN AID OF CONSTRUCTION FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER, I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT.

KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

THIS PROJECT IS ON THE LARGEST PIPE, ABOUT AS CLOSE AS YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO THE WATER PLANT.

YEAH. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THOSE THINGS.

BUT NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD PAY FOR THAT IF THE ONLY REASON TO DO IT WOULD BE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO RUN AN EXTENSION TO SERVE SOMETHING ELSE, WE MIGHT DO A CONTRIBUTION IN AID OF CONSTRUCTION.

BUT BECAUSE THIS IS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THAT.

IN A DIFFERENT PART OF THE DOCUMENT, IT SPELLS OUT THAT TRANSPORTATION TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER, AND THAT'S IN A SEPARATE PART OF THE DOCUMENT. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF OVERLAP, REFERENCE TO TRANSPORTATION IN THIS DOCUMENT.

WHY IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE I'M VERY CURIOUS AS TO KNOW WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY TAXPAYERS WILL BE ON THE HOOK FOR CONCERNING TRANSPORTATION, WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, TRANSPORTATION.

SO IT'S KIND OF CONCERNING ME.

I JUST WOULD LOVE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT.

SO THIS LANGUAGE HERE IS I'M GOING TO CALL IT ASPIRATIONAL.

THE OWNER AND CITY AGREE THEY'LL COOPERATE IN PROVIDING THESE SERVICES.

[03:10:06]

IF YOU GIVE ME A MINUTE, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO FIND THE OTHER PART OF THE DOCUMENT THAT IS VERY SPECIFIC ON TRANSPORTATION WITH EXTENT OF MODIFICATION OF THE ROAD, WHICH PUTS THE BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPER.

SO I NEED TO GO FIND THAT.

I AM AWARE OF THAT PART.

BUT HOW AM I TO CONSTRUE THAT FROM, ALL RIGHT, THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO.

THIS THE CITY MANAGERS HEARD YOUR COMMENT.

WE'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM A MOMENT TO FIND THAT.

MISS SMITH, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME, MR. MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE RECORD LAND, AVERY SMITH, ROGERS TOWERS 100 WHETSTONE PLACE.

WE TWO FOR OUR TEAM, FOR THE VARIETY TEAM HAVE A COMBINED PRESENTATION THAT DEALS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS WELL AS THE MOD FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY APPLICATION TO THE BROUGHTY PROPERTY AND THE MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ZONING CATEGORY APPLICATION TO THE PROPERTY.

SO WE ARE PREPARED TO GIVE YOU THAT PRESENTATION.

I ALSO AM HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT VICE MAYOR SIKES-KLINE ASKS BECAUSE I DID AUTHOR THIS AND THE INTENT IS OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NOT A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THE CITY TO FURTHER YOUR MOBILITY PLAN, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE CONCRETE.

THIS IS ONE OF TWO SITES IN THE ENTIRE CITY WHERE THIS KIND OF A PARKING GARAGE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WITH THIS NUMBER OF SPACES CAN BE LOCATED.

THE DETAILS OF WHO BUILDS THE GARAGE AT WHAT TIME AND HOW MUCH IT COST, AND WHO HAS HOW MANY SPACES WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE AGREEMENT.

WE AND THEN FOR THE BROUGHTY PROPERTY, WE CAME UP WITH OUR BEST ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE.

BUT AGAIN, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS NOT FINALIZED.

SO WE RECOGNIZE.

THAT WE STILL HAVE TO.

THIS PROPERTY HAS TO STILL APPLY FOR CONCURRENCY.

SO ALL THE THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR TRANSPORTATION, STORM WATER, WATER AND SEWER, ALL OF THOSE PUBLIC FACILITY ANALYZES PURSUANT TO YOUR CODE ARE DEALT WITH IN THE CONCURRENCY APPLICATION.

ONCE WE KNOW HOW BIG THE CITY'S PARKING GARAGE IS AND WHAT USES ARE GOING TO GO ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO THIS IS LIKE MR. REGAN, IT IS SAID, IS AN ASPIRATIONAL DOCUMENT.

YOUR CITY CODE BACK FILLS IT BY REQUIRING CONCURRENCY APPLICATION AND THEN TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACTS FROM, I'LL CALL IT THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER IMPACTS FROM THE CITY PARKING GARAGE, WHETHER IT'S 500 SPACES, 700 SPACES, WHATEVER YOU WILL, THERE MAY BE TURN LANES OR OTHER IMPROVEMENT TO HALL, SHAWN STREET OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO MAKE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITS GARAGE, IF YOU WILL.

