Jul 28, 2025 City Commission

>> JUSTIN SCARBOROUGH, 1,500, ARAPAHO AVENUE.

>> MARK SHELTON 12 740 GRAND BAY PARKWAY WEST, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA.

[00:25:02]

>> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM MAYOR.

COMMISSIONERS FOR THE RECORD, JAMES WHITEHOUSE, ST JOHN LAW GROUP 104 SEA GROVE MAIN STREET HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER.

AS YOU KNOW, I KNOW COMMISSIONER BLONDER WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT THE SHIPYARDS OWNERS ASSURED AS TO THE SCHEDULE AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THAT AND GETTING IT DONE IN THE TIMELINES.

>> I WASN'T THERE. I AM CAUGHT UP ON ALL OF THAT. THANK YOU.

>> I DIDN'T MEAN TO DEMEAN YOU.

I WAS JUST SAYING THAT YOU WEREN'T HERE PRESENT DURING THAT.

IN ANY CASE, THIS PARTICULAR PLAN IS THE SAME.

OBVIOUSLY, IT EXCEEDS THE CREDITS WE GOT WITH STAFF AFTER THE LAST FIRST READING, THAT WAS MOVED ON TO SECOND READING.

THE MAIN QUESTIONS AT THAT READING HAD TO DO WITH THE TRAFFIC.

WE DID TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS PUD WAS ANALYZED FOR TRAFFIC, IN FACT, THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN.

THAT'S PART OF ALL THE CITY FILES AND RECORDS WAS DONE IN OCTOBER.

SUBSEQUENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS AS YOU ALL SAW LAST MEETING DONE IN MAY OF THAT SAME YEAR, THAT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SAID THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE 55 HOMES IN THE PUD FIT CLEARLY UNDER THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE GOING TO BE DONE WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

LIKE I SAID, THIS APPLICATION BEGAN BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES WITH THE TREES THAT WERE SET TO BE MOVED AND APPROVED TO BE MOVED.

THIS PLAN WENT THROUGH I THINK I BELIEVE THREE MEETINGS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TALKING ABOUT TREE MITIGATION.

IN FACT, EACH TIME THAT THEY CAME BACK, THEY INCLUDED ADDITIONAL TREE MITIGATION.

THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE A NEW PLAN TODAY.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN FACT, UNANIMOUSLY TOGETHER, APPROVED THE TREE MITIGATION PART OF IT.

THEY JUST WANTED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AS TO THE TRAFFIC, WHICH HAPPENED AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING.

THEREFORE, AS YOU HEARD FROM THE STAFF, THIS PUD MODIFICATION ASKED FOR NO INCREASED INTENSITY.

IN FACT, NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER, OTHER THAN THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN.

YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM THE RED LINE WITHIN YOUR PACKETS, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY THE STAFF WAS COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING THIS FORWARD AND THE PCB WAS COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING IT FORWARD.

I HAVE THE TEAM HERE. WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

>> OR WE COULD GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK UP EITHER WAY, WHATEVER YOUR PREFERENCE.

>> WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD.

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENT IS OPEN.

WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD.

WE HAVE MISS BJ CLADY.

SET YOU UP HERE. RIGHT HERE.

MISS CLADY. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE?

>> BJ CLADY, WEST CITY, ST. AUGUSTINE.

>> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. ORDINANCE 2025-11 PUD 1,500 ARAPAHO AVENUE.

DO NOT PASS THIS ORDINANCE TO AMEND WINDWARD PUD UNLESS III IS ELIMINATED? OWNERS SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR TRANSPORTATION CREDITS.

IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY STATED, THE COST OVER $500,000 FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT ARAPAHO AND US 1 SOUTH WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WINDWARD NOT CITY TAXPAYERS.

I'VE READ ALL THAT BACKUP MATERIAL.

THAT STATEMENT IS IN THERE, BUT THE III IS STILL THERE, AND THEY SHOULD CLEARLY KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE ONES PAYING FOR THIS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE, THE TAXPAYERS WILL PUT UP TO $500,000.

IT CONCERNS ME THAT THAT III UNDER TRANSPORTATION IS STILL PART OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT THEY'VE PRESENTED TODAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC COMMENT? SEEING NO ONE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS NOW CLOSED.

WE ARE BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. WHITEHOUSE OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT? WE'LL START OVER HERE.

[00:30:07]

>> I DIDN'T HAVE ANY, BUT IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN III BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING FOR IT.

I DON'T REMEMBER READING THAT IN WHEN I READ IT TODAY.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY UNFORTUNATELY, BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THE PUD.

SHE'S SPEAKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT IS THE ONE THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME.

AGAIN, THAT BEAT WAS VERY CLEAR AGAIN, I WAS AT THE LAST MEETING YOU WERE TOO.

IT BECAME VERY CLEAR THAT THAT WAS A SUBJECTIVE DECISION BY THE COMMISSION IN THE FUTURE.

IT REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVEN A MEMBER OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, BUT SAYS NOTHING OF THAT IN THE PUD. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RELEVANT.

>> COMMENTS.

>> NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME. COMMENTS LATER.

>> COMMENTS NONE?

>> NO. I HAVE THE INFORMATION.

I NEED AS OF NOW, I'LL SEE WHEN WE TALK TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

>> COMMISSIONER GARRIS.

>> GUESS IT HELPS IF I TURN IT ON.

I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

>> CITY ATTORNEY.

CAN YOU REFRESH OUR MEMORY ABOUT WHERE WE ARE ON THIS AND WHERE WE ARE ON THE INTERSECTION.

WE WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT AND THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

>> CERTAINLY, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. FRANKLIN'S IN THE BACK, BUT HE WAS THE ONE WHO PREPARED THAT PRETTY THOROUGH OUTLINE.

BUT AT THIS TIME, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS A CREATURE OF STATUTE.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND ANSWER MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS, BUT GENERALLY, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS ITS OWN HEARING PROCESS AND IT BASICALLY SETS OUT THE DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER CODE AND COM PLAN FOR PROPERTY, AND THEN WHATEVER IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE AGREED UPON BY THE DEVELOPER AND THE SEQUENCE OF THAT.

THERE'S AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF THAT, AND YOU HAD THAT AT YOUR LAST MEETING TO SEE WHERE YOU ARE IN THE PROJECT.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AS IT STANDS, INCLUDES ANYONE WHO OWNS LAND IN THAT ORIGINAL GEOGRAPHY.

THEY ARE ALL BOUND, WHETHER IT'S A PRIVATE ONE LOT OWNER OR A DEVELOPER.

THEY'RE ALL BOUND TO COMPLETE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT IS CORRECT. WHAT WAS STATED IS THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER.

I SAID THAT IN AIR QUOTES, MEANING ANYONE WHO OWNS LAND IN THAT GEOGRAPHY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

IT DOES PROVIDE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WILL BE THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT INTERSECTION.

IT DOES NOT HAVE A VERY STRICT TIMELINE AS TO WHEN THAT WILL HAPPEN.

PART OF THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE EXERCISE.

IT'S A DOT ROAD.

THE DEVELOPER HAS TO PROVIDE THOSE PLANS FOR DOT REVIEW, FOR OUR REVIEW.

ALL THAT HOPEFULLY WILL COME TOGETHER FAIRLY SOON AS I RECALL FROM THE LAST MEETING.

ONCE THOSE ARE APPROVED, THE DOT REQUIRES BONDING, SO DO WE, SO THAT'LL BE THE GUARANTEE FOR THE PROJECT BEING COMPLETED ON TIME AND AT COST AND WHAT THE CITY'S PORTION OF THAT IS IS SET IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALSO, I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S BEING REFERRED TO AS III OR THE SUBSECTION THAT THEORETICALLY, IF THE CITY WERE TO CREATE ANY MOBILITY FEE OR PROP SHARE SITUATION WITH A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, BY LAW REGARDLESS, A DEVELOPER HAS A RIGHT TO ASK FOR THOSE CREDITS.

IT JUST BASICALLY REFLECTS WHAT THE STATUS OF CURRENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT LAW IS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO BE CANDID.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT RECAP.

COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION.

>> I'D LIKE TO HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION.

>> A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION.

>> THIS IS LIKE I SAID, BETWEEN US, SO I DON'T NEED THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME.

>> I REMEMBER, AND THEN I WATCHED AGAIN, JUST TO BE SURE THAT MY MEMORY WAS REFLECTING ACCURATELY OUR MEETING WHERE THIS CAME TO FIRST READING.

WE HAD EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS AMONGST US ABOUT THIS PUD AND THIS PUD'S PURPOSE, WHICH WAS ABOUT THE TREES AND THE MITIGATION FOR THE TREES.

[00:35:01]

WHAT I REMEMBER US ALL AGREEING ON AT THE END, IN FACT, IT'S REFLECTED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AS THE MOTION TO PASS IT TO SECOND READING IS THAT WE REQUIRED AN ARBORIST REPORT ON THE CEDARS THAT HAD BEEN REPLANTED.

WE ALSO HAD NUMEROUS POINTS THAT WE REQUESTED THAT THE APPLICANT ADDRESS AND REVISIT OUR COMMISSIONER POINTS MADE ABOUT THE TREES AND THE MITIGATION, INCLUDING THE LARGE OAK TREES THAT ARE NO LONGER VIABLE.

THERE WAS ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION, BUT NOT PART OF THIS PUD MOVING FORWARD TO SECOND READING.