BUT AGAIN, THOSE ARE DETAILS TO BE WORKED THROUGH IN A SEPARATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MR. BRODY AND THE CITY RELATED TO THIS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PARKING GARAGE.

YES. AND TO TO MISS AVERY SMITH'S POINT ON PAGE TWO, PARAGRAPH I IS THE LANGUAGE THAT DESCRIBES WHAT WAS JUST PRESENTED ORALLY.

UNDER PARAGRAPH K.

RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE. OH, YEAH.

I'M SORRY. K.

SUB POINT ONE, I GUESS.

ROMAN NUMERAL.

IS THAT ROMAN NUMERAL. ONE.

I THINK WE SHOULD SEE THE PRESENTATION.

YEAH. SO? SO I WAS UNAWARE THAT WE HAD A FORMAL PRESENTATION.

WE'RE HAPPY TO RECEIVE IT AND LET'S DO IT.

ALL RIGHT, FREMONT, IF YOU WANT TO.

ARE WE VISIBLE ON THE SCREEN? NOT YOU. HERE WE GO. FREEMONT LATIMER, 34, CORDOVA STREET WITH MARQUIS LATIMER AND HALL BACK REPRESENTING THE BRODY PROPERTY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT, SO WE'LL MAKE THIS QUICK AND AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.

AGAIN, THIS APPLICATION IS A JOINT PRESENTATION, REZONING, FUTURE LAND USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

WE HAVE A TEAM HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

YOU'VE ALREADY BROUGHT UP A NUMBER OF THEM.

WE HAVE MR. BRODY HERE AS THE OWNER AND APPLICANT, ALONG WITH HIS COLLEAGUE CARY LANGE.

WE HAVE THE PROJECT MANAGER WITH NINE X DEVELOPMENT, JASON PERRY.

WE HAVE MATTHEW WEST WITH TRAFFIC PLANNING.

SO, MR. KLEIN, YOUR QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED BY THE MAN WHO WROTE THE REPORT.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING.

[03:15:01]

AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE MS..

SMITH HERE FOR ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS.

SHE DID DRAFT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SO SHE KNOWS THE LANGUAGE INSIDE AND OUT.

SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO INVITE MR. BRODY TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE SITE.

COMMISSIONERS. IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WILL TELL YOU, WE'VE OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR A REALLY LONG TIME AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT PUT TO GOOD USE.

I HAVE A NUMBER OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO ME TO TO THE DIFFERENT USES, BUT.

MY MY VISION IS A SHARED VISION WITH YOU, THE CITY, WITH YOUR 2040 MOBILITY PLAN.

I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A LEGACY FOR MY FAMILY ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WHEN I LOOK AT THIS PHOTO OF MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.

I MEAN, I REMEMBER WHEN WEST KING STREET WAS VERY, VERY VIBRANT.

AND NOW WHEN I STAND ON MY VACANT LOT AND LOOK DOWN THE STREET, IT IS A LITTLE BIT DEPRESSING.

AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT THAT COMMUNITY SPIRIT AND VIBRANCY COME BACK TO THIS PART OF SAINT AUGUSTINE.

THANK YOU. OK.

I TOO WILL GO AS QUICKLY AS I CAN.

WE'LL ALSO POINT OUT THAT BARRY HAS HAD SOME COMMUNITY MEETINGS ON HIS PROPERTY TO JUST LET THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA OF THE ENTIRE CITY AND BEYOND KNOW ABOUT THE PROJECT. JUST TO GO THROUGH, YOU ALL KNOW THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF US ONE AND WEST KING STREET.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS COMMERCIAL, MEDIUM, INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL RIGHT NOW.

SO ZOOMING IN ON THAT, GOING BACK TO THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS, THESE ARE THE LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT WERE ANALYZED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS AND THEY CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.

SO THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS FROM COMMERCIAL MEDIUM INTENSITY AND INDUSTRIAL TO MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL MEDIUM TO OR SEEM TO AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE TO, AGAIN, MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU SEE THE ZOOMED IN CATEGORY.

THE PROPERTY IS SPLIT BASICALLY IN HALF BY THOSE TWO CATEGORIES.

SO AGAIN, FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE TO MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, REZONING TO MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT.

AND THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH IS THE FIRST OF SEVERAL DOCUMENTS THAT IT WILL BE BETWEEN THE BROUGHTY PROPERTY OWNER AND THE CITY RELATED TO YOUR MOBILITY PLAN IN A PUBLICLY OWNED PARKING GARAGE.

SO JUST AGAIN, GOING BACK TO YOUR MOBILITY PLAN, THIS WHOLE ADVENTURE STARTED ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO OR PROBABLY MORE.

MR. REGAN AND MR. BRODY CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THE HISTORY.

BUT THE IDEA, AGAIN, WHEN THIS COMMISSION APPROVED THE MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU SAID THERE ARE ONLY TWO PLACES IN THE ENTIRE CITY THIS, THIS DESIGNATION CAN GO.

THE BROUGHTY PROPERTY IS ONE OF THEM.

AND GOING BACK TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY, THE WHOLE GOAL IS TO GET CARS OUT OF DOWNTOWN, INTO THE OUTSKIRTS, IF YOU WILL, AND GET THEM TO PARK AND WALK OR RIDE TRANSIT OR BIKE OR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO OUTSIDE OF A CAR.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ THIS TO YOU BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR OWN CATEGORY SAYS.

THIS IS JUST A REMINDER AGAIN TO THE PUBLIC OF WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALLOWS.

IT HAS TO INCLUDE A MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT, WHICH WE'VE PUT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

IT HAS CERTAIN BUILDING HEIGHTS, NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE, AND THAT KIND OF THINGS PERMITTED USES, WHICH YOU ARE AWARE OF BECAUSE THEY'RE IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SIMILARLY, THIS BOARD HAS ALREADY APPROVED THE MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ZONING CATEGORY IN YOUR CITY CODE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT TO YOU, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THE DEFINITION OF MOBILITY STATION REQUIRES A PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PARKING GARAGE.

THERE'S A LONGER DEFINITION OF IT THAT IS IN YOUR DEFINITIONS, IN YOUR CODE, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE ANCHORS OF THIS PROJECT.

AND SO THAT'S BUILT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THIS IS JUST MORE PERMITTED USES IN DIFFERENT LOT COVERAGE BY BUILDINGS THAT ARE, AGAIN, IN THE OVERALL CATEGORY THAT WE'RE ASKING TO APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY DESIGN

[03:20:01]

STANDARDS. JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE WEST KING SUBSET, IF YOU WILL, OF THE KING STREET CORRIDOR DESIGN STANDARDS.

IF WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT, FREMONT IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

AND THEN AGAIN, REMINDING YOU AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHICH COMPONENTS OF THE MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ARE MANDATORY, LIKE THE PUBLICLY OWNED, LEASED OR AVAILABLE PARKING GARAGE AND THEN BICYCLE STATIONS, PEDESTRIAN INTERCONNECTIVITY.

ALL OF THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF THIS ZONING CATEGORY.

SO THIS IS A VERY GENERAL SITE PLAN SHOWING YOU THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE CITY PARKING GARAGE.

THERE MAY BE ONLY ONE PARKING GARAGE COMBINED BETWEEN THE PRIVATE USES AND THE PUBLIC USE, BUT YOU SEE THE LOCATION AT LEAST OF THE CITY PARKING GARAGE WITH ACCESS ONTO HARTSHORN STREET.

THIS GOES BACK INTO THE THERE MAY BE MAY NEED TO BE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT BENEFIT BOTH PROPERTY PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY AVAILABLE IF YOU WILL.

AND THEN GOING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE FRAMEWORK, SO ALLOWS FOR SITE WIDE SHARED PARKING, STORMWATER TRAFFIC FACILITIES, SETS FORTH THE MINIMUM OF 500 PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES FOR THE CITY, PROVIDES THE PHASING SCHEDULE, THAT KIND OF THING.

SO YOU WILL KNOW THAT YOU'RE GETTING REALLY A TRUE MIXED USE, SHARED PROJECT.

THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP.

IF YOU READ THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, YOU WILL KNOW THAT IN ORDER TO DO THE SHARED PARKING, SIMILAR TO WHAT THE SAINT AUGUSTINE SHIPYARDS DID ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO OR SO, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE TRACKING TABLES.