I SIMPLY WANT TO SAY THAT, IN ADDITION TO MY NOT SEEING ANYTHING, AND THAT'S BEEN CONFIRMED, THAT ADDRESSES THE TREE MITIGATION OR THE ARBORIST, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP, AS I UNDERSTAND LAW, DOESN'T ABSOLVE AN APPLICANT FROM DOING WHAT THEY PURCHASED ON THAT LAND.

THIS APPLICANT TOOK OVER THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPLACING THOSE TREES, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CITY ATTORNEY, WHEN THEY PURCHASED THAT LAND.

MY WAY OF THINKING IS THAT TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP, I MAY BE WRONG, BUT IT DOESN'T ABSOLVE THE APPLICANT FROM DEALING WITH THE LARGE TREES AND THE WAYS, AT LEAST ADDRESSING AND REFLECTING ON THE POINTS THAT THIS COMMISSION MADE AT THAT FIRST HEARING.

>> I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SO LET ME SAY IT, AND THEN YOU'LL TELL ME IF I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY.

IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN YOU PURCHASE IN A PUD, WHETHER YOU'RE A SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPER OR MR. AND MRS. SMITH THAT BOUGHT A LOT, YOU ARE BOUND BY ALL THE TERMS OF THAT PUD, SO THAT IS TRUE.

I THINK THE CHALLENGE HERE, AND MS. SKINNER AND THE APPLICANT CAN PROBABLY REFINE THIS BETTER THAN I CAN, THE CHALLENGE WAS THAT SOME OF THE COMMITMENTS ARE NOW OFF-SITE.

THAT WAS WHAT THE PROCESS WE WERE TRYING TO RECONCILE, IS THAT SOME OF THE MOVING OF CERTAIN TREES ARE NO LONGER IN AN AREA CONTROLLED BY THIS PUD.

WE WERE TRYING TO UNCOUPLE, CONSCIOUS UNCOUPLING, I FEEL THAT'S A TREND, AND MAKE THOSE REQUIREMENTS BINDING WHERE THOSE TREES WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE PERMIT THAT WAS REFERRED BY PZB.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING BECAUSE WE WENT AROUND AND AROUND TRYING TO UNCOUPLE OR UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP.

I WANTED TO JUST GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST POINT, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.

THEN THE SECOND POINT THAT I MADE WITHOUT GOING INTO ALL THE DETAIL ALL OVER AGAIN.

I ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IT AT LENGTH; IT'S ALL ON THE PUBLIC RECORD, THAT THERE'S NO ARBORIST REPORT, AND THERE'S NO CHANGE IN THE TREE MITIGATION, THE CLUSTERING, THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I'LL JUST SAY, AS FAR AS THE III, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I CONCUR WITH OUR LEGAL OPINION ON THIS.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS AN APPLICANT CAN APPLY FOR MOBILITY FEES ON THIS.

HOWEVER, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I SUGGESTED AT THE LAST MEETING THAT MR. FRANKLIN BRING US IN OUR MOBILITY PROJECT LIST, AND I DIDN'T MENTION IT LAST TIME BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS RELEVANT, BUT NOW THAT IT'S A TOPIC IN THE CONVERSATION NOW, TWO THINGS I WOULD NOTICE AND I WOULD TELL THE APPLICANT HERE IN PUBLIC RECORD IS THIS INTERSECTION PROJECT IS NOT ON THAT MOBILITY PROJECT LIST.

SECOND OF ALL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THAT THE MOBILITY PROJECTS ARE LISTED IN TERMS OF CHARACTERIZATION, THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY MULTIMODAL PROJECTS.

HAVING WORKED ON THAT MOBILITY PLAN FOR QUITE A TIME, I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE THAT THAT'S THE GOALS OF THAT.

THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE SEE NOW SO FAR IS THAT THAT WILL BE A DECISION THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS MADE,

[00:40:04]

AND WE HAVE EVIDENCE BEFORE US WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.

AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF, I'M FINE MOVING THIS ON.

I THINK WE MADE PROGRESS AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT THIS IS APPLICATION ABOUT TREE MITIGATION.

I FOLLOWED ALL THE PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS ON THIS.

I THINK OUR PLANNING BOARD DID A VERY GOOD JOB TRYING TO DEAL WITH THIS.

I WAS ON THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS.

THE TREES DIED; THAT'S A REALITY.

THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO MOVE THOSE.

WE HAVE SOME GUARANTEES ABOUT THOSE NEW TREES.

THE FIVE THAT ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN, THEY'RE NOT QUITE AS BIG AS THE OTHER ONES, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME GUARANTEES ON THAT, SO I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THAT ELEMENT.

COMMISSIONER BLONDER DOES BRING UP A COUPLE OF GOOD POINTS, THOUGH.

WE DID TALK ABOUT TREE CLUSTERING.

I REMEMBER THAT THAT WAS A REQUEST THAT YOU HAD WANTED, AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, I THINK WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE AND SAY TO OURSELVES, IS THIS THE TREE CLUSTERING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT, WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD YOU LIKE TO CHANGE ABOUT THE TREE CLUSTERING? THE SECOND WITH THE ARBORIST REPORT, I KNOW, I WAS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT ASKED FOR IT.

THESE TREES LOOK DEAD TO ME, HOWEVER, MS. SKINNER, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN WE DISCUSS THIS AT THE PLANNING BOARD LEVEL, THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES TO MITIGATE THOSE TREES, THAT THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE OR THERE'S SOME ACTION THAT WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE TREES ARE BAD AND DEAD OR NOT, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED.

AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT?

>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AS THE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY TO IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH, WHEN THAT PROJECT COMES IN FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, THAT AT THAT TIME, WE WOULD CONFIRM THE STATUS OF THE CEDAR TREES THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN MOVED AND BECAUSE THERE'S SOME DEBATE, I THINK OF THEIR STATUS, I THINK THEY ARE STRUGGLING, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THAT AT THAT TIME, AS THAT DEVELOPMENT GOES THROUGH PERMITTING, WE WOULD REQUEST AN ARBORIST REPORT TO CONFIRM THE CURRENT STATUS OF THOSE TREES AND THAT THEY WERE PART OF THE MITIGATION PLAN, AND AT THAT TIME, THOSE TREES WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED OR ADDRESSED IN A PROPER FASHION TO MEET THE INTENT.

>> BASICALLY, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE GETTING THE ARBORIST REPORT, WE'RE JUST DELAYING THE ARBORIST REPORT TO MOVE IT ALONG.

NOW, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT SATISFY PEOPLE, BUT CONSIDERING THIS IS THE SECOND OR THIRD TIME THAT WE'VE MENTIONED THIS ON PUBLIC RECORD, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS I'M SAYING THIS, IS THIS IS ON PUBLIC RECORD, SO I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, IS THIS TREE CLUSTERING ITSELF, WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE OR NOT.

I DID SEE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DID REVIEW IT, SO ON THAT NOTE, I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC THING MYSELF TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T DO THAT PROPERLY, SO I WOULD NEED TO HEAR MORE CONVERSATION ON THAT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. THANKS.

>> I REMEMBER FROM THE LAST MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT THE ARBORIST TOO, BUT I WAS NOT EXPECTING IT TONIGHT.

WHAT I DO REMEMBER WAS THAT THEY WERE BRINGING IN MANY MORE TREES THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RESPONDED TO, WAS THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT THEY WERE BRINGING IN BEYOND WHAT THEY NEEDED TO REPLACE.

I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT WE'RE GETTING EIGHT-INCH TREES TO REPLACE THE BIG ONES THAT WENT DOWN, AND WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING, BUT I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THIS PLAN THE WAY IT IS NOW, WITH THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT THEY'RE USING TO REPLACE THE TREES THAT WERE THERE.

IT'S A PITIFUL-LOOKING SITE RIGHT NOW ANYWAY.

IN HINDSIGHT, OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE BEST IF WE COULD NOT LET THIS BE DEVELOPED AT ALL, BUT WE'RE WAY BEYOND THAT.

BUT I THINK THEY'VE MADE A GOOD FACE EFFORT TO PUT IN TREES THAT NEED TO BE THERE AND REPLACE THE ONES THAT ARE DOWN, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE REPLACING THEM WITH SMALLER TREES.

>> MAY I, JUST FOR A SECOND? YOU SAID THAT THEY'RE REPLACING THEM WITH EIGHT-INCH TREES.

I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, THE FIVE THAT WERE DOWN ARE BEING REPLACED BY SPECIMENS LARGER THAN EIGHT INCHES, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THIS ON THE PUBLIC. NO?

>> I DON'T THINK SO. IN THE DOCUMENT, IT SAYS THEY'RE EIGHT INCHES.

>> I THINK THAT'S IN THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,

[00:45:03]

AND FROM MEMORY, I THINK THEY WERE 16-INCH.

AM I REMEMBERING RIGHT?

>> I THOUGHT THE FIVE TREES THAT ARE GOING IN THE TOWN CENTER PLAN, I THOUGHT THEY WERE 15 INCHES.

>> LET'S JUST GET THIS STRAIGHT HERE.

>> FOR THE FIVE TREES GOING ON WINDWARD'S PROPERTY, I BELIEVE THEIR MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS FIVE EACH OF 18-INCH TREES THAT WERE GOING IN THERE, OF A LARGE VARIETY.

>> THOSE ARE REPLACING THE FIVE TREES THAT DIED?

>> YES, SIR, CORRECT.

>> THEY WERE PLANTING 19 EIGHT-INCH TREES AROUND THE SITE, PLUS WHEN THE HOMES ARE BUILT, ONE PER LOT ON TOP OF THAT.

>> THAT WAS MY MISTAKE.

>> I'M NOT JUDGING IT, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT'S ACCURATE.

>> THAT'S MY MISTAKE.

>> THEY WERE SIGNIFICANT TREES, AND THEY WERE COMING FROM THE NURSERY AT THE SIZE THAT WAS DESIGNATED.

>> IN MY MIND, I WAS LOOKING AT THE CLUSTERING AS A MITIGATION MOVE IN LIEU OF LARGER TREES, INSTEAD OF THE EIGHT-INCH, YOU BROUGHT UP THE EIGHT-INCH, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING, WAS TO REPRESENT MORE OF A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

WHAT TREES ARE THEY GOING TO BE?

>> LIVE OAK.

>> LIVE OAKS. WELL, IT APPEARS TO ME AS THOUGH THE FIVE 18-INCH TREES, THOSE ARE ALSO LIVE OAKS OR CEDARS?

>> LIVE OAKS AS WELL, YES.

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY NEW CEDARS?

>> ON THE OTHER PROPERTY.

>> ON THE OTHER PROPERTY?

>> I THINK THE CEDARS WERE ON THE ORIGINAL CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE PERMIT FOR THE OTHER PROPERTY, AND THEN THESE LARGE REPLACEMENT TREES WERE ADDED TO IT AT THE LAST PZB HEARING.

THEY'RE NOT IN THIS PUD.

THEY'RE PART OF A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

>> OBVIOUSLY, THE QUESTION WOULD BE, WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE CLUSTERING IDEA, OR WAS IT JUST IGNORED? BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE BIT MIFFED ABOUT THAT.

>> OUR UNDERSTANDING, LIKE I SAID, WE WENT THROUGH THREE PZB MEETINGS.

MIKE DAVIS WAS VERY VOCAL ABOUT THIS AT THE FINAL HEARING, THAT THIS APPLICANT, EACH TIME, CAME BACK AND PUT MORE AND MORE TREES.

EACH TIME. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT DEMEAN THAT THE FIRST TIME THEY DIDN'T HAVE SOME.

THEY HAD SOME, BUT THEY GOT BIGGER TREES, AND THEY HAD MORE TREES, AND THESE TREES LINE THE ROADWAYS IF YOU LOOK FROM THE SITE PLAN ITSELF, AND THESE ARE GOING TO BE BIG TREES.

THESE ARE LIVE OAK TREES.

I'LL USE AN EXAMPLE.

LOOK AT NOCATEE PARKWAY.

YOU KNOW HOW LONG NOCATEE PARKWAY HAS BEEN THERE? NOT THAT LONG.

ALL THE TREES ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE TREES GROWING OUT INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON NOCATEE PARKWAY NOW.

THE FACT IS THAT THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL STREET THAT'S GOING TO HAVE LIVE OAKS GET BIG PRETTY QUICKLY.

THE FACT IS THAT THAT'S WHY THEY PUT THEM ALONG THE DRIVEWAYS.

AS THE COMMISSIONER SAID, IF YOU GO OUT THERE TODAY, THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE.

EVEN IF THE CLUSTER OF THOSE FIVE TREES WERE STILL THERE, THAT WAS IN ONE SPOT.

THE WHOLE PROPERTY ITSELF WAS CLEARED OUT AS APPROVED UNDER THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE PUD.

THIS ACTUALLY IMPROVES THAT PLAN.

THAT'S WHY YOUR PZB WAS SO EXCITED ABOUT THE TREE PART.

THEY WERE. THAT'S WHY THEY MOVED UNANIMOUSLY..

THEY WERE EXCITED ABOUT THE TREE PART IF YOU GO BACK AND WATCH MR. DAVIS'S COMMENTS AT THE LAST PZB MEETING.

AGAIN, THIS WASN'T TO IGNORE ANYTHING.

THIS WAS TO GO FORWARD WITH WHAT WE HAD WORKED ON WITH THE PZB AND WITH STAFF, AND AS YOU HEARD FROM STAFF, THERE ARE CLUSTERS OF TREES THAT SURROUND THIS IN A NUMBER OF SPOTS, AS WELL AS THOSE CEDARS THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT OFFSITE.

AGAIN, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT WITH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE HOMES IN THERE.

THERE'S GOING TO BE LANDSCAPING.

IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE THE TREES.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY IN THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

AGAIN, THEY WORKED WITH THE PZB, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE; THAT'S YOUR BOARD THAT GOES THROUGH THIS FOR YOU, AND THEY RECOMMENDED IT FORWARD.

WE WOULD JUST ASK YOU TO MOVE IT FORWARD WITH A MAJORITY. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ONE IS, AT THE LAST MEETING, WE DID ASK FOR THE TREE CLUSTERING.

JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.

WHEN HE SAID EIGHT-INCH TREES, I'M THINKING, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO STEP ON THOSE, AND THEY'LL BE GONE.

BUT THEN YOU CHANGED IT TO 18-INCH, CORRECT? IT'S 18-INCH TREES, AND THEY'RE ALL

[00:50:01]

GOING TO BE OAK TREES BECAUSE I KNOW THEY DO GET LARGE. OAK, CORRECT?

>> THE TREES WITH THIS PUD ARE EIGHT-INCH TREES.

FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE USING THIS PLAN AS THE MINIMUM.

WE AS TOLL BROTHERS, WE NEVER DO THE MINIMUM.

BUT THIS IS THE MINIMUM.

THE BUFFERING AREA THAT'S ADJACENT, WE WANT TO SCREEN IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY FROM THE TOWNHOME AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SO THIS IS THE MINIMUM PLANTING PLAN.

THEN WE'LL GO IN AND WE'LL HAVE AN ENHANCED PROVED BY THE CITY AFTER THE FACT.

WE'LL HAVE MUCH MORE IN THE AMENITY AREA AND THE ENTRANCE TO THE SINGLE-FAMILIES.

THIS IS A MINIMUM, IS WHAT WE'RE USING THIS AS.

WHEN WILL THESE TREES BE INSTALLED?

>> DURING DEVELOPMENT. THE 19 TREES, OAKS TO MITIGATE, WILL BE PLANTED AFTER PAVING IS DONE AND ONCE WE HAVE WATER TO THE SITE, SO WE CAN IRRIGATE THEM.

THEN EACH INDIVIDUAL TREE PER LOT WILL BE PLANTED AS THAT HOME IS BUILT AND THAT LOT IS LANDSCAPED.

>> CAN I JUST MAKE A COMMENT, BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT USING THE TERM EIGHT-INCH TO DESCRIBE A TREE.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE DIAMETER OF THE TREE, THE WIDTH OF THE TRUNK, 4.5 FEET OFF THE GROUND.

AN EIGHT-INCH DIAMETER, IT'S CALLED DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT, THAT'S 4.5 FEET OFF THE GROUND.

AN EIGHT-INCH DBH TREE WOULD BE ABOUT 10 FEET TALL.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

>> I HAVE A RESPONSE TO SEVERAL OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID.

IS THAT OKAY IF I OFFER THAT?

>> SURE. WE'D LIKE TO GET MOVING, THOUGH.

>> NO. THERE'S NO QUESTION.

THAT'S WHY I REALLY HATE THAT WE DID NOT GET A RESPONSE TO THE ACTUAL VERBIAGE OF THE PASSING OF THIS ORDINANCE AT FIRST READING.

ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER DEPRETER, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO WAS ADVOCATING THE MOST FOR THE ARBORIST REPORT TO COME TO US AT SECOND HEARING, WHENEVER THAT WAS.

WE ALSO DID NOT GET MANY OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I REQUESTED, AT LEAST A RESPONSE TO.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, THEY DO A WONDERFUL JOB.

THIS BOARD IS NOT A RUBBER STAMP.

IT'S OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF US ARE THINKING ABOUT EVERYTHING.

MR. WHITEHOUSE, I KNOW THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD DID A GREAT JOB, I KNOW THE STAFF DID, BUT I'M STILL GOING TO HAVE MY INTEGRITY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MY JOB, WHICH IS TO CRITIQUE AND EVALUATE WHAT COMES BEFORE US, ESPECIALLY IN A PUD.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL JUST HAVE A QUICK REMINDER.

WE HAD A TOTAL OF 188 INCHES OF DBH ON THOSE OLD BIG TREES.

WITH ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL TREES THAT ARE EIGHT INCHES AND 18 INCHES, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 152 INCHES OF DBH.

I MADE THAT POINT ALREADY.

THAT'S A LOSS. THE CLUSTERING AS AN ECOLOGIST, AS A SCIENTIST, I HAVE A DISADVANTAGE IN CONVEYING.

I MAYBE DID A POOR JOB BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE CLASS TO TALK ABOUT IT, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, BUT THE CLUSTERING IS ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT, AND I SAW NO ATTENTION TO THAT.

THAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME AS AN EXPERT IN THAT FIELD.

I'M NOT GOING TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.

THEY CAN MEET WITH ME AND I CAN TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE UP THIS BOARD'S TIME DOING THAT OR THE PUBLIC'S TIME DOING THAT.

I DID NOT SEE EITHER OF THOSE POINTS THAT WERE PART OF THE PASSING TO FIRST READING, AND THAT IS WHAT I AM DISAPPOINTED ABOUT.

>> I HEAR A 36-INCH DEFICIT FROM GOING FROM 188?

>> YEAH, 36.

>> ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-EIGHT TO 152 INCHES.

HOW CAN WE GET THAT BACK? HELP US FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT BACK, WHETHER IT'S CLUSTERING, ADDITIONAL.

YOU'RE TELLING US THIS IS THE MINIMUM, BUT THAT DOESN'T GIVE US CERTAINTY.