THE PCB WILL HAVE TO APPROVE THE SHARED PARKING ZONING EXCEPTION.

ALL OF THAT IS AGAIN, THIS IS THE JUST THE BEGINNING OF OUR JOURNEY TOGETHER.

AND SO WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER WHATEVER QUESTIONS AND WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TODAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MS. SMITH.

OK COMMISSIONERS, LET'S HAVE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT.

THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRES TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO.

AND SO THE COMMISSION WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO HEAR ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THIS FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK AND COMPLETE YOUR CARD WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED, IF THAT FACILITATES OUR CONVERSATION.

WELCOME, MR. AKINCI. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I GUESS MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE WEST KING INJURY RECORDER DESIGN STANDARDS.

I LOOK THEM UP AND THEY ONLY GO BACK ABOUT A HALF A BLOCK FROM KING STREET.

SO IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO ADD TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHERE THE WHOLE PROJECT WOULD BE MORE FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW? BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THE.

ENTRY CORRIDORS.

THERE'S A MAP, AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS ONLY APPLY TO WHAT'S WITHIN THAT VERY NARROW STRIP.

AND THERE'S BEEN IMPLICATIONS.

KEEP SAYING, OH YEAH, BUT BECAUSE THE PROJECT SITS ON WEST KING, THE WHOLE THING IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S WHY I WANT THAT CLARIFIED.

AND SINCE THIS IS GOING TO BE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION TO MAKE DESIGN.

THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ENTRY COMPLEX TO OUR CITY, AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE VERY DISTINCTIVE AND SOMETHING THAT REALLY, YOU KNOW, WELCOMES PEOPLE TO SAINT AUGUSTINE IN A WAY.

AND I THINK ALSO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SO THAT IT BLENDS IN WELL WITH THE REST OF WEST KING.

AND I BELIEVE THIS WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE PCB OF HAVING A STEP BACK OF MAYBE ONLY 35 FEET ON WEST KING AND THEN IT STEPS BACK TO HIGHER BUILDINGS SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE ON KING STREET ITSELF, YOU'RE NOT OVERWHELMED BY THIS HUGE 65 FOOT WALL THAT'S GOING TO DWARF ALL THESE BUSINESSES ON WEST.

KING AND SO THERE'S I THINK A LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU COULD ADD TO THIS, THE THIS AGREEMENT.

SINCE WE GOT IT. WE'RE TALKING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, NOT A PUD.

BUT AS YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO PUT AS MANY ELEMENTS OF A POD WHERE WE'VE GOT SOME SENSE OF CONTROL TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS REALLY IS THE VISION THAT WE ALL HAVE IN OUR MIND THAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

I THINK WE ALL WANT SOMETHING WONDERFUL OUT OF THIS.

I THINK THERE'S SO MANY GOOD THINGS TO COME OUT OF IT.

BUT IF IT'S NOT CONTROLLED AND ROXANNE'S AN ARCHITECT THAT IN SINCE THIS IS UNDER REGULAR ZONING AND NOT A

[03:25:03]

POD, WE THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL THAT BECAUSE THE WAY THE MOD IS WRITTEN WITH 65 FEET HEIGHT 80% LOT COVERAGE AND 50 UNITS, YOU COULD END UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S JUST A CONCRETE JUNGLE.

SO I THINK SINCE THIS CITY'S GOT SOME CONTROL HERE, BE CAREFUL TO HOLD ONTO AS MUCH CONTROL AS WE HAVE THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

AND I'M PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE DESIGN GOES BEYOND THIS NARROW STRIP OF THE ENERGY CORRIDOR.

SO PLEASE KEEP ALL THOSE THINGS IN MIND WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION DURING THIS? MR. SPRINGFIELD. COME FORWARD.

YEAH. JIM SPRINGFIELD'S SIXTH STREET.

I WAS RECENTLY ASKED TO READ A BOOK BY A VERY PROMINENT PERSON, AND IT WAS CALLED SUBURBAN NATION.

AND WHILE I WAS READING THAT BOOK ON MY PHONE ON MY WAY TO CAMP IN ALASKA ON OUR FERRY, I HAPPENED TO GO TO FAIRHAVEN, WASHINGTON, FAIRHAVEN, WASHINGTON, A SMALL TOWN ON THE WATER.

IT'S A TOURIST TOWN AND IT'S A NEAT LITTLE TOWN.