>> IS THAT COUNTING ALL THE SIXTH-INCH AND THE EIGHT-INCH TREES?

>> EIGHT AND 18.

>> NOT THE SIX-INCH BECAUSE THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF SIX-INCH OAK TREES AS WELL.

>> THOSE ARE MY NOTES.

>> THERE'S A LIST OF TREES ON ALL THESE PAGES.

>> PRETTY A BIG DEFICIT.

>> WE WANT TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY, OBVIOUSLY, AND THAT'S WHY WE CAME BACK TO THE PCB MULTIPLE TIMES.

I KNOW THAT IT'S YOUR JOB AND YOU NEED TO DO YOUR JOB HERE,

[00:55:03]

BUT THE QUESTION IS THAT WHERE DID IT START AND WHERE IS IT NOW? THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD GOT A NUMBER OF INCREASE IN TREES.

WE CAN CONTINUE TO ADD MORE.

YOU WANT US TO PUT THREE MORE TREES? THERE'S SPACING REQUIREMENTS UNDER OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

WE WANT TO PLEASE EVERYBODY HERE, BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT THE PLAN, WHICH WAS FOR TREE MITIGATION, THE ONE THING TO UNDERSTAND, I THINK THAT'S BEEN LOST, AND THE PCB MENTIONED THIS SEVERAL TIMES, THOSE TREES WERE ALREADY APPROVED TO BE MOVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE GOT RID OF A CLUSTER OF TREES AND WE'RE TRYING TO SPACE THEM OUT AND PUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

THOSE TREES WERE ALREADY GOING TO BE MOVED.

THOSE TREES ARE BEING REPLACED UNDER A SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH SHIPYARDS WITH 19-INCH TREES DBH, SO BIG TREES.

THESE ARE EIGHT-INCH DBH, OVER 10-FOOT-TALL TREES.

THEY'RE SPACING REQUIREMENTS. IT'S HARD.

IF YOU TELL US TO PUT THREE MORE TREES, WE'LL PUT THREE MORE TREES, BUT I DON'T KNOW, IT'S HARD TO PLEASE EVERYONE ON EVERYTHING.

WE WANT TO DO THE BEST WE CAN DO. WE APPRECIATE IT.

>> I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT THE ANSWER WOULD BE, IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK HIM TO PUT MORE TREES, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MAYBE RECOMMEND.

COMMISSIONER BLONDER, MAY I ASK, WHEN YOU'RE SAYING CLUSTERING THEM, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CLUSTERING THEM IN THESE GREEN OUTSIDE BUFFER AREAS, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CLUSTERING THEM ALONG THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE YARD? I JUST NEED TO HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING.

>> AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.

THE APPLICANTS HAD OVER A MONTH TO REQUEST A MEETING WITH ME OR WITH AN ARBORIST AND COME UP WITH ANY KIND OF A PLAN, AND THEN WE COULD ASSESS THAT.

BUT WE HAD BIG OLD VERY IMPORTANT ECOLOGICALLY OAK TREES THAT WERE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MOVED, AND IT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL, AND THAT WAS A BIT LOSS TO THE ECOSYSTEM IN THE DIVERSITY OF THAT AREA.

NO, I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DIDN'T GET ANYTHING BACK AS A PROPOSAL ADDRESSING THAT POINT.

>> I GUESS JUST IN MY EXPERIENCE ON THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU WOULD SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING HERE AND WORK, BUT OKAY. THAT'S YOUR PART.

>> WELL, NO, I EXPECTED TO HAVE SOMETHING COME BACK TO US THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAT ADDRESSED OUR CONCERNS.

>> WELL, I CAN LOOK AT THIS SITE PLAN AND SAY HOW UNIMAGINATIVE IT IS AND I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE SOME MODIFICATION.

I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO BURN ANY LOTS.

I KNOW YOU DON'T, BUT I GUESS THE ONLY FALLBACK ON THIS IS ADD TWO MORE TREES SOMEWHERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO APPROVE IT UNLESS WE GET THOSE INCHES BACK AS A MINIMUM.

THEN FRANKLY, I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED IF YOU WOULD HAVE COME AND AT LEAST TRIED, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. DO YOU GET ME?

>> WE DID. WE TALKED TO THE STAFF ABOUT IT, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HEARD YOUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE CLUSTERS OF TREES IN SEVERAL AREAS AROUND THE SITE.

IF YOU WANT US TO PUT MORE CLUSTERS IN THOSE AREAS, WE'LL BE GLAD TO PUT THEM IN THAT AREA, BUT THE FACT IS THAT WAS WHAT SHE REPORTED TO YOU.

IN FACT, THIS ISN'T A RECONSIDERATION OF THIS PUD.

THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH IS THE ONLY CHANGE TO THIS PUD.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> I THINK I DID HEAR HIM SAY HE'D BE WILLING TO PUT SOME MORE TREES IN.

>> I DID TOO. I HEARD IT.

IT'S ADDING INTO THE CLUSTERED AREAS TREES THAT ARE ALREADY CLUSTERED, BUT I WOULD VASTLY PREFER THAT THAN THIS VERY LINEAR THING YOU'VE DONE WITH THE TREES.

IT DOESN'T FEEL NATURAL AT ALL.

I'M SURE IT'LL BE A BEAUTIFUL OAK-LINED PARKWAY AT ONE POINT BUT YES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE TREES ADDED INTO THOSE EDGES THAT YOU DO SEE SOME CLUSTERING AND WHERE YOU'VE ACTUALLY LEFT SOME OF THE TREES STANDING.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? MAYBE SHOULDN'T ASK IT THAT WAY.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU, AND I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE A MOTION TO SEND THIS BACK TO THE APPLICANT FOR REVISION WITH TAKING IN THE POINTS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT.

I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO MEET WITH YOU IF YOU WANT TO.

YOU'VE REACHED OUT TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

>> I DON'T ANSWER.

>> BUT I CAN'T PASS THIS.

I WOULD INSTEAD MOVE THAT WE ASK THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.

WELL, YOU CAN SHAKE YOUR HEAD, NO AT ME, BUT THAT'S THE MOTION I'M MAKING.

>> I DON'T HEAR A SECOND.

>> CAN I FIND OUT IF THE APPLICANT WILL AGREE TO THE CONTINUANCE,

[01:00:01]

OR ARE YOU ASKING FOR A YES OR NO TODAY?

>> NO. I DON'T EVEN HEAR A SECOND.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON IT.

>> DO WE HAVE A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHETHER THE TREES ARE ACTUALLY IN DEFICIT, NOT INCLUDING THE SIX TREES?

>> ARE WE GOING TO GO BACKWARDS ON THIS?

>> NO. I JUST WANT TO KNOW, DO WE OR DON'T WE?

>> I DON'T HAVE ONE.

>> AMY DOES.

>> THERE ARE 53 FOUR-INCH LIVE OAKS, 19 EIGHT-INCH LIVE OAKS, ALONG WITH BALD CYPRESS, PALMETTOS, AND THE HOLLIES AND THE MAGNOLIAS, AND THOSE THEATERS ON THE LIST.

IT'S MY OPINION THAT THEY'RE ADDING MORE TREES THAN WAS REQUIRED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, AND THEY'RE REPLACING THE TREES WITH 19-INCH.

I'M SATISFIED, PERSONALLY.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE OBJECTING FOR US TO SAY, ADD MORE TREES.

>> CORRECT.

>> ANYTIME THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

YES. TAKE IT, PLEASE.

I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF TAKING IT, NOT GOING BACKWARDS.

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE A MOTION SO THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH WITH THIS? COME ON. YOU CAN TAKE A STAB AT IT.

I WILL TAKE A STAB AT IT.

>> I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER BLONDER HAS MADE ONE.

>> THERE WAS NO SECOND.

>> THEN I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 2025-11 WITH A CONTINGENCY THAT LET ME THINK MY WORDS, THAT PROOF OF THE INCREASE IN DBH IS PROVIDED TO THE STAFF.

>> I SEE NODDING OF HEAD.

>> WHAT IS THAT INCREASE? BY 36 INCHES?

>> IT'S AN INCREASE OVER WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE.

>> DO YOU WANT TO SPECIFY AN INCREASE?

>> NO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS BECAUSE IT HAD MORE TREES.

>> CAN YOU SAY AT LEAST 36 INCHES?

>> WELL, THERE ARE MORE THAN JUST THE FIVE TREES THAT ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT.

>> AS PER THE EXISTING TREE TABLE ON THE MITIGATION PLAN, THAT SHOWS A TOTAL DEFICIT OF 25 AND A TOTAL PLANTED CREDITS OF 241.

>> TWENTY-FIVE WHAT?

>> YOU CAN'T REMOVE TWO FIVE-GIANT OAK TREES AND ONLY HAVE A 25-POINT DEFICIT. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

>> THAT DOESN'T.

>> THAT'S FIVE DEFICITS EACH.

>> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.

ONE THING IS THAT THESE WERE SPECIMEN TREES, AND THEY WERE OF ONE SPECIES.

I WANT THAT TO BE CLEAR.

>> I'M LEARNING.

>> THIS IS THE SAME SPECIES HERE.

WE DON'T NEED TO CALL THE BALD CYPRESS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> I'M SAYING THERE'S 19 EIGHT-INCH AND 53 FOUR-INCH, PLUS THE FIVE 19-INCH. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IS YOUR MOTION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 36-INCH DBH OF OAKS?

>> DEFICIT OF 36 INCHES, YES.

IS THE APPLICANT IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT?

>> IS THAT RIGHT?

>> I WOULD SAY YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT THAT THE STAFF WILL DETERMINE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS, AND THEN THAT WE WILL MEET THAT. WE AGREE WITH THAT?

>> THAT'S FAIR.

>> THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET BECAUSE WE'RE BASING OUR LOGIC OR ARGUMENT ON IT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

I'M HAVING A HARD TIME MAKING A CONVERSATION.

I SECOND COMMISSIONER SPRINGFIELD.

>> I'VE GOT TO READ THE SHORT TITLE.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-11, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 15.71 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1,500 ARAPAHO AVENUE, PARCEL ID NUMBER 1347800000 AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HERE AND AFTER TO AMEND ITS CURRENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD CLASSIFICATION, ADOPTING A NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

NEXT ORDINANCE ITEM IS 882 ORDINANCE 2025-12. MS. SKINNER.

[Items 8.A.2 & 8.A.3]

[01:05:09]

>> MY NAME IS AMY SKINNER.

THE NEXT FOUR ORDINANCES ARE RELATED TO CITY PROPERTIES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED INTO CITY FACILITIES.

ORDINANCE 2025-12 AND ORDINANCE 2025-13 AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING DESIGNATION FOR 241 WEST KING STREET, RESPECTIVELY.

THE PROPERTY AT 241 WEST KING STREET IS A 0.14-ACRE PARCEL ON WEST KING AND IS ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS COMPOUND.

ORDINANCE 2025-12 PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM COMMERCIAL MEDIUM INTENSITY TO PUBLIC.

THIS IS A SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING.

ORDINANCE 2025-13 PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM CM-2 TO GU OR GOVERNMENT USE.

THIS IS ALSO A SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE AN EFFORT TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY INTO THE EXISTING CITY-OWNED GOVERNMENT USE COMPLEX TO BUILD AN ARCHAEOLOGY CENTER WITH ARCHIVAL STORAGE FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS AND COLLECTIONS, AS WELL AS OFFICE SPACE AND COMMUNITY SPACE.

THE PCB REVIEWED THE LAND USE AND ZONING REQUESTS AND MADE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH AT THEIR JULY 1ST MEETING.

THE CRC REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE THAT CONTINUES THE BRICK THEME OF THE CITY BUILDINGS ALONG WEST KING STREET AT THEIR JUNE 26TH MEETING.

STAFF ALSO COMPLETED AN ANALYSIS OF THESE FACILITIES REQUESTED BY THE PCB, WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE PROVISION OF MORE THAN ADEQUATE EXISTING PARKING FOR ALL USES, INCLUDING THE NEW BUILDING.

THIS IS A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU, AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

I DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

I HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD, AND THAT WOULD BE MISS BJ CLADY.

>> MISS CLADY, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK AGAIN AT THE ZONING ITEM, WHICH IS THE NEXT ITEM, OR YOU WANTED TO COMBINE? WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE?

>> COMBINE.

>> COMBINE? WELL, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO SWEAR YOU IN.

>> I COULDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO.

>> DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING ABOUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. BJ CLADY, WEST CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

YOU'RE WORKING HARD TONIGHT.

THIS IS GOOD. YOU WORK HARD.

>> MISS CLADY.

>> HERE GOES MY TIME.

YOU WORK HARD ALL THE TIME.

BUT THIS IS GOOD. [LAUGHTER] OH MY.

ORDINANCE 2025-12 AND 13, 241 WEST KING STREET. THANK YOU, MISS DUNN.

THE DESIGN OF THE NEW BUILDING DOES NOT FIT OR IMPROVE THE WC CRA PLIGHT.

I WILL CONTINUE TO SAY THIS AS LONG AS I CAN.

THIS WILL BE IT. LIKE SHE SAID, THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING AT THE PRESENT ARCHAEOLOGY BUILDING, WHICH IS SOUTH OF BURNEY'S SEPTIC ON PELLICER LANE.

THERE'S A WHOLE AREA THERE THAT YOU CAN GO PARK IN.

IT'S A BLOCK AWAY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING FOR BOTH BUILDINGS.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN SHE STARTS PUTTING THE PARKING TO THE WEST OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BUT IF YOU JUST WALK A BLOCK, YOU CAN GET RIGHT TO THIS NEW BUILDING.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WALKED OVER THERE SOMETIME.

YOU NEED TO WALK OVER THERE SEE WHAT'S OVER THERE.

I GO THERE ALL THE TIME. I'M SURE BURNEY'S WON'T MIND YOU PEOPLE WALKING UP AND DOWN.

ALSO, THIS IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW, TOO.

REMEMBER, THERE IS $1.4 MILLION, THANKFULLY, AND THE SALE OF 13 DOLPHIN DRIVE ON DAVIS SHORES TO PAY FOR THIS BUILDING WITHOUT USING WC CRA DOLLARS.

THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SINCE THERE'S FUNDS AVAILABLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH, WHENEVER THEY FIRST PUT THAT BUILDING OVER THERE ON DAVIS SHORES TO TAKE CARE OF THE ARCHAEOLOGY, BUT WHEN THEY SOLD THAT, WE GOT THE MONEY.

LET'S USE THAT MONEY TO FIX THIS PLACE UP IF THERE'S ANY WAY.

>> NOT PUT THAT UP THERE AND MAKE IT ALL BRICK, LIKE IT'S ACROSS STREET, BORDER WORK BUILDING BRICK.

IF THERE IS A WAY TO DO THIS, YOU WOULD REALLY WORK HARD TONIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. WAS ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

[NOISE] WE'RE BACK TO THE BOARD.

I'LL MOVE THAT WE PASS ORDINANCE 2025-12.

[01:10:02]

>> SECOND. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-12, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.14 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2:41 WEST KING STREET, SOUTH OF WEST KING STREET AND EAST OF MADISON STREET.

AS PORTIONS OF THE DANCY TRACT IN THE CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREAFTER, FROM ITS CURRENT DESIGNATION OF CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE COMMERCIAL MEDIUM INTENSITY TO A CITY DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC.

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

>> WONDERFUL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>>I MOVE THAT WE PASS ORDINANCE 2025-12.

>> BEFORE WE PASS IT, JUST SINCE THIS IS THE ZONING, WE NEED TO DISCLOSE ANY EXPARTE AND OPEN IT UP TECHNICALLY FOR PUBLIC HEARING, ALTHOUGH I THINK MISS CLADY SAID SHE WAS ROLLING IN BOTH OF HER COMMENTS TOGETHER.

BUT THOSE TWO THINGS NEED TO HAPPEN.

>> ANYONE HAVE EXPARTE?

>> NO

>> NO.

>> NO. THAT IS PUBLIC YOU WANT ME TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT AGAIN? IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

>> I THINK YOU ACTUALLY SAID 2025-12.

>> I MEAN WE'VE ASKED '25-13.

>> SECOND.

>> ORDINANCE NUMBER 2020 5-13, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.14 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 241 WEST KING STREET IN THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREAFTER FROM ITS CURRENT CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL MEDIUM 2C TO THE CITY CLASSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT USE GU.

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

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?

>> THANK YOU. ONTO ITEM 25-14, MISS. NANCY SIKES-KLINE?

[Items 8.A.4 & 8.A.5]

>> THESE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE ADDITIONALLY CITY PROPERTIES, ORDINANCE 2025-14 AND ORDINANCE 2025-15, AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING DESIGNATION FOR FIVE ANASTASIA BOULEVARD RESPECTIVELY.

THE PROPERTY AT 500 ANASTASIA BOULEVARD IS A 1.27 ACRE PARCEL, FRONTING ANASTASIA BETWEEN MULTI PLACE AND CAMERAS AVENUE.

ORDINANCE 2025 14 PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM COMMERCIAL LOW INTENSITY TO PUBLIC.

THIS IS A SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING.

ORDINANCE 2025-15 PROPOSES TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM CO2 TO GU OR GOVERNMENT USE.

THIS IS ALSO A SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE AN EFFORT TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING ISLAND FIRE STATION AND BUILD A NEW STATION, INCLUDING COMMUNITY SPACE.

THE CRC WILL REVIEW THE PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE FACILITY, WHICH IS STILL UNDER PRELIMINARY DESIGN.

THE PCB REVIEWED THE LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS AND MADE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH AT THEIR JUNE 3RD MEETING.

THIS IS A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR EACH ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE EXPARTE FOR ORDINANCE 2025-14?

>> NO.

>> NO. WE WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, PUBLIC HEARING [NOISE] IS CLOSED.

WE ARE BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

>> MOVE WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 2025-14.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-14, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, PLUM DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.27 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 ANASTASIA BOULEVARD BETWEEN MULTI PLACE AND CAMERAS AVENUE, AS PORTIONS OF DAVIS SHORES IN THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREAFTER FROM ITS CURRENT DESIGNATION OF CITY OF ST.

AUGUSTINE COMMERCIAL LOW INTENSITY TO A CITY DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC, PROVIDING FOR APPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

[01:15:05]

>> MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> SORRY, I'M ON 15, 205-15.

>> ORDINANCE 25-14.

>> FIFTEEN.

>> I MOVE WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 2025-15.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS, AND WE ALSO NEED TO DO EXPARTE.

I HAVE NO EXPARTE.

DOES ANYONE EXPERTE.

ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NO ONE.

PUBLIC HEARINGS. [NOISE] BACK TO THE BOARD.

WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

>> ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-15, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.27 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 ANASTASIA BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HERE AND AFTER, FROM ITS CURRENT CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL LOW TWO CL2 TO THE CITY CLASSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTE, GU, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> NANCY SIKES-KLINE? YES.

>> ONTO ITEM ORDINANCE 2025-16.