AND THEY HAD THE 65 FOOT BUILDINGS.

I ACTUALLY LOOKED IT UP AND SOME OF THEM DID HAVE SETBACKS AND SOME DIDN'T.

SO I AGREE WITH MR. KENNEDY THAT THE CONCEPT OF HAVING SETBACK ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

BUT ALSO THEY HAD A SYSTEM FOR TRANSPORTATION AND THEY ALSO HAD BIKE LANES THAT WERE WIDE ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO TRAVEL EASILY IN ELECTRIC BIKES AND IN A LOT OF BIKES IN WASHINGTON.

AND I THINK THAT IF WE LOOK AT THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I ALSO GREW UP IN GAINESVILLE WHERE WE HAD A BUS SYSTEM AND THERE'S A 13 YEAR OLD I COULD PAY A DIME AND GO DOWNTOWN TO JIMMY HUGHES AND GET MY CONVERSE.

SO I'M USED TO THAT AS A CITIZEN, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT AS READILY HERE.

AND ONCE WE INSTITUTED THAT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, A LOT OF LOCALS WILL USE THAT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN LIEU OF COMING DOWNTOWN AS WELL AND PARKING.

PERSONALLY, I WOULD RATHER GO TO THE PARKING GARAGE AND USE THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.

I WORKED AT THE ORANGE STREET WHEN WE BUILT THE GARAGE AND WE DID HAVE A SHUTTLE SYSTEM FOR THOSE YET REMEMBER, FOR A FEW MONTHS.

AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE AT THE TIME USING THE SHUTTLE TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE.

I WAS ON THAT BUS MANY TIMES GOING TO LUNCH TO ATHENS BECAUSE I COULD DIDN'T HAVE TO WALK DOWN THERE, BUT THEY CANCELED THE BUS BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE ON IT.

SO I LOOK, I LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND I KNOW THAT I WOULD PARK AT THIS SPOT IF I CAN GET THROUGH THE US ONE AND KING STREET INTERSECTION IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.

I'VE ALSO SPOKEN MR. BRADLEY BRIEFLY ABOUT ARCHITECTS DESIGN SOME IDEAS THAT I HAD AND HE'S VERY AMENABLE TO, TO HAVE SOME.

I KNOW THAT DOESN'T HOLD HIM TO ANYTHING AT ALL, BUT I KNOW THAT I KNOW THE CITY WILL DO IT RIGHT.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? MS. KALAIDI. WELCOME.

BJ KALAIDI WEST CITY OF ST AUGUSTINE.

NOT WEST AUGUSTINE, WHICH IS HIS COUNTY.

SOME C1.

THIS AGREEMENT, IF PASSED, BENEFITS THE DEVELOPER AND IS QUOTE, MORE SEVERELY AGAINST, END QUOTE, THE PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE. ITEM NUMBER 16, PAGE SEVEN IS COVER YOUR BACK FOR THE DEVELOPER.

I WISH YOU ALL WOULD LOOK AT THAT ONE VERY CAREFULLY BECAUSE AS I WAS READING THIS THING, THIS IS WHAT I WAS THINKING.

AND WHEN I GOT TO THAT POINT, I THOUGHT, WOW, THEY'RE TELLING US WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO BEFORE THIS IS RAILROADED THROUGH THE NOW.

THEREFORE, PAGE THREE SHOULD CLEARLY STATE AS ITEM ONE THE GARAGE, WHICH WILL BE NEXT TO HARTSHORN STREET BY THAT OIL COMPANY, MUST LET ME REPEAT, MUST BE CONSTRUCTED FIRST BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, INCLUDING MULTIFAMILY UNITS.

THAT GARAGE IS WHAT THIS THING IS ALL ABOUT.

THE GARAGE SHOULD BE FIRST.

NOTHING ELSE ON THAT PROPERTY THAT HE WANTS TO DEVELOP UNTIL THAT GARAGE IS UP AND RUNNING.

IT'S INTERESTING.

THE WARRANTY DEED IN 2000, TRANSFERRING THE AUTO MECHANIC SHOP WAS REPAIRED BY A LAWYER WITH THE SAME LAWYER GROUP AS A LAWYER REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER AT THIS TIME.

AND MR. BRODY AND MR. MARTIN GOT THAT PROPERTY IN 1998.

IN 2000, THAT LITTLE AUTO SHOP GOT THE REST OF THAT CORNER THERE.