[8.A.6. Ordinance 2025-16: Amends the City Code to designate an Administrative Authority for plat and replat submissions to conform to state law. (I. Lopez, City Attorney)]

THAT'S MS. LOPEZ.

>> MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COMMISSIONERS, AS YOU KNOW, WE CHATTED ABOUT THIS AT THE FIRST READING, BUT THIS IS A REQUIREMENT PER STATUTE THAT NOW PLATS WILL NOT BE GOING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS ANY LONGER, AND THEY MUST BE ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEWED AND APPROVED.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, AND THIS IS SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD?

>> NO.

>> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

WHEN DOES THIS TAKE EFFECT WHEN WE PASS TONIGHT?

>> TECHNICALLY, THE STATUTE BECAME EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST.

I DON'T HAVE THE LAST PAGE.

NORMALLY, WE DO A 10 DAY.

WE CAN MAKE IT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, IF YOU LIKE.

WE'RE A TEENSY BIT TARDY FROM JULY 1ST, BUT [OVERLAPPING].

>> I KNOW IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE.

>> IT'S 10 DAYS AS WRITTEN.

IF YOU LIKE, YOU COULD EFFECT [OVERLAPPING]

>> THE DAY WE PASSED.

>> CORRECT. WE COULD MAKE IT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

>> THAT'S FINE. I JUST WONDERED.

I DON'T KNOW ANYONE THAT'S IN A HURRY, BUT I DO KNOW SEVERAL THAT ARE PLEASED THAT THIS WILL BE THE PROCESS.

IT CERTAINLY WILL SPEED UP REPLAT.

WE DON'T NEED EXPARTE ON THIS.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS ORDINANCE 2025-16 AS [OVERLAPPING]

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> ORDINANCE NUMBER 2020 [OVERLAPPING].

>> PUBLIC HEARING.

>> WE DIDN'T HAVE IT. I APOLOGIZE.

>> [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC HEARING?

>> DID YOU CALL FOR PUBLIC HEAR?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD IT [OVERLAPPING]

>> I TAKE MY MOTION BACK.

>>I'LL TAKE MY MOTION BACK.

THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

HEARING THEN PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'LL RE-INTRODUCE MY MOTION TO PASS ORDINANCE 2025-16.

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-16, AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 23-36 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, PROVIDING FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY FOR PLAT AND REPLATT SUBMISSIONS, REPEALING SECTIONS 23-37 THROUGH 23-46, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> JON DEPRETER.

>> WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM FOR PUBLIC HEARING,

>> NANCY SIKES-KLINE.

[8.C.1. Resolution 2025-27: Designates the 400 and 404 Riberia Street parcels as a Brownfield Area. (A. Owen, Assistant City Attorney)]

AND THAT IS RESOLUTION 2025-27.

THAT'S MISS.

LOPEZ OR MISS. OWEN.

>> I WILL BE INTRODUCING THE BROWNFIELD RESOLUTION.

AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE A FEW OF THESE IN TOWN.

STATUTORILY, THE STATE OF FLORIDA ENCOURAGES PROPERTY OWNERS TO DO ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUPS OF THEIR PROPERTY, AND THE BROWNFIELD DESIGNATION MUST BE PASSED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, BUT THERE'S NO FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE LOCALITY.

THE FINANCIAL IMPACT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET ESSENTIALLY A TAX INCENTIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

BUT THE PROCESS DOES HAVE TO BE HERE.

[01:20:02]

I WILL ANNOUNCE THAT THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE AUGUST 11, AM I CORRECT? IN THIS ROOM AT 5:00 PM.

THAT'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE, AND I BELIEVE MR. WHITEHOUSE IS SOMEWHERE BEHIND ME AND WILL BE PRESENTING FOR THE APPLICANT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF BEFORE WE GO FORWARD.

YOU'RE WELCOME TO PRESENT.

>> GOOD EVENING. ACTUALLY, I'M CHRISTINA NELSON.

>> THAT'S OKAY.

>> CHRISTINA NELSON FOR THE APPLICANT.

THIS IS BASICALLY A DESIGNATION OF 404 RIBERIA STREET TO BE A BROWNFIELD AREA.

IT'S A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT UNDER THE FLORIDA BROWNFIELDS THAT WE HAVE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

I AM AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE WILL BE BACK HERE AGAIN IN AUGUST FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL AUGUST 11.

>> COMMISSIONER SPRINGFIELD [OVERLAPPING] I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE CHEMICALS THAT YOU'RE REMOVING ARE A RESULT OF THE OPERATIONS THAT WERE ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S YES.

IT'S HISTORICAL LEGACY CONTAMINATION.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE COMMENTS. DO YOU WANT THOSE NOW?

>> VICE MAYOR.

>> WELL, LET'S MAKE COMMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE MOTION.

COMMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER.

>> [INAUDIBLE].

>> WE'RE ON 404 RIBERIA, STRAIGHT BROWNFIELD DESIGN.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE?

>> NO, I DO NOT. THANK YOU FOR ASKING.

>> MISS COMMISSIONER GARRIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> NO. THANK YOU.

>> NONE. GREAT. THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE DO HAVE A CARD FROM MISS.

CLADY, ANYONE [LAUGHTER] ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK. MISS. CLADY.

>> BJ KELLY WEST CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

THIS IS THIRD BROWNFIELD AREA AND CITY LIMITS OF ST. AUGUSTINE, THE GOLF COURSE ON US ONE NORTH, PROPOSED GARAGE IN WCCRA, WHERE TIRES HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED, WHICH ADDS TO THE CONTAMINATION OF THE PROPERTY.

NO ONE REPORTED THE CONTAMINATION OF THE SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER UNTIL NOW.

QUESTION. OUR OTHER BUSINESS ON THE SAN SEBASTIAN RIVER WITH REBERIA STREET ADDRESS IS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR CONTAMINATION.

WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS REZONED IN JANUARY 27, 2025, TO ALLOW 50' CONSTRUCTION, CONTAMINATION WAS NOT MENTIONED.

THERE WAS A COMMUNITY MEETING BEFORE THE REZONING.

QUESTION. WHERE'S THE LIST OF THOSE WHO ATTENDED AND DID NOT WANT A RESTAURANT, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

ON MAY 2ND, 2025, THE OWNER APPLIED FOR THE BROWNFIELD TAX CREDIT.

ONLY ONE PERSON ATTENDED THE JULY 14TH, 2025 COMMUNITY MEETING.

THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMMISSION MEETING THAT NIGHT.

QUESTION. WHERE'S LIST OF NOTICES MAILED OR EMAILED TO THE NEIGHBORS, THE LIST IS NOT IN THE PACKET.

THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 11, 2025, STATING THAT CITY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BROWNSVILLE WAS NOT SIGNED.

QUESTION. WHO WROTE THE STAFF REPORT.

QUESTION? WHO APPOINTS THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD OF LOCAL CITIZENS AND STAKEHOLDERS? BEFORE THIS RESOLUTION FOR ANOTHER BROWNFIELD AREA IS PASSED, QUESTIONS NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED.

IT'S A SHAME AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE THINKING THIS AND YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH IT.

LINCOLNVILLE IS BEING GENTRIFIED.

THIS IS THE THING THAT'S HAPPENING WITH THESE BUSINESSES COMING IN HERE AND REDEVELOPING AND THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY PART OF THE PROPERTY TAXES.

THAT'S FINE. BUT IS THIS WHAT WE NEED IN THIS CITY AND CONTAMINATION NEEDS TO STOP IN THE CITY LIMITS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ANOTHER ONE.

I'M NOT REAL SURE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN MY AREA AT US ONE AND KING STREET WHERE THE THE PARK IS NOW.

THIS IS MY CONCERN WHEN THIS IS COMING IN, IT WASN'T BROUGHT UP ANYTIME IN JANUARY 2025 WHEN THEY FIRST BROUGHT THIS BEFORE YOU ALL. THANK YOU.

>> [NOISE] EXCUSE ME. ANYONE ELSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NO ONE, SEEING NO ONE.

THIS [NOISE] PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

LET'S HAVE A MOTION.

[01:25:01]

>> CAN WE MAKE SOME COMMENTS FOR YOU?

>> YES, PLEASE. DEFINITELY.

>> DEFER TO ANYBODY ELSE ANYWAY, WHAT I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT JUST IN PARTIAL RESPONSE TO MISS.

CLADY'S CONCERNS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN A LOT OF THESE CASES, THE APPLICANT HAS NO IDEA WHAT'S IN THE SOIL UNTIL THEY GET A HOLD OF THE PROPERTY, DO THE PROPER TESTING.

I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS.

IF WE CAN GET ALL OF THE CONTAMINATED SOIL TREATED OUT OF THE CITY, PROPERLY DISPOSED OF, HANDLED AS IT'S BEING REMOVED.

THAT'S A WIN. IT'S A HUGE WIN.

WE DON'T NEED THOSE FOREVER CHEMICALS AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF CONTINUING TO LEACH INTO OUR WATERWAYS AND INTO OUR GROUNDWATER.

I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION WHEN YOU END.

>> WHOEVER WISHES TO-

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS RESOLUTION 2025-27.

>> SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> ON TO ORDINANCES WITH FIRST READING.

[9.A.1. Ordinance 2025-17: Designates Bannan Avenue southbound from Court Edna to Hildreth Drive as one-way traffic only. (J. Beach, Chief Resilience Officer/Utilities and Public Works Deputy Director)]

WE HAVE ORDINANCE 2025-17 AND THAT IS MS. BEACH. GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING. I'M GOING TO PULL UP THE PRESENTATION REALLY QUICK AND GET THAT LOADED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

I'M HERE BEFORE YOU FOR ORDINANCE 2025-17.

IT'S AMENDING SECTION 24-13, WHICH IS ONE-WAY STREETS.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING FOR BANNAN AVENUE, AND LET'S SEE. IT'S NOT LETTING ME.

TRY TO CLOSE THAT. TRY TO OPEN IT AGAIN.

IT'S ASKING ME TO SIGN IN.

I HAVE HARD COPY. LET ME GO OLD SCHOOL AND I CAN DO IT OVER THE OVERHEAD THAT

WAY TOO. IS IT ON THERE? >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> THERE YOU GO. I CAN PROBABLY KEEP THIS MOVING WHILE MARIN IS HELPING ME WITH THE PRESENTATION.

THIS IS COMING BEFORE YOU FOR THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2025-17 AS I HAD MENTIONED.

STAFF IS REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES BE MADE TO CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 24-13 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE DESIGNATING BANNAN 1 AVENUE AS ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ONLY.

MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR BANNAN AVENUE, WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE-WAY SOUTHBOUND FROM COURT EDNA TO HILDRETH DRIVE.

THIS IS PART OF A PROJECT THAT THE CITY HAS GRANT FUNDING FOR THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE CITY IS PROMOTING WITH THIS PROJECT.

I WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH JUST VERY QUICKLY THE PROJECT SCOPE JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE OF THE BACKGROUND OF WHY WE'RE COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR THE REQUEST TO ONE-WAY IT.

ESSENTIALLY, THIS PROJECT, IT'S BEEN IN GREAT NEED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS.

IT'S BEEN ON OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN NEEDING UPGRADES TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM ITSELF.

THE PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR NEEDING FOR FUNDING.

WE WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING FUNDING.

NOW, WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE THE DESIGN IS WRAPPING UP.

WE'VE GOT OUR PERMITS IN HAND AND WE'RE COMING BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO REQUEST A CHANGE ON BANNAN AVENUE.

PART OF THAT IS REQUIRED TO NARROW THE ROADWAY.

WE'RE REDUCING THE PAVEMENT; THE IMPERVIOUS.

THAT'S GOING TO HELP WITH OUR DRAINAGE.

IT'S ALSO GOING TO HELP WITH WATER QUALITY AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO A BIO-RETENTION PLANTER, WHICH IS OUR FIRST GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT THAT WE'RE GOING TO PILOT FORMALLY FOR THE CITY.

WE'VE GOT SOME HARD COPY; OLD SCHOOL.

I THINK MARIN WILL TRANSFER THIS.

HOPEFULLY, YOU CAN SEE IT.

IT'S MORE OR LESS THE LAYOUT OF THE PROJECT.

WE'RE DOING MAJOR UTILITY UPGRADES PRIMARILY WITH DRAINAGE.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF DRAINAGE ITSELF.

AS MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE, IT SUFFERS FROM A LOT OF RAINFALL FLOODING SO WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING STORM WATER, WE'RE GOING TO BE UPGRADING WATER AND SEWER, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE ADDING SIDEWALKS.

THERE ARE SOME EXISTING.

WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RECONSTRUCT SOME OF THOSE.

THEN WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE ADDING THE BIORETENTION PLANTERS LOCATED HERE ALONG BANNAN AVENUE.

OVERALL, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THOSE ARE OVERALL THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROJECT.

THIS PICTURE DOWN HERE IS WHAT IT CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE.

[01:30:02]

THIS IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF COURT THEOPHELIA AND BANNAN.

THIS IS NOT THE WORST SECTION OF ROAD, BUT THE ROAD IS IN PRETTY POOR CONDITION.

A LOT OF IT'S DUE FROM STANDING WATER SITTING ON IT, WHETHER IT'S FROM RAINFALL OR HIGH TIDE FLOODING.

WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WE HAVE A RENDERING THAT WE PUT TOGETHER.

THIS SHOWS WHAT THE BIORETENTION PLANTER WOULD LOOK LIKE ON BANNAN AVENUE.

THIS DOES NECESSITATE US TO NARROW BANNAN AVENUE TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH THE SIDEWALK WHICH WILL BE ADDED AND THE BIORETENTION PLANTER.

I HAD MADE SOME NOTES TO REMIND MYSELF TO MENTION THAT WE HAD DONE BASICALLY LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSESSMENT WHERE OUR DESIGN TEAM WENT OUT TO LOOK AT THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, LOOK AT HOW MANY CARS ARE MOVING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND TRYING TO DETERMINE WHICH IS THE BEST DIRECTION TO HAVE TRAFFIC POTENTIALLY FLOW FOR A ONE-WAY.

FOR THIS PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO HAVE IT TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND, STARTING FROM THE END AT COURT EDNA ALL THE WAY UP TO HILDRETH DRIVE.

WE TOOK THIS AND WE ALSO GAVE A PUBLIC PRESENTATION.

I'LL COVER THAT IN JUST A MINUTE.

BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, JUST TO ALSO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE PROJECT BENEFITS, I HAD ALREADY MENTIONED A LOT OF THE UPGRADES THAT WE'LL BE DOING FROM THE STORM WATER SIDE.

WE'LL BE ABLE TO REDUCE THAT DEPTH OF FLOODING.

THE TOP PHOTOGRAPH WAS ACTUALLY FROM SEPTEMBER OF ABOUT A YEAR AGO WHERE WE HAD A VERY INTENSE RAINFALL EVENT.

WE'VE BEEN HAVING THOSE INTENSE STORMS AS WELL JUST RECENTLY.

THIS WILL GREATLY HELP THE COMMUNITY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THAT TOO.

WE'LL BE ADDING A TREATMENT BAFFLE BOX THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE IN THE LOWER CORNER WHERE AT THE END OF THE STORM WATER COMES THROUGH AND IT HELPS WITH WATER QUALITY AND SETTLING OUT SEDIMENTS.

OUR MAINTENANCE CREWS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS TYPE OF SYSTEM.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO IMPLEMENT AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

THEN AS FAR AS PUBLIC INPUT, WE'VE HAD TWO MEETINGS.

THE FIRST ONE WAS TARGETED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF.

THAT WAS BACK IN DECEMBER AND COMMISSIONER GARRIS ATTENDED THAT MEETING.

WE HAD IT INFORMAL OPEN-HOUSE STYLE.

WE HAD IT AT THE ART 'N MOTION.

WE HAD WALKING DISTANCE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO EVERYONE COULD COME, HAD THE POSTERS SET UP, TALKED ABOUT THE PROJECT BENEFITS, ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE WERE PROPOSING.

EVERYONE WAS GETTING VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE BIORETENTION PLANTER.

IT DOES COME WITH THE ONE-WAYING OF THAT STREET.

FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT WE'VE TALKED TO, THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF THAT.

WE WERE ABLE TO ADD THAT SIDEWALK AND CONNECT TO THE PARK THAT'S ALSO OFF THE HILDRETH.

THAT WAS SOME POSITIVE THINGS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO FOR THE PROJECT.

WE WERE ALSO ABLE TO PRESENT THIS AT THE MOST RECENT FULLERWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING WHICH IS BACK IN MAY.

WE WERE FOCUSING MAINLY ON THE DRAINAGE STUDY THAT WE HAD RECENTLY WRAPPED UP, BUT WE ALSO TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND THE SCHEDULE AND WHERE WE WERE AT WITH THINGS.

TO DATE, PERMITS ARE IN HAND.

OUR DESIGN IS BEING WRAPPED UP.

WE'RE HERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION WITH THE BANNAN AVENUE REQUEST FOR ONE-WAY.

OUR NEXT STEP WILL BE GETTING THE PROJECT READY FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION.

WITH THAT, I GUESS THE NEXT ITEM IS FOR THE CITY'S CONSIDERATION, FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER REQUEST OF FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE CHAPTER 24 ARTICLE 1, SECTION 24-13.

I CAN PROBABLY READ THIS VERY QUICKLY, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY ONE-WAYING THE SECTION OF BANNAN AVENUE FROM COURT EDNA TO HILDRETH DRIVE.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST NECESSARY TO DO THE DESIGN CHANGES FOR THE PAVEMENT, ADDING IN THE BIORETENTION PLANTER, REDUCING IMPERVIOUS, AND BE ABLE TO ADD THAT SIDEWALK CONNECTION.

THAT'S A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.

>> EXCELLENT. I WOULD IMAGINE VICE MAYOR BLONDER HAS SOME COMMENTS.

>> I HAVE COMMENTS, BUT I FIRST I HAVE A QUESTION AND I'LL HOLD MY COMMENTS.

THE BAFFLE BOXES, HOW MUCH MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED FOR THAT AND HOW OFTEN?

>> THEY'RE INSPECTED QUARTERLY AND THEN DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH MATERIAL GETS COLLECTED IN THIS, THAT MAY REQUIRE OUR STORM WATER OPERATIONS TO DO A BACK TRUCK AND EXCAVATE IT.

THAT HAPPENS USUALLY ONCE A YEAR; THE ACTUAL REMOVAL OF IT.

BUT THEY ARE DONE QUARTERLY INSPECTIONS.

>> EXCELLENT. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> YEAH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I'D LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER BANNAN TO BE ONE-WAY AS YOU'VE DESIGNED FROM EDNA TO LOUISE AND HAVE IT GO THE OTHER WAY FROM HILDRETH.

THE REASON IS THE FULLERWOOD ASSOCIATION HAS WORKED REAL HARD TO GET THE SCHOOL BOARD TO GIVE US A PARKING LOT AND TO LEASE US THE PROPERTY FOR THE PARK, BUT ALSO FOR THE GARDEN.