AND SO HE'S GOING TO HOPEFULLY MAKE OUT GOOD BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT.

THE CITY MANAGER.

AND THIS IS MY FEELING IN READING THAT I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I SPENT SOME TIME ON THAT THING.

IT WAS NOT.

GOOD TIME, BUT I LEARNED SOME THINGS.

[03:30:01]

BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, THE CITY MANAGER AND HIS STAFF HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED BY THIS DEVELOPER WHO DOES NOT LIVE IN THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE.

AND THIS IS HOW I LOOK AT THIS THING, UNLESS YOU REALLY PUT SOME TEETH IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT GREED VERSUS QUALITY OF LIFE CONTINUES TO DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK ALL OF US ARE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT.

BUT THAT GARAGE NEEDS TO BE BUILT, PERIOD, BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE IS DONE ON THAT PROPERTY TO SHOW THEIR GOOD FAITH IN USING ALL OF THESE NEW TERMS TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS.

I DON'T SEE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE AND THEREFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

MR. MAYOR? YES.

I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE GET A REFRESHER ON THE DESIGN STANDARDS AT THAT LOCATION.

IS THERE SOMEBODY THAT CAN SPEAK TO THAT? I HAVE THE CODE HERE.

IF YOU IF I CAN HAVE A MINUTE TO BRING IT UP, I WILL SAY THAT ISSUE CAME UP AT THE.

EXCUSE ME. AT THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD MEETING.

AND AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING, THE APPLICANT AGREED THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WOULD BE WITHIN THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND IT WAS CLARIFIED.

THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR KING STREET ARE VERY SPECIFIC AND THEY INCLUDE THE EAST SIDE AS WELL AS THE WEST SIDE.

SO WE DO HAVE SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN INTO THE CREATION DOCUMENT THAT CREATED THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH STANDARDS WILL APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY.

OKAY BECAUSE OF THE MOBILITY ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT.

I WOULD ASK, THOUGH, MS. SKINNER, IF WE CAN REVISIT THAT, PERHAPS NOT TODAY, BUT DOUBLE CHECK THAT, BECAUSE MY RECOLLECTION WAS, I BELIEVE THE MAYOR HAD MODIFIED SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE IN A MOTION.

WE HAVE CORRECTED THE ORDINANCES.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, MAYBE THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP, THIS IS THE AMENDED ORDINANCE THAT. TALKS.

IT'S IN RED. WHAT'S BEEN ADDED.

AND THEN THE BLUE IS WHAT I AMENDED BASED ON THE CITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE 26.

OKAY, LET'S SLOW DOWN HERE.

IT'S GETTING WAY TOO LATE FOR THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL.

THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION IS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE COME BACK TO US AT SECOND READING THAT WILL MORE CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

AND WE LIKE THE IDEA THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT.

YES. COULD.

COULD WE ALSO INCLUDE REVISIT THAT? I MENTIONED THE PERMEABILITY.

YES, WE'LL REVISIT THAT.

I BELIEVE MS. KALAIDI RECOMMENDED TO US THAT ITEM 16 BE DELETED.

AND I AGREE WITH MS..

KALAIDI. THIS IS NOT A JOINT THAT'S THE JOINT PREPARATION LANGUAGE.

IT'S CREATES A PRESUMPTION AND INTERPRETATION.

THIS IS A DOCUMENT THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED FOR 30 YEARS, AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE BURDEN SHOULD RESIDE AS THE LAW AND DIDN'T IS WITH THE DRAFTER.

THAT'S CERTAINLY UP TO THE COMMISSION TO SUGGEST.

BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE DRAFTER PRESENTED THE INITIAL DRAFT BASED ON COPIES ESSENTIALLY OF OTHER SUCH DOCUMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS APPROVED IN THE PAST JUST CHANGED THE GUILTY PARTIES, ESSENTIALLY IN SOME OF THE DETAIL.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF THROUGH PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS HAD ARE THE NEGOTIATORS.

I'LL PUT THAT IN AIR QUOTES OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU'VE RAISED TODAY.

I CERTAINLY DO A REVIEW TO MAKE SURE.

OF COURSE YOU DO THAT.

IT COMPLIES WITH LAW, BUT I'M NOT YOUR CHIEF NEGOTIATOR ON IT.

SO I SUPPOSE THAT.

NOR ARE YOU THE CHIEF DRAFTER ON IT, CORRECT? I AM NOT. THANK YOU.

WHAT OTHER TYPE OF CHANGES WOULD WE LIKE TO SEE? SO WE HAVE LISTED A COUPLE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE.

LIKE I SAID, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WHO WILL BE PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION FOR THIS SATELLITE PARKING GARAGE AND WHAT'S THE COST SHARE.

THEY'RE TELLING US IT'S ALL ON US NOW.

THE CITY MANAGER TOLD YOU? YEAH, HE'S NEGOTIATED THAT.

BUT NOT NECESSARILY.

NOT NECESSARILY.

WHAT? I MEAN IS THAT WHAT WE ALL WANT? IS THAT WHAT DO WE AGREE WITH? WITH WHAT THEY HAVE NEGOTIATED FOR US? SO THAT'S MY QUESTION, AND I WOULD LIKE CONSIDERATION ON THAT, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE 100% ON THE CITY TAXPAYER

[03:35:10]

AT THIS MOMENT OR AT LEAST WHAT'S BEEN NEGOTIATED.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO I DO AGREE IN THAT WITH MS. KALAIDI ON THE IDEA THAT THIS IS PREDICATED ON A GARAGE, ON A SHUTTLE, ON A ON A A SATELLITE PARKING GARAGE. THAT'S ACCORDING TO HAS BEEN RESTATED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THIS IS THE MOBILITY PLAN.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT SPECIFICALLY CLEAR IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THE GARAGE GETS DONE FIRST.

I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER THINGS THAT WE WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE NEGOTIATED AND INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEN IT COMES BACK AT SECOND READING? I THINK MS. ROXON HAD A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE STEP DOWN AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE ACTUAL FACE OF KING STREET.

I THINK WE ADDRESSED THE GUIDE.

WE DID OKAY, YES, BUT YES, OK WITH THOSE WHAT THOSE LAUNDRY LIST OF CONCERNS, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON FIRST READING.

I'LL SECOND. IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NUNN MADAM CLERK, IF YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

TRACY UPCHURCH YES, AND SEE.

SIKES-KLINE YES.

BARBARA BLONDER YES.

ROXANNE HORVATH YES, VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PASSES ON FIRST READING.

NOW, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE TWO OTHER ITEMS I WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU THAT WE RESCHEDULE THOSE TO OUR OCTOBER 24TH MEETING SO THAT A MOTION THAT IS A MOTION, THAT ORDINANCE 2020 22 TO 16 BE RESCHEDULED FOR THE SECOND READING AND FINAL CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 24TH MEETING.

THAT'S THE MOTION. THE VICE CHAIR SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, AYE, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT ORDINANCE 2022 DASH-17 BE RESCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING AT THE OCTOBER 24TH MEETING.

I'LL SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

NOW WE'RE ON ORDNANCE.

WE ARE NOW ON THE THREE FLAGLER CROSSING ORDNANCE.

SO, GENTLEMEN, MR. BRODY, MISS SMITH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

AND WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ON THE 24TH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THESE BE RESCHEDULED TO THE 24TH OF THESE BE POSTPONED OR TABLED, CONTINUED TO THE 24TH.

AND WE DO HAVE TO ANNOUNCE FOR 8A5 PUBLICLY THAT THE SECOND READING WILL NOW BE HELD ON OCTOBER 24TH IN THIS ROOM. AND WE'RE OPTIMISTIC THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL BE READY.

THEIR ATTORNEY HAS SAID SO THE ANNOUNCEMENT FOR 8A5 HAS TO INCLUDE OCTOBER 24TH, 20 22:05 P.M.

75 KING STREET.

THANK YOU. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT ORDINANCE 2022 203 BE RESCHEDULED FOR A SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 24TH MEETING.

SECOND ANY DISCUSSION.

IF NOT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE, ANY OPPOSED.

THANK YOU. ORDINANCE 2022-04 I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS BE RESCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING ON OCTOBER 24, 2022.

SECOND, FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. AND THEN I WOULD MOVE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT UNDER ITEM 8A5 BE RESCHEDULED TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 24, 2022 AT 5 P.M.

IN THE AFTERNOON AND THE ALCAZAR ROOM OF CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 75 KING STREET, ST AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.

SECOND.

MOTION AND SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO CALL THE ROLL.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OK.