MOST OF THE GARDEN PEOPLE ARE FROM THE FULLERWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD.

FOR THEM TO GET THE GARDEN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT TO SAN MARCO AND GO TO LOUISE AND THEN TURN BACK.

>> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BASICALLY, THE TRAFFIC FLOW.

IF WE WERE TO ONE-WAY AT THE FULL WAY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT AND AROUND.

BUT IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO IT THIS WAY, THEY COULD STILL COME IN.

IS THAT ESSENTIALLY THE FLOW PATH?

>> THEY STILL HAVE TO GO HOME BY WAY OF SAN MARCO.

[01:35:03]

BUT I THINK THERE'S FEWER NUMBERS IN COURT THEOPHELIA NEIGHBORHOOD THAT USE THAT GARDEN.

THEY MIGHT USE THE PARK A LOT BECAUSE THEY CAN WALK THAN THE FULLERWOOD WHICH THEY HAVE TO TRAVEL ABOUT THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILE TO GET THERE SOME OF THEM.

>> ALSO ANOTHER OPTION TO MAYBE THROW OUT FOR CONSIDERATION; I THINK THIS IS THE PART THAT'S MORE OR LESS STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT AS FAR AS ACCESSING THIS, WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT LEAVING BANNAN AS A TWO-WAY.

THAT WOULD ALLOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS TO COME INTO THAT.

I WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO JUST VET IT WITH THE DESIGN TEAM TO SEE IF THAT HAS ANY IMPLICATIONS OR BRINGING IT MAYBE BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE ONE-WAY THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IT BASICALLY WOULD BE FOR THE NORTHBOUND VERSUS SOUTHBOUND.

>> THE REASON I'D BE IN FAVOR OF THE ONE-WAY OPTION IS THAT YOU NARROW THE STREET AND YOU'RE PUTTING IN A CURB AND IT'LL PROTECT THE TREES THAT ARE NEXT TO THE GARDEN IN THE PARK.

RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE JUST PULL UP ON THE GRASS AND THEY'RE KILLING TREES AND IT LOOKS BAD.

IT'S A ROADING BECAUSE THEY'VE DRIVE A CAR UP ON THERE.

IF WE COULD NARROW THE STREET, PUT A CURB, THEN THEY WOULD USE THE PARKING LOT.

>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO.

>> I'LL RATHER GO ONE-WAY ALL THE WAY TO HILDRETH AND TO NOT GET THAT CURB.

>> I THINK THE WAY THE DESIGN IS CURRENTLY LAID OUT, IT'S HARD TO SEE ON THE SKETCH, BUT WE DO HAVE THE SIDEWALK COMING IN HERE.

BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE ROAD, THERE'S GOING TO BE A VERY GENTLE SWALE TO COLLECT THE DRAINAGE OFF THE ROAD.

WHETHER IT'S NORTH OR SOUTHBOUND, THAT'S BASICALLY THE LAYOUT FOR IT.

THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER THE COMMISSIONS IN FAVOR OF.

>> JUST FROM A SHORT TITLE PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT NOW, THE SHORT TITLE SPEAKS TO DESIGNATING BANNAN AVENUE AS ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ONLY.

SO LONG AS YOUR SECOND READING WE'RE STILL JUST TALKING ABOUT JUST ONE-WAYING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NEED TO REDO YOUR FIRST READING.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO TWO-WAY IN ONE PART AND ONE-WAY IN ANOTHER, YOU'D HAVE TO REDO YOUR FIRST HERE.

>> I THINK THE EXPERTS NEED TO TELL US WHETHER THAT MAKES SENSE OR NOT, NOT JUST THE COMMON SENSE OF PEOPLE WHO GO THERE ALL THE TIME.

THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR IT TO BE REVIEWED.

IF IT STILL MAKES SENSE FOR BANNAN TO GO ALL THE WAY ONE-WAY, THEN THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

BUT THE COMMON SENSE WOULD SAY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO BOTH WAYS TO THAT PARKING LOT.

>> THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN CONCUR WITH OUR DESIGN TEAM AND MAYBE BRING BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

>> I SUPPORT COMMISSIONER SPRINGFIELD IN HIS SUGGESTION BECAUSE HE LIVES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HE UNDERSTANDS IT.

BUT MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW? THEY ARE EXPECTING THIS TO BE THIS WAY AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO SURPRISE THEM ONLY AT SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING.

I WOULD RATHER THAT BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER WITH THIS AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE SHOULD TABLE THIS, WE SHOULD TABLE THIS AND THEN GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO GO BACK AND CIRCLE BACK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> YES. I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

WE CAN REVIEW THE TWO-WAY VERSUS ONE-WAY IF THAT'S EVEN AN OPTION AND THEN BASICALLY BETTING YOUR SUGGESTION.

COMMISSIONER SPRINGFIELD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON IT BECAUSE AGAIN, WE PRESENTED HOW IT'S SHOWN TODAY, SO I WOULD WANT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE AWARE OF THAT POTENTIAL CHANGE THAT WE MAKE ON THAT.

>> MRS. GARRIS.

>> WELL, I DID GO TO THE MEETING IN DECEMBER AND THERE WAS A GOOD TURNOUT AND YOU GUYS; YOU AND YOUR TEAM DID A GREAT JOB WITH THE PRESENTATION.

THEY HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT DISPLAYS ON DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO AS FAR AS FOR THE FLOOD MITIGATION.

THEY WERE EXCITED ABOUT THE CHANGES.

YOU CAN SEE HOW DRASTIC THAT THE CHANGES ARE GOING TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN ITSELF.

I JUST HOPE THAT IT DOESN'T TAKE A LONG TIME FOR YOU TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE THEY'RE WAITING FOR THIS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHANGES THAT THEY ALREADY HEARD ABOUT.

IT WAS RECEIVED WELL AND I ENJOYED SEEING THE INVOLVEMENT THAT YOU GUYS HAVE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU FOR GETTING OUT THERE AND JUST LETTING PEOPLE SEE WHAT THE FUTURE COULD HOLD.

>> EVERY RAIN EVENT, I GET EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS, "WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD THE PROJECT?" THEY ARE ANXIOUS.

WE ARE ON A GRANT TIMELINE TOO, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE ON THIS VERY QUICKLY TO TRY TO GET THIS FLUSHED OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

>> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'M REALLY EXCITED THAT AREA HAS HAD NO DRAINAGE FOR A LONG TIME.

THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY AREA.

WE STILL HAVE RAMBLA NORTH THERE NEAR FORT MOSE ALSO SUFFERS MILDLY WITH THAT.

[01:40:02]

BUT IT'S EXCITING TO SEE; I LOVE THE IDEA OF DE-PAVING IN FAVOR OF A BIOSWALE OR BIORETENTION.

THAT'S REALLY COOL.

THANK YOU AND I GUESS WHAT WE'LL NEED IS A MOTION.

>> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT TOO?

>> YES. YOU'RE WELCOME TO MAKE A MOTION TOO.

>> THANK YOU. I DID WANT TO JUST SAY THAT THESE NATURE-BASED BASICALLY WAYS OF DEALING WITH OUR FLOODING ISSUES ARE CUTTING-EDGE AND ALSO VERY PROACTIVE AND ATTRACTIVE, AND WE GET BETTER STREETS BECAUSE OF IT AND JUST A BETTER SENSE OF COMMUNITY.

I APPLAUD THE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS OR WHOEVER WAS INVOLVED IN GETTING A PILOT PROJECT OUT THERE SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IT.

I'D LOVE TO HAVE A HUGE RIBBON CUTTING OR WHATEVER, SO PEOPLE ALL OVER THE CITY COME AND SEE IT AND SAY, "I WANT THIS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD," WHICH MIGHT FLOOD YOU UNINTENDED WITH A LOT OF REQUESTS.

BUT I THINK IT'S KEY THAT WE DO TRUMPET OUR HORNS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NATIVE PLANTS AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BIORETENTION AND BIOSWALES, AND GREEN ROOFS OR WHATEVER ELSE WE HAVE ON OUR LIST.

YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE.

I'M SORRY, YOU'RE RIGHT. SOMEBODY ELSE MAKE THE MOTION. [OVERLAPPING]

>> GO AHEAD. BUT ALREADY DID. YOU ALREADY MADE IT.

>> WELL, I WANT TO CLARIFY.

OUR ATTORNEY MENTIONED THAT WE COULD GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS.

>> THEN BEFORE THE SECOND READING, WE COULD HAVE THE COMMUNITY. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IT IS ONLY IF YOU CONTINUE JUST ONE-WAYING, EITHER ALL IN ONE DIRECTION OR ONE-WAY THIS PART AND ONE-WAY, THE OTHER PART.

IF ULTIMATELY THE CONSULTANT'S SUGGESTION IS TO ONE-WAY ONE AREA AND TWO-WAY ANOTHER, THE SHORT TITLE DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT SO YOU'D HAVE TO REDO YOUR FIRST READING.

IT'S YOUR CALL. YOU CAN EITHER POSTPONE DOING YOUR FIRST READING TODAY TO WHENEVER STAFF BRINGS IT BACK AND PUTS IT ON THE AGENDA OR YOU COULD DO THIS FIRST READING TODAY AND BE WEDDED TO ONE-WAYING BANNAN AND NOT HAVING ANY PART OF IT GO TWO-WAYS.

>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 2025-17.

>> SECOND.

>> THIS IS FOR PLACING ON SECOND READING, READ BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-17, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 24-13 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, DESIGNATING BANNAN AVENUE AS ONE WAY TRAFFIC ONLY, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.