WE HAVE GOT TWO REMAINING ITEMS. WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? CHIEF MICHAUX IS COMMANDER WARREN.

[03:40:02]

SURELY HE'S NOT GOING TO COME BACK.

OH, HE HAS BEEN HERE THE ENTIRE TIME.

I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT.

I JUST I APOLOGIZE, BUT WE ARE ON A TIME SCHEDULE FOR THE OPEN BURN, SO IF WE COULD AT LEAST JUST HAVE THE FIRST HEARING, IT'S NOT PUBLIC COMMENT, SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT. SURE.

ALL RIGHT, MISS LOPEZ, WERE ON ITEM 9A1, ORDINANCE 2022-30.

[9.A.1. Ordinance 2022-30: Repeals and amends Ordinance 2022-25 to amend the City's open burning policy. (R. Thibault, Assistant City Attorney)]

YES, ORDINANCE 2022-30 IS ACTUALLY A PARTIAL REPEAL OF AN ORDINANCE OR OF LANGUAGE THAT YOU APPROVED JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO, A MONTH AND A HALF AGO.

AND THE REASON FOR THE PARTIAL REPEAL IS BECAUSE OF STATE PREEMPTION.

AFTER PASSAGE OF SECOND READING OF OUR ORDINANCE, THE FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE CONTACTED OUR OFFICE AND STATED THAT THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THAT BY FLORIDA REGULATIONS, SOME OF OUR ADOPTED LANGUAGE WAS ACTUALLY PREEMPTED BY THEIR REGULATIONS.

SO BEFORE YOU IS A STRIKE THROUGH OF WHAT WE HAD ADOPTED A MONTH AND A HALF AGO OR SO, AND THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS OBJECTIONABLE TO THE STATE AS PREEMPTED.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING STRUCK THROUGH WERE PROVISIONS THAT WE HAD DRAFTED, ADOPTED.

BUT THE STATE HAS OPINED THAT IT IS PREEMPTED TO THEIR COMPLETE AUTHORITY.

AND SO THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE.

SO IN EFFECT, THE ORDINANCE IS NOT NECESSARY.

WE WERE TRYING TO SALVAGE PARTS OF IT.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS STRIKETHROUGH OF EVERYTHING THAT WAS OBJECTIONABLE AND THE REMAINDER WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND SALVAGE IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE COMMISSION.

SO IT'S A CLEAN UP AND IT'S BASED ON A REPEAL, A PARTIAL REPEAL, OR WE NEED TO CLEAN UP.

IT'S A GLITCH BILL. YEP.

FINE. ITS A RULE ANTI HOME RULE BILL.

ALL RIGHT. I'M VERY SORRY.

THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM IN THE WORLD.

FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT ORDINANCE 22 2022-30, READ BY TITLE ONLY AND PASSED AND SET FOR SECOND READING.

SECOND ORDINANCE NUMBER 2022 TO 30.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, RELATING TO FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION, PROHIBITING OPEN BURNING, REPEALING AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 1876 OF THE CODE PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

TRACY UPCHURCH? YES. NANCY SIKES-KLINE? YES. ROXANNE HORVATH? YES. BARBARA BLONDER? YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE ORDINANCE PASSES ON FIRST READING.

COMMANDER WARNER.

[10.A. Commander Richard Warner, St. Augustine Police Department, will discuss the need to purchase an armored tactical vehicle (BearCat). (J. Michaux, Chief St. Augustine Police Department)]

WELCOME, SIR.

CHIEF. I COULD NOT SEE YOU IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM.

I GOT THIS THING OVER.

MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS RICH WARREN, CHARLESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMAND, AND I'M ALSO OUR SRT OR SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM COMMANDER.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT AN ARMORED TACTICAL VEHICLE IS AND WHY WE NEED ONE.

I'VE BEEN ONE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR 25 YEARS.

22 YEARS, 22 OF THOSE YEARS I'VE BEEN A PART OF THE SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM.

SO I HAVE HELPED BUILD THIS TEAM.

I HAVE A LOT OF SKIN IN THIS TEAM AND I HAVE A LOT OF PASSION FOR THE NEED FOR THIS VEHICLE.

SO I JUST WANT TO THROW A FEW THINGS OUT THERE WITH TODAY'S CLIMATE.

POLITICAL CLIMATE.

OTHER ISSUES